Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any proposed exceptions will be the subject of secondary legislation and will therefore be debated. Each separate element of a statutory instrument can be debated—that is the function of the secondary legislation procedure.

Amendment 75 would require the Secretary of State to take into account any feasibility study undertaken of which organisation is best placed to issue licences authorising the use of orphan works.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Hancock]

On this point?

[Kevin Brennan]

On the point being debated, yes.

[Matthew Hancock]

I give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

It is usual to give way during this stage. What does the Minister think is the maximum number of exceptions that ought to be included within one statutory instrument, given that he has been unable to give the assurance sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) that each exception will be treated separately if secondary legislation is used? Also, will he confirm that in all cases the affirmative procedure will be used?

[Matthew Hancock]

I give the assurance on the second point: the normal procedures will be used. The normal procedures will govern what goes into one statutory instrument and then, as we all know, debate on a statutory instrument covers all elements of the instrument. That is the procedure for a statutory instrument that is debated.

Amendment 75 proposes that account be taken of any feasibility study before the Government lay regulations on the orphan works scheme—that is, I think, the essence of the amendment. In principle, we understand the need for studies and consideration of such important questions, but we do not think that such a requirement is appropriate in primary legislation. If the proposal is that the conclusions of a feasibility study should automatically and immediately have legislative effect, we have to ask what would happen if the recommendations of a commissioned study could not, for good and legitimate reasons, be accepted. However, I can assure the House that the Government will carefully consider which bodies or body should be responsible for licensing orphan works, including whether they have the necessary independence, expertise, resources and processes.

Although there is some work still to do on deciding which organisation should be responsible, it is unlikely to be a new body. We looked at the arrangements in other jurisdictions: in Canada, the copyright board has that responsibility; in Hungary, the intellectual property office has it. Jurisdictions overseas locate the role in different parts of Government, according to where the appropriate expertise is found. There could be a role for collecting societies to license orphan works of a type where a collecting society already operates in that sector, but many of the orphan works held by museums and archives, for example, are not of types that are currently collectively licensed; such works include unpublished diaries, old photographs and oral history recordings.

In the light of those reassurances and given that the regulations cannot be laid until the work is completed, I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) not to press amendment 75 and the House to support Government amendments 23 and 24.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

Will my hon. Friend also seek an assurance from the Minister that, when in future he considers any piece of legislation containing clauses relating to copyright, never again will the umbrella body for the UK music industry be given absolutely no prior knowledge of it? Perhaps the Minister could give the House that assurance when he responds.

[Mr Wright]

I absolutely agree. I will take this opportunity to wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday for yesterday—a birthday he shares with several other Members, not least the eminent Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). My hon. Friend made two important interventions. When he intervened on me he mentioned the lack of consultation and the surprise of important stakeholders, such as UK Music, about these provisions. That is not the way to have clarity about Government policy on something as important as the creative and cultural sectors. I hope that that is a wake-up call, because we have seen the Government do the same elsewhere, for example with the feed-in tariffs and the oil and gas tax charges. To move without any concern for what stakeholders are thinking is not in the best interests of the British economy and industry.

The second point that my hon. Friend made, when he intervened on the Minister, relates to the use of statutory instruments. I rose to say that I felt more confused as a result of the Minister’s comments than I did when I entered the Chamber today. Part of our discussions in Committee was about the fear of bundling some of these points into a single statutory instrument. The Minister must have served on a delegated legislation Committee during his time in the House and will know that the only way the House can express a view on such instruments is by voting in favour or against; there is no way we can express a view on individual provisions. Therefore, will he clarify to what extent he will be able to bundle points relating to copyright exceptions into single SIs, which would not allow the House to express our views?

I now to turn to our amendment 75, which proposes that the Secretary of State

“must have regard to any feasibility study commissioned on the licensing of orphan works in advance of the regulations being laid before Parliament.”

We are not against the concept of orphan works, as I mentioned in Committee, provided that safeguards are in place to ensure that the party that wants to use the work has undertaken a diligent search. I recognise—the Minister alluded to this—the huge benefits that could be unlocked as a result of orphan works licensing. For example, I can anticipate SMEs building new platforms and applications for the re-use of digitised content, with innovation and new business models coming forward to use the content commercially so that Britain can lead the world, enriching the research and cultural environment and thereby consolidating the UK’s position as the destination of choice, whether literally or online, in the 21st century as the place for education and research, particularly in the cultural sector.

The Bill provides the legislative framework for orphan works licensing but is, as is probably inevitable and desirable in primary legislation, high-level and somewhat vague in detail. The crucial details that stakeholders will be looking for have yet to be determined and will be available via regulations. However, it would be useful to get on the record as much certainty and clarity as possible about the Government’s intended direction of travel in order to allow the industry, including existing players and potential new entrants to the market, to start gearing up to use the licences commercially. The purpose of our amendment is to probe the Minister on his intended direction of travel and ensure that a feasibility study considers certain aspects of the policy and that the Government take these findings into account, not in a completely solid way but making sure that these matters are addressed.

Will the Minister indicate the identity of the authorising body or bodies? He mentioned it briefly in his opening remarks, but it would be useful to put a little bit more meat on the bones. What sort of time scale is he working towards? When does he anticipate that the introduction of such schemes, and the laying down of regulations as a preliminary step, will take place? What will be the scope of the orphan work licensing schemes? Will this be done on a sector-by-sector basis? Will it be based on a “specific types of work” approach, or will there be a big bang in which all possible orphan work schemes will be incorporated from day 1?

Will the Minister outline how he anticipates that any diligent search on a work-by-work basis will move forward? I am fairly sure that every such search will have to be done on an individual work basis rather than by batching works together. Am I right in that thinking, or is he considering any change in the individual works versus batch approach? Could diligent searches be re-used within a certain time period? How will the Minister—again, this is part of the feasibility study leading into the regulations—strike the balance between the rights of the licensee, allowing the licence holder to commercially use the rights arising from that licence, and the rights of the relevant rights holder? What will happen in the event that the parent comes forward? How will remuneration be worked out in such an event? Will a certain amount of time be stipulated in regulations following the awarding of an orphan works licence?

We lead the world in the cultural and creative industries, and many people will want to take that away from us for a variety of reasons. We need to make sure that we can maintain our competitive advantage. That requires close co-operation, with an active industrial sector strategy between the industry and Government. Sadly, during the passage of the Bill, that has been lacking in the provisions on copyright. I hope that the Minister has learned his lesson and look forward to his comments.

GCSE English (Marking)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

My right hon. Friend makes a salient and pertinent point. What is important is that young people in Scunthorpe, in Southampton and indeed throughout the land are treated fairly. The regulators recognise their own incompetence when one of them comes out with comments such as some students “got lucky”, but that is not good enough, is it? The incompetence that they recognise should not stand in the way of young people being treated fairly.

It is worth noting that, nationally, 26.7% of students doing the foundation paper in June 2011 got a C grade, while only 10.2% got a C grade in June 2012. Those statistics corroborate my local head teachers’ view that students taking the exam in June 2012 were disadvantaged compared with similar students who took the exam in June 2011.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the conditions on which Ofqual was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and the now shadow Chancellor was that its duty was to maintain confidence in the exam system? How does a comment from the chief executive of Ofqual that some kids “got lucky” maintain such confidence?

Teachers Pay

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister for Schools on his new role, and I welcome him to that post. One downside of having such a role is ending up on a Tuesday afternoon, when he probably has better things to do, for over an hour and a half in a half-empty Chamber answering a debate. Fortunately, I have prepared a Castro-like peroration that should adequately fill that time, and more, should we need it.

I apologise in advance, Mr Hollobone, because you will also have to put up with my presentation not being as seamless as I would wish and with my being more discursive than I ordinarily am. That is largely a product of the fact that, having extensively prepared for this debate, I e-mailed myself my thoughts and considered analysis, only to discover about half an hour ago that the e-mail had not actually arrived. I therefore had to reconstruct everything from the beginning all over again. However, I broadly know what I want to say, and I genuinely want to put it on the record. It is worth while to discuss what will soon be a topical issue, particularly at the Liberal Democrat conference, where we will debate regional pay.

Teachers pay has always been subject to national negotiation, and most teachers have been paid on the same scales across the country. There have always been independent schools. Some, such as Eton, have paid a lot more than the state’s going rate; some—the poorer ones—have paid a lot less; and some have shielded themselves behind the state system. It was quite common for independent schools to have a pay spine that adequately reflected the state system, which enabled an easy interchange of teachers between the state and the independent systems. However, most independent schools had arrangements that allowed them some of the benefits of the state system as well as additional opportunities—for example, to give people particular allowances or perks for coaching sports and the like. Independent schools had real advantages from that arrangement, partly because teachers could obviously retain their pension arrangements when they moved from sector to sector.

There was a halcyon day long ago when the particular scales and positions on offer at an individual state school were determined by the local authority. Certainly, in my early days on a local education authority we discussed whether this or that school should have, for example, further scale 4 posts or deputy head or senior teacher posts. Those days disappeared when schools argued quite vocally for more control over such matters. The tendency started in Cambridge, with local management of schools, and it spread rapidly through the country and was eventually enforced by the Government.

The whole picture of teachers pay is one of increasing flexibility. One flexibility offered recently has been the ability of head teachers to be remunerated irrespective, almost, of the size of their school. At one time, a head teacher’s wage was entirely fixed by the number of pupils in their school. In their wisdom, the previous Government saw fit to give governing bodies some discretion over that. Not surprisingly, right across the country, head teachers salaries went up very appreciably, regardless of the size of their school.

In the previous Government’s education policy, the thinking was that teachers who wished to stay in the classroom and were good classroom teachers should be remunerated more flexibly. Yet again, a new offer was put on the table and it was taken up avidly in many schools, in which pretty well everyone, regardless of the quality of their teaching, was given additional funds. Historically, there was a real identification of the need to remunerate teachers in areas of appreciable stress, particularly inner-city areas. That goes back a long way. I think that, under the previous Conservative Government, teachers working in areas of identifiable deprivation were given an additional salary for remaining there. The net effect was not quite what was intended: in some cases, such teachers simply stayed there, because to move anywhere else would normally have resulted in a loss of income. They were to some extent beaten into submission over a period, and they remained for decades in the same school, ploughing the same furrow.

Recently, people have thought of bringing performance management into teachers remuneration. That is clearly reflected in the current scales and the arrangements whereby teachers can move between different scales. It has to be said, however, that the research is mixed on the actual benefits, and I have seen research from the OECD that raises some questions. Locale has obviously been another determinant of teachers pay. Historically, for as long as anybody can remember, there has been a London weighting that reflects the difficulties that teachers sometimes experience in acquiring affordable housing in the London area. Finally, another flexibility that can be identified is that Governments have periodically put extra funding on the table to attract teachers in particular shortage subjects or to welcome into schools those who had not previously been teachers.

There have been variations over time. I accept that such variations will continue and will have different effects, and that some of the intended effects will be wholly successful and some will not. However, the bulk of the changes that I have outlined have been relatively uncontentious, because they were seen as clear and necessary and they recognised adjustments to schools’ needs. The picture resulting from those various manoeuvres has not been a big political difficulty for anyone. It is quite clear that there are different degrees of teacher turnover throughout the country—teachers find it hard to move out of some areas and hard to move into other areas.

The profile of teachers to some extent varies across the country, in different places at different times. I suggest that the profile of the teacher work force in London represents a younger cohort than, for example, in the north-west, where I live. However, the teaching force of England, under the arrangements for teachers throughout the country, has by and large subscribed to the argument that it is a good principle to have equal pay for equal work.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

For the record, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in the context of national pay scales for teachers, we are talking—this is rare these days—about England and Wales?

[John Pugh]

I am happy to do so. Historically, however, equal pay as a principle has not been adhered to, because there was a phase—long before the living memory of anyone in the room—when female teachers were paid less than male teachers. There has been a recent drive in local authorities to equalise pay in schools, for, say, people working in catering establishments. Previously, manual workers in local authorities were usually female and were paid less than their male equivalents.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. On that basis, does he regret as much as I do the Government’s decision to abolish the support staff body that was trying at least to set some guidance on pay scales for such staff?

[John Pugh]

I am aware that most local authorities have had to dig deep into their coffers to adhere to a principle, which, at the time at least, was thought to be largely uncontentious but entirely necessary. In fact, it was prohibitively expensive for a large number of councils.

The principle of equal pay for equal work is not peculiar to teaching or to the public sector. Many national employers—I shall not bother to list them now but I can provide the details if Members are interested—are not aware of where their workers live and, by and large, wish to pay people the same amount for the same job. As this is such an obviously transparent principle, we do not want to depart far from it or we would require a good reason for doing so. That is where my argument takes off. I am suggesting that equal pay for equal work is a sound principle and that to depart from it requires a solid reason.

A reason that has emerged in recent days, which no one would put as blatantly as I will, is that we do not need to pay equal pay for equal work because we can get away with not doing so. Most people would not generally announce such an argument in all its gory detail because if we follow it through, we would probably end up paying women less than men and migrant workers less than native workers, and do a whole series of things that would be regarded as poor industrial practice. None the less such practice may be implied by some talk about market-facing pay.

Another reason why teaching can depart from the principle of equal pay for equal work is that it can be applied to an individual employer. It could be argued that state independent schools—academies and the like—cannot differentiate within their work force, but they can differentiate between their work force and other people who work for other institutions. In that case, teachers are seen not as a national work force but as an individual work force assigned to a particular school. We are, therefore, accepting the principle that each individual school can make up its own mind. I am told that 35% of academies have, to some degree, departed from national pay and conditions. The majority of them, for quite sound reasons, have not done so because it creates more ructions than people need or welcome. Even independent schools that are not in the state sector prefer, for quite solid practical reasons, to abide by the national pay schemes. If our employers play fair by all their employees, I cannot argue with them and say that they are not offering equal pay for equal work.

There are two other arguments that I want to attend to and dwell on. One argument for paying teachers differentially in different areas, which has been put quite forcibly in recent times, is that it will have other non-educational benefits for those areas. We might refer to that as the crowding out theory, which is quite well analysed in the document “Crowding out: fact or fiction?” Notwithstanding that it is prepared for Unison, it contains a lot of pretty solid research in and around the subject. It insists that if teachers in a low-wage area are paid less—in other words closer to the average wage for those areas—more people would seek work in the private sector and fewer would seek work as teachers.

It is not obvious to me that we want fewer people seeking to be teachers in areas of disadvantage, or that more people seeking work in the private sector where jobs are scarce and oversubscribed would be a good thing. There is no real shortage of vacancies in the private sector in those areas where teachers are paid above the average wage for that area. Certainly, the idea of getting more teachers to drift in that direction would not necessarily solve any problems, nor would it make a difference to the number of jobs available in either sector. I simply do not follow the logic presented there. It is quite clearly the case that in the private sector, there is a real dearth of jobs.

[Kevin Brennan]

Just to keep the hon. Gentleman going on that point, is it not also perfectly possible that, as a result of his argument, there could be fewer jobs in the private sector as a result of such a policy, because its net effect would be to reduce the spending power in that locality? That would impact on the availability of private sector jobs, as the demand for labour is a derived amount.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman could almost be quoting from this excellent document on regional pay, which is submitted by more than 20 Liberal Democrat MPs. The point is that the one thing that we will do if we repress the amount of money going into the areas of less advantage is to reduce demand for private sector opportunities, services and goods. That is demonstrable. If we want to balance out the economy, as the Government do, and so they should, that is not a part of doing that. We could argue that as a result of public sector jobs being that little bit cheaper, we will get more public sector jobs in those areas, so the total amount of money will not diminish. However, I am not aware that it is the Government’s current intention to increase the number of public sector jobs.

[Kevin Brennan]

Would not the whole point of such a policy be to bring about a fiscal transfer away from those areas in order to be able to pay a greater salary to public sector workers in other areas?

[John Pugh]

Yes, I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We could assume—this would be the sole salvation of the theory—that there are lots of people currently teaching or in other public sector areas who have the in-demand skills that cannot easily be found in the private sector in the less advantaged areas. However, I see no evidence that that is the case. It rather goes against the general view that we need to attract science graduates into schools and away from better paid jobs in industry, which both Governments have endeavoured to do. The theory baffles me and it is incapable of intelligent presentation. A confirmatory bit of evidence that might lead us to think that there is something seriously flawed about this theory is that it is rarely voiced by people who are genuinely engaged with the business of regenerating disadvantaged areas. I have been to many events where the main topic has been the regeneration of the north and I have not come across anyone who has ever said, “What we want is for somebody to take public sector wages down a slice. That would do it.”



Curiously, the only people whom I have heard put those sentiments are bright young men in think-tanks in London; people who have their feet firmly on the ground, particularly the ground in the north, tend not to say those things, if ever. As an argument for regional pay for teachers, that does not seem to be sustainable.

I want to look at another argument for having variations in teachers pay across the regions that has emerged very recently. It is a different type of argument and, frankly, it is one that, when I put together the analysis for the Liberal Democrat submission on regional pay, we did not really take on board. The regional pay submission deals quite adequately with issues such as crowding out, and so on, but what we did not expect was an argument that public services themselves would improve if teachers were paid differentially across the country.

The new argument emerged from some research carried out by the university of Bristol—by Carol Propper and her team, I think—into the benefits of a regional pay system, or, to put it the other way round, the disadvantages of a national pay system. Members will recall that the research was covered quite extensively in the press, and it seemed to have the consequence of leading people to believe that if pay in London or the south-east was markedly better than pay in Humberside or the midlands, not only would that be “a good thing” or make it easier to get teachers to London, but it would improve the performance of schools in London; and that a national pay system actually disadvantaged educational outcomes in the south-east and other areas of high average wages. The research received an enormous amount of media coverage about two weeks ago, and it paralleled previous research by the same body at the university of Bristol which argued that similar sorts of effects could be observed in the health service—that, for example, people in certain high-demand or high-wage areas were more likely to die as a result of a heart attack than people in other areas, simply because there were national pay scales.

Looking briefly at that research, it is based on an examination of pupil progress between key stage 2 and key stage 4 and of average professional wages in different parts of the country. It notes that pupil progress, as measured by class data in a value-added way, does not seem to be as significant or as appreciable in high-wage areas as it is in low-wage areas—in other words, those who live in a wealthy part of the country are less likely to see the same degree of value-added progress in their school as others elsewhere do. I will explain that in a little more detail. We are not talking about attainment here, as attainment by pupils in wealthy areas is better than that of pupils in poorer areas. We are talking about the difference from key stage 2 to key stage 4, and in particular whether key stage 4 replicates or improves on key stage 2.

When that research was reported, the press coverage was fairly stark and fairly crude. I have to say that the press release for the research was also fairly stark and fairly crude. I do not believe that the report is wholly warranted by the data as presented by the Bristol team, but the quality of the research is pretty hard to judge, because the correlation established is not based on raw data; it is arrived at after data have been manipulated and tweaked in a very complex way. The description of what was done to the data is a little opaque for the faint-hearted and for journalists, and perhaps also for policy makers. I wanted to terrify the Hansard writers by reading out the equation, or set of hieroglyphics, that is presented in the research. It is enormously formidable, I am afraid. It says that it is:

“A simple education production function…which considers the importance of controlling for alternative labour market opportunities when examining the degree to which teacher wages affect student outcomes”.

I can only illustrate this visually, but there follows a line of hieroglyphics containing so many variables that it would take a brave man to say what each individual one means. I must say that there is an opacity to this equation—the way that the variables are treated—that makes it rather difficult for all but the most resolute to understand how the data have been treated, and consequently we have seen nothing so far in the way of peer review. The equation is described as being relatively “simple”, but anybody who has looked at page 9 of the Bristol research will have been terrified by what they saw and may not have ventured any further; consequently they will be reluctant to engage in intensive peer review.

The theory claims to establish only an association between being in an area where average professional wages are high and not seeing an enormous amount of value-added effect between key stage 2 and key stage 4. That is not the same as a causal connection. As far as I can follow it, the research does not claim that national pay causes lesser progress in wealthy areas, although of course that could be claimed and in fact many of the press reports read into that research exactly that claim. Furthermore, the research does not necessarily imply any clear policy response even if a causal connection were to be established. After all, regional pay along the lines anticipated by the researchers might actually widen the differences in attainment between richer and poorer areas. We might argue whether or not that would be a good thing.

There are other associations that we could talk about, which show the difference between establishing association and establishing a causal link. It is generally the case that in areas of wealth, the behavioural challenges presented by pupils tend to be less, and in areas of deprivation the behavioural challenges presented by pupils tend to be greater than those found elsewhere, but it would not be safe to draw the conclusion that pupils in the wealthy areas need to play up a bit in order to get better results. That would be a wholly inappropriate conclusion. As I say, establishing association is not establishing a causal link; that is the first point.

My second point is that it could be said that research by the university of Lancaster into value-added, which Members may be familiar with, shows that there is only a loose connection between what a school does and value-added measures. There is a lot of research on this subject, which brings into question what value-added data actually tell us. Also, it is interesting to note that selective grammar schools that teach their pupils well score comparatively poorly on value-added measures. We may not be assessing the school in the way that we believe we do with the current value-added measures.

I do not want to be counter-intuitive and suggest that teachers’ salaries in areas of high cost make absolutely no difference, but I am sceptical that they make the difference that the Bristol research suggests. Obviously, if a teacher moves to an area such as London, a lot of their salary will be used to pay the mortgage; people have always recognised that and the need for a London weighting—it has added to an already overheated market, but I think people can see a broad case for it, none the less. Housing aside, however, living in the capital is not necessarily more expensive than living in Yeovil or Norwich. Certainly transport in London is a lot cheaper than in those places, and utilities and consumables are at least as cheap, if not cheaper, in London.

I do not dispute that high house prices have an influence on staff turnover; they clearly do. Often when a young couple want to start a family, they have to move to areas of cheaper housing to find family-sized accommodation. Therefore, quite naturally, London’s teacher profile tends to have a disproportionate number of second wage-earners, many of them female, and young teachers who have not yet got to the stage when they want to start a family. That may be a good thing; it is not necessarily a bad thing.

The Propper thesis, however, is that national pay schemes lead to worse outcomes and experiences. That is the nuts and bolts of it—the heart of it. It is fundamentally what Propper is leading us to believe, and it is the conclusion that some people are inclined to draw. How does one respond to that?

[Kevin Brennan]

Is it not also part of the theory that much of what teachers do is—I think Propper used this word—discretionary, and therefore there is a wage disincentive effect that means that teachers are, in effect, lazier in certain areas than in others?

[John Pugh]

From the value-added data, there is an implication that in high-value areas—wealthier areas, where housing costs are higher and where we may want to make some adjustments in teachers’ salaries—something is happening in the teaching force that explains the difference in the value-added data between such areas and others.

My response to that is to set Propper against Popper, by whom I mean Karl Popper, author of “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”. I am sceptical about economics as a science—certainly as a predictive one—but the one hallmark the philosopher Karl Popper taught us to look for in any theory was: how might it be falsified? If a theory cannot be falsified and yet is potentially falsifiable, it is a good theory and worth sticking to. The question one has to ask is: if the theory holds water, or if the data stand the interpretation given, how would one know that?

I would like people to ask themselves this question: what ought not to happen if Propper’s theory is true? I will suggest just one thing. What ought not to happen—what we ought not to find—is that lessons in wealthy areas, where the teaching pool is smaller, are as good as those in less wealthy areas. That is easily testable by looking at not the data, but Ofsted reports and the number of lessons that the reports say are satisfactory and less than satisfactory. I presume—I have not checked this, although I have tabled questions—that those reports show nothing that will confirm the Propper hypothesis, and that lessons in Barnet are just as good as those in Salford. I expect that to be the case, so I do not think that we need to be over-detained by the theory, despite the publicity it has received. We should put the theory rapidly to a clear test and see whether what the theory leads us to anticipate in fact happens. I suggest that it does not, and we probably know that.

Why is all that important? Why have I gone out of my way to criticise both the crowding out theory and the Propper data? It is because there is an important issue concerning the debate on regional pay that is probably bigger than that debate itself. Politically, it is stupid for any Government to antagonise the teaching profession, which normally thinks, in a communitarian spirit, that regional pay is not necessary and which will not be persuaded by the need, rationale and motives behind the regional pay push. I think it is unnecessary to antagonise a group that is already sufficiently involved in asking questions of the Government regarding policy on pensions, pay freezes and the like.

The big game for all of us is to improve educational standards in the country. We need teachers to buy into the Government’s agenda and to make it theirs. In my experience of education policy, nothing much is achieved without teachers embracing, endorsing and involving themselves in it. We have seen Secretaries of State over the years come forward with initiative after initiative, and only some of them have had an impact. Those have been the ones that teachers have been able to believe in themselves, such as local management of schools, which I mentioned earlier and which I think is widely believed in. The ability to build a consensus across the piece, which is necessary, will be hampered if we get into a debate about regional pay apropos teaching. It is simply not worth the candle for the limited dividends it potentially can bring, even for those whose support it, and it will produce only tears at the end of the day.

Improving education is a long and collaborative process. Yesterday in the Chamber, the Secretary of State introduced quite significant reforms that we need to examine. Not all teachers have necessarily bought into them straight away—they have concerns about them, and they wish that they had been consulted in advance as well as post hoc—but it is possible to get everyone behind the same agenda, and if we do not do that, we simply do not get any results. We saw elements of that yesterday in the Chamber. I was watching the debate on the monitor, and I noted significant contributions from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and the former chair of the Select Committee on Education, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). Both said exactly the same thing to the Secretary of State: if we are going to make progress—the kind of progress that no one disputes should be made—there must be a prevailing consensual atmosphere.

[Kevin Brennan]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem with the way in which the Secretary of State has gone about reform in this area—an area in which we all believe there should be reform—is that he has chosen to do so in order to make a political point about rigour and standards, not an educational one? If he had wanted to make that point, he would have shared his approach with the Opposition, teachers and the devolved Administrations, rather than ridden roughshod over everyone.

[John Pugh]

I think the Secretary of State said, at the end of his statement yesterday, that he was offsetting the 10 years of drift and confusion—frankly, I think that was a rather schoolboy remark. Teachers listening to it will have recognised that there have been difficulties in exams, that changes have been made and that we need to make further changes, and teachers will get behind further changes, but to say that 10 years has achieved nothing and that today we will start on a new venture in which everything will be that much easier, is to mistake what has always happened throughout the history of British education. When things work well and progress is made, everyone has their shoulder behind the wheel because everyone can see the sense of it. When we try to appropriate success or schemes that other people either do not acknowledge, do not understand or do not appreciate, we hamper the degree of progress, even by our own lights, that we intend to make.

I have gone on long enough and my Castro-like peroration is now at an end. There is not an intelligently defensible case for regional pay—certainly, neither the Propper hypothesis nor the crowding out theory provides such a case, although I am happy to debate them ad nauseam—but even if there were, it would be a political minefield that, judging by the extent of the political opposition, is not likely to lead to beneficial results but is likely to lead to a scarring debate that will hamper progress in significant areas of education.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) for his speech and congratulate him on securing this debate. His peroration was not Castro-like at all; it was considerably better argued than a Castro speech and considerably shorter, although it was perhaps long for this Chamber. As usual, his extremely well argued speech was a philosophical trot through the issues.

I also welcome the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), and wish him good luck in his new role. As he knows, his job is very important. This is the first time I have faced him since the reshuffle. We came into the House at the same time. In fact, we made our maiden speeches on the same day, so I have watched his progress with great interest; obviously, I will watch his progress with even greater interest in the months to come. In the reshuffle, a number of Education Ministers have gone: the hon. Members for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb)—whom the Minister replaces—and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). One other Education Minister wanted to go but was unable to do so. If, as often happens after a reshuffle, training is offered to Ministers, the Schools Minister might want to suggest an assertiveness training course for Lord Hill for the next time he tries to resign from the Government.

The Schools Minister takes his post at a time when teacher morale is at a pretty low ebb, and he needs to do something to try to improve that situation, because low teacher morale is not good for learning or for standards and outcomes. He may be aware that I was a teacher in a previous period of low morale in the 1980s, which sadly resulted in a great deal of disruption because of an approach to pay and conditions that led to a great deal of unhappiness among teachers. In the context in which we meet today, at a time of low morale with the Government considering the whole issue of national pay and conditions, it would be a welcome step if the Minister took a grip and rejected, for many of the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Southport, the approach to teachers pay to which the Secretary of State seems philosophically wedded.

The Minister may be aware that the School Teachers Review Body is currently considering teachers pay at the Secretary of State’s behest. The other day, I read with interest the Secret Teacher’s contribution to The Guardian on teachers pay, which summed up quite well some of the teaching profession’s anxieties. The Secret Teacher’s birthday is on 28 September, which is the deadline the Secretary of State has given Patricia Hodgson, the chair of the School Teachers Review Body, to return her recommendations on teachers pay. I hope the Minister does not use that information to try to ascertain the secret teacher’s identity, but the Secret Teacher points out just how anxious teachers are about the steps the Secretary of State is taking to consider market-facing pay, regional pay or whatever we call it in the end. The Secret Teacher also points out that one of the common features of high-performing jurisdictions, which, by the way, we are too in this country—perhaps the Secretary of State should say that more often—is long-term investment in pay to attract a higher quality of applicant to the job. The Labour Government tried to emulate that.

The hon. Member for Southport mentioned that teachers pay is now linked more to classroom performance, and I make no apology for that. Certainly when I was a teacher, often the only way for a teacher to get paid more, apart from through the incremental points for experience, was to take on a responsibility outside the classroom. Some of the best teachers ended up doing administration rather than what they should have been doing, which was standing in a classroom and using their excellent teaching skills to help young people to achieve their potential.

There is a great deal of unhappiness among the teaching associations and unions on teachers pay, and I hope the new Schools Minister will take an approach of dialogue, consensus and working in partnership with the teaching profession to work through some of those issues, rather than taking the more confrontational and “impositional” approach that the Secretary of State tends to take from time to time.

On regional pay in education, the hon. Member for Southport gave a fairly comprehensive presentation on the arguments. The argument seems to be that, where local pay and costs of living are below average, the Government can get away with saving money by paying less. That is certainly one reason why the Government could go for local and regional pay. Another argument is that relatively high pay in the public sector makes it harder for the private sector to recruit, which he referred to as the “crowding-out” argument. He also referred to research from Bristol university, which I will come back to towards the end of my remarks.

Why would the imposition of local and regional pay on teachers be the wrong approach? Well, there are a number of reasons, both educational and economic. Earlier, we discussed the potential damage if spending power is taken out of the economies of more deprived areas. Economics is a dismal science, as the hon. Gentleman hinted in his remarks, and it would be a big mistake simply to take a micro-economic argument in isolation from the macro-economic argument, which is exactly the mistake the Government are making in their overall economic policy on the deficit. On regional pay, if a significant amount of spending power is taken out of those areas of the country by reducing the wages of reasonably well paid public servants in the hope that that would make the private sector more attractive to them, the Government would have to posit a huge increase in private sector productivity for that to have a positive economic impact. Those of us with our feet on the ground know that, in practice, cutting fairly well paid jobs in such areas would take spending power out of the local economy, thereby damaging the provision of public services and damaging the private sector by suppressing demand for goods and services, so there is a strong economic argument against going down that road. It would also make it harder to recruit good teachers in more deprived areas. As the hon. Member for Southport suggested, the job is often more challenging in such areas, which are not necessarily seen as the most desirable places to live in.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the basic philosophical issue of equal pay for equal work. Yes, we could take a purely laissez-faire approach and pay different people at different rates for the same work; but we still have a national education system, despite the increased number of academies, and it seems to me that we should try to hold on to that basic principle.

As to the overall impact on teacher morale—I referred earlier to the Secret Teacher article—there is no doubt that it is at a low ebb at the moment. Introducing relative pay, or reducing it in some areas, especially in the current context of pay freezes, would have a major impact on teacher morale. The question would arise, I guess, of how to stop schools paying what they wanted to. The only way would be to reduce the funding available in areas where it was intended that pay should be reduced. There are thus also huge implications for school funding, which are not being planned for.

Bureaucracy is also an issue. What structure would be required to determine the rates that would apply; or would that be left purely to the market? There is no real evidence that relatively high public sector pay damages the private sector. At a time such as now, when there is high unemployment, including graduate unemployment, there is, if anything, an excess supply of labour available for the private sector to recruit from. Regional pay variations in similar jobs are relatively small. Large organisations in the private sector typically tend to have national pay structures as well, with limited variation, except, of course, for the same variation that has existed for some time in the teaching profession, for London and the south-east. Of course, the TUC recently gathered evidence about regional pay. Its research found that very few large private sector employers use local pay. That was attributed to the wish to have some sort of control over labour costs, and to avoid a duplication of the bargaining process, with the time and resources that that would entail. The complexity of regional or local differentiation outweighs the possible gains for those employers.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman is surely also aware that what is envisaged may be more complex than was at first thought even by those who support the concept. The Department of Health, under the previous Secretary of State, made a submission suggesting regional pay—but only at a certain level of the hospital structure. As to facing the market, in the higher reaches of the hospital structure the market was national rather than regional; so even within one institution regional pay might not be right. Equally, it is recognised that there are hot spots within regions, where it would not be desirable to pay much less than London rates.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point that I was making, which is that the policy introduces a level of complexity that leads to cost—the opportunity cost, and the time that people will have to spend on resolving anomalies and complexities in the system, unless the Government intend to take a laissez-faire approach to public sector pay. As far as I know, that is not what they propose, but the costs, otherwise, cannot be ignored.

There are good reasons why regional pay is not common practice among large private sector employers. A lot of the commentary about regional pay seems to be based on poor knowledge of private sector pay systems, and of the existing flexibilities within the public sector pay system, including those affecting teachers. A recent “Today” programme on Radio 4 posed the question why a teacher should be paid the same in Sunderland as in Surrey. Well, those teachers are not paid the same. The pay system has four bands or zones, and teachers in Sunderland are in a different band from those in Surrey. It seems there is not enough knowledge generally about the current system; people do not understand that it is sufficiently flexible to remove any need for a much more laissez-faire approach to teachers pay.

The teaching unions have made a joint submission to the pay review body, and as its report is imminent I shall summarise some of their points. In their view, local pay in teaching would not contribute to the raising of standards, because schools in disadvantaged areas already face the greatest challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers, and in providing opportunities for the most disadvantaged students. Local pay would create even greater obstacles to overcoming inequality and raising standards of attainment for all—an objective that I think all hon. Members share.

The unions believe that local pay would be likely to inhibit teacher mobility and create long-term teacher shortages in areas where pay was reduced. There is no particular reason why it should assist with teacher supply problems elsewhere. It also offends against the principle that we discussed earlier: the rate for the job and equal pay for equal work. The unions believe that pay cuts would be likely to fall more heavily on women teachers, so there is an equality aspect to the issue. The Government would, I think, need to carry out a full equality assessment of any proposal to introduce a regional or market-facing pay system.

The approach would also make determination processes costlier—something that we have already discussed. Other interrelationships with pay flexibility should be considered, because the limited use of existing pay flexibility for recruitment and retention suggests that schools do not believe that the pay structure should develop further in that way. Increasing the scope for variations in pay could lead to schools competing for staff—at local level anyway—through wages. Another issue is reconciling the introduction of local pay with a clearer and more transparent funding system for schools, and more effective financial planning by schools. The unions echo the points that I made about private sector employers and the local economy.

That leads me on to the Bristol research, which the hon. Member for Southport spoke about. As he said, in August a study by the centre for market and public organisation at the university was published, under the somewhat non-academic title of “Wage Regulation Harms Kids”. It claimed to show that pupils’ performance at GCSE is affected by how teachers pay compares with pay generally in the area. As the hon. Gentleman said, it suggested that where pay is generally high compared with teachers pay, pupils do worse, and vice versa. The conclusion that is drawn is that there should be more variation in teacher pay, and, in particular, that teachers in high-wage areas should be paid more.

[John Pugh]

I think the hon. Gentleman used the phrase “do worse”, but I believe the conclusion is that those pupils improve less: in high-wage areas, generally speaking, attainment is better, or higher.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think improving less probably is doing worse; but I take the semantic point, and those who want to perform a textual exegesis on our deliberations this afternoon can take a look at it later, when they consult Hansard.

The argument runs that where teachers have low pay compared with others in their area, teacher recruitment will be more problematic, and teachers will be less motivated. That relates to the point that I was discussing earlier with the hon. Gentleman. “Wage Regulation Harms Kids” says:

“The nature of teaching is that a large proportion of the work is discretionary (lesson planning, after-school programmes, time invested in individual children) so there is scope for reductions in effort in response to relative wages.”

The case is based on the contention that teachers in more affluent areas are lazier than teachers working in other areas, because the ratio of their wages to wages for other jobs in the area is lower than that of teachers in other areas of the country. The study offers no real objective evidence to support that contention. The hon. Member for Southport has gone through the methodology used; it is almost entirely an exercise in statistical correlation, and relies less on causation than on an association of numbers from the evidence that it considered. No evidence is offered that the amount of teacher pay compared with pay in the area generally has a causal relationship to pupil performance, despite the report’s title.

Nor does the document consider any alternative hypothesis for the statistical link that it claims to have identified, which seems strange. It makes no attempt, for example, to consider Ofsted ratings for teaching, as the hon. Gentleman suggested could be done in different areas, to see whether there is inspection evidence that teaching is worse or teachers lazier in more prosperous, high-wage areas. It does not consider whether the challenges of teaching in less well-off areas require more of teachers and, conversely, whether a lot of schools in more prosperous areas are coasting and not being challenged by the nature of the task. It might have nothing to do with pay. That explanation is at least worthy of some investigation by such a study.

The case of London is especially relevant, as the hon. Gentleman said. London has high and rising standards, certainly in recent years, but also the largest gap in the country between teacher pay and pay generally. It does not seem to make a great deal of sense. Much of the analysis is based on dividing the country into just two areas and comparing them. That is a very broad-brush approach that can miss many local variations. I will not go on, but there are also problems with the report’s grasp of how teacher pay works and some confusion about external tests at key stages 1 and 3, which no longer exist. That did not inspire much confidence in me either.

The Secretary of State has been known from time to time to take pieces of research such as the programme for international student assessment tables, ignore the parts that he is not keen on and highlight only the bits that he is keen on, or even to ignore completely some pieces of research, such as the pupil achievement research on trends in international mathematics and science study. I am not suggesting that he will necessarily do so, but if he is planning to use this piece of research to justify the introduction of regional pay on the basis that teachers in areas such as his constituency are lazier than teachers in other parts of the country, without any real evidence for doing so, he is on extremely shaky ground.

I end with a couple of questions for the Minister. What is the Government’s current position on regional pay? We have heard conflicting voices from within Government in recent months; one minute it is on, the next minute it is off. Will he give us an update on the latest position? Does he think that Yeovil teachers should be treated differently from teachers in Surrey for doing the same job, and paid a different rate? Does he grasp how demotivating this debate is for the teaching work force that he now has the privilege of serving, in addition to the pupils and parents of this country, in his role as Schools Minister? What assurances can he give us that all of this is not just a softening up for the ultimate privatisation agenda that some of us think the Secretary of State has in mind in the longer term?

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of R and D. We are improving the tax reliefs available to businesses, and especially to small businesses, when they invest in R and D to encourage them to do so.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of growth in his Department’s mission, and yet, as we have heard, the OECD has this morning revised its growth forecast for the UK economy from plus 0.5% to minus 0.7%. Does he not see the need to change course?

[Vince Cable]

We recognise the economic difficulties faced by most of the western democracies, including our own, and the hon. Gentleman knows the reason for them. We had a boom in this country that got out of control and left a substantial legacy; we have broken banks; we have a very serious consumer debt problem; and we have major problems in our export markets. Those are the factors that contribute to the current difficulties, but we have a range of policies, several of which have been announced today, that are designed to counter those areas of weakness in growth, especially in construction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Again, I stress that Ofqual is the appropriate regulator and will want to hear from all schools affected. The report that I hoped would be delivered and which Ofqual did deliver rapidly this Friday dealt in broad terms with the issues about grade boundaries. However, there may be school-specific cases that, like the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my right hon. Friend, as an assiduous constituency Member, may want to bring to Ofqual’s attention. I encourage all MPs who believe that there are specific cases that defy logic in schools of which they are aware to bring them to Ofqual’s attention.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said earlier that this year’s problem arose because the modular English exam was “unfit for purpose” so nothing could be done to rectify the injustice this year, yet the same exam will be sat next year. Is he saying that next year’s pupils can look forward to the same injustice on his watch?

[Michael Gove]

It was a Labour Government who introduced modularisation of GCSEs. We made it clear that we thought that was a mistake and we moved as quickly as possible to end it. I hope that we can count on the hon. Gentleman’s support in making that reform.

BME Communities (Educational Attainment)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this debate. I welcome the debate, and the tone so far. It is correct to point out at the outset, as other hon. Members have done, that the title of the debate deals with educational attainment in black and minority ethnic communities. High attainment is found in all black and minority ethnic communities, and, as other Members have highlighted, some minority ethnic communities seem to be doing particularly well. We should all be as interested in why that is the case as in why pupils in other communities are not doing so well. Why some communities do well should be of great interest to us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth presented a thoroughly researched and well-argued speech, obviously born out of a desire to do something about an issue that she has encountered in her role as a constituency MP. She is to be commended for bringing to the House an issue that she has discovered in her constituency in order to highlight the need to do something about it. She emphasised the need for a well-rounded approach to educational attainment and mentioned, as did other hon. Members, the importance of parental inclusion. She also pointed out the abolition of the ethnic minority achievement grant, which I may comment on later. I congratulate her on her remarks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) made an excellent speech, also born out of her constituency experience. She emphasised, as we all should, the importance of rigour and standards in our schools, saying how much had been done, particularly in her borough of Hackney, through effective leadership in our schools. That is a key part of high achievement, as is having no excuses or not accepting low expectations in our schools.

In recent years, there has been real improvement in achievement and attainment in our schools, particularly in our London schools through measures such as London Challenge. That was acknowledged recently on television by the Mayor of London, who said that huge improvements in standards had been made in London schools in recent years. He was absolutely right to highlight that, but, as other Members have mentioned, that may well mask some of the underlying problems in relation to black and minority ethnic communities.

[Hywel Williams in the Chair]

My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of work on exclusion, which I will say more about in a moment. She was also strong in her opposition to introducing any kind of two-tier qualification system, which she called a retrograde step. We will debate that issue on the Floor of the House later today, so I am sure that the Minister will understand why I do not want to go into it in detail now.

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend has mentioned one of the Secretary of State’s innovations, which we will debate later today. Does he agree that the principle behind the English baccalaureate—that every child should get certain core GCSE qualifications—is a good one and that it would help avoid a situation in which too many children are damaged by a culture of poor expectations?

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree that it is extremely important that every young person and child should understand the implications of the pathways that they choose at GCSE. It is important that they understand that certain choices may lead to closing off opportunities at a later stage. I do not, however, support the crude mechanism of the E-bac, because I do not think that it is the way forward for qualifications at 16, and it will not necessarily mean that people will opt for those subjects that it is in their interests to take. There should be a clear understanding of the implications of choices made at 16. We should retain high expectations for young people in their GCSEs, particularly in English and maths, but also allow them the opportunity to make informed choices about the subjects that they want to take.

I want to address a number of points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She is right to emphasise that this is not a new issue. Indeed, she has been making that point for the 25 years she has been a Member of this House, which she entered in 1987. It is only right that we pay tribute to her efforts on the subject, including her practical efforts in relation to the initiative that she mentioned in her speech.

My hon. Friend and I debated the issue when I was a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families in 2008 and I can confirm that she is passionate about the subject and has a lot to say. As I recall, she took 26 of the 30 minutes that we had to debate the issue and I did my best to respond in the remaining time available. She was quite right, however, because she had a lot to say on the subject. She was right to emphasise its importance and to take me to task, as a Minister, on the subject, as she had previous Labour Ministers and as I am sure she will continue to do to coalition Ministers. It is important to hold our feet to the fire and make sure that our attention is maintained. That applies not just to those of us on the Opposition Benches, but, more importantly, given that the Minister is in government, to those who hold the levers of policy in the Department for Education. My hon. Friend was also right to mention the need for detailed data, which I will return to in a moment.

When we debated this topic in 2008, my hon. Friend made a number of points that caught my attention, one of which was that research by the former Department of Education and Skills confirmed:

“Black Caribbean pupils are significantly more likely to be permanently excluded—3 times more likely than White pupils.”

However, as my hon. Friend has said today, and as she said in 2008:

“In relation to base-line entry tests, black pupils outperform their white peers at the start of school”.

We need to understand what is going on.

My hon. Friend went on to emphasise the importance of teacher training, pointing out that only 35% of newly qualified teachers

“rated their course as good for preparing them to teach black children, as opposed to 60 per cent. who rated their course as good preparation for teaching children of all abilities.” —[Official Report, 1 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 223, 224WH.]

That is still a significant issue that we all need to consider and that the Minister must not lose sight of in his reform of teacher training.

My hon. Friend talked about exclusion, which absolutely needs to be tackled. When we were in government, we started to look at that subject in more detail and in greater depth than Ministers had at the start of the Labour Government in 1997, when my hon. Friend had a meeting with Education Ministers. In 2007, the Department published a priority review entitled “Getting it, getting it right” on the exclusion of black pupils. It discussed the iconic status of the issue of exclusion in black communities. Black Caribbean parents in particular believed that the school system would not meet the needs of their children unless something was done about the disproportionate level of exclusion of pupils from that particular background. It was extremely important that that report was undertaken at that time, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about what the Government are doing now to follow up on that issue in relation to the exclusion of black and minority ethnic pupils. It was a priority of the previous Government to try to do something about that, even though they accepted that it was a complex and difficult issue. We undertook a number of initiatives that were specifically designed to tackle the issue of exclusion.

Another matter that was raised in the debate was the expectations of teachers. As long ago as 2003, the London Development Agency undertook major research that showed, among other things, that many teachers had lower expectations of black pupils and that black pupils felt that they received less positive input and, in some cases, even discrimination from teachers in the course of their school lives. Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, schools have a duty to ensure that they deal with this issue. A significant amount of literature for schools has been published by the Department and, in the past, by the Commission for Racial Equality on the subject. One report found that a significant minority of schools were failing to implement their duties under the race relations legislation. Given that we now have a more fragmented system of education in which a number of schools are no longer run as community schools in a local authority system but have become academies, independent of any local accountability, how will the Department ensure that such schools fulfil their obligations under race relations legislation in relation to black pupils?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am sorry to have missed part of the debate, but I am pleased that it is taking place this morning. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a particular concern now given that the Government intend to repeal the good relations duty on the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is of course the institutional framework by which this kind of mechanism can be applied?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes. My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of expertise on this subject. We are all concerned that a lot of very good work on equality could be undone—perhaps not in a deliberate sense—by Ministers who desire to follow their own path and ensure that they distinguish themselves from the previous Government in their approach to education and schools. They could be undoing very good work and taking a significant step backwards in relation to the education system and the topic that we are debating today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth talked about the impact of exclusion on people’s lives and about the fact that the Department itself had calculated that there would be a significant loss of earnings for pupils who were excluded in the course of their lifetime. At the time of that study, I think the reduction in lifetime earnings as a result of exclusion was calculated at £36,000. Worse than that, 80% of the juveniles in prison had been excluded from school at one time or another. That statistic made me sit up at the time, and should make the Minister focus on the issue. If 80% of juveniles in prison have been excluded from school, that must tell us something about exclusion and whether it is effective in trying to change the sort of behavioural problems that probably led to exclusion in the first place. If that exclusion has a racial component, we should be significantly concerned.

[Meg Hillier]

I would always defend a head teacher’s right to manage their school, and clearly exclusion may have a place in that, but a concern that I came across recently is a child who was excluded but brought back into school with intense provision for a short period. That intense provision was for only half a day, so the working parent was left with half a day to try to cover, and it also took the child out of their normal environment. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to how that might have an effect on the outlook of that young person when they re-enter the school?

[Kevin Brennan]

For many years, the scandal was that excluded pupils received little or no education after they had been excluded. My point is that exclusion should be a last resort, and it is sometimes necessary. As a former teacher, I absolutely defend the right of schools to exclude, having followed due and proper process. The Government have reformed that process, and changed the way in which an appeal can be made against exclusion. Instead of insisting on reinstatement, they have introduced fines on schools and head teachers who refuse reinstatement after that has been recommended on appeal.

I do not want to go into the details of that, but I want to make the point that responsibility for that child does not end when they are excluded, and that includes a responsibility on the head teacher and the school that excluded the child, on other schools in the area, even if they are independent academy schools in the state sector, and on all of us who are interested in education. Responsibility for that child does not end at the point of exclusion. One reason why so many young people end up in the juvenile justice system is not that they are inherently bad, but that, at the point of exclusion, there is no proper follow-up to ensure that the child receives an education, let alone attempts made to try to prevent exclusion in the first place whenever possible, given that it should always and everywhere be a last resort.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said that improvement in GCSE achievement might have been due partially to the use of equivalencies at GCSE, but I think the facts will show that even if that were taken out of the equation, the improvement in London schools in recent years is real, as the Mayor of London said. In fact, results for black Caribbean pupils were rising at a faster rate than those for many other groups, but that does not mean that there is not a real and continuing problem, and my hon. Friend was right to highlight that.

My hon. Friend also spoke about the need for detailed data, and I appeal to the Minister that in his wish to unburden schools of bureaucracy, which is laudable, he does not fail to collect the data that are essential to tackle issues such as this. The Government are keen on having masses of data available in other areas, and that is good because it enables people to trawl through and analyse it, and to get to the root of a problem, but in this matter, less data are likely to be collected and that would be a significant mistake.

I have a few questions for the Minister before concluding and giving him time to respond. In tackling the problem, how will ending the ethnic minority achievement grant help? How will introducing a two-tier qualifications system, if that is indeed what he intends, help to improve black and ethnic minority attainment? How will not collecting proper statistics help? How will abandoning the approach of Every Child Matters help? Obviously, educational achievement is partially a case of good leadership in schools and so on, but it does involve wider issues, which many of these children may be bringing to school with them and which need to be tackled. How will a fragmented approach to exclusions help to tackle this problem? I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to those questions.

Secondary Education (GCSEs)

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

No, thank you.

We not only have a two-tier system in the split between foundation and higher tier GCSEs, over which Labour presided—

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

You introduced it.

[Michael Gove]

Quite right. I did not come into Parliament to defend the status quo, unlike the small-c conservatives opposite. I am a radical who believes in liberating human potential. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby and the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) are disciples of Keith Joseph. I regard myself as being in a slightly more radical, reforming, modern and liberal tradition than the late Member for Leeds North East, bless his soul.

As a reformer, it offends me not only that is there a division incarnated in our state schools, but that independent schools are opting for the IGCSE because the GCSE is not rigorous enough and that, as a result, there is a two-tier system between state and independent schools. There is also a two-tier system between this nation and other nations because other countries have more testing examinations at the ages of 16, 17 and 18, whereas we have incarnated low aspirations in the way in which we judge our young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

Time for a coffee and to let others speak.

However, over the last two years the Government have made a series of announcements looking to put greater rigour into the system. They announced the ending of modularisation of GCSEs, tackling the culture of re-sits, ending equivalences and promoting the English baccalaureate, which, of course, rewards those students who achieve good GCSEs in English, maths, two sciences, a language and either history or geography. However, at the end of that process, if the leak is to be believed—I am in a state of confusion now—they suddenly announced the scrapping of GCSEs altogether. That does not seem terribly coherent.

Just last June the Secretary of State said the following about GCSEs:

“So next year the floor will rise to 40 per cent and my aspiration is that by 2015 we will be able to raise it to 50 per cent. There is no reason—if we work together—that by the end of this parliament every young person in the country can’t be educated in a school where at least half of students reach this basic academic standard.”

He went on to say:

“A GCSE floor standard is about providing a basic minimum expectation to young people that their school will equip them for further education and employment.”

That was the direction of travel then; suddenly, a year later—if we are to believe the Daily Mail—that has been scrapped. On the other hand, if I understood correctly what the Secretary of State said today, that was an entirely false idea and there is no plan to do such a thing at all.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think we are all trying to decipher what the Secretary of State said. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that the Secretary of State said that he would expect 80% of pupils to sit this new single-paper GCSE, and if so, what does he think ought to happen to the other 20%?

[Mr Stuart]

As I have said, I think that increased rigour throughout the system is necessary and important. I think that the accountability system for schools needs to be changed so that it does not have perverse outcomes, such as putting people on courses that lead nowhere but allow the institution to meet its benchmark—we on the Committee have been critics of that for some time. Perhaps the announcement, or the leak, suggests a change in view by the Secretary of State on that front.

If we look across the system, where we need more rigour and we need to ensure that we end the perverse incentives, we find that the biggest problem we face in a global knowledge economy, where the first rung of the ladder keeps rising up, is what we do about people who are not getting those basic skills and that basic education. The Government have two priorities for education: raising standards for all; and closing the gap. Those are right, but when setting priorities it is terribly important to show what the top priority is. I am yet to understand how the changes specifically will help the least able, but then again I am unclear as to what exactly the proposal is—even if I have not quite fallen to the level of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who of course got so confused about percentages last week.

[Kevin Brennan]

I did get a grade A O-level—

[Mr Stuart]

That is a lot better than I did, so I will leave it there.

Ofqual now has a statutory duty to ensure two things, one of which is that we maintain standards over time. We shall see whether it does its job right; it is relatively newly empowered and we need to give it the chance to see whether it can reverse this grade inflation and keep us up there with our international competition. Has it said that there needs to be a restructuring of the examination system, not necessarily the administration of it, but the whole quality of it and the possible tiering of it? I would like to hear from the Secretary of State about that.

I have only a minute left, so I shall finish by repeating that the central problem is what we do about the young people, all too many of whom are now not in education, employment or training—NEET—and are being left behind. A more rigorous system is great, but the only way to raise standards ultimately—this is the only thing that matters in education—is through quality of teaching. We need to ensure consistent, high-quality teaching and an excellent institution for everyone, everywhere. At the moment, there are all sorts of incentives in the accountability system to focus on borderline pupils at the expense of those at the bottom, and within the system for people to move from a school that is very challenging to one in the leafier suburbs—a much more congenial place for many people to teach in. We need to look at re-gearing our whole system in a way that the Labour Government failed to do, despite efforts in that direction, to ensure that we provide opportunity for all, because both socially and economically we cannot afford to have so many children left behind, unable to get on the first rung of the economic ladder and thus be full members of our society. If any proposals from the Secretary of State are driven by that central insight, he can certainly look forward to my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

In contrast to the Chair of the Select Committee, because I have a more cynical frame of mind, I will work on the assumption that the Daily Mail report of 21 June was correct and that the briefing came from someone close to the Secretary of State’s office, from a special adviser or perhaps the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) at last earning his crust. I will also work on the assumption that today’s debate is part of testing the response to that. If at any point the Secretary of State wishes to stand up and say to the House, “No, Mr. Tim Shipman of the Daily Mail as ever got it totally wrong and we have no plans in this direction,” I will happily yield the floor. But I also warn the Secretary of State that he is going down a dangerous road, because if, as we have heard this afternoon, he has no plans in this direction, there is little more dangerous than the Daily Mail spurned. But for the moment I will work on the assumption that it is correct.

[Kevin Brennan]

If my hon. Friend is incorrect and the Secretary of State has performed some kind of humiliating climbdown today, does he think that the Secretary of State will have to apologise to all those who came on the media to back him, including Toby Young and all his other friends in the right-wing press?

[Tristram Hunt]

It was amazing how they were all ready, almost whipped in, but perhaps the Secretary of State will have another visit to the High Court and his friend Judge Leveson to explain all this.

The Secretary of State will know that I have no problem with some of his policies. I am happy to support the English baccalaureate, much greater rigour in standards, and the ending of endless repeat examinations and an end to semi-vocational, grade-inflating GCSE-equivalent exams. However, I share with my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State serious reservations about the downgrading of the engineering diploma, at a time when we are interested in rebalancing the British economy. I am in favour of schools being allowed to conduct internal streaming, of academy schools in the right circumstances, of apprenticeships when done properly. As an historian, I am also in favour of pupils learning dates and poems, because that provides the structure and the architecture that allows for greater learning and understanding. I am in favour of the Wolf report and what it means for skills training.

A large part of the agenda I can concur with, but this bizarre decision to think about abolishing GCSEs and reintroduce O-levels and CSEs strikes me as deeply misguided. How would this help children in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent? I want students in my city to take GCSEs in relevant subjects, to be taught well and to aspire. I do not think that at the age of 14 they should be hived off into CSEs; for their aspirations to be put into a straitjacket. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, we know the problems about standards, but no Government Member has been able to stand up and say, “Yes, the solution to this problem is, as reported in the Daily Mail, the O-level/CSE divide.” Until we hear that, this is, as the Chair also said, a slightly bizarre debate. But I will continue working on the dangerous assumption of Daily Mail correctitude.

Looking at the Financial Times research, 25% of children in my constituency would be put into the straitjacket of CSEs. That is not the soft bigotry of low expectations, but the hard bigotry of low expectations in action. It demonstrates a total poverty of ambition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

This has been a confectionary debate featuring a number of individual sweets, not least the polo mint that constitutes the motion. I have studied it in great detail and found nothing that takes forward this country’s education debate. In the words of one coalition colleague, it is an “opportunistic wheeze.” Having studied the motion and found nothing of substance, we should then go back to the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who so enlightened the House when he outlined the Opposition’s education policy last Thursday:

“We on the Opposition side of the House believe in a modern education system that promotes high standards, rigorous exams”.—[Official Report, 21 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 1026.]

He had earlier sought an apology, but of course thus far we have had no apology for his claim that three in 10 pupils equalled 60% of them. When one studies the specific proposals he put forward last Thursday, one has to ask oneself, “Is this not lighter than air?” It is the Aero policy we are now studying—

[Kevin Brennan]

This is the humbug speech.

[Guy Opperman]

No. I can assure hon. Members that it is the hon. Gentleman’s proposals that are lighter than air; I have studied them and found that there is not much in them.

We then move on to the Celebrations moment. While I was in hospital last year, when something took place that was of good order I would be provided with a large box of Celebrations. There was such a time earlier today: the shadow Secretary of State, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, stood forth and admitted for the first time that there had been grade inflation under Labour. However, despite repeated questioning by me and others, he refused to state when he first discovered this grade inflation. Was it 1997, 2005, 2010, 2012, or was it yesterday? He failed to divulge when that magical event took place. That is a crucial point, because the discovery of grade inflation is utterly important to an assessment of how this policy is going forward.

Despite throwing money at the problem, the previous Government did not see the results. As other Members have outlined, maths, literacy and science all declined, whatever type of test was taken. Academies do work, and I applaud the expansion of that programme. Let us take as an exemplar the words of Andrew Adonis, the former Schools Minister, who said there should be “strong independent governance” that was “free of local authority red tape”, with exemplary leadership and “brilliant teachers” who were specially chosen. That is the way forward.

In Northumberland, part of which I represent, schools saw little of the financial benefit that the previous Government bestowed on individual local authorities. The situation has changed, I am pleased to say, with the rebuild announcement for Prudhoe community high school, and I look forward to welcoming the Secretary of State when he visits Northumberland shortly. I will also be showing him the amazing Queen Elizabeth high school in Hexham, another school that was denied any sort of funding or rebuild under the previous Government.

However, I have two reservations that I want to raise with the Minister. First, we should be wary of change for change’s sake. Every teacher in Northumberland I spoke with before the last election explained with growing depression how every year there was a different syllabus, a different amendment or a different set of textbooks, all costing huge amounts of money, in circumstances in which some consistency was clearly needed so that they could get on with what they wanted to do, which was to teach.

Secondly, I wish to echo some of the comments that have been made on vocational education. I am not a fan of nail technology being a GCSE. However, I represent a constituency in rural Northumberland where we value vocational education very highly. I suggest that the lesson the Minister should take forward is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is absolutely vital that we hang on to the engineering and alternative qualifications. I totally understand and applaud the desire to reduce the number of vocational qualifications, but there is a danger of being excessive in that policy, and in rural areas in particular that will affect the quality of education provided.

Given the time limit and the number of Members who wish to speak, I will bring my remarks to a close. I suggest that in these circumstances there is a great deal of scope. I support what the Government are doing and think that the motion has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a fascinating debate, with contributions from 13 hon. Members: my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). It has been an interesting, although not entirely illuminating, debate.

The Opposition have no disagreement with the case that there is a need to reform the GCSE. As the House knows, the GCSE was first sat by pupils 25 years ago. I was teaching at the time. The idea that the world has not changed sufficiently since then for the GCSE to require reform is as ludicrous as the idea that the world is sufficiently similar to how it was 50 years ago that we have to return to O-levels and CSEs. The raising of the education and training leaving age to 18 raises the fundamental question of what public examinations we need at 16 and what they are for. That is a legitimate debate. One hon. Member asked whether we need to spend the huge amount of money that we spend on examinations at the age of 16. We have to ensure that GCSEs are fit for purpose, but we do not need to go back to the future.

In the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, we do not need to recreate

“a two tier system where children at quite a young age are somehow cast on a scrap heap”.

The more observant hon. Members will have noticed that we included those words in our motion. However, the Government amendment, which is signed, among others, by the Deputy Prime Minister, would expunge those words from the motion. That is a novel approach. It might well be the first time that a senior Cabinet Minister has tabled an amendment to delete his own words.

[Dan Rogerson]

There would be a problem if the Deputy Prime Minister had said something in the amendment that disagreed with what he said before. The amendment has a different emphasis, but there is no contradiction between the two.

[Kevin Brennan]

In that case, the Deputy Prime Minister could have left his own words in the amendment that he signed, but he chose to delete them. I am tempted to say, in the words of the late, great Amy Winehouse, “What kind of Lib-Demery is this?” Let us allow for a moment the notion that the Deputy Prime Minister meant what he said about a two-tier system, despite trying to delete his own words from the motion.

The Government amendment appears to contradict the leaks from the Secretary of State’s advisers last week that he would not need parliamentary approval or Lib Dem support for his proposal to bring back CSEs and O-levels. We have it from the Financial Times that Downing street now insists that the Secretary of State cannot go ahead without approval with the proposals that he leaked to the Daily Mail last week. The Financial Times article goes on to say that

“the idea of a lower qualification for less academic children”

is “dead in the water.” Perhaps when he responds, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) will confirm whether that idea is dead in the water. If it is, why are the Secretary of State’s advisers at this moment spinning to the press lobby in the House of Commons that a lower qualification known as an N-level will be introduced—something that he did not announce to the House?

The Minister needs to come clean when he winds up. Is the two-tier plan that was leaked to the Daily Mail by the Secretary of State’s closest advisers dead in the water or not? Is it full steam ahead for the Secretary of State, or is this a humiliating climbdown? The Secretary of State was asked on three occasions—or as he would say, thrice—whether the Daily Mail report was wrong, and thrice he demurred and did not tell us. If he is making a humiliating climbdown, he must apologise to all his friends who came out in support of the proposals in the media.

The manner and timing of the leak to the Daily Mail were a disgrace, at a time when students up and down the country, who have been working hard for months on end, were sitting their GCSEs. What a contrast that is to the way in which the GCSE was introduced all those years ago. A debate was kicked off in 1976 by Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister. It was developed by Shirley Williams, although she has gone off the tracks a little since then. Come to think of it, we have not heard much from her on this subject. It would be interesting to know what she thinks. The idea was picked up by Keith Joseph—that well known lily-livered, liberal, loony lefty—and implemented by Mrs Thatcher’s Education Secretary, Kenneth Baker, following thorough debate and consideration. It was welcomed across the House.

In contrast, we now have a proposal to rip up the GCSE, with accompanying disparaging rhetoric, cooked up by a cabal, no doubt using private e-mail accounts, with no reference to the Department’s officials or to other Departments, and kept secret even from one of the Secretary of State’s Education Ministers. What a ludicrous way to run a Department that is, and how symptomatic of the Secretary of State’s seething lack of trust in his own Minister and officials.

At least we can assume that the Secretary of State would be kinder to and have more faith in those on his own side. Not so, because we now find out that not even the Prime Minister knew the details of what he was about to leak to the Daily Mail. A Downing street spokesman told the Financial Times:

“It looks as if we’re being bounced into something we weren’t prepared for.”

What about the Education Committee, which is chaired ably by the Secretary of State’s Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, who as always made a thoughtful contribution today? Let us be clear that the Chair of the Select Committee is no fan of Labour education policy. We have had many discussions about it and, to save him any embarrassment, I confirm that he is no fan of Labour education policy. Nevertheless, we respect his long-standing commitment to raising the standards for those at the bottom. As the Secretary of State well knows, the Committee is at this moment undertaking a review of qualifications and examinations that seeks to address some of these questions. What contempt the Secretary of State has shown for the Education Committee by publicising his plans in the press without any consideration of the Committee’s work. I took a sharp intake of breath when the Secretary of State said to the Chair of the Select Committee, “If the cap on aspiration fits, wear it.” That was uncalled for and was off the mark with regard to the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to helping those at the lower end. However, I know that he needs no help from me.

I met the CBI earlier today. Like us, it thinks that the GCSE needs to be looked at again. Like us, it thinks that a much wider debate is needed than the headline-grabbing call for a return to O-levels and CSEs that we have had from the Secretary of State. GCSEs are not, despite the impression that the Secretary of State tried to give last week, a worthless piece of paper, but that is exactly how Kenneth Baker described CSEs, which the Secretary of State last week seemed so keen to bring back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe pointed out, many O-levels were not rigorous qualifications, but required little more than a Gradgrindian regurgitation of facts. Factual knowledge is not enough in a world in which, as the CBI told me today, more data will be created this year than have been created in the previous 5,000 years. Rote learning is insufficient in a world that needs citizens who can process intelligently a mass of information and data in their daily lives. We need breadth and balance in the curriculum.

The GCSE was brought in not as a single examination paper, as some Government colleagues seem to think, but as a single examinations system that would give everybody the chance to succeed if they reached the required standard. That is a principle worth preserving. Reform, yes; back to the future, no.

Secondary Education

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on reports that he plans to scrap GCSEs, end the secondary national curriculum and replace examination boards with single-subject bodies.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The coalition Government’s education reforms are designed to raise standards in all our schools and give every child the opportunity to acquire the rigorous qualifications that will enable them to succeed in further and higher education and the world of work. We have already taken steps to make the curriculum in primary schools more rigorous, with a new emphasis on getting every child to read fluently and widely for pleasure, higher standards in essential arithmetic and new, more demanding expectations of the level of scientific knowledge each child will master. Draft programmes of study for our primary curriculum are out for consultation and we look forward to engaging with parents and teachers on how to help every child achieve more. We inherited a situation in which far too many children left primary school unable to read, write or add up properly. That was a crime against social justice and we are determined to put it right.

We are also taking steps to inject greater rigour into secondary education. The introduction of the English baccalaureate measure has resulted in the numbers studying physics, chemistry, biology, history, geography and foreign languages all rising. At the same time, we have already made GCSEs more rigorous by tackling the re-sit culture, ending modules and restoring marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar, but the evidence we have heard from parents, pupils, our best schools and our top universities shows that we need to consider going further.

Children are working harder than ever, but we have been told that the exam system is not working for them. Before Christmas The Daily Telegraph reported on the competition between exam boards to dumb down qualifications—[Laughter.] I do not regard falling standards in our schools as a laughing matter. Heads have told us that the current league table system incentivises weak schools to push students towards soft subjects and easier exams. Parents and students have told us that there are weaknesses with current GCSEs, which privilege bite-size learning over deep understanding and gobbets of knowledge over real learning. Academics have reported that headline improvements in exam results have not been matched by profound improvements in understanding, with researchers from King’s college London reporting today that teenagers’ maths skills have declined over the last 30 years.

We have been considering how to address these concerns and plan to issue a consultation paper shortly. We would like to see every student in this country able to take world-class qualifications, such as the rigorous and respected exams taken by Singapore’s students, for example. We want to tackle the culture of competitive dumbing down by ensuring that exam boards cannot compete with each other on the basis of how easy their exams are. We want a curriculum that prepares all students for success, at 16 and beyond, by broadening what is taught in our schools and then improving how it is assessed.

These are inevitably challenging ambitions that will require careful implementation. That is why we want the conversation on how we raise standards to be broad and inclusive. It is in all our interests that all our children do better than ever before. Although we want a broad conversation, we are also determined to reach a clear conclusion: a state school system in which every child is challenged to do much better, in which there are no excuses for failure and in which every child is introduced to the best that has been thought and written and given every opportunity to achieve their utmost.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend the shadow Education Secretary has asked me to put on the record the reason for his absence today: he is attending a meeting in Edinburgh with two of his constituents and the Spanish consul-general about the murder of their son in Spain. He sends his apologies.

GCSEs may well need improving, but a two-tier exam system that divides children into winners and losers at 14 is not the answer. The Opposition believe in a modern education system that promotes high standards, rigorous exams and a broad curriculum that prepares young people for the world of work and to succeed in life, but it seems that Ministers are in favour of going back to the future. They have cut education spending by the largest amount since the 1950s. They believe that Victorian-style rote learning is the way to teach our children. They want to bring back a two-tier exam system, designed in the 1950s, that will separate children and close off opportunity.

We on the Opposition Benches believe in rigour and high standards for all, but we also believe in a broad curriculum that prepares young people for work, so we will set a series of tests to ensure that the changes meet both. First, Labour wants higher literacy and numeracy standards. The key is to raise teaching quality across the board. Is there any reason to expect these proposals to deliver that? At best, they are a distraction from the central challenges. Standards rose under Labour because we focused on literacy and numeracy. It was we who inherited a weak system for maths and English from the Tories. Only three in 10 pupils—that is 60%, because I know that the Secretary of State is not very good at maths—got a good GCSE in 1997, more than half—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sir Tony, you are now officially a statesman, and a statesman should not yell across the Chamber. Calm yourself.

[Mr Speaker]

No point of order is required at this stage. I shall hear the hon. Gentleman on another occasion, with great anticipation.

[Kevin Brennan]

I was just testing their numeracy; the figure is, of course, 30%. We improved literacy and numeracy standards. More than half achieved five good grades at GCSE, including English and maths, in 2010. Secondly, the Government appear to be writing off a quarter of all young people at 14 with the return to the CSE. There is strong evidence that children’s performance—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman is moving towards a conclusion—he certainly should be—and it might be useful if there was a question mark somewhere.

[Kevin Brennan]

Of course, Mr Speaker.

How will these measures improve and promote social mobility? How will a return to 1950s qualifications help to prepare young people for a 21st century world of work? Is not this nothing more than a softening-up exercise to disguise a fall in attainment as Tory cuts, disruption and teachers leaving have an effect on pupils’ ability to learn? Parents, pupils and employers will be asking today what evidence there is to suggest that a return, back to the future, to the CSE and O-levels will actually work.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and associate myself with his remarks about the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who I know is unavoidably detained on constituency business. I hope that the whole House will note that he is doing his first and most important job: representing those who elected him.

The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions—[Interruption.] He asked a series of rhetorical questions. He invited us to consider that what the Government are reported to be putting forward would lead to a two-tier system. The sad truth is that we already have a two-tier system in education in this country. Some of our most impressive schools have already left the GCSE behind and opted for the IGCSE or other more rigorous examinations. It is also the case, sadly, that 40% of children do not achieve five good GCSEs, including English and maths, in our system. He said that, under the proposals that are being reported, 25% of children would be left behind. The sad truth is that at least 40% of children have been left behind under the current system. There is no excuse not to act. [Interruption.] I note what the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) says from a sedentary position, but given the questions the hon. Member for Cardiff West asked, I think that trading percentages across the Dispatch Box is not an area in which Labour Members can consider themselves strong.

The hon. Gentleman also alleged that the proposals were an attempt to move backwards. Far from it. They are an attempt to ensure that our education system stands comparison with the world’s most rigorous, because although there have undoubtedly been improvements in our schools and by our teachers over the past 20 years, they have not been sufficient to ensure that we keep pace with other jurisdictions. As Singapore, Hong Kong, Alberta and New Zealand, have improved their education systems, we have fallen behind them in relative terms, and we need to ensure that our young people have qualifications that are every bit as rigorous and a curriculum that is every bit as stretching.

The sad truth is that, if we look at the objective measure of how we have done over the past 15 years, we find that on international league tables our schools fell in reading from 523 to 494 points, in maths from 529 to 492 and in science from 528 to 514. Every objective academic study of what has happened in our education system has drawn attention to the weakness of our qualifications. We aim to address that in order to ensure that the next generation get what they deserve—a world-class education and world-class qualifications.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a similarly acute point. One of the initiatives that we announced last Thursday was making sure that those with good degrees in mathematics and science subjects who choose to go into teaching receive an additional bursary in order to entice them into the profession. It is also the case that we will prepare new routes for specialist maths teachers in primary schools, and we will also incentivise the recruitment of high-performing graduates to go into schools in the toughest areas, to make sure that the children who need help most receive it.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May I, on behalf of my colleagues, offer our best wishes to all the young people—including my daughter, Siobhàn—who are sitting their A-levels today? Investing in teacher training is a very welcome measure, but recent reports suggest a drop of 15% in the number of people applying for teacher training, and teachers are reporting a sharp fall in staff room morale. Why is the Secretary of State having such a “chilling effect” on teacher morale?

[Michael Gove]

As Robert Burns, that great poet, once said,

“facts are chiels that winna ding”—

[Hon. Members: “Translate.”] The collapse of understanding of modern foreign languages under the Labour Government is something to behold, as is the Opposition’s disdain for an important part of the United Kingdom. But those of us who are Unionists, as well as lovers of poetry, know that recent statistics from the Teaching Agency showed that, among graduates who are contemplating entering the teaching profession, the estimation of the prestige and status of teaching has risen. Those are facts—statistics—that do not lie, unlike some of the press releases that have suggested that teacher morale has fallen.

Safeguarding Children

Kevin Brennan Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

The Secretary of State is hugely engaged in the issue. I have been around the block a little longer than he has. Having been shadow Minister with responsibility for children, having dealt with safeguarding since 2003 and having been appointed to this position, I perhaps have a little more experience of the subject. When the current Secretary of State took up his position as shadow Secretary of State, his interest and his knowledge of serious case reviews on some safeguarding issues was extraordinary. He has driven the programme and enabled me and others to carry forward the proposals from Munro and others in the way we have. I remind the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that the very first review that was established in the Department for Education under the new Secretary of State was the Munro review on child safeguarding. It was nothing to do with schools or education; it was on child safeguarding. That speaks volumes.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

That is good to hear, but when both the Minister and his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said that this debate was much more important than the previous one, is it not fair to point out that the Secretary of State chose to attend the beginning of the previous debate, but not to attend this debate?

[Tim Loughton]

I am sorry that we seem to be descending into the village frippery of the last debate. This debate was announced yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had to shift various engagements to attend the House earlier and is not able to attend this debate. He trusts me and my ministerial colleagues to speak about this issue from the Dispatch Box. He follows these issues very closely. The fact that he has put the resources of the Department into ensuring that we have safeguarding improvements that are working is the test of the commitment of this Government, this Secretary of State and this ministerial team to the subject in hand.

Let us get back to the important business of saying what we have done and responding to the points that have been made. I welcome this opportunity to debate safeguarding children. It is appropriate that we should have this debate now because, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned, only yesterday we launched a consultation on revised statutory guidance, as part of our wider proposals to reform radically the child protection system in England. It is radical reform, and it is also about changing mindsets.

Before I remind hon. Members of the action that the Government have taken to keep vulnerable children safe, I want to pay tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the many thousands of professionals, social workers and others around the country who work hard to do just that, for which they receive little recognition and praise in the media or among our constituents. I often refer to social workers as the fourth emergency service. That is not an overestimation. Our reforms are designed to help those professionals to get on with their jobs better and to keep vulnerable children safer.

Although it is essential to tackle poor practice, I believe that we can and should do a great deal more to celebrate successes and to support those on the front line when they use their professional judgment to take tough decisions. I have met many hundreds of social workers over the past few years and spent a whole week in Stockport as a social worker a little while ago. They have to exercise the judgment of Solomon, often on a daily basis. It is not an exact science. They have to make difficult judgment calls, and we expect them to do so as part of their daily job.

As many hon. Members will know, the widely welcomed review completed by Eileen Munro last year laid the groundwork for a new approach to child protection. As I have said, it was the first review that we established. We are rapidly turning its recommendations into practice. Professor Munro found that the system had become overwhelmed by prescriptive bureaucracy and box-ticking, and that social workers were spending too much time on form-filling and not enough with families and vulnerable children. Endless procedures had been imposed on professionals to minimise risk, even though it is fanciful to believe that we can wish danger and insecurity away simply by ticking the right boxes. As a result, the professionalism and judgment of frontline staff had been undermined. The most important thing—the central focus on the needs of children—had been largely lost.

The answer that Professor Munro proposed was simple: we need to get back to basics of best practice. We need to allow social workers to spend more time with children and families, getting to know and understand them and responding to their particular circumstances and needs. As she put it, we need to focus

“not only on whether we are doing things right but whether we are doing the right thing.”

We accepted Eileen Munro’s findings and have been acting on them. We are beginning to see the fruits of the change of emphasis. We are seeing greater flexibility, with eight local authorities, including Knowsley and Islington, testing new approaches to the assessment of children’s needs over the past year. We have given them the freedom, through a special dispensation, to set their own local frameworks and to replace rigid time scales with professional judgments based on the needs of each child.

The feedback from the trials has been encouraging. Social workers are telling us that greater flexibility leads to more quality time with children and families, and better assessments, particularly for families with the most complex needs. Many also feel an enhanced sense of ownership over their work. We are, I hope, restoring confidence to the social work profession, which had taken such a knock.

Local authorities are telling us that with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. They have been reporting back to us about the need to monitor cases robustly to prevent drift. We are seeing a greater practical emphasis on multi-agency working and a drive towards transparency, which is essential in improving services and strengthening public confidence in the work that they do. We are seeing a stronger focus on supervision, with social workers having more time with their managers to discuss complex cases.

I am also encouraged to see an emerging greater emphasis on learning, another key point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. Increasingly, the sector is taking the lead in sharing lessons from good practice and from when things go wrong. We can learn from mistakes only if we understand how and why they happened, hence our policy on publishing serious case reviews, which I am delighted to hear the Opposition have now come around to. We are also considering how we can improve serious case reviews to make them more effective tools for learning lessons that are widely shared and that lead to action and sustainable improvements. That could not happen while only very limited executive summaries were in the public domain.

Yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we announced a further important step in our overhaul of the child protection system in England. It is a measure at the heart of the Munro recommendations: the revised “working together” strategy. That new statutory guidance for safeguarding children will help create a new culture of trust among health professionals, teachers, early years professionals, youth workers, police and social workers.

We have published three draft documents for consultation—and it will indeed be a consultation. Some of the points made by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, as well as others that the hon. Gentleman raised, absolutely need to be fed into that consultation. That was why we did not just plough ahead, much though Eileen Munro was urging us to do so. We want to get things right, just as she got her recommendations right. We want to ensure that we put them into practice in the right way so that they work properly.

Our three draft documents will replace more 700 pages of detailed instructions with 68 pages of short, precise guidance and checklists. They will be punchy but clear and give professionals space in which to exercise their professional judgment. The revised guidance proposes giving local areas more freedom to organise their services in a way that suits local needs. It will allow more face-to-face time with children and families, which is crucial, and provide a clear framework within which professionals must operate.

The first document, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, clearly states the law so that all organisations know what they and others must do to protect children. It does not tell GPs and other health professionals, teachers, police and social workers exactly how to do their job, but it provides a checklist setting out their duties and what is expected of them. It also sets out how the role and impact of local safeguarding children boards can be strengthened. As the hon. Gentleman said, they are crucial to the reforms, and they play an absolutely vital role in holding local agencies to account and getting all the key players around the same table and talking the same language.

The second document is new guidance on undertaking assessments of children in need. Informed by evidence from the eight trial local authorities, it proposes replacing nationally prescribed timetables with a more flexible approach. That approach will be focused, as it should be, on the needs of each child. It will absolutely do what the motion asks for—it will put the child’s needs, rather than compliance with inflexible time scales and recording processes, at the centre of assessment.

The third document is new guidance on learning and improvement, to help all services learn the lessons from serious case reviews. It comes from our strong belief that serious case reviews need to be much more strongly focused on learning, rather than process, and that the reports must be published so that lessons can be shared nationally and locally. In those reviews, we need to get to the heart of what went wrong and what action at what point by which individual led to a decision being made that might have contributed to a tragedy.

The approach behind those three new documents has rightly been welcomed. Professor Munro has said:

“We are finally moving away from the defensive rule-bound culture that has been so problematic. I believe an urgent culture change in our child protection system is now underway.”

Anne Marie Carrie, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, has said:

“We support changing the emphasis within the system to enable professionals to take responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of the most vulnerable children.”