School Funding: North-east of England

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this really important debate. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who will be very much missed by their colleagues.

As has often been said, the proposed fair funding formula is neither fair, and nor will it properly fund schools. As other Members pointed out, the proposed freeze on per-pupil funding is a cut in real terms. The National Audit Office estimates that inflation and cost increases will lead to a £3 billion funding gap due to reductions in real-terms spending. It is estimated that 99% of schools across the country will have a per-pupil funding cut, and schools in the north-east will be particularly badly hit.

I was appalled to note that the income per pupil of some schools in my constituency is projected to decrease by almost a quarter between the 2013-14 academic year and 2019-20. On average, that equates to a £305 cut per pupil and an average cut of 7% for each school in my constituency. The figures for individual schools paint a much bleaker picture. I was particularly concerned that the School Cuts campaign, backed by the National Union of Teachers, estimated that Durham Johnston Comprehensive School—rated one of the best-performing schools in the country—is set to lose £613 per pupil, equivalent to the loss of 19 teachers, which will have a huge impact on the school. Framwellgate School in the north of my constituency is set to lose £437 per pupil. Belmont Community School will lose £461 and St Leonard’s will lose £300 per pupil. Durham Community Business College, which serves a really disadvantaged community, will face a massive cut of £961 per pupil. That is simply devastating for the school.

Primary schools are affected too. St Oswald’s Church of England Primary School will lose £609 per pupil, and Bearpark School, which is also in a very disadvantaged community, will lose the most—£924 per pupil. That is absolutely outrageous. What can the Minister possibly say to justify such cuts?

That all equates to the potential loss of 670 teachers within the local authority of Durham and a budget deficit of more than £24 million by 2019. The situation is terrible and needs to be addressed by adjusting the funding formula and putting more money into education. Overall, the north-east is estimated to lose £119 million in schools funding in real terms by 2020—equivalent to the loss of more than 3,200 teachers. Parents and teachers across Durham have been in touch with me because they are really concerned about the situation.

In 2015, the Conservatives ran on a manifesto pledge to protect education funding, and they promised a real-terms increase in the schools budget in this Parliament. Not only have they failed to keep that promise, but, as we have said many times, they are bringing about a cut in real terms. The effects are damaging: class sizes have increased severely, subjects have been dropped from the curriculum, pupils with special educational needs have lost support, and teacher and school staff vacancies have been left unfilled. Without additional money, the already severe crisis in schools will get worse, threatening standards in education and, perhaps most critically of all, the life chances of pupils across my constituency, the north-east and the country as a whole.

In March, I met the National Association of Head Teachers in Parliament, which is unanimously deeply concerned about the cuts to school budgets. Some 72% of school leaders say their budgets will be unsustainable by 2019. At a recent meeting, headteachers in my constituency said exactly the same thing: they are having to make impossible decisions. What a difference that is compared with a decade ago. Under the Labour Government, I met headteachers regularly to discuss where the investment we were putting into schools was going to go, what new schools we would have, what new technology we would use and what new skills development we would invest in. Not only are the Government not funding our schools properly; they are wasting money on a free school that failed in my constituency, and there is now a proposal for another one. It is a total and utter waste of money.

Since my schools were chucked off the list of the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—we all remember that—they were due to get money under Building Schools for the Future because they desperately need capital investment. That money has not been forthcoming under the coalition Government or this Government, and the schools in question cannot even get a meeting with the Minister to discuss how to replace buildings that are no longer fit for purpose. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what he and his Treasury colleagues are going to do to put more money into schools and what he is going to do about capital funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I completely agree with him. This is about priorities, and the Government’s are completely wrong. Some £320 million has been promised for 70,000 new places at grammar schools, while other schools, such as those my hon. Friends have referred to, are having to send out begging letters and get rid of staff.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree that the most pernicious aspect of the Government’s education policies is that schools in the most disadvantaged areas face the biggest cuts, yet the Government waste money on grammar schools for the few and not the many?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government’s priority is an obsession with the educational policy of the 1950s and bringing back grammar schools. All of the evidence shows that those schools favour the wealthy. A child from a private prep school is 10 times as likely to get into a grammar school as a child on free school meals.

It is becoming crystal clear that the Government are not interested in the views of the profession, but I wonder whether they are interested in the views of children and parents. After all, it is their lives, hopes and dreams that the Government are playing with. Nathaniel Smithies is a year 9 pupil at Whitburn Academy in my constituency. He wanted me to say to the Minister:

“I feel worried when a school like mine with an Ofsted Outstanding is so worried that it has so little money in the coffers that it has to ask our parents to pay to try and give us the level of education I know my teachers want to give us. I’ve noticed extracurricular and enrichment activities are diminishing, and we have to pay for little extras for art or for materials like Corriflute or balsa wood for graphics lessons or modelling. And we have a set limit on printing—like if you need to print your homework out at school. I didn’t have to do this when I was in year 7.”

Nathaniel’s mam, Lisa, added:

“When I was asked to help fund my child’s education by contributing £10 per month I felt myself torn. As a mother who wants to provide my child with the best chances possible to fully realise his wonderful, as yet unrestricted potential, I will do whatever I can afford to make this happen…But by contributing to my school do I help create a two-tier education, whereby children whose parents can afford to contribute get a better education than those children whose parents are not able to contribute? Does it mean that later on I will be told by the Government that school budgets are adequate because I have helped bridge the funding gap and will now have to continue to do so to maintain the status quo?”

She went on to say:

“I often hear politicians say we need to invest in the future. Surely there is no sounder investment in the future than for a Government to invest in educating children and providing all children the opportunity to be the best they can be, so that all our futures are the best they can be. Somewhere out there among today’s schoolchildren there are future Prime Ministers and the next generation of innovators, artists, writers, athletes, engineers, soldiers, scientists, leaders, doctors, nurses and educators. A good education for all leads to a more tolerant, fairer and integrated society. We should be saying what more is needed—not how little can we spend on our schools before we break them!”

The coming election is a real chance for parents to make a choice for the future of our education system. I know what Labour’s response is to Lisa’s questions. We want an education system that works for all of our children, not just the lucky few, and we will invest to ensure the highest standards in schools, where every single child is cherished and supported. Will the Minister answer Lisa’s questions? I am sure that parents up and down the country want, and are fully entitled to, all of the answers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

The Secretary of State was right: we are protecting core schools funding in real terms. We are consulting on a range of factors such as deprivation, English as an additional language and sparsity, for which there is a flat figure per school. All those factors are part of the consultation document because we are addressing an historic unfairness in the funding system that Labour presided over for 13 years. This Government are taking action to address that. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman supported the consultation, rather than criticise it.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

8. What priorities her Department has identified for higher education in the negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

The Government are fully committed to ensuring that our universities get the best possible deal from the negotiations with the EU. We recognise the key issues for the sector as being the ability to recruit EU students, the student financial support to which they have access, EU programmes and funding streams and the status of UK students studying abroad. The future arrangements on all those issues will have to be considered as part of the wider discussions about our future relationship with the EU.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As the Minister knows, the higher education sector contributes a massive £73 billion to the UK economy, including £11 billion of export earnings, yet the Department for Education has no representation on the EU Exit and Trade Committee or Sub-Committee. What reassurances can he give the House that the priorities for the sector, such as growing the number of students and sustaining research funding, are being identified and protected in the Brexit negotiations?

[Joseph Johnson]

The Department has moved rapidly to provide significant reassurances to the sector in a number of respects, particularly on the continuity of the funding arrangements for Horizon 2020 resources. The Treasury will make up the continuing obligations on payments that fall due after we have left the EU. We have made it clear that EU students will be able to access our loan book and home fee status for the duration of their course of study if they start in the 2016-17 or 2017-18 academic year.

Schools that work for Everyone

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the consultation document that is coming out today. It sets out clearly how we want children to have more flexibility in being able to access grammars while placing conditions on the setting up of new grammars, including the need for them to work across the whole school system to raise attainment more broadly. I also say to her that we already have selection by house price and that a variety of schools already specialise, whether in music, art or sport—there will be children who do not get into those schools. The proposal is about having diversity and choice in the system to enable there to be a good school near each child that is tailored to their needs.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain why she wants to link the sponsoring of schools by universities to higher tuition fees? This country’s students are already highly indebted from paying for their education without being required to pay for secondary education as well. Universities sponsoring schools might be a good thing, but asking students to pay for it is not.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady may have misunderstood the proposal. We are saying that if universities want to be able to charge higher fees, they will need to play a stronger role in raising attainment in the system more broadly—alongside the work that they already do with bursaries. We have seen that that works effectively in some cases and want to roll it out more widely.

Education, Skills and Training

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is right that social clauses in procurement contracts have an important role to play. I make one observation, which I have made over my time in Parliament: those involved in public procurement can be very risk-averse. All too often they do not think about the extra things that they can get out of the money that the Government are spending and committing to particular projects, and they often use the excuse of EU procurement rules as a reason for not being creative enough in the way that they pursue procurement.

No one argues with the stated aim in the Higher Education and Research Bill of widening access and participation in higher education. That is what we all want to see. However, the Opposition object strongly to the approach that the Government have taken in both the White Paper and the accompanying Bill. The Business Secretary appears to believe that the solution to widening participation is to inject market forces into the provision of higher education, allowing new untried, untested providers to start up, achieve degree-awarding powers and secure university status, and he wants to force students to pay for it all through higher tuition fees.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really excellent speech. Does she agree that these reforms to higher education and this deregulation put at risk the excellent reputation of UK higher education institutions internationally—a reputation that helps us to attract so many international students to this country?

[Ms Eagle]

There is, if I may call it this, a “brand issue” with particular suggestions in the White Paper and the Bill. Again, the Opposition will want to study in great detail, and ask a lot of serious questions about, the potential consequences of what the Minister has suggested in the White Paper and the Bill.

There is absolutely no evidence that such competition will lead to higher standards or a better solution for students; indeed, it is likely to entrench privilege and elitism even more in the system. The proposal before us in the Queen’s Speech deregulates entry to what the Government clearly now see as a market in higher education. As my hon. Friend said, that is taking a gamble with the UK’s international reputation for providing the highest standards of degree education. It also means that any student studying at one of these probationary degree-awarding institutions—whatever they are going to be—will be taking a very personal gamble too. It is unclear what will happen if it all goes wrong or who will pick up the pieces.

After trebling tuition fees to £9,000 a year, the Government now wish to raise them again. They have chosen to remove the cap on tuition fees and to tie the capacity to raise fees to very dubious proxies for what they have called “teaching excellence”. Nobody objects to teaching excellence; it is like motherhood and apple pie, except that motherhood and apple pie are a lot easier to define. We can see motherhood, fairly obviously, and we can see apple pie—usually we have cut it open to check there are no blackberries in it—but it is a lot harder to know what teaching excellence is.

The Government have chosen various proxies, such as graduates’ subsequent employment records, student retention and satisfaction surveys. There are many reasons why people have good or bad subsequent employment records, and many of those have absolutely nothing to do with the teaching excellence of the schools or universities those people attended. For example, some people with disabilities are routinely discriminated against in our labour market, and is difficult for them to have a successful subsequent employment record. That may have absolutely nothing to do with the way they were taught or with the excellence of that teaching.

Likewise, many women have very different subsequent employment records from what they might have had if they had not left work early to have a family. It is also well documented that those from the black and ethnic minority communities are discriminated against in our labour market. When one looks at the figures, it is clear that many people from those communities who have exactly the same qualifications as others are discriminated against and have less successful subsequent employment records. So using subsequent employment as a proxy for teaching excellence already begins to break down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), although I disagree with him not only about the contents of the Queen’s Speech, but about Europe.

While measures to improve the national citizenship scheme, to support donations to charities, to provide the right to broadband and to protect cultural property are welcome and laudable, the measures in the Queen’s Speech fail as a whole to address the huge challenges that the country faces. These include the huge problems of underfunding and marketisation caused by the top-down restructuring of the NHS. There is nothing to deal with the chronic shortage of doctors and nurses—never mind the investment in social care that is needed properly to protect and look after older people with the dignity they desire.

On education, there is nothing to address the chronic teacher shortages, the shortage of school places and the need for capital investment to create the 21st-century schools that our constituents need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said from the Front Bench, this is a Queen’s Speech with emptiness at its core. Some measures that are in it are deeply worrying, and I shall concentrate on two specific issues.

First, I have to say I am really disappointed by the higher education Bill. The measures in it could see fees climb even higher, saddling young people who want to go to university with even more debt. Some students are already coming out of university with £40,000 to £50,000 of debt—where will this end?

On the teaching excellence framework, we support a focus on teaching quality. However, if this is simply a framework with parameters already set to enable the removing of the fees cap, it is not something we should support. I say yes to the focus on quality in teaching, providing the metrics are right and the risks of doing so are properly managed, but why is there the link to higher fees? As I said, we need to be very careful about what we are doing because of its impact on the reputation of higher education. We are therefore concerned about the deregulation of the establishment of new universities and the lack of safeguards, which could undermine the excellence of our HE institutions.

I hope that the Minister recognises that this is not because we are against the expansion of higher education. I am very much in support of it and I would like to see more of our young people going to universities. However, we are simply not sure that the Government are going about expansion in the right way. We are not the only ones to have concerns about that. As million+ has said:

“Competition can undoubtedly promote innovation but lowering standards to help new, inexperienced or small, single-degree providers with no interest in being research active, to gain degree awarding powers and university title is not opening the market but lowering the bar”.

It emphasises the huge risk of the marketisation approach, and points out that UK universities trade globally on the basis of a national quality assurance system, high student satisfaction rates and high quality teaching and research. It states:

“The assumption that institutions with UK university title or degree-awarding powers should be allowed to fail and exit the market is potentially at variance with the Government’s ambitions to promote UK higher education internationally”.

We share that set of concerns, and Universities UK argued along the same lines in its briefing to Members. We will need to hear a lot more from the Minister when we reach this Bill’s Second Reading about what safeguards will be in place.

The Minister said quite a lot today about improving participation in our universities and increasing social mobility. However, a briefing from the Open University has pointed out that the Prime Minister’s target to increase the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university is likely to fail because the number of part-time disadvantaged students entering part-time HE is falling, not increasing. Part-time HE is often the most common way for people from disadvantaged backgrounds or places to enter universities. The Open University also pointed to the lack of clear opportunities for lifelong learning—another issue that the Minister will need to address. I am astounded that there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to tackle the reduction in the number of part-time students, to promote lifelong learning or to promote upskilling and reskilling opportunities for adult learners. What we know is the budget for that has been massively cut by £335 million. One can only hope that the White Paper we are expecting in June or the autumn will address some of these issues.

Moving on, I want to comment briefly on the NHS measures. We know that the Government are ploughing ahead with the seven-day care objective, but I think they are refusing to accept the reality of what is happening in the NHS. Patients are waiting longer and therefore suffering longer. Waits are increasing and it is getting much harder to see a GP. Instead of providing measures to tackle this and the crisis in social care, we get more cuts to older people’s services. We also know of record visits to A&E, mainly because of the breakdown of services elsewhere, and £22 billion-worth of efficiency savings are not going to help. Over the last five years, my own local authority of Durham has had to make £43 million-worth of cuts to adult care, and is going to have to make a further £25 million over the next couple of years. I really want to hear from the Government what they are going to do to tackle this crisis in social care.

Lastly, I want to say a brief word about the northern powerhouse, which Ministers and, indeed, some sections of the media talk about as if it were a reality. Mine is one of the constituencies that should be benefiting from it, but I see absolutely no reality. The devolution deal brings with it very little money to promote the economy and skills development in the north-east. It would be great to know what the northern powerhouse is actually delivering, but, at present, I see nothing at all.

Apprenticeships

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I am delighted to do that, not least because the employers that my hon. Friend has mentioned demonstrate that apprenticeships are no longer narrowly confined to the traditional industries of construction or engineering. People can be apprentice lawyers, apprentice accountants or apprentice digital creators. Some day, they will probably even be able to be apprentice politicians.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that 96% of apprenticeships are delivered at levels 2 and 3. Clearly it is very good that young people and others are getting those qualifications, but is he confident that enough apprenticeship opportunities exist at level 4 and above, to provide clear apprenticeship progression routes for the young people who want them?

Also, I want briefly to point out to the Minister, whom I have some time for, that a lot of us on this side of the Chamber—not least my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who is now the Chair of the Select Committee—worked very hard under the previous Labour Government to rescue apprenticeships from oblivion. We created some very good quality apprenticeships, which the Minister can now build on, so perhaps it would be better not to make this a party political issue.

[Nick Boles]

Funnily enough, I was an apprentice politician to the hon. Lady when she was the Planning Minister and I was shadowing her. I learned a great deal in the process. She is right to say that there are currently too few higher and degree apprenticeships; we would like to see many more of them. We are making reasonably good progress, however. There were 19,800 starts on higher apprenticeships in 2014-15, which was 115% up on the previous year. Degree apprenticeships are a relatively new concept, but we are making progress and more than 1,000 people have now started such apprenticeships. We have much further to go, and there will always be more level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, but we want everyone who is doing those apprenticeships to be able to look up and see the higher and degree apprenticeships that they could move on to. I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s role, and that of the Chairman of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) in reviving the idea and the practice of apprenticeships.

Student Maintenance Grants

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for the fact that this debate is taking place. The Government would have been more than happy for these sweeping changes to higher education to pass through Parliament unnoticed, hidden away in delegated legislation—worst of all, a negative SI—with no public scrutiny. I am therefore pleased that at least we are able to call the Minister to account. However, it is extremely disappointing that he showed no contrition whatever for introducing policies that are likely to limit the aspirations of many young people in this country, or at the very least make it more difficult for them to achieve them.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because we are very short of time.

We know that these changes will affect many students. The House of Commons Library states that in 2014-15, 395,000 students received a full grant, with 135,000 getting a partial grant. That amounts to over half a million students. Currently, students who go into higher education from families with an annual income of £25,000 or less are eligible for the full grant of £3,387, and students from households with an annual income of between £25,000 and £42,620 are eligible for a partial grant. However, in the summer Budget of July, plans were announced to remove the student maintenance grant, arguing that the grants had become “unaffordable”. This, in itself, is an assertion that needs to be deconstructed. Politics is about priorities, and this Government have chosen not to prioritise the needs of students from low-income families and, astoundingly, to make them a target for cuts.

The Government have talked endlessly about the importance of hard work and rewarding those who want to achieve, yet now they are undoubtedly making it more difficult for a number of our young people to have the opportunity to access higher education. The move to £9,000 fees in 2012 has meant that students and graduates now contribute 75% towards the overall costs of their higher education. The replacement of grants with loans will further increase the contribution of individuals compared with that of Government. Yet no conversation has taken place with students, their parents or across the country as to what the balance should be.

These changes will lead to a substantial increase in debt for poor students. Assuming that students take out the maximum loans to which they are entitled, the IFS estimates that average debt from a three-year course will rise from about £40,500 under the old system to £53,000 under the new system. This is not just a fear of debt—it is an actual increase in debt. We also know from the impact statement that these changes will particularly affect women, older students and students from ethnic minorities—reason enough to stop these policies in their tracks.

I stand here as someone who is passionate about supporting students from all backgrounds who can to get to university in accessing higher education. These changes are likely to make that more difficult for them. As a country, we need to ensure that our young people have the skills to enable them to compete in a global labour market, and I am concerned that these changes will prevent them from doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I speak as a member of the Delegated Legislation Committee that discussed this issue last week. I draw Members’ attention to the remarks I made at the time and I welcome the fact that this debate is being held in this Chamber.

I want to refer to my own situation. I feel strongly that it is right for Conservative Members to dispel the myth coming from the Opposition that students from a background similar to mine will not be able to go to university as a result of the changes. I say that as someone who took out loans to get through my professional training.

To further illustrate my argument, I went to a secondary modern school and failed my 12-plus. I was advised by my teachers not to waste my time doing A-levels, but I am glad that I ignored that advice. I went to a sixth-form college and was then fortunate enough to study at university. Although my parents’ background was by no means one where money was readily available to us, I just missed out on a maintenance grant, so I understood straightaway how important it was to work during my time at university in order to fund myself and, therefore, to study hard. As a result, I worked through Christmas, Easter and the summer, and during term time at Durham.

When studying for the Bar in London, I had to take out loans and work outside my course to cover not just my maintenance but my fees. I therefore took out tens of thousands of pounds in debt, with no earnings threshold for repayment. That was incredibly daunting, but it made me determined to succeed in order to be able to pay those loans back.

Working around my studies was hard, but it gave me invaluable experience of the world of work. Most students do that as a matter of course now, so it is incredible to be told that working outside a degree makes it impossible to do a degree. That certainly was not the case for me.

Twenty years on, I regard the loans I took out to have been the best investment I have ever made in myself. I visit schools in my constituency and tell students to chase their dreams and not be put off going to university because they may not be able to afford it. It is the most incredible investment an individual can make for themselves, including in the form of a loan, which can, of course, be paid back.

Although Labour Members’ comments are well meaning, I find it patronising in the extreme to be told that the loans system will put off students in a similar situation to mine and stop young people chasing their dreams, and that it is not possible to work and study at the same time. Those who have aspiration and self-belief will make it a target to repay loans, and then they will use their degree to enjoy the successful careers afforded to them by university.

In an ideal situation, this country could afford to fund university students for their maintenance, but successive Governments have moved towards a model whereby we allow everyone who wants to go to university to go to university. Record numbers of students are studying at university, including record numbers from disadvantaged backgrounds. Students from backgrounds similar to mine are now going to university.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will not give way, because of the time. Most students understand that we are moving towards a loans system. They are comfortable with that concept and do not want bleeding hearts. What they want is a job at the end of their university degree. By balancing the books, we are making it more likely that they will have a job, security and success, and that they will be able to pay their loans back and to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

It is important that this House sends a message that university is available to all, no matter their background, and that is something that has carried me through so far.

Oral Answers to Questions

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

2. What plans the Government have to use Sure Start centres for the extension of free childcare to 30 hours a week.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Children’s centres play a valuable role in our communities. It is right for local authorities to decide on the nature of provision on the basis of local need. If there is a viable nursery in a children’s centre, of course we will strongly encourage it to help to deliver our manifesto commitment to assist families with the cost of childcare.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

In 2010 the Prime Minister said that he backed Sure Start centres, but since then more than 800 have closed, including a number in my constituency. Why are the Government not giving local authorities the necessary resources, so that they can go on helping Sure Start centres to deliver the excellent early-years and childcare provision that we know they can deliver?

[Mr Gyimah]

I agree that Sure Start centres provide some excellent support for young families. Where we disagree is that the hon. Lady wants to go on counting buildings and we want to focus on outcomes. I hope Opposition Members will join me in welcoming the fact that more than 1 million families are benefiting from Sure Start centres. As for nursery provision, only 3% of Sure Start centres currently offer day care, but we want to ensure that when centres are viable, they can deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and that is why we extended the free entitlement to disadvantaged two-year-olds, and we extended the pupil premium to three and four-year-olds so that toddlers are not behind when they turn up at school.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Apparently, the Minister has questioned the value of free school meals for young children. Has he read the excellent evaluation of the universal free school meals pilot in County Durham, and if not, shall I send him a copy?

Skills and Growth

Roberta Blackman-Woods Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. This topic is one of the most important facing our country. We must skill the next generation for the jobs of the future. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who set out clearly some of those challenges.

We know that the UK is facing the worst skills crisis for a generation, with skills levels failing to support the diversity of the modern economy and secure job opportunities and investment for the future. A number of recent reports, such as those of Lord Adonis and the OECD, clearly showed that skills shortages were the main barrier to growth among employers in our top 10 major cities. They made it clear that we need to do a much better job of linking the development of relevant skills to growth sectors in our economy. Only then will we deliver the economic growth that is needed for the future.

Nowhere is that more exemplified than in my own area of the north-east of England. We had a very interesting report from the local enterprise partnership last year, which set out the challenge very clearly, stating that, for the north-east, it

“is not just the number of jobs but the quality of these jobs”

Improving the quality is fundamental to its plan. It says:

“the area needs to increase the volume of skills at a higher level to address a changing demographic, in particular higher skills required by employers of younger people and those moving into and between work”.

That clearly sets out the situation we face. The report also highlighted the fact that productivity levels are a real problem—we have heard about that today—as are the skills levels. The report mentioned the disparity in skills levels between more advantaged areas and disadvantaged areas, including areas such as the north-east. It states:

“The proportion of secondary schools judged as good or outstanding for teaching in the least deprived areas is 85%—almost equal to the national average of 86%. In the most deprived areas however, this drops to 29% compared with the national average of 65%.”

This shows the “massive…percentage point difference” between the proportions achieving five A to C grades at GCSE in the average areas in comparison with the most deprived areas. The Government have not given that problem enough recognition when it comes to putting additional resources into the areas that need it most.

Overall, there has been an increase in levels of educational attainment in the north-east and a fall in the proportion of adults with no qualifications. As I said, however, we need to increase the volume of higher-level skills to address the changing demographics in the region, with a particular focus on key sectors, particularly the STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—sector. In many areas of the UK, there are too few people achieving qualifications in STEM subjects, particularly among women.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on these issues. Does she think that it was a retrograde step when the previous Government scrapped Aimhigher? We all talk about aspiration, but in many of the communities my hon. Friend mentions, we need to raise those ambitions further.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it was a hugely retrograde step to get rid of Aimhigher, as indeed it was to scrap other measures that supported young people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, into taking up opportunities in further and higher education.

The CBI cites major skills shortages in STEM subjects as being a major barrier to growth, while the Royal Academy of Engineering forecasts that the UK needs an extra 50,000 STEM technicians and 90,000 professionals each year just to replace people retiring from the work force.

We are really fortunate in the north-east in that there have been more new technology company start-ups than in any areas of the UK outside London. However, due to skills shortages, organisations frequently need to recruit from outside the region—and increasingly overseas—to fill the skills gaps in the area. We want to see young people skilled, and the reskilling of those who are currently seeking work, so that they can find employment in some of the key sectors that are growing in the north-east, such as advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, our university and technology sector, professional services, tourism, creative and digital industries, logistics and the renewable energy sector. Improved investment and additional skills are needed if we are to achieve the 100,000 additional jobs that the LEP wants to see across those sectors over the next 10 years.

We also want an expansion of high-quality vocational education and youth apprenticeships to establish a stronger non-university route into employment. That is not to say that higher education is not important—I think it is, and we must continue to invest in it—but we want to ensure that young people know that there are wider training opportunities available. They might want to know that they can combine vocational education in the workplace with education in the university and further education sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), one of our Front-Bench team, produced a wonderful report last year called “Robbins Rebooted” that really highlights the mixtures that we are capable of achieving when we are imaginative about training opportunities for young people to take them from school into the workplace. They can be then assigned to college courses to ensure that they get the skills levels they need.

Let me make two brief points before I conclude. Funding from Europe is really important in the north-east and sustains a lot of our skills and education. In future debates about staying in Europe, it is really important that European social fund financial support is put into the mix, because we could not sustain the skills levels without it.

Devolution is very much on the agenda in helping areas to link the skills that are needed to future economic development. The Association of Colleges has produced a very helpful report for all of us that considers what devolution could bring by giving local people much more knowledge about the industries there are likely to be in the area in the coming years and how they can acquire the skills for themselves and for their children and grandchildren so that they can take on those opportunities.

My final challenge is for the Minister. Will he say what he is going to do to sustain investment in the infrastructure supporting education and skills development and to ensure that those opportunities are spread into the most deprived areas of our country?