Adoption

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Lee]

I of course welcome any initiatives that are being taken, and I am sure that more information will be presented about the pilots and process in Wales, which will help us all, throughout the country.

Turning to the streamlining of the process, I ask the Minister this: do the Government consider that the process takes too long on occasion? Are the assessments too lengthy? Is there too much bureaucracy? Again, I am not criticising individual social workers—adoption is not an easy area to work in, and those working in adoption teams are often passionate and committed to seeking a placement for children for whom they are responsible. My concern is about the culture that has developed regarding assessment and the heavy-handed approach to form-filling. We need to reach a position where professionals feel confident to exercise their judgment to make decisions. That is perhaps reflected in the conclusions of Eileen Munro’s review into social workers and how we can improve prospects for professionals.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way, and I congratulate her on securing this important debate.

May I reinforce the hon. Lady’s point? Does she agree that Martin Narey’s evaluation of what is going on in the area is striking? He reported that one local authority required

“prospective parents to go through 146 pages of assessment.”

He also met a couple who had had to spend

“12 days with a social worker in their home assessing their readiness for adoption.”

At a time when almost

“three quarters of councils failed to place a child with their new adoptive family within 12 months of the adoption being finalised”,

does she agree that on both sides of the House we need to give the strongest support to Martin Narey in sending out the signal that pace and purpose need to be brought into the whole process, in the interests of the children?

[Jessica Lee]

I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Of course we need to support Martin Narey, and I will come on to his report.

Another anecdotal example that one hears is that households are assessed through a form that is several pages long about the number of pets in the household, the fire drill process and so on. It prompts the question: where does the balance fall? Of course we need to safeguard children—no one would object to that. However, if every family of every newborn child who goes home from hospital with their natural parents had to produce a fire drill, a pet assessment form and details about its private life, the country would come to a standstill. We do not want to discourage people who have agreed to adopt and who have made an emotional commitment and a life-changing decision from applying. The concern, which we must tackle, is that such people are distracted or discouraged from continuing the process. In his report, Mr Martin Narey gives some excellent examples of where the problems lie.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. There is something seriously wrong with a process where those who can pay get it and those who cannot pay have to wait.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman share the ambition that Martin Narey set out regarding the scale of change needed when he suggested that the number of adoptions ought to double and the time taken to complete them ought to halve? Is that not the scale of change that we must press for?

[Jim Shannon]

I welcome those constructive comments. I would say that the number should more than double. If only 61 people in Northern Ireland were adopted in a year when 2,660 were awaiting adoption—I am mindful that those figures are for both short-term and long-term care—I would like that figure to more than double. However, I accept that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Smith]

I mention that ambition because that is what Martin Narey said. He set it in context by saying that even people who are pro-adoption—incredibly, he comes across people who are anti-adoption—have a feeling that that is too ambitious and undeliverable, but like the hon. Gentleman, I think that we ought to be capable of doing better than that.

[Jim Shannon]

I think that we all agree that we have to set targets that meet the need. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am not sure that I can exceed the florid language of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). I congratulate the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee) on securing the debate hard on the heels of national adoption week.

The more observant Members in the Chamber have realised that I am not the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is incredibly disappointed that he cannot be present at the debate today—so disappointed that we spoke twice on the phone yesterday. He apologised personally to the hon. Member for Erewash, but he was in Birmingham yesterday and Sheffield today, speaking at child protection conferences among many other things. I will not say that he would rather be here, because that would cause terrible offence to people in Sheffield, but he was desperate to be present.

The debate has been fantastic—knowledgeable, passionate and informed by personal stories of adoption, whether as barristers or as families, whether as a brother or as adoptive parents. Hard on the heels of national adoption week, it is helpful to be able to do some of the myth-busting of which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke. It is helpful to air some of the myths, then systematically knock some down. We want to be open to many more people as adoptive parents and to be robust in challenging some of the things that have grown up and which prevent people who have an enormous amount to give from coming forward.

The hon. Member for Erewash is a member of the Under-Secretary’s ministerial advisory group on adoption, so she is aware of his particular interest and passion. He is very determined to ensure that more children who have been overlooked are considered appropriately for adoption, in particular older and disabled children, and to speed up the adoption process as much as possible, so that they can be adopted at a younger age.

Over the past year, a great deal of activity has been going on. The Under-Secretary has been leading a wide programme of reform. The Government have issued revised guidance and national minimum standards, and an adoption and special guardianship data pack is available for local authorities to use to challenge the operation and performance of their adoption service. The Under-Secretary appointed Martin Narey as the ministerial adviser on adoption, and approved funding for Barnardo’s in partnership with the Coram Foundation, to engage with 24 local authorities and help them to improve adoption outcomes for children and the adoption services. The Government have approved funding for the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, to raise awareness of and to promote adoption, and for a one-year pilot project with a number of local authorities to gain a better understanding of how the adoption register is used to find families for children in need of adoption, and how matching decisions are made, which picks up on a point made by the hon. Member for Erewash. Findings from the project will inform the work of the register in helping local authorities to increase their matching rates.

As a number of hon. Members stated, disappointingly, adoption figures have fallen this year. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), as well as by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Erewash, that adoption is not the only process. Special guardianship and permanent residency orders might well be more appropriate for some children in some situations. However, today’s debate is specifically about adoption, so what I want to say from here on in is specifically about adoption.

As the Prime Minister made clear last week, for too long, many children have been let down by the whole system, which was a point well made by the hon. Member for Erewash in her opening remarks. One person at fault is not what leaves so many children who should be adopted not getting that opportunity. The system has many different barriers at the moment, such as local authorities or the family justice system. The Under-Secretary has a chart on his wall, on which he can see the particular blocks in the system that cause the delays—a visible image that he looks at every day, to remind himself of the barriers and of where the Government is pushing to make the whole system more efficient.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North mentioned performance tables, which we released last week. I absolutely recognise her point, that we need to get under the skin of what some of those data mean. In some cases, local authorities might appear to have a slower rate, but they may be extremely good at placing older children, for example. However, that is part of encouraging local authorities to look at their practice and perhaps that of their next-door authorities. The lack of such a process, in particular with children in care and adoption, is a continual frustration to Ministers and I have heard the Under-Secretary speak about it. Often, one local authority appears to be completely oblivious of the good practice in a neighbouring authority that is fantastic in some areas. By putting the information out there, we hope that local authorities will speak to one another more and question their own work and that of their neighbours, and so understand how they might improve their practice.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

If the underperforming authority does not improve, would the Minister go so far as to support the authority with good performance taking over the responsibilities of the underperforming authority?

[Sarah Teather]

Local authorities have been working with the Government to improve their performance, with more peer-led performance improvement across the piece, particularly in this area. We are encouraging much more peer mentoring and working together to challenge performance on the ground. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary when considering what action we might take.

Last week, we published an adopters’ charter, to ensure that anyone who really wants to adopt a child is welcomed with open arms and can receive all the help and support that they need. That picks up on what many hon. Members have said. We want adopters to feel valued and respected for offering a chance to transform a child’s life. Many of the issues raised earlier, such as age, smoking or obesity, are not written into statutory guidance or legislation. Some things build up on the ground, unfortunately, as an expected way in which people will be rejected, but those are not things that the Government are facing or that local authorities ought automatically to use to rule some people out as parents. The child’s needs must always be paramount. I hope that things such as the adopters’ charter will help to deal with all those issues that potential families might face, to ensure that they are given the necessary support.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) asked whether we are doing any research on support for adopted—

Higher Education Policy

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We look forward to the report that Ian Diamond is preparing on precisely how we can improve efficiency in our universities.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Willetts]

No, I am going to make some progress because Members in all parts of the House wish to speak and I have a lot more ground to cover.

We have not only taken on Lord Browne’s proposals in the report commissioned by the previous Government as their way of reforming the finances of our education system, but tried to improve on those proposals. The crucial way in which we have done that is by improving the repayment terms for graduates. A very important feature of the new system is that instead of the repayment threshold of £15,000 that was left to us by the previous Government, we propose a threshold of £21,000. The only way in which people pay for higher education is as graduates repaying their loans, so the level of threshold and the amount of the repayment that they make is crucial. Under our scheme, a care worker graduating in 2016 with a £20,000 starting salary would repay nothing. Under Labour’s £15,000 repayment threshold, that care worker would have been repaying £37.50 a month. Under our scheme, an accountant graduating in 2016 with a £25,000 starting salary would repay £30 a month. If the repayment threshold had remained at £15,000, that accountant would have been repaying £75 a month.

The crucial figure that matters for young people thinking about the cost of their higher education is how much they will have to repay. Under our scheme, their monthly repayments will be significantly lower. That is why the Secretary of State and I are confident that these reforms are the right way forward and are genuinely progressive. We are discharging our obligation to future generations in exactly the way the shadow Secretary of State set out at the beginning of his speech. That is the crucial challenge and we believe that our reforms rise to it.

That is not just my view or that of the Secretary of State, but the view of bodies that have scrutinised our financing proposals. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that

“the Government’s proposals are more progressive than the current system or that proposed by Lord Browne.”

The OECD endorsed the coalition’s policy:

“The increase in the tuition fee ceiling is reasonable and should pave the way for higher participation in tertiary education”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister admitted that these proposals have been driven by the need to cut the public sector deficit, rather than by any wider educational considerations. Borrowing to give grants to universities counts as public borrowing, whereas borrowing to make loans to students does not, because that is offset, at least in part, by an income stream. This is an accountancy smoke and mirrors exercise, on which the Minister has based one of the most seismic changes in educational funding imaginable. At the end of the day, if the figures are wrong, it will still be the taxpayer who foots the bill. If the loan obligation is higher than expected, that will present problems. If the income, in return, is lower than expected, that will present additional problems. On the basis of the evidence that we have seen so far, that is the situation that is emerging.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Was my hon. Friend struck, as I was, by the failure of the Minister, who declined to take my interventions on the point, to address the issue put to him by our right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham)—that at the Public Accounts Committee, his own permanent secretary had said that at the current level of fees, universities faced a cash funding gap, which could be plugged only by cutting the teaching grant further or by cutting numbers? Is not that the mess they have left us in?

Government Skills Strategy

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

My sincerest apologies, Mr Hood; I was not aware of that.

My apprentice is a great example of my next point, which is that apprenticeships can be well suited to academic students, who can go on to achieve at university. He is now applying for degree courses to start next year and hopes to study history at the university of East Anglia. That is why I welcome the Government’s intention to create “clear progression routes” from level 3 to level 4 and higher education. That will give people like my apprentice a chance to see a busy workplace, to make things happen in the real world and to get money in their pockets, without having to abandon all hope of taking part in the pub crawls, protests at Westminster and student politics that so enrich university life.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and I agree with the thrust of what he is saying. Does he agree that there must be a thoroughgoing effort with employers, taking account of the needs of employers, in order successfully to establish more apprenticeships? In my constituency, we have the excellent example of apprenticeships at BMW, which encapsulate the sort of progression route that he mentions. Indeed, the demand to get on those apprenticeships is terrific, with the number of applicants greatly exceeding the number of places. Is it not the case that we need more such employers offering those opportunities, which will benefit them as well as the economy and those who are taken on?

[Robert Halfon]

The right hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience in these matters; indeed, his experience is far greater than mine. I agree with him. There are two sides of the coin, and this push will not work unless businesses are incentivised and encouraged in more ways than one to set up apprenticeship schemes and to do the things that he describes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Part of the problem with people who want to do apprenticeships is that they cannot afford to do so. I am lucky that the apprentice in my office lives with his family; it would be much harder if he did not, as the apprentice wage is just under £100 a week. That is why we need a royal society of apprenticeships. That is why I am working with student organisations and others to bring about an incentive scheme. If we change the culture and prestige of apprenticeships, there will be a genuine substantial financial incentive for people to become apprentices. Another big problem relates to single parents wanting to do apprenticeships. The Essex county council scheme is specifically directed at such low-income groups, and it needs to be replicated.

I believe strongly that companies tendering for Government contracts should include a clause in their agreements that will boost apprenticeships. I suggested that Essex county council should consider including such a clause for its major construction projects. Today, I received confirmation that it is committed to making that happen; all who tender for major construction works with Essex county council will need to have an apprentice. That is an important step.

I turn to the question of EMA reform. A debate on the subject is taking place in the main Chamber as we speak, but I wish to discuss the matter with the Minister. A central aspect of further education is the affordability of studying, and getting young people not only to start but to finish their courses. I support reform of the educational maintenance allowance, as I accept that there are flaws in the current system. However, certain factors might affect students and apprentices, particularly those from deprived backgrounds. I shall use my local college as an example.

Nearly two thirds of learners at Harlow college receive the EMA, and 80% of them receive the full £30 a week. The college estimates that between 300 and 400 learners at Harlow—about 10% to 15%—depend on the EMA for lunch and dinner and for travelling to college. Those learners are the most vulnerable, from the poorest housing estates. The next tier is made up of a further 300 to 400 learners, another 10% or 15%, who are not the very poorest but are still from deprived backgrounds—people who strive and work hard. Without the EMA, they would need part-time jobs to increase their income significantly, but given the job market today that is not easy.

Harlow college is not stuck in the past, and it welcomes reform. It is not reactionary and does not represent what Tony Blair once described as the forces of conservatism. Whatever system we put in place, however, we must recognise the different financial positions of those two groups. I have discussed with the principal of Harlow college making the EMA, or a centrally administered college fund, dependent on improvement rather than attendance. It is something that he supports. We believe that learners should earn their money not simply by showing up, but by being punctual, behaving well, working hard and making good progress. As with apprenticeships, it would teach young people the work ethic. For level 3 courses, there are several value-added measures, including the key stage 5 achievement and attainment tables, that can be used at the end of a course to measure the success of tying EMA funds to achievement.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He makes a good point. We could have a separate debate about the EMA; indeed, one is going on at the moment. He understands well the circumstances of the students and apprentices at his college. Does he believe that, under the Government’s proposals, there will be enough in the discretionary fund to incentivise and reward students, as he advocates?

[Robert Halfon]

I cannot answer that question because we do not yet know what the grant will be. I support reform of the system, but I want to ensure that those about whom I have spoken are not disadvantaged. As soon as I know what the grant will be, I shall be able to give a better answer.

Harlow College monitors the progress of learners every day on all the measures that I described earlier—attendance, punctuality, behaviour, work done and progress made. The Minister has a genuine passion and feeling for vocational education, and I hope that he will discuss the matter with his colleagues when considering reform.

The self-reliance, freedom and maturity that come from earning one’s own money are not to be underestimated. We have many reasons to be cheerful about the economy, and the Government’s skills strategy is a critical first step towards restoring the centuries-old British tradition of vocational training and manual craft. University technical colleges will accelerate the Minister’s efforts to improve the prestige and status of apprenticeships and to strengthen the routes from apprenticeships into higher education—especially if, as I hope, we have such a college Harlow. As I said, that is important for social justice, because apprenticeships are our best hope against the compounding problems of stalled social mobility, our skills deficit and our rising NEET population.

I sincerely hope that we can make progress in creating a society of apprentices, nudging other councils into adopting Essex county council’s pioneering wage-subsidy scheme, and creating an EMA system that supports the poorest and the most deserving. We must reward determination. One of my favourite books is “David Copperfield” by Charles Dickens. Although David starts off life being treated very badly by Mr Murdstone, he later finds an apprenticeship with a solicitor. Towards the end of the book, he says:

“I was not dispirited now. My whole manner of thinking was changed. What I had to do was to turn the painful discipline of my younger days to account by going to work with a resolute and steady heart.”

It was David Copperfield’s apprenticeship that transformed his life and circumstances. I know that that is what the Minister intends for our apprentices, and I look forward to his reply.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on his excellent contribution and the Government on their skills strategy, which is an excellent piece of work. Clearly, if we are to get this country back on its feet, apprenticeships will be key. They will generate private sector jobs, particularly in manufacturing and industry, which will create wealth, so I really welcome this strategy. The fact that we are creating 50,000 new apprenticeships for young people, using, in part, some £50 million from the Train to Gain fund is good news. Moreover, we will put some £605 million into creating 75,000 apprenticeships for adults. That is an area that has not been given the funding or attention that it deserves, so I really appreciate the investment.

My hon. Friend talked about the challenge of creating apprenticeships that are valued, and that goes hand in hand with making manufacturing jobs, or any job that requires the use of one’s hands as well as one’s brain, valued in this community. In Germany, those involved in such industries are well respected, and we must bring that view here. I agree with my hon. Friend that bodies should be created to help build some pride in the idea of being an apprentice. I ask the Minister to think of a way in which we can regenerate some value in the word “technician”. Those of us who have been lucky enough to go to university can call ourselves graduates, which is an incredibly valuable term. It would be good if we could make the word “technician” resonate in the same way.

The Government are looking to raise the baseline for apprenticeships. At the moment, we have NVQ level 2, which is the basic apprenticeship scheme, NVQ level 3, which is the advanced apprenticeship scheme and NVQ level 4, which is the higher apprenticeship scheme. The Government plan to make the advanced level the new baseline, which is an excellent idea. That will help people to aspire to something higher and enable employers to see how much we value the scheme.

Research has shown that those who take on apprenticeships do better economically than those who do not. An advanced apprentice is likely to earn £105,000 more over a lifetime than a colleague with a lower qualification, so there is a definite win for the individual who makes that investment.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) talked about some apprentices starting courses and not completing them. I am heartened to find that the apprentice success rate is on the increase. The latest figures that I have seen put the success rate at 70.9%, which, in the grand scheme of things, is not bad at all. In my constituency of Newton Abbot, we have a history of manufacturing. Originally, Newton Abbot was at the heart of the railway industry. When that fell away in the 1950s, a number of individuals were taken on at Centrax, which has been the hub of engineering and manufacturing in my constituency. I am pleased to say that the organisation has attracted a number of other businesses to the area. Getting apprenticeships working well in the area should help more engineering businesses—some of them will be very small—to establish and develop in the area.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I am following the hon. Lady’s remarks with interest. She referred earlier to the shift of more apprenticeships to the higher levels. Has she seen the Association of Colleges briefing for this debate, which points out that such a shift is not as simple as it might appear, because the time commitment and the cost increase for both the apprentice and the employer? Moreover, it found that there was less demand from employers for apprenticeships at the higher level. Does that not reinforce the point that I made earlier that there must be a thorough dialogue and engagement with employers, with incentives where appropriate, to ensure that they take advantage of the scope to expand the higher level apprenticeships?

[Anne Marie Morris]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is crucial that we get employers as engaged in the process as the potential apprentices. A private sector vocational organisation in my constituency is an excellent example of that. Before finding the apprentices, it makes contact with local businesses to explain the opportunities offered by the scheme and to create those apprenticeships. That sort of proactive approach is invaluable. The more of that we can do, the better off we will be.

The real value of the apprenticeship scheme is that it will give young people an alternative. Not everyone is suited to an academic career. Many NEETs in our society feel that there is no real alternative. Nationally, we have more than 1 million NEETs, which is far too high. In Devon, within which my constituency sits, there are 1,190 NEETs between the ages of 16 and 18 —5.7% of the youngsters—which is a huge waste. Research shows that the cost to the taxpayer is substantial—around £97,000 over a lifetime. Some people put the cost as high as £300,000 because of the associated benefits, which is a huge price to pay both financially and socially. Therefore, this must be the right way forward.

To get the apprenticeship programme working well, we must look at the linked-in skills training that is on offer and establish the link between training colleges and sixth forms. Will the Minister tell us what sort of grant might be available to those skills colleges, because, at the moment, that is an area that lacks clarity? A number of training organisations and colleges in my constituency have questioned me on the matter. They ask what the picture will be when the Train to Gain programme slowly begins to evaporate. They are particularly concerned that grants will be as available to the smaller organisations as they are to the larger organisations. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that particular front.

As I have said, it is important to get employers to play their part and to incentivise them, as the college I referred to earlier is doing. We want our colleges literally to go out on the streets and find those young people. I have been very impressed by South Devon college, which does just that. There are parts of Newton Abbot where young people with no education, training or job congregate. Individuals go to those places to talk to young people about what might be possible. That is absolutely the right way forward, and I welcome it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this enormously important debate.

In my interventions, I stressed the critical importance of engaging employers, and I hope that the Minister will tell us how we will do that. It would also be helpful if he were to say in his concluding remarks how he sees the skills strategy in the context of the local economic partnerships and what scope there will be to take a strategic overview of local needs. Given the nature of my constituency, I have always been interested in that. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) has mentioned the status of technicians, and their status in our world-leading universities in Oxford and in related scientific research institutions in Oxfordshire is critical. There are concerns whether there will be a supply of suitably qualified people to fill the vacancies when a lump of people retire at a particular time in the future. That is precisely the sort of issue on which a local economic partnership should be able to take a strategic view on an area basis.

I want to mention something that has not been touched on so far. The proposal that those on inactive benefits will no longer receive reductions in their course fees was not included in the skills consultation document published last summer. As I understand it, such people will have to meet 50% of the cost of courses, other than on courses for basic literacy and numeracy. Colleges are worried at the effect that that will have on participation among lone parents, those on incapacity benefit and others.

I have particular concerns about Ruskin college in my constituency. The college runs a number of short courses that attract a significant number of people who are presently in receipt of inactive benefits. Many are older learners, lone parents, carers, people on disability benefits, people who have suffered alcohol and drug dependency problems or mental ill health, and homeless people with no registered address. Most such students on short courses are unlikely to be in a position to pay fees.

For many of these students, going on a course is a step in re-establishing their self-esteem and acquiring useful skills that will enable them to progress further. Ruskin college has mentioned to me an example involving a woman who had a total mid-life crisis and mental breakdown. She saw the Ruskin college brochure in hospital and did free short courses with the college, benefiting from the full fee remission. She went on to get two degrees and she is now a college lecturer, probably helping with the skills drive that we are all so keen to sustain.

How does the Minister see the configuration that is coming forward addressing the needs of such people? Given that it will take time to put the Government’s new proposals in place, does it really make sense to end fee remission for those in receipt of benefits before other provision is put in place? This issue will affect a lot of people across the country, as well as at Ruskin and other colleges in my constituency. I would be grateful if the Minister were specifically to address that point.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. I also congratulate him on his clear and evident pride in his local college and on the work that he is already doing in Parliament to promote issues relating to apprenticeships. We have had a thoughtful and inclusive debate, which has not been rabidly partisan. I want to continue in that way, but I nevertheless want to pick out some of the implications and unintended consequences of the Government’s skills strategy, which gives Labour Members real concern.

I want briefly to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has discussed skills deficits, particularly in construction, and the NEETs problem. It is fair to say that none of us in any party and, for that matter, none of the experts has a magic wand to deal with that problem. We can argue about the rights and wrongs and about the needs behind the Government’s current economic policies, and we will, but I merely say—I invite the Minister to touch on this—that it is inevitable that those policies will sharpen the challenge that we face and increase the number of people in the category that we are talking about, at least in the short term. For example, we have seen that with some of the rises in unemployment. We also need to be careful that changes in administration within skills policy, and related issues in the Minister’s portfolio, do not, however well-intentioned, unintentionally exacerbate the problems of NEETs, because of their speed and the lack of a proper transition period.

It is particularly interesting that the hon. Member for Harlow has discussed access to loans, which other hon. Members have also mentioned. I want to touch on how the process will pan out, and put one or two questions to the Minister. At this point, all I want to say is that some people who have been mentioned, such as older people and single mothers, are, because of their backgrounds, precisely the ones who will need most nurturing and support in entering the process. As I have said before and will continue to say, the Government, or certain people in the Government—not least Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers—are keen on the concept of nudging people. We all nudge people, sometimes inadvertently on the tube, but it is highly relevant to the debate on the Government’s skills strategy to point out that sometimes—again, I am not imputing malevolence of plan or thought—the net effect of policies is to nudge people away from things, as well as to nudge people towards them.

It is interesting that the hon. Members for Harlow and for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) have raised concerns about the EMA. I congratulate them on referring to practicalities such as transport and support equipment. Those issues have, of course, been taken up by individuals and colleges. The same concerns have been expressed to me at the colleges in my constituency, Blackpool sixth-form college and Blackpool and the Fylde college, and they also show up in surveys conducted by the Association of Colleges and the 157 Group. If the Minister and I were not here in delightful surroundings under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, we would undoubtedly be in the main Chamber listening to the arguments about the Government’s current position on the EMA. What I took from the remarks of the hon. Members for Harlow and for Newton Abbot, as well as from other interventions, were concerns not only about the change itself, but about the process of change and the transition period. The Minister will want to comment and reflect on those remarks.

The hon. Member for Harlow has discussed university technical colleges, a concept with which I, like him, am familiar. Lord Baker bent my ear on the subject in my previous incarnation as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on skills, as he has successfully bent the ears of many others. Lord Baker is, like me, a historian, and he feels strongly that it is a matter of completing unfulfilled business from the Education Act 1944. The only thing that I say—again, I invite the Minister to make observations on this point—is that it is laudable and entirely desirable that there is a renewed emphasis on how best to provide vocational education to the 14-to-19 range and on the mechanisms for doing so. However, the problem is that the field is now getting crowded. There are proposals for university technical colleges, and there are long-standing proposals for studio schools, which the Secretary of State for Education warmly endorsed at the recent launch of the first tranche. I declare an interest in the sense that the local authority in Blackpool is strongly bidding for a studio school. Of course, the Prime Minister also made observations only a few days ago about the concept of free schools for 16 to 19-year-olds.

I make no comment on some of the ideological conflicts that may arise in that context; I merely point out that if there is a market including UTCs, studio schools and free schools for 16 to 19-year-olds, there will have to be a lot of careful adjustment and thought about the implications for sixth-form and further education colleges. I hesitate to use the words “Maoist and chaotic” in that context, because they have, of course, already been used, rather tellingly, to describe the way in which the Government—sadly, this involves the Minister’s Department—are proceeding with local enterprise partnerships. However, I want to stress the importance of not getting into a mess over a plethora of options in the relevant area. The last thing that any of us wants is for the new-found enthusiasm in all parties for the strengthening of vocational education to be dissipated by arguments about structure.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s argument. Is it not crucial that the core mission and function of further education colleges, and their ability to deliver it, should be buttressed, supported and enhanced? That should include such issues as inequality in funding per student, as between FE and schools. The previous Government started to narrow that discrepancy, but it should be removed altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Hood, to serve under your chairmanship, even more so as it is the first time, and it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden). While the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) was making his erudite interventions, I was thinking about what Chesterton said about Oxford:

“a place for humanising those who might otherwise be tyrants or even experts.”

It would be altogether more convenient if the person shadowing me were a tyrant or a fool, but unfortunately the hon. Gentleman is neither, which actually, on balance is a cause more of joy than sorrow.

It is also a pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate. I know how enthusiastic he is about the subject, and he rightly championed the work of Harlow college, kindly mentioning that I visited the college with him. He has illustrated his commitment to apprenticeships by taking on an apprentice himself, and I invite many other colleagues, including Ministers and shadow Ministers, to follow his example.

An even greater pleasure than serving under you, Mr Hood—and that pleasure is almost inestimable—is to be able to discuss the Government’s skills strategy, albeit in a short debate. I will endeavour both to talk about that, and to pick up the points that have been made by a variety of speakers today.

The skills strategy had its inception shortly after we came to government. As soon as I became Minister, we ran a considerable consultation—over the summer—and we engaged providers, employers and learners, with colleges obviously central to the process. We have now published the strategy, and I have copies here for anyone who would like one—shorter summaries for those with less patience and longer versions for those with more.

The genesis of the strategy dates to when, in opposition, I was able to study these matters over many years, and I had many discussions with the hon. Member for Blackpool South when he was running the all-party group on skills. I do not think that there is much of a gap between our views on the issues. It would be wrong to exaggerate the consensus, but I do go with Wilde in that arguments

“are always vulgar, and often convincing.”

So we do not want to have more of an argument than we need to, and there is certainly some unity of view as to the aim. I suppose that that is because we both broadly buy the analysis of the Leitch report, that an advanced economy needs ever-advancing skills, and that we are falling short in that regard. I shall say more about that in a moment or so.

The report mentions many other things, including, as has been mentioned, the need to upskill and reskill the existing work force as well as to train young people who enter the labour market. It makes particular recommendations on intermediate and higher-level skills, an area in which we are failing to do as well as we must if we are to maintain competitiveness. I am pleased to say—confirm, perhaps—that what is at the heart of that analysis is also very much the Government’s view, which is that skills have a direct relationship with productivity and therefore competitiveness. That is, I suppose, a matter of opinion, but I take it almost as an a priori assumption. I say that as though the case must be made only because some people would still argue a counter-view that labour-market flexibility and a much more fluid system for skills can work in a modern economy, but I take the contrary view that as we invest in skills the economy shapes around that investment. My perspective is, I think, reflected in the previous Government’s assumptions, and largely by Leitch.

It would be remiss of me not to say, as the hon. Member for Blackpool South was kind enough to point out, that we debate all of this in very difficult circumstances, but what is interesting about the strategy is that it would have been necessary irrespective of the changed and challenging financial situation. It had its genesis long before we came to government, long before we knew quite what size of deficit we would face and, indeed, long before we had devised a method for dealing with that deficit. The strategic change—the rethink about the skills we need and about how we will deliver them—preceded the advent of the economic strategy, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the consultation that I described earlier preceded the comprehensive spending review negotiations which, of course, shaped the amount of money that the two Departments in which I am a Minister have to spend.

Without wanting to be unnecessarily partisan, I must say just a little about the previous Government’s record. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not mind a short partisan section in a speech that will otherwise be wonderfully and refreshingly non-partisan. The previous Government did get some of this badly wrong, not in ambition—as I have described—and not even in their analysis of the problem, but in the solution. There were two fundamental problems with their approach. Although they spoke the language of a demand-driven system, it was just that—mere words. The system that was constructed was centrally driven, built around targets and extraordinarily byzantine in structure. It was hard to navigate and inaccessible, bamboozling learners and demoralising employers. The result—a centrally driven, target-orientated, micro-managed system for the funding and management of skills—could never be sufficiently dynamic, or sufficiently responsive to the changing needs of a changing economy. Lord Leitch drew our attention to that, and Members on both sides have reflected an understanding of it in what they have said today.

I could say things that were altogether more colourful—in fact, I have such things in front of me—but why would I do that? I have said enough about the previous Government’s strategy, except for this suffix: the best thing that they did was to appoint the hon. Member for Blackpool South as the shadow spokesman on this matter when they came into opposition. There the flattery stops. Actually, it was meant as a compliment, not as flattery.

Perhaps partly as a result of the previous Government’s strategy, we remain mediocre on skills compared with other OECD countries, ranking 17th out of the 30 member countries on the proportion of our population qualified to level 2 or above. To any impartial observer, and by any independent analysis, it is absolutely clear that our further education and skills system requires not merely reform but rebirth, the effects of which would need to be felt by employers, individuals and training providers. The change that is most needed is one of perspective, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, when he spoke in elegiac terms about the need to elevate practical learning, a point supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and other Members. We have to understand that practical accomplishment can afford the same kind of status as academic achievement, because it confers both worth and purpose, which has economic value, and also because it changes lives by changing life chances.

The pride that people take in the practical skills that they acquire makes them stand tall. As they do so, they gain a different kind of recognition among their fellows. That was once widely understood. The case was richly argued by Ruskin—who was referred to in a different context; I will return to that—and William Morris, but it had scarcely been made with elegance and conviction until I started to make it a few years ago, when it gained some elegance and a lot of conviction. Changing the perception of practical learning is critical to encouraging people to acquire the skills that we need to drive our economy forward. It is a social and cultural matter as well as an economic one, being about aesthetics as well as utility. Rather apologetically, we usually debate skills as a matter of utility. I suppose that that is understandable—they are partly about utility, after all—but let us debate them differently, making the change in perception that I described.

I will now deal with the essence of the skills strategy and its many aims, which we published on 16 November last year. Its main premise is that skills are essential if we are to return to sustainable growth, build more inclusive communities and achieve greater social mobility. To do so, the Government must be prepared to devolve real power, along with the objective information that will allow people to use the system, to those who can benefit most from it, and especially to employers and individuals. We want to give them authority and power to drive the system. We want a more learner-driven, employer-focused, demand-driven skills system.

I will discuss the three critical elements of that and deal with some of the points that hon. Members have raised. First, we must ensure that colleges and training providers have the freedom and flexibility to respond to learner demand and employer need. The coherence that must accompany that requires a proper settlement in respect of relationships with other agencies, including local enterprise partnerships. I will take away the points that have been made about that and consider them. It certainly requires consistency and coherence in respect of school provision. As hon. Members will know, Professor Alison Wolf is carrying out a review of vocational education, which must marry with the strategy if it is to make a useful contribution to Government thinking.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South was right that there must be some consistency in the narrative about studio schools and university technical colleges. I am an enthusiast of UTCs. I think that Kenneth Baker has hit on an idea for which time has come; it is the completion of the unfinished work of Rab Butler. I see it in those ambitious terms. UTCs can play a valuable role in providing a vocational pathway that matches in clarity and progressive quality the academic route that many of us took.

I acknowledge the questions and points raised by hon. Members, and I accept the need for consistency and coherence, but central to what we will do is freeing providers and colleges from much of the bureaucracy that has hampered them and prevented them from being as good as they can be. There is immense human capital in the further education sector; it is the unheralded triumph of our education system. Both learners and teachers in FE deserve more praise than they have ever received. I am proud to put that on record. In the education Bill that we will be introducing shortly as a continuation of what I have announced in Government, we will strip away some of what the previous Government did—I am trying to use gentle words—to confuse the system and burden FE providers.

Secondly, there must be a changed role for individuals. Individual learners need more information, which is why we will introduce an all-ages careers service to provide them with good, empirical and independent information about the results of the courses that they choose and the subsequent careers to which they are likely to lead. As well, it was right that we began to ask who pays for what. Such questions are challenging, but I was determined that there should be no question of abridging people’s entitlement to basic skills in any way.

However, in higher skills, beyond the age of 24, individuals should make some contribution, on a par with what we expect of higher education students. They will be able to take out income-contingent loans on the same no up-front cost basis as HE students, at highly competitive rates. The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about numbers and mentioned the figure of £9,000. He will know that it is difficult to come to a definitive answer, as apprenticeship frameworks cost different amounts. However, I do not think that it is unreasonable to mention an average of about £7,500. Compared with a degree, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot said about the income premium likely to result from an apprenticeship—it is roughly equivalent to a degree—an apprenticeship represents pretty good value for money.

Thirdly, on apprenticeships, we have allocated £250 million for 75,000 more apprenticeships during the spending review period. The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds. I confirm that the Department for Education will provide extra investment to grow their numbers substantially too. It is my ambition while I am Minister to top 350,000 apprenticeships in this country, and the longer I am the Minister, the more apprenticeships we will have. Records are hard to compare because historically, the way that we have counted apprenticeships has been somewhat different, but it is probably true to say that the most that we have ever had in Britain was 400,000.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Is the Minister not showing symptoms of the target-driven culture that he was decrying a few minutes ago?

[Mr Hayes]

That is the trouble with people associated with Oxford; they are just clever. That was the expression not of a target but of an ambition. How could my ambitions ever be described as anything so crude as a target?

The final element of the strategy is a link to employers. As well as being learner-driven, the system must be sensitive to the role of employers in ensuring that what is taught and tested matches employer need, therefore making people more employable and feeding the growth that we all want. To do so, we must move away from what I described as the slightly confused spatial arrangements made by the previous Government with regional development agencies and others—some of them did perfectly good work, of course, but they were heading in basically the wrong direction—towards a more sectorally driven system. I have asked the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, under the chairmanship of Charlie Mayfield, to consider becoming employer-facing, so that we can engage employers in ensuring that the system delivers what we want.

I believe that we can build a skills system that makes Britain prosperous, delivers individual opportunity on an unprecedented scale and contributes to social mobility, social cohesion and justice. As the Minister, I will do all that I can to make that so, for it is what is right for our people, our nation and our future.

School Sports Funding

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) feels as strongly as I do that we need to find a way forward, which is why he was concerned about the polarisation of this debate. I would have no difficulty in attacking the previous Labour Government if I wanted to enter into such a debate. I would point out that, for several years, they failed to protect smaller playing fields after they had promised to do so; that, under them, obesity increased; that, when they claimed a wonderful participation level of two hours of sport a week, they failed to mention that that included changing time; that, under them, participation in recent years hardly increased and that, sadly, the participation of women and disabled people has fallen; and that they made little or no dent in the drop-off in sports among people who had left school. That is what I would say if I wanted to be negative.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Foster]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman before I talk about the positives.

[Mr Smith]

While the hon. Gentleman is not being polarising, and in the spirit of consensus that he says he espouses, does he agree that it would make sense for the coalition Government to respond positively to the constructive offer that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made? Common cause can be made and we can find a way to save the essential infrastructure for the invaluable work that those partnerships—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be very short. The right hon. Gentleman should know better; he has been here long enough.

Government Policy (NEETs)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with that point, which my hon. Friend makes extremely well.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my fellow Oxfordshire MP on securing this important debate and on the initiatives he is pursuing in our area—I would certainly be pleased to support such projects. Does he agree that what these young people most need is continuing support in the form of advice, mentoring and the monitoring of progress? They need ongoing engagement with work-focused practical experience that can lead to a job, and some modest incentives to reward their progress.

[Tony Baldry]

I entirely agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has said; he puts the matter in a nutshell very well. Do the current targets for retention rates on courses for further education colleges mean that they may be tempted to turn away applicants with poor school attendance records? That would effectively write off the already disadvantaged, and potentially create a group of long-term disengaged and unemployed young people with little possibility of improving their position. My impression is that, locally, people are working very hard to try to engage NEETs and get them back into education or training. However, that is not easy. By definition, NEETs have mostly decided to opt out or they have other difficulties—although it is important to recognise that young people who are NEET are not a homogenous group with the same issues, and that they are not even necessarily at the same stage of disengagement.

We also need to recognise that some groups of youngsters clearly have particular challenges. Mencap has sent me a copy of the detailed submission that it made last December to the Children, Schools and Families Committee. In that document, it makes the point that three in every 10 disabled young people aged 19 are NEET, and that a youth cohort study found that young people who recorded themselves as having a health problem or disability are twice as likely to be NEET as others.

When a young person is without or not in education, employment or training they require—as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said—support in many different ways. Of course, ultimately that support may have little impact if an appropriate offer of employment or training is not available. I am concerned that the present system to provide further education perhaps does not provide a favourable environment for this group of young people. There seems to be a fundamental policy problem. If I understand matters correctly, that problem is money. Each youngster who stays on in school or goes to an FE college takes with them a pot of money by staying on at school or college to do A-levels or other training—their place gets funded. A NEET has effectively opted out of the system and receives no funding. Any organisation set up by the local authority or by anyone else to help NEETs get back into education or training also does not receive any funding. Those with the greatest need receive no funding and those trying to help them are left scrabbling around to find funding elsewhere. It might be worth considering some sort of system of NEET vouchers, so that if a youngster who is a NEET undertakes approved activity or enrols in an appropriate course, that activity or course receives some funding. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how we will break out of this NEET Catch-22.

It goes without saying that we need a name for programmes supporting NEETs that is sympathetic and has an overall project title—“Dealing with NEETs” clearly does not do it. We need a name such as “Youth Engagement,” and the subject needs a brand. There will be those who say that one of the reasons why there are NEETs is that such people feel that they will not find a job. However, there is something of a chicken-and-egg issue here. The Prince’s Trust has observed that the first concern for disadvantaged young people is often their need for money and a job, and the skills they want are those they need to give them a practical route to employment.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has observed that, despite financial difficulties and a reduction in vacancies, the majority of organisations remain enthusiastic about recruiting new talent. However, many organisations that require specific skills find that those are not being met by job candidates. The CIPD’s recruitment, retention and turnover survey of this year found that two thirds of organisations report that a lack of necessary skills is a barrier to recruitment. It also found that a lack of necessary specialist skills was a greater problem for the manufacturing and production professions—76% of that group—than any other. If young people do not acquire skills, the reality is that they are unlikely to be able to access jobs.

Speech Therapy Services (Children)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I join other Members in warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing this important debate. He spoke passionately, clearly from unrivalled personal experience and knowledge, about this important area. I agree with the high-quality contributions we have heard from all parts of the Chamber and I hope that the debate sends a powerful message to the Government about the importance of services in this area.

I want to speak in particular about the special value of the ACE—Aiding Communication in Education—centre to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which is based in my constituency, and of ACE North, which is based in Oldham. The centres provide a unique service for parents and professionals, with joint health and education-based approaches, combining whatever it takes to give children with severe communication difficulties access to communication, education and, thereby, independence.

I have seen at first hand the remarkable—often moving—difference the centres make in children’s lives. I took former Labour leader John Smith to the centre once and we were moved almost to tears watching a young girl learning to communicate using assistive technology, opening a world that would otherwise have been closed to her.

The centres provide a level of clinical expertise far beyond what is provided by the statutory services for children with such complex disabilities. Their intervention not only changes lives but saves money in later life. They also save money by preventing cases from reaching tribunals, which may be one of the reasons why some local authorities ask them for assistance.

The centres have a huge loan library of specialist equipment that children and their parents can try before they buy. That saves authorities buying unsuitable, expensive communication devices, which can cost many thousands of pounds and which would, if inappropriately purchased, end up in the school cupboard. The centres also work with the IT sector in a rapidly changing area to develop more effective aids to communication. At the point of use, advice to parents is free and independent, which is a lifeline for families learning to live with and support a child with severe communication difficulties.

The future of the centres and the services they provide is under pressure and under threat, and there are two main reasons for that. One is that the provision of direct funding, which central Government made available through grants and project support, is being shifted to local authorities. We should sound a note of caution to those who, under the mantra of localism, would shift all funding in the direction of local authorities, because highly specialist services can be marginalised and lose out in the process.

The other problem is that although the centres charge local authorities to recoup operation costs, the money is not always forthcoming at the necessary level. Furthermore, charitable donations, which the centres also attract, have decreased considerably due to the tougher competition facing all areas of the third sector in this difficult financial climate.

We therefore face a threat to a vital service. Were that service to go, we would lose something that, since 1984, has given thousands of severely disabled young people a voice and a chance in life. To run down these vital services in the national year of speech, language and communication would clearly be perverse and unacceptable.

[Nick Smith]

I do not want to make a partisan point, but the previous Government showed great leadership on this topic. They set up the Bercow review, and the then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families established the communication champion. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, hope that the new Government will show the same energy, dedication and enthusiasm as the previous Government in pursuing change on this important topic?

[Mr Smith]

Yes, I certainly endorse that, although I was not making a party political point, because the shift towards the presumption of local authority funding clearly did not start with the current Administration.

It would be disastrous and a tragedy if we removed the centres, losing their specialist experience and their huge loan library of communication equipment, in a climate where there is technology to help children, but the understanding, guidance and expertise to help them use it is often in desperately short supply. The same is true of the loss of specialist training for teachers and therapists in how to use the technology to support and motivate children in learning and moving towards independence.

The centres therefore face a serious situation, and I ask the Minister for an assurance that central Government sustainability funding for the ACE centres will continue for the full three years, until April 2012. On the centres’ service-level agreements with local authorities, what assurances can she give that councils will have, or will be guided to make available, the resources to ensure that the appropriate assessment and help is available in their area to children who need it? Will she look at providing immediate additional support from the sustainability services fund and the transition fund to ensure the future of the ACE centres? I should also be grateful if she could give an assurance that she will meet representatives of the centres to discuss the way forward so that we can save these valuable services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

Only three minutes remain, and people are already arriving for the next debate. I still have five pages of notes, so I shall end up rushing.

The hon. Member for Gedling mentioned a constituent of his, and I will ensure that excerpts from his speech are passed to Ministers at the Department of Health so that the matter is drawn to their attention. Things falling between Departments is exactly what we want to address in the Green Paper.

There are a couple of other points that I shall not manage to answer, but the hon. Member for North West Durham raised the question of the differences in commissioning for high need with low incidence and low need with high incidence. I know that the Department of Health is aware of the communication champion’s views on commissioning, and those views will be taken into account in designing the system.

I shall finish with a few words about the Green Paper.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way on ACE centres?

[Sarah Teather]

On that subject, my Department is considering the best way to secure support for children who require augmentative and alternative communication with colleagues in the Department of Health following the spending review. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to give much detail on those commitments, because there is much yet to do.

I have one minute left, which is not enough time to say all that I want about the Green Paper. We have a real resource of knowledge in Parliament, and many Members have a real passion about the subject. The Green Paper is part of a consultation process, so I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will feel able to use their knowledge and expertise and get involved. I shall try to find ways to involve parliamentarians with such expertise; I am well aware of how much experience Members of Parliament have, both personally and in their campaigning role. I look forward to debating these issues again with those who are here today.

Building Schools for the Future

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing the debate. Like him and like thousands of people in my constituency and millions throughout the country, I was appalled that the very first casualty of the Conservative and Lib Dem policy of savage cuts was investment in our schools. That will be deeply damaging to education and demoralising for students, parents, governors and teachers alike. It is also a big political mistake, because a lot of people who voted Lib Dem or Conservative were certainly not voting for that. In future, when people think of this Government, they will remember that the very first thing Ministers did was take the axe to our schools.

I want to highlight the casualties among schools in my constituency. Iffley Mead is a great special school. Ofsted rated it outstanding for care, guidance and support, and for personal development and well-being, and good in all other respects. The school anticipated the total replacement of outdated buildings, with state-of-the-art teaching areas for special needs, residential accommodation for looked-after children and respite facilities for families in need of additional support. People will find it impossible to understand why they evidently do not figure as part of the big society.

Cheney school, which is a community secondary, has been doing excellent work and has been building on an overall good Ofsted rating. It was looking forward to extensive rebuilding, including the replacement of science labs that were condemned as unsafe last year and which have now been closed. The school has significant numbers of children with special needs, for whom the current buildings, which do not have lifts, are not fit for purpose.

[Lyn Brown]

I am enjoying my right hon. Friend’s contribution very much, and it chimes totally with what is happening in Newham, where the John F Kennedy special school is one of 14 projects to have been cancelled by the Conservative party. Is it not ironic that some mainstream schools will be far better resourced than some schools that cater specifically for special needs children, who are the most vulnerable children in our communities?

[Mr Smith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Cheney is a good school that serves mixed communities and gets great results. It is a specialist school in languages and leadership, but, to add insult to injury, it has now heard that its £250,000 specialist schools money is also being cut.

We have to ask what message it sends simply to hack support away from schools such as these. I can assure the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who has just spoken, that there is nothing synthetic about the anger of Labour Members or the teachers, students and communities affected. There has been no assessment or evaluation of schools’ particular needs, and programmes are simply cut. Schools are now in limbo: they are told that Building Schools for the Future has been cancelled, yet they do not know what resources, if any, will be available to meet their pressing needs. That is a kick in the teeth for everybody who cares about those schools and who has been working hard for their success. What is the Minister’s message to those schools for the future?

I would also like to press the case of Bayards Hill primary school, which is due for total rebuilding and which had primary capital grant approved a couple of years ago. The catchment area includes one of the most disadvantaged communities in my constituency, and rebuilding would be a huge boost to aspiration and confidence. The school’s plans were all set to go, but they are now at real risk because Oxfordshire county council is looking at making huge cuts in all its programmes. I call on the county council to honour the pledges that have been made and to ensure that the project can go ahead.

This saga of school cuts is a shameful indictment of the priorities of the coalition Government, who are diverting resources from good schools with a proven track record and a clear need for investment to the damaging ideological experiment of their so-called free schools—let us remember that that is where the money is going. If the Government were listening to parents, teachers and governors, they would abandon this damaging policy now and reinstate investment in schools in our communities so that they could deliver the best opportunities and standards. If the Government do not listen, everyone will know in the years to come that the first big message from this coalition Government was that whereas Labour invested in the future of our schools and brought hope and opportunity, the Conservatives and Lib Dems brought cuts and despair. It is a tragedy that children’s education is paying the price for the Government’s monumental misjudgment.