Funding and Schools Reform

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government is pursuing a reform agenda in education that represents an ideological gamble with successful services and has failed to honour the pledges made to deliver a pupil premium on top of a protected schools budget, and to deliver protected schools funding per pupil; is concerned that schools in deprived areas will lose out from the new funding mechanism; notes the unprecedented cuts of 60 per cent. to the schools capital budget, and is deeply concerned at the impact this will have on children, families and communities; supports empowerment of parents and their involvement in school planning but is concerned over a lack of accountability in the setting up of new schools under Government plans; is further concerned that this model will not represent efficient use of public resources in a time of austerity; disputes Government claims that these reforms are a continuation of Labour’s successful reform agenda; and calls on the Government to work with families, teachers and communities to deliver improved standards of learning and teaching in all local schools.

We have just heard how the Government are preparing to take a huge gamble with our national health service, but the same is true in schools. In health and education we see the same emerging pattern in public service reform: a free market experiment brought in at breakneck speed with scant supporting evidence at a time of financial stress, and a real risk of good services being destabilised. There is a drive to atomise services and to unpick the fabric that holds together a successful NHS and the schools system in England. We can say what we like about the Department of Health, but at least it publishes a White Paper before rushing to reform. In education the ideological zeal is not constrained by the established processes of government.

Until recently, the Secretary of State has enjoyed a licence and latitude that other Ministers can only dream of: a big contract given to a former adviser without the troublesome requirement of a proper tendering process; a controversial education Bill rammed through Parliament in 62 days using procedures normally reserved for counter-terrorism; school building projects chopped in a casual and carefree manner, with inaccurate lists published day after day; and the services of experts who have given a decade of distinguished service to the cause of school sport dispensed with without even the courtesy of a meeting. Such things might be acceptable in the world of newspapers, but that is no way to run a Government Department.

Today, we are glad—I see that the Secretary of State is delighted, too—to give the House the opportunity to hold the Secretary of State and his Ministers to account. He has rushed into reform without listening to parents or to students and teachers and he needs to pause for breath and to take stock. First, I shall deal with the broken promises and the idea that schools are protected. Then, I shall challenge the Secretary of State’s overall direction of travel, which I believe amounts to a dismantling of state education in England as we have known it.

So, let us start with where it all started to go wrong for the Secretary of State: Building Schools for the Future.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is obviously going to explain why he thinks that the reforms proposed by the coalition Government are incorrect, but is he no longer one of the reformers on his Benches? If he is still a reformer, will he say, however briefly—I know that he quite rightly wants to focus on the Government—how he would seek to reform and improve an education system that lets down too many children?

[Andy Burnham]

As the hon. Gentleman sees more of his Government, he will perhaps come to understand the difference between real reform and reckless reform. Indeed, the House has just been hearing about the achievements of a reformed national health service under my watch and I can tell him that I am very proud of them.

Let me start with Building Schools for the Future and the charge that I lay at the Secretary of State’s door. He has got into a mess and the allocation of capital is no longer driven by educational need but by ideology. Building Schools for the Future was a needs-led approach to the allocation of capital. Instead, he wanted to use capital as bait to lure schools into his new structural models, but then came the spending review.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Why were fewer than 100 schools rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future under the last Labour Government?

[Andy Burnham]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to any of those schools, but if he has seen the transformation in those communities and the messages that the schools send to children in areas that have, frankly, been let down for decades, I am surprised that he rises to his feet to say that that investment is not worth making. Let us talk about his Government and the spending review arrangements that his Secretary of State has recently secured: minus 60%. Let us just think about that figure for a moment.

Just after the spending review, the Financial Times reported senior Whitehall figures chiding the Secretary of State for

“folding too early in negotiations over capital”

spending. The only shock for me on reading that was to learn that he had been negotiating at all. We know that he is courteous, and we like that about him, but minus 60%? I can almost hear him now, politely inviting George and Danny to fill their boots. Is 60% enough? Do they want more? I doubt that the Secretary of State has played much poker in his life—although he has his poker face on now—but, as with sport in schools, it gives a person certain life skills and I recommend it to him.

The average capital reduction across Whitehall was 30%. I would think that everyone in education could live with that. But double the punishment? How exactly does that minus 60% reduction meet the Secretary of State’s “schools protected” claim?

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend surprised at the Government’s announcements, given the fact that the previous Tory Government spent nothing on schools? There are those of us who can remember tumbling-down buildings that leaked and needed the massive repairs that were put in by the Labour Government.

[Andy Burnham]

In the 1980s, I had the misfortune to go to a comprehensive school in my hon. Friend’s constituency—a Merseyside comprehensive. It was not a great deal of fun. School sport had dried up and the buildings were appalling. It fills me with dread that my children will go to secondary school under a Tory Government. We on the Opposition Benches will campaign to ensure that another generation is not failed as others were.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will not let this occasion pass without putting right the gross calumny against our Building Schools for the Future policy. It was not a school-building policy; it was a policy to let every local authority in our land have a vision of the transformation of education right across their community. That is what the Government are killing and that is why it is important to oppose them.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is right. It was a new approach and we must give credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who said when he was a Schools Minister, “Let’s do it differently—let’s not give out capital in a piecemeal fashion.” My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is nodding because he was in the Department at the time. Our approach was to go to the places where aspirations were lowest and young people did not have a great expectation of what life might give them, and build the best possible learning environment. That is why we should not listen to the nonsense that is spoken from the Government Benches. Building Schools for the Future has transformed many communities. It could have done more if the Government had stuck by its needs-led approach to capital allocation.

The sad thing about the Secretary of State’s negotiating failure is that it has direct and unpleasant consequences for schools and councils. Within hours of the Chancellor’s sitting down, there were panicked phone calls asking for 40% cuts to projects that only weeks before had been approved by the Secretary of State as unaffected. Why? Because what was left of his capital budget was needed to push towards his pet projects—or as we should now more accurately say, his pet shop projects. The losers, yet again, are schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country: Sandwell, Birmingham, Salford, Leicester and Nottingham.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

And Rotherham.

[Andy Burnham]

I could go on. There are more.

Last week, I went to the Wodensborough technology college in Sandwell—a great school, battling against the odds. The Secretary of State is nodding, but he has not been to Sandwell. Since the summer, he has promised many times that he will go there, so I hope he is nodding because he will actually do so. When he was at his conference in Birmingham he was not far away. We hope he will go to Sandwell.

The college has been thrown into limbo by the 40% demand that is now being made of local authorities. After all the chaos to Building Schools for the Future that the Secretary of State caused in such authorities back in the summer, it is barely believable that he is coming back for another bite of their funding.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Can my right hon. Friend imagine the reaction in schools in my constituency, such as Birley and Handsworth Grange? They heard the Secretary of State’s announcement before the recess and believed that their school programmes would go ahead, yet in October, only a few weeks later, they were told to find a 40% cut in schemes that had already been designed. That does not merely destroy the aspirations and hopes of young people; it is ridiculous and a complete waste of money to have a school designed to such an advanced stage and then cut the programme at the last minute. People cannot find 40% efficiency savings at the drop of a hat.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend puts it well. Let us get to the facts. Those schools were told in the summer that they were unaffected. We can work out what “unaffected” means to most people, but the effect of what the Secretary of State has done by coming back for another bite is that he is asking schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency to abandon their ambitions for their children so that the right hon. Gentleman can fulfil his ideological ambitions to give funding to whichever schools come asking for it because it ticks the box—it comes forward with the structural form of which he approves.

That is very wrong. Today, if nothing else, I want the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and honour a moral obligation, as he has just heard, to the 600 schools that he approved as unaffected. That must mean what it says. Let them get on without the requirement to make unwelcome savings. Instead, the phone calls from his officials have made them scrabble round for cuts. I heard that one school was thinking of stopping the purchase of all new furniture. Is that what the Secretary of State really wants schools to do? It is mean-spirited. I hope he will honour the commitments that he has made and let them get on and build a better future.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any academic or empirical study which directly links the capital expenditure under Building Schools for the Future with enhanced educational attainment? If not, why does he think that that is the case?

[Andy Burnham]

It is depressing to hear such nonsense from the Government Benches after all these years. Is the hon. Gentleman saying to me that it is acceptable for a school to have leaking roofs or to have no playing field? Is he saying that office blocks are fine for schools? I disagree. I believe that we can do better for our children. If that is a call to cut off the funding to deprived authorities, he should be utterly ashamed of himself.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) could enlighten the House by pointing us to any private schools that have outside toilets and leaking roofs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes the point. We should aspire to the best possible environment for every single child in this country. We should start where aspiration, expectation and ambition are lowest and transform what those children have. I remember a child in my constituency going into a new school and saying, “It’s too good for us.” That is what we need to challenge and break down. The depressing comments from the Conservatives show that they have no understanding of the message that the environment sends to a young person.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Aintree Davenhill primary school in my constituency is near where my right hon. Friend used to live. Phase 1 of the rebuild is nearly completed, but phase 2 is yet to be approved by the Government. If phase 2 does not go ahead, the children there will be left to learn in a corrugated iron hut, which is freezing at this time of year and boiling hot in the summer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not the kind of facility in which our children should expect to learn?

[Andy Burnham]

It most certainly is not, although the Conservatives do not seem to mind, as far as I can tell. Such a facility is too good for our children, as far as I can make out.

Schools all over the country are in chaos because the Department promised a capital review to clear up the problems and give clarity to schools. Instead, schools all over the country are in limbo, waiting to hear. I hope they will hear some clarity from the right hon. Gentleman today. It is clear that he has made a mess of the capital budget, but I hope he will acknowledge today the anxiety in schools right now about revenue budgets for next year.

“Schools protected” was the headline that schools wanted on spending review day, but here is the second charge that I lay at the door of the Secretary of State: has he not raised expectations that he now cannot fulfil? As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, when rising pupil numbers are taken into account, the “Schools protected” headline turns into a 2.25% real-terms per pupil cut. Further changes to funding may mean it is far worse for some schools. Specialist schools fear losing the extra money that comes with their status. I hope that today the Secretary of State may provide them with some clarity on that.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Can there be any worse con perpetrated on parents than the cast-iron guarantee that the Lib Dems and the Secretary of State gave on the pupil premium? Is not that a classic example of a promise that did not last until the ink had dried?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend anticipates me, because that is precisely the issue that I was about to come on to.

The big issue facing all schools is the effect that the pupil premium will have on their budgets. The rush to bring in this new system could cause real volatility in budgets. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us how he is planning to avoid that. It happened to us when we made changes to school budgets; these things need to be done carefully. We acknowledge that problems can arise, but I hope that he will give me, and schools, some reassurance that the Department will have measures in hand to protect schools from very marked swings in their budgets.

As I told the House on Monday, experts are predicting that schools in the most deprived parts of the country stand to be the biggest losers from the much vaunted pupil premium—amazing, given all the claims made for it by the Liberal Democrats, but, it would seem, true. Today I visited a secondary school in Walthamstow which, by any measure, faces some of the biggest challenges of any school. It has double the national average of pupils on free school meals and with special educational needs. It is very important that the House hears what the pupil premium might mean for them—might mean, because we do not know yet. The school estimates—[Interruption.] I do not know what the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), is chuntering about. This is coming directly from schools. If she listens to this, she might be able to change things and do something about it. The school estimates that it is set to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds under the pupil premium. That is supported by the IFS, which has calculated that the pupil premium could be 2.5 times higher in Wokingham than in Tower Hamlets. It says that schools in more deprived areas would receive noticeably less in percentage terms than similarly deprived schools in less deprived areas.

May I ask Liberal Democrats to examine their consciences before final decisions are made on this issue? Is this really the effect that they wanted for their pupil premium—to take money off kids for whom life is already hardest?

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I have been listening closely to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about what may or may not be in the pupil premium based on the suppositions that he is making. After more than a decade of his Government, pupils in my part of the country were getting much less than the national average despite its having the lowest wages in the country. What did his Government do about that when they had the chance? At least the pupil premium is an attempt at a better suggestion.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Labour Government did nothing for education funding in Cornwall—that is an astonishing claim. I hope that he accepts that the needs of schools vary in different parts of the country. I am not arguing that we had perfection, but we did take steps to improve funding for schools all over the country.

Let me deal, right now, with what the pupil premium will do to schools, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s area.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

We hear a lot about fairness from this coalition. It would be completely unfair if a school in a deprived area were to miss out in order to shift money to another school in another area. We should not be playing one school off against another. Should we not hear from the Secretary of State that there will be a minimum by which no school will miss out, and that the pupil premium will be additional money that does not come at the expense of other schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend has made a very important point. I have invited the Secretary of State to set out how he will ensure that no school sees a huge loss of funding to the pupil premium, with that then causing a problem in terms of service continuation.

As I said, I ask the Liberal Democrats to examine their consciences, and I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was thinking about it. If they do not, for goodness’ sake they should speak up and show that they have some influence in the Government. They should speak up for the kids in the school that I went to this morning. We need to hear their voice to ensure that the pupil premium is what we were told it would be. At the moment, it is nothing more than a con.

The real trouble is that we do not have a new and additional pupil premium at all. The danger for the Liberal Democrats is that this issue goes to the very heart of the politics of the coalition. In the post-election talks with Labour, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) told my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) that he had secured from the Conservatives a pupil premium additional to a schools budget protected in real terms. Let there be no debate about that—that was what the Liberal Democrats said they had secured.

The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central, told the House many times that that would indeed be delivered. Well after the coalition talks, on 7 June, she told us that it would involve

“substantial extra money from outside the education budget.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 15.]

That was meant to be the Liberal Democrats’ big win, and it was paraded as the consolation prize on the day of the tuition fees announcement. The painful truth for them is that they have failed to deliver it. They have been chewed up and spat out by the Tories. We are now looking at a pupil premium that will take money off her constituency in Brent, where more than 20% of kids are on free school meals, and give it to the Secretary of State’s constituency in Surrey, where less than 10% of children receive them. That Liberal Democrat fig leaf of credibility for staying in the coalition has been snatched away.

Because the education budget is not rising—it is falling in real terms—the pupil premium is simply a relabelling of existing funding. There will be more losers than winners. The IFS estimates that 60% of primary school children and 80% of secondary school children will be in schools whose real budgets are cut. On the day when the budgets for those schools land, the “Schools protected” spin will be wearing very thin indeed.

The problem with this ministerial team is that they simply have not got a grip on the detail. They simply do not know what the changes will mean for schools. However, the situation is still worse than that. They are also obsessed with costly, untested structural reform. That lethal combination of incompetence and ideology is toxic for our schools. The Government’s preoccupation with structures risks a loss of focus on standards. Under Labour, school standards rose year on year, with some of the highest ever results at every stage and the best ever results this year in GCSEs and A-levels. In 1997, half of all schools fell below the basic benchmark of 30% of students getting five good GCSEs graded A to C. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members speaking up, but those were our schools and our children in our constituencies that were being failed. Many children were leaving school without any hope of a better life—that was the reality.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Is it not accepted that in science, for instance, the UK has gone from fourth to 14th position? In literacy we have gone from seventh to 17th, and in mathematics from eighth to 24th. That has to mean we have less, not more.

[Andy Burnham]

I must say, the hon. Gentleman’s literacy was very impressive there when he read the Whips’ handout. He almost read it word for word, and he did not have any help.

The hon. Gentleman cannot deny the figures that I have just read out, which show a transformation in our secondary schools. Half of schools were not achieving the basic benchmark in 1997, but today it is fewer than one in 12. Just think how many thousands of kids have hope of a better life because of that transformation in our schools, particularly in our most deprived communities.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what the reality was in some of the most deprived schools, because I was teaching in some of them. Children were forced on to courses that they did not want to be on simply to shove up standards, and the gap between the best and worst-performing schools widened over Labour’s time in office. The reality is that in the area in which I used to teach, children are less likely to progress socially than those from schools elsewhere. Statistics and figures are one thing; the reality is something very different.

[Andy Burnham]

The reality is very different. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that head teachers and teachers in primary schools in his constituency would say that there has been no change in primary schools in the past 10 years? Is he really saying that secondary schools have not improved? The figures tell us what has happened. Am I saying, “It’s all perfect”? No, I am not, because more needs to be done. We turned failing schools into good schools and I am very proud of what we as a Government achieved for some of the most deprived children in our country.

It is encouraging that the right hon. Gentleman told the national children and adult services conference recently that he will set new minimum standards for schools—we welcome that continuation of Labour’s successful national challenge programme— but he is about to take huge risks with all the progress that we made. One area on which we should both agree is that excellent teaching is the surest route to the highest standards.

It was with some surprise that I heard the Secretary of State confirm to the House on Monday that his free schools will be able to use public money to hire whomsoever they like to teach, with no teaching qualification requirement. When he took up the job, he said that teachers should have a good 2:1 degree. He should be consistent in this important area: investing in our teacher work force is of fundamental importance to good school standards.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the record of higher standards under the Labour Government. Like me, I am sure that he welcomes the fact that young people from the poorest areas are 30% more likely to go on to higher education than they were five years ago. Does he agree that not only higher standards but education maintenance allowances played a significant role in encouraging people to stay on at school, perhaps for the first time in a family? What will be the effect of the Government’s plans to abolish education maintenance allowances?

[Andy Burnham]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend raises that issue. I will spend a moment on EMAs. As we heard at education questions on Monday, the EMA is the subject of huge concern among Labour Members. It is feared that it will be pared back or, worse, taken away.

The Secretary of State is good with words and is good at making big commitments, but I want to see some follow-through—I want him to stand by what he says. Young people will look to what he or I say, so that they can have trust in politics and in this place. In an interview in The Guardian on 2 March—just before the election—he said:

“Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won't.”

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

indicated assent.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman nods, because he obviously acknowledges the veracity of the quote. Why is such a move acceptable now? Before the election, he made that statement to the young people who receive EMA, some of whom might be watching these proceedings. What are they to make of such a statement? It sounded commendably clear before the election, but now that crucial support is being removed. Throughout Education questions on Monday, his Minister spoke in an offhand way of the dead-weight cost of EMA. If I understood him correctly, he meant that 90% of young people would have gone into post-16 studies anyway. For young people who come from homes where incomes are low and do not have much support, this allowance can mean the difference between having to get a part-time job or having to walk to college because they cannot afford the bus fare. The EMA allows them to focus on their studies, which gives young kids from backgrounds where life is hardest the chance to exceed expectations and excel in further and higher education. When I heard the Minister on Monday, I did not feel he had any appreciation of the fact that the EMA makes it easier for those young people to fulfil their potential and be the best that they can be.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Since 2004, more than 22,000 people in Tower Hamlets, where my constituency is, and nearly 500,000 people across London, have received the EMA. Only last night, a constituent, who is now reading law, told me that he could not have studied without the EMA. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, throughout the country, those on low incomes will be prevented from taking up higher education places if the matter is not reconsidered? I make a plea to the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Labour Members have been struck by the concern among young people about the EMA. Taken with the tuition fees announcement, the one on the EMA is having a depressing effect on the aspirations of young people who have least. That is the great worry about what is happening. I hope that the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s words.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Given those young people’s anxiety and the increase in tuition fees to £9,000, does my right hon. Friend think it acceptable that the schools Minister seems happy to sit using her BlackBerry?

[Andy Burnham]

That is not acceptable, nor is it acceptable to chunter and object throughout when many of the points that have been made should be listened to. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) did so much work on the EMA and on lifting young people’s hopes in constituencies such as his.

We must also take into account the changes in child benefit for families with a higher earner because, although they may not be eligible for the EMA, some give the child benefit to the young person in further or higher education, which helps young people get through. The removal of child benefit will further damage staying-on rates.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the EMA. Will he give me some statistical evidence that directly relates improvement in educational attainment to the EMA?

[Andy Burnham]

I am looking through my notes—I do not want to cite the wrong figure. There is evidence that 18,500 young people stayed on at school who would not have done so without that financial support. That means 18,500 young people with the hope of a better life because of the EMA. Why do the Government want to abolish it? I am lost for words.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

If Government Members are looking for evidence, a collection of college principals in north-east England wrote to me asking me to point out to the Government at every stage the real dangers that they perceive to youngsters going into further education from the abolition of the EMA. That applies across the board in the north-east.

[Andy Burnham]

There is evidence, so we will write to the hon. Lady with it. There is supposedly a successor scheme, but, if the Government are to replace the EMA, will she and others on the Government Benches ensure that it is with something that gives young people some hope? If the proposal is simply to cut support to the poorest, she will set back the cause of opportunity for all in this country.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

If my right hon. Friend is looking for evidence, I suggest the case of one young woman in my constituency whom I helped during the election campaign. She came to me, worried about her EMA, which she had trouble getting from the school. I helped her with the head teacher. I later found out that she was the sole carer for her mother, who was blind. She would have gone to school anyway, because she was utterly determined, but the EMA gave her and her mother a quality of life that they did not know previously.

[Andy Burnham]

Listening to the responsible Minister on Monday at Education questions, one would have come to the conclusion that he had no appreciation at all of the effect the EMA could have on a young person’s life in those circumstances. I said that the Government should listen to students. I hope that they will, and that they will meet some young people who currently benefit from the EMA such as the person about whom my hon. Friend just spoke. The EMA is a lifeline. For young carers, who have been in the news this week, it represents the hope of a better future, and I hope that the Government will not wipe away their hopes and dreams.

[Mr Sheerman]

One of the big consultancies—I believe it was PricewaterhouseCoopers—conducted a full evaluation of the relationship between the EMA and improvements in rates of staying on and entering university, and in evidence given earlier this year to the Children, Schools and Families Committee, which I chaired, made it clear that that relationship was very positive.

[Andy Burnham]

I hope that the Government will take account of my hon. Friend’s point because there is good evidence to show that the policy has been a success and is helping many more young people stay on in education and achieve.

[Mr Watts]

Is my right hon. Friend as depressed as I am about the fact that the Government seem to be saying that financial assistance to families does not matter, the poor state of school buildings does not matter and the overall funding package for education does not matter? What seems to matter is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are determined to cut education spending and push people back into deprivation.

[Andy Burnham]

That is the inference that people will draw. There is an obsession with structures, not with standards or with helping young people to be the best they can be. I would like to hear the Secretary of State talk a little more about that and a little less about free schools and whatever structural ideas he is dreaming up. Let us focus on standards and on the aspiration of kids from a working-class background. Let us give them some hope rather than introducing organisational reforms that may or may not offer them anything. That is the problem the Secretary of State is facing.

[Steve McCabe]

I would like to help the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who asked about the EMA. Did not the Institute for Fiscal Studies publish a report showing a rise of six percentage points in the number of EMA recipients getting level 2 qualifications? That is hardly a Labour party assertion, is it?

[Andy Burnham]

Not at all, and the report also showed specific improvement among groups who have traditionally under-achieved in post-16 education. The Government seem to be saying that this evidence is simply to be disregarded because a political decision has been made. At times, I get the feeling from this Government that if a reform was introduced by Labour, they just want to wipe it away, even if it was successful. They want to do something different. [Interruption.] Well, we shall talk about school sport in a minute, and I think they are also guilty of the charge on that issue.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Evidence from the IFS and the CfBT Education Trust clearly demonstrates that the EMA has benefited students. As a former principal of a sixth-form college, I have seen the impact on students. We did our own evaluation, which showed higher attendance among students on the EMA than among those who were not, and a direct correlation between their attendance and attainment.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. His experience matches exactly that of my brother, the vice-principal of a sixth-form college in St Helens. The change to EMA needs to be looked at alongside potential changes to the funding of post-16 education—the funding available to sixth-form and FE colleges—because it could have a very damaging effect. There is also a rumour—I do not know whether it is true—that people will no longer get free A-levels beyond the age of 18. Will the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning address that point today? All those proposals will combine to take away opportunities.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I am now going to wind up my remarks. Some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues will be happy about that, even if he is not.

The Government’s policy is an ideological gamble. Schools will be able to use money to employ whomsoever they like, even if that person has no qualifications, in any premises, which, as we have heard, might include converted prisons, bingo halls, hairdressers and pet shops.

What guarantees do parents have that the Secretary of State’s free schools will have the highest standards? What guarantees do they have that they can hold those schools to account if they do not meet such standards? The truth is that free schools are a risky ideological experiment being pushed through at speed with a lack of reliable evidence. Is not there a real danger that one person’s decision to create a free school will undermine existing good provision in an area and a school’s ability to improve?

Should not access to safe outdoor space and sports facilities be a right for every single child?

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will know that I have the misfortune that the local authority in my area is one of the ideological dustbins of the Conservative party. It adopts all these initiatives, so we have three of the 16 new free schools, but there are no suitable sites for them. Existing community organisations are being evicted from their premises so that a few free schools can take them over, despite the fact that their catchment areas are outside the borough and the area. How is that localism or parent choice? Is it not the triumph of ideology over education standards?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I had the good fortune to meet head teachers from my hon. Friend’s constituency very soon after I came into this job. They told me how that cluster of free schools could undermine other local schools. I am at a loss, and I wonder whether the Secretary of State can help me. Why is a school specialising in Latin exactly what Acton needs? I am yet to be persuaded that that is the best route for modern education in west London.

I mentioned outdoor space. A good example of schools achieving more together than they can alone is sport. School sports partnerships are a wonderful example of schools working together. The Australians have described our system as world class. I urge the Secretary of State to think again on that. School sports partnerships, which created a new delivery system for school sport, have worked well and given more opportunities to young people. I hope that he is open to the arguments of Darren Campbell and others who are pleading with him to keep that infrastructure rather than dismantle it.

My worry is that in the long term the free school experiment will lead to a much more segregated schools system—a splintered system in which narrow social groups impart a narrow world view. Are we heading towards an unaccountable free-for-all in our local education systems? Experience in Sweden suggests that the Secretary of State’s schools will have a negative impact on standards.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will not.

I have never heard how that negative impact will be addressed in the Secretary of State’s world view, in which schools are free to fail. I am worried that he is creating a world where each school exists within a walled garden, with no obligation to other schools. The local authority co-ordinating role is important, and I cannot see why the Government want simply to wipe it away with a national funding formula. Local authorities look out for the needs of all children within an area, including the vulnerable and the voiceless. Who will speak up for them in his brave new world?

My vision is of a truly comprehensive education system, in which there is diversity of provision, and in which we help all children to be the best that they can be. I want a collaborative rather than a competitive system, and I want all schools to recognise their obligations to each other. I am worried that the Secretary of State is creating an elitist education system.

We fear that Sure Start centres are about to close, and we heard today that the pupil premium will take money from some of the most deprived communities in our country. We have just had a debate on how the Government’s policy on EMA could depress aspirations, particularly those of working-class kids. We have heard that the Secretary of State, in closed meetings in Westminster, has nodded and winked to the effect that his foot is hovering over the pedal when it comes to allowing more selection and allowing grammar schools to use the free school route to set up more grammar schools. He needs to come clean on those things. Does he want to create a more elitist system, where opportunities exist for the few but not the many?

That is the Opposition’s critique of the Secretary of State. We have had broken promises and free market reforms with no evidence, and there is a whiff of elitism in everything the Department introduces. That spells danger for our schools. We need a plan not just for some schools, but for all schools. That is what our motion is about, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He was a very good Minister, and it is a pity that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench now. I absolutely share his commitment to improving academy provision, not just in the west midlands, but across the country. I can reassure him that all those schools that were recorded as being unaffected will have their building work backed. The money will be there, but we have a duty, to both the taxpayer and those schools, to ensure that when we negotiate with the contractors—with the private sector—we get the best possible value for money. The more money we can save in our negotiations with contractors, the more we can invest in education elsewhere to ensure that the many, many school buildings that are in a state of dilapidation and extreme need receive additional support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman—when he was a Minister, he always sought to secure value for money for taxpayers—will appreciate that that tough negotiation on behalf of the public is exactly what a responsible Government should do.

Hon. Members know that education standards should not just be measured against the past. Countries across the globe are improving relative to the past. We need to measure ourselves against the best in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, the grim truth is that the statistics produced by the OECD show that over the past 10 years, educational standards in this country, relative to other nations, have fallen. We have moved from being fourth in the world for the quality of our science education to 14th, from seventh in the world for the quality of literacy to 17th, and from eighth in the world for the quality of mathematics to 24th. Those are facts that we cannot deny. At the same time as we have fallen behind other countries, the gap between rich and poor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, has grown wider.

In the last year for which we have figures, the number of children who were eligible for free school meals, bearing in mind that every year 600,000 children attend state schools, was 80,000, of whom just 45 made it to Oxbridge—[Interruption.]. It is absolutely the measure. The right hon. Member for Leigh might not like to hear it, but on his and his Government’s, watch the poorest children were denied opportunity. He made it to Cambridge; why should not more children from poor homes make it to Cambridge and Oxford? Why do children from Westminster, St Paul’s, Eton and such bastions of privilege make it to Oxford and Cambridge but not our poorest children in state schools? This Government—the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats united together—are at last investing in social justice, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that figure is a scandal and that at last the investment is going in to secure reform.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful that the Secretary of State acknowledges that I have some knowledge of these matters. He lays all the blame for that figure at the door of the school system in England. Why does he not place any of the blame at the door of Cambridge university and Oxford university? Is he saying that there is no talent in state schools?

[Michael Gove]

The talent is there, but such children do not get in because they do not have the opportunities that they deserve. The school system has failed them. They do not get in because in the school system children from poorer homes fall behind their wealthier compatriots at every step of the way. At key stage 1, the gap grows wide; at key stage 2 it grows wider still. Children from wealthy homes are twice as likely to get five good GCSEs as those who are eligible for free school meals. That is entrenched inequality in our school system. The Labour party had 13 years; they did not take action, and now they blame others instead of taking responsibility.

[Andy Burnham]

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State lays all the blame at the door of our schools. When I went to Cambridge in the late 1980s, the proportion had just changed, and the majority had just become children from state schools at 51% with 49% from the independent sector. The figures today are around 55% from state schools, 45% from the independent sector. I am not saying that schools cannot do more to encourage the highest level of aspiration, but is he saying that the Russell group and the most elite universities in our country can do nothing more to open their doors and to operate less elitist admission policies?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman is taking no responsibility for what happened on his watch, for the inequality in the school system, and for taking no steps to deal with the mess that was left to us. We are the party that is saying to Russell group and elite universities that they must do more to ensure that talented children can go to top universities. Unfortunately—this is a fact that he cannot run away from—social mobility went backwards on his watch. This country is less equal as a result of a Labour Government. There were 13 years of shame and 13 years of hurt, and the Labour Government were responsible.

In place of the Labour Government’s failure, we are introducing a wide range of reforms, all of which are based on best international practice and all of which have been proven, in other nations, to drive up standards. We are ensuring that we learn from all the best performing education nations. We are improving teacher recruitment and training. It is our Government, not theirs, who have doubled the number of students entering Teach First, to ensure that we have top graduates going into the most challenging classrooms. It is our Government, not theirs, who have changed the rules on discipline and behaviour to provide teachers with stronger protection and to ensure that we no longer have the absurd situation in which teachers have to wait 24 hours before issuing a detention to an unruly pupil. It is our Government, not theirs, who are changing the national curriculum and introducing an English baccalaureate to ensure that all students, from whatever background, have access to an academic core by the age of 16.

It is our Government, not theirs, who are reforming key stage 2 tests to ensure that all students have accurate information on their progress at primary school, and that we end the damaging “teaching to the test” that has characterised those tests in the past. It is our Government, not theirs, who have given head teachers in all schools the degree of autonomy and independence for which they yearned for 13 years. So it is unsurprising that, in the 37 minutes of the right hon. Member for Leigh’s speech—[Hon. Members: “Forty-seven!”] Forty-seven? Just see how numeracy went down on Labour’s watch. In the 47 minutes of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, there was not a single new idea on how to improve our state education system. He is an IFZ: an ideas-free zone. Those beautiful eyelashes might flutter, but behind them there is a dusty plain where a single idea has yet to take root.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

It was Labour that gave local authorities funding to raise standards in the poorest areas. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said we had an implicit pupil premium; the Secretary of State might care to read its research.

Let us stop shifting the ground. The commitment the Liberal Democrats said they had was for a pupil premium additional—on top of—a schools budget protected in real terms; that is not just the dedicated schools grant, but the entire schools budget. Have they got that? This is fundamental. Let us have no fine words from the Secretary of State; he must get to the heart of that question. Have the Liberal Democrats got what they told the former Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), they had during those post-election talks? We need to know.

[Michael Gove]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about schools rather than education, but the truth is, yes, the Liberal Democrats have got a fantastic deal—and more to the point, so has the country. There is £3.6 billion extra; £2.5 billion extra spent on schools, and £1.1 billion extra spent on demography, so there is a real-terms increase in education spending, and delivered over four years, whereas the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was going to deliver additional spending only for two years, not four years. More than that, he was not going to deliver, as we have, additional pre-school learning for the poorest two-year-olds. He was not going to deliver, as we have, an extra £150 million to help students from poorer backgrounds to go to universities. He was not going to deliver, as we have, an additional £7 billion over the lifetime of this Government to help the very poorest children. The reason why all Labour Members are so anxious to try to attack this proposition is that they hate the fact that progressive policies are being delivered by a coalition Government.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this interesting and timely discussion. The shadow Secretary of State began it and I listened to him with some sympathy, because it is not easy to bounce back from coming last of the serious candidates in one’s party’s leadership election—I exclude the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for obvious reasons. The right hon. Gentleman may be a loser, but he is a trier and a trier deserves a hearing in this House. He said that the Government are ideological in their pursuit of excellence, and that was repeated by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). If that is the charge—that we are resolute in our determination and unstinting in our efforts to do the best by our children—I, for one, plead guilty.

The right hon. Gentleman also complained about capital funding so let us put the record straight on that. The level of Department for Education capital funding for the next four years is by no means low. The Department’s average capital budget over the forthcoming period will be higher than any single year’s figure before 2004-05. Yes this was a tough spending round, but he knows that he is comparing these figures against an exceptional year and that in fact they are higher than the ones for any period during the first term of the Labour Government from 1997.

[Andy Burnham]

Can the Minister offer us one word of convincing explanation as to why, in a spending review when we were told that schools were protected, the Department got a minus 60% capital settlement when the average for the rest of government was minus 30%? Why were schools singled out for double punishment?

[Mr Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman was not listening to the argument. The truth of the matter is that the capital deal secured by the Department is tough compared with the previous year, but it is by no means exceptional when one examines capital spending over the lifetime of the Government of whom he was a part. Let us also deal with this issue of revenue spending. He knows that combined the pupil premium and school funding, which is protected, means an increase in funding for the schools budget of £3.6 billion in cash terms by the end of the spending review period, which is a 0.1% real-terms increase in each year of the spending review.