School Sports Funding

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House congratulates the Youth Sport Trust on achieving major advances in youth sport over the past decade; believes that a good school sports policy must always be a combination of competition with coaching and opportunities for all to participate; notes that the number of young people doing two hours of sport a week has risen from 25 per cent. in 2002 to at least 90 per cent. last year, with over 1.6 million more young people involved in competitive sport between schools than in 2006; believes that removing funding for the Youth Sport Trust, cutting the specialist school status and dismantling School Sport Partnerships will undermine the Olympic legacy and the fight against obesity in young people; and therefore calls on the Government to reverse this decision, and to work with the Youth Sport Trust to find a solution that does not deprive children of the many health, wellbeing and educational advantages they gain from school sport.

We stand on the brink of arguably the biggest moment for sport in our country’s history. This is a one-off chance to lift the place of sport in our society and inspire a new generation. Today is a good moment to remind ourselves why we won the right to host London 2012. With cross-party support, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) set challenging but achievable targets that included, by 2012, getting 2 million more people physically active, 1 million more playing sport regularly and 60% of young people doing at least five hours of sport a week. This is no time to lower those ambitions.

Huge progress has been made in the last decade and now we must build on it. I was struck by this quote from the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, made just one week after our success in Singapore. He said:

“I congratulate the Minister and his Department on the progress that has been made on school sport. Specialist sports colleges are proving to be a success—there is no doubt about that—and school sports partnerships likewise. The Youth Sport Trust, which I visited just before the election, is a fantastic organisation.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 335WH.]

He is right: it is a fantastic organisation. We championed it in government, just as John Major championed it before us. We also built on his plans for elite sport. There has been a developing consensus on sports policy since John Major signalled a change in the early 1990s.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Should we not remind the House that the Government’s proposals are nothing new for them? In the 1980s, they did the same thing—they massacred sport, had schools sell off their playing fields, and cut support for youth activities. The economic crisis is not the reason for their activities now: they are back to their old bad habits.

[Andy Burnham]

I had the great misfortune to be in a Merseyside comprehensive under Maggie, and I remember after-school competitive sport vanishing with the teachers’ dispute in the 1980s. Ever since, I have worked in politics to put school sport back on its feet. It is the right of every child to have good sport while at school, and it cannot be left to random chance and the occasional good will of teachers.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Did not the Labour Government have a record of selling off playing fields? Any mention of that is a complete own goal for the Opposition.

[Andy Burnham]

What I will enjoy today is educating Conservative Members. When we came into government, we introduced rules on the sale of playing fields, which was to be allowed only if the proceeds from a small patch of the land were to be reinvested in higher quality sports facilities on the same land. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts, because that is what happened.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

On the question of selling off playing fields, does my right hon. Friend recall from his youth that most of the welfare playing fields were sold off because the Tories shut the pits and the playing fields followed suit—[Laughter.] In Tibshelf in my area, in a school that will now no longer be rebuilt, John Barker runs a schools sport partnership and has managed to get more than 90% of the kids to start playing sport again. What does he get in return? He gets the sack: he is one of the people who have lost their jobs because of this lot.

[Andy Burnham]

I noticed that when my hon. Friend made that impassioned contribution coalition Members laughed, because they have no understanding of what happened to communities such as his and mine in the 1990s, when the coal industry social welfare organisation tried to protect some of those facilities. Some are still there, but not all of them. Coalition Members have no understanding of the role of sport and how hard communities in former mining areas have fought to keep their sports provision.

There was a developing consensus, which was repeated just before the recent general election. A write-up of a Radio 5 Live debate appears on the Youth Sports Trust website and it says that, on school sport partnerships, Hugh Robertson said it would be wrong to dismantle “13 years of work” and, instead, “the party would build on” them. But that broad consensus has now been broken by the Secretary of State. School sport partnerships have joined a growing list of things that the Conservative party said it would protect in opposition, but has scrapped in government.

Let me make one thing clear: Labour Members would have understood if the Government had decided to reduce funding to school sport partnerships and the Youth Sport Trust, as long as they kept the basic school sport partnership infrastructure in place. What we are struggling with is having to accept the Secretary of State’s decision to remove 100% of their funding and demolish an entire infrastructure and proven delivery system that is improving children’s lives here and now. I cannot understand why he has done that.

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

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be happy to reduce central funding for the Youth Sport Trust and the curriculum and support for sport. Will he tell the House by how much?

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that I would have accepted a reduction in funding to school sport partnerships. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I said on the media a couple of weeks ago that I would have accepted a reduction proportionate to the reductions made around Government. It is for him to say how much would keep the school sport partnership system in place. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] How much are hon. Members offering?

[Michael Gove]

Proportionate? Is that proportion a half, a third, 75% or 60%? Until we have clarity from the right hon. Gentleman, all we will have is an empty offer.

[Andy Burnham]

I will accept a package that keeps the basic infrastructure in place and keeps school sports co-ordinators in their jobs. I have said that I will accept a reduction, but it is the Secretary of State’s job to put forward a package that does just that.

What the Secretary of State has done is a senseless act of vandalism defying all logic, leaving people speechless. The Australian sports commissioner has asked how this country could dismantle a “world-leading” school sport system. The chief executive of the Canadian Olympic committee has taken the unusual step of writing to the Secretary of State to ask how, months away from a home Olympics, we can have this wholesale change in sports policy. We have called this debate because we want the Government to listen, to change course and to protect a basic school sports structure before it breaks down.

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

My right hon. Friend was very supportive of me in his previous incarnation at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when I came to talk about school provision in inner London. Is he aware that the school sport partnership in the London borough of Westminster, which is set to lose £400,000 a year, has, since 2005, increased from 55% to 100% the number of young people taking part in at least two hours of sport a week, including the promotion of inter-school competition?

[Andy Burnham]

They are astonishing achievements, particularly in an area such as the one my hon. Friend represents, where traditionally there have been difficulties accessing good-quality sports provision. I remember those discussions. For the children living in that inner-city environment, that is an unbelievable achievement, and they should be congratulated on what they have done.

Ministers do not seem to understand why people feel hurt and angry. They use provocative language and selective figures, and they seem not to understand what has happened on the ground in their own constituencies—or, worse, they do know what has happened, but they are not prepared to acknowledge it because it does not fit with their political purpose. Either way, it is very bad. If it is the latter, it is appalling.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

One thing that is understood by Government Members is that £2.4 billion has been thrown at this issue, and we have not seen any results—[Interruption.] Let us consider the right hon. Gentleman’s former Department. [Interruption.] On hockey, rugby, netball and gymnastics, the statistics show—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

It is an absolute disgrace for people such as the hon. Gentleman to stand up in the House today and say there have been no results from the school sport partnerships. Will he do me a favour and go and meet his school sport co-ordinators on Friday and repeat to their faces what he has just said in the House? I will be surprised if he is still standing after that.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

On disability sport in schools, my constituent Mark Eccleston is a full-time wheelchair user and a PE teacher at Chestnut Lodge, which is a school for children with complex physical and medical needs. He also won the silver medal at the 2004 Athens Paralympics and was No. 1 in the world in his sport. He says: “I feel strongly obliged to put in writing my thoughts regarding the Government’s ridiculous and staggering decision. I’m not sure who advised the Government on this issue, but they are obviously not fully aware of the implications that such a decision will have on school sport in general, not to mention the destruction that it will cause to disability sport in our schools.” Who will be listening—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That was verging on a speech. May I remind Members that interventions are supposed to be brief?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend has just made the very point that if we are going to provide high quality sport to children and young people with disabilities, we need to provide it with an infrastructure. We need people working together to give kids the best possible opportunities, but that point is entirely lost on those on the Government Benches. Indeed, let us look at the language that they have used. The Children’s Minister—I am glad he is here today—arrogantly dismissed school sport partnerships at the weekend as “centralised bureaucracy”. In other words—this is what the Government think, and we heard it a moment ago—those involved are expendable, self-serving pen-pushers who have made a negligible impact on the lives of our children. That is what we are hearing from the Government. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about an army of 3,200 people—positive, passionate, motivated people—who believe in the power of sport to change people’s lives for the better. If nothing else, I hope that today they will at least hear some praise and recognition from those of us on the Opposition Benches for their efforts and that they feel cheered by that. I know that I speak for every Opposition Member when I say that we appreciate their commitment to young people and the contribution that they have made to the betterment of their communities.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I have received dozens of letters from children in schools in my constituency who have benefited from school sport partnerships. One junior school pupil, Demi-Leigh Hughes, has written to say:

“In my opinion this is wrong! I have heard of some bad things, but this tops the lot”.

The Government really do have a problem when it gets to the point where pupils—not their teachers or parents—are writing to Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a formidable force lining up against the Government, and the chorus of disapproval grows by the day. Today, 75 prominent Olympians and Paralympians have written to the Prime Minister in pretty strong terms, imploring him to think again, saying:

“We cannot stand by and watch as your government threatens to destroy any hopes this country has of delivering a genuine London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic legacy.”

On Sunday, 60 head teachers wrote to The Observer. They were even more blunt, calling the decision

“ignorant, destructive…contradictory and self-defeating”.

Otherwise, they probably thought it was okay. The decision is entirely unjustified, either educationally, professionally or logistically, or in terms of personal health and community well-being. As my hon. Friend said, opposition has united people across the ages. Next week, young people will come to Downing street with, we are told, a petition with 1 million names on it. If that does not make the Government sit up and take notice, nothing will.

[Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we are witnessing in the House today is either a complete failure of joined-up government or sheer hypocrisy by the Government? We have just seen the launch of the public health White Paper, which says that one of the Government’s aims is to take

“better care of our children’s health and development”,

which could “improve educational attainment,” yet now we are debating the cutting of a proven programme that does just that. Is that not sheer hypocrisy?

[Andy Burnham]

The Health Secretary was on the airwaves this morning saying that we need more sport played in schools. Well, yeah. I never agreed very much with the current Health Secretary—we had our differences—but he was right to speak up in Cabinet against the Education Secretary. He had the courage to say that. As always, we see this Secretary of State failing to carry people with his decisions. He rushes out to make a decision, but does not carry his Cabinet colleagues with him. The mismatch between what the Government are saying in the public health White Paper and what we are debating now demonstrates that.

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

Is it not clear that Ministers have no idea about sport? Looking at them across the Chamber, I think it is clear that none of them has played sport. I cannot see, for example, the Secretary of State joining the boxing club.

[Andy Burnham]

I shall turn to that issue in a moment.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the statistics that the Government have quoted when making their case for this cut? According to a departmental website, they have focused on inter-school competition in rugby, football and hockey. They do not even include tennis, despite the fact that the Prime Minister was the captain of the tennis team at his university. So they are using a very focused set of statistics to make their point, even though it bears little relation to reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I would go a little further than my hon. Friend. As I shall explain, I believe that the Government are abusing the statistics, and I say that having thought carefully about it. In my view, the Secretary Of State is abusing the statistics, and I will come back to that claim later.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I represent a former coal mining constituency as well, and I have spent time with partnership development co-ordinators. Is not the heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument that he does not fundamentally trust head teachers to take forward school sports?

[Andy Burnham]

May I politely refer the hon. Gentleman to the letter that head teachers sent to The Observer at the weekend? I know that the Secretary of State has been inundated with letters from head teachers who say that the whole infrastructure saves them money and time, because they do not have to organise expert coaching and competition themselves. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that head teachers strongly support the present system.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I want to make some progress.

I have mentioned the names of those who are lining up against the Government. They are not people who want to score points; they are fighting for something in which they passionately believe. Until now, the Government have dug in and patronised people with bogus statistics, but this is now turning into a real test for them. Are they prepared to listen and to change course?

Today, I am setting four clear objectives for the debate. The first is to probe the background to this decision. The second is to test the figures that the Government have used and to find out whether they stand by them. The third is to obtain clarity on what has happened to school sport funding. Fourthly, and most importantly, I want to make the Secretary of State a genuine offer that will help us to re-establish the consensus on school sports as we head towards a home Olympics.

Let me start with the decision-making process. We admire the erudition that the Secretary of State brings to our proceedings. Mr Lansley never quoted Dryden to me, and I really admired that about the Secretary of State for Education, but let me extend his cultural references today. How about Defoe? I know that he is thinking “Daniel”, but I want to know what he thinks about—

[Michael Gove]

Jermaine.

[Andy Burnham]

Thank you very much. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been revising over the weekend. What does he think about the work that Spurs and other clubs do with schools? We never hear him talk about sport; let us hear him talk about it. And what does he think about Strauss? Is he thinking “Johann”? I think he was, actually, but I want to tempt him to talk about Andrew today, and about the excellent Chance to Shine initiative. I want to know that he knows about these things, and that he values them.

I also want to know what sport means to the right hon. Gentleman. Last week, he goaded me about my drama career at school. I have looked up his school sports career. It did not take long. One article on him mentions it:

“In 1979, he won a scholarship to Robert Gordon’s school in Aberdeen, where he spent the next seven years excelling in every subject, except sport.”

There was also a lovely quote from Mrs Gove, his mum:

“When he had finished all his school work, he would more or less revert to reading his encyclopaedia”.

[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] It is a lovely image, but it worried me. Did he ever use the encyclopaedia as a goalpost, or anything like that? Stumps? Anyway, that worried me a little. It also made me wonder—so inexplicable is his decision on this matter—whether this whole thing might be Gove’s revenge. I get the distinct impression that he harbours some unpleasant memories of his own sporting experiences at school, and that he is lashing out at the school sport system, now that he has the chance to do so. I hope that that is not the case, however.

I have an invitation for the right hon. Gentleman. Let us get our tracksuits and our trainers on—I will lend him some if he has not got any—and go to see the school sport co-ordinators in my constituency. The Children’s Minister can come, too. If the Secretary of State comes with me to meet the school sport co-ordinators in Wigan, and if he looks them in the eye and calls them a centralised bureaucracy, we shall see what is left of him afterwards.

I also want the Secretary of State to explain a mystery to me. Week after week, he addresses Members on both sides of the House with unfailing courtesy, but that courtesy seems to have deserted him in dealing with this row. Sue Campbell—Baroness Campbell of Loughborough —is a world authority on school sport. She has given a lifetime of energy and passion to the subject. Surely someone of such stature, with decades of service, should have earned at least a hearing. Will the Secretary of State explain why he refused the many requests from Lady Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust for him to discuss funding before the spending review? It really is not good enough. Why did the Secretary of State wait until the day of the spending review to send Lady Campbell a curt and dismissive letter dispensing with the services of the Youth Sport Trust? Why did a man who is so polite and courteous act in such a way?

That brings me to my second purpose today: to challenge the bogus claims that the Secretary of State and other Ministers are making. We have heard an incredible abuse of statistics as they have thrashed around trying to find an argument. Let us set the record straight on three claims. This is claim one. The Government have said that school sport partnerships are ineffective because in the

“last year the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds playing sport went down.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 259.]

The Government’s source for that is the “Taking Part” survey, which asks people in all age groups whether they have engaged in sport in the last seven days and in the last four weeks.

It is true that on the seven-day test the percentage of 11-to-15-year-olds engaging in active sport dropped from 88.8% to—wait for it—88%. That is a statistically negligible fall in a figure that has shot up since school sport partnerships were established. What the Government do not cite, however, is the four-week figure in the same survey. The percentage of 11-to-15-year-olds engaging in sport in the last four weeks rose from 96% to 96.7%, and, according to statisticians, that is the more important figure. It is estimated that in 2002 only 25% of young people engaged in two or more hours of competitive sport each week, whereas more than 90% do so now.

Let us now consider the survey that deals only with school sport, rather than the “Taking Part” survey. In each year group represented by 11 to 15-year-olds, the percentage engaging in at least three hours of sport each week has risen. In year 7, the rise was 59% this year, compared to 53% last year. In year 8, it was 54% compared to 50% last year. In year 9, it was 49% compared to 44% last year. In year 10, it was 45% compared to 42% last year. On the Government’s first claim, it is “case dismissed”.

The second claim is that there is not enough competitive sport, and that only one in five young people are playing it regularly against other schools. That is the claim that needles me most. I bow to no one in my support for competitive sport, having played it all my life.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Jada Anderson is a young athlete in my constituency who was spotted by Jonathan Edwards and is training alongside world champion Jessica Ennis. Her mother writes:

“Where and how else would my daughter have had the opportunity to realize her sporting potential… without the massive help from our local School Sports Partnerships?”

Does that not nail the lie that there is no link between those partnerships and competitive sport?

[Andy Burnham]

It certainly does. Such stories, much more than statistics, illustrate the success of what has been achieved.

I felt a raw injustice on this issue because I saw that such opportunities were not available in the 1980s, although they are the right of all young people. When I came into politics, I wanted to do something about it. As an adviser to the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith, I encouraged him to set up a lottery programme under the New Opportunities Fund called “active sports co-ordinators”. It was the start of the school sports programme. A BBC report in 1999 said:

“The first wave of sports co-ordinators to boost competitive sports in schools will be in place within the next year”.

It is a total myth to say that they have not boosted competitive sport. They have succeeded in that regard.

The coalition says that only one in five pupils play inter-school competitive sport regularly—that is, nine times a year. I have two comments to make. First, that represents a big increase on the proportion many years ago. In itself, it is an impressive figure. However, it is only part of the story. Last year, 49% of children took part in inter-school competition, playing on at least one occasion. There was also a large increase in the number of pupils taking part in intra-school competition: it rose from 69% in the preceding year to 78%.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree with Rachel Redmond, partnership development manager of the North Trafford school sport partnership, that such partnerships have not only increased the level of activity in competitive sport, but improved quality through access to high-quality coaching and facilities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I could not agree more, and that is the basis of a good sports policy—not competition on its own, but coaching and competition together.

In my quest to educate the Education Secretary about sport, I want him to take two simple messages away from today’s debate. First, not everyone can play for the first team or even the second team, as he may remember from his own school days. Secondly, a proper sports policy cannot be based on competition alone; it must be supported by coaching. A policy based on competition alone is a policy for the few, not the many.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend, particularly in respect of swimming. For many, swimming is not a competitive sport, but it is also the only sport in Britain with equal participation by girls and boys. Is not one of the dangerous aspects of the Government’s announcement today that it is being accompanied by enormous cuts in local authority funding? That is likely to lead to a reduction in the number of swimming pools in this country.

[Andy Burnham]

That is a huge worry, and I would add to that the axing of the free swimming programme. That began in Wales, which is where we got the inspiration from: young people under the age of 16 able to swim for free. That has been axed by the coalition.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has referred to the figure that I think the Prime Minister gave at Prime Minister’s questions last week of two in five pupils playing competitive sports regularly in school. I put that to the co-ordinators of the school sport partnership in my area, and they said: “The statistics around competition which Gove and Cameron are continually referring to are misleading. To be regarded as a regular competitor in primary schools pupils would have to have been involved in nine separate competitions, and at secondary school 12, so those pupils playing one to eight times don’t fall into that category.”

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and may I refer him to Barrie Houlihan, professor of sport at Loughborough university and the lead evaluator of the school sport partnerships programme? He wrote about the Prime Minister’s remarks from the Dispatch Box last week, and they are amazing comments to make about what was said by a Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time. Professor Houlihan said that there was

“a selective use of statistics”—

a selective use of statistics from the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister!

Moving on to the third claim, the Prime Minister said that SSPs had failed because there was a decline in rugby union, netball, hockey and gymnastics. Again, that shows that the Government have no idea what they are talking about. The decline in those sports was minimal, and the reason for it was that schools are now providing, on average, 19 different sports, compared with 14 in 2006. There seems to be no appreciation of that huge change.

On the three central claims the Government have made therefore, the figures speak for themselves. Their claims are summarily dismissed as nonsense.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the increase in the take-up of club sport by young people and the link between that and the investment in SSPs? The figures show that there been an increase not only in school sport participation, but in club sport, which gives the lie to what the Government are saying about the impact of SSPs.

[Andy Burnham]

Anyone who has dealt with sports policy knows that this has been the key issue we have been working to crack. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for working so hard on it, by not only getting kids to play sport in schools but then encouraging them into the clubs at weekends and in the evenings. The figures show that links between schools and local clubs have increased significantly. It is very important to raise that point, and, again, it seems to be lost on the Government.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to laud club sport; it is very important and it largely happens outwith school. Will he therefore acknowledge the changes to lottery rules under this Government that mean that 20% of lottery receipts will now go to sport, unlike under his Government where that withered?

[Andy Burnham]

I reject that out of hand, because what happened was—[Interruption.] If Members will listen for a moment, what happened was, when we came into government in 1997 we established something called the New Opportunities Fund—I have already referred to it. It allowed for the spending of lottery money in statutory premises—in hospitals and schools. That is what the public wanted. That fund, which was additional to the sports lottery fund, paid for the first generation of active sports co-ordinators. So that shows, again, that this Government are making statements and claims about which they have no knowledge whatsoever.

The Culture Secretary stood at that Dispatch Box yesterday and told my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) that

“in year 7, four in five children are not playing sport at all.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 520.]

That is simply wrong; it is an outrageous abuse of statistics. Will the Education Secretary apologise for these erroneous claims that Ministers continue to make? Will he set the record straight? Has any civil servant warned him or his Ministers, or Ministers in other Departments, about the way in which they are presenting these figures? I do not expect a straight answer from him on that question, but I can tell him that I will be writing to the UK Statistics Authority asking it to comment on the public presentation of statistics in this area by Ministers because I believe it to be woeful.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

If the shadow Secretary of State is seeking consensus, as I am sure he is, will he reflect on whether the tone of his speech today is helpful? On Friday, in advance of his speech, I met the school sport partnership co-ordinator for the Colchester academy and I was very impressed. I want this approach to continue, and I want there to be an accommodation and consensus. The shadow Secretary of State is not helping the argument. Let us have a grown-up debate, let us be sensible and let us stop the cat-calls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

If the hon. Gentleman spoke to those school sports co-ordinators, he will have found that they are pretty hurt and pretty angry. He just nodded at that, so is it not right that I reflect some of that feeling in this House this afternoon? Is it not right that I give a voice to those 3,200 people, who cannot stand here, and put across the passion that they feel about the young people with whom they are working. [Interruption.] I am coming to a positive proposal. I feel passionately about this, but I also want a way forward and it is all about whether people are prepared to listen. We cannot get everything that we want, but I am prepared to negotiate and to compromise—I hope that the same applies to those on both sides of the House.

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

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way one last time, then I will finish my remarks.

[Andrew Percy]

I certainly think that school sport partnerships have done some excellent work in my area. I have spoken to school sports co-ordinators and to head teachers and it is fair to say that head teachers and deputy head teachers have a range of views on the effectiveness of the partnerships and how valuable they have been in their area. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if they have been doing work in the way that he has outlined, it will still be possible for those head teachers and those schools to work in partnerships to produce just the same things that have happened before?

[Andy Burnham]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said and his comment that the partnerships have done excellent work stands in stark contrast to the position of his Front-Bench team. He is just giving head teachers a prescription for more work and more bureaucracy; they will have to rush around on their own trying to find the coaches. The current system works, so why is the Education Secretary dismantling it?

The Government and the right hon. Gentleman have talked themselves into a mess—not for the first time. The spin just does not end. He says that school sport partnerships will be replaced by an Olympic-style school sport competition, but there are two problems with that statement. First, such a competition is no substitute for year-round sport in all schools for all children, and secondly, such a competition already exists; it is called the UK school games and it has been in place since 2006.

We are getting to the heart of the matter now: the right hon. Gentleman’s mishandling of his budget. There is now real confusion about whether this money for school sport has been cut or de-ring-fenced, as Ministers have been saying. He says that we should give money to schools and let them decide, but yesterday his schools Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), said of the Youth Sport Trust grant:

“The money saved will not be fed through the Dedicated Schools Grant”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 532W.]

So which is it? Will head teachers be able to find this money or not? Will it be in their budgets? Is it not the case that schools will be asked to pay for sport themselves, as well as for many other things that they currently get for free? Is this not a false economy, as those services can often be provided more cheaply through the economies of scale that come from providing a service across a whole area with the expert support of a national body such as the Youth Sport Trust?

All this will not take us out of the impasse, which brings me to my final point, which is a genuine suggestion about how to take things forward. As in any sporting dispute, we need an independent referee. I suggest that in this case we bring in thousands of them. Surely the best way to resolve this argument is to ask the head teachers of this country about the effectiveness of school sport partnerships. A simple question could be put to them in a survey: would they prefer a funding package to be found to maintain the SSP infrastructure or would they prefer to have each to their own and the freedom to decide? I can tell the Secretary of State today that I have received an offer from a reputable firm to do a survey for free, which I shall share with him. I urge him to take that offer forward, as long as he consults the Opposition on the questions that would be asked. I believe that he would find it helpful as it might shed new light on the misplaced suspicion that lies at the heart of his policy pronouncements. He seems to distrust any system of collective or central support for schools. He nods at that, and I am disappointed about that because there is an ideological problem here.

The drift of the right hon. Gentleman’s policy is towards a more atomised school system, where schools become walled gardens and do their own thing, competing fiercely, and where collaboration is frowned upon. That vision conflicts with the idea of providing excellence and specialist provision to all children, as it becomes more costly and complicated when schools go it alone. Sport needs central organisation, particularly competitive league and cup competitions, and there are also only so many qualified coaches. To give children access to the best, it is easier to work together across a defined area and to share resources. Far from being bureaucratic, it reduces the bureaucracy on schools. If they were left to do it all themselves, more time would be spent on it and the quality would not be as good.

Today, I can tell the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that I have given the Secretary of State a solution that fits the White Paper that the Secretary of State published last week. Let the heads decide—it is a simple proposal.

In conclusion, we have built up a school sports system in this country that works. Thousands of people have built it up with blood, sweat and tears. They have worked hard at it because they believe passionately in what they do. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) laughs at that and in doing so he denigrates their commitment. I do not often implore anyone to do anything, but I am imploring the Secretary of State today to keep the basic school sport partnership structure in place. When I think of all the positive energy that will dissipate if they are broken down, it makes me want to weep.

My own life has told me that good school sport must be a right for every single child in this country. It raises academic standards, builds strong schools with a sense of identity and togetherness and builds well-rounded children. For some young people—perhaps the less academically minded in the class—the day they go to school with their boots in their bag is the day they have a spring in their step and a bit of hope in their heart. Let us not take that away from them. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I shall come to some of those interventions in a second.

Every option that is proposed by the Opposition, whatever the passion or fervour behind it, has to have a price tag. In the middle of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the current delivery mechanism might not be as efficient as it could be and that there might be room for reduction. He said specifically that he would accept a cut or a proportionate reduction that would retain the infrastructure, so he acknowledges that it is perfectly possible to reduce spending and retain the infrastructure, but when I asked him how much of a cut and what would retain the infrastructure he was curiously silent. I would be very interested to hear from any of the Opposition Members who care so much about this—I do not doubt their passion—what level of cut they would contemplate and what they would consider to be a robust infrastructure to be kept in place. We have not had an answer on that.

[Andy Burnham]

If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared seriously to discuss retaining school sport partnerships, I will sit down with him and discuss at what level they could be kept in place and funded. The Opposition would support him if he put forward a figure that would keep them in place. If that is the offer he is making, I will sit down with him tonight to discuss it.

[Michael Gove]

I am always very grateful to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman, but he called this debate now. It is a debate of his timing, not mine, and he said in his opening remarks that he would be prepared to accept a cut. Now he has had an opportunity to state what that would be, but we do not know; there is silence on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady and the way that she makes her point. As I stressed earlier, and as her intervention gives me the opportunity to underline, there are many parts of the country where those who are working in school sports partnerships are doing a great job, but my task as Secretary of State is to analyse the current infrastructure and ensure that we are getting the maximum value for money, where good practice exists to support it, and where practice is less than optimal to try to find a way through to ensure that we have better value for money.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. We are still waiting for the answer to the question what is a proportionate reduction.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving a lot of encouraging signs that he is prepared to look at the system and make it more efficient. I am not arguing that it is perfect. Of course it could probably be made more efficient, but can we make some genuine progress? Will he sit down with me and discuss how we can keep in place enough people on the ground to provide a decent enough sporting offer to children? I will accept the reduction in the funding if he will agree to sit down and talk about the current structure, rather than creating a whole new and different structure that will not deliver for children.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that offer and I am always happy to work in a consensual way, but I should like to lay out some facts which will, I hope, allow the House to have an informed debate. I will take the opportunity, of course, to talk to him, formally or informally, at any point on any aspect of policy, but it is important that we appreciate that he has acknowledged that a proportionate reduction is appropriate. He has not yet come forward with what that proportionate reduction would be. Let us go on to examine the scope for reduction.

Schools White Paper

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to a make a statement to accompany today’s publication of the coalition Government’s White Paper on schools.

England is fortunate that we have so many great schools, so many superb teachers and so many outstanding head teachers. Their achievements deserve to be celebrated, and I was delighted that last week, the Prime Minister and I were able to meet hundreds of the very best school leaders in Downing street to congratulate them on their work and welcome their commitment to the academy programme.

We are fortunate indeed that our schools system has so many important strengths, but our commitment to making opportunity more equal means that we cannot shy away from confronting weaknesses. We are failing to keep pace with the world’s best-performing education nations. In the past 10 years we have slipped behind other nations, going from fourth in the world for science to 14th, seventh in the world for literacy to 17th and eighth in the world for mathematics to 24th.

At the same time, the gulf between the opportunities available to the rich and the chances given to the poor has grown wider. The gap between the A-level performance of children in independent schools and state schools doubled under Labour, and in the last year for which we have figures, out of a population of 80,000 children eligible for free school meals, just 40 made it to Oxford and Cambridge, a drop from the previous year, when just 45 made it. Social mobility went backwards under Labour, and it is the mission of this coalition Government to reverse that unhappy trend and to make opportunity more equal. Under this Government, we can become an aspiration nation once more.

If we are to make the most of the potential of every child, we need to learn from those countries that outperform us educationally and have more equal societies. This White Paper does just that. It takes the best ideas from the highest-performing education nations and applies them to our own circumstances.

The single most important lesson, which is reflected in the title of our White Paper, is the importance of teaching. The best schools systems recruit the best people to teach, train them intensively in the craft of teaching, continue to develop them as professionals throughout their career, groom natural leaders for headship positions and give great heads the chance to make a difference. That is why we will reform and improve teacher training by establishing a new generation of teaching schools, which will be based on the model of teaching hospitals. Outstanding schools will be showcases for the best in teaching practice. We will also invest in doubling the number of top graduates who enter teaching through Teach First, and will create a new programme, Teach Next, to attract into teaching high performers from other professions. We will subsidise graduates in strategic subjects such as science and maths to enter teaching and create a new troops-to-teachers programme to attract natural leaders from the armed forces into the classroom.

Because we know that the biggest barrier to recruiting and retaining good people in teaching is poor pupil behaviour, we will take decisive action on discipline. Unless order is maintained in the classroom, teachers cannot teach and children cannot learn, so we will make it easier for teachers to impose detentions on disruptive pupils by abolishing the rule that requires 24 hours’ notice before a detention is given.

We will give teachers stronger powers to search students if they bring items into school and are intent on disruption. We will give teachers clearer rules on the use of force and we will protect them from false allegations made by disruptive and vindictive pupils if they act to keep order.

We will support schools to introduce traditional blazer-and-tie uniforms, prefects and house systems. We will prioritise action to tackle bullying, especially racist and homophobic bullying, and we will make it easier for schools to exclude disruptive children without the fear of seeing excluded children reinstated over their heads. We will improve education for troubled young people by bringing in new organisations to run alternative provision for excluded pupils.

By improving behaviour, we can then free teachers to raise standards. We will reform our national curriculum so that it is a benchmark we can use to measure ourselves against the world’s best school systems instead of a straitjacket that stifles the creativity of our best teachers. We will slim down a curriculum that has become overloaded, over-prescriptive and over-bureaucratic by stripping out unnecessary clutter and simply specifying the core knowledge in strategic subjects that every child should know at each key stage. That will give great teachers more freedom to innovate and to inspire. We will support their drive to raise standards for all by reforming our exams. We will reform assessment in primary schools to reduce teaching to the test and we will make GCSEs more rigorous by stripping out modules. We will make GCSE performance tables more aspirational by judging schools on how well all students do not just in English and maths but in science, modern languages and the humanities, such as history and geography.

We will also reverse the previous Government’s decision to downgrade the teaching of proper English by restoring the recognition of spelling, punctuation and grammar in GCSEs. Because we know that it is great teaching and great teachers who improve schools, we will reduce the bureaucracy that holds them back and put teachers at the heart of school improvement.

We will double the number of national leaders of education—outstanding head teachers with a mission to turn round underperforming schools. We will raise the minimum standards expected of all schools, so primaries and secondaries that fail to get students to an acceptable level and fail to have students making decent progress will be eligible for intervention. We will make £110 million available to create a new endowment fund to turn these schools round, and we will introduce a reward scheme to make additional incentive payments available for great heads who turn round underperforming schools.

In our drive to improve all schools, local authorities will be our indispensable partners. They will play a new role as parents champion, making admissions fairer, so parents choose schools rather than schools choosing parents. They will act as a strong voice for the vulnerable by ensuring that excluded children and those with special needs are properly supported, and they will be energetic champions of educational excellence.

As more and more schools become increasingly autonomous, local authorities will increasingly step back from management and, instead, provide focused leadership. They will challenge underperformance, blow the whistle on weak schools and commission new provision—whether it be from other high-performing schools, academy sponsors or free school promoters.

The need for thoroughgoing reform is urgent. Our competitors are all accelerating the pace of their education reforms. From America to Singapore, New Zealand to Hong Kong, schools are being granted greater freedom, great teachers are being given more responsibilities, and exams are being made more rigorous. We cannot afford to be left behind.

In the last three years of the previous Government, reform went into reverse. Schools lost freedoms, the curriculum lost rigour and Labour lost its way. Now, under this coalition Government, we are once more travelling in the same direction as the most ambitious and progressive nations. Schools spending is rising, with more money for the poorest through the pupil premium; education reform is accelerating, with one new academy created every working day; and standards are being driven up, with teachers now supported to excel as never before.

The programme we outline today affirms the importance of teaching at the heart of our mission to make opportunity more equal. There is no profession more noble, no calling more vital and no vocation more admirable than teaching. This White Paper gives us the opportunity to become the world’s leading education nation, and I commend it to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for his courtesy in allowing me advance sight of the White Paper? It is just a shame that that happened 10 days after the Financial Times and the rest of the nation’s media were given such advance sight, and that Parliament was the last to know. We were promised new politics, and it is time the Government lived up to their words.

I apply two clear tests to any education policy. First, will it help every school to be a good school? Secondly, will it help every child to be the best that they can be? While we welcome elements of this White Paper, I believe that it fails those fundamental tests. It is a plan for some children, not all children. The right hon. Gentleman will need to work hard to explain how his plan will not create a new generation of failing schools.

Let me say where I think the Secretary of State is moving in the right direction. We welcome the retention of a floor target for secondary schools and his apparent change of heart on the role of targets in raising standards—building on Labour’s successful national challenge programme. We welcome the expansion of Teach First, which we championed in government. Labour’s legacy, according to Ofsted, was

“the best generation of teachers ever”.

We share his aim to have the best in the world. We also support anonymity for teachers who face accusations from pupils and some of his moves on discipline.

However, the Secretary of State’s overall drive is towards a two-tier education system. I support his focus on maths, English and science, where take-up doubled since 2004, but by making the entire focus five academic subjects, is he encouraging schools to focus only on those children who have a chance of achieving that particular batch of GCSEs? Is not there a huge danger that he is cementing the divide between academic and vocational qualifications, which educational professionals have worked so hard to remove?

The risks of the Secretary of State’s English baccalaureate becoming the gold standard by which schools are judged have been highlighted by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which states:

“Schools will have an incentive to focus extra resources on children likely to do well in those subjects, rather than on children receiving free school meals.”

Is not there a real risk that his pupil premium will not be spent on the children for whom it is intended? At a time when we all need to focus more on the 50% of young people who do not plan to go to university, is it not the case that he has very little to say to them today? His message is that a vocational route is second best, and that is unacceptable.

Is there not a real danger that the combined effects of the Secretary of State’s announcements today will be to create a new generation of failing schools? Is it not the case that some improving schools will see themselves plummet down the league tables, damaging morale and risking throwing progress into reverse? Many of those are the same schools that suffered from his decisions on Building Schools for the Future. What hope can he give them today of extra support to raise standards for all their children, both academic and vocational?

The Secretary of State wants to make it easier for schools to exclude children, but who will have the responsibility of helping schools to pick up the pieces? Why is he ending the independent appeals panel for exclusions, which ensures fairness across a local education community? He has rightly placed a strong emphasis on teacher training, but is he not at risk of ignoring the advice of his experts? Ofsted said yesterday:

“There was more outstanding initial teacher education delivered by higher education-led partnerships than by school-centred initial teacher training partnerships and employment-based routes.”

Why, we might ask, is the right hon. Gentleman planning to end university-led teacher training for a schools-based model? Can he assure the House that that will not undermine the quality of teacher training and that it is not a move simply motivated by cutting costs? But is there not a much bigger contradiction? Today he lays down prescriptive standards for teaching training, but his message just days ago to free schools and academies was that they were free to employ unqualified teachers. Is he not mixing his messages and trying to have it both ways?

All this exposes a major flaw in the right hon. Gentleman’s thinking, which is repeated throughout the White Paper. Today he talks a good game on standards; on any other day he says to schools that they will have the freedom not to follow them. Which is it? He sounds confused. That is because his real focus is on potentially damaging structural reforms and he is prioritising competition above collaboration in the schools system. His talk on standards is undermined by his ideological obsession with structures. In his rush to reform, he is making mistakes that will damage our education system. He seems not to have learned from the mayhem that he caused with Building Schools for the Future. At the most crucial moment for sport in this country’s history, on the eve of a home Olympics, why is he abandoning a school sport system that the Australians have called “world-leading”? Does that not embody his approach to education: competitive sport for the elite and forget about the rest?

The right hon. Gentleman briefs newspapers that he will abandon the local authority role in school funding, but then tells the BBC the opposite. Did he rediscover localism last week, or did he cave in following a furious backlash from his friends in local government? Can he tell us today what role he envisages for local government over the long term? Will it have any powers of intervention in respect of free schools and academies? Is not his biggest mistake of all that he tells schools that their budgets are protected—thereby raising expectations—by continuing to mis-sell his pupil premium policy? It is a con: it is not additional, as the Prime Minister said today. Is it not the case that when schools receive their budgets in a couple of weeks, many in the most deprived areas will be the biggest losers and will simply not have the means to deliver on his fancy rhetoric today?

In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman brings a lethal mix of incompetence and ideology to this crucial brief. Just because he believes in the teaching of history, it does not mean that he has to live in the past. He is in danger of bringing forward a plan for a fragmented and divided education system of winners and losers. He is in danger of creating a lost generation as a result of his elitist education system. He sits in his ivory tower, with nothing to say to young people who do not plan to go to university or whose hope is being cut by his Government—vocational studies downgraded; apprenticeships for young people frozen; the education maintenance allowance scrapped. He has a plan for some schools and some children, not for all schools and all children, and that is the fundamental flaw of his White Paper.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for that performance. Obviously at St Aelred’s in Lancashire, where he was educated, drama was very well taught.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman on those areas where he agrees? I thank him for his support for ensuring a consensus in the House on the importance of floor standards. It is important that we also recognise that, as well as having clear levels of attainment, we will be judging schools on how well all children progress. The one change that we will be making to the way in which the national challenge operated under the previous Government is that schools in challenging circumstances, with pupils from difficult backgrounds, will be given additional understanding and support, and will be judged on how they make progress. That is a clear difference from the record under the previous Government, when one rule was applied inflexibly. We are applying it more sensitively.

May I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the expansion of Teach First and for the statesmanlike way in which he approached the issue of discipline and granting teachers anonymity? I look forward to working with him and his Front-Bench colleagues on bringing forward an education Bill that makes good on those promises.

However, may I express my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that children who are eligible for free school meals are unlikely to do well in science, language or history GCSEs? He specifically said that schools that concentrate on raising attainment in those subjects will not be spending money on children from poorer homes. Has that not been precisely the problem in our education system for three generations? Is not the automatic assumption that because someone is poor they cannot aspire, precisely the problem that we need reform to overcome? Is not the soft bigotry of low expectations alive and well, and beating in his heart? Is it not the case that when it comes to improving vocational education, it is this Government who are taking action?

The right hon. Gentleman asked us what we were doing, but he had three hours to read the White Paper. I thought he would have noticed that we are increasing the number of technical schools and university technical colleges; I thought he would have noticed that we are increasing the number of studio schools, which deal specifically with vocational education; I thought he would have noticed that we have commissioned Professor Alison Wolf, the world leader on the future of vocational qualifications, to overhaul the ramshackle system that we inherited; I thought he would have noticed that thanks to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning we are increasing the number of apprenticeships by 75,000. Vocational education is undergoing a renaissance under this Government, and it is typically grudging of the Labour party not to recognise that.

The right hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing for children who are excluded. Again, I thought he would have seen in the White Paper not only that we are trialling a new proposal whereby schools take responsibility for the children they exclude but that he would have noticed in the White Paper that we are deliberately commissioning extra, additional provision for excluded children from a wider range of organisations, and we are giving pupil referral units the chance to become academies, the chance to acquire appropriate heads, and the chance to turn round the lives of desperate children who need additional help. We have heard not a single word from him about what we can do to help those children, and not a single word of praise for the dedicated people who do so much to help them.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about competition rather than collaboration. Everywhere in the White Paper collaboration is incentivised, with more money for great head teachers who want to work with underperforming schools, more opportunities for federations, trusts and academies to help underperforming schools, and a culture of collaboration entrenched at its heart. But there is one area where I believe in more competition—I make no apology for it. I believe in more competition in team sports. It is wrong that after expenditure of more than £2 billion, only one child in five took part in regular competitive team sports under Labour. That melancholy trend will be reversed, thanks to the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman said that our policy is for some schools, not all. I know that he, by his own estimation, went to an ordinary comprehensive in Lancashire.

[Andy Burnham]

Merseyside.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest in this issue. He is right that the pupil premium alone is not enough to break open social mobility, but that is exactly why we extended the free entitlement for early-years education for three and four-year-olds to 15 hours, and why—crucially—we have extended such education to all disadvantaged two-year-olds. By ensuring that we narrow the gap before children get to school, we ensure that they are in a much better position to make the best of the offer that we provide for them when they start primary school.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

We are told that the Secretary of State cracked open a bottle or two on the day of the spending review to celebrate the “Schools Protected” headline that was running. His journalistic ability to get a good headline is not in doubt; it is his grip on ministerial detail that we worry about, and whether the reality that head teachers face when they see their budgets in a few weeks’ time will match the fine words that he used on that day.

Let me quote what the Secretary of State told the Daily Mail on 27 May:

“we will have a pupil premium, a sum of money from outside the existing schools budget which will come on top of what we currently spend on schools, in order to help children in disadvantaged circumstances.”

I ask the Minister a simple question: have the Government delivered in full on that commitment?

[Sarah Teather]

The pupil premium will provide £2.5 billion on top of the baseline for schools by the end of the comprehensive spending review period. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is £2.5 billion more than a Labour Government would have been prepared to put in.

[Andy Burnham]

I am afraid that the Minister is wrong. The coalition agreement said that the pupil premium would be funded from “outside the schools budget”, but the spending review document said that it

“will sit within a generous…settlement”.

Whatever the Minister says today, the truth is this: a pupil premium that is on top of a protected schools budget has not been delivered. However—and what is worse—the pupil premium is not what it seems. It will create winners and losers, and scandalously, the biggest losers are set to be schools in the most deprived areas of England. Let me share with the House new analysis from the Commons Library, which states:

“The impact is likely to be—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State must bring himself to a question, and I am sure he will now do so.

[Andy Burnham]

The Library note states:

“The impact is likely to be a shift in funding from generally more deprived to less deprived local authorities.”

At this time, how can the Minister possibly justify taking money off schools in those deprived parts of England?

[Sarah Teather]

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there will be a real-terms increase in school funding over the course of this comprehensive spending review period. I wonder whether it is perhaps the height of his political career to stand in the House of Commons to oppose our spending £2.5 billion extra on the poorest children in this country. Is that really what he came into Parliament to do?

[Andy Burnham]

The words do not match the reality. The reality of the Government’s spending review is this: a pupil premium con, where funding is recycled to the most affluent areas; a real-terms cut per pupil of 2.25%; a whopping 60% cut to the school building programme; Sure Start cut by 9%; and the education maintenance allowance scrapped, despite promises from the Secretary of State to protect it. Is this not the truth: he has made a mess of the education budget and while he celebrates his headlines, children and teachers are counting the cost of the Government’s broken promises?

[Sarah Teather]

Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left a legacy of the poorest children doing significantly worse than the wealthiest children right across the country, and of children on free school meals failing at every level to meet that of children from wealthier backgrounds? That is their legacy; that is the truth. His Government would never have implemented the pupil premium, and I am proud to say that we are implementing it.

Education Policy

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to set out the Government’s policy on the fairness premium to disadvantaged young children, pupils and students.

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply to this urgent question as it falls within my departmental responsibility.

I am delighted to have this additional opportunity to confirm the very good news that this coalition Government will be spending more on schools. The House will know that the full details of the comprehensive spending review will be announced on Wednesday, but I can confirm today that we will fund a new fairness premium of £7 billion over the whole CSR period, which will be invested in accelerating social mobility.

This coalition Government will give all disadvantaged two-year-olds 15 hours a week of pre-school education. We will give all disadvantaged children a pupil premium in schools to improve their attainment—that will amount to £2.5 billion a year by the end of the CSR—and we will introduce a student premium to help more disadvantaged children to make it to university.

We have had to undertake a fundamental review of expenditure to deal with the massive deficit bequeathed to us by the previous Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman served as Chief Secretary. As we have protected NHS spending—against his advice—all Departments have had to look for efficiencies. I have already taken steps to halt inefficient programmes, cut out waste, prune bureaucracy, close quangos and drive forward school reforms. The decisions that we took in the first months of this Government to reduce inefficiencies were tough. The outlook overall is tight, but thanks to the steps that we took early in the life of this Government, we can now prioritise spending on the front line, so I can confirm today that school spending will rise in real terms.

In addition, we can spend more on those who need more. We inherited a two-tier school system, with the biggest educational divide between rich and poor of any developed nation. The opportunity gulf begins in the early years and grows over time. By the time they are 16, the poorest children—those eligible for free school meals—are only half as likely as other children to get five decent GCSEs, and of 80,000 children in any year eligible for free school meals just 45 get to Oxbridge. As many children from one top public school—St Paul’s school for girls—get to Oxbridge as the entire population of poor boys and girls on benefit. That lack of opportunity is a scandal—an affront to the nation’s conscience—and thanks to the decisions taken by this coalition Government, the policies are now at last in place to give every child a fairer chance.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and may I also welcome him to his new role clearing up after the Deputy Prime Minister?

On Thursday evening, the BBC was briefed about a new policy—the so-called fairness premium—with huge implications for early years, schools and higher education funding. No notification was given to this House. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister had a bad week, and this had all the hallmarks of a hasty move to get him out of a political hole. The country could hear policy being made on the hoof.

On process first, therefore, when did the Secretary of State for Education hear that the Deputy Prime Minister was making that speech? We know that the Cabinet was kept in the dark on child benefit, but can the Secretary of State confirm that the Cabinet discussed all aspects of the fairness premium policy before it was briefed to the media?

As this announcement came in advance of the CSR, and given the overall reduction proposed by the Chancellor, people are anxious about where the funding is coming from. Can the right hon. Gentleman today give the House an assurance that he is not robbing Peter to pay Paul and that no other part of the education budget is facing disproportionate cuts to pay for the policy? Is he aware that his announcement has fuelled rumour over the future of the education maintenance allowance and universal Sure Start? Can he today reassure the House on those fronts as well?

Finally, the heart of the matter is this: we need to know whether the Government will honour repeated promises that the pupil premium will truly be additional to the schools budget. A BBC report suggested that funding will be recycled from within the schools budget. The Liberal Democrats have broken one education pledge; we need to hear from the right hon. Gentleman today whether another has been broken, or whether the Deputy Prime Minister has secured the reddest of his red lines.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his series of questions, and may I also thank him for his generous words about the Deputy Prime Minister, who had a very good week last week? I think that being able during the course of our CSR to secure a better deal for schools than the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was able to negotiate when he was Education Secretary counts as a significant triumph. I think that advancing social mobility and social justice by delivering on Liberal Democrat manifesto promises is something in which Members on both sides of the House can take pride.

The right hon. Gentleman asks when I knew about the fairness premium. I knew when I read through, and nodded with approval at, the education section of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The Liberal Democrats committed then—months ago—to spending more on early years, to funding a pupil premium and to ensuring that more disadvantaged people can go to university. The Liberal Democrats, in this coalition Government, have delivered on all those goals.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether there will be any disproportionate cuts in any other part of the education budget. I can assure him in respect of Sure Start and 16-to-19 funding that he will find out on Wednesday that we have ensured that the funding is in place in order to guarantee that more people will participate after the age of 16 and that a network of Sure Start children centres is there for every child who needs them.

All of this has been done because our coalition Government working together has dealt with the inefficiencies, the waste and the bureaucracy that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government bequeathed to us. A coalition Government working together has prioritised social mobility after years in which it was frozen. A coalition Government working together has ensured that money goes to the front line rather than being spent on bureaucracy and waste. As a result, we are taking the tough decisions that he and he and he—his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches—ducked. They will not support reducing child benefit in order to ensure that the poorest get more. They will not support our VAT increase in order to plug the deficit. They will not support any of our steps to improve efficiency on the front line in schools. They are a party of naysayers and deficit deniers, and that is why this coalition Government are putting right the mess we inherited from them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman always makes a compelling case for his constituents, and I am well aware that in the part of Derbyshire that he represents resources have not been devoted to the front line as efficiently as they should have been. One of the aims of the capital review that we have put in place and of the comprehensive spending review, which will report to the House next Wednesday, is to ensure that the schools in greatest need—both secondary and primary—receive resources as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure finally to face the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box; he and I have not done this before. I hope that he will not mind my saying at the beginning that my observation of him so far in his job is that he has failed to understand the difference between being a Minister and being a journalist, displaying a fairly loose grip on the facts. He promised hundreds of free schools, but has signed off just 16; he promised thousands of academies but has so far signed up only 50; and his mistakes on the BSF programme threw schools into chaos and prompted four legal challenges from local authorities. Can he give the House a straightforward answer today? Can he confirm that he proceeded with his decision to scrap school building projects despite being explicitly warned by his civil servants that local authorities would have a “fairly strong legal case” against his Department?

[Michael Gove]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. First, may I congratulate him on his elevation to shadow Education Secretary? I admire the way in which he fought his leadership campaign. He was an advocate for both modernisation and aspirational socialism, which is why, of course, he came fourth out of five, neither of those values being entirely flavour of the month in the Labour party at the moment. May I also thank him for his reference to my past as a journalist? It was a pleasure to spend some time in a job outside politics before I came into this House—I recommend it to him. May I also say that, as the permanent secretary made clear to the Select Committee when I was answering its questions back in July, the advice that it was alleged I was offered was not passed on to me?

[Andy Burnham]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristic graciousness. Today he is wearing something of the air of the self-satisfied teacher’s pet who has escaped the attentions of the biggest boy in the playground, but I say to him that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and I are the strike force for the parliamentary football team—he softens up opponents and gives me the bullets to finish them off. I give that warning to the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman’s answer is typical of the cavalier way in which he is running his Department. He has got himself into a mess because of his determination to inflict a political experiment on our schools, skewing the budget towards pet projects instead of helping all schools through tough times. We have already heard that he has wasted £260 million through his botched decision making—is that what Philip Green would call a shocking waste? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell this House how much his Department has set aside to cover the legal costs and possible compensation to local authorities caused by the mistakes that he has made?

[Michael Gove]

That was a fantastic question—or series of questions. I am impressed that the strike force in the Labour party parliamentary football team comes, according to the right hon. Gentleman, equipped with bullets. It says something about the approach of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) towards playing fair that he regards a Tommy gun as an appropriate thing to bring on to the football field.

There was a certain element of the spraying of fire in the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). May I say that we will vigorously contest the judicial review of our decision? It is really important that people appreciate that the Building Schools for the Future programme had failed. Unfortunately, in 2008, instead of 200 schools being built, fewer than 50 had been built. Under the Building Schools for the Future programme, £11 million was wasted on consultants. One consultant secured the equivalent of £1.35 million, while schools in my constituency, the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and almost every hon. Member’s constituency needed that resource. We will make no apology for ensuring that in the education budget money goes not to lawyers and consultants but to the front line and that 13 years of Labour failure is at last reversed by a coalition Government committed to aspiration.

Education and Health

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

What a great note on which to end. We are sure that will come to pass.

I begin by congratulating the Secretaries of State for Health and Education on their new positions. I also welcome back to the Department of Health the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who left it in 1997. I trust that he finds the NHS in much better shape than he left it all those years ago. Whatever policy differences we may have, I do not think that any Opposition Member would doubt the conviction or the depth of knowledge with which both Secretaries of State speak in their new roles. The two Departments that they now lead have established impressive collaborative working in recent years, particularly on children’s health, on promoting children’s activity and on child safeguarding, and I hope that I can begin on a non-partisan note by encouraging them to build on that track record. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and I rarely missed an opportunity to promote joint working between our two Departments, although we can probably both admit now that jumping on a rope swing was, in retrospect, a promotional step too far.

[Ed Balls]

I enjoyed it.

[Andy Burnham]

I beg to differ.

We heard from another former Secretary of State today, praising Labour’s investment in the NHS—the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell). When the Education Secretary spoke, he really laid bare the difference between the two sides of the House. He boasted of the funding settlement that he had secured for this year, but under questioning from my right hon. Friend, he could not answer tell us about future years. Nor could he say whether it extended to 11-year-olds and beyond.

The big difference between us is that we on the Opposition Benches recognise that improving the health of the nation depends on investing in far more than the NHS. It involves investing properly in local government and in our schools to ensure that we have public services that are able and equipped to work together. The Government have made their commitment to increase health spending in every year of this Parliament at the expense of other crucial budgets on which the NHS depends. It is a judgment that has more to do with political positioning than with sound and good policy making, and they will come to regret it.

It is important for me, on behalf of all Opposition Members, to put something on the official record at the start of this Parliament. Labour has left the NHS in its strongest ever position. That is a fact, and no attempt by the Government to rewrite history will change that. The NHS is substantially rebuilt and renewed. It has an expanded, skilled and fairly rewarded work force, able to meet the expectations that today’s patients have. Waiting times are at an all-time low and infection rates are right down; consequently, patient satisfaction with the NHS is at an all-time high. That did not happen by chance. It happened because of decisions taken by Labour Members in the teeth of opposition from the new Secretary of State and Conservative Members. Because we took those tough decisions, we have left the NHS in that position. We shall be watching the Government’s decisions closely to ensure that the NHS continues to move forward in this period.

I have never doubted the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment to the NHS, but I am less sure about the people behind him and around him. Last August, a ComRes survey of prospective Tory parliamentary candidates found that an amazing 62% disagreed with their Front-Bench policy to increase NHS spending in real terms during the course of this Parliament. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) was one of the respondents to that survey, but it was an amazing statistic that so many people could not agree with the policy that Conservative Front-Bench Members were putting forward. We have not heard from them today, but I suspect that there are a few more members of the Daniel Hannan tendency on the Government Benches. I am sure that we will come to know and love them as the weeks and months go by.

With apologies to some of the older hands in the House, in the time remaining I would like to concentrate on some of the 23 maiden speeches today. All hon. Members spoke with great authenticity, and it is refreshing for Members who have been in the House for some time to hear such speeches made with real sincerity and passion, and before people learn the tricks and artifices of this place which we all know so well.

Let me mention some of those speeches. The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) spoke of his ancestors advising Henry VIII on divorce, and the thought crossed my mind that the family’s skills might be of some use if the fabled married men’s allowance ever reaches the Floor of the House. We had a second maiden speech from my hon. Friend the new Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). I have just been out to check, and I can assure the House that the second was much better than the first—[Laughter]—but the first was quite good as well, actually. He made mention of the wonderful, international institution that is Alder Hey hospital, and all Members, not just north-west MPs, look forward to its successful rebuild in the coming years. It really is a true, national jewel in the crown, and we look forward to seeing that scheme make progress.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) praised the beauty of his constituency, and it is indeed a wonderful part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) praised the huge change that took place in his constituency after Labour came to power and, particularly, the progress that the university of Bedfordshire has made. Perhaps others have said this to him since his wonderful victory, but I was musing on the idea that his victory speech was the shortest ever given at a count, with just the words: “That’s life.” I am sure that that was the speech. It did not need to be much more than that.

The hon. Member for Totnes is a very welcome addition to the House. We have lost a GP in Howard Stoate, whom Opposition Members will remember very fondly, but the hon. Lady brings back to the House the experience and voice of a general practitioner. She brings also some experience of wider public involvement in the political process, which is a good thing, too, and she spoke very knowledgeably about the real problem and threat that alcohol misuse poses to our society.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) rightly praised Ken Purchase, who made a distinguished contribution over many years in this House, not least in securing the redevelopment of Wolverhampton’s New Cross hospital. My hon. Friend said that she hoped to follow in the proud tradition of women MPs who have come from the area, particularly Renée Short and Jennie Lee, and I am sure that she will keep up that fine tradition.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) made a very fair-minded and good maiden speech, talking of the need to improve educational opportunities for all. She praised her predecessor, Doug Naysmith, who was also very warmly regarded by Opposition Members and, I am sure, by Members from all parts of the House for his crucial work on the Health Committee and on mental health.

The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) made a very strong maiden speech. “Croydon born and bred,” he said, and he talked about the town’s image problem. However, on that outing he has already done his bit to reverse that idea and is already an excellent ambassador for his home town.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) gave a very insightful and measured speech. Again, born and bred in his constituency, he spoke knowledgeably of the casino culture in the City and of the gap between rich and poor. It is still too wide, and Opposition Members will renew our efforts to narrow that gap. He talked also of the former Member for Streatham surfing in Cornwall as we met here today, and I think we could all hear his trademark laugh echoing around the House as we imagined that scene.

We then had a very rare moment in the House: a most impressive and incredible maiden speech. The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) followed his leader in speaking without notes, and as he can see not all of us can manage to do that, even after nine years in the House. However, he gave a most confident speech, mentioning that he is the first former pupil of a special school to take a seat in the House and, indeed, the first Member with cerebral palsy. He made a huge contribution this evening and a huge impression, and nobody could fail to be moved by it. We all want to hope that people can fulfil their ambitions, whatever difficulties they face in life, and he will make a distinguished contribution in the years to come. His praise for Joan Humble was very well received by Opposition Members, and I do not know whether he makes any connection between Blackpool’s recent promotion to the premier league and his recent election as Member for the town, or indeed whether it is too early to make such a claim, but Everton look forward to picking up six points when the new season begins.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) spoke passionately about the importance of co-operative values and she was right to do so. In the age that we live in, the public are looking for organisations that embody something different and give the public something that they can trust. She made that important point well. My hon. Friend also mentioned Des Browne, whom we all remember well. He made a huge contribution to public life and will continue to do so in another place.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) praised David Drew; I believe that the hon. Gentleman comes from his constituency and is well known there. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) made an important point, and I ask the Secretary of State for Health to consider it. She spoke of the important need to rebuild the Royal Liverpool hospital. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I approved that decision not long before leaving the Department of Health. There can be no question but that the hospital redevelopment is essential for the city of Liverpool. It is not only the hospital trust that is involved; there is also a partnership between the university of Liverpool and the pharmaceutical industry. The hospital desperately needs to be replaced and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage the decision back out of the Treasury and allow it to proceed quickly. The scheme is much needed to improve the health service on Merseyside.

The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) stressed the significant effect of deprivation on a whole host of factors, including life chances. We may feel that he is more in sympathy with us than with his new friends on the Conservative Benches. My neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made an excellent speech praising my good friend Neil Turner. She mentioned the importance of rugby league in our borough and rightly said that our borough is only now recovering from the effects of the recession of the ’80s and ’90s. That is why it is so crucial that the Government should continue to help the North West Development Agency and others to develop the jobs of the future in boroughs such as Wigan. We will hold the Government to account for the decisions that they take on that.

The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) spoke of the importance of Toyota to the Derbyshire area and I am sure that she was right to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) paid tribute to another good friend, Richard Caborn, who will be remembered most as a very distinguished Minister for Sport. My hon. Friend also reminded the House of something that we may want to file away and come back to a few times before the next general election—how his neighbour, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), now Deputy Prime Minister, was wandering around his constituency right until polling day warning people that they should vote Lib Dem if they did not want the Tories. We need to remind the right hon. Gentleman of that.

The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) praised Brian Jenkins, who made a distinguished contribution to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) made a distinguished speech. Finally, she is in this House in her own right, and she is very welcome. She will make a huge contribution. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) paid tribute to Charles Clarke in a distinguished speech.

There was a spirited and passionate speech about Walthamstow from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I do not know whether, as a former Health Secretary, I can admit to having been to the dog track there, but I have. It was a wonderful place and we need to ensure that she fulfils her ambitions for her constituency. She made a wonderful speech. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) spoke passionately about the fulfilment of his dream. Finally, I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). We could not give him the black and white of Ponty rugby football club, but we have given him the green Benches. We hope that they are good enough. His first speech shows that he will have a great career in this place.

In the time that I have left, I want to tell the Health Secretary that we will come back time and again in this Parliament to the commitments that he made during the general election campaign to remove NHS targets. That is the biggest difference between us. I am picking up whispers that, having spoken to the civil servants in the Department, he is having second thoughts and thinks that that is not such a good idea after all. That was the whisper in the trade press. However, this afternoon at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said that the targets would be going. Let me tell the Health Secretary directly that if those targets are removed from the national health service, people everywhere who depend on a good service from the NHS will no longer be able to count on that. Those standards, which Labour introduced, have given us a national health service that provides a good standard of care to people right across the country. They are good standards to have in a national health service.

The Secretary of State needs to come clean at the Dispatch Box. Is he going to back up those standards, or does he have something else in mind? Is he going to keep the 18-week target, the two-week target for cancer, and the four-hour A and E target? He needs to give a direct answer. If he is not going to do that, he will leave lots of people without the peace of mind that they need and that tells them the NHS will be there for them when they need it. I can tell him that if he removes those standards in a time of financial pressure in the NHS, then as sure as night follows day, waiting lists and waiting times will begin to increase, and Labour Members will hold him and his colleagues responsible for that. We have given the warnings. We do not want to see the progress made in the NHS lost in the months and years ahead, and we will hold him to ensuring that commitments given will be honoured. He said that he will take the NHS forward, and we will ensure that that is indeed what he delivers.

If the Secretary of State makes those changes and leaves people without the peace of mind that they need from the NHS, and if the Education Secretary and the Business Secretary go ahead and take away people’s life chances by restricting access to university and the future jobs fund, it will not be a case of, “We’re all in this together”, but of leaving people who have least and are in a much deeper hole than the others without the security and peace of mind that they need from a strong NHS and, for young people looking for a job, the ladder to get up to a better life. We will hold this Cabinet to account for those decisions, and we will ensure that the excellent progress that we have made is not threatened or jeopardised by this Government.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

It is a great privilege to be able to come to this Dispatch Box for the first time as Secretary of State for Health, after six and a half years as shadow Secretary of State. I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his kind words about me and my team. I am very proud of the team that we have at the Department of Health. I was proud when the Prime Minister spoke of us in warm terms today, and we will fulfil the responsibilities that he has placed on us.

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, in return, that I thank him, on behalf of the NHS, for his commitment. From the days when he began as a Minister in the Department and then went, as it were, back to the shop floor, I think that nobody has doubted his personal commitment to improving standards in the NHS, nor, indeed, that of his outgoing ministerial team. He is on his own in the shadow health team—[Interruption.] Oh, I beg their pardons. However, he has lost his fellow Ministers. I will not go on at length, but I know that they were all committed to their jobs. I want especially to mention Ann Keen. As a nurse, she showed her personal commitment to the NHS and to nursing as a profession. My colleagues, including the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), and I will ensure that we continue the work of identifying how we can take nursing forward as a profession. That includes the work that she and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), have done in looking at nursing as a profession for the future.

As Secretary of State, it is my privilege to be able to represent those who work in the national health service. We have reason, all of us, to be grateful to them every day. People in Cumbria, especially today, have reason to be grateful to the north-west ambulance service, to local GPs, and to those who work in North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, particularly those at West Cumberland hospital, whom I have twice visited. I know the responsibility that they feel, even on a day-to-day basis, for providing hospital care—acute care—to patients across that part of Cumberland, which is at a great distance from other hospital locations. I know that people in Cumbria will be deeply grateful for the service that they have provided to look after them today.

It is a privilege for the shadow Secretary of State and I to respond to this debate, which has included 23 maiden speeches and, indeed, some fine speeches by Members who are not new. Before I respond to those speeches in detail, I want to say that it was very encouraging to hear the commitment to improving quality expressed on both sides of the House.

It was particularly encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and other Members on these Benches demonstrate that what we need to achieve that quality is a change from a command-and-control, top-down system of running our schools, hospitals, health care and social care services to one that is built on standards of delivering quality. We need to understand that if we are really going to achieve that, we have to give parents greater choice and control over the education that their children receive. We have to give patients greater information, choice and control over the health care that they receive, and in all the public services that we are talking about, we must provide those who deliver them with a much greater sense of ownership.

It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Leigh to talk about what has been achieved in the NHS over recent years, and I have never been one to diminish what has been achieved. However, many who work in the service, notwithstanding the fact that they are better paid than they were and know that they have had an unprecedented increase in resources to deliver improvements, still feel demoralised and that they are not in control of the service that they provide. They cannot give the care that they want to give, and they know that they are not yet matching the standard of care that they could achieve given the opportunity to do so. It is our responsibility to make that happen and I do not doubt the commitment of Government Members to do so. I visited 62 constituencies during the general election campaign and, without exception, I met candidates who were committed to delivering improvements in health care, not least because in many cases they had personally campaigned for years to deliver improvements in health care services. That is why we will not let Labour’s debt crisis, which we have inherited, mean that we cut the NHS and make the sick pay.

When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, he commissioned McKinsey to go off and publish a report. It produced a report for him stating that on average, something like 10% of those employed by a provider of health care with 300 staff should be taken away, mostly clinical staff. That was the recommendation given this March to my predecessor as Secretary of State, but that is not the way we should go. We must move towards a change in priorities from a service that was increasing the number of managers three times as fast as the number of nurses to one that deploys clinical staff on the front line to deliver the care that patients need.

[Andy Burnham]

Just for the record, the report was not commissioned by me or by Ministers but by the former director of commissioning in the Department, who left before I arrived.

[Mr Lansley]

Let me put it like this: I inherited a Department in which the report had been produced but not published, so I published it. I published the report on London and will publish all the reports that were prepared before the election, such as the prescription charges review that the Secretary of State commissioned from Professor Ian Gilmore, which was not published before the general election. As far as I am concerned, we are committed to transparency and getting that information out.

I have immense respect for the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). He and I do not agree about the specific issue of minimum unit pricing on alcohol, and he knows why—I do not believe we have seen the evidence of its benefit compared with cost, particularly for low-income households. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) is absolutely right that we must do something about the matter. We must acknowledge the scale and severity of the problems resulting from alcohol misuse, and we must tackle supply, pricing and problem drinks. We must ensure that we enforce legislation properly, but we must also recognise that it is not just about restricting the availability of alcohol. We must change our relationship with alcohol as individuals and as a society, and we will address that issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) knows that I am committed to maternity services there and to helping them deliver the quality that his constituents expect. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said that what works in Surrey Heath may not work in Hackney. Exactly—that is the point. When we devolve decision making inside the education and health services, as we intend to do, things happen differently in different places. That is precisely why those services should be empowered to respond in different ways in different places, and that is our intention.

There have been some fabulous maiden speeches today. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that I appreciate the 10 years that he has been fighting for the people of Harlow. He showed today his absolute commitment to maintaining exactly that support for the people whom he represents.

It is good to see the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) back, and to those of us who entered the House at the same time as him, it feels as though he had not gone away. I understand exactly what he says about Alder Hey, and the same is true of Broadgreen. I visited Alder Hey shortly before the election, and it tells us a lot when families are crammed together on a ward, but all they want to do is say how wonderful the care that they are receiving is. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that terrific care is provided in physical circumstances that reflect it. We cannot make announcements about the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen, or about Monitor in relation in Alder Hey as a foundation trust, but I hope that we will be able to do so soon.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) and others talked about the importance of community hospitals. I hope that he will have heard the Prime Minister say this afternoon that they are supported and valued. That is absolutely the case, and I know Chippenham hospital from visiting it in the past. The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) said that there is more to life than politics. That is very wise, very true and very good advice for those in the Labour party at the moment. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) has obviously learnt her politics well, because she mentioned the Express & Star, which is very sensible. She also talked about New Cross hospital, which I have visited, as she will know.

We must provide the public with the information required to enable them to support the driving up of standards through the exercise of control and choice, but also sometimes just through holding people to account publicly for the quality of the service that they provide. New Cross is a great example: there has not been a case of MRSA there since June 2009. That is terrific. The former Secretary of State will say, “Haven’t we done well in reducing infections?” However, that is from a terribly high base. What will drive down infections is a constant focus on places that achieve the best results, and New Cross—as I know from personal experience—does extraordinarily well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) and others talked about the pupil premium and the health premium, how we can reduce health and education inequalities and how we can achieve a greater sense of equality in our society. Notwithstanding some of the correct arguments about the wider social determinants of health and education, if we tackle both as communities and as a society, we can do a great deal to reduce those underlying inequalities at the same time as we tackle economic inequality.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and I go back a long way—20 years—and it was a delight to hear him talking about Croydon and, in particular, about leadership, because that is important. Many other hon. Members also talked about that issue, and rightly so. I heard no references to traffic lights from the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), but I used to live in Balham and it was a delight to learn more about the area. I never knew that I was walking the longest high street in western Europe. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) managed to tell us about the world’s first integrated sewer system and Meccano, so the debate this evening has been very educational.

I do not want to leave anybody out, and I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who talked about mutualism and social enterprise, which are terrifically important. We will do more to give employers in public services ownership of the services that they provide. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) will know that examples such as Born in Bradford will be part of how we approach our public health strategies. Everyone seemed to mention academies this evening, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) was the only one to mention a golf academy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made the important point that we must deliver improving long-term care that allies health and social care together. We will do that and we will reform adult social care—and we will not wait until 2015-16 as proposed. We will press on and examine how we can do that in a matter of months, not of years.

The hon. Members for Norwich South (Simon Wright) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) gave us further visions of how they will achieve their objectives for their constituencies, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). They are robust advocates in speaking up for their constituencies and explaining their convictions.

In conclusion, I am committed, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, to putting in place sustainable, stable reforms that achieve our vision of delivering health and educational outcomes that are as good as anywhere in the world, based on principles of equity, excellence and delivering greater efficiency in the services that we represent, but most of all based on empowerment of people.