Sure Start Children’s Centres

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

It is a mixed picture. We will get to the bottom of the true picture on the ground as we get into the debate today. If Conservative local authorities are not just keeping the centres open, but protecting the services within them, I will of course recognise that that is what we want and what the Government said they would do. If that is the case, then good. But other Conservative-controlled authorities are not doing that. My question back to the hon. Gentleman is: what are he and his Front-Bench colleagues saying to Conservative authorities that are disinvesting from Sure Start and siphoning the money out? I look forward to an equally fulsome answer on that question.

If the Government accept the vision in the review that they commissioned my right hon. Friend to produce, I put it to the House that it must urgently consider what is happening on the ground and ask the Government to change course to preserve the network of children’s centres and services. As I will show today, children’s centres are closing right here, right now. Highly trained staff are being made redundant. Some children’s centres are keeping the lights on, but no more. That is the reality on the ground that the Prime Minister must urgently confront.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to what is going on in Sefton. The council faces 30% cuts in its budget and it has had to review all 19 of its Sure Start centres. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has made that decision, which emphasises my right hon. Friend’s point about the cuts being made by Conservative-run or led authorities. Families in Sefton are clear that they need the entire network. It is essential for people from all the different parts of the community that the network should be maintained. People from different parts of the community need different elements of the service.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend points out that coalition councils are not acting to protect Sure Start. He has come to an important point. The Government will have to decide. When the Prime Minister made promises last May, was he promising to keep Sure Start as a universal service? If he was, he really has to act. If, however, he had decided to let it become a targeted service—available in some communities and not in others, available to some parents and not others—he needs to be honest about that. He needs to say that and it needs to be clear that that is the Government’s policy.

The Government built a clear expectation among parents that they were preserving Sure Start as a universal comprehensive service that would give all children the best start in life. Indeed, at the last Education questions, the Secretary of State said that he would guarantee all children a high-quality place. The Government will have to live up to that promise.

If today the Prime Minister believes as strongly in Sure Start as he appeared to on the eve of polling day, he must act to save it. He must stop the disinvestment in Sure Start by councils and reinstate the Sure Start ring-fence in the next financial year, as our motion suggests, to protect a service that is still very much in the early years itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

Transition is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve with the Green Paper, and the reason for setting out an education, health and care plan from nought to 25. The focus is much more on outcomes, specifically to try to deal with transition, so that we start planning for independent life at a much earlier stage. The Green Paper sets out the direction of travel, and we hope to get input from across Government. I encourage people with a specific interest in the subject to respond to the Green Paper and give us their views on whether it meets young people’s needs and whether we should do more.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the concern in local authorities about the impact of the cuts to councils on their ability to provide central advisory teams for SEN? Does she realise the impact that that has in dramatically reducing SEN provision when schools do not buy back into those services?

[Sarah Teather]

We recognise that local authorities throughout the country are having to make difficult decisions, just as the Government are. However, money is not always well spent at the moment. For example, much money is wasted on the adversarial system, with parents unnecessarily going through tribunals. There is often a real push to get expensive independent provision that can be a drain on local authorities’ resources when, if we could get some of the necessary health care delivered earlier, parents would not necessarily push to go all the way to the expense of independent provision. A lot more can be done to spend the money that we have better.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I wish to make three short points in this debate, so that my colleagues can get in. I am sure that many of them will register their worries about the future of the Sure Start networks. I am fortunate, as our local authority clearly is not going to make any decisions until after the local elections, so I speak as one of those whose Sure Start network is currently intact.

Although it is very important that such concerns are registered, I should like to contribute to raising the spirit of the debate and our hopes for what foundation years can achieve. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends will make the point that that makes the closure of Sure Starts an even more important issue, not less important. We now have enough information to know that, if we want to make a major difference to the life chances of children, particularly poorer children, we need to do it very early on and not think that that will happen automatically in primary, secondary, further or higher education. These are the most crucial years if we are to make a difference.

Two pieces of information that I gathered together when writing the report on foundation years staggered me and knocked me sideways. One was the longitudinal study that looked at outcomes for young children, thanks to which we now know where such children end up in their late twenties. It showed that, probably at the age of three but certainly by five, the die of life is set for most children. Of course, after that age, the most brilliant parents, schools and teachers can make some difference for individuals, but it is very difficult to make a class difference for whole groups of our constituents. So if we are to be serious about whatever we spend, we need, over time, to redistribute resources from further education and from secondary and primary schools into the foundation years, not in a gigantic or absurd way, but in a way that recognises that building up this budget requires knowledge and expertise. We should note the Select Committee Chairman’s plea that we learn from what we are currently doing and add to our success, rather than knocking that sideways and jumping into the latest obscure way to extend life chances.

The second piece of information concerns an area in Birkenhead that has had Sure Start for 10 years. I asked the head of a really good school what 10 things he wanted from children attending school on their first day. What skills did he need? He shared this exercise with his teachers and with other schools, and not only in the Birkenhead area. There were some stunning replies. The schools would like the children to know their own names; to know the word “stop”, because that can hint at danger for them. They would like them to learn to sit still, so they can begin playing properly and by that learn; to learn how to take off certain items of clothing; to learn how to hold a crayon; to know what a book is and how to open it the right way.

This is not a school in Birkenhead that is one the most “challenged”, as we must euphemistically call it. It is a school where, 20 years ago, I first learned that mums would lie about their addresses to get their children into a better school than they would otherwise be allocated. While lying is of course wrong, I could not but have a sneaking admiration for those mothers who were acting in this way, and who knew in a ration-book economy what little chance they had to choose the best services for their children. So although this is not the most challenged school, even after Sure Start—in fact, it was one of the first Sure Starts in the country and has been operating for 10 years—we were still finding children who were highly unprepared for school.

In the light of those two pieces of information from the report, we know that the die is cast for all too many children by the age of five, and that something quite troubling is going on in many areas in our constituencies, where children are nurtured in an arbitrary and random way. I see young people in Birkenhead who are so un-nurtured by their parents that I wonder whether I would survive if I were subjected to the things they are exposed to.

That information underscores the importance of this debate, and in that context I want to make a plea for Sure Start, but not because I disagree with the view that it should be radically reformed, which is an issue I will deal with in a moment. Sure Start already has some extraordinary advantages. It is a brand name. None of the parents whom I spoke to in the various areas I visited throughout the country in undertaking this inquiry told me that this is a service for poor people that stigmatises them. If anything, some of the more bushy-tailed parents who might well not have used the centres were actually there, knowing what a good service Sure Start was providing for children and wanting it for their own. It would be appalling if that brand name were destroyed or damaged in any way.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point about the lack of stigma attached to Sure Start, and about access for families from many different backgrounds. At the Thornton children’s centre in Crosby, families from a deprived estate and from a less deprived estate all come together. In fact, more than 700 families use that centre, and one of its many huge benefits has been families getting together, mixing, meeting new friends and building relationships that would be severely damaged if the centre closed.

[Mr Field]

I agree with that. As my hon. Friend says, this is partly about the brand image and about people thinking that going to Sure Start centres is almost a right of citizenship that we do not want to destroy. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has momentarily left the Chamber because I would have argued with her about the balance between limiting what Sure Start centres do so that we can keep the structure going and cutting the number of centres so that we can maintain the whole range of services that they provide. My judgment is that the balance ought to favour keeping the structure. However, as the Minister knows from the report, I am very anxious about how we reform Sure Start, and I now wish to discuss that.

In reforming Sure Start, it is crucial to keep its universal provision; it does not have to be the most expensive or the most upmarket, but the report on the foundation years suggests that it is important that all parents use Sure Start centres at some stage. We suggested that such a centre would be the place where someone picks up their child benefit form—they would not be able to get it from anywhere else—and where they can register the birth of their child. It might be the place where people who are not of any faith take their child for an initiation ceremony to welcome them into the wider community. It is possible to maintain universal services without adding greatly to the costs, and a universal service has a chance of reaching the parents who need most support to make them even more successful as parents.

The Sure Start centres should be taken back to what my right hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) originally envisaged, which was that there would, of course, be a universal approach, but the vast majority of the expenditure, time, effort and love of Sure Start should go to those families who need most help, not to the parents with sharp elbows that get them to the front of every queue. The Minister and I spoke at a conference for children earlier today, and I was pleased to hear her say that the Government will examine payment by results seriously, as that would help to achieve that objective.

One of the results we want is children to be ready for school. We do not want primary schools trying to make up for what has not taken place in the first four to five years of life and secondary schools trying to make up for what primary schools have not been able to achieve because they themselves have been doing a rescue operation. I hope that the Government will carefully consider the objectives for Sure Start children’s centres or whatever we call them. I also hope that the Government will build up payment by results around those outcomes.

The last point I wish to make is that I hope that the Government will encourage people to think outside the box about who should run Sure Start centres. A couple of weeks ago, I asked the heads of primary and secondary schools in Birkenhead and the chairs of governors to meet so that we could discuss whether we should bid to run our Sure Start centres. Although we hope that the Government’s payment-by-results approach will bear fruit, we need to think much more imaginatively about incorporating the Sure Start children’s centres into what will be a much more seamless operation to ensure that we break down inequalities for the poorest children. Although it is right to emphasise the worries of those on both sides of the House about the future of Sure Start centres, both in terms of buildings and the services that they provide, I hope that we will get a clear steer from the Government about the reforms that they will be announcing by the end of this month. I hope that those will cover the points about keeping this service universal and about doing so while targeting that service, and that one way of doing so is to experiment with payment by results.

Finally, I wish to commend to the Government that outside providers wanting to take a collective but non-state view about these services should be encouraged to bid for them, so that every child in the country is ready to start their first day at primary school and is ready for that great experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely remark. I was going to resist the temptation to talk about early infant brain development, but I shall just spend 30 seconds on it now. I absolutely agree with him, but I feel that the money should be focused on nought to two-year-olds for the simple reason that a baby’s brain development is at its peak rate at between six and 18 months. That is when the frontal cortex grows as a result of a secure attachment to a loving carer. That loving attachment enables that part of the brain to put on a healthy growth spurt, giving the child the capacity for lifelong mental health even before they are a toddler. In the absence of such an attachment, intervention when the child is three or four is too late, so I absolutely agree that the extra money for the early years is important, but I think it is coming in too late and I would rather it was focused on the nought to two-year-olds to support families at a time when the outcomes for their baby matters so desperately. Once a baby reaches two years old, that opportunity is significantly reduced, so anything we do after that is already too late.

[Bill Esterson]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the brain development of young children, which is made very strongly in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), as I am sure she is aware. Given the point that she and others are making about the importance of Sure Start and early intervention generally, will she comment on the impact of removing ring-fencing? In Sefton, there is a 12.9% cut, as there is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in the borough of Hammersmith. The impact of that, along with all the other huge cuts, particularly in inner cities, has made it very difficult for councils to protect these services. Will she comment on the link between that and the need to protect services centrally if we are seriously to have a national strategy on protecting Sure Start and on early intervention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sheerman]

I take the hon. Lady’s point. We can disagree on that.

Let me get down to what worries me. Our report—which, if my memory serves me right, the present Chairman of the Education Committee voted against—suggested that children’s centres should be maintained. We made some helpful comments. I want to spend a little time on the Government’s response. Paragraph after paragraph, they keep saying how wonderful our report is, but when I look at their response in detail, I am worried about some of their reasons for agreeing with it.

We can all agree that evidence-based policy is good policy, and this policy of ours was the purest example of that. In all my 10 years as Chair of the Select Committee, with some wonderful colleagues—many of us turn up at debates such as this—the best policies that we saw were those based on evidence, and of all the policies in those 10 years, the clearest evidence was on early years intervention and redirecting expenditure to the early years. People carelessly think that we spend a lot of money on early years, but that is not the case. How much we spend increases as a child gets older. All the evidence shows that we have got it the wrong way round. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) often made that case, and made it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The money should be piled in during the early years, for the reasons that the House has heard this afternoon.

What worries me about the Government’s response to our report is whether the commitment is still there. It is all very well having the commitment, but without the money and the resources, children’s centres will start to go. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said that his council had not yet made up its mind. I have it on good authority that my local authority, Kirklees, in which Huddersfield sits as the jewel in the crown, is reducing the number of children’s centres from 35 to 17.

[Bill Esterson]

Sefton council proposed reducing the number of children’s centres from 19 to seven, but I am pleased to say that, in the face of huge opposition from the hundreds of families who use the centres, it is reconsidering. My hon. Friend makes his point about the link between policy and the money made available. We could comment on manifesto pledges. I am sure he would agree that it is only by Government guaranteeing that the money is available and that it will be spent on children’s centres that there is any hope of achieving the aims set out in the Select Committee report.

[Mr Sheerman]

Indeed. I hope my own local authority will change its mind under pressure from those who use the excellent children’s centres in my patch. I am sure that throughout the country there will be a large number of closures of children’s centres. That will be a disgrace, because I know what good work children’s centres are doing.

May I take up a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead? He visits schools and sees how important the first two years are. I used to boast that I visited more schools than any other MP, and I am trying to keep up that track record. When I visit urban schools I see the difficulties that he has identified, measured against the 10 things that children should be able to do. I visit schools with fantastic heads and children’s centres with fantastic leaders who improve children’s behaviour and performance enormously, but 40% of the children will not be in those primary schools in a year because of the churn in our schools. We do not discuss that enough.

How can children be stimulated when in many of our major towns and cities they live in totally mobile populations? It is not the old-style poverty of the coalfields and shipyards, but the poverty of churn and change. In so many of our constituencies, heads and Sure Start leaders do not know which children will come through their doors in just a few weeks, which is a real problem. However, they do know that children will often have no one at home who speaks English to support them in learning our language. When those children go home, the television will not be in English. Sometimes, because of political correctness, we turn away from the reality of what is happening in our schools.

I fear that, as the world changes and the middle east turns itself upside down, for example, even higher rates of migration will result in even higher rates of change in our schools. I am not against migration and hold no extreme views on the matter, as everyone who knows me would acknowledge, but I know that our children’s centres and primary schools in urban areas are at the front line of that change. We cannot carry on asking teachers, heads and Sure Start leaders to cope with the increasing churn and turmoil resulting from the number of new children, so few of whom have a command of English, or indeed of many of the standard requirements that we expect in schools and children’s centres. We all pick up on that point but sometimes ignore it. We ask professionals to do a job, but not all children live in the leafy suburbs or the countryside.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention, because I was moving on to the funding of health visitors. I am not entirely sure or comfortable about when that money will come in, because I had heard that it is not yet and that it might be in 2012; there is nothing in black and white. I would be pleased if a member of the ministerial team would let us know during the debate whether the funding is coming and whether it is from the health budget, as one Minister has told me. If that is true, it will be a real plus for the overall budget and to be welcomed.

Where the health visitors are based is also important, and I hope that they will be concentrated in children’s centres. Some of us will remember hearing the head of the Royal College of General Practitioners say in evidence to the Select Committee that half its members did not know what a children’s centre was and that the other half thought that it was just competition for health visitors. Integration and working together are important.

It is also important to consider the revolutionary step at the heart of children’s centres, which has been missed out of the debate so far. The revolutionary step is that they view a child holistically. A child is not a child with a bit of educational difficulty here and a bit of early stimulation there, or with a little health problem here and language difficulties there. The beauty of children’s centres is that a child gets all that support and evaluation in one place. Parents do not have to push a pram all over town to go to one clinic for a certain service and somewhere else for another, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said. The fact is that providing a holistic service for a child delivers the best chance of giving that child the environment in which they can thrive.

While the Committee was conducting that inquiry, we were looking at young people who were not in education, employment or training. When we went to Holland, we found the Dutch experience particularly interesting, because they also looked at young people holistically. They have centres where young people can have a health evaluation and an aptitude evaluation, where employers and colleges are represented and there are seminar rooms for people who had been NEETs before gaining employment. Those centres provide an all-purpose focus for young people. When we are talking about people’s lives, it is that holistic approach that seems to work, and I recommend that what we do in children’s centres should be transferred to that older age group, as stated in our report on NEETs. Local authorities have moved in that direction, and some examples in the UK have been extremely successful.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Sheerman]

Not for the moment.

Many of the responses to the Committee’s report have made much play of the big society. I must confess that I actually like the idea of a big society, but I am slightly resentful of it, because I think that the Conservatives stole it from Labour—[Interruption.] I say that in a good-natured way to ensure that Conservative Members are still awake. In fact, we all believe in the big society. I believed in it even when Mrs Thatcher said that there was no such thing as society, so I have a long-term commitment to it. Throughout my whole political life I have involved myself in starting social enterprises as part of that big society, because I think that that is how our society should develop.

My worry about the big society is that it is often linked to the idea that everything should be done by volunteers. I am a little suspicious when people argue that things can be done by volunteers, because the best analysis and professional research suggests some problems with that. I refer the Minister to an interesting article—she might already know it—published in 2006 by Professor Alison Wolf, who is about to publish a report produced for the Government on 14 to 19-year-olds. As the Minister will know, Professor Wolf’s daughter, Rachel Wolf, is in charge of the free schools movement and her son, Martin Wolf, is a senior influence at the Financial Times. I listen carefully to Alison Wolf, and her 2006 article stated that the real problem with volunteering in this country is that it has been dying—first, because of the decline of organised religion, and secondly, because women now work in demanding jobs. Both men and women work in our country.

Professor Wolf also noted that the research suggesting that there is a lot of volunteering left in our communities is poor because it is based on opinion polls, and people tell fibs about how much they put back into the community when they are asked in such polls. If members of a pilot group are asked to keep a diary, the results show that the average time a person gives to volunteering is four minutes a day. If we are to base children’s centres and the big society on all of us volunteering for four minutes a day, we will still need a hell of a lot of good professionals to provide quality health and children’s care.

I shall also briefly touch on something that was central to the Government’s critique of our inquiry—the idea that we would no longer need so many hours. One absolutely fantastic thing about children’s centres in the most deprived areas was that they had to stay open 10 hours a day, 48 weeks a year. The document before me clearly states that that is now finished as an obligation and does not need to delivered. We all know that that is true, because it is in the response to the Select Committee’s report, and, in the hard-pressed and most deprived communities throughout our land, it represents the withdrawal of a guarantee that really meant something and will be sorely missed.

I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who wrote his own report, would say about that withdrawal. I do not remember hearing whether he was conscious of it when he wrote his report, and I do not know whether he thinks that the fairness premium will counter-balance it, but nobody knows how the premium will work, when people will receive it or who will benefit from it.

At the heart of my concerns about the response to the Select Committee’s report is the fact that localism has become an excuse for saying, “We don’t have the confidence or the courage to say that we believe that there must be a reduction in the number of children’s centres or the services they provide, so we are going to pass it on to local authorities.” The Government must know, however, that local authorities, in straitened times with much smaller budgets, are going to cut back on children’s centres.

This Government—any Government—have a responsibility for knowing that some policies are so fundamental to the welfare of our people that we and they cannot afford to give up the guarantee and say, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry. We believe in children’s centres, in a full service and in the early stimulation of children, but unfortunately those naughty people up there in Oxford, down there in Surrey or up there in the north-east happen to be short of money and it is all their responsibility.” No one can shuffle away from such responsibility. If children’s centres are cut back or cease to exist as fully integrated models, the buck stops with the Government. I hope that all parties in the House recognise that.

There is a very real problem with the final piece of evidence in the Government’s response to the Select Committee report. I was very fond of evidence-based policy, as you know Madam Deputy Speaker. On page 3 of the Government’s response, they say:

“The Government agrees with the recommendation—high quality provision leads to better outcomes for children and families. Research evidence shows that it is the quality of support which makes the difference for children's outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged children. That is why, where children's centres are providing early education and care, it should be led by either an Early Years Professional or a Qualified Teacher to ensure quality and provide expert input to the activities and services on offer.”

Do we all agree with that? I am looking at the ministerial team. Do we agree? Can I have a nod? [Interruption.] I am not going to get a nod, because they know that page 6 says:

“It is crucial that children's centres in disadvantaged areas continue to offer high-quality early education and care to support vulnerable and disadvantaged families. However, since we have removed the requirement for children's centres in disadvantaged areas to provide full day care, we do not want to be as prescriptive as the previous Government in expecting them to employ both a Qualified Teacher and an Early Years Professional. Therefore, we have removed this requirement.”

The Minister responsible for schools became very fond of one little bit of evidence in Clackmannanshire, when he was converted to synthetic phonics, but all the evidence, not just one piece in a relatively obscure part of the United Kingdom—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to follow that very lengthy and detailed speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

This debate needs to cover several points, some of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Education Committee. For example, unfortunately we have a huge number of NEETs in our country. That is a measure of the failure to deal with children in early years education in a proper and satisfactory way. Until we got into government, there was a failure to deal with the widening inequality gap—a damning indictment—and we have to tackle that.

I want to say a few words about resources. This debate is, to some extent, influenced by the fact that we are in a period of reductions in public expenditure, so it is worth noting that we spend almost 40 times as much paying interest on this country’s debt as we do on the subject that we are talking about. That puts our funding difficulties into perspective.

Of course, we have Sure Start facilities in my constituency—for example, Treetops in Dursley, which is first class. It is very important to ensure that Sure Start really does what the label says. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is right that it is a very good brand, and it does say something that is really encouraging—a sure start. However, we must be completely certain that that is exactly what happens. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) was right to talk about the importance of evaluation and ensuring that Sure Start works in every different area.

[Bill Esterson]

I want to give an example from personal experience. My own family were lucky enough to have access to a children’s centre some years ago when my son was three years old, and we certainly benefited as a family, but this is more about the other families who were from more disadvantaged backgrounds than ours. They clearly stated that in terms of opportunities and development, the differences between the younger children who had access to children’s centres and their older siblings were very noticeable within the same families, let alone on the same estates between different families. That evidence was very strong, and I could see it at first hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend is of course right, and Colm Reilly was not the only one to say that. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government praised Liverpool city council for its efforts to come up with a budget, given the circumstances it finds itself in.

As I said, the indications are good, but it is much too early fully to evaluate all the benefits of Sure Start. That is precisely why we should be giving it a fair chance to bed in, rather than hobbling it before it has barely taken off.

[Bill Esterson]

I add my own congratulations to Liverpool city council for the way in which it has tackled the almost impossible task of managing the budget and protecting Sure Start and other key preventive services. I use this opportunity to call on Sefton council, which has its budget meeting tomorrow night, to follow Liverpool’s lead in protecting Sure Start and other vital services.

[Steve Rotheram]

As we have heard, the Government and certain Members just do not get any of this, but actually, Liverpool city council does get it. It is much maligned of late by the Con-Dems, of course, but, no thanks to the coalition, and despite an 18% cut to its early intervention grant, from which Sure Start funding must now be drawn, it has managed to secure the future of 22 of its centres and will work hard through its consultation process to find ways of avoiding the closure of the four that are threatened, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby referred to earlier.

However, this is no vindication of the Government’s approach, as unfortunately, service reductions are inevitable. City-wide, under-fives and their families will suffer as a consequence and, needless to say, Liverpool city council has been forced by the Government into the iniquitous position of having to take from Peter to give to Paul. Shuffling reduced resources has inevitably meant that protecting children’s centres has come at the price of other vital services.

I am particularly concerned about the broader, vaguer proposal tucked away in the coalition agreement to introduce payment by results into the Sure Start equation. Market forces bring with them risks, competition and inconsistency. People such as the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) may disagree, but in my book there is no place for any of those in the delivery of services to children and young families.

All this would of course be all well and good if the Government could present a reasoned, evidence-based case for change, but as usual they cannot. In fact, in their arrogance they appear to have gone out of their way stubbornly to ignore popular opinion and expert advice, proffered well in advance of their budget deliberations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point.

Secondly, the Committee urged the Government to give the programme time to bear fruit, given that even the oldest tranche of centres was only about six years old at that stage. The Committee said:

“It would be catastrophic if Children’s Centres were not afforded long-term policy stability and security of funding while evaluation is ongoing.”

Thirdly, the Committee categorically urged against the removal of ring-fencing, saying:

“We consider that it would be unwise to remove the ring-fence around Children’s Centres funding in the short or medium term; putting Centres at the mercy of local vicissitudes would risk radically different models and levels of service developing across the country, with differences out of proportion to the variation in community needs.”

Some Tory Members served on that Committee, so this was a cross-party report.

[Bill Esterson]

I received a letter from the chair of the governors at the St William of York Catholic primary school. They also manage the Thornton children’s centre in Crosby and they tell me that they have seen a marked improvement in the school readiness of the children who attend the centre and whose families use it compared with that of those who do not. That kind of evidence is as important as what is in the Select Committee report or elsewhere. It puts the record straight in respect of what the Chairman of the Select Committee said.

[Steve Rotheram]

Of course evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, is always a useful tool.

The Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations was to rush headlong into decisions, to cut funding and to remove the said ring-fencing. In short, the response was to dismiss entirely the logical, considered advice of those best placed to offer it, who included some of their own Members. I know that the Prime Minister is not a man for detail, but you know a policy is truly shambolic when even the Prime Minister fluffs his own case and defence. On 9 February, he arrogantly told the House: “On Sure Start, the budget is going up from £2,212 million to £2,297 million. The budget is going up. That is what is happening,” but that was downright wrong. Not only did he confuse the Sure Start budget with the broader early intervention grant in which it is being subsumed, but he used 2012-13 figures. The EIG is being cut this year by 11%—down from £2,482 million to £2,212 million. So the numbers were out, the dates were out and the argument was out. What hope for our children in the face of such cavalier amateurism?

The key to Sure Start programmes lies in the name, but thanks to the coalition’s cynically calculated decision to pass a poisoned chalice on to local authorities in the guise of localism, millions of babies and toddlers are now set to miss out on the sure start in life they might otherwise have enjoyed. I truly wonder how the Ministers responsible—fathers all—can sleep soundly at night.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

It is Ministers who are crossing their fingers and hoping for the best, not me. By making that comment, the Secretary of State has admitted that the early intervention grant is not big enough for the sum of its parts and that all 22 funding streams that feed into it cannot all be met. He has made that admission on the Floor of the House, and I am sure that Opposition colleagues are grateful for it.

[Bill Esterson]

Surely the point is more about what the Government should be advising local councils to do. Will the Government now come clean and give guidance to local councils on which services they should protect in the early intervention grant and the other restricted Government grants that go to local government, or will they continue to say that it is nothing to do with them and down to local councils?

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is a key point, and I am sure that the Minister will refer to it in her closing remarks.

The Minister has said on several occasions that she wants children’s centres to be paid by results. That does not necessarily seem a bad thing, until it is considered that, nine times out of 10, improving results will need up-front funds, or at least guaranteed budgets. I completely accept that we need to ensure the best value for taxpayers’ money and that outcomes are what matter, but if payment by results means holding significant chunks of money back from budgets, centres will have to concentrate more on managing their funding, which detracts from the quality of service they can provide with reduced funds.

I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about payment by results. In the letter to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), which I referred to earlier, the Minister said that she would do so in early 2011. Now, when I look at a calendar, I see that it is definitely early 2011. It is actually March 2011, so I look forward to hearing about payment by results.

The Minister will no doubt tell us that that funding is targeted at those who need it most, but Library research shows the opposite. The brunt of the cuts to the early intervention grants seem to be borne by local authorities with the greatest number of children living in poverty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) just said with regard to Liverpool city council. Local authorities such as Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and Sunderland, which covers my constituency, are all in the top 10 for cumulative cuts, while authorities such as Cambridgeshire, Richmond upon Thames and Hampshire—all sounding leafy and suburban—are among those that come off best. Can the Minister explain the difference between her words and actions?

There is so much more that I would like to say, but I want to hear from the Minister. To echo the former chief executive of the Daycare Trust, in speaking to the Select Committee, Sure Start

“has been not just a step in the right direction but thousands of steps”.

Every closure, every child whose provision deteriorates, every parent who misses out on the help to improve their parenting, and every early years professional forced to abandon the sector because the jobs have disappeared represents another step backwards from the creation of a society in which every child has the best possible start in life.

I should like to believe that the Minister and her colleagues think the same, but in so many other areas the warm words that we heard before the election, from the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others, and since have not matched the actions of this Tory-led Government. Promises to protect Sure Start have been broken—plain and simple broken promises. Cash-starved councils are being forced to make unpalatable decisions that look set to deprive many thousands of families of the services that they value highly and, in many cases, rely upon, because of a decision that the Minister and her colleagues have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Sarah Teather]

I give way first to the Chair of the Select Committee and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sarah Teather]

I do not want to spell out exactly which bits of the EIG go to what, because I want local authorities to make decisions on the ground about the best ways to do that. As the hon. Gentleman says, the money for health visitors comes from the Department of Health. I will write to him to provide some information about that, because I do not have it here with me. However, I do not want to—

[Bill Esterson]

rose—

[Sarah Teather]

I will give way in a moment; let me answer one point at a time. The hon. Gentleman should not get too excited.

I do not want to spell out the details, particularly because when finances are tight there is an even bigger onus on us to ensure that we provide flexibility for local decision making. I do not think that we will get better decisions if I try to drive all this from Whitehall. We will get better decisions if local authorities can look at their provision and work out how they can best rationalise it based on local need.

[Bill Esterson]

I say to the Minister that I do get excited about protecting services on which families in my constituency depend. She made the point about local decision making, but there is a difference between making decisions on how to deliver the detail of services and deciding whether to deliver those services. That is the crucial issue in relation to ring-fencing. I call on her again to reconsider the decision on ring-fencing so that councils have to deliver services, even if they can decide how to deliver them.

Education Bill

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

In due course.

At age seven, the gap in reading scores between those children who were eligible for free school meals and those who were not was 16 points. At age 11, the gap was 21 points in English and maths. At age 16, the gap was 28 points at GCSE, and only 30% of children eligible for free school meals got five good GCSEs including English and maths. In 2009, only 4% of children eligible for free school meals even sat a chemistry or physics GCSE, and in 2008 40% of those children did not get even a single C in any GCSE.

At A-level the situation is worse still, with the gap between private schools and state schools doubling under Labour: in 1997 only 12% more privately educated students got three As at A-level than their state school counterparts, but by 2010 that figure was 24%. In 2008, no child in Hackney, Newham, Sandwell, Knowsley or Lambeth got three As at A-level including maths and further maths. Only 53 children eligible for free school meals, from an entire cohort of 75,000, even sat further maths A-level.

The number of children eligible for free school meals who made it into Oxbridge under Labour fell. In the last but one year for which we have figures, the number was 45; in the last year for which we have figures, it was 40. No wonder the Sutton Trust found that children’s levels of achievement are more closely linked to their parents’ background in England than in any other developed nation. The truth is that, under 13 years of Labour rule, this country became the sick man of Europe in terms of social mobility. Opportunity was capped, aspiration was depressed and, as a result, the life chances of the most vulnerable were failed by the former Ministers who now sit on the Opposition Benches.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I want to bring the Secretary of State back to his comments on the economy. Up until 2008, the Conservatives were committed to sticking to Labour’s spending plans. In 2007, the current Chancellor wrote an article in The Times entitled, “Tories cutting services? That’s a pack of lies”, in which he made it clear that they were committed to Labour’s spending totals at the time. Why is the Education Secretary pushing through these cuts now? Why the change of heart? Did he not agree with those comments at the time?

[Michael Gove]

I know that there is a worry throughout the country about libraries, but I see that the hon. Gentleman clearly spent quite a lot of time in the cuttings library of the House given the faithful way in which he read out that handout. It was on the watch of the Government whom he supported that we moved from having the best fiscal position in the G7 to the worst. My right hon. Friend was not in charge of the economy then; the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and borrowing money hand over fist. If the hon. Gentleman shares my anger and rage at how his constituents were let down by a debt and deficit mountain that is holding the next generation back and if he is angry about that intergenerational theft, he knows where to point the finger: at the robbers on the Opposition Front Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and we will have an opportunity to consider it in Committee. The phenomenon that he refers to is known in the United States as “the dance of the lemons”, whereby teachers who are not up to the job are removed from it and reappear in another educational setting. We have explored with a variety of professional bodies the best way of ensuring that that cannot happen. There is no consensus that a central list of the kind he mentions is the answer. I am happy to discuss with him, in Committee and elsewhere, how we can ensure that teachers who are not effective do not continue in the classroom.

I mentioned that there are six principal areas in the Bill. The first is investment in the early years. It is critical that Opposition Members appreciate that if they vote against the Bill tonight, they will be voting against additional funding to guarantee 15 hours of learning for all disadvantaged two-year-olds. Under Labour, 20,000 of the poorest two-year-olds would have received 15 hours of free learning. Now, under the coalition Government’s proposals, 120,000 two-year-olds will be able to have the best possible free learning. Because of that investment, we will be able to ensure that those children are school-ready when they arrive at primary school. We can ensure that when we have in place the literacy check at the end of year 1 that we intend to impose, those children will have a grasp of the basic skills required to make the most of their time at primary school.

[Bill Esterson]

The Secretary of State makes a very important point about children being school-ready. That need has been expressed to me by children’s centre staff and the parents who use those centres, and he will know of the concern that I have previously expressed about the review of children’s centres in Sefton. Will he comment on the good practice that already exists in Sure Start children’s centres and in early-years provision generally, and on the importance of protecting good practice there and elsewhere rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

[Michael Gove]

I think throwing out the baby with the bathwater would be very poor practice in any Sure Start children’s centre or any other early years setting.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Sure Start children’s centres can do a fantastic job, which is one reason why we are providing additional support, why the Department of Health is investing in additional health visitors and why the early intervention grant will ensure that there is sufficient money for local authorities to continue to discharge their statutory responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Burnham]

One final time, then I shall make some progress.

[Bill Esterson]

In my right hon. Friend’s opening remarks, he mentioned contradictions and the ability to overrule local authorities when it comes to schools. In Sefton, the 12.9% cut in the early intervention grant means that all the children’s centres are now under review, but the Secretary of State says that he wants all children’s centres and the network to be maintained. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) describes what is happening in his constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if closures go ahead, they will undermine any good measures in the Bill to boost early years provision? Does he agree also that, if the Secretary of State is prepared to intervene on schools, he should take the same approach and intervene on local authorities when it comes to protecting the network of Sure Start centres?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I was struck yesterday by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who feels that his report, which was commissioned by the Prime Minister, will be undermined if cuts on such a scale proceed, because the delivery system for early intervention will simply no longer be in place in constituencies throughout the country. Let us remember that this Prime Minister accused the former Prime Minister of trying to scare people about Sure Start. This Prime Minister said that he would build on Sure Start, but that is yet another broken promise.

Let me turn to how the Bill takes power from the profession. The Education Secretary says that he wants to put teachers in the driving seat, but again we see a widening gap between rhetoric and reality. There has been a 10% drop in applications for teacher training this year, which does not say much for his powers of recruitment. The drop has been blamed on his decision not to allow the Training and Development Agency for Schools to run its usual advertising and marketing campaigns to attract people to the profession. With the Bill’s abolition of the TDA, teacher training places cut by 14% and most bursaries scrapped, surely we can expect to see teacher shortages in a few years’ time.

The Bill restricts teachers’ freedoms, undermines the status of their profession, reduces their entitlement to ongoing professional development and fails to protect the rights of support staff. Ongoing development is a hugely important issue for many teachers. The TDA provided a vehicle for identifying the training needs of the profession, and its abolition raises concerns about the future of teacher training and professional development.

The think-tank million+ says that

“the TDA avoided teacher training being the subject of political interference”,

and that

“given the current ministerial view”,

there is a

“real danger that teaching as a profession is being downgraded.”

Those are its words; that is what million+ says.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

They deserve to be treated like every other student. We are reviewing funding and will be publishing a paper in the spring to try to ensure greater equity in the allocation of schools funding.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

All 19 of the children’s centres in Sefton are under review. Does the Minister stand by her statement that local authorities have a legal duty to maintain a sufficient network of children’s centres? If she does, how many of Sefton council’s 19 children’s centres should it keep open to meet those legal duties?

[Sarah Teather]

The hon. Gentleman and I discussed this matter in detail when he introduced an Adjournment debate last week. I stand by my statement. Similarly, the council has a legal duty to consult before closing, opening or restructuring in its area. I am sure that it is in the middle of that consultation at the moment, and that parents will make their views very clear.

Children’s Centres

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to hold this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, and I am pleased to see the Minister here. She has written to me and other hon. Members on this subject in detail.

The question for which I seek an answer is why there is a difference of opinion between what the Government and the Minister are saying to local authorities, and what local authorities are saying about funding Sure Start children’s centres. Last Thursday, Sefton council voted to review all 19 children’s centres in Sefton, and to decide over the coming weeks which are to survive and which are to close. There is huge concern in my constituency that it will just cherry-pick from those services.

The Minister told local authorities that the early intervention grant is designed to replace the funding for children’s centres, and that there is sufficient money to guarantee the full network of centres over the coming years. My question to her is: why are so many councils, including Sefton, saying that that is not true, and that the money has not come through?

As Polly Toynbee put it in The Guardian:

“The sleight of hand drives children’s services directors to distraction.”

She goes on to say that the Minister

“has indeed given a specific early intervention grant to cover Sure Start, but as she well knows it is considerably less than the bundle of 22 grants it replaces. It amounts to a £1.4 billion cut in all early intervention programmes.”

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

In the case of Hammersmith and Fulham, the early intervention grant has been cut by 12.9%. The Minister may want to comment on that, as she has said that there is no need to cut Sure Start. The actual cut in service will be more than 50%, with nine out of 15 centres closing, having had their grants reduced from £475,000 to £19,000—not enough to run a service. That is the truth about Sure Start on the ground at the moment.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have found exactly the same problem in Sefton. We face at least a 12% cut in the early intervention grant. The council has been told that it is there to replace several early intervention projects. The money is simply not enough to do the job that the Government claim it is there to do.

Faced with the financial crisis and the cuts that the Government are pushing through, the question is what gets dropped first. History shows us that early prevention projects always come off worst.

Polly Toynbee’s article continues:

“Where in this pecking order of need should children’s centres come? They offer the earliest help to young children, identifying difficulties before it is too late, a welcoming place to which families can turn.”

Many of my constituents have written to me to say how important those services are to them and their children. One parent at Hudson children’s centre in Maghull told me:

“I am a mum to two small pre-school children and consider the children’s centre an integral part of my life. I was delighted when the centre first opened, shortly after having my first child. It soon became my lifeline, opening doors to new friendships and experiences. We enrolled for all the sessions available to us and thoroughly enjoyed meeting up with other parents and carers. The staff are all so very caring and helpful, making us all feel like part of their family. We still regularly attend the centre and feel distraught at the thought that this may come to an end if funding is cut. Not only would my children lose their valuable educational activities, but I would also lose my support network. I plead with Sefton council to carefully consider their actions regarding this matter, as I feel our local community would be left devastated.”

A common theme coming through to me from parents, grandparents and carers, is that their children’s centre is a vital lifeline, without which they would have nowhere to turn. There are no other facilities; there are no other places for many families to go. I mentioned the Hudson children’s centre in Maghull. More than 750 families have used the services at that centre. A similar number has used the service at Thornton children’s centre in Crosby, and I have three more children’s centres in my constituency. All five are either phase 2 or phase 3 centres. Initially, Sure Start children’s centres were set up in areas of maximum deprivation. The evidence coming through to me from the parents and families who use the phase 2 and 3 centres is that they are just as important as the phase 1 centres.

People from many different backgrounds use the centres in my constituency. One of the benefits we have found is that people, who would often be isolated without access to those services, meet and form their own support networks and make new friends. Suzanne Bentham uses the Thornton children’s centre. She wrote to me to say:

“Thornton children’s centre is an essential part of my life. Firstly, I went with my partner for my antenatal classes, then with my daughter who loves all the activities she does there. The staff and amenities are wonderful but most of all the atmosphere is the best bit. If I am feeling a little housebound, we can pop in and join in or just chat. We attend most days. We have met so many people from all walks of life, all with stories or offers of help when you need it most. It is not just a play centre, it is a lifeline, and without it an awful lot of people, families and children, will miss out on valuable skills to help throughout their lives. You see, every child matters.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) reported in the past few weeks that early intervention and the support that children receive in their first five years are crucial. That makes all the difference and prevents many children and families from having difficulties later in life. That is why children’s centres were set up by the previous Government, and why Sure Start matters.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Would a more sensible and humane approach for local authorities, which have suffered cuts in grants, be to consider withdrawing some of the services Sure Start provides, so that they keep the whole network? I say that because at some stage the Government are going to respond to my report, which advocated that, in some years, they should consider not automatically increasing children’s rates of benefits, but using all or part of that money to build up the foundation years. There will be all the difference in the world if, in a year or so, the Government say more money is coming into the area, between those authorities that kept their network and those that decided to shut up shop and disappear.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His point about how vital it is to keep the network going is extremely well made. Perhaps I can make my own comments in support of that argument.

The network is so important. Families often use several children’s centres, not only one, and those centres work closely together. I cited some of the numbers of families who use those centres, and I have seen how they are now an integral part of building successful and sustainable communities, and bringing together families with different backgrounds from different parts of the same community. If that network is broken in any way, it would be a backward step.

I believe that children’s centres are as important in phases 2 and 3 as they are in phase 1. Pockets of deprivation and people who are isolated exist in all parts of our communities, not only the most deprived areas. Therefore, it is essential that the network is retained. How will the Minister ensure that councils carry out the Government’s stated wishes to retain the network? At the moment, it appears that in many local authorities the money is not being passed on to keep the networks open. The removal of the ring-fencing, and the fact that the grant is not a like-for-like replacement of funding, leaves that question open. The Minister will say that such matters are down to local determination, but if the Government are serious about retaining Sure Start children’s centres and the network, they must consider intervening in local authorities to ensure that their stated policy is delivered on the ground.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

This is my first opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, and I am delighted to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. We have spoken about the subject in private, and we are both passionate about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that Sure Start centres are a lifeline for the sort of communities that he and I represent? Councils in Sefton and Liverpool are faced with the most horrific decisions about the future of Sure Start centres because of the local government settlement. Does he agree that Sure Start centres in the most deprived communities in the country should be the most protected?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is next door to mine, and many of his constituents use Sure Start centres in my constituency, just as many of my constituents use centres in his constituency in Liverpool. The Holy Rosary children’s centre in Aintree village is used by people who live in Fazakerley and Walton. My hon. Friend’s point about protecting phase 1 centres in the most deprived areas is important, but I believe that phase 2 and 3 centres have come to deliver an equally important service for slightly different reasons. I would not like to see any of those centres go, and it is important to maintain the entire network. People use centres from phase 1 and from phases 2 and 3.

Let me turn to the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and some of the evidence that he produced on early intervention. He cites some examples that illustrate the importance of early intervention:

“A child’s development score at just 22 months can serve as an accurate predictor of educational outcomes at 26 years.

Some 54 per cent of the incidence of depression in women and 58 per cent of suicide attempts by women have been attributed to adverse childhood experiences, according to a study in the US.

An authoritative study of boys assessed by nurses at age 3 as being ‘at risk’ found that they had two and a half times as many criminal convictions as the group deemed not to be at risk…Moreover, in the at-risk group, 55 per cent of the convictions were for violent offences, compared to 18 per cent for those who were deemed not to be at risk.”

The report goes on to make it clear that the costs of investing in early years services are far outweighed by those of dealing with the problems created later in life. That is very apparent to people who use children’s centres in my constituency. They tell me that not only do their children do better at school than their older brothers and sisters who did not have the benefit of such a service, but that they can also start to see the benefits of their children mixing with other children and getting used to mixing with adults.

Clearly, children and families do better where that service is available. I am sure that the Minister accepts that the loss of that service would be a bad move.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that the issues faced in my constituency, and across Sheffield, are similar to those faced in his constituency. Thirty children’s centres and nurseries are threatened by a £2 million funding cut. Does he agree that in maintaining the network—an important point—the choices that local authorities are forced to make when changing the offer from children’s centres by reducing hours and charging will push many centres beyond tipping point? That will make it impossible to maintain the network.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. That is further evidence of the importance of maintaining the network as a whole and building on it. Yesterday, I spoke to the head teacher of a school that has a children’s centre attached. She pointed out that a lot of evidence from the families served by that centre suggests that such centres should look to extend their services to families with older children, so that the good work can continue. That could perhaps link with youth services, which are also under threat. In fact, as of last Thursday, the entire youth service in Sefton has been cut, and that will store up huge problems for the future.

I am conscious that the Minister needs time to respond to the debate, but I want to remind her of what was said by her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. One of my constituents, Marie Creed, sent me a “contract” between the Conservative party and her family. It states:

“We will support Sure Start, and boost it by paying for an extra 4,200 trained Sure Start health visitors.”

If the Prime Minster and the Minister are serious about supporting Sure Start, they must not only put in the money to keep that election pledge, but ensure that councils deliver on it. Otherwise, for many families in Sefton and elsewhere in the country, it will turn out to be just another broken promise.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing this debate on an important topic. Like him, the Government believe that Sure Start children’s centres have a critical role to play in their communities, and they are at the heart of the Government’s vision for early intervention. There is enough money in the system to maintain the network of children’s centres, and we have also provided extra investment for health visitors. However, I recognise the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised in his speech, and I will address those issues in my response.

First, I will make a few general remarks about Sure Start children’s centres and the direction of reform, which I hope will put things into context. Since my appointment as a Minister, I have had the privilege of visiting many children’s centres around the country, and I have seen how highly they are valued by families and communities. That point was echoed by the hon. Gentleman when he spoke of the testimony of individual constituents, and how much they have appreciated the support in their local area.

Those positive messages are reinforced by the evidence. The 2008 and 2010 reports from the national evaluation of Sure Start showed improved outcomes in a number of areas including better behaviour, more positive parenting skills and home learning environments, and better physical health of children who live in an area with a Sure Start programme. The evidence supports the messages we hear from families that children’s centres make a real difference to their lives.

Last week, the Government published their response to the report by the Select Committee on Education about Sure Start children’s centres. In that response, we set out in more detail our vision for children’s centres: they should be accessible to all, but with a clear role in identifying and supporting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged families. That policy vision will be built on by a policy statement that we intend to publish in the spring. It will differ from many of the policy statements and the way in which we have produced them in the past, in that we intend to co-produce it with the sector, building on the ideas on the ground, on best practice and on the sector’s views about how to shape the future of centres.

Evidence shows that children from advantaged backgrounds do better than those from disadvantaged groups, with a range of health, cognitive and language differences becoming apparent by the age of three. Those are some of the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It cannot be fair that children’s outcomes and life chances depend on the circumstances of their birth. An important element of children’s centres is their accessibility. However, within that, I want them to be better at targeting resources on the most disadvantaged and vulnerable families to help close that gap in outcomes.

Key areas for reform will include an increase in the use of evidence-based interventions, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) spoke about in his report. We believe that public money should go to services that have proved their effectiveness, particularly in supporting the most disadvantaged and vulnerable families. We also want improved accountability and transparency. That includes the introduction of payment by results so that local authorities and providers are rewarded for the results they achieve. We intend next year to make local authorities publish more information about how they spend their money, so it will be clear what money they are spending on children’s centres and what money they are holding back for administrative support, which picks up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central.

We also want increased voluntary and community sector involvement in children’s centres, so that organisations with a track record of supporting families can get more involved.

[Bill Esterson]

I want to pick up on the point about analysing whether local authorities have passed on the money to children’s centres, and waiting until next year. My concern, which was expressed strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), is that that is too late. If they have not done that and the centres have started to close, it will be very difficult to rebuild the network. If there were a loss of that support over crucial months or even a year, that would be a very long time for families to wait.

[Sarah Teather]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. If it is okay, I will go on to say a little about the early intervention grant and the particular concerns about reorganisation on the ground.

The hon. Gentleman pointed to the 4,200 extra health visitors whom we will be committing to recruiting. We hope that they will work alongside children’s centre outreach teams to support the families most in need. That is being funded by the Department of Health. On our direction of travel, we want to work closely with the sector on the ground to ensure that we are getting the reforms right. We will be considering the report by the hon. Member for Nottingham North and the review by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who intervened and whose point I will pick up on in a moment. We have also asked Dame Clare Tickell to review the early years foundation stage. That will inform the work we are doing.

The bulk of what the hon. Member for Sefton Central spoke about related to his concern about the early intervention grant. We have made clear our commitment to Sure Start children’s centres. We believe that we have ensured that there is enough money to maintain the national network of centres and to enable local authorities to meet their statutory duties.

[Sarah Teather]

I recognise that there are particular concerns in the hon. Gentleman’s area, and it is an issue I am monitoring. However, I do not recognise the figures he gave from the LGA or the figures the hon. Member for Sefton Central cited, I think, from Polly Toynbee’s article. The hon. Member for Hammersmith will recognise that this is a very difficult time financially, and that local authorities are having to make difficult decisions on the ground in the same way that the Government are having to make difficult decisions. We are trying to tackle the deficit, and it is not possible to do that without reducing funds overall. When the situation is very difficult, it is even more important that we provide more flexibility for local authorities to make the right decisions in their area—to focus on what they need to do in their local community. That is precisely why we have reduced the ring-fencing; we are responding to what local authorities have asked us to do.

[Bill Esterson]

There is a contradiction here, because on the one hand local authorities are being given so-called freedom, but on the other the Government are saying that Sure Start children’s centres are an absolute priority. Unless there is some guidance from the Government or we have something stronger and the Government legislate for it, I fail to see how they can guarantee that the network will be maintained and enhanced.

[Sarah Teather]

Let me pick up on that point. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made a similar point about the network. I have a great deal of sympathy with the point he made, particularly as we look down the track to the reforms the Government want to make. For example, we are providing extra money for relationship support, which will train people working in children’s centres to deliver that on the ground. To respond to the point that the hon. Member for Sefton Central made about developing services for older children, all those things are possible and are good things in an area. However, if we do not give local authorities the flexibility to make the decisions that are right for their area, we will not get a service that is suitable for local need: we will end up with a one-size-fits-all service driven from Whitehall.

There is a difference between a local authority that is making catastrophic cuts to services for children and one that is trying to make sensible decisions in a very difficult environment. That may include clustering children’s centres, merging back-office functions and reorganising where some of the centres are located because some buildings are not appropriate or because populations have changed since the stage 1 centres were put in place. Those are all sensible reorganisations, and we have to have some trust in local authorities to get on with that.

Providing a more flexible grant, the early intervention grant, which is significantly larger than the children’s centre budget, should allow local authorities, if they want to do so, to link together different services as they think about the long-term reorganisation of their children’s centres, youth provision or family support, so that they can offer things in a clustered way. I hope that that will provide more flexibility for them to do the right thing.

There is a legal duty on local authorities to consult before opening, closing or significantly changing children’s centres. From what the hon. Member for Sefton Central said, it sounds as though in his area, parents will be very vocal about what they want to see by way of the provision of centres in their area. That is the right process. Parents should engage, and local authorities should listen to the views of families about how to reorganise on the ground.

However, Sure Start children’s centres are at the heart of what the Government want to do in the long term with early intervention. Children’s centres are a very valuable resource, but often full use is not made of them. They are not always open all hours. There are opportunities for children’s centres—for example, where there are flexible services, such as baby massage—to charge a nominal amount for those services in order to bring in small amounts of income. Local authorities can think more innovatively about the way in which they organise their children’s centres on the ground, but the priority is that we have outcomes. The Government are trying to move towards measuring outcomes, rather than always measuring inputs, which is why we will move towards more payment by results. It is why our accountability framework will focus more on outcomes, particularly for the most disadvantaged children.

I am very grateful for the support that the hon. Member for Sefton Central has given today to children’s centres. We believe that they are a vital service. I believe that there is adequate money in the early intervention grant to fund the network of children’s centres, but I am grateful to him for raising the concerns in his area today.

Post-16 Students

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, drawing on a clear case study from Alton college, an excellent college in his constituency. He makes the point that it is crucial to strike the right balance and ensure that colleges can continue their excellent work in developing the whole person and allowing young people from a state education background to access the best universities. Alton, and other colleges up and down the land, have done this very well over the years. He also draws attention to what is happening to the money for disadvantaged students, which it appears is being creamed off. It is not yet clear how it will be distributed, and that is at the heart of this issue.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

A friend of mine who used to teach at a college in my hon. Friend’s constituency told me of my hon. Friend’s fine reputation in his previous role. My hon. Friend was talking about the funding cuts for 16 to 18-year-olds. I have here a note from the principal of Hugh Baird college in Sefton, who tells me:

“The very significant cut in entitlement funding for 16-18 year olds will make it a real challenge for many colleges…to give learners the excellent pastoral support, the personal and social responsibility and employability skills which they deserve and need to positively contribute to the economic recovery and society in general.”

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that information?

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a clear and cogent point and draws on another case study from another very good college, this time in his constituency. In many ways he makes the same point as the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) about how entitlement funding helps to develop the whole person and is crucial to the thrust of our education service and to what colleges have done so well for so many years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe started his speech by openly and freely admitting that he was something of an anorak on the subject of 16 to 19-year-old education funding in this country, but I cannot admit to being even a cagoule in that respect. I will therefore take away his more technical questions and ensure that he receives a more detailed and considered answer from colleagues elsewhere in the Department—part of this is rocket science, as he said.

I also pay tribute to the many staff who are in the position he was in before bringing his great practical expertise to the House. There are many people involved in education in this area who do an excellent job up and down the country in difficult circumstances, as we all acknowledge, and play their part in the essential crusade to upskill young people leaving education for the increasingly competitive employment environment that they face.

I appreciate many of the concerns that Members on both sides of the House raised during what has been a good and rather more inclusive debate than is normal in Adjournment debates. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) made a good point about the softer skills that are also important in educational experience, which we want to ensure are not lost. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe talked about the effect of enrichment skills on expanding the range of knowledge and confidence of young people. He also acknowledged that money will be returned to colleges to target disadvantaged students, a point to which I will return.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), slightly predictably, raised the subject of youth services, in which she is something of an expert—she is making sure that the House is in no doubt of the fact. She knows that the subject is within my brief and that we will be having discussions on it soon, so there are various things that I will be able to discuss with her then. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) rightly mentioned the effect on high unemployment areas.

I will refer first to the spending review, which is the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s concern in bringing the subject to the House’s attention. I entirely appreciate the concerns about the current inevitable uncertainty, and we will seek to address that and produce clarity as soon as possible.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister mentioned concern, so perhaps I can remind him of the concern that the cut we are discussing will have a combined effect with a number of other cuts. The cuts to college and sixth-form funding, when added to cuts to university funding and education maintenance allowance and the trebling of tuition fees, means that there is huge concern, particularly among students from less well-off families, about the ability to go into higher education at all. Will he respond to that point in his remarks on the spending review?

[Tim Loughton]

I am sure that I will respond when I get beyond the first paragraph of my comments. We are here to talk about a specific aspect of education, and as with the Secretary of State’s approach in all other aspects of education, particularly at this time of scarce resources, we are determined to concentrate as much as possible on the disadvantaged and close the achievement gap, which has widened too far, and for too long. We have to have that particular focus—it is why we have come forward with the pupil premium and other particularly well targeted schemes—to ensure that those who are left behind or need extra support have a chance to be on a level playing field with other students. I shall comment on that in a moment.

In the spending review, we had three priorities: protecting schools funding; early years; and ensuring that by 2015 every young person can continue in high-quality education and training, so that they are better prepared for the world of work or for university. The latter has not necessarily received the attention that it deserves.

We are spending more than £7.6 billion in 2011-12, a 1.5% cash increase over 2010-11, so that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

That is a very good point, and it will certainly be taken into consideration. I will pass those comments on to the Minister of State. We have to add such practical considerations to the mix as the proposals are rolled out.

For future years, we have said that we will consult on a review of the funding formula with a view to operating a young person’s premium to support attainment by the most disadvantaged students. The coalition Government’s determination to close the attainment gap between those from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds lies at the heart of the radical reforms we are introducing to ensure that young people reach adulthood with the knowledge and aptitudes needed to lead rewarding and successful lives.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. In quoting the principal of Hugh Baird college, I mentioned employability skills. The Minister has touched on the preparation of young people for leaving education. With youth unemployment hitting a million, that is a key challenge for the Government and for colleges. I urge him to ensure that, whatever changes are made, the issue of employability skills, which was covered under the entitlement fund, is taken on board. I accept his point about targeting learners from the most deprived backgrounds, but very often people are missed by such approaches. A wider group of young people is affected, as was the case with the withdrawal of EMA.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Employability skills are an important complement to qualifications. In this increasingly competitive world, with the concerningly high levels of youth unemployment, we must ensure that every possible tool is available to young people to make themselves employable in the work force, for example in areas where we have requirements in the current highly competitive global trading environment.

Attainment at 16 is the strongest predictor of participation and achievement beyond that age. That is why we set out a clear programme of reform in the schools White Paper that is intended to raise standards so that by age 16, all young people have the basics they need to go on to further education and training. We know that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are least likely to participate post-16, as Members have said. That is why we are focusing additional support on them, to ensure that they make the progress needed to go on to further learning. The pupil premium will target extra funding to the most deprived pupils, to better ensure that they reach the critical transition at age 16 with the knowledge, aptitude and attitude to go on to even higher success.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe asked me a couple of specific questions, one of which was on when the allocations will be made. Individual institutions will get the details of their allocations by the end of March. If we can make it sooner, we will, to address the issue of clarity, which he rightly mentioned. He asked whether we would look again at the disruptive impact there can be on different groups of post-16 students, and I shall pass on his comments. He also asked whether I would meet him and a delegation to discuss these matters. I am absolutely delighted, on behalf of the Minister of State, to offer him that very meeting with the person most appropriate to take on board his views and appreciate the comments that he will make. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s office gets in touch with him very soon.

We are committed to full participation for 16 and 17-year-olds, but because of the financial constraints in which we find ourselves, we have had to make difficult decisions to deliver on the priorities. We might not have made some of those decisions had the financial position been better, and they have not been easy, but they have been made with the principles that I have set out in mind—focusing support on the most disadvantaged, addressing the attainment gap and giving greater autonomy, control and freedom back to people who run institutions at the sharp end.

Education

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

May I wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker?

I rise on an issue that continues to concern me greatly. I repeat my declaration of interest that I chair the justice for families campaign. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House wish to see the best possible outcomes for children who enter the care system. In trying to improve this, Tony Blair encouraged adoption, but made a big mistake along the way in miscalculating the percentage of children adopted from care.

Before I go any further, I should be precise about what I mean by “care”. When I say “in care”, I do not include those children voluntarily in care under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. In 2005, for example, 8,600 children left care and 3,400 of those left through adoption. That is 39.5%. If I could get the Department to analyse the figures by age, it would be clear that the majority of young children are leaving care through adoption. In Scotland, however, only 17% of the children who left care in 2009 aged under five left care through adoption. I accept that this includes a broader category, but if we take the numbers and uprate them for population size, we see that England has a rate of adoption from care in excess of 50% more. That is more than 1,000 children a year in England who are adopted rather than returning to their parents.

It appears that the substantial shift, which was a result of the previous Government’s pressure on authorities to increase the number of adoptions, was that children left care through adoption rather than returning to their parents. I see this in terms of individual cases where the judgments at times defy reason. It can also be seen very clearly when comparing practice in Scotland with that in England.

The Department has refused to provide many figures about the English system although some are now trickling out. When the adoption targets came in, there was a net flow into care. That would imply that the adoption pressure did not result in additional children leaving care, but instead caused the destination to change. Because the adoption target was miscalculated, there has been a general belief that adoptions from care were only a low percentage. An article written by Alan Rushton in 2007 about adoption from care states:

“Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think that any wholesale moving of children from birth families into adoptive families is taking place. Adoption from care concerns just a small proportion (6%) of all looked after children in England.”

That is clearly a misunderstanding of the situation. The Department was reporting 6% for a figure that, properly calculated, was more like 40%.

The concentration on adoption also means a lack of child protection. Peter Connolly died in August 2007, but nothing much changed until the criminal prosecution in 2008. Some 7,400 children were taken into care to the end of March 2008, 8,200 in 2009 and 9,500 in 2010. However, often the wrong children were taken into care and more babies were suspected to have died from child abuse in calendar year 2009 than in calendar year 2008. In 2008, the figure for England alone was 47 babies and 97 other children. In 2009, that increased—notwithstanding the increase in numbers of children taken into care—to 75 babies and 111 other children. There are two sides to this problem and both are unacceptable. Although the adoption targets and financial incentives were scrapped from 1 April 2008, the practice is still skewed by the pressures that gave rise to the initial changes.

The children themselves are asking why their families have been split up. There was a meeting recently in the House, attended by the Minister of State with responsibility for children and families, at which a girl asked why her sister had been adopted and she had been banned from seeing her. Additionally, as children such as Winona Vamey and Tammy Coulter get older, they are acting to reverse the adoptions.

The aggressive way in which the courts have gone after families has created many refugees from the UK—mainly from England although there is one from Scotland. Susen McCabe, Kiel and Lucille O’Regan, Fran Lyon, Kerry and Mark McDougall, Sam Thomas, Emily Burgess, Sam and Vanessa Hallimond and Angela Wileman are only a few examples for whom emigration was necessary to fight the system. Sam Thomas made the mistake of coming back to England—Somerset—and her daughter has now been put up for adoption.

At the same time, the rights of mothers such as Rachel Pullen and Husan Pari to even contest their own cases are removed on the basis of expert reports saying they are too stupid but which are later found to be in error. However, the Court of Appeal passes these cases through on the nod. False allegations of satanism and Munchausen’s syndrome continue to be accepted by the courts without a legal right to a second opinion. Dr Fintan Sheerin, Professor Mary McCarron, Professor Cecily Begley and Dr Jo Murphy-Lawless from Trinity College, Dublin wrote to me recently asking why these cases still happen in countries that pride themselves on respect for human rights. My answer was that the courts do not always properly follow the law in hearings that are held in secret where people get imprisoned in secret for complaining about injustice.

All this is in fact inhumane. Given time, the European Court of Human Rights may point this out. However, I hope that the Government will respond to this more quickly. More work on analysing the SSDA903 return is needed. It is not acceptable to use the code “other” for something as important as this.

Journalists such as Christopher Booker, Camilla Cavendish, Sue Reid, Denise Robertson, Daniel Foggo and many more have raised concerns about how the system is a machine for miscarriages of justice, but it keeps steamrolling over families and children. Many of the families affected will be lighting Chinese lanterns as a protest on Christmas eve at 10 pm. They will include Phil Thompson, whose great-grandchildren were put up for adoption for no good reason by Walsall council.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and it might give him chance to catch his breath as he seems to be in a great rush. I do not wish to detract from the serious cases that he mentions, but does he recognise that in many cases in which children are adopted from care it is because of the serious problems in their families and the neglect and abuse that they have, sadly, suffered?

[John Hemming]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There is a need for a care system, but it has to get things right. One of the reasons children are often taken into care is that the mother has been a victim of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid argues that we should protect the mother and child and keep them together, rather than say, “Oh, you as a mother have been a victim of domestic abuse. We are taking your child.”

This morning or late yesterday, I received an e-mail about Kirsty Seddon’s case in Oldham. She was brought up in care and essentially that has been used as an excuse to remove her child. Luckily, the European Court of Human Rights is taking the matter seriously, and has now written to the UK Government asking them to comment on the admissibility of her case. There is a fair chance that, whereas this has gone through the UK courts on the nod, it will end up being picked up by the ECHR.

Even if the Government fail to do something, Parliament should be able to act to identify what is going on. Things happen that defy reason, which is why people have to emigrate to get away from the system. I will not rest until Parliament or the Government act to stop these miscarriages of justice. Sadly, the family justice review does not seem to recognise the true situation. The Munro inquiry seems to have a better focus, but both inquiries are hobbled by not having enough members who are not part of the system. We have the usual “quis custodiet” question when the people who are substantially part of causing the problem are being asked to correct a problem that they themselves do not recognise exists. That needs to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The abolition of the education maintenance allowance is one of the issues that have caused greatest concern in my constituency. One of my constituents from Thornton wrote to me to say that he has signed the petition in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). He wrote:

“I am writing to you in my capacity as an employee of a large FE establishment in North Liverpool”—

and as one of my constituents. He continued:

“I have recently become increasingly alarmed at the ConDem’s plans to scrap Educational Maintenance Allowance for FE students. Given recent developments in the HE sector and last week’s student protests in London, it would seem that scrapping of the EMA is simply another plan to further undermine the education sector as a whole and, in many cases, to deprive learners of their right to an education. Although the abandonment of the EMA may have a lesser impact in more affluent areas, its effects will be felt much more in areas such as your constituency where an above-average number of learners are indeed in receipt of EMA. The ConDem’s plans to ‘bolt on’ a much lesser amount to the Discretionary Learner Support Fund will of course minimise the number of learners in receipt of financial assistance, and learners may be faced with finding other means of supporting themselves, and I have no doubt that some of these means may be less than legal.”

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friends are making a good case for the education maintenance allowance, but does my hon. Friend share my concern about young carers? College principals might not even know that some of their students are young carers, who need the incentive that EMA can give them to keep attending and to struggle on with their caring work load as well as their education.

[Bill Esterson]

Young carers are one of a number of vulnerable groups for whom EMA is especially important, and its loss would hit them and those who depend on them particularly hard. I hope that the Minister will consider that point among others.

My constituent told me that some of the means by which students will support themselves might be less than legal. He said that that was

“an opinion that I have heard in person on more than one occasion from students themselves”.

I have also heard similar comments about the potential of drug dealing as a source of income for students who lose EMA. I thought his was a balanced and responsible view of the impact of EMA from a member of staff with much experience.

The principal of Hugh Baird college in south Sefton, Jette Burford, also wrote to me saying that 84% of young people at the college currently receive EMA; that there is a clear indication that it has become a key part of the family income for those families; and that its discontinuation is very likely to impact on the participation rate locally. Ms Burford mentioned both the impact of losing the EMA on participation and attainment, and the fact that many students depend on it for help with their transport. When she wrote to me she did not know that Sefton students were likely to lose their free travel passes because Merseytravel has had its budget cut by two thirds.

EMA is essential for many students from low and middle-income families when it comes to travel, books, equipment and food, and its loss will make it very difficult for students to continue to study. EMA is a means-tested allowance of between £10 and £30 per week. Some 635,000 learners received at least one EMA payment in 2009-10, and about 80% of those received the full £30. That means that the people receiving the £30 come from low-income families on less than £20,800 per year. The loss of EMA for students from such low-income households will create a big hole in family incomes, which college principals have commented on.

EMA was introduced by the previous Labour Government to help with the cost of books, travel and equipment, and payments are made on the condition that students attend classes regularly. The evidence from colleges is that the incentive to turn up on time has worked well, and the evidence in Merseyside is that those on EMA outperform by 7% those who are not in receipt of it. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies gives a similar result.

The Department for Education is stopping new EMA at the end of this month, before it has alternative arrangements in place. The Department plans to stop paying the EMA in July 2011 to existing 16 to 18-year-old students who will be halfway through their courses. That means that EMA will be completely gone by July 2011—an unseemly rush. EMA has been widely credited with helping to create a big increase in the number of young people going on to college in the last seven years. The IFS revealed that EMA increased the proportion of 16-year-olds in full-time education by 4% and the proportion of 17-year-olds in full-time education by 7%.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Newham sixth-form college in my constituency has the largest percentage of students receiving EMA. When I spoke to those at the college last week, they informed me that, in order to stay on at school, many students just handed the £30 a week to their families.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the impact on family incomes, not just on the incomes of individual students.

The Association of Colleges continues to make it clear to Ministers and MPs that it thinks that the decision to abolish EMA will have a detrimental effect on recruitment, retention and achievement among 16 to 18-year-olds. A number of trade unions are also worried that axing EMA will mean that colleges are hit by further funding cuts—cuts that will put even more college jobs at risk. The coalition argues that 90% of the cost of EMA is “dead-weight”, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, that is an offensive statement to many students. It implies that students would have gone on to study without EMA. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Research by 157 large colleges and other, smaller colleges shows that students who receive the EMA have better attendance records and are more likely to complete courses than wealthier students who are not eligible for support. That research was published in The Times Educational Supplement on 3 December. Despite coming from the poorest families and, in some cases, having low qualifications, EMA students miss fewer classes and are more likely to stay in education than wealthier students. The IFS has confirmed that the costs of EMA are completely offset by the benefits, even taking into account the so-called “dead-weight” effect.

EMA has been a big success for students and the economy. It has improved the life chances of many, from low or middle-income families. EMA has improved this country’s skills base, because of the improved results among students receiving it, and has increased access to university for many, many students. The case for abolition is flawed, as it will see a cut in attendance that will not be addressed by the enhanced learner fund. As one college principal said to me, there is no way of knowing which students would stop attending and which would carry on if EMA was withdrawn. A review of EMA would be one thing; its abolition quite another. The coalition needs to withdraw its plans and it should continue with the widespread support for our young people that EMA promotes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I am not sure whether those statistics are right, but, again my hon. Friend can take that up with the Under-Secretary at his meeting. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has set up a ministerial advisory group on adoption, to provide expert advice on a range of practical proposals to remove barriers to adoption and reduce delay, but I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has raised.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister made an important point about the involvement of voluntary sector agencies in adoption—indeed, I have been pleased with all his comments on the subject. However, does he accept that it is important to ensure both that proper financial resources are in place for the adoption process and that no short cuts are taken? That is where things can go horribly wrong.

[Mr Gibb]

Of course financial resources are always important, but the hon. Gentleman must appreciate the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves. That was noticeably lacking both from his speech and those of his hon. Friends.

I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. We need to ask hard questions about child-protection arrangements and court processes. That is why we have the review by Professor Munro, which is looking at safeguarding, front-line practice and transparency. I listened to my hon. Friend’s speech carefully. We are concerned that the number of children in care adopted in the past year has decreased by 4%, to 3,200. The real question that we should be asking is not whether too many children or, indeed, too few are in care, but simply whether the right children are in care. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is extremely concerned that, by not understanding that point, we risk undermining the work of the many excellent professionals on whom we rely to keep vulnerable children safe—or, worst of all, that we risk damaging the chances of many children who would greatly benefit from a second chance of a stable family upbringing.

I would like to turn to the points raised by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). The speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham South took the theme of “A Christmas Carol”, and perhaps if the previous Government had learned a little from the accounting techniques of Ebenezer Scrooge, this country might not now have the worst budget deficit of all the G20 countries. I listened carefully to the hon. Members, but not one suggested how we should try to find £0.5 billion of savings from the public sector, let alone the £81 billion for the structural deficit that we have to close.

We face an unprecedented budget deficit, under which we are spending £156 billion a year more than we receive in tax revenue, and a global economic environment in which the sovereign debt of nations running unsustainable deficits is leading to major financial crises for those countries. Those crises are preventing and delaying economic recovery, and we do not want this country to be in that position. Every element of public spending is therefore subject to scrutiny, and programmes that cost £0.5 billion a year cannot be exempt from that scrutiny.

We need to ensure that the young people who need support to continue their education receive it. In the current climate, however, those who need it cannot be regarded as 45% of the whole cohort, and the money needs to be better targeted. That is why we are introducing a different system of student support that will allow schools and colleges to provide help to those young people who genuinely need it in order to stay in education.

The education maintenance allowance has been in existence for about six years, having been rolled out nationally in 2004 following a pilot. In its early years, it was successful in raising participation rates among 16-year-olds from 87% in 2004 to 96% this year. As a consequence, attitudes among 16-year-olds to staying on in education have changed. When the National Foundation for Educational Research questioned recipients of EMA, it found that 90% would have stayed on in education regardless of whether they received the allowance, although the £30 a week received by the majority of EMA recipients is a helpful sum for a young person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

By definition, if students at that college constitute the 15% most deprived young people, in terms of their access to income, they will receive more than the amount the hon. Lady says is currently being received by the discretionary learner support fund.

To help schools and colleges to administer the fund, and to ensure that those young people who really need support to enable them to continue their education or training post-16 get access to the new fund, we are working with schools and colleges, and with other key organisations such as the Association of Colleges, Centrepoint, the Sutton Trust, the Association of School and College Leaders, the National Union of Students and the Local Government Association to develop a model approach that schools and colleges can choose to adopt or adapt, to inform them how to distribute the funds, and to whom.

[Bill Esterson]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear that, even taking into account the deadweight effect of the 12% who might carry on attending without EMA, the costs of the scheme are outweighed by the benefits. I quoted a college principal in my speech, and colleges are clear that they will be unable to work out who would stop attending if EMA were withdrawn. I would therefore be interested to hear from the Minister how the new system is going to work. He says that he is talking to the colleges, but how will he ensure that the new fund reaches the right students?

[Mr Gibb]

On that last point, the colleges are already experienced in administering the learner support fund. We are simply increasing the value of that fund, and the same college principals and head teachers will be administering it. We are talking about a significantly higher sum, however, and we will allow more discretion in the disbursement of the money, which is why we are talking to the Association of Colleges and others about how to administer it more fairly. Also, 5% of the fund will be available to cover the cost of administration.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central talked about the IFS research, as did other hon. Members. The IFS study says that the cost of the EMA scheme would have been recouped in the long run by helping to raise wage levels as a result of higher staying-on rates. I understand that argument, and I do not disagree with it. However, the IFS, in evaluations carried out with the Centre for Research in Social Policy, has previously said that EMA would increase participation by 4 percentage points, and up to 9 percentage points for young people from the poorest backgrounds. So the IFS’s own findings are consistent with the Department’s findings, and with the NFER’s conclusion that 90% of young people receiving EMA would have continued in education regardless of the payments. For those who really do need help to participate in post-16 education—

Financial Support (Students)

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Teresa Pearce]

I agree. It makes a difference if people know that they can concentrate on their education without worrying about the bus fare.

Some 43% of students at Bexley college and 38% of students at Greenwich college—the two largest colleges serving my constituency—receive EMA, the vast majority receiving the higher rate of £30 a week. Some argue that this money does not have an effect, but the principal of Bexley college, Danny Ridgeway, has confirmed that, in the past two academic years, students at his college in receipt of EMA have been more likely to pass their course than their colleagues who have not received EMA support. I believe that this positive outcome is linked to the attendance requirement attached to EMA payments.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

On that point, I received an e-mail from the principal of Hugh Baird college in Bootle, telling me that 84% of young people at the college currently receive EMA. She says that it is clear that the EMA has become a key part of family income and that its discontinuation is very likely to impact on the participation rate locally. In addition, a study in Merseyside colleges shows that the results of those on EMA are 7% higher than those of people who do not receive it.

[Teresa Pearce]

I agree. More importantly, Danny Ridgeway, the principal of Bexley college, agrees. He says:

“It is our view that the conditions that link payment to attendance and completion of work have been a motivator to help these students to success and progress”.

At this stage, we do not know whether the Government’s plans for enhanced discretionary learner support will have a similar attendance requirement. Will the Minister tell me whether it will?

The Government’s current line is that many students would have stayed in education anyway and that EMA is therefore a dead-weight. When the Minister makes this point—I am sure that he will—I would be grateful if he commented on the following points. First, research underpinning the dead-weight assertion was flawed, because it was undertaken only among schools, when 69% of the recipients of EMA attend colleges not schools. Furthermore, a significant number of EMA recipients are black and ethnic minority, yet those surveyed were 91% white. If a survey is undertaken with an unrepresentative sample, I believe that the results are irrelevant to the debate.

Secondly, research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies showed that where EMA is available, participation in education and attainment levels increased. Does the Minister not think that those are worthwhile objectives?

Thirdly, many public policies involve a high amount of dead-weight—for example, the initiative announced in the June Budget about temporary relief from national insurance contributions for new businesses. The Treasury’s costing shows that 96% of that tax cut will go to employers who would have set up anyway and that 4% will go to employers who have set up in response to the incentives. If the sole aim of this policy is to stimulate new business, it would be regarded as 96% dead-weight. Why are employers worthy of support, while young people, who are the future of this country, are not?

Before I turn to the details of the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, I wish to discuss what will happen to those students who currently receive EMA and are mid-way through their courses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Sturdy]

Absolutely, and that is what I want to go on to. For me, the fundamental point is ensuring that the money gets through to the people who really need it, and ensuring that they can make the decisions that could change their lives.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Julian Sturdy]

I am not getting far, but I will give way.

[Bill Esterson]

The issue of how to tell who really needs EMA to attend college has been raised with me by a number of college principals. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts—I hope that the Minister will also address the point—on how college principals are supposed to identify who really needs support, and who to withdraw it from and who to leave it with under the new arrangements? What will be the basis for those decisions? There is an estimate that 10% of students will drop out. How will they be identified?

[Julian Sturdy]

If I am correct—I hope the Minister will highlight this point—we are saying that we will give college principals the power to allocate funding. It is about devolving local decisions to local people and I will speak further about that later in my remarks. I am looking at this issue from the point of view of those in my constituency, including the two principals who have contacted me. I believe that such people are best placed to take such decisions because they have local knowledge, which is important. I am not present just to speak in support of the Government—I do broadly support them, but I have some concerns that I shall outline in more detail.

The flaws in the central administration of EMA are well known. Last year alone, the running costs of the scheme totalled a staggering £35.8 million. That is of concern and I welcome news of the increased discretionary learner support funds that will replace the EMA. That support will be targeted more directly towards those from the lowest income households to ensure that accessibility to post-16 study remains viable and attractive for all students. That is the crucial part of the policy.

I welcome the decision to localise the distribution of the learner support funds by empowering local colleges and educational providers to carry out that administrative role. That process will hopefully save money that should be going to students in the first place. Some will argue that such a transfer of responsibility will increase the workload for colleges, but in my view it is right for local education providers to use their local knowledge to tailor the support offered to young people in their specific areas. That is a local and flexible solution to the problems of poor and costly administration.

I am generally supportive of the measures outlined by the coalition but I hold two reservations about the new system. First, I am concerned about ending the scheme for those students who will be only half-way through their courses by next summer. I support the new system, but I believe that it would be better for those already receiving EMA payments to see the initial agreements honoured. My second concern, which has been raised already, relates to transport. Many students who attend colleges across York and North Yorkshire rely on EMA to help meet their travel costs. Many have £10 automatically withdrawn from their allowance in return for a free bus pass. Given the likelihood of cuts to local authority transport subsidies, I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering the introduction of any transport-related financial assistance for full-time 16 to18-year-old students. In essence, however, I hope that all of us in the Chamber today share the same goal to protect and enhance the accessibility to education that our 16 to 18-year-olds currently enjoy and deserve. That is a noble and worthwhile ambition, and countless colleagues across the coalition genuinely share that vision.

The choice is not merely between EMA on one hand and no financial support whatsoever for 16 to 18-year-olds on the other. If that were the case, it would be quite wrong. Instead, an unwavering commitment to those who face genuine financial barriers to participation can be delivered through a more localised and efficient scheme, and that is why I broadly support what the coalition Government are doing.

School Sports Funding

Bill Esterson Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.