Youth Services

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Tim Loughton

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). She reminds us that in a digital world, where more and more young people spend time with their iPads or iPods and so on—as we all increasingly do—the need for them to have exposure to situations that those of us who were brought up in an analogue world took more for granted is extraordinarily important.

I want to make some remarks about the situation for youth services today, and I thank the Minister for her enthusiasm at the Dispatch Box. As shadow skills Minister, it was particularly interesting for me to hear her talk about the establishment of a new level 3 apprenticeship in this regard. I obviously welcome that, but we need to take into account the fact that many of the people who have previously qualified as youth workers have, for the reasons that we have discussed today, simply been unable to find jobs in that area. Another genuine point I make to her is that this needs to be taken forward very carefully because what happens at levels 1 and 2—I do not know whether the intention is to do anything preparatory in this area—is critical in getting the right sort of people to do this sort of thing.

I praise the very comprehensive speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), the shadow Minister for youth affairs. She put her finger on so many of the disappointments and failings of recent years. She gave statistics on the amount by which spending had gone down and everything else, and all this is in the context of councils having had some of the worst cuts in recent years. I think particularly of my council in Blackpool, where we have lost about £700 million of funding. I say to the Minister and her departmental colleagues—her Department also focuses significantly on seaside and coastal towns, because of tourism issues—that small unitary authorities, such as mine in Blackpool, have suffered the most from that. The heavy toll of those cuts on children’s services, on social care and children’s care and on the number of young people who come to towns such as Blackpool sometimes looking for the proverbial streets that are paved with gold, but finding that that is not the case, is an additional burden and challenge for my local authority. That is why I welcome what my hon. Friend said, not just today but on other occasions, about expansion.

The main purpose of youth services under a Labour Government will be to provide non-formal education through personal, social and political development. It will be absolutely clear that young people will be at the centre of determining a new statutory youth service, because the issue is the same as it is in education. Too often, young people feel and find that education is done to them, or sometimes for them, and not with them. That needs to be taken on board, whether we are talking about the National Citizen Service or any of the other initiatives that the Government have introduced.

It is also important that local councils partner locally with organisations to develop a diverse universal offer to establish and submit long-term plans for local delivery, but they can do that only if there is significant security from long-term funding. That has not been the case with Governments since 2010. There is a whole list of things, including rebuilding the workforce, long-term proportionate evaluation and so on, that we need to take forward. I hope not least that the impetus provided by the most excellent report from the all-party group on youth affairs, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), will have made waves for this Government, and will do the same for the new Government. As many have said, we wait to see the colour of their money in this area.

There has been some discussion about the value of the NCS this afternoon. Clearly, it has done some useful work for lots of people. I would cite one of my former Blackpool apprentices who took part in two or three NCS initiatives that inspired in her an interest in public affairs and a confidence that allowed her to go to work in a pressurised office environment and has now taken her on to a university degree. There are such individual examples, but, given how much money the NCS has been getting, compared with the number of young people it has delivered for, it is not the ideal solution. This needs to be taken onboard.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is no longer in his place, and others have referred to the work that voluntary youth organisations have had to take on because of the lack of funding. I think of uniformed groups such as the Scouts, Girl Guides, Cadets, the Woodcraft Folk, and so on. I pay tribute to the Scouts Association. I pay tribute to Ann Limb, the first woman chair of the association, who is a long-standing friend of mine, and to Matt Hyde, the chief executive, for the way they have reinvigorated and energised the association for the 21st century. I particularly praise their skills for life programme. We have talked about informal learning and inspiration. Those skills for life are precisely the sorts of enabling skills that young people need not just in school but out of school.

[Tim Loughton]

As one of those who helped to design the National Citizen Service, I am obviously rather protective of it. I pay tribute to Matt Hyde, as has the hon. Gentleman. The Scouts have been very supportive of the NCS, and obviously the NCS has had a lot of investment, but will he take it from me that that should not be seen as displacing investment from youth services? It is not just the cost of the project; the NCS is a recruiting tool for youth leaders of the future, including for the Scouts. The data also shows that those who have been through the NCS achieve better results at school. The payback from the investment comes over several years; it is not just about the cost of running that initially three-week summer experience.

[Gordon Marsden]

I entirely accept that, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who was an extraordinarily good Children’s Minister. He is absolutely right to make the point about the wave effects, if I can put it that way. I am not saying that the NCS has not done good work; I am saying that it is not to be regarded as a substitute for the sort of statutory process we will need in the future.

I am very proud to be a Scout ambassador in Blackpool. I pay tribute to the Scout district commissioner, Victoria DaSilva, and to the president, an extremely formidable lady and councillor from the Minister’s own party, Councillor Lily Henderson. They, and everyone in Blackpool, have expanded the Scouts in recent years. It is not all doom and gloom, therefore, but we know about the number of youth and community workers who have lost their jobs since 2008.

The situation in the careers services runs in parallel to the way in which Government have generally treated the youth service. The argument is the same. No one disputes that individual initiatives, properly carried out, can make a great difference, but they are no substitute for a long-term process, which is what we need. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood on the Front Bench talked about the fall in the number of degrees, including graduate certificates and postgraduate diplomas, in youth work programmes. That is inevitable when people cannot find decent jobs and are not given a structure.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) that not every space has to be a five-star building and that it is what goes on inside that matters. Nevertheless, it is a tragedy that many of the last Labour Government’s investments in decent buildings have not flourished because of post-2010 austerity. Many of those buildings could not be used for their original purpose. Before I came to this debate, I checked the dates. One of the last of those buildings was erected in Blackpool. The Oracle youth hub is a fantastic, new, modernistic building not far from my offices. Building started in November 2010. I have looked up in my local newspaper the date it was opened. It is a fantastic, dynamic building. We were told by the Blackpool Gazette in 2012 that the building was going to do wonderful things, but of course it has not because it has not had the money or the staff. That is a great shame, and similar situations should be avoided in future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood paid tribute to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for taking on the project. As a former Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department, however, I gently say to the Minister—to whom I mean no disrespect—that I know that DCMS has to cover a huge range of issues. I do not think things have changed that much since my day—they are probably worse, if anything—so I am sure the Minister will agree that DCMS civil servants are called on to undertake a considerable amount of work compared with those in other Departments. While DCMS takes this forward, it is important that every other Government Department, including the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice, does not see it as an opportunity to say, “Oh well, DCMS is doing that.” I am sure the Minister does not need any lessons from me or, indeed, the new Secretary of State, if there is going to be a new Secretary of State, on lobbying in that regard. I gently say, however, that it is very important that DCMS should not be seen as being solely responsible for this particular area.

I want to turn briefly to the report’s recommendations. They have been covered extensively, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown will want to talk about them in due course. I want to pluck out two quotations from the report. The first is from the British Youth Council, whose executive I was a member of many years ago. It says:

“We believe properly funded youth services and agencies aid young people in their personal development and their ability to function in society.”

That is a huge issue in terms of citizenship.

The second quotation is from the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who is the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs. In comments that echo those made by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, she said:

“we lack a coherent approach to secure and sustain youth work, and a proper understanding of the levels and extent of youth work needed to achieve the best outcomes for young people.”

I want to close with two or three examples of what has been done on the ground in Blackpool in recent years. Last year I met a group of HeadStart apprentices; that is a Big Lottery-funded agency programme providing resilience for young people across Blackpool, particularly in mental health areas, and it does a fantastic job. It gives the apprentices themselves a varied and creative programme to qualify in, while helping empower hundreds of young people in Blackpool schools and also on a one-to-one basis and in conjunction with local charities such as mine. It has been doing things just in the last month. Blackpool’s Talbot road has been made into the country’s first resilience pathway. That pathway illustrates 42 different moves in life that might help young people and their families and friends to find a sense of belonging, and it was put together by young people in Blackpool themselves. Each paving stone is designed to represent an idea or suggestion that helps young people and their families and friends find a sense of belonging, and I am glad to say that that has received some funding from the Lancashire enterprise partnership.

I also want to touch on the fantastic work done by young carers in Blackpool; they need to be highlighted because they too are acquiring skills at a time when they are having also to attend school. I also want to highlight the Blackpool Youth Council and the body that organises the annual elections for it, URPotential, and to praise particularly Debbie Terras, the previous chief executive, who did a fantastic job and brought people from Blackpool on two occasions to this place to participate in activities here.

I mentioned at the beginning of my speech the number of young people who come to Blackpool and find themselves in disarray not just with housing but with other issues as well, and I also want to mention our local charity the Streetlife Trust, whose chief executive Jane Hugo is now one of my councillors in a ward in the centre of town.

Finally, I want to talk about the work of the Blackpool Boys and Girls Club and its youth worker, Dave Blacker, who has worked for 43 years with the club. Its most recent initiative is an exhibition. We have had some problems with vandalism in our key park, Stanley Park, and those young people have put together an exhibition of their thoughts and images about that. Elaine Smith, doyenne and chair of Stanley Park, said it is all too easy to look at young people in the park and wonder if they are up to no good and that the exhibition

“shows that so many of our children really do care.”

We have a lot to be thankful for from initiatives in Blackpool started by individuals, and I am reminded of the old song “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves”; young people are doing it for themselves, but they should not have to do it all on their own, and there should be a proper statutory youth service to go with this.

Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits for Accelerated Courses) (England) Regulations 2018

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Tim Loughton

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[Gordon Marsden]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head and echoes the other misgivings expressed by colleagues.

As the Minister pointed out, accelerated degrees—fitting three years into two—are not new, and have always been with us. He has quoted some examples. They have often been crafted closely to specific needs of individual HE institutions. I hear what he has to say about the various universities; they have clearly found that that is a good model, which they have wanted to take forward. The devil is always in the detail; it is the details and the firm focus on increasing the maximum fee cap to which we are vehemently opposed, because we do not believe that, at this stage, they will bring the wider benefits to universities and most importantly to would-be students that the Minister thinks they will.

It is not just us saying that; a large number of dissenting voices the demand for accelerated degrees in the form that the Government propose. It is all well and laudable for the Minister to talk about how we might see the effects that we would all like to, but at the moment that has not been the case. That is reflected in the comments of the various university groups. The chief executive of the Russell Group, for example, Dr Tim Bradshaw, said:

“Greater choice for students is always good but I would caution ministers against ‘overpromising’…The Government’s own projection for the likely take-up of these degrees is modest and we actually hear many students calling for four-year degrees, for example, to spend a year on a work placement or studying abroad.”

The group MillionPlus said something similar:

“Demand for accelerated degrees has been low for many years and is unlikely to increase significantly on account of these fee changes.”

Who therefore will the accelerated degrees benefit? The trade union that represents many of the staff in universities states that

“there is little evidence of solid demand for this type of course”,

and that—I am afraid to say that I agree with this, in particular because it is the thrust of what the Minister’s predecessor but one, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), laid out clearly in the White Paper and the Bill that followed—

“this decision is being driven by the government’s marketisation agenda and the need to row back on the spiralling costs of university education, particularly in light of the withdrawal of maintenance grants.”

We await the Augar review, and lots of promises are floating around, but as of this moment nothing concrete is in place.

I have emphasised time and again that the Government’s need to facilitate changes for a better work-life balance and the progression needed to benefit our economy must include looking at credit transfers, flexible courses and urgent action to address the catastrophic fall in part-time learning since 2010. Unfortunately—which this is, because I wish we could have a consensus on it—the Government’s pitch for the accelerated degrees we are debating smacks simply of a PR initiative that has been fashioned for new HE entrants, often with narrowly focused HE objectives, which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and others were worried about during debate on the Bill.

The result of the Government’s 2012 HE funding changes, including the tripling of tuition fees—we cannot get away from this—is that the average debt for students in England is £46,000. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the removal of maintenance grants from students from low-income families meant they were graduating with the highest debt levels, which are in excess of £57,000. We therefore have clear evidence that the nudge factor, which the Government—or their predecessor—have been very keen to push, is actually operating to nudge people against participating in higher education. Yet the Government have chosen this time to introduce this statutory instrument, before the Augar report has even appeared.

During the passage of the Bill, we challenged them consistently about the way in which they wanted to use the teaching excellence framework to increase or remove the fee cap. The draft SI increases the higher amount to start a degree to £11,100 on an annual basis. We have to address the impact that that will have on less well-off students’, or would-be students’, ability or willingness to take places on those courses. Can we realistically expect all the people who might want to do such a course to ratchet up to the figure mentioned?

As the University and College Union has said:

“This is not about increasing real choice for students,”

but it could allow

“for-profit companies to access more public cash through the student loans system…Instead of gimmicks which risk undermining the international reputation of our higher education sector, the Government should focus on fixing the underlying problems with our current student finance system, which piles debts on students.”

The idea that accelerated fees only mean a cut in student debt is, I am afraid, knowingly or unknowingly, hiding another motive. Wedded as they still appear to be—I have heard no repudiation of the broad themes that the hon. Member for Orpington spelled out when the Bill was introduced—to an outdated market-driven view, the Government have pinned their hopes on a rapid expansion of new providers that charge the higher fees on a two-year basis. All that is all in the various secondary papers and instruments that were produced during the Bill. So far, we have seen no evidence of that expansion.

Do all the leaks that suggest that Augar is now under pressure from the Government to lower tuition fees per year make nonsense of the rhetoric and the introduction of this statutory instrument? Incidentally, will the Minister give us the latest estimate for when the Augar review is to report?

The draft explanatory memorandum lists the theoretical benefits for providers and students, but it also refers to the numerous concerns that have been expressed across the sector. It says:

“Students on existing accelerated degrees report a very high level of satisfaction, and highlight the opportunity to graduate and start or resume work a year sooner”—

the Minister talked about that—

“together with costs savings and academic benefits.”

How many and what sort of students, and with what financial background, were interviewed to reach that conclusion? It ignores the fact that those degrees would be available only to students able to study all year round. That has major implications for access and participation, which are already faltering for part-timers under this Government.

The total number of English undergraduate entrants of all ages from low-participation areas fell by 17% between 2011-12 and 2016-17. There were 12,600 fewer English undergraduate students from low-participation areas starting university courses each year than there were in 2011-12. We must ask ourselves what these accelerated degrees, on the basis on which they have been put forward in the statutory instrument, do for them, and the answer is relatively little. There has been a 54% fall in entrants from low-participation areas studying part time, who will not be able to access funding for accelerated degrees. How does the Minister plan to address that? Can he explain in any shape or form how accelerated degree will address the devastating fall in part-time HE study?

Critics have also pointed out the danger of squeezing three years into two for personal development opportunities or participation in extracurricular activities and volunteering. Does the Minister not value the important personal development that our universities provide outside the classroom, which could be denied by this acceleration? UCU also pointed out:

“Accelerated degrees...result in reduced opportunities for students to engage in part-time employment over the course of their studies. This limitation is particularly acute for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more likely to need to seek employment…to fund themselves through university.”

We would like a situation with fees in which students did not have to work part time as much as they do, but given that that is the case, perhaps the Minister will admit that the giveaway in the accelerated degree proposals is that they are not focused on those sorts of people, but in many cases on richer or employer-funded applicants. UCU also said:

“The lack of holiday time factored into these degrees also means that they could prove difficult to student parents; those with caring responsibilities; and students whose disabilities mean that they might benefit from low-intensity study. For this reason, there is a risk that take-up of these courses could have strong socio-economic stratification and that students from less advantaged backgrounds might have lower attainment on these courses.”

Incidentally, there is a reference in the draft explanatory memorandum to the impact of the statutory instrument on the Erasmus+ programme. Will the Minister tell us the situation regarding ensuring our continued participation in the scheme?

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman for some time now. He seems to be talking an awful lot about accelerated degree courses and very little about fee limits, which is what this statutory instrument is supposed to be about. What he has not mentioned but might want to, because it was mentioned by one of his colleagues, is value for money.

I have two daughters, one of whom has just left university and one of whom is still at Cambridge, where she has intensive tutoring. The one who has just left was at another university, where she was lucky to get five hours a week. Even if that were doubled, it would not mean a shortage of time outside the lecture room. Does the hon. Gentleman think the proposals offer better value for money? Should not he really be getting at the question whether students get value for money? At the moment, in my experience, they do not.

[Gordon Marsden]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments are enlivened and enriched by his personal family experiences, but the difference of outcome in his family rather makes the point. It is not just a matter of what students get and do on courses, although I fully accept that that is important. It is also about how students are put off courses in the first place. I think most of my hon. Friends would, like me, find it difficult to see how a suggested 20%-a-year increase will encourage, rather than deter, people who already find it difficult to make such a decision.

The Open University says that

“there needs to be increased choice and flexibility for students to study at a time, pace, mode and place that they choose.”

One of the stated objectives of the 2012 funding reforms in England was to

“allow greater diversity of provision, which means more short two-year courses and more part-time opportunities”.

However, we know that the reforms have failed spectacularly to achieve that objective, with 59% fewer people in England entering part-time undergraduate higher education each year than in 2011-12, before the reforms. That is why it is vital to increase options.

However, the Government have failed to address the crisis for the OU and other adult learning providers. Another increase in tuition fees, which they are now presiding over, and which would allow higher education providers to charge more per year, will not help the process. MillionPlus agrees. It says that

“accelerated degrees are just one form of flexibility”

and that Government have missed out on the opportunity of creating

“greater flexibility in fee structures and loan availability to enable students to access financial support for periods of study of less than a year (for example to borrow by modules rather than by year)”.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham prayed in aid his personal experience. My experience as a former Open University tutor—although somewhat long in the tooth—is that it is precisely the people, particularly adults, from disadvantaged backgrounds, who would like support for funding by module. That is what they do not get at the moment.

“True flexibility…can only come when students are not penalised for studying part-time, or for shifting between full and part time study.”

Those are not my words but the words of MillionPlus.

The Government have given little thought to the impact on staff workloads of accelerated degrees. UCU has rightly expressed concern that the changes could put yet more pressure on its members without much immediate or direct benefit to them, at a time when they believe—and we agree—that they are getting a raw deal on full-time contracts, pay increases and progression.

Despite the Minister’s enthusiasm and good intentions, there is no guarantee that existing university teachers will be willing or able to teach the new accelerated degrees as configured. There is a risk that the move to accelerated degrees will compromise time currently allocated by such teachers to research, and fuel—of necessity, if they are not prepared to do the relevant work—the use of even more casualised teaching staff to deliver provision during the summer months. With threats to our existing world-class higher education institutions and research piling up from the uncertainties of Brexit, should we be taking that chance?

Issues to do with short-term contracts, extra bureaucracy and guarantees of quality still need to be addressed. What steps have the Government taken to alleviate the pressures on staff that these courses may create? Ministers should focus not simply on accelerated courses for a market driven by untested new providers, but on protecting the global strength and reputation of UK higher and further education.

The proposal is irrelevant to the main priorities of the HE sector in 2019. It is irrelevant to the multiple threats that existing universities and providers face from a chaotic Brexit, and the collateral damage they face from lack of certainty about our participation in Horizon research programmes through the 2020s after we leave; lack of certainty that HE students, providers and staff will continue to benefit from Erasmus+ over the same period; and the withdrawal of European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund funding, from which many community-focused universities and providers have benefited.

The proposals, cast as they are today, represent a developing market model that the hon. Member for Orpington left in the out-tray for his successors. They do nothing to strengthen our HE sector internationally or nationally. They do not address the important issues that Augar is supposed to be looking at. That is why we will not support the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Tim Loughton

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and, as I say, those considerations will form part of the summit that my colleague is holding this Friday. He makes the point that every child is different, and we need to ensure that we provide tailor-made careers advice that is suitable and appropriate for the child. The new arrangements will give schools far greater flexibility to make sure that they are delivering what works to the children they know best.

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

The Minister talks about outputs, but the reality is that we cannot look at them unless there is some input in the first place. People at my local schools in Blackpool are distraught that the Department has taken away the dedicated £200 million that was supposed to go into providing face-to-face guidance. How does he expect proper provision to be delivered if he is not investing any money in the first place?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that funding for schools has been greatly protected, and now, by taking away the ring fences, we are making sure that schools can deliver the most appropriate, best-quality careers advice for the children they know best. That used to happen when I was at school under a Mr Herbert, although one could say that my ending up as a Member of Parliament does not suggest the best careers advice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gordon Marsden and Tim Loughton

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

17. What recent assessment he has made of the merits of year 3 play pathfinder projects in Blackpool.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

All local authorities, including Blackpool, have provided financial information on their 2010-11 play programmes and this is being considered by our Department. However, as I said earlier, the Department is not making judgments on the relative merits of individual sites, and does not hold this information. Local authorities will be notified within the next month of their revised play capital allocations. It will then be for local authorities to decide which play areas go ahead, based on local needs.

[Mr Marsden]

Eleven play pathfinder projects in Blackpool are waiting with bated breath for those allocations. That includes the Fishers Field project in my constituency, which is a highly imaginative but complex project involving new playing fields and a natural park. I hear what the Minister says, but his colleague the Secretary of State, in reply to me earlier in the summer, said he was clear about the needs of Blackpool in terms of deprivation, mobility and general problems in that area. Will the Minister pass on the message that the people of Blackpool would like to see such projects go ahead?

[Tim Loughton]

As I said before and as the hon. Gentleman would have heard, we are very much in favour of promoting play as much as possible because of the many social health benefits that it brings. When the allocations are determined after the spending review coming up, I hope the local authority in Blackpool will decide its priorities according to local needs—we have given local authorities that power—and proceed to promote the play schemes that it considers most appropriate for the local area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, the big increase in the number of children coming into care in the aftermath of the baby Peter case was alarming. It is therefore absolutely right that the ongoing Munro review makes suggestions for freeing up the bureaucracy, which holds back social workers from doing the sort of preventive work—keeping families together when possible and working with other professionals on an early intervention basis—that can be so profitable financially, but, more important, socially, for those families later.

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

The Secretary of State has just said that he is keen to promote initiatives in the study of history in schools. Does he remember the rather sterile debate in 1990, when Lord Baker introduced the national curriculum, between skills and content? Does he agree that skills Learned in the study of history are as important as narrative? We cannot have one or the other—we need both.