Education Maintenance Allowance

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Lady has just shown how hopelessly out of touch Government Members are. Is she telling me that nine out of 10 young people in her constituency who get EMA are saying they do not need it? If so, she has been speaking to some very different young people—although I am glad that she has at least been speaking to them, unlike those on her Front Bench. She needs to answer this question. The Government are proposing a scheme that is a tenth—

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

Answer the question.

[Andy Burnham]

I am about to do that. The Government are proposing a scheme that is a tenth of the size of the previous one, so a fair assumption is that it will help one in 10 of the people who are getting help today. How is that compatible with the full participation in education of all 16 to 18-year-olds, to which the Government amendment refers?

I have never set my face against changes or savings to the EMA scheme. I proposed a change last year—that of giving young people between 16 and 18 the choice of unlimited free travel or EMA. Today I say this to the Secretary of State: I am prepared to discuss changes while keeping the principle of a national weekly payment scheme to support young people in education, but I am not prepared to see a successful scheme, which brings a huge range of social benefits, dismantled and replaced with a residual scheme a fraction of the size. He will have to work very hard to convince us that a scheme a tenth of the size will, in the words of his amendment, improve

“access to, enthusiasm for and participation in further and higher education.”

How can it possibly do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

As I said, 80% of people get the £30 higher level. I also said that I am not opposed to talking to the Secretary of State about changes. However, if he is to fulfil his goal of keeping young people in education, he will have to talk about a scheme on a much bigger scale than he is proposing, and he will have to do that today.

Let me set out, first, the educational case for EMA. EMA has had a positive impact on participation in post-16 education: that is accepted by all. The Government’s figures suggest that EMA makes all the difference for 78,000 young people. However, as we enter 2011, the financial outlook for many families is changing for the worse. Calculations about the affordability of staying on will have to be redone when the loss of EMA is set alongside changes to other benefits and wages. New research released yesterday by the University and College Lecturers Union suggested that seven in 10 EMA recipients will drop out of education if EMA is taken away.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I regret the removal of EMA and the necessity to remove it, which was caused by an orgy of overspending by the Administration of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a part. A diet of cold, hard decisions now has to be taken by Ministers, and I have some sympathy with them. Choices have to be made, such as between providing nursery education for two-year-olds in the poorest areas or retaining EMA. The right hon. Gentleman accepts that there can be changes to EMA. Is there any reason why a slimmed-down version, such as that proposed by the Government, with constructive input from all sides, cannot deliver for the most needy and minimise the negative impacts?

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman is having it both ways. He started by saying that he regrets the removal of EMA, before going on to make his attack. I will make two points to him. First, he said that EMA was essentially unaffordable. Why then does the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that the costs of EMA are “completely offset” by the wider benefits that it brings? He might want to reflect on that point.

Secondly, why did the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State promise young people that they would keep EMA? More than that, why did the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), stand at the Dispatch Box after the general election and say that EMA would be retained? Why did they do that if it is now such a bad idea? Will he answer that?

[Mr Stuart]

On that particular point, following our joint interview yesterday, I looked up the Prime Minister’s interview on Cameron Direct. He expressed some concerns and talked about the mixed messages that he had received from students on EMA. He said that the Conservative party had no plans to remove EMA. That is not a matter of pure semantics. There was no promise, and the right hon. Gentleman should not put out an untruth about the Prime Minister on this subject.

[Andy Burnham]

We will leave those kinds of points to Back Benchers; we do not expect them from the Chair of the Select Committee.

The fundamental point that the Government are missing is that participation is only part—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) does not have to put his hand up—he can just stand up. Participation is only part of the story; EMA helps students to succeed once they arrive at college. It stands to reason that young people do better if they can afford the books or equipment that support the course. As many young people have told me, EMA means that they do not have to take a part-time job, so they can focus all their energy and attention on their studies. College after college reports that EMA improves attendance, helps people to stay the course, reduces the drop-out rate and, in the end, brings a higher rate of achievement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I will do so, but I cannot answer for the Secretary of State. I have been to sixth-form colleges in London, and that brings me to my case about social mobility. If he visits a sixth-form college while he is in the job, may I suggest that he could do worse than visit the one that my hon. Friend mentions, or indeed Newham sixth-form college, which I visited yesterday? If he does, he might meet the young man who told me about the practical effect of losing EMA. He feels that he will have to lower his ambitions in the universities to which he applies, because he thinks his exam grades will undoubtedly suffer.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Why?

[Andy Burnham]

The Chairman of the Education Committee cements the impression that the Conservatives have not really thought about what it is like to be a young person in the circumstances that I have described. It is hard to put a value on the self-confidence and peace of mind that financial security gives a young person. It creates the conditions for their academic potential to be realised.

The Secretary of State talks frequently about social mobility under the Labour Government, citing the number of young people on free school meals gaining a place at Oxford or Cambridge. Time and again, he has used that figure selectively to paint a misleading picture of Labour’s record, and I wish to set the matter straight.

First, I politely point out to the Secretary of State that Oxbridge is not the be-all and end-all. If he examines the university system as a whole, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) has taken the trouble to do, he will see that between 2005 and 2007 the number of young people on free school meals gaining a place at university increased by 18%, double the rate of increase for all young people. Does the Secretary of State recognise those figures and, if so, does he accept that EMA has played an important role in securing that social progress? Does he further accept that the proportion of children on free school meals who stayed on in full-time education at 16 increased from 60% in 2005 to 70% in 2009? That is why more are applying to, and getting into, universities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate about scrapping the education maintenance allowance. I share the frustration of many Opposition Members about the potential impact of abolishing it. However, although they may deny the relevance of the deficit, my anger is directed at the Labour party and the state in which the previous Government left the public finances.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

You should remember you’re the Chair of the Committee.

[Mr Stuart]

I am entirely happy to chair a Committee and to bear witness to the reality of education funding. I am involved in education and serve on the Committee because I care passionately about improving the quality of education and opportunity in this country. We may hear from others later, but the shadow Secretary of State did at least have the goodness to recognise that there was room for reducing the deficit. However, he would not tell us where, what, when or how. When I consider the attempt to make more effective interventions in the early years and I look at the nursery education opportunities for two-year-olds, I ask myself whether I would prefer to cut that or keep the EMA.

A Labour Member suggested that there might be differences between Members. In my constituency, some students travel for an hour and 40 minutes each way to attend Bishop Burton further education college. That is a real issue for a rural area such as mine. However, I know that half of all 17 and 18-year-old full-time students are eligible for EMA, and I am aware of the chronic crisis and pressure on education budgets—the desperate desire to deliver the outcomes that we have struggled to provide from our system. I have said it before, and I will risk repeating it: I know that the Labour Government were utterly committed to trying to close the gap. They had will and they had resource—a resource which has sadly gone—yet too often the gap widened rather than narrowed. I do not blame the Opposition for using this issue today, but I hope that we will collectively, not in a party political way, take the limited funds that are available—the deficit is not an irrelevant fact but the fundamental elephant in the room—and look to do what is best. We had a lot of spending previously, and we have a diet of hard decisions now. They must be faced.

The shadow Secretary of State suggested that the best approach was to cut everything by the same amount. Is that really the strategically sensible way to ensure that we improve outcomes for people in our society, not least those with least? I do not think that it is. So I am interested to know how the discretionary learner fund—the replacement for EMA—will work, because of the realities faced by my constituents, who travel over three hours a day to get to an FE college, and who then achieve at the end of that. If those people manage to do that in the face of great difficulty and personal inconvenience, I want to be sure that colleges such as Bishop Burton, which run private enterprises to make profits so that they can have a fleet of vehicles, are not disadvantaged. Despite those vehicles, the college is worried that the students, who often live in small hamlets, need to travel from their home to the pick-up point for the college bus. We need to ensure that we have a system—whether financed by local authorities or the replacement for EMA—that covers that.

It is hard to believe that EMA as it stands is the most sensible use of scarce resource. I am not trying to make a party political point, and I am mindful of my position as Chair of the Select Committee, but I want us to devise the system that works most effectively and yet does not deny the reality.

When I was first elected as a councillor—in Cambridge—many years ago, I went to a budget survey meeting with the public in a local shopping centre, which the then Labour council had arranged. I was handed a form which gave a list of spending areas for the budget debate. It said, “Please tick all those areas where you would like to see more spending.” I am a small-state Conservative in some ways, and I found many items on which I wanted to spend more. I was terribly aware of what went on in my ward—the lack of provision for young people, the need to do more in many areas—and I wanted to tick many boxes. However, the Labour council had sensibly included a proviso, which said, “All we ask is that for every box you tick to give more money, you identify another item on which you want to spend less.”

That is the challenge that faces the Select Committee, which will look under the bonnet of the new fund. It will examine engagement and participation by 16 to 19-year-olds. We want to ensure that the dire warnings by the shadow Secretary of State are not fulfilled and that young people are not put off education, but we must realise that we are in a highly constrained position because of this Government’s financial inheritance. Like that wise Labour council many years ago, every time we say, “Let’s save EMA”—Opposition Members have not made it clear so far whether they want to save all or half of EMA—we should ask, “What will we cut?” Just as, in that shopping centre, members of the public, like me, were told, “It’s not enough to say you want better youth services; you’ve got to tell us where to save the money too,” if hon. Members are to do justice to the young people, whom we all want to see given decent and proper opportunity, we must ensure that we do so in a financially responsible manner.

Further Education Lecturers

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to have secured this debate, which follows another education-related one. As I speak, hon. Members in the main Chamber are debating the education maintenance allowance, so Ministers, like the rest of us, are trying to be in two places at once.

This debate is about Government policy on the employment of further education lecturers as school teachers in schools. I am delighted to see present my predecessor as Chair of the Education Committee in its previous guise as the Children, Schools and Families Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). I hope that he will participate. The subject is important because the importance of vocational and practical education within our education system is too often underplayed. There is also an artificial chasm between those who teach in further education and those who teach in schools at a time when we are trying to create a system such as that in health, which tries to build pathways in relation to the patient so that, instead of providing health services on the basis of institutional convenience, everything is built in relation to the patient. In exactly the same way, institutions that serve young people in education should bend and shape themselves to suit the young people’s needs, rather than the other way around.

Further education lecturers are required to work through a four-tier qualification system, culminating in qualified teacher learning and skills status. FE lecturers with QTLS accreditation may then work in schools not as teachers, but as instructors, and only as a last resort. Even though they perform essentially the same functions, instructors have a lower professional status and, usually, a lower salary than schoolteachers. The equality of esteem and the need to ensure good vocational learning are undermined by that artificial divide.

Primary and secondary teachers, on the other hand, have a qualification known as qualified teacher status. Teachers with a QTS are currently eligible to teach in the FE sector. If the potential of the Government’s schools policy is to be realised, we need the best possible teachers in the classroom providing education at any one time. The Government’s schools White Paper rightly identifies teacher quality as the most important ingredient in improving the quality of education in this country, thus encouraging social mobility and other issues of social justice that hon. Members on both sides of the House devoutly desire. The White Paper states:

“All the evidence from different education systems around the world shows that the most important factor in determining how well children do is the quality of teachers and teaching.”

Many FE lecturers are dual professionals with expertise both in their vocational subject area and in pedagogy. That expertise needs to be used in schools on an equal and fair basis in the same way as that of teachers. I hope that the Government will look to overcome the obstacles and create a single teaching qualification, effectively moving the barriers that constrain the best use of FE lecturers.

The Government’s skills strategy shows that they are committed to the promotion of technical as well as academic qualifications—I believe that that issue has just been debated in the main Chamber—to promote a variety of routes to improved employment opportunities to students. My hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has just left the Chamber and, given his passionate espousal of the importance of craft and vocational learning, we must ensure that we make best use of our teaching work force. The skills strategy states:

“Skills are vital to our future and improving skills is essential to building sustainable growth and stronger communities. A skilled workforce is necessary to stimulate the private-sector growth that will bring new jobs and new prosperity for people all over this country.

And a strong further education and skills system is fundamental to social mobility, re-opening routes for people from wherever they begin to succeed in work, become confident through becoming accomplished and play a full part in civil society.”

The reality, however, is that there has been a lack of expansion of vocational expertise in the school work force, which fails to match the expansion of vocational curricula in schools. Schools too often do not have the appropriately experienced teachers to inspire students to excel in vocational courses.

The Children, Schools and Families Committee carried out an inquiry into teacher training in the 2009-10 Session and its report, “The Training of Teachers”, was published in January 2010. The Committee called for

“greater fluidity—and shared development opportunities—across the school and further education sectors.”

The report’s recommendations include:

“At the very least, teachers with Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills status should immediately be able to work as a qualified teacher in schools if they are teaching post-16, even post-14, pupils.”

That recommendation represents the nub of my case today, for which I hope we will have a sympathetic and constructive response from Ministers.

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

Like the hon. Gentleman, I rushed from the main Chamber where we have both been speaking. We are a regular double act. The recommendations of the inquiry under discussion were made by a former Select Committee—the Children, Schools and Families Committee. It was one of our later inquiries and it was very much an eye-opener for all members of the Committee. We made recommendations on improvements to teacher education and asked why we had an artificial divide whereby a schoolteacher could not teach in FE and many people teaching in FE could not teach in schools. It seems a crazy divide.

[Mr Sheerman]

Sorry, Mr Hood. It was a very long intervention. I hope that you will call me to speak again later.

[Mr Stuart]

I now know—if I did not already—that my predecessor would like to speak in this debate, so his intervention served that purpose. The report’s recommendations, under the hon. Gentleman’s august chairmanship, also stated:

“In the context of the 14–19 reforms, the Department should put in place a mechanism for assessing vocational or professional qualifications as equivalent to degree status.”

It added:

“Over the longer term we recommend that the training of early years teachers, school teachers and further education teachers become harmonised through generic standards.”

That is the request that I am making today—“harmonised through generic standards.”

Those recommendations seem to have been overlooked, with FE lecturers remaining on the sidelines. Despite their obvious expertise in the vocational pathway, we are clearly ignoring the opportunity to utilise their talents in our secondary schools. My Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into behaviour and discipline in schools, and wants to ensure that we have the best possible teachers to engage with young people who perhaps find their academic studies less inspiring. Having the best possible vocational teachers is a great way of getting people re-engaged in learning to the benefit of both academic and vocational skills.

The Skills Commission published a report, “Teaching Training in Vocational Education”, in February 2010, which states:

“If we are to successfully establish and maintain a vocational pathway through 14-19 education and on to higher education, we need professionals with recent and relevant vocational knowledge and skills”

to transfer their expertise to learners. Those are common-sense words, but there is a barrier standing in their way. The report notes that

“the system as it now stands is biased towards academic education and its teachers, and fails to recognise the crucial role that vocational education and its teachers play in 14-19 education… For vocational instructors employed in schools their conditions of service are inferior to those employed as school teachers.”

It adds:

“We cannot continue to perceive vocational education to be second class and inferior to academic education. In turn, we cannot continue to label teachers of vocational education as a ‘semi-profession’… The Commission believes that, in the short-term, greater transferability between the two professional statuses must be achieved in order to realise high quality academic and vocational provision throughout 14-19 education—getting the right skills in the right place of our education system must be a priority for policymakers.”

That is why I am delighted to be participating in this debate. The report continues:

“To realise this, the Commission believes that convergence courses should be developed to facilitate transferability between QTS and QTLS. The principle of this convergence would be central to the Skills Commission’s vision for 14-19 education, and to establishing a high quality route through the 14-19 phase... The two regimes should be replaced by a unified training system and a ‘universal teaching status’.”

So why have neither the recommendations of the former Children, Schools and Families Committee nor those of the Skills Commission been implemented by the Government? It seems that there are a number of possible objections to a unified teacher status. First, teaching young adults is considered a different playing field to teaching 11 to 16-year-olds. Therefore, an individual who is teaching in further education might not have the skills and pedagogical background necessary to teach younger children. That was one of the fears before the increased flexibility pilots were started seven years ago—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with them—when the national curriculum was made more flexible, so that it included a wider variety of settings in which students could study. In practice, FE staff found that teaching groups of 14 and 15-year-olds was not so very different from teaching 16 and 17-year-olds. The skills are fundamentally the same—good lesson planning, varying the pace, involving students and so on.

A second argument is that schoolteachers might have a better grounding in the theory of teaching and pedagogy than FE teachers. Teaching degrees and the PGCE provide a grounding in the theory of teaching and pedagogy, but so does the four-stage approach to the QTLS. FE lecturers are required to gain QTLS status by successfully going through professional formation, which is, according to the Institute for Learning,

“the post-qualification process by which a teacher demonstrates through professional practice the ability to use effectively the skills and knowledge acquired whilst training to be a teacher; and the capacity to meet the occupational standards required of a teacher.”

By contrast, there are strong arguments in favour of a universal teacher status. Academic and vocational education are both important and require equally rigorous teaching. It is simply unreasonable, not to mention unfair, that FE teachers cannot go into the school environment. As I have said, it is crucial that highly skilled and experienced professionals can use that skill wherever it is most needed. The current system of teacher qualification is over-complicated and should be simplified to allow high-quality professionals to teach in both sectors.

My predecessor as Chair of the Select Committee wishes to speak, so I will bring my remarks to an early close. I have made the key points that I wanted to make, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively. We need to ensure that we have a rich curriculum that regards vocational and practical learning as equally important, equally valid and equally useful as academic learning. There should be a system through which we increase academic rigour, while ensuring that the whole work force and every type of learning are treated according to their merits and that every child can access the best possible teaching whatever course they are doing at whatever time.

[Mr Sheerman]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) not only on securing the debate but on being part of the dynamic duo that is now performing in this Chamber, having dual-tasked and performed just a few minutes ago in the main Chamber.

This is an important issue. I recognise the particular interest in the subject that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has and his background in the work that his Committee did before the election. It is therefore appropriate that he was able to contribute. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness made some positive and constructive points, and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of his comments. He asked me to be sympathetic, constructive and positive in my response; as he well knows, I always endeavour to do so. Whether I can give him the detail of that sympathy, constructiveness and positivity remains to be seen, given that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) would normally be responding to the debate. Of course, he is involved in the debate in the main Chamber.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the debate, given the pressures on the Department. I understand why he finds himself in that position. As he is helping out the Minister with responsibility for schools, perhaps he will ask whether my predecessor as Chair of the Select Committee, Baroness Sharp—if she wishes to join us—and I can meet the Minister with responsibility for schools to discuss the matter further after having heard the Minister’s remarks.

[Tim Loughton]

I will be delighted to pass on that invitation for a meeting. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for schools will be sympathetic, positive and constructive in his response to it. Notwithstanding what is going on this afternoon, the timing of the debate is also appropriate given the review of vocational education that the Secretary of State has asked Professor Alison Wolf to carry out—her name was mentioned in the main Chamber a little while ago.

The Government attach great importance to improving vocational teaching in schools. In response to my hon. Friend’s point, it is certainly not a question of being second class to academic education or treating vocational sector teachers as second class; it is a question of appropriateness and horses for courses, in the same way as perhaps primary school teachers do not readily transfer to become secondary school teachers and vice versa. I want to make it clear that all aspects of teaching those different areas are absolutely valued, but that they will be more appropriate for certain people in certain areas than in others.

My hon. Friend made a point at the beginning with which I wholeheartedly concur: we need to shape institutions around children and young people to ensure that they are getting the most appropriate support, education and training of whatever type, rather than trying to pigeonhole people into particular structures. The coalition agreement for the new Government included a commitment to better vocational education in England, and the Secretary of State’s speech to the Edge Foundation last year on 9 September set out the need for radical reform to address long-term weaknesses in practical learning. That is why we have asked Professor Wolf to carry out what is proving to be a major review and to make recommendations about how vocational education can be improved.

Professor Wolf’s review is considering how we can ensure that vocational education for 14 to 19-year-olds supports valuable participation and progression into the labour market and into higher level education. The final report will include practical recommendations on how vocational education will be improved in line with the public commitment that we have made. I know that Professor Wolf has made very good progress with the report. She has met teachers, heads and college principals to inform her review, and she has been considering submissions made as part of the call for evidence. We look forward to receiving her full report later in the spring, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield has mentioned.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

If I recall, the original timetable was that an interim report would be presented by Professor Wolf before Christmas. Has such a report been presented to Ministers? If so, can it be published?

[Tim Loughton]

I am not aware that a full-blown interim report has been presented to Ministers. I am aware that there have been preliminary discussions between Professor Wolf and Ministers about her initial findings. I do not think that an exact date has been set for publication so far, but when my hon. Friend has the meeting with the Minister with responsibility for schools I am sure he will be able to elaborate further on the exact details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

I cannot answer for any discussions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers have had with Professor Wolf on her appointment. I am not in a position to answer that. Again, that is a question that the hon. Gentleman can address to the Minister with responsibility for schools. I am sure that the Minister will grant an audience to him, his dynamic duo partner and the noble Baroness Sharp at a later date.

An expert, experienced work force with the right training is, of course, essential to a successful future for vocational education. The Government have therefore asked Professor Wolf, as part of her review, to look at work force issues in particular. I know that Professor Wolf has identified many of the issues raised by hon. Members today, and that her report will consider further education teachers’ eligibility to teach in schools, and in particular the question of why FE-trained teachers, who have already achieved Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills status, also need to gain Qualified Teacher Status to be able to teach as qualified teachers in schools, which is the essence of my hon. Friend’s argument.

Pending Professor Wolf’s independent report, it would not be right for the Government to reach a definite conclusion on some of the issues that we have debated here today, and I am sure that hon. Members understand that. However, I can set out the simple ambitions that should guide us in reviewing this policy: getting the best people into schools and colleges, relevant to the demands of the particular curriculum or subject, whether academic or vocational; and fairness in dealing with the teachers who dedicate so much to providing excellent education, both academic and vocational. I include in “teachers” the experts from industry and professions who want to pass on their expertise to the next generation by supporting vocational education.

We do not think the current policy goes far enough in meeting those ambitions, which is why Professor Wolf is looking at this area so carefully. It is vital that schools have the flexibility to employ the staff they need to offer excellent vocational education to their particular set of students. It is also vital that the contribution that teachers with a further education background can make to schools is fully recognised by schools.

I want to address the specific proposal that the solution to the problems identified here today is simply to bring the professional statuses for further education and schools together into one status. I am aware of the conclusion of the Skills Commission inquiry into teacher training in vocational education, which was published last year and to which both hon. Members have alluded. It concluded by stating the need to achieve convergence of the two separate teacher training regimes that currently exist for teachers of academic subjects in schools, and those of vocational subjects in FE and the post-compulsory sector. The former Children, Schools and Families Committee reached a similar conclusion when it looked into teacher training and reported early in 2010, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, that there should be harmonisation of training programmes.

The Government accept the issues highlighted in those reports. There are clearly problems that we need to look at carefully and address, but in addressing those issues, and those raised in debate today, we must also be careful to take a balanced approach. That means that we must not remove the safeguards that guarantee to pupils and parents the standard of teachers that they expect in the schools that their children attend. We should remind ourselves of what we have at the moment: a wholly graduate teaching profession with expertise in teaching the national curriculum; teachers trained to deal with the particular challenges of providing a stimulating education to children; and a profession where individual teachers have the flexibility to teach across all school age ranges from five to 18. That is a foundation that the Government will build on to create an outstanding teaching profession, as set out in the schools White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”.

I recognise the logic of convergence. There are, of course, many similarities between the jobs done by teachers in schools and in FE colleges. However, we must also be clear that QTLS status has been designed for the distinct requirements of the further education sector, with a focus on vocational learning and teaching over-16s. That does not prepare teachers to carry out the full range of work that is required of a qualified teacher in a school, as set down in the standards for qualified teacher status. Those include a degree, usually in the subject being taught, knowledge of the national curriculum, which it is the basic duty of schools to offer, and experience of teaching in two age ranges and capabilities around safeguarding and behaviour management that are different for younger children. Simply allowing anyone with QTLS to teach in schools would mean that we were not able to guarantee the rigorous academic expertise of teachers to pupils and parents. Whatever the recommendations, results and the way ahead, a good deal of work will need to be done to offer appropriate teaching to children and young people in those different educational environments. It cannot just happen simply because the rules have changed.

There are ways that the Government can address the need for reform in this area without undermining our plans to build a graduate teaching work force to create an outstanding, high status profession. For example, we have already consulted publicly on an assessment-only route to obtaining QTS for those who have substantial experience of working in schools or further education, and who have a degree. That will offer a more flexible route to QTS accreditation with minimal teacher training.

In the wake of Professor Wolf’s recommendations, I expect that we will be able to bring forward further proposals. For example, one such proposal might be to support teachers without degrees who wish to teach the vocational subjects in schools that they are already able to teach in colleges.

I hope, without being able to go into go into an enormous detail, pending the report and given the limitations on my own presence here and my particular brief in the Department for Education, that I have at least signalled to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Huddersfield that this is a matter to which the Government are giving considerable and urgent attention in order to improve the current policy.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I appreciate the tone and quality of the Minister’s remarks. The Government are backing university technical colleges, which will provide education for young people from the age of 14. Those young people will sometimes come in, dressed in a boiler suit at the age of 14, and have a spanner in their hand at 8.30 am or 8.45 am. If the Government are going to consider, following the Wolf review, greater flexibilities, the age at which young people start must be 14. That would fit with the university technical colleges and the wider Government programme. I just wanted to make that point on the record to the Minister today.

[Tim Loughton]

I hear what my hon. Friend has said. Those comments might have been as appropriate in the previous debate in this Chamber, which involved the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is a Minister in both my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I have heard what he has said and will pass those comments on along with all the comments from hon. Members this afternoon.

I am confident that the decisions that we will take in the light of Professor Wolf’s review will result in a more logical position than we have at present—we all readily acknowledge that—which will continue to improve the quality of the school teaching work force, allow schools to make the best use of teachers with experience and expertise from outside the classroom and is fair to all those who play a role in the education of young people.

May I reiterate my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for the balanced, measured and informed way in which he put his comments? I undertake to pass on the points that both hon. Members have made and to urge my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for schools, in his greatly uncluttered diary, to find time to have a more detailed meeting with them.

School Sports Funding

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which opened with a funny and high-quality speech from the shadow Secretary of State, which reflected his passion for, and expertise in, sport. I am sure that will soon be conveyed into the area of education. The Secretary of State’s response was also of high quality. Last week he produced an extremely promising White Paper that rightly focused on teacher quality. He has also successfully protected schools’ funding and introduced a pupil premium to help the poorest.

The Opposition do not like hearing it, but we all know how terrible, and indeed terrifying, is the scale of the overspending that the last Government left. Apart from the wilfully blind, all of us recognise the necessity of bringing it down before it does the same to us. It is therefore understandable that the Government should seek to make every possible saving, and that the £162 million budget for the physical education and sport strategy is put under scrutiny.

The Government are determined to stop micro-managing how schools and others spend their money, and to end most ring-fencing of budgets. Their proposals on school sport partnerships are consistent with that approach. Exaggerated claims that ending them will destroy all competitive sport in maintained schools are foolish and wrong. It is true that school sport partnerships have not been the cure-all for our children’s obesity and exercise challenges, and that as we heard, there have been a mixture of outcomes and variations. Nevertheless, I welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s speech, which set out the fact that the Government are prepared to listen to the representations that have been made up and down the country.

Whatever the variations, sport partnerships have had a role to play in improving and increasing participation in sport. It is incumbent on the Government, even in these parlous times, to listen to the representations that are made and consider ideas of how to ensure that we do not needlessly lose what we have of value. There may be a period of transition, and as the Secretary of State rightly said, we will need to provide time to allow alternative funding to be brought forward, but there is huge popular sentiment behind sport for our young people and children.

As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) said, there is a vast amount of wealth in football, but also in other professional sports. We must take at face value the enthusiasm of the many sports people who are speaking up on behalf of sport partnerships, and see how we can work with them and others. I am not sure I agree completely with a levy on the premier league, but it is an idea to put in the pot.

We need to consider ways of maintaining what is most valuable. From what the Secretary of State said today, I picked up on the fact that the Government are open to listening to representations on that. He said that there was scope for more efficient use of the existing infrastructure, which implies to me, in however nuanced a way, that the Government are coming to recognise that that infrastructure may have value and is not just needless bureaucracy. I hope that we will see further action on that.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that head teachers and staff have the capability and organisational skills to retain competitive sport in schools, just like at my school, Dingwall academy, a state community comprehensive, in the 1980s? The teachers worked tirelessly to ensure that there was competitive sport, with all sports included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and like the Secretary of State, I believe in trusting front-line professionals. May I take her with me on a virtual journey to my constituency, and to some of the small rural primary schools there? Without some form of infrastructure such as the sport partnerships, it would not have had specialist coaches coming in to work alongside the teachers in the school. That co-ordination and involvement can play an important part. Rural areas and the primary sector in particular can benefit from some form of central infrastructure.

The Government showed that they listen during the passage of the Academies Act 2010, when representations were made in both Houses about special educational needs, with Members saying that not all the responsibility should be passed down to schools after careful consideration of the impact that it would have. The Government came forward with changed proposals to ensure that certain aspects of SEN provision would rest with local authorities. Having heard the Secretary of State’s words today, I am hopeful that he is in listening mode again, while also rightly seeking to ensure that we do not have needless bureaucracy.

The engagement among the Front Benchers in recognising that there is room for improvement and for common ground should give hope to all those who want to ensure that we move forward from a position that was improved in recent years under the last Government, but which can and should be so much better than it is. If we can move forward on that basis, I believe that we can do the right thing by our young people in schools up and down the country.

Schools White Paper

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s typically statesmanlike words. I agree that there is significant consensus across the parties on the way forward. When he was chairman of the Select Committee he did a great job of pioneering ideas. It is right to look at Mike Tomlinson’s arguments and to ensure that all children have a properly broad education. Our English baccalaureate will ensure that all children, whatever their background, have access to the best that has been thought and written academically, but we will also ensure that vocational qualifications that blend with the academic are of the highest quality. That is why we commissioned Alison Wolf, and why the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has done so much with the launch of his skills strategy last week to raise the prestige and esteem of vocational learning.

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

I believe that there can be consensus in the House, but it must be based on an acceptance that the present position is not good enough, that we must have higher aspirations for this country, that we must recognise that we have fallen behind our international competitors, and that we have seen the gap between rich and poor widen unacceptably.

On international comparison, will my right hon. Friend explain how the Select Committee will be able to map and track that? Will there be a role for Ofsted—on which we are doing an inquiry—in providing information and checking the Government’s progress?

[Mr Speaker]

I think we have the gist of the question.

Funding and Schools Reform

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Andy Burnham]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely not. Schools spending will rise in real terms over the lifetime of the coalition Government. That was not a promise that the Opposition were able to give; they could promise only to increase spending over two years. As I say, we are also extending 15 hours of pre-school learning to all disadvantaged two-year-olds—the Government of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath were not able to deliver that. We are also giving £150 million to help disadvantaged students from poorer backgrounds to make it to university.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The Opposition are complaining about any possible changes to areas of deprivation, but it is not areas that we need to be concerned about—areas of Sheffield that were some of the wealthiest in the country were getting additional money. What we need to do is ensure that money follows the pupil. The gap between children on free school meals and the rest is wider in the East Riding of Yorkshire, including my constituency, than in any other part of the country. We need a pupil premium that follows children wherever they live, so that we have a more just system that does narrow that gap, which sadly widened under the previous Government.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and we need to narrow the gap. The gap between children who are eligible for free school meals and other children across the country is far too wide. We need to ensure that disadvantaged children receive additional funding, and under the coalition Government they will receive such funding on top of the dedicated schools grant that was not going to be delivered by the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate, although I must express some disappointment with the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State. It lacked a contribution on how to improve our school system. There were improvements in our education system under the Labour Government; there is no question about that. In general, we have a motivated and high-calibre teaching work force, although of course they too could do with further improvement. There was nothing constructive in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech.

When a party is thrown out after 13 years in government, there is a real opportunity to think again. One of the first things Labour Members should do is put their hands up on some of the issues. For Labour to have presided for 13 years over a widening of the gap between the educational outcomes for rich and poor, and a widening of the gap in the overall educational performance of the UK against its key competitors, is not something about which to be complacent or self-satisfied. Collectively, as a political class—although I was on the Opposition Benches—we failed to turn the vast increase in expenditure on education under the previous Government, and the political will that existed then, into sufficient progress for the poorest in our society, which one would have hoped would be delivered by Labour, and for the country overall.

Wrestling with the issues of bringing about improvement in our education system is what we should all be involved in, rather than trying to score points, especially as it is likely that the coalition Government and this Parliament will run for some years. Every party, not least the Opposition, should be dealing with the real issues, and should have a platform for improvement.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about the good will of the Opposition and their desire to reduce inequality in education. Is it not true, however, that we do not yet know how successful our expenditure on reducing such inequality might be because, for example, children who started in a Sure Start centre when those first opened in my constituency are not yet 16, so we do not know what choices they will make?

[Mr Stuart]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Many of those initiatives, such as Sure Start, are being supported by this Government. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has been an ardent champion of early intervention and has helped Members in all parts of the House to recognise the need to intervene early in order to make sure that children arrive ready for school, and that they have a decent vocabulary so that they can engage with learning. There is merit in what the hon. Lady says, but even the most ardent supporter of the Labour Government would hardly suggest that the improvements that were wished for have genuinely been delivered.

I am pleased to follow my predecessor, the highly distinguished former Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who said that he could not see an ideological base. I hope it is a practical evidence-based approach by the Government. It is clear that they believe that giving greater trust, responsibility and control to front-line professionals is more likely to lead to an improvement in standards than central prescription, however well-meaning. It is as obvious to me as the River Jordan that that is the key insight of this Government.

We must ensure that that process is well thought through, that we support front-line professionals, that capability is developed where it does not currently exist, and that it is put in place in time to match any withdrawal of support from local authorities or others who may previously have delivered it.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking about the Government’s wish to push more resources towards the front line, but in his opening remarks the Secretary of State talked about some of the most intractable areas of poverty and deprivation in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that directing resources to the front line and reconfiguring budgets alone will solve those problems, or that bigger, bolder schemes such as education maintenance allowances are required to tackle the deep-rooted poverty that causes that deprivation?

[Mr Stuart]

That, too, is a fair intervention. This is not the Government’s sole policy area. They are also considering doubling the size of Teach First over the next three years, and have been in negotiation with Teach First about that. The essence of improving education standards is higher-calibre, better supported, better motivated, better led teachers in the classroom. That is what it is all about. That is the prism through which we should look at every decision that we make—which is why I welcome the Teach First approach.

It is not necessarily contradictory, though I can see that it may look hypocritical, to talk about reducing central prescription on what teachers may have, on the one hand, and on the other, raising the bar to those whom the state supports to go into teacher training so that the people coming in are better qualified.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) is right to ask those questions. Tools alone will not deliver. What is needed, and what we have heard from head teachers and from the profession over the years, is that too much prescription, too much teaching to the test, too much narrowing of the curriculum—in other words, too much of what want on under the previous Government—took away the joie de vivre and the empowerment of front-line professionals. If we can bring that back, plus Teach First, put the tools in place, encourage ever better school leadership and school governance, which I hope the Select Committee will examine over time, we can move our education system on to a higher plane, and deliver what Members in all parts of the House want.

Knockabout—trying to suggest that Tories eat babies, or whatever those on the Opposition Front Bench seem to suggest—is not helpful. I believe that everyone in this House, regardless of party, came into politics because they would like to create a more just and fair society. This is not only about social justice. The forces of globalisation, which we cannot stop, and the suggestion in the Leitch report that there will be fewer and fewer jobs for people who do not have skills, make it an absolute economic necessity that we improve the skills of our young people. In response to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), the truth is that we failed to make the progress that we should have done, and this Government feel that autonomy, plus their other measures, represent a better way to achieve that.

I want to make some brief remarks about Building Schools for the Future. My predecessor, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who is chatting at the moment, knows full well that there is not the evidence to show that capital investment in schools leads to educational transformation. There is a link, but it is pretty small. Obviously, we all regret the fact that we cannot have brand-new schools where schools are not in an ideal state, but under BSF the allocation of money was out of proportion to the benefit given. Under this Government, more money will be spent on capital in schools in this Parliament than in the first two Parliaments of the Labour Government. Let us keep this in perspective. We need to recognise that nobody wants children to be in a school that is not in a good condition, but equally there is no evidence to show that the building itself, however inspiring the children may initially say it is when it opens, leads to the educational transformation that is at the real heart of improving outcomes, particularly for the poorest.

I should like to touch on the education maintenance allowance, which many other Members have mentioned. In the case of the EMA, unlike BSF, there is material evidence to show that it has helped young people from certain backgrounds to stay in education. I hope that Ministers will take that evidence very seriously and ensure that whatever they put in place does not artificially stifle that opportunity for people.

On the move from the current position to autonomy, we need to consider issues such as school sports trusts. I hope that Ministers, while generally believing in giving autonomy to schools and passing it down, will be careful to ensure that transitional arrangements, and sometimes funding, are in place so that things of value are not unnecessarily lost before they grow again from the grass roots.

Most of all, what we must have for this country is aspiration—aspiration to raise standards overall, and aspiration in believing that we can do so much better. So far, the shadow Secretary of State has been far more of an expert on health than on education, but I hope that he can start to express that Blairite aspiration of looking upwards, improving and challenging all the time, rather than simply defending the status quo, which is indefensible as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

rose—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Education Committee.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in what is a witty and well-presented speech, although he is using paltry facts to great effect. The truth is that with funding for the NHS protected—unlike under Labour—along with funding for international aid, the threat to education was significant. People were talking about cuts of 10%, 20% and possibly higher. Therefore it must be seen as a good result that, in an extremely tough overall financial round, the education and schools budget, including the pupil premium, is being increased in real terms.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not increasing in real terms per head over the next few years, but that is not the point. I would accept that if that were the Government’s explanation for what they are trying to do, but they are trying to con people into believing that the pupil premium is truly a premium, an additional sum of money. That is what they promised; that is what the Prime Minister promised, but it is not what is being delivered.

What else do the Lib Dems get out of this?

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I said earlier that, in line with the funding premium, we have spent that money extending it to all disadvantaged two-year-olds to ensure that they have an opportunity to benefit from early education, because that will make a big difference. The hon. Lady mentions early intervention. That is why I asked Dame Claire Tickell to look specifically at how we can use the early years foundation stage and early education to identify needs, specifically special educational needs. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s question.

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

I warmly welcome giving greater autonomy to schools. However, can we ensure that schools are not free to put up classrooms in which children with a hearing difficulty are unable to hear what is going on, and can we make sure that basic regulation is in place to ensure that every classroom, unlike so many of those built in recent years, is suitable for the needs of every child in that class?

[Sarah Teather]

The National Deaf Children’s Society has raised that issue repeatedly. The Government are very sympathetic to this point; acoustics need to be considered when we are thinking about school buildings.

Education Policy

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

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

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

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

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

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

I welcome today’s announcement and the commitment it shows on the part of the Government to narrowing the gap between rich and poor and between their respective outcomes. Has the Secretary of State yet decided how the pupil premium will be allocated and on what basis?

[Michael Gove]

The Government have consulted on exactly who should receive the pupil premium. That consultation began earlier this year and there are still a couple of hours left should the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) wish to contribute to it—he has not yet done so. We are looking at a variety of measures of poverty and we wish to target the pupil premium most effectively on all children in need. One of the disadvantages of the way in which the previous Government targeted resources on the very poorest was that the premium attached to children who were eligible for free school meals was as low as £22 in some local authority areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made a commitment this year, and he will be perfectly well aware that future spending decisions are a matter for the spending review. He will have to wait with bated breath until next week.

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

Can the Minister tell the House what steps she is taking to ensure that children from the most deprived areas have access to the highest quality teaching, and to make sure that teaching in those areas is subject to the most effective performance management?

[Sarah Teather]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have expanded Teach First, something that both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives feel strongly about. It was a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment. I hope that will have a considerable impact on raising the attainment of children in deprived areas. Of course, pupil premiums will make sure that there are extra resources for schools to spend as they choose: they may be spent on one-to-one tuition, or on other things that schools feel are best for narrowing that attainment gap.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

The difference on this occasion is that the schools affected have worked for years on a programme for their own improvement, and they came together in Building Schools for the Future. Now that has all been stopped, except for schools that will potentially have academy status. The problem is the uncertainty. I want schools to make the decisions that are best for them. The head of De La Salle wants his school to be an academy and sees the educational advantages, whereas the head teacher and chair of governors of Holly Lodge, another school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, have decided that they do not want that for their school. I do not want schools to make such decisions simply on the basis of whether the extra money is available.

I wish briefly to make a point about where we go from here. Although there is a real sense of loss and devastation in Liverpool that we are not getting Building Schools for the Future funding, there is also a hard-headed pragmatism. We recognise that there will be a new show in town, and we are starting to consider what the alternatives might be for securing the much-needed capital funding for the city.

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

Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that Building Schools for the Future would have carried on precisely as originally envisaged had Labour been in power, and that the 50% reduction in capital spending that the last Government had pencilled in, in broad terms and with no details given, would not have had an impact on it?

[Stephen Twigg]

That is absolutely my understanding, and the figures that the Department for Children, Schools and Families gave under the previous Government were those signed off by the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That is right, and my hon. Friend’s comments highlight that we are not trying to make a party political point. We want to ensure that that is the case for local authorities of all political colours and types; that is fundamental and crucial. As I have said, however, I accept that it may not be possible to do this today, as the lawyers will, no doubt, need to check it.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I think that I share some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. Low incidence is not about the acuteness of the need; it is about the fact that it is pretty rare. One of the risks of having funds devolved to the individual academies is that they may see this rare condition only once every five years, when suddenly a pupil turns up out of the blue with that need. That is why there is an issue about the difference between where the resource lies and who has the incentive to deliver the service. We need reassurance as to how we will have the system and incentives in place to ensure that, without the Secretary of State having to intervene at a local authority level to assess the whole authority’s failing, the needs of the parents and child concerned are met and there is not a big fuss in doing that.

[Vernon Coaker]

I totally agree, and the hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. However, I am unclear about the legislative mechanism that we will use to try to stop bad situations arising. I cannot be sure what it will be without there being something either in the Bill or, perhaps, in statutory guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That is an extremely interesting and good point. As I say, the problem is that there are a number of points like that. That one would be worth testing with an amendment to see where it is catered for in the Bill or, if the Bill does not cater for it, where it is catered for in any document relating to the Bill. For example, I think I am right in saying that the new model funding agreement does not contain a requirement for there to be a teacher responsible for children in care, whereas the old funding agreement did contain one. If I have got that wrong, I will correct it. All sorts of little changes sometimes take place in the documents, letters and guidance that go along with such Bills. The changes are sometimes not debated to the extent that they need to be and they then turn out to be crucial. Even Ministers get to the point where they try to do something and are then told, “You can’t do that because section (c) on page 48 of the guidance that you passed says you cannot.” They find that a little change that they had not properly noticed, which may have been implemented with good intent, has unintended consequences.

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) was right to make the point that he did. One of the organisations that I shall refer to in a minute has made representations to us about how we ensure that the needs of children in care and of children with other associated needs are met within the new academy model arrangements that the Bill proposes. All sorts of questions like this arise, particularly if we strip out, as the Bill does in essence, the role of the local authority and devolve the funding to individual school. One unanswered question goes to the heart of the Bill: what is the co-ordinating mechanism at a local level to try to ensure that some of these things happen? That is not in place, and that is a real problem.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

On a slightly different track, is the shadow Minister aware of evidence that, despite the vast increase in the number of learning support assistants, the more time children with special educational needs spend with learning support assistants and the less time they spend with a teacher, the worse is their learning experience? One of the dangers of a centrally co-ordinated system is that schools that challenge a child’s being taken off for special support might deprive that child of being in the classroom with the teacher and, perhaps, having a better opportunity to learn. We must get the balance right between ensuring provision and not having a monolithic delivery that stops innovation, particularly for the most vulnerable in our society who are too often failed.

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not disagree with that. Again, the freedom for a school to determine the appropriate mix between teachers, teaching assistants and other staff as well as the appropriate delivery method is a matter for the school. The Chair of the Select Committee is right to say that. However, it does not negate the fact—I think he was making this point, too—that alongside that there is a need for some sort of co-ordinating mechanism. He is quite right that there is a need for balance and there will be debate and discussion about where that balance should be and where the line should be drawn. However, part of the problem is that, as I said yesterday, this is a bit of a leap in the dark. We are almost being asked to take a leap in the dark and being told, “Don’t worry, it will be okay.” There are some fundamental questions that Ministers have been unable to answer, even though they have the best of intentions, because the Bill is permissive and just says, “Well, we’ll allow this to happen but we are not quite sure where it will go.”

A number of concerns were raised by different organisations. We have heard concerns from the Adolescent and Children’s Trust about children in care and about how these services will be met. It is seeking assurances about looked-after children and young people in academies, and it says that it wants recognition from the Government that there is a need for a local agency to assess need and to plan and cost education support services and that necessary resources must be not only identified but ring-fenced.

The Association of Educational Psychologists has also written to us, extremely concerned about some of the changes to local education funding and about how we can ensure the protection of educational psychologists if all the money goes to the schools. The National Autistic Society has made many of the same points about protecting young people in schools. TreeHouse, another charity for autism, is concerned about what it will mean if funds and resources are devolved to individual schools.

Then we come to funding. The Local Government Association states in its briefing, which all Members will have received, that

“90% of funding for schools goes, via the local authority, directly to schools with the remainder allocated back to schools following consultation with schools through the local Schools Forum…Around 20% of this ‘central spending’ goes to private, voluntary or independent nurseries, and the majority of the rest (60%) is used to provide services for pupils with special educational needs, and those who are excluded from mainstream education…In the debate around the advantages to schools of seeking academy status much has been made of the advantage to schools of retaining this 10% of ‘central spending’. However, it is important to understand that this is funding to meet the need of the pupils with the greatest needs. It is crucial that this funding is distributed in a way that does not unfairly benefit academies over maintained schools.”

I do not know whether hon. Members have had a chance to look at the Government’s impact assessment, but tucked away, where it states that local authorities will face a reduction in the moneys that they receive for the provision of such services as it will be distributed to schools, it states the assumption that the savings to local authorities in administration costs will be negligible. So, although they will have fewer resources to provide for special educational needs in an area, they will not make any savings from an administrative point of view either.

It is also totally unclear exactly how all this will be worked out. What will a school that chooses to become an academy receive? I know there is a ready reckoner on the Department’s website, but will the Minister explain how it works? [Interruption.] That was not done yesterday: we asked, but there was no time to do it, so I am asking again today because I think we would all like to know how the ready reckoner works so that schools can understand what they will receive.

What proportion of the money that those schools receive would have gone to local authorities to provide, centrally, services for children with special educational needs? What proportion of the additional money they receive will go to schools and will not be retained centrally by local authorities? How will that be worked out given that every school that is fast-tracked to academy status is outstanding and has, as the Centre for Economic Performance has said, lower numbers of pupils with SEN?

How will schools that have a lower incidence of SEN and that apply to become academies be funded? Will it be on a per pupil basis or a needs basis? If schools are funded on a per pupil basis rather than on a needs basis, big schools with a low incidence of SEN that convert to academies will receive exceptionally high amounts of money that would previously have been retained centrally to provide SEN services to the pupils and children across the local education area who needed them. Why did The Times publish an article on 12 June saying that there was considerable confusion among local authorities and schools about how much money schools would receive? Why are some local authorities saying that when they add together all the amounts that the ready reckoner comes up with as being distributed to schools on the basis of centrally provided services the total is sometimes more than they receive? We need some explanation from the Minister about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I would argue that academies serve poorer neighbourhoods and it is more difficult to get into an academy in the first place. People may argue that academies take a higher proportion of children with SEN than maintained schools, but as I argued earlier it is up to academies to define who is SEN and who is not, and they may have a very different tolerance level from that of maintained schools—that has certainly been my experience.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I mean no disrespect to the hon. Lady’s expertise or passion in this area, but she suggests that the existing academies make it harder for children with SEN to get in than other schools. However, the only data that we have suggest that that is not true. She suggests that academies may block children with real SEN getting in and then falsely nominate children as having SEN afterwards. She needs to substantiate that, because it is a serious allegation and if true should be looked into in more detail.

[Pat Glass]

I accept that that is what the data suggest. I stand here with 25 years of experience and I am simply giving the Committee the benefit of that experience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

That is also an interesting point, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman.

The Bill is essentially a good measure. It provides for more academies, and we support that because we believe that good leadership, good management, flexibility and less intrusion from local authorities will deliver a higher standard of education. Of course, that must include provision for special educational needs.

We have been promised a Green Paper on special educational needs. The time to discuss the subject is when that is published. A constant theme of the past two or three hours has been the lack of satisfactory provision for special educational needs throughout the country. There are pockets where it is not good enough and delivery that needs to be improved. As long as that is the case, we cannot be satisfied, and we must therefore endeavour to improve the overall provision for special educational needs.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. It was also a pleasure to hear the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). Both spoke in a fine fashion, and they will be an adornment to not only their constituencies but the House.

I want to start on the most positive note that I can. I think that we all agree that the current system for dealing with special educational needs is not appropriate. The—I used the word yesterday—“pushiest” parents, certainly the most articulate, are best able to get their children statemented and their needs recognised. That is the current system, and people realise that it is not good enough. We heard from the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), in another excellent contribution based on her years of experience, her explanation of the difficulties. The current system is broken.

The Minister has promised a Green Paper in the autumn to look at the whole subject of special educational needs. At that time, I hope that the House will have more time to reflect on, consider and possibly improve the policy. Rushing policy making does not always help, particularly when dealing with low incidence SEN or something that is on the margins of the mainstream. Although there are so many children with SEN, it remains to be tackled.

I do not support amendment 71, but I think that it may be looking for an explanation from the Minister of how the system will work. The hon. Member for North West Durham, who will be an excellent Member of the House and an excellent member of the Select Committee, talked about priorities. That brings me to my favourite topic when dealing with public service reform: incentives. Too often, we reorganise the system without fully understanding the incentives that are in place for the various players in it. We deserve an explanation from the Minister. Given his ability, I know that we will get it. I want to hear how precisely the incentives will work for schools that at times resist parents who are trying to do the best for their children, to the extent that only parents with the nous, money and self-confidence can challenge them and get their child statemented. What happens to the others? I want to hear how the system will work so that, following the changes, it does not become worse. There is nothing obvious in the Bill to make it worse, but I want a cohesive narrative from the Minister about how the system will be better even before the Green Paper is produced. I want to be assured that it cannot possibly get worse. We cannot have more parents in that position.

People come to us, as constituency MPs, about all sorts of topics. I can think of many constituents who are particularly articulate, well educated and well placed, and who have relatives and friends in good positions, yet they are still endlessly and unjustly frustrated by a system that can often seem unbelievably resistant to doing the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

Having worked in the system and taken a number of cases to education appeals panels, I have often seen a situation in which council officers think they are doing the right thing by the system by refusing parents what they want, because they believe that other provision is nearly as good but less costly. Does the Chair of Education Committee accept that if parents want provision that costs tens of thousands of pounds a year, allowing that provision incurs an opportunity cost to the system and other children within it?

[Mr Stuart]

There is always an opportunity cost and people always have to make judgment calls. We need to know who makes those calls, what the pressures on them and their incentives are, and their accountability. It all comes down to that, and understanding what the accountability mechanisms will be if there is a much-increased number of free academies.

[Mr Hayes]

Rather than waiting till I sum up, may I deal with that point head-on now? My hon. Friend, as Chair of the Education Committee, clearly has an entitlement to ask such penetrating questions—indeed, we expect him to do so—so let me be clear. The Secretary of State would decide whether appropriate provision had been made. If not, he would either direct the local authority to make it, or in exceptional circumstances, ask an alternative body to do so. The funding for such provision in the latter case would come in the first instance from the Department for Education, which would then consider how to ensure that funding in the longer term prevails. That is an absolute assurance that the Government take my hon. Friend’s point seriously: those powers rest with the Secretary of State.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I assume that in reality, the “Secretary of State” means the Young People’s Learning Agency. My understanding is that the systems, embryonic as they are, are probably not as good as they ought to be, and I assume that YPLA officers representing the Secretary of State will do that work. I understand and accept the Minister’s reassurance, and I think the Bill has been improved, but I am trying to work out how the pressures and incentives will work to ensure that the school admits fairly and looks after SEN children in the appropriate way when the decision gets all the way down to the school, the parent and the local authority officer, who is quite a long way away from the YPLA officer. I am struggling to imagine what will happen at that level and to think that all the way through.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend underestimates himself: I have a very high regard for his imagination.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful for the Minister’s compliment, which was not flattery—if I had said that it was, he would have corrected me.

One of the issues in this Bill, which the amendment seeks to draw out, is the system-wide implications of a growing number of schools—including free schools and existing schools—becoming independent and taking away money currently spent on their behalf by the local authority. Those of us of a supply-side revolution, 1980s, turning the sick man of Europe around disposition naturally think that things will regrow and they can be better directed by people closer to the front line. However, we need an explanation, because schools are not businesses and we need to understand how it will work.

I wish to chide the Minister gently, although he may not have been responsible, because the place that one would naturally look for that explanation—it may be a by-product of the last Government’s approach—is the equalities impact assessment. At the risk of upsetting my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would criticise the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—I will pronounce his constituency correctly—because in many ways he has been too gentle about the equalities impact assessment in the last couple of days. I think it is less adequate than he has made it out to be.

The equalities impact assessment is rather thin. It provides fair information, but it tries to put the best gloss on that information. Given that this is an important document to accompany a flagship Bill, I would not expect paragraph 22 to be repeated, in its entirety, as paragraph 24. I would not expect paragraph 23, which is quite long, to be split and repeated in its entirety as paragraphs 25 and 26. It would suggest that someone has not even bothered to read this so-called important equalities impact assessment. At the end, I was waiting for an assessment of the system-wide impact and the long-term and profound implication of having lots of free schools. But when I got there I found paragraph 31, which states:

“We believe that the Academies programme is already working towards promoting inclusion and equality to the benefit of all pupils in the programme. An adverse impact is unlikely”.

Well, thank you very much. That is not an adequate explanation of the possible system-wide impacts of this Bill.

I know that we will have a master class and a tour de force explanation from the Minister on the system-wide impact and why the Bill will work, but the impact assessment is inadequate. I meant to be gentler about this than I have been—I have a tendency to overstatement —and I apologise to the Minister. But I wish that the impact assessment had been a better document and included more recognition of the potential system-wide impacts, especially on marginal areas—if I may call them that—such as SEN.

[Gavin Barwell]

I will keep my remarks brief as I am conscious of the time and that the Committee wishes to hear the Minister’s reply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who made an exceptional speech. She brings real expertise in this area to the House and I am sure that we will benefit from that in the months and years ahead. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). Both yesterday and today he has approached these proceedings in a much more conciliatory tone than the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) did on Second Reading. That may reflect the difference between Second Reading and Committee stage, or it may reflect the difference in their personalities, but it is certainly appreciated on this side of the Committee.

I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman on whether primary schools should be allowed to be academies and whether surplus places would be a ban on academy status. However, he is right to bring the issue of special educational needs up today. I imagine that all hon. Members have received a briefing from the Special Educational Consortium, which tells us that 21% of children have some form of SEN and that 12% of children with SEN achieve five grade A* to C passes at GCSE, compared to 57% of their peers. That shows the importance of getting this issue right—not just for the children with SEN, but because if we do not get it right there will be an impact on other children in the mainstream setting. The likely impact of this policy on children with SEN is therefore a key test. I am not sure whether the amendment addresses some of the concerns that he raised in his speech, but he is right to ask for some more detailed clarification, particularly in the light of the important amendments that came through on Report and Third Reading in the House of Lords.

It is worth briefly putting on the record the improvements that the Government have already made by ensuring that for the first time academies will have the same SEN obligations as maintained schools. I also want to mention the improvement that I referred to in an intervention that the hon. Gentleman kindly took, which is that the new model funding arrangement now provides that the Secretary of State can direct academies to comply with any obligations relating to SEN. Although the new agreement will not apply to existing academies, hopefully many of them will choose to convert to it, given that in other ways it will provide more freedoms. Over time, therefore, the new agreement might spread.

The core of the objections and concerns raised relates to what will happen if many more schools become academies and the pressures that that will put on services provided by local authorities. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the scale of the changes—he used the phrase, “opening the flood gates”—although Ministers have provided reassurances on the pace at which they think things are likely to proceed. However, many of the same issues arise over the role of local authorities in school improvement. For example, my council provides a very good school improvement service, which I hope schools will still want to buy into when they become academies.

I want to make three more quick points. First, the requirement for academies to have the same obligations as maintained schools is not in the Bill, but will be in the funding agreements, which means that parents who think that academies are not fulfilling those obligations will need to go to the Secretary of State, I presume, if they have a problem, rather than resort to the law. Not to have to resort to the legal route, but to go to the Secretary of State, might actually be an advantage to parents. However, as the hon. Member for North West Durham said, we should think about this from a parent’s perspective, so it would be helpful if the Minister could provide more guidance on how that complaints procedure would work. What does a parent do if they have a child in an academy that they think is not meeting their child’s SEN needs? What is the process for making a complaint?

My second point is one that has already been made—it is about the Opposition amendment passed on Third Reading in the Lords on protecting low incidence SEN services. The point made by the hon. Member for Gedling about the need to define exactly what those services are was spot on. It is really important that we get a clear definition, either today or on Monday, as the Bill goes through this House.

My final point concerns children receiving central SEN services. Children with high levels of need will tend to have statements, so the idea that the money follows the pupil and goes to the schools is very important. In my constituency, we have a school called Addington high, which has an excellent unit for children with autism, and most of the children there will have a statement. It is right, therefore, that the money goes to the school, but clearly, as some of my hon. Friends have said, where local authorities are providing services, much will depend on the value that schools place on those services. If they are good services and the local authority is doing a good job, it seems likely that any academy that takes over will want to purchase those services.

The hon. Member for Gedling was right to raise the issues before us, because further clarity is required in certain areas. However, I do not support the amendment, because I am not sure that it directly addresses some of his points. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

As I mentioned earlier, clauses 7 and 8 are significant elements of the Bill; they change dramatically the current situation on the transfer of school surpluses and property. It is worth reiterating the point that I made about clause 7. Clause 7(2) requires that when the Secretary of State approves a maintained school’s application to become an academy,

“The local authority must determine…whether, immediately before the conversion date, the school has a surplus, and…if so, the amount of that surplus.”

Under clause 7(3), once that is done the local authority must pay the surplus over to the proprietor of the academy. As I said earlier, that represents a fundamental change to the current landscape, as at the moment surpluses of closing schools remain with the local authority. That includes cases in which an existing school is closed to become an academy.

A school might have built up a surplus for many reasons. Shared facilities might generate an income, for example, or a local authority or other party might have provided additional funding for work in the community and the maintained school might have been encouraged to build up a surplus to ensure that the new community facility could be built or established. That has certainly happened in my constituency, and I am sure that it has happened in other Members’ as well. In Hartlepool, a sports centre has been built on the estate of a particular school, through increased funding from various sources and surpluses held by that school. The understanding is that it will be used by other schools and by community groups.

Under the terms of the Bill as it stands, in such a situation the surplus would be transferred to the new academy, and any benefit to the wider community that was originally envisaged—the original purpose of the surpluses—would be lost. What reassurances can the Minister give to ensure that that does not happen? What is the Minister doing to stop a situation in which, somewhat late in the process, a school that has built up surpluses and is anticipating the building of a new community or shared facility on its estate, following negotiations with the local authority, then decides to convert to an academy?

That could happen without real consultation, but the school would hold on to those surpluses. The issue comes back to unilateral decisions that fail to take into account the wider community and collaboration between schools and the local education authority. In essence, the amendment tries to probe the Minister by asking what checks and balances he will insert into clause 7 to ensure that such surpluses are identified as appropriate and constitute value for money.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Why would a school that had built up such surpluses to provide a community facility for joint use suddenly wish to deviate from that when it sought to become an academy? I am not saying that that would be impossible, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that it would be the norm.

[Mr Wright]

I am not suggesting at all that that would be the norm, but we could provide a control mechanism in the legislation on this issue, to tighten up the existing provision. We are not suggesting that the transfer of surpluses should not take place, but wider circumstances might be considered that could prove detrimental to neighbouring schools.

The whole Committee would agree with the need to see transparency and value for money in all aspects involving public money and public assets. To respond to the Chair of the Education Committee, I should say that, essentially, clause 7 moves taxpayers’ money from the public sector to the private sector. What controls is the Minister proposing to ensure that that is subject to appropriate balance, scrutiny, transparency and probity?

[Mr Graham Stuart]

It is surely unfair to say that the clause moves resources to the private sector. We are talking about an independent state school, but it would still be a state school and not part of the private sector. Yesterday evening, the hon. Gentleman made a desperate effort to change the wording to “free market schools” rather than the wording in his amendment; that suggested more political desperation than is the norm with him.

[Mr Wright]

I thank the Chair of the Education Committee and I entirely understand his point. Perhaps I should moderate my language in Committee. However, the point is essentially the same: how do we ensure that local taxpayers get good value for money? Like the equalities impact assessment, the impact assessment of the Bill is somewhat vague and light on detail. It states:

“Total one-off costs incurred by schools converting to an academy are estimated to be an average £78k including VAT.

Since the VAT costs are a transfer payment from DoE to HMRC, they are not economic costs. The total economic costs per conversion to academy are therefore £66k.

However, there is scope for Academies meeting these costs from within their existing balances which could reduce the cost to DFE to as little as £25,000 per Academy.”

Will the Minister outline the evidence base for this? No mention whatever is made of the transfer of surpluses in this regard. In preparing for the Bill and with regard to the impact assessment, what work has been done in relation to surpluses that could be transferred to the academy? I would be interested in any information that he could provide about that.

The purpose of amendment 76 is to address those concerns about transparency and accountability and to try to ensure that there is an appropriate process.

[Mr Wright]

I will come to that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendments are not contradictory—they are trying to address a similar problem and to ensure that we can resolve this issue.

Amendment 76 would ensure that all existing and contingent liabilities, including any liabilities that have been incurred on behalf of the school by the local authority, should also be considered. In this context, I take the contingent liability to mean a possible obligation that arises from past events and whose existence will be confirmed only by the occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the existing school’s control. An example could be outstanding legal cases. We discussed in Committee last night the possibility of legal challenge from staff who might not have had the opportunity or the time to consider properly the TUPE arrangements of moving from a maintained school to an academy—a point that has been well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). That might be considered a possible contingent liability.

Another example, which has been discussed this afternoon, could be any liabilities arising under current private finance initiative arrangements. We had an interesting debate about amendment 70, with particular regard to PFI. One of the risks is that a local authority could have a potential 25-year period of liabilities arising from PFI, and converting a maintained school to an academy means that the academy has no way of being liable for that payment over that quarter of a century. What reassurance can the Minister give in that regard?

[Mr Graham Stuart]

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to TUPE and the speech last night by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who was passionate about the uncertainty that could beset many employees of schools? Will he, as the Minister did, but from his side of the House, put their minds at rest? Can he confirm that when a school converts and becomes an academy, the staff will have no reason to believe that they will have any different conditions, and that it is therefore hard to see exactly what great liabilities could be in store in that transfer?

[Mr Wright]

I am not suggesting that there would automatically be any sort of change or reduction in terms and conditions. However, the freedoms and flexibilities, and the movement away from national terms and conditions and pay scales, could provide a degree of anxiety for staff, particularly low-paid staff who may have given good and loyal service to the local education authority for many years. For example, staff might think that they have had insufficient time to consider what converting to an academy might mean, and therefore, in conjunction with the union, take their employer to a tribunal. Perhaps that should be considered as part of a contingent liability. We need to ensure that all possible scenarios have been considered when taking into account the transfer of surpluses.

Clause 8 allows for the transfer of other property, and amendment 66 would remove the word “liabilities” from subsection (5)(b), which refers to the apportionment of properties, rights and liabilities. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), the reasoning behind the amendment is similar to the point that I made earlier about contingent liabilities. I reiterate that there is a particular concern about arrangements such as those under the private finance initiative regarding the transfer of liabilities, and the potential for them to be apportioned between the local authority and a new academy. In a PFI arrangement with 25 years of payments still to go, we must ask how appropriate costs should be so apportioned, and the amendment is an attempt to resolve that question.

We reason that if an academy is to operate as an independent school with full autonomy and freedom from the local authority, it should be responsible for full liability under any PFI arrangement in respect of the school. That seems balanced and fair, and I ask the Minister whether he is opposed to it.

We seek reassurance from the Minister that local authorities, which will face immense financial pressures over the next few years, with enormous potential cuts and pressures from changing social circumstances such as the ageing population, will not be liable for the debts of schools that have transferred as well as having to cover the costs of central services such as payroll, human resources and other infrastructure that they were, and will be, providing to maintained schools. I hope that he can provide that reassurance, and I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful for that guidance, but what I was seeking to explain is that there are some concerns about the process of enforcing SEN statements, which is relevant to the debate about linking special schools to the current network in terms of how academies will work. There are concerns about academies not being part of the LEA system and framework, but those matters could be dealt with by way of a clarification of those processes. I am sure that the Government are listening to what we are saying.

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

rose—

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Buckland]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend makes a good point regarding the structure of schools. There is a feeling that the most articulate or perhaps pushy parents are best able to get their child statemented in the first place and that they are also in the best position, if that statement is not properly enforced by the school, to put pressure on the school and the local authority. There is legitimate concern that the further away lies the authority that might be able to put pressure on the school, other than direct pressure from the parent, the more likely it is that that inequality will be exacerbated. It is important that Ministers should reassure us that we will have an effective and equitable system that will ensure that children are treated equally and that their statements will be honoured.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful for those comments. Now I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

I think one element of it was in order, and I shall respond to it because I am keen to respond as best I can despite this being my first Bill. The hon. Gentleman asked about the priority that will be given to special schools. I was about to say that we are treating special schools in a different way from others, which I hope will reassure some Members who have concerns. The process will be longer and slower, and we do not expect any special schools to convert to academies before 2011.

The hon. Member for Gedling asked a number of perfectly good questions, and I accept that more work needs to be done on the matter. That is precisely why the Secretary of State has set up an advisory group to work with head teachers from special schools and mainstream schools with special units, so that we can work through the details of the points that have been made.

The point about partnering is important. We would expect any school that gets academy status to partner with another school. That could provide an opportunity to spread knowledge, particularly on special education. There are already many good examples of special schools that are doing that, but it is not always happening. We will strongly encourage special schools to use the training that their staff have, which is often lacking in mainstream settings, to ensure that we drive up standards for children with special educational needs. We expect partnering to provide that opportunity.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The Minister talked about areas of detail that needed attention. One of the most critical of those to schools is, of course, the money involved. Can she give us any idea whether she expects special schools to see a bigger increase in their direct budget? Will local authorities spend a greater sum to support them than to support other schools? That takes us back to a point made by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—if the money at the centre is to be denuded, we would rather the most needy got their share first and the strongest and the best be the ones who have to struggle with the least money, not the other way around.

[Sarah Teather]

The point made by my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, and by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is precisely why the advisory group has been set up. It will work through the details. That is why we do not expect any special school to convert into an academy until next year. I recognise that funding issues need to be considered, because we are talking about a place-based funding system, and that we need to work through the issue of how special schools interact with other schools. We want to work with those on the ground who have expertise but who want the programme to happen.

Whatever disagreements we have about the wording that has been used and whether special schools have just “expressed an interest” or really will become academies, we should recognise that there are special school head teachers who want their schools to become academies. They feel that that freedom will enable them to do some of the things that they have already been doing as outstanding schools, but also to work better with the community and have flexibility to change how their schools are run, so that they can better provide for children in their area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

This is a Committee stage, but the hon. Gentleman has retreated into a Second Reading political statement. I was asking what evidence the Government had presented to Parliament—[Interruption.] It is not for me to present evidence. I am not the Government. I am asking the hon. Gentleman what evidence the Government have presented to persuade Parliament to accept the Bill. How have they demonstrated that primary academies would deliver what he wants? That is the issue. I do not agree with the proposal, so it is not for me to say what evidence there is in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman is a Back-Bench Member of the Government. He may progress further—I do not know—but his responsibility now is to defend the Government and to explain how Government policy will improve standards.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The Minister makes a reasonable point about the quality of the evidence that the Govt should provide when presenting proposals, but I am struck by the way in which the Opposition have retreated. They are no longer telling the truth about the fact that, in 2005, the then Prime Minister said that all schools wanted these freedoms. The Government proposed a managed move, but the aim was to provide these freedoms everywhere.

It is as if the whole new Labour era is ending. The thaw is over, and we feel the cold ice of a monolithic centralised state system forming over us once more. Is that really the vision seen by the shadow Minister, of whom I have always had a high opinion? Is he really reverting to his Socialist Educational Association roots?

[Vernon Coaker]

Oh dear. Well, I mean, you know—

[Mr Stuart]

Yes, is the answer.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is never as simple as yes or no.

The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together a great deal over the last few years, and no doubt we will work together more over the next two or three years, or however many there may be. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, I have not said that I am opposed to academies. That would be hypocrisy of the highest order, given that I agreed to the establishment of a number of academies, and given that many of the academies that will open in September are academies to whose establishment I agreed.

I think it right to seek to increase the number of academies when that is appropriate, whether they are primary or secondary schools, although I prefer all-through academies. However, I do not think it right to fast-track outstanding schools to academy status, and to allow academy status to primary and special schools when there is no real evidence in favour of such action.

It is not a case of retreating in the direction of the Socialist Educational Association, many of whose members would oppose any academy. I do not oppose every or any academy. What I propose is a third way, which has been proposed by neither the Government nor the Socialist Educational Association but which, according to some famous politician, makes it possible to find a balance between two alternatives in order to move forward.

I want to ask the Minister a few more questions. What arrangements will there be for primary schools that are members of federations to apply for academy status, and what are the implications for each school? Can schools apply as a group, or must they apply individually? As I said, there are important questions to be asked about how academy status will work for nurseries, and about the arrangements for collaboration and funding. How will things be arranged between a local authority and a primary school if the authority has given large amounts of money to the school? How does the Minister expect small rural schools to become primary academies? What criteria will apply to them, as opposed to primary schools in the middle of cities?

Those are serious questions, and I know that the Minister will reflect on them seriously. However, as in the case of special schools, I find it slightly regrettable that we do not already know many of the answers. As I have said, the evidence base is fairly poor, given the magnitude of the decisions that we must make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I think that it was rather more to do with the fact that the Government of the day wanted to monitor, regulate, intervene, instruct, license and control parents than with the fact that they were not listening to them. The main aim was to ensure that the state did not trample all over their freedom, and that is an essential safety valve that home education gives to a system that too often fails parents and children—the most vulnerable children the most often.

[Glenda Jackson]

I have not been quite so hyperbolic in my choice of verbs as the hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that in this Bill his Government are attempting to replicate precisely what he is accusing my Government of attempting to do with regard to home-educated children.

Put in the simplest terms, the Government are ignoring parents’ opinions. That is why the arguments that they have advanced on primary schools, and will advance with regard to secondary schools, should be fiercely opposed, and I am delighted to see that Labour Members are continuing to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

That is an argument taken ad absurdum, and I do not think it is very effective.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) made an important point about the need to ensure that communities, parents and schools feel that they are in control and making decisions, which is why the power is properly permissive.

What consideration did the Minister give to whether a school that becomes an academy could reverse that process? I bring that up, I hope in order, because smaller primary schools might find that the academy freedoms do not work for them. It is important that the system makes communities and schools feel in control, not forced down a particular channel. We will get much further with the policy if people feel that way.

[Mr Gibb]

No primary school is being forced down any channel, that is the whole essence of the proposals. We will not let academies fail, and if they are struggling intervention measures and monitoring will take place to ensure that different sponsors can take them over.

We want all schools that want academy status to be able to apply for it, and we do not intend to deny certain schools that option. Nor do we believe that a delay of two years before primary schools can apply to convert is necessary or appropriate. However, we will see whether any lessons can be learned from the primaries that convert this September. Furthermore, we encourage federations or partnership arrangements that wish to convert, as well as proposals for all-through academies.

I should also point out that when there are challenges with primaries—for example, with shared or co-located services such as children’s centres—we intend to work through them with all the relevant partners to ensure that services are maintained without interruption. That may mean that the process of conversion takes a little longer, but it is important to do things correctly.

The hon. Member for Gedling seemed to express no principle objection. He cited all-through academies, but said that things were different for stand-alone primaries owing to their size and the fact that their location communities could be at risk, but why? In another place, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Hill of Oareford, said:

“The local primary school is very much part of the village where I live and I know that that is true throughout the country…If an outstanding local primary were to become an academy, it is not clear why it should automatically become less of a part of the local community, village or town life. It will have the same head, staff, parents and children with some additional freedoms. I am not clear why the change of status should suddenly make those people in their villages, towns and communities suddenly start to behave differently.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. 125.]

That is a very well expressed answer to the questions asked throughout the debate on the Bill on whether academies will continue to be part of the community. Of course they will. There is no evidence from the 203 academies, other than the one cited by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), that they are any more or less involved in their communities than maintained schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gedling did not preside over the 203 academies with a view to them being islands unto themselves and isolated from the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

I do not intend to detain the Committee for long as we are only three amendments into a 30-odd amendment marathon.

I am not a fan of the legislation as it takes a set of proposals that were meant for one set of schools and transfers those, lock, stock and barrel, to schools in a wholly different category. It takes resources that were meant to improve the educational outcome for children in schools that are underperforming and transfers them in a targeted way to schools that are, in the first instance, already regarded as outstanding. It will also take resources that the local authority currently receives to be targeted at school improvement and gives those resources to schools that are already outstanding, in a “devil take the hindmost” fashion.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case were it not for the fact that the Government have made it clear that they want all schools to have the opportunity to become academies and have that freedom. Also, the pupil premium, which is an important part of the policy platform, will ensure that the poorest in our society have an extra resource, which, for the first time, will follow them, rather than some political fix. Surely he should recognise that in his remarks.

[Ian Mearns]

I thank the Select Committee Chair for his comments, but I did emphasise the words “in the first instance” with regard to the outstanding schools in these proposals. The pupil premium will be part of legislation in the autumn, and it remains to be seen how those proposals will pan out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

I certainly agree with choice in the education system, but it would be choice for a very narrow stratum of society—predominantly middle class, media-articulate, affluent parents at the expense of disadvantaged communities. That is wrong: we need to raise standards completely across the board.

In the Bill as it stands, there is nothing to stop a load of private sector chancers, keen on making a quick profit, from contacting local parents in an area and suggesting that perhaps a new school could be beneficial, without any appropriate checks and balances on the impact that such free-market profiteers would have on educational quality, provision and capacity. Those free-market chancers could incentivise the local community with perhaps with a free laptop or the opportunity to enter a competition to win something if they expressed an interest in providing a new free school. New clause 5 would allow that to be stopped. It would ensure that there were effective checks and balances so that no person or organisation could offer inducements to pupils, parents or guardians for the purpose of new school places.

This afternoon, we had an extremely heated and interesting debate in Westminster Hall about Building Schools for the Future. Following what the Secretary of State said in his statement, 735 schools will no longer be refurbished or rebuilt. A review of the school capital programme is to be carried out by Sebastian James. Let me quote from the terms of the review:

“The overall aim of the review is to ensure that future capital investment represents good value for money and strongly supports the Government’s ambitions to reduce the deficit, raise standards and tackle disadvantage.”

Okay, that is the narrative that the Secretary of State has been producing—I understand that. However, the terms of the review also state that it is intended to do the following:

“To consider how to generate sufficient places to allow new providers to enter the state school system in response to parental demand…To increase choice locally determined by parental demand”,

and, crucially,

“To enable the establishment of new schools.”

Will the Minister discount the scenario whereby in a community where parents are disappointed that schools will not be rebuilt or refurbished under BSF, the Secretary of State could say, “But if you set up a new free school you can unilaterally decide to have a school capital building programme, and what is more, we will provide the school capital to allow you to do that, regardless of the impact that it will have on the wider educational provision in your local area. If you and a few other parents decide to do that, we will drop you a load of money to make sure you can have a rebuilt school.” Will the Minister confirm that that will not happen?

If a new school is to be established, surely it is courteous, and just common sense, to establish what people in the local area think of the proposal. Surely it is important to scrutinise the impact and effect that it will have on existing schools. The amendments therefore highlight the need to ensure that local people are satisfied that there is a clear and rational case for additional capacity in education provision, that the proposal has been subject to local consultation, scrutiny and challenge, and that additional provision could best be served through the establishment of a new school.

Amendment 33 addresses the risks that I have outlined to the Committee and is therefore very important. Before arrangements for setting up a new free-market school are entered into, there should be consultation with local parents and children, schools, the local authority, school staff and unions and any other persons deemed appropriate. We believe that the amendment would involve relevant and important stakeholders in a fundamental decision about changes to education in a particular area.

Amendment 50 follows on from that point and addresses the risk of fragmentation in the education system as a result of setting up a free school. To avoid a two-tier system and funding being automatically diverted to new free schools without any consideration of the impact on existing schools’ finances or the number of students in the wider local education authority, the amendment would insert into the Bill a requirement to consider various factors. Those are

“the impact on funding for the other maintained schools…the effect on social cohesion in the area in which the additional school is (or is proposed to be) situated”

and

“the impact on the balance of intake”

for other schools in the area and the further education sector. That last point is important, and I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who is responsible for further education, on the Treasury Bench. I shall return to that matter later in my remarks.

Amendment 20 is an attempt to rein in free-market abandon and address the point that I have already made about capacity. It would add to the characteristics in clause 1(6) that must be demonstrated by a potential additional school if one is to be established. That subsection is currently broad to the point of being vague and, I would argue, meaningless. The amendment states that if there is to be an additional school in an area, it must be demonstrated as part of the selection process that it

“meets a proven need for additional capacity in the area in which the school is situated.”

As the Bill is currently drafted, when an academy order has been made, the converting school or relevant local authority will not have to follow the school closure procedures set out in section 30 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 or sections 15 to 17 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The relevant provisions in the 1998 Act are designed specifically to ensure that reflection is made on the consequences of a closure. Those provisions are that the governing body should give at least two years’ notice to the Secretary of State, and that if closure would affect the facilities for full-time education for post-16-year-olds, the relevant further education funding council should be consulted. I believe that in the current regime that would be the Young People’s Learning Agency, but it would be useful if the Minister confirmed that. Those provisions allow the decision on closing a school to be considered in a proper manner.

Removing the provisions of sections 15 to 17 of the 2006 Act is particularly risky. Those sections essentially ensure that when a school maintained by a local authority is to be discontinued, the authority must publish its proposals. Prior to that, the relevant body must consult the registered parents of pupils at the affected school as well as the local education authority. That just seems like good common sense. When there are proposals to discontinue a school, there should be the widest possible consultation, challenge and scrutiny. I ask the Minister to tell us specifically why it was felt necessary to remove those requirements, which seem like good, plain common sense.

Clause 9(4) states that an additional school is not to be considered a maintained school

“if it provides education for pupils of a wider range of ages than the maintained school.”

That is a significant part of the Bill, and at the risk of being too melodramatic, I believe it could prove the death knell for our current further education sector. I shall expand that argument with reference to my constituency. For a relatively small town, Hartlepool has a diverse offer of 16-to-19 provision. It has a college of further education, a sixth-form college, a specialist art and design college and a Catholic school sixth-form college. The choice on offer for students in Hartlepool is really quite rich, and it works incredibly well, but under clause 10(4), a school in Hartlepool or anywhere else that currently offers 11-to-16 provision could apply to become an 11-to-18 free school or academy without consideration for the wider area, without consultation regarding current post-16 provision, and without any assessment of whether the new arrangements are feasible, viable or desirable. That cannot be right or sensible. I would be grateful if the Minister could, before his winding-up speech, have a word with the Business, Innovation and Skills Minister, to determine the rationale behind that measure, because it puts at risk the advances that have been made in the FE sector since incorporation in 1992-93.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I may be reading clause 10 incorrectly, but it seems to me to have precisely the opposite meaning to the one the hon. Gentleman suggests. It states that

“a school does not replace a maintained school if it provides education for pupils of a wider range of ages”,

which means that it would be viewed as an additional school, and therefore that it comes under clause 10(2), which states:

“The Secretary of State must take into account what the impact of establishing the additional school would be likely to be on maintained schools, Academies and institutions…in the area”.

As I said, the measure therefore appears to have the opposite effect to the one the hon. Gentleman suggests.

[Mr Wright]

That is certainly not how I interpret the Bill. Amendment 50 is a probing amendment, because given the advances in FE provision and the huge choice in my constituency, I would hate anything that meant that an 11-to-16 school could disrupt post-16 provision.

The amendment would ensure that institutions within the FE sector, as well as the local education authority, pupils and parents are consulted. It is also important that that wider family—I hate that phrase—of education providers is consulted, but that will have a direct impact on post-16 provision.

The Opposition have faith in parents, pupils, teachers, councils and the wider community, and we think that their views should be taken into account when setting up academies, and that no new free-market schools that fragment the current system should be set up. That could lead to a two-tier system and compromise the viability of current schools and colleges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Absolutely. That is the whole point. It is in the Bill. Any school that sought to establish itself without talking to and consulting local people would not fare well in trying to attract pupils.

Furthermore, clause 9 requires the Secretary of State, when deciding whether to enter into academy arrangements with an additional school, an entirely new or free school, to take into account the impact of such a school on the existing schools and colleges in the area. That will ensure that in making decisions on any free school proposal due consideration will always be given to its wider implications. Clause 9 is included in the Bill following helpful debates in the other place where noble Lords expressed concerns over the impact that any brand new academies—free schools—would have on other schools and colleges in the area. We agreed that in making decisions on any free school proposal, due consideration should always be given to its wider implications. That was our intention even before we tabled that amendment in the other place. We were happy to place that duty in the Bill.

Amendment No. 50 seeks to define “impact”, which the Secretary of State would be required to take account of when considering entering into arrangements for an additional free school. I fully understand hon. Members’ concerns, but we do not wish to prescribe the matters to be considered in each case. Every school is different and its case should be considered on its merits. The problem with a list is that people tend to focus on what is not on it, and that risks other considerations that are not included being considered irrelevant and unimportant. In fact, they could well be quite important.

Lord Adonis said:

“The idea that parents should not be able to access new or additional school places in areas where the schools are not providing good quality places simply because the provision of those places will cause detriment to other schools fundamentally ignores the interests of parents and their right to have a decent quality school to send their children to. If there is not such a decent quality school and someone is prepared to do something substantive about it, they should be applauded”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2010; Vol. 719, c. 1264.]

We agree with Lord Adonis’s sentiments.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Although I agree with my hon. Friend that the amendment should be rejected, may we expect the Secretary of State to come forward with an explanation of the approach that he will take to the assessment of this impact? Otherwise it could appear that the Secretary of State was making such decisions without a framework that the public in a local area could expect to understand.

[Mr Gibb]

We need to try to get away from reams of guidance and secondary legislation. The wording of clause 9 is clear. It states:

“The Secretary of State must take into account what the impact of establishing the additional school would be likely to be on maintained schools, Academies and institutions within the further education sector in the area in which the additional school is (or is proposed to be) situated.”

It is clear what is intended, and what has always been intended by the Secretary of State because he is under a duty to act reasonably. The clause just reinforces the duty that already exists.

[Mr Stuart]

If the Secretary of State will not produce a framework to show how he will approach such cases, will he publish the assessment that he makes in order to come to a conclusion? People deserve to be able to understand the logic behind a decision, even if it is just precedent and looking at different schools in different places at different times. That might also help people who want to come forward with proposals. If they do not understand the Secretary of State’s thinking, they will not know whether or not to make a proposal.

[Mr Gibb]

I will ponder my hon. Friend’s point. I personally think that it is clear what sort of issues the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding whether to accept a proposal for an additional school in an area. To be too specific in setting out guidance would be a mistake, because it could end up luring future providers into not considering issues that they should take into account when assessing the impact that their proposal would have on the local area. As I say, I will ponder my hon. Friend’s points and perhaps write to him on this issue.