Educational Attainment: Yorkshire and the Humber

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jo Cox]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredibly insightful comment and I could not agree more.

More generally, in Yorkshire and the Humber, children are now being left behind, and no child should be left behind. We can no longer accept that young people in London are far more likely to achieve good outcomes at school than those in other regions.

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

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case and her point about the gap between Yorkshire and London is valid. She cites the evidence, but will she join me in agreeing that having 1.4 million fewer children in underperforming schools is a significant national improvement, although, as we will be discussing tonight, we need to ensure that that success is everywhere and not just concentrated in some areas.

[Jo Cox]

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise and knowledge on this issue. He is right to identify the fact that we need to spread the successes across the country, not just in some bits of our great nation.

It is morally right that we act urgently to address the inequity and it is an investment that will resonate far beyond individuals. Improving educational attainment in Yorkshire schools is central to the success of the so-called northern powerhouse. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, says that more attention must be focused on regions where too many schools are “languishing in mediocrity” and that the northern powerhouse will “splutter and die” unless underperforming schools improve. To that end the Budget contained vague details of the Government’s new northern powerhouse schools strategy, which admits that

“progress in education isn’t felt everywhere.”

However, there is only very limited information about how the money will be spent and no clarity on where exactly the north is. Furthermore, £20 million is a paltry gesture when we think about the scale and importance of this crisis—particularly when only £10 million will be spent this year. The recent recalculation of the International Democratic Education Conference index on levels of deprivation had a severe impact on many schools across my local authority, Kirklees, with one school, for example, losing £300,000 per year.

The region needs real investment, not just rhetoric. We also need to learn the many transferable lessons from the success of London. In the 1980s, the south-east and the east of England had better results than London, but the most recent evidence now shows that London is outstripping the rest of the country. The Labour Government’s London Challenge saw the combination of a political push and huge investment to raise standards across the capital. With the long-term backing of Downing Street, the Challenge focused on three clear and measurable objectives: to reduce the number of underperforming schools, especially in relation to English and maths; to increase the number of schools rated “good” or “outstanding”; and to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged children.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) on securing it and for setting out so passionately and in such a well informed way her desire, which we all share, to see no child left behind and the regional gaps that have occurred in this country closed.

Members on both sides of the House will surely agree that raising school standards in our part of the country is essential if we are to raise the life chances of our constituents’ children. It is not just that in Yorkshire and the Humber our education has been left behind; average earnings tend to be lower than they are nationally. There is a link between the life chances of someone 20 or 30 years after they were at school, and their performance and the support they received while they were at school.

As has been set out, results in Yorkshire are among the lowest in England, so Yorkshire is at the frontline of the education debate. The question is how to deliver the Government’s twin aims: to raise standards for all and to close the gap between rich and poor. Teach First has just released research showing that poor children are four times as likely to go to an inadequate primary school or one that requires improvement than children from wealthier backgrounds, and poorer children are only half as likely to go to an outstanding primary as their richer peers. In Bradford, for instance, the schools that serve the poorest have a one in three chance of being inadequate or in need of improvement.

Teaching lower income children is more challenging and requires higher skills, yet the system penalises professionals who seek to go where they are needed most. Schools can end up, as the Sutton Trust reported last week, putting barriers in the way of poorer children getting places at their schools. According to the trust, more than 1,500 primary schools have socially selective intakes.

As the hon. Lady rightly said, we need to work constantly to improve the incentives for the best teachers to teach in the poorest communities and be rewarded for staying there. As has been said, however, there is not just a social divide, but a geographical one. As Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, said on 1 December:

“We are, in effect, a nation divided at the age of 11. We are witnessing an educational division of the country, with schools performing well overall in the South but struggling to improve in the North and the Midlands. If schools north of this line were performing as well as those south of it, 160,000 more pupils would be in a good or outstanding secondary school.”

In the east riding, 76% of pupils attend a primary school that is rated good or outstanding, a figure that falls to 68% for secondary schools. Like the hon. Lady, I would like to pay tribute to those phenomenally hard-working teachers who are succeeding, and those who continue to work flat-out to try and raise standards in schools that are not succeeding. We owe it to our constituents to improve the situation.

It is important to say that the divide in educational attainment was not created under this Government. There has long been a divide. We need to find a way— ideally, in education policy—with the maximum consensus possible, of creating a framework of incentives to get the best teachers to the places where they are needed most, and which can transcend any general election, regardless of who wins it. Without that, the divide will continue and there will be unnecessary tinkering and disruption of improvements to the education system.

With that in mind, it would be unfortunate if the 2022 deadline for total academisation of schools led our energies to be deployed debating that rather than how to improve teaching and thus standards of education. Whether such a policy was necessary or wise I will not debate today, although I note that many colleagues have already expressed some doubts. As Sir Michael also said in his speech in December,

“we should not waste time in tendentious arguments about the relative merits of academies but rather on how we can make them work. Academies, like all schools, work if they have good leaders and good teaching. If they lack them, they do not.”

Sir Michael is absolutely right. It cannot be emphasised too often that the key to raising performance and narrowing the attainment gap between rich and poor lies, as the hon. Lady rightly said, in the quality of teaching, and that is what we need to focus on. One of the best sources in this area is the work of Professor Eric Hanushek of Stamford University. It is shocking how much difference there is between how much a child learns in the classroom of a teacher at the 90th percentile compared with how little they learn with a teacher at the 10th percentile. Hanushek has calculated that one of the teachers at the top will give their students an entire year’s worth of additional learning in one year, compared with those near the bottom in teaching quality. That is, they advance their pupils’ understanding 150% compared with what might be expected from an average teacher in that time, while their least talented counterparts help their students to make only 50% of the progress that would be expected.

As if that was not important enough, Professor Hanushek has found that the effects of high-quality teaching are especially significant for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, who do not have the other support and succour to help them make up for an inadequate teacher. These findings not only underline the importance of good recruitment and teacher training models, which are critical, but show that we need to ensure that the best teachers work where they are needed most. Academies’ flexibility to design attractive packages to recruit and retain good teachers has the potential to help here.

I also believe that the new National Teaching Service—the hon. Lady referred to it—which will be piloted in the north-west this autumn, could make a significant contribution once it is rolled out to our area. By the end of this Parliament, it will see 1,500 of the country’s best teachers assigned to the schools that need them the most. To support those teachers in their new roles, a package of incentives is being offered, including help with relocation, assistance with commuting costs and access to prestigious leadership development programmes, as well as great mentors.

Underlying this, there is also a pressing need to ensure that our education system is structured so that it does not conspire to drive talented individuals away from underperforming schools. There are many idealistic teachers and leaders who want to help at the educational frontline, but for too long they have been incentivised to teach elsewhere. Why? Because in our high-stakes accountability system, a headteacher working in a successful school in a prosperous area has long been less likely to be fired, found wanting or publicly criticised than one who opts to work somewhere such as Knowsley, where not a single secondary school was rated good or outstanding in 2015.

That is why I am so encouraged that the new White Paper, “Educational excellence everywhere”, proposes the introduction of “improvement periods” during which schools under new leadership will not be inspected by Ofsted. For schools that have been judged to require improvement, new heads will have a grace period of around 30 months before inspectors visit again, and the same goes for new academy sponsors. Ministers deserve credit for addressing that issue and tackling the perverse incentives that deterred good leaders from taking on some of the toughest challenges.

We also need to boost effective partnership working between schools, as the hon. Lady said, something that can be a particular problem in a large, sparsely populated rural area such as the east riding, with significant distances between schools. If I was to draw a circle around some of the schools on the coast in my constituency, I would of course find that half the area from which they might seek support or collaboration is in the North sea, and they are unlikely to get any help from that direction. School leaders could be encouraged to sign up to partnerships by introducing Sir Michael Wilshaw’s proposed “Excellent Leadership” awards. The Government have resisted that, but we need by every means, from status to pay and any other structures we have, to level the playing field so that we encourage people to go where they are most needed.

I must touch on fair funding, which is one of the most significant issues. The hon. Lady mentioned London, which receives significantly more funding in general—inner London certainly does—than the rest of the country. The Association of School and College Leaders found that the top 10 local authority areas in the country get an average of £6,300 per pupil, and the bottom 10 get £4,200. That is based not on need or deprivation, but on historical anomaly. Therefore, I must again congratulate the Government on grasping that. I ask colleagues on both sides of the House to celebrate the fact that the Government are moving towards a fair funding formula that will mean that a rural school in the east riding or an inner-city school in Bradford can expect to have a formula that is transparent and that reasonably seeks to provide fair funding for everybody. With that, I am pleased to bring my remarks to a close.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Yes, I very much agree, and I am sorry that Labour-controlled Bradford Council does not seem to believe in that as much as the hon. Lady does.

Bradford Council has raised the funding formula for schools with me. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view of the formula, and of whether it takes into consideration the current standard of educational attainment in places such as Bradford and makes sure that no action is taken that puts that already poor educational attainment under further pressure. The consultation is only at the first stage, and we are unaware of the numbers or the possible effects of the new regime, but concerns have been expressed that the parameters being set will disadvantage schools in the Bradford district. Need and pupil mobility are not necessarily guaranteed to be part of the new formula. As outlined by Ofsted, the Bradford district, in particular, has high levels of need, as well as the highest number of in-year admissions in the country. Attainment standards are already below average in the district, and if the new formula does not acknowledge the specific challenges there, schools could be unfairly disadvantaged and face a tougher task in addressing those challenges.

It is important to mention that the big disparity between schools in my constituency and schools in other parts of the Bradford district. We must not let schools coast in what might be seen as better areas, where educational standards are not as low, because we are focusing too much on the schools with the lowest attainment. We must make sure that all schools do their best for every pupil, but we sometimes overlook that priority.

Leadership is an important issue in our schools. We must do much more to attract the very best leaders and headteachers to our schools. My hon. Friend the Minister visited Beckfoot School in Bingley, which has an outstanding headteacher, who has transformed it into one of the best schools in not just the Bradford district but the country, and it is now rated as outstanding. We need to find ways of getting more leaders into the most difficult schools.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about attracting great leaders into Yorkshire? We need to do more to grow our own, and we need to build the systems to do that. Attracting them from outside is probably not going to be the primary answer; growing our own is.

[Philip Davies]

Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point, as he always does on education matters.

I emphasise that we have some fantastic schools and some fantastic teachers, who are all working incredibly hard. I am very pro-teacher. My dad is a retired teacher, so I will certainly not criticise them; they work very hard in sometimes very difficult circumstances. I am not often a big fan of all the teachers in the National Union of Teachers, but teachers on the whole work incredibly hard, and it is important that we do not criticise them when we are discussing some of these educational standards, because they often operate in very difficult circumstances.

Finally, I was struck by the good point the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made about opportunities being harder to come by for people in the north than for those in places such as London, and I would like to float an idea. We often give student loans to people who want to progress their career through the university route; I wonder why others, if university is not for them, should not be able to get some form of student loan to allow them to do things such as come to London to access work experience placements. I do not see why student loans should be only for the benefit of the most able and perhaps the wealthiest and most advantaged. How about giving loans to some of the most disadvantaged people in the country to allow them to pursue their career? How about giving people in Yorkshire the opportunities that people in other parts of the country get? I hope that the Government will look at that. Social mobility is what the Conservative party should be all about, and we have to look much more imaginatively at this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One thing that I have observed about the culture in Yorkshire and the Humber is that people are often quite reticent about talking themselves up. We have a real responsibility to the next generation of talent. When I visit schools in my constituency, I make the point that people from Barnsley Central have gone around the world, achieved great things and shaped the world in which we live today. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we all have a responsibility in our communities to make the powerful point that the most amazing success stories have come out of our area, and we should never be shy about championing the success of people from our region.

I have reflected on the Gatsby Charitable Foundation’s career guidance report. It is also worth reflecting briefly on the recent report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility. That excellent report makes detailed comment about improving the transition from school to work for young people. One recommendation, that the Government should look closely at, is for Ofsted to place greater emphasis on the provision of careers education.

[Graham Stuart]

I chair the all-party group on careers information, advice and guidance. Schools are encouraged by the Government to work towards a quality in careers standard, but they are not obliged to do so. In a high- stakes accountability system, in too many cases they will not do the right thing until that is joined with the system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should make it mandatory for every school to work towards that standard and maintain it?

[Dan Jarvis]

I absolutely agree, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister is able to say when he responds.

Finally, I want to talk about leadership. If we are to close the attainment gap, we will need brilliant headteachers leading teams of excellent, highly motivated teachers. If we look at the recent schools White Paper, however, we see that the Government show a dearth of ambition in that area. There is a chapter headed “Great teachers—everywhere they’re needed”, but despite that promising title, there is little in the way of proposals for how we can get more great teachers. Instead, the main focus of the White Paper is the plan for the forced academisation of every school, a divisive policy for which there is absolutely no evidence that it will improve standards.

On a more positive note, I was encouraged by the Government’s announcement in the Budget of a northern powerhouse schools strategy. A number of measures sounded promising, including the additional funding being made available to support turnaround activity and the report on transforming education, which is to be led by Sir Nick Weller. Since then, however, I have been disappointed by the lack of detail that has been forthcoming. The schools White Paper did not mention the northern powerhouse schools strategy once.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen said, Yorkshire needs a strategy for improvement, similar to the pioneering scheme that we saw in London. I would like the northern powerhouse schools strategy to progress with the ambition of generating an improvement similar to the one seen in London. Sadly, we do not have enough information about the strategy to know whether that is what we are looking at. I ask the Government to provide more information to Members on the strategy, and also to publish the terms of reference for Sir Nick’s review.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; it has been a long day. Closing the attainment gap will take real effort from everyone involved in the education system, from Ministers to school leaders, teachers and parents. It is not going to be easy, but we have to succeed because the stakes are so high. We cannot allow the educational divide in this country to continue. We cannot let down the young people of today and tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) on securing the debate with the assistance of the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers).

I am not shy in being absolutely passionate about making sure that children in Grimsby have every opportunity available to them—the same opportunities that are available to all children across the rest of the country. That is why it is so important that MPs from Yorkshire and the Humber are in the Chamber today, speaking with one voice in support of the children of our region.



The fact that Yorkshire and the Humber is the lowest-achieving region in the country should throw into question the Government’s revised funding formula announced in the autumn statement. I am sure the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) will disagree with me greatly, but I will continue regardless. Surely if there were a need to redistribute funding to rural areas, we would expect schools in the south-west or the north-west to be performing worse than those in our region. It makes a mockery of any claim from the Government to be raising education standards in towns such as Grimsby, Doncaster or Rotherham when they are shifting funds away from those towns. The plans currently out for consultation will result in north-east losing around £2.1 million, which is more than £100 per pupil each year. How can it be described as fairer when a town without a single good or outstanding secondary school loses out?

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Melanie Onn]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not—time is rather short.

Many colleagues have talked about the shortage of teachers, partly because of the large number leaving the profession. More than one in 10 teachers quit in 2014, a 10% increase on 2011. That has been a recent issue for schools in Grimsby, where three of the four secondary school heads left their posts last summer. That level of leadership turnover has an impact on children’s educational experience. It disrupts continuity and makes young people believe that their school does not care about them. It gives them less incentive to invest in their school if they do not think the teachers and leadership are investing in it as well. It is an incredibly damaging message to send.

The problem of teacher flight is coupled with that of local schools struggling to bring teachers to the area, which has been mentioned. That is a particular issue facing coastal communities across the public and private sectors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen said, Teach First should be sending more teachers to low-achieving areas of the country. I welcome the national teaching service and urge the Government to hurry up and bring it to Yorkshire and the Humber.

I take this opportunity to commend Macaulay Primary School in my constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting recently, for meeting its own recruitment challenges with an innovative solution, which the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness will approve of—a “grow your own” approach. The school has been supporting its teaching assistants into teacher training schemes, enabling it to fill vacancies with teachers who already have a relationship with the children at that school, as well as experience in the classroom.

Teaching assistants are a huge resource for schools, but they are often undervalued and not used effectively. Unlike for teachers, there is no national pay structure for TAs, so when budgets are squeezed, those remaining often end up having to take on more work, which they are not necessarily qualified to do, for less pay. Research has shown that in many schools, TAs are not being used in ways that allow them to best improve students’ learning. The Education Endowment Foundation has called for closer working relationships between teachers and TAs, and for more training opportunities. Has the Minister considered the EEF’s report and a potential career path from assistant to teacher?

Unison has called for teaching assistants to be paid for 52 weeks of the year, rather than the current term time-only arrangement. Have the Government considered that for TAs who want to become teachers, so that they could spend their time out of the classroom working with teachers to better prepare for lessons and training to become qualified teachers themselves?

I feel well placed to comment on the Government’s recently announced policy of forcing schools to become academies, as all the secondary schools in my constituency have already made that move. That is quite a gentle description of what has happened. One problem I see is that different chains of academies do not seem to work together. To change that, I am trying to co-ordinate a meeting between the companies that operate in my town. Are the Government doing anything to encourage the sharing of best practice between local schools?

What we have seen locally is that schools that were performing okay before they became academies are still okay, but those that were underperforming are still underperforming. I do not put that down to any failure on the part of teachers. The teaching staff I have met are incredibly dedicated, and every child I meet is happy to be in their school. That is a credit to all the people working in those organisations. The fact remains, however, that every secondary school achieved worse results last year than in 2013, and although two schools improved their Ofsted ratings, one school received a worse rating than the previous year, and the other still “required improvement”.

I am coming to the end of my allocated time, but I want to mention two more schools. The first is the Academy Grimsby, a 14 to 16 academy that was set up two years ago by a local further education provider. It allows students to learn skills for the engineering, care and digital industries among others. It was originally set up for hard-to-place children and has been incredibly successful at giving less academic students the chance to learn vocational skills early in life and a much greater chance of finding a job once they finish school.

The second school I want to mention is the Lisle Marsden Primary Academy, which I am due to visit on Friday. It is undertaking a literacy day initiative run by Pobble, which specialises in inspiring reluctant writers as well as stretching the most able readers through its literary programme, which is operating in over 300 schools across the country. Those are examples of schools really innovating to try to get the best, but we need the Government to step in and do more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

We are certainly not burying our head in the sand. We have the highest number of teachers—there are now 455,000, so 13,000 more today than there were in 2010. We are also taking action to deal with the challenge of having a strong economy. We have introduced bursaries—up to £30,000 for top physics graduates. We have introduced the “Your future their future” advertising campaign. We have removed the cap on physics and maths recruitment. We have expanded Teach First. We have incentives for returners; some 14,000 returners came back into teaching last year, which is a record number. We are improving behaviour in our schools to improve retention, and we are dealing with the workload, which is one of the reasons why teachers say they leave the profession.

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

6. If she will make it her policy to require all schools to work towards a quality award for careers education, information, advice and guidance recognised by the quality in careers standard.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

We want to spread excellent practice in schools in respect of careers and employment engagement activity to help prepare young people for successful working lives. That is why I launched the Careers & Enterprise Company, which is connecting employees from firms of all sizes with schools through a network of enterprise advisers drawn from business volunteers. I know that my hon. Friend has met the chairman and chief executive of the company. Its role is to harness exceptional schemes such as the Humber careers gold standard, which my hon. Friend has championed and which encourages the delivery of inspiring careers advice.

[Graham Stuart]

It was great to hear at the weekend that the Secretary of State was going to act to give further education colleges and apprenticeship providers access to our schools, but the central challenge in the careers space is the lack of incentives for schools to play with when they have so many high incentives in relation to exams. Will the Secretary of State change Government guidance to introduce a requirement to work towards an award that fits the quality in careers standard?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the announcements that were made at the weekend. He is right: the quality of careers advice is paramount. That is why we have published more robust statutory guidance, and why Ofsted already has to inspect and pass judgment on the ways in which schools prepare young people for their careers.

We are considering how to create the right incentives. We will consult a range of organisations, including the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and the Quality in Careers Consortium Board, and will publish a new careers strategy in the spring.

Childcare Bill [Lords]

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My understanding is that clauses 1 to 5 relate to England only. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and clarify the point, but this is a matter that Mr Speaker has certified as applying to England.

After attempts to delay the Bill, I am glad that the Labour party has recognised the demands of parents who want to see it become law and to have the opportunity to access the 30 hours entitlement without delay. I am pleased that amendments to clause 1 which could have set back the implementation of the free entitlement by months have now been removed.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is on the record as saying that she wants to see our childcare policies become a reality. I hope that she is pleased to see the progress made with the Bill and its speedy implementation, which is due to benefit 390,000 three and four-year-olds.

The importance and impact of quality early education and childcare are beyond dispute, which is why my party has put it at the heart of our agenda for government over the past five years. In that time we have introduced the two-year-old offer, supporting more than 157,000 two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds to access 15 hours a week of quality early education. We have extended the universal three and four-year-old entitlement from 12 hours to 15 hours, with 96% of three and four-year-olds now taking up a place. We have introduced the early years pupil premium to target additional resources at children from disadvantaged backgrounds. We have legislated for tax-free childcare, under which up to 2 million working families can benefit by up to £2,000 per child, per year. We have also increased the direct support for childcare costs under universal credit from 70% to 85% from April this year.

Now we are going even further by doubling the 15 hours entitlement for working parents, which represents a substantial commitment to childcare by the Government. That commitment is backed up by the investment and funding it requires. As the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement, and, as I confirmed straight afterwards on Second Reading, by 2019-20 we will be investing over £1 billion more per year to fund the free entitlements. That includes £300 million for a significant increase in the hourly rate paid to providers, delivering on the commitment the Prime Minister made during the general election campaign.

Those funding levels were directly informed by the review of the costs of providing childcare published on 25 November last year. I am sure that the House will agree that this is a significant piece of research and a sound evidence base on which to ensure that the childcare market is properly funded.

It is worth reiterating to the House that we have been able to make this extra investment only because of the difficult decisions we have taken elsewhere in government as part of our long-term economic plan, a further reminder that we can only have strong public services if we have the strong economy to support them—[Interruption.] I shall say it again, shall I? Perhaps it will get a bigger cheer this time. I thank the Opposition Front Bench for inviting me to make the point about our long-term economic plan again—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

The next stage of our funding reforms will be to ensure that funding is being allocated fairly across the country and that as much as possible is reaching childcare providers on the frontline.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest achievements of the last five years has been the reduction in the number of workless households? Research shows the scarring, long-term negative effect that that has on children. This is another step to build on the already strong foundations we have put in place to make sure that fewer children are brought up in workless households, with all the negative results that follow.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a former Chairman of the Education Committee, and he is absolutely right. At least 300,000 fewer children are living in workless households this year than in 2010. I had a conversation in my constituency on Friday with the local co-ordinator for those at risk of being excluded from school, and he said how much of an impact seeing a parent or parents getting up and going out to work has on children, their work ethic and their ability to think about their work and career choices in the future.

We will consult on the proposals on the early years funding formula in due course. We are lucky to have in this country a thriving childcare market that is well placed to begin delivering the 30 hours entitlement. The market showed with the introduction of the two-year-old offer that it can respond quickly and effectively to deliver increased places and meet parental demand. That is why we have felt able to bring forward by a year the introduction of the extended entitlement for early testing in a series of areas. However we are not complacent about ensuring that sufficient places are available and are taking further steps to build capacity. That includes creating nursery provision as part of new free schools, and an additional £50 million of capital funding to support the creation of early years places for the free entitlement. We are confident that the capital investment, combined with an attractive, increased rate to providers, will also enable them to seek further investment to expand their offer.

We are committed to ensuring that the free entitlements are flexible and can be accessed in a way that fits with parents’ working patterns. The early implementation areas will look at ways to encourage different and diverse types of providers to enter the market and will incentivise innovative approaches to providing flexibility in terms of the type and timing of childcare on offer. Alongside that, we are consulting on a new right to request for parents. That right will allow parents to request that their children’s school makes their premises available for providers to offer childcare. That will not only ensure that parents who already have children of school age do not have to move their children between different places, but will also lead to an increase in the number of childcare places on offer.

Throughout the passage of the Bill through the House and the other place, there have rightly been lengthy discussions about the issues that matter most to parents—flexibility, quality and access for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I am clear that the Bill and the subsequent roll-out of the extended entitlement will be better because of that scrutiny. Parliament’s scrutiny will not end with the Bill: as agreed in Committee, regulations made to support the 30 hours free entitlement will be debated and approved by both Houses on their first use, ahead of early implementation later this year. Ahead of bringing the regulations back to Parliament, my Department will run a full consultation on the regulations and statutory guidance for local authorities. I look forward to engaging with providers, local authorities and parents over this period so that we can be certain we are getting it right and ensure that parents get what they need from this offer.

Before I conclude, let me thank all hon. Members who served on the Bill Committee and all those who provided written evidence. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), for steering the Bill through the House and his work on the childcare task force to prepare for implementation. I also thank officials in my Department and here in the House for their support.

As I said earlier, the Bill starts with one goal—to help working families with the cost of childcare. I hope that the Bill will now make further progress quickly so that early implementation of 30 hours free childcare can begin and parents across the country can start realising the benefits that this significant offer provides.

Out-of-school Education Settings

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposed regulation of out-of-school education settings.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to welcome such an excellent Minister, dedicated to school standards, and an even more excellent Opposition spokesman—I say that in the hope that they might be nice when they sum up.

How have we come to a situation in which a Conservative Government are proposing that a parish church must register with Ofsted before it can teach children the Bible for more than a few hours? The Department for Education’s consultation—I emphasise that it is a consultation—on its plans for out-of-school settings is well intentioned enough. Nobody denies that. When Sir Michael Wilshaw goes on the radio to defend them, he tells us about children

“at risk of abuse and at risk of radicalisation.”

We all have those concerns, but why does tackling abuse and radicalisation in a very tiny number of madrassahs mean that every voluntary group in England that instructs children for six or more hours a week has to register with the state? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education told Radio 4 that she thought the number of problem institutions could be numbered in the tens. Why, then, are we requiring tens of thousands of totally innocent groups to register with the state?

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

Does my hon. Friend remember that when we were in opposition, we opposed the then Labour Government’s ContactPoint database precisely because it sought to capture information on every child in the country? We said, “No, it should be proportionate. We should capture the information on children at risk, not every child.” Why does he think that that principle is not being applied in this case?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes his point very well, and I agree entirely that the Government should capture information only on the very small number of children who are at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing the debate. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood up in the Chamber and declared that he believed we were a Christian nation and that, in fact, it was our Christian heritage and values that have made us the great nation that we are. I believe that those words were broadly welcomed, so, if that is true, what are we afraid of? We should be promoting the teaching of the Bible to our children, not seeking to restrict it, because the results of that produce an awful lot of good.

The Government are in danger of making a bad decision based on very bad evidence. Where is the evidence of any British citizen attending the local Methodist Sunday school and being incited to carry out acts of terrorism? Where are the Sunday school teachers who seek to inspire and incite young people to join terrorist organisations? I suggest there is no evidence whatever to impose such restrictions on Sunday schools and other church groups.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. There also seems to be little evidence that the inculcation of ideas in madrassahs leads to extremism. We have had little from the Government to show an evidential link—it seems to be lonely teenagers looking on the internet rather than being taught in schools, officially registered or otherwise.

[Steve Double]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him. We need to recognise that the vast majority of people of all faiths in this nation are decent, honest, law-abiding citizens who want only the best not only for their own children, but for our nation. We are in danger of applying onerous restrictions on the many to address the actions of a few. That is the wrong thing to do.

In this country, we have already sacrificed too much of our liberty in the name of equality. I fully appreciate that the Government are trying to walk a tightrope on this issue to appear even-handed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) pointed out, we need to be clear about where the source of the threat comes from and target the Government’s response to address the source and not tie up tens of thousands of volunteers with unwarranted bureaucracy when they already have a hard enough job to do.

When young people attend Sunday school or other Christian events throughout the year, they often find not just faith but a mission in life to go and serve humanity. Thousands of young people attend Christian camps every summer and, as a result of the teaching they receive, they are inspired to travel the world, serving humanitarian causes. That is something we should be promoting, celebrating and encouraging, not restricting.

I implore the Minister and the Government to think again. There is clearly a degree of confusion over this issue, but there is no smoke without fire, so there is certainly something going on. I ask the Minister once and for all to quash the proposal to put onerous restrictions on faith groups, and churches and Sunday schools in particular. Let us celebrate our Christian heritage and not seek to restrict it any further.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am struck by the parallel with the registration proposals of the previous Labour Government for home education. The thought was, “There could be a problem. We don’t have enough data. We don’t know what’s going on. There could be issues—children could be being abused in their homes. So we must register every single parent,” even though the long-standing settlement was to respect that parents have the duty to educate their children, not the state. This is creeping statism.

I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not to add me to the list, but I am someone of no faith and there are lots of people in the Chamber with faith. This proposal seems to me a gross infringement of so many rights, including the rights of Muslims, and in a free society we need to respect families of whatever denomination and recognise where the line should be drawn by the Government, notwithstanding the risks.

If we go back, we think of the reds under the bed. It was not that there was not a clear and present danger from communism; it was the fact that a disproportionate, illiberal and un-American response was inappropriate. We can think back to when the leader of the Catholic Church—Islam has no such leader—was clearly opposed to the society and Government of this country, yet we recognised that Catholics were predominantly law-abiding and needed to be respected.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Only predominantly?

[Graham Stuart]

Nearly exclusively. It is exactly the same issue.

I make one final point. If we go ahead with this, it will have the opposite effect on safety to what is intended. Forget all the other points my colleagues have made about how it will break down volunteering and all the rest of what is good—what about targeting Islamic extremism? If we take an organisation such as Ofsted, whose budget has been falling consistently over time—local authorities are in the same position—and ask it to register everyone, it will spend its entire time trying to do that and it will fail to get to the real problem.

With the Labour proposals on home education, we knew that the people who were really troublesome would never register and would evade the authorities with ease. Everyone else—every law-abiding, committed family—would be put through the hoops and subjected to a state imposition that was clearly and utterly inappropriate. That is what we risk here.

I have changed my mind on this proposal. At first, I thought it could be proportionate and reasonable, but I do not think it can be, so let us not do it. ContactPoint was wrong, and so is this—let us put a stop to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The fact that more than 20 right hon. and hon. Members have contributed to the debate shows how big the concern is about the issues that have been raised. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), whose constituency neighbours mine, on securing the debate and on raising so many pertinent questions.

The first thing to be clear about is what problem the Government are trying to sort out. The main spur for their desire to review the registration system for out-of-school education settings seems to be the serious problems discovered in a number of unregistered schools in Birmingham. In July 2015, Ofsted warned the Department for Education that high numbers of pupils were dropping off the radar and potentially ending up in unregistered schools, where they could be exposed to harm, exploitation or the influence of extremist ideologies.

In early November, Ofsted identified and inspected several unregistered schools in Birmingham, finding a “narrow Islamic-focused curriculum” and the use of

“misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic material”,

along with “serious fire hazards”, “unhygienic and filthy conditions” and staff who had not undergone suitable checks or who did not have clearance to work with children. It immediately informed officials at the Department. Yet, when it returned on 30 November, four weeks after the initial inspections, it found that all the unregistered schools were still operating.

Rather than immediately stopping the unregistered schools operating, the Department for Education seems to have advised the proprietors that they could register their provision. That suggests that the Department perceived what was taking place as acceptable practice. Ofsted expressed serious concerns that that could encourage others to open such schools. The illegal schools were closed down only after Ofsted inspectors remained at the premises until they were satisfied that the schools had ceased operating and that alternative arrangements had been made in registered schools for all the children, with the support of local authority officers. Ofsted says that that was achieved despite “confusing and unhelpful” advice from the Department.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred earlier to the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Charedi Talmud Torah Tashbar school in Stamford Hill, which apparently operated illegally for 40 years. The Department for Education, Ofsted, local authorities and others need to enforce the existing law before they are capable of extending it elsewhere. Let us enforce the existing law first and then consider extending it, once we can do what we are already supposed to properly.

[Nic Dakin]

Absolutely. Ofsted remains concerned that the number of children being educated in unregistered schools in parts of the country is far higher than is currently known by the Government.

When confronted with the real issue, the Government were slow to act, allowing children to remain exposed to a narrow and negative curriculum in unsafe premises, in the care of staff who had not been cleared to work with children. Every day that children remain in such a setting is a day too long. The Government have a basic responsibility to ensure that children are kept safe, yet despite warning after warning, they failed to act swiftly and deal with the issue.

The prohibited list of activities in paragraph 3.19 of the consultation document seems highly appropriate. I agree that action should take place immediately to investigate genuine concerns and evidence of out-of-school settings engaging in prohibited activities. That seems common sense, but as many Members have pointed out, there are lots of ways in which it can be done already under current legislation.

The question remains: does the direction of travel in the consultation document deal with the actual problem? As I said earlier, it seems that the main spur for the Government to review the registration scheme for out-of-school education settings is the serious problems discovered in a number of unregistered schools. I am sure the Minister will take time today to explain why the Department failed to act as swiftly and effectively back in November as we all would have wished it to.

When Ofsted investigated those unregistered schools, it found timetables suggesting that teaching was taking place in institutions for at least 20 hours a week, despite the fact that anywhere offering more than 20 hours of teaching a week is legally obliged to be registered as a school. The reality is that those institutions should therefore have already been registered under current legislation and subject to inspections and safeguarding requirements that ensure children receive high quality education and are well looked after.

Before we even begin to examine the appropriate threshold for registering schools, the most important question to answer, in my mind, is: why were those institutions, which should have already been registered, allowed to go under the radar? Without explaining that and what is going wrong in the Department for Education, the Government are wholly unable to justify the changes they propose as being the robust action needed to tackle the real problem.

As the situation in Birmingham demonstrates, the Department for Education is evidently unable to monitor and ensure that all provision that breaches the threshold set is actually registered in the first place. That issue goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Government’s approach to our schools today. There is an obsession with school structures, at the expense of driving improvement in education for all children, which has created such a fragmented system of oversight for schools that some children are dropping off the radar and ending up in harm’s way.

The report published today by the Select Committee on Education supports that. It finds that oversight of our schools is not being carried out by Whitehall effectively. The model of eight regional schools commissioners, each responsible for thousands of schools across very large areas, is not working well to identify problems and to challenge and support schools to improve, let alone to spot the provision going under the radar, which is at the heart of the problem.

At the same time, local authorities are not empowered with the responsibility and capacity to act when inappropriate things are happening and children are potentially at risk. They do not have the resources to ensure they have strong intelligence about what is happening on the ground and that appropriate action is taken when things go wrong. Further cuts to local authority budgets, as promised by the current Government, will only weaken that situation even more.

The truth is that the Department for Education is currently failing on all its route 1, basic duties. Are we recruiting enough teachers? As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) pointed out, there are chronic shortages of teachers up and down the country. Are we providing enough school places? Instead, some families applying last week will go straight on to a waiting list with no offer of a school place, and soaring numbers of children are being crammed into ever expanding classes.

[Graham Stuart]

Stick to the point. Stop this political partisan stuff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Those impact assessments will be done as we come to produce firm proposals. We, of course, assess the cost of all proposals as we develop policy.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing this debate on the proposals for regulating out-of-school education settings? I welcome the constructive debate we have had and the thoughtful and passionate speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). We also heard very good speeches from the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

All of the speeches made today will be taken into account as we consider the responses to the consultation, which closed on 11 January after six and a half weeks and to which we received more than 10,000 responses. Notwithstanding the valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, the consultation has been widely heard and responded to, and we will now consider all responses as we develop the policy in more detail.

Ensuring that parents have the freedom to decide how best to educate their children is a fundamental principle of our society and our education system. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to the long history of the churches’ role in education which, of course, predates that of the state.

Parents have always valued the education provided by religious organisations. They choose faith schools for their high academic standards and ethos and they appreciate the religious faith of those schools, which gives them confidence that their children will be taught to understand and respect the traditions and values of their faith. Responding to that demand, we have opened more than 300 free schools since 2010, of which 76 have a religious designation or ethos.

Out-of-school settings can also be of immense value. As my hon. Friend pointed out, many of those are run by religious groups and provide a distinctive education or activities that supplement and enhance that provided in mainstream schools. Such settings, including Sunday schools, can enrich children’s education and deepen their understanding of their own culture and heritage.

My hon. Friend made a powerful argument that the providers of this broader education, which is often staffed by dedicated volunteers, should be supported by the Government and not stifled by excessive regulation. I can assure him that we share that objective. The Government do, however, need to balance the need to protect and encourage high-quality out-of-school education with the need to keep children safe from any harm. That includes not only extremism, but the risk of physical punishment, unsuitable individuals working in some out-of-school settings and children being educated in unsafe or insanitary conditions.

A clear regulatory framework exists to protect children from those risks in childcare settings, and in state and independent schools. The call for evidence on out-of-school education, which closed last week, invited submissions on how to ensure that we are similarly able to safeguard children attending such settings—supplementary education —while avoiding disproportionate regulation. It reflects a commitment made in the Prevent strategy, published in June 2011, to reduce the risks of radicalisation occurring in out-of-school settings. It is the latest step in implementing the Prime Minister’s announcement in October last year that, if an institution is teaching children intensively, we will, as with any other school, make it register so that it can be inspected. He was also clear that, in addressing the risks that we have identified, we will uphold parents’ right to educate their children about their faith.

The call for evidence highlighted the fact that many settings already have robust measures in place to ensure safety. They may work under umbrella organisations that set high standards, be part of voluntary accreditation schemes or receive support from the local authority. However, that is not universal. We are therefore considering how best to address failures in the minority of settings that fail to meet their obligations while preserving everything that has made the vast majority of supplementary education so successful.

The responses to the call for evidence included many from Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups, and we will continue to discuss our developing proposals with those groups and others to ensure that they are proportionate and effective. Any final proposals will, of course, be subject to further discussions with interested parties.

At this stage, I hope I can provide assurances on some of the specific concerns raised by my hon. Friend and others.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister deal with one of the practical points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? Those who wish to teach in this extremist way will effortlessly elude any regulation system that we set up. We will therefore have an expensive and burdensome system that captures so many organisations, but does not capture the very organisations that we need to capture. Is that not the central point? To me, it seems to be a rocket that explodes this whole policy and should cause the Minister to think again.

[Mr Gibb]

Well, no, because by not registering, such organisations are liable under strict liability to an offence, and we can then take much swifter action when we are made aware of those settings through our usual intelligence routes. That is why this has a double edge: we register the settings and only inspect settings where risks are identified; and we have very real powers to tackle the settings that do not register.

Let me go through some of the specific concerns that have been raised.

Student Maintenance Grants

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I received a full maintenance grant when I was at university, and its impact was not just money in my bank account, but the feeling of confidence and freedom that I could choose the degree that I wanted at my first choice of university—that important point has not really been covered by the debate. When I graduated, I did not have £53,000 of debt, which is what the poorest 40% of students will graduate with. I remind Conservative Members that we are talking about the poorest students from the poorest backgrounds in our country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, these are the sons and daughters of dinner ladies, bus drivers, and care workers on zero-hours contracts, and we should not forget the reality and background of those students. Let me say to the Minister, and to other hon. Members—particularly those who are chuntering from a sedentary position—that this is not scaremongering. This is a serious debate—

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

The debate was five years ago.

[Emma Reynolds]

There he goes again. This is a serious debate about the impact of the proposals on our poorest constituents. That debate should be taken seriously by the Minister and by Conservative Members. This is not just about participation; this is about fair access and about which university someone chooses to go to, if they have that first choice. Some of my constituents in Wolverhampton might not choose to apply to Oxford, Cambridge or even perhaps the University of Sussex, because it is too far away and will be too expensive. This is about the choices that the poorest children must now make, given the level of indebtedness that they will face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

That included arguments with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). But even with landslide majorities there was always a full debate and a vote in the House, whether they were abolishing student grants or, more wisely, reintroducing grants following the introduction of top-up fees.

This afternoon, these proposals will impact on 500,000 students from the poorest backgrounds. In my local university, the University of East London, that equates to about £30 million of financial support for students—gone. At my alma mater, the University of Cambridge, the figure is more like £9 million. If there is one thing we know about the higher education sector, it is that not only opportunity but financial support is unevenly distributed. It is completely unfair that students from the poorest backgrounds will now face a postcode lottery when it comes to determining how much non-repayable support they receive.

The very existence of student grants was won as a result of hard-fought negotiations. Student leaders argued that, if we were going to ask people to make a greater contribution, it was only fair that the poorest students received a non-repayable contribution. How must Conservative Members and the few remaining Liberal Democrats feel about the fact that when, under the coalition Government, the then higher education Minister justified the trebling of fees, they were told, “Don’t worry. We’ve got the national scholarship programme, student grants and the £21,000 threshold going up by inflation.” What has happened since? The national scholarship programme has been abandoned; the threshold frozen at £21,000; and now we see the abolition of student grants. We cannot trust a word that these people say, particularly when it comes to fair access to higher education and support for the most disadvantaged. It is an absolute disgrace.

I am proud of what the last Labour Government did to widen access and opportunity to people from working-class backgrounds. I was one of the beneficiaries, from the excellence in cities work that was done in schools right through to the opportunities provided through expanded places.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is doubtless equally proud of the fact that the Labour Government said that they would not introduce tuition fees, and then did; and said that they would not introduce top-up fees, and then did. Does he accept that he and others who said five years ago that the introduction of increased fees would lead to a reduction in those from poorer backgrounds going to university were wrong? They were wrong then, and we believe that they are wrong today.

[Wes Streeting]

I remember the debate here in 2003, and I think it was to the credit of the Government of the day that the introduction of higher fees did not come in until after a general election, when at least the voters could make their judgment on whether they wanted to re-elect a Labour Government, which they duly did.

So much has been said about participation numbers this afternoon. I am certainly not going to make prophecies of doom about participation, but we should bear in mind a few facts. First, there is the issue of equity. How can it possibly be justified that students from the poorest backgrounds graduate with the largest amount of debt? How can it possibly be fair that under these repayment mechanisms, the wealthiest graduates who go on to the most successful jobs will end up paying less over the course of their working career than people from middle and lower incomes? That cannot possibly be justified as fair. We should take seriously the evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies published in 2014 showing that a £1,000 increase in the maintenance grant led to a 3.95% increase in participation. Removing the grant does not necessarily mean that participation will plummet, but I think there is a risk that it could suffer.

There is a huge amount of complacency from this Government about the impact of higher tuition fees on applications to part-time routes and for mature students. It does not have to be that way; other choices are possible. We should look at what the Labour Government in Wales have done. They have not chosen to abolish student grants; they have kept those grants in place.

If the Tories want to talk about hard choices, how are they going to look the poorest students from the poorest backgrounds in the eye and explain why this Government continue to alleviate the tax burden on the wealthiest, while making the poorest pay the cost of their higher education? A 75% contribution to the cost of higher education is, by anyone’s estimation, too much, and there is not a single item in the Conservative manifesto that Government Members can point to in order to justify this outrageous attack on the poorest students.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman told us in his speech how hard he has worked. Given that he is from Cardiff and that he has such an accent, I can absolutely acknowledge that he is a very hard-working individual. He will know that a general election was fought following that decision being taken and before they were introduced.

We all know that the Chancellor prefers governing from the shadows, and this shameless betrayal of previous promises and the shabby manner in which this has been handled in Parliament bear all the hallmarks of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. Being young in Britain should be a time of opportunity—a time when opportunity knocks. Instead, we have the Chancellor introducing an opportunity tax. His proposals are an assault on aspiration, on opportunity and on those who want to get on in life. That is why we oppose them and also why the Welsh Government, under Labour First Minister, Carwyn Jones, is keeping maintenance grants. By the way, those who say that these proposals affect only England should think again—I say this to Welsh Conservative MPs as well: of the 30,000 students studying at Cardiff University, nearly 9,000 are from England.

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not wish to mislead the House, but he has just said that tuition fees were introduced not after the 1997 election, but after the following general election. That is not true. They were introduced in 1998. Having said that they would not introduce them, the Government started the process 12 weeks later.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point of debate, not a point of order for the Chair. We have very little time.

School Funding

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and, equally, to see so many colleagues from both sides of the House filling the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon. It shows the strength of feeling on fairer funding for schools and that many colleagues want to see a fair and just system.

I want to place on the record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for the debate. The issue has support from more than 110 colleagues from both sides of the House; only a fortnight ago they signed a letter to the Prime Minister championing fairer funding for schools.

The premise of fair school funding awarded in accordance with a rational formula assessed on the basis of pupil need is a simple one and, one might think, uncontroversial. That statement, however, falls a long way short of the reality in England. The Association of School and College Leaders has calculated that this year the 10 best-funded areas will receive an average schools block grant of £6,300 per pupil, compared with an average of only £4,200 per pupil in the 10 most poorly funded areas. For a typical secondary school of 920 students, that equates to a budget of £5.8 million in the best-funded areas and £3.9 million in the least well-funded areas—a difference of £1.9 million in a relatively small secondary school.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member on Loughborough (Nicky Morgan)? She is of the view that the existing formula is wrong, is unsustainable and needs to be changed, and she is consulting on that. Does he agree that the Government should be congratulated on being prepared to look at the matter? Furthermore, does he agree that Conservative Members seem to be pushing against a door that is, if not fully open, certainly ajar?

[Graham Stuart]

I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend met the Secretary of State. The delivery of fairer school funding was of course a manifesto undertaking by the Conservative party at the most recent general election and, I hope, played a part in securing the majority that our party enjoys in this Parliament.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, on the extremely skilful way in which he has run this campaign over the past few months and on the levels of support generated. I come from a county that is one of the worst-funded areas in the country, so I take his point, but does he share my view that things are made even worse when the effect of the tight local government settlement means that schools have to bear additional costs, such as for transport, as well as the unfair funding formula with which they are already landed?

[Graham Stuart]

That will have meaning in many rural constituencies. Separately, as my hon. Friend knows, the Rural Fair Share campaign on local government funding, which it is my pleasure to chair, shows up the great disparities. An interesting point about fair school funding is that the issue is not about rural and urban; it is an entirely arbitrary, random and grossly unfair settlement. If we look at the F40 group’s proposals, Barnsley would be the biggest gainer, Sunderland and Leeds would be gainers, and other areas might do less well.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I, too, add my voice to the congratulations on my hon. Friend’s superb campaigning over many years and on getting this number of people to the debate. May I emphasise that the issue is one of basic fairness? Children in similar circumstances wherever they live in the country should get the same resources from the taxpayer. The sooner we move towards a national funding formula the better.

[Graham Stuart]

As I said, the issue should be uncontroversial, but because the discrepancies are so great any change will mean that money is removed from some schools and some areas. The losers will, understandably, fight and try to find an argument with which to defend what is fundamentally indefensible, because there is no rationale for it. I will go into that later in my speech.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that one of the stark differences between rural and urban is shown in a recent Public Accounts Committee report? It identified that funding for deprived pupils can vary by £3,000 per pupil because of the existing formula.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows, from going around schools in his constituency, that when it comes to the sort of equipment that our schools have—whether books or insulation—and the facilities available for children, they are significantly inferior to those in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is simply not fair for the education of our children.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. He makes the point succinctly.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Schools in my constituency, from All Saints’ academy in the west to Balcarras in the east, are facing significant pressures from rising wage bills and pension obligations. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need clarity not only on the principle of fairer funding, but on the programme? Only by knowing the timeline can excellent schools in Cheltenham and elsewhere budget for a secure future.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. Of course it is difficult at a time of flat cash and increasing financial strain to carry out redistribution, but it is when cash is flat, and no additional above-inflation increase is coming, that the discrepancy between areas becomes more important. Although it is politically more challenging to redistribute when there is a tight cash settlement—that is why it is so important to show the weight of opinion in the House—morally and educationally it is more important to bring that about. That is why we have pushed so hard, and I am grateful that the Government have listened and are prepared to seize the nettle.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right; there is not only rural-urban disparity, but urban-urban disparity. Two wards can be side by side, with identical socio-economic profiles, but have a big difference in funding. The fair funding situation can be aggravated if a pupil moves from one ward across the border into the identical ward, because they do not bring the additional money with them. Unlike in health, the money—apart from the pupil premium—does not follow the pupil.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That, too, has been a feature of the system for a long time. It is, in a way, a separate issue. If a child from Hull, perhaps from a deprived area, moves to a school in my constituency, which neighbours Hull, rightly or wrongly the additional funding given for that child will not follow the pupil who crosses the border to a school perhaps only a quarter of a mile away—for example, in Bilton on the edge of Hull in my constituency. That, too, is an indefensible feature of the system.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) hit the nail on the head when he said that the issue is one of fairness. We have heard about the disparities, which are nowhere more stark than in a constituency such as mine. I represent a seat next to the urban area of Manchester, and in Macclesfield the discrepancies are huge. That causes real angst not only among teachers, but among parents and pupils. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) agree?

[Graham Stuart]

I do agree. As a result, the children of a multi-millionaire in one constituency or area receive more funding for their education than do the children attracting a pupil premium and from one of the poorest families in a neighbouring area. That is indefensible. The discrepancies are so enormous as to require change, notwithstanding the political challenges and difficulties of doing so.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

There would appear to be consensus on the Government side, and perhaps on the Opposition side, that enough is enough. This is the third Westminster Hall debate I have attended on this issue since I became an MP five years ago—the first was in April 2012—and at each debate it has been agreed, including by the Government, that this had to be fixed. If the door is ajar, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) said earlier, there would appear to be a wedge in it that is still to be removed. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must hear from the Minister about timing and not just about whether he agrees that the principle is wrong?

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right and I hope and expect that we will hear from the Minister on when the House will get the detail about what the Government propose to do.

To bring to life the example I mentioned of a relatively small secondary school with 920 pupils, the £1.9 million difference between two such schools in different areas is enough to pay the total costs—salaries and pension contributions—of 40 full-time teachers. That huge funding gap cannot be justified.

The gap is not explained by pupil deprivation. People might think that the system is designed to give more to areas of concentrated deprivation, whether urban or other. In 2011, Department for Education analysis showed that a school with 43% of pupils eligible for free school meals can receive £665 less funding per pupil than a school with less than 10% eligible pupils. Therefore, a school that serves the most deprived, as opposed to one that serves a remarkably affluent population, can receive hundreds of pounds less per pupil simply because of where it is rather than the nature and character of the children concerned, let alone their needs. Given the flat cash settlement for schools since that time, those figures will not have altered significantly.

I will give another example of the disparity that can exist between authorities. A secondary school pupil in York who receives the pupil premium, which is worth £935 this year, still has less spent on his or her education than an equivalent pupil in Birmingham who is not eligible for the pupil premium. Therefore, the child of the wealthy entrepreneur or lawyer in Birmingham receives more than the child from the poorest home in York.

Colleagues have mentioned the cross-border issue. The same applies in the relationship between Nottingham and the county that surrounds it: a 13-year-old pupil in the city gets more for their education than a disadvantaged child from the county next door, even though that child receives a pupil premium. Indeed, it is worse than that: a child who is in care in a certain area of the country and receives the pupil premium plus, worth £1,900, to reflect their needs, will still receive less than the child of a wealthy lawyer in Islington. That cannot be right. It needs to be fixed in a timely way and that is what we are gathered here today to tell the Minister.

We might think that if the disparity does not reflect deprivation, perhaps it reflects underlying performance in the system such as the quality of education in the schools, with more money going to help those areas doing less well. However, that would be wrong. Some of the best performing areas, notably in London, continue to receive thousands of pounds more per child than areas that are really struggling with education outcomes. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea receives 39% more funding per pupil under the schools block grant than my own area, the East Riding of Yorkshire, which loses out badly under the current funding arrangements.

The East Riding struggles with many of the challenges identified by Ofsted Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw in rural and coastal areas of England, where it can be hard to recruit and retain high-quality teachers, and partnerships between schools can founder because of the distance between them. We could take a coastal town and ask, “Why can’t we replicate the London challenge in East Yorkshire?” but anyone who drew a circle around Withernsea in my constituency to find all the schools that might be able to provide mutual support would find that half the circle was in the sea and the other half took in a swathe of rural East Yorkshire. That does not create easy conditions in which to build the collaborative regimes that have made such a difference in London and that is a further reason why such areas need to be fairly funded.

Contrary to any lazy misconceptions that areas such as the East Riding are rural idylls, there are areas of deep deprivation. Withernsea ranked in the top 10% of most deprived areas in England on both the income and employment indices of multiple deprivation in 2010. In a devastating speech in 2013, Sir Michael Wilshaw warned that

“many of the disadvantaged children performing least well in school can be found in leafy suburbs, market towns or seaside resorts”.

The East Riding also faces the additional costs associated with needing to run small, rural schools because of its geography. There is a limit to how far we can expect children to be bused, so it needs to run small schools, which are necessarily more expensive. It therefore has higher natural costs, and greater challenges in delivering high-quality education.

On top of that, the East Riding targeted as much funding as possible at its schools. Various blocks make up the dedicated schools grant, and historically the East Riding chose to stick most of the money for special educational needs in the schools block—it was entirely free to do so. It said to schools, “Use your budget to deliver that.” There was practically nothing in the high needs block, because that money had been put into the schools block. When the dedicated schools grant came in, which was based on what had been spent at that time and how it was accounted for, the East Riding received among the lowest levels of SEN funding in the whole country. That was not because there was a lack of challenge, but because of how the accounting had been done.

Our high needs funding is now the lowest in England, so the East Riding has had to move funding over to try to compensate for that. The situation was unfair already. Then we moved to the £390 million the Government came forward with last year to help lower-funded authorities, but that was distributed on the basis of the schools block, one of the three blocks that make up the dedicated schools grant, and as my local authority had its money in the schools block and not the high needs block, it ended up receiving a very much smaller share of the cake.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House, and I look forward to all the contributions. He mentioned the £390 million that the Government put into schools’ funding to help make the funding formula fairer. I want to clarify that that has been done twice: it was done for 2014-15 and it is being done for 2015-16. We are taking, and have already taken, steps to make the funding formula fairer. In response to the point about timing made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), that shows our intent.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister. I am also grateful for the £390 million, which was a significant amount to find to help the lowest-funded authorities. A method for distribution had to be found and, under his predecessor, a decision was taken on that, which led to certain discrepancies, though overall there was certainly an improvement.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Bury St Edmonds and the broader area of Suffolk were grateful for that uplift. However, it took us from 121st to 116th. We are still £260 a pupil behind the national average, which means we are very far behind the schools with the highest funding.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.

[David Mowat]

The Minister mentioned my point, so I want to come back on that. While the £390 million was welcome, it was not a change to the funding formula. We still do not have a national funding formula and, in fact, that £390 million affected Warrington much more poorly than the better-funded Westminster. After the £390 million, Warrington remains 11th from bottom of the 152 authorities. We will come back to that.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is why we need a whole new look at this and a national funding formula. As a result of issues relating to the blocks that colleagues may or may not have followed—it is complicated—after the £390 million, the East Riding became the lowest-funded local authority in the whole country. Members can imagine the gratitude my constituents felt: the then Chairman of the Education Committee and leading member of the campaign for fairer funding had somehow dragged the East Riding from being the third or fourth lowest-funded authority to the very lowest. I had to put my hand up and say, a little plaintively, “Well, we did get £1.8 million more.” But relatively speaking, we fell to the bottom. We can all see why people were not very happy, and they would like to know that there was a rationale. Someone has to come bottom, but let there be a rationale for that.

If we cannot develop a rationale, we should put people on the same money. In the Parliament before last, the all-party group on rural services conducted an inquiry on health and education funding. Professor Mervyn Stone, emeritus professor of statistics at Oxford University—a marvellous man with a beard like a biblical prophet’s—said, “If you move to equal funding per pupil or per patient across the country, you’d have something fundamentally unfair, because of the variety of costs”—I hope I am not unfairly putting words into his mouth—but we would still have something far fairer than any of the structures that anyone has come up with so far, let alone implemented in Government. Equal funding would be fairer.

Our call today is not for perfection but for a significant move to close the gaps. It is worth saying to colleagues who represent London seats that some areas of London—a few, admittedly—would benefit from a new national funding formula. Under the recommendations submitted to Government by the F40 campaign, which is the group of lowest-funded local authorities, there would still be, on average, more than £1,000 more per pupil in London than in the rest of the country. Take a class of 30. Whether it is in London or Warrington, there will be a classroom, kids and a teacher, and there might be a support assistant. A school in London will have £30,000 more a year to run that. Costs are higher in London, but not that much higher. It has to be right to move to something that is fairer to everyone.

Before the debate, I asked headteachers in Beverley and Holderness about the challenges they face. I will quote some of the problems that they highlighted. One said:

“We reduced staffing by reducing the number of cover supervisors and downsizing a number of teaching subject areas.”

Another said:

“Fewer sporting competitions—we can’t afford to pay for transport to away fixtures”—

imagine the cost of doing so in a sparsely populated rural area. Another said:

“Provision is stretched and children receive less intervention time”.

Another said:

“Resources are not being replaced or updated as we would like. The school guided reading scheme has been on the subject leaders’ development plan for the last 2 years and it is something that we cannot afford.”

That is the reality on the ground in schools in my constituency.

Those problems are not unique to the East Riding of Yorkshire—colleagues from up and down the country will testify to that, as is evidenced by the fact that there are so many of them here today. That is why the F40 group of local authorities, for which I serve as a vice-chairman, has come together to make the case for fairer funding. I pay tribute to the F40 campaign. It is led by Leicestershire Councillor Ivan Ould, who along with other F40 representatives has campaigned with great determination for almost 20 years. It is to the credit of the Government and Ministers that they are now listening to the campaign and are going to act.

I know colleagues will want me to say that we all owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). He was a tireless champion of the issue in the previous Parliament, and I know he continues to be highly supportive in his new role as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State. It is a delight to see him here.

Progress is being made, in the form of the extra £390 million that was allocated as a down payment towards fairer funding in 2014, as well as through the Government’s manifesto commitment to make that extra resource part of the baseline funding settlement. The Minister said that there have been two parts to this: last year’s £390 million and this year’s; I know it is going to be every year from now on.

[Mr Gyimah]

It is in the baseline.

[Graham Stuart]

Listeners might have thought that it might not appear next year, and I would not want anyone to have that misapprehension.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is paying tribute to many people for their work on this issue, but no one has done more than he has, so I pay tribute to him, as I am sure they would. Derbyshire too is disadvantaged by the budget. He mentioned the £390 million and used the term “down payment”. It is pleasing that the money is now in the baseline, and that the budget is there, but it is still only a down payment on solving the problem, and not the solution. Does he agree?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Before Mr Stuart continues, I remind him that he has spoken for nearly 25 minutes. He has been very generous in taking interventions, but a huge number of colleagues wish to take part in the debate.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to you for that timely reminder, Mr Walker, although I find that I am horribly few pages into my speech. I will have to truncate it.

The clock is ticking. We want to hear from the Minister about when we will have proposals for consultation. The gap between the highest and lowest-funded local authorities has grown steadily. Let us say that one local authority is on £6,000 per pupil and another is on around £4,000; if we give 2% to each, the cash gap will widen—that is obvious, really. That cannot be allowed to continue.

I am aware of how many other colleagues are ready to speak, but I will say just a little more. I have touched on how a fairer system would affect different areas. Barnsley would see the largest funding gain if the F40 proposal were introduced, and other deprived councils, including Leeds, Doncaster, Knowsley, Gateshead, Sheffield and Sunderland, would all make triple-figure gains per pupil under that proposal. A new formula would also restore fairness for the more rural counties of England, such as the East Riding, which failed to benefit from new Labour largesse.

A redistribution of resources is both right and fair. It should probably be phased in—I would say over three years—to mitigate the impact on those who will lose out. Russell Hobby, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, supports fairer funding. He is right when he says:

“There is no possible way to arrive at a fairer formula without taking money away from schools already facing cuts.”

He is running a members organisation, but has taken that on board. It is brave for a trade union leader with members in schools across the country to accept the logic and say, “Some schools will have to lose, but that has to happen for us to have fair funding.” If he and Brian Lightman at the Association of School and College Leaders are prepared to face their members, some of whom will lose out, and say that a different settlement is right, surely Ministers should grasp the nettle and make sure it happens. There is no way that we can defend a settlement under which there is a gap of more than £2,000 per pupil between the best-funded and least-funded 10 authorities.

I am delighted to see so many colleagues in the Chamber, and to see the Minister in his place. I know he has worked tirelessly on this issue in a difficult funding environment. We all look forward to hearing what he will do to bring about an end to this inequity, which has gone on too long.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for his persistence. I also thank the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). Similarly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who fought hard in the last Parliament for fairer education funding, and who continues to do so in this one.

All of us seem to have been fighting for a change for years. I have huge faith in the Minister—I really have. In “Yes Minister”, one of the characters says, “That will be a very brave decision, Minister,” and we want this Minister to make a very brave decision. The £390 million in funding that was introduced in the last Parliament, and which is going into the base budget, is very welcome. In the end, however, it will not cure the underlying problem. If we just put a bit of money in each time, we will not alter the league table at all. Devon went from fifth from the bottom to sixth from the bottom. While that is welcome, we want a huge amount more to be done.

My constituency, which is by far the most beautiful in the country—not that I am biased—contains a huge number of small schools, which have federated. The headteachers share many schools. There are great teachers and great classroom assistants. People are working really hard, and they deliver a very good education. However, if they can deliver a good education, why are some other areas getting so much more money? Why is it fair for things to be like that? Why can some of that money not be shared with other areas?

Local government funding seems to be one of those issues, like education, that is so complex that Governments over the years have decided—almost with fear and trepidation—not to alter it, because that would cause so many problems. However, we have to alter it; otherwise, we will not deliver on what we have promised.

[Graham Stuart]

I would like my hon. Friend to know that, when I started campaigning for fairer funding in local government and education, I had blond hair. I have been doing this not just for eight years—I first raised the F40 in 2005. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to be courageous when they come forward with proposals? They need to be ambitious and really lift authorities that have been disadvantaged for too long. At the end of this, we have to have the courage to do something significant and level the playing field, albeit that it will take time to bring these things in.

[Neil Parish]

I am glad to see that my hon. Friend still actually has his hair, albeit that it is white. Seriously, though, all of us here—there are 30 Members here, and there were more when we started the debate, on a one-line Whip on a Thursday—have been fighting hard on this issue. What I want to tell the Minister is that we need to be brave enough about funding. We need some sort of siphon to take money from the top and spread it gradually to the bottom, or the anomaly will never be put right. The current situation is wrong for those of us whose constituents have high aspirations but who need more funding to raise them even higher. We need that to be dealt with. All our constituents pay the same taxes, so why should their children not benefit? Other hon. Members have mentioned how schools have great parents, who raise money to help; and that is all very good, but, as I have said, it will not deal with the funding problem.

My constituency has further education colleges in Axminster and Honiton, and Petroc college in Tiverton, and all receive reduced funding. If we have aspirations for young people going from primary through secondary and on to FE or university, the education must be provided. What the Government are doing about apprenticeships is great, but good colleges are necessary if the apprenticeships are to be of real value. All those things fit together.

Tiverton high school is on a flood plain, and in 2012 it was nearly flooded. We need to find funding so that it can be rebuilt on higher land—land is available. All that takes time, I know, but we must ensure that we are treated equally. Our fear is that we are not being treated equally. Since the general election the west country is virtually all Conservative—apart from the little patch of red that is the constituency of the right hon. Member for Exeter, which we understand. My point is that the Government have a lot of responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) mentioned, as other Members have, the Government’s commitment to put the situation right. I reiterate my huge confidence in the Minister and I will invite him to Devon to see what a great job our schools are doing, and what refurbishment and extra funding they need. The Government will settle the matter, and put it right. Again I ask the Minister: please, be brave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on securing this debate.

Thanks to the good education that I received, I know that 5 November is quite an ominous day to be giving a speech in Parliament, but thankfully I am not a king and it is not nearly four hundred years ago, so perhaps we will be safe today.

It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) talk about aiming for mid-table mediocrity in the premier league; I think that at the moment Torquay would be happy to be in the league.

Coming on to the serious point, I am delighted that this debate has been secured so that we can talk again about the unfairness in the current funding system. That is why I am particularly delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) here today. I know that he will be noting down every point made today, given the impact of this issue on his own constituency and his own lengthy record of campaigning about it.

I will focus on the fact that there is a need for a fairer settlement and a fairer funding system overall. It is tempting to get into Torbay versus Tower Hamlets, or Torbay versus Plymouth, but for me this issue is actually about having a fundamentally fairer system for the allocation of resources, and not a system based on history. In 10 or 20 years’ time, thanks to the massive success of the long-term economic plan for the south-west, Torbay might have become one of the most prosperous parts of the country, so the formula may change and changes made now might not help us in the future. However, I would like to see change, because this is fundamentally about fairness—allocating today’s resources to today’s priorities, and not funding according to historical council spending patterns or considerations that might have been relevant once but are now distant.

What particularly brought this situation to light was the Public Accounts Committee report on the pupil premium, which discussed the fact that the funding for deprived pupils with exactly the same needs can vary by up to £3,000 per pupil. That is a staggering difference and, as our report concluded, such variations make it much harder to bring effective strategies to bear.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the Minister whom we are challenging today? It is delightful to see the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) representing Her Majesty’s Opposition, as today is also an opportunity for the Labour party to set out that it is committed to fairer funding and accepts that there will be the need for redistribution; it will be painful, but it is right that it should happen.

[Kevin Foster]

Yes indeed, and let us be clear that the council that would benefit the most from the F40 proposals is Barnsley. If one was looking for an example of an area that one would have thought the Opposition would be committed to wanting to do something for, it would be that one.

For me, this is not about wealthy parts of the country versus deprived parts of the country. There are parts of my constituency that are quite wealthy, but they are the older parts—the places that are less likely to have young families with children going through school. The areas in my constituency that are the most deprived and that have the most challenges are the ones that have the most young families with children going through school. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) make the point that education is the ladder out of deprivation.

[Kevin Foster]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We need up-to-date information and an up-to-date funding formula. Let us be candid: a hundred years ago, Liverpool was a booming port that was producing a tax surplus. Now, the situation there is the other way round, because of changes in industry. It would be strange to hear arguments that we should base funding today on what the economy was like a hundred years ago. Equally, if we do not change the formula and do not move on, people can find themselves living in areas that were once deprived that still receive extra support even though they are no longer deprived.

This is about making sure that pupils are fairly funded, because even in the most prosperous parts of this country there will be families who are struggling and who need the ladder of opportunity that good, solid education provides, so that they can get the jobs and the skills, and share in the aspiration that many of us have.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way to me again. It is also important that people outside this place do not think that this issue is about stopping recognition of deprivation. The pupil premium exists precisely to meet the needs of those in deprivation, but we must ensure that there is not double-counting of deprivation and that we have a system that is fair to every child, wherever they live.

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend that what we want is the funding following the need and not following the postcode that people happen to live in. That is why the pupil premium was introduced and it is why the PAC was right to highlight a £3,000 difference in pupil premium funding based not on need or the type of education that a school has to provide or the facilities it needs, but on the different postcodes in which pupils live. Nobody feels better off because they move from one postcode to another; nobody says, “I’m feeling hugely better off because I’ve moved a couple of hundred metres down the road and I’ve crossed a municipal boundary.” People feel better off if there is actually more money in their pocket and more income in their household. It is right that our funding formula should follow the need and not historical funding allocations.

That is not to say that schools in my area are not doing well. There are schools, such as Curledge Street academy and Ellacombe academy, that do extremely well and that have really turned around, partly due to the academies programme during the last few years. They deliver excellent results and give students the ladder of opportunity that we all want to give students. We want to send a message to them that a fairer funding scheme is on its way.

That is why the Government’s actions over the last five years are very welcome. They have made a difference. I accept that things cannot change overnight, but what we want to see is what the PAC called for, which is a timetable to resolve this issue, which we can then use to move forward.

This is not about rural versus urban, or about the north of England versus the south of England. We can see that in the diversity of constituencies that are represented in the debate today, ranging from Stockport to the south of Devon. This is about fairness, and having resources allocated on the basis of need and not on the basis of historical anomaly. That is why it is right that we have had this debate today; that is why I hope the Government will now take things forward and find a solution; and that is why I am pleased to have spoken in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

The Minister must have different figures from me, because across Scotland we are seeing the attainment gap reduce and pupils from more disadvantaged backgrounds being more successful in accessing higher and further education than ever before.

One of the great things this afternoon has been the positive language used about the teaching profession, which is reassuring to hear. Often teachers hear phrases like “failing schools” and “poor teaching”, and they end up being blamed for a lot of society’s problems, rather than credited for the work they do in trying to tackle the very same problems. I am reassured by what I have heard, and I suggest to all Members here today that they continue to use that positive language, because it makes such a difference to teachers.

The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness talked about flat cash and not wanting to increase the education budget. I would argue with that. Governments have difficult choices to make, and they decide where money is spent. If education is a priority and our young people are valued for the contribution they can make to the country, we should be investing properly in education.

[Graham Stuart]

It is worth putting on record that with the number of pupils expected to increase by 7% in England over this Parliament, there will be a 7% increase in cash terms in the schools budget. That is in the context of a need for a big readjustment across Government spending to take us into surplus and not to give the very children we are trying to educate further debt to shoulder in years to come.

[Carol Monaghan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He spoke about the discrepancy between neighbouring schools in neighbouring areas, which was a real eye-opener for me. We do not have those discrepancies in Scotland, but I imagine they impact on parental choice on the schools they wish to send their children to, which is an issue.

The right hon. Member for Exeter talked about further education underfunding. We have to consider that education does not always stop on leaving school. Different pathways are open to our young people in education. For many young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, further education offers a pathway for them to continue their education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan]

The right hon. Gentleman raises some points that have been raised time and again. Difficult choices had to be made on college places. Places were cut—places that were not leading to employability and places that did not give our young people the best chances. Tough choices had to be made, and places that led to employability were protected. The overall number of college places has not changed; the range of courses may be different.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned attainment dropping since 2012. It is interesting that we see attainment dropping at the same time as austerity was biting. We cannot separate attainment and poverty. The two are inextricably linked. As soon as we see austerity, we see issues with our children.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

[Carol Monaghan]

No, I am fed up of giving way. [Laughter.]

I have already mentioned the targeting of pupils in deprived areas, which is really important. Early intervention and the Scottish attainment challenge, which is supported by a £100 million Scottish attainment fund, are targeted at primary school pupils in deprived areas to ensure they are able to reach their potential.

The hon. Members for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) talked about all the extras that may go when education funding is tight. There was mention of outdoor education and parents raising money. Another issue is that teachers end up buying resources for the school. Teachers’ salaries are not at the levels they should be, and if they have to eat into their salaries to buy resources, that is a huge issue, so we need to think about that.

Various Members mentioned teachers’ pay. Again, this is another fascinating point for me. The hon. Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), to name but a few, mentioned issues with attracting highly qualified, good teachers to their schools. In Scotland, there is parity for teachers’ pay across all local authorities and schools and pay is set by the General Teaching Council for Scotland in collaboration with the unions, so we do not have the same issue. A similar situation in England might make a huge difference to some of the problems that have been discussed.

I am almost finished, but I want to pick up on something that the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said. He described his constituency as the most beautiful in the country. Although I have not been there, I accept that that is true in his country, but in my country, there are many more beautiful constituencies.

As education is a devolved matter, I have suggestions, not questions. First, ensure that teachers are valued and that they understand that value by continuing to use positive rhetoric, and by ensuring that wages are set at a level standard across the country. Intervention for pupils with particular difficulties, who are disadvantaged by poverty or background, should continue. If that needs funding, it should be funded. If the Government are truly interested in ensuring a level playing field, not only across the country but for pupils from different backgrounds, I suggest that reinstating the education maintenance allowance for 16 to 18-year-olds from deprived backgrounds would make a huge difference in allowing them to remain in education and to access further and higher education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

Before the election, Labour also promised to introduce a review of school funding. We want to support the Government as they move forward with their review, but we are clear that funding has to be fair and just. It cannot simply be a recycling or shifting of existing resources within the system from those with greater needs to those with less great needs. One or two people said that children with the same levels of need must receive the same levels of funding. We support that in principle, but we want to see new money in the system.

The basic inequalities in the system go back a long way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter was absolutely right when he said that its roots lie in the old standard spending assessment. I read the Hansard from the previous debate just before the election. The then shadow schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), said that the formula was known only to three people and

“one was dead, one had gone mad and the other one had forgotten”.—[Official Report, 10 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 260.]

I am not sure where I fit into that, but there are advantages to being around the education system for a long time and having some degree of shared memory of all this.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pat Glass]

I will just finish this point and then I will be happy to give way.

Historically, local authorities that prioritised education and spent above standard spending assessment—sometimes a great deal above SSA—were often metropolitan authorities that had their funding simply rolled forward into the schools block of the dedicated schools grant, and those authorities, often counties, that spent at or under—sometimes significantly under SSA—had their underspends rolled forward into the schools block of the SSA. Those are the roots of why we are where we are today.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way and I congratulate her again on her post. She said she would expect new funding to come into the system. Was she ruling out redistribution? It is politically difficult. The previous Labour Government did not want to go there: although many Labour areas would benefit, perhaps more would lose. I recognise the political difficulty, but surely similar children in similar schools in similar circumstances should get similar funding. If we accept the principle and accept that it is wrong now, we have to accept redistribution. Does she accept that principle and support those of us who, like the Minister, will have to take the difficult decisions?

[Pat Glass]

I will address that point as I make my argument.

It has been made clear today that however we came to be where we are, we all now agree that pupils with similar or the same needs throughout the country should not receive such different levels of funding. It is less clear how to resolve that, and it will not be easy to achieve. The Prime Minister has decided not to protect the entire education budget in real terms. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has highlighted that over the course of this Parliament per-pupil funding will fall for the first time since the mid-1990s, which will make it that much harder for the Government to deliver a genuinely fair funding system.

The Secretary of State told the House last week that the Government remain committed to implementing their manifesto pledge to make funding fairer. She told us that she will protect the schools budget, which she has promised will rise as pupil numbers increase. The IFS says that that is not going to happen, but we will give her the benefit of the doubt. She also highlighted the progress she has made in providing the additional £390 million this year for those areas with the lowest levels of funding, and said that that will continue next year.

But that is the rhetoric. As the hon. Members for Beverley and Holderness and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) said, the reality in schools is very different. According to the latest National Union of Teachers survey, 60% of school representatives stated that teaching posts have been lost in their school; more than 60% stated that classroom support posts had been lost; and 55% stated that other support posts had been lost. Nearly 60% reported larger class sizes; more than 65% reported a reduction in spending on books and equipment; and nearly 45% stated that teachers were paying more for materials than they were previously. Of particular concern to the Members who mentioned it in their speeches will be the fact that 50% reported cuts in support to pupils with special educational needs. Respondents also noted a greater reliance on non-qualified teachers and teaching assistants.

Although we all agree with the principle that pupils with similar levels of need should receive broadly similar levels of funding, the Minister should reflect on some of the very real concerns that Members have raised today when he is considering the matter and ensure that any further changes are not only fair but just. Like the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), I am interested to hear how it is going to happen, how it will be paid for, and what the time scales will be. I want to hear the what, the when and the how.

Schools are grateful for the additional £390 million allocation, but we must be clear that it is not new money and has come largely from a 25% cut in funding to the 18-plus pupil-funding stream and from the massive cuts we have seen to further education funding, with further massive cuts to come. Pupils who access FE or remain in school over the age of 18 are often pupils with SEN, vulnerable children, or children who simply learn more slowly and need an extra year or two to get to the level of their peers. They are the children closest to being NEET. It is neither fair nor just to take funding from that group of children to distribute across the rest of the sector, and it is not fair to take funding from other less well-off parts of the education sector. We particularly do not want to see another smash and grab on the FE sector.

I agree with fair and transparent funding in principle, but I repeat that new money is required. Funding must be fair to other parts of the system, especially those parts supporting children with SEN, looked-after children and other vulnerable children. It needs to be fair to the higher education sector, and particularly to the FE sector, given what has already happened. It must be fair to rural areas with small schools, which have been mentioned by a number of Members. My constituency is rural and has a school with just 12 children. The very existence of such small schools would be threatened by a system that makes no financial allowance for size. There will have to be transitional arrangements to ensure that no area or school loses out heavily.

I want to give the Minister the benefit of my experience, which I feel I will be giving him quite a lot in the months to come. I have a little time, so I will give him two examples. I remember being involved in a local authority where we wanted to change the funding system to make allowances for children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. We made what we understood to be a small tweak to the system that resulted in a big change, with funding going to a school that was educating the children of the directors and senior managers of a Japanese car factory. They clearly did not need the money. The Minister should be aware that there can be unintended consequences.

More importantly, I do not know whether other Members remember, but in around 2005, schools started to scream that their local authorities were not handing over funding—that it was being top-sliced. The Blair Government at the time responded by naming and shaming local authorities, which then started to scream that it was unfair and was not happening. Someone had the bright idea that it was SEN funding: “SEN funding has gone up massively; that’s what’s causing this.” There was an investigation, and it turned out that an accountant in the Treasury had tweaked a tiny bit of the formula here, which had a massive impact over there. Whatever happens, the Minister must be clear that the changes are properly consulted on; that we know exactly who will be the winners and losers, and by how much; that they are piloted; and that there are transitional arrangements over a period of time.

The Chancellor and the Minister are in real difficulty. Perhaps Government Members did not see, but the Secretary of State’s face was a picture when the Prime Minister promised to continue the infant free school meals programme at PMQs last week. We hear a lot every week about the promise of 30 hours of free childcare, but that is already under-funded by £l billion. I have sympathy for the Minister, because I have been in his position, albeit to a lesser extent. I have been the person who has had to deliver good and outstanding services, but who had to balance the budget amid all the cries for additional money.

I ask every Member present who has called for fairer funding for schools to remember where the last tranche of funding came from—a smash and grab on FE. Every one of us has an FE college in our constituency. We know that they have been hit massively already and are facing a further 24% cut in funding. Our colleges have been more than decimated by cuts, and we do not want to see more. All Members present will want to see a new funding system that is fair and just to all children and all sectors. With that, I am happy to sit down and let the Minister try to square the financial circle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has to be a referendum for a council tax increase of more than 1.99%. We are talking about how central Government deal with revenue funding for schools. We have got to the point where schools’ capital needs are based on need. If the schools in a constituency have serious problems, we have a thorough process for identifying their needs and allocating funding appropriately, but we do not have a similar process on the revenue-funding side.

It is patently unfair that Knowsley receives nearly £750 less per pupil than Wandsworth, given that more pupils in Knowsley are entitled to free school meals. It is unfair that a secondary pupil with low prior attainment would attract more than £2,000 in Birmingham but only £35 in Darlington. In four local authorities they would not attract any funding at all. That is not right. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) spoke very clearly about that injustice.

In the previous Parliament, we took a big step. To those who say that the Government should be brave, I say that we have been brave. In an era of austerity, we invested £400 million to help level the playing field.

[Graham Stuart]

The £390 million is in its second year, and that will be the baseline. Will the Minister consider looking at the allocation again, because only a little more than half of it went to the lowest-funded authorities? If those that should not have had it have only recently received it, their pain in losing it will be less. The £390 million could be repurposed to lift up the lowest-funded authorities together. That would remove the outliers, even before we get to the national funding formula.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I agree with the hon. Member for North West Durham that this is a complicated area. What happened with the £390 million is that local authorities whose spending was low on the high needs block but high on the schools funding formula did not see the full benefit, because the £390 million was allocated purely on the basis of schools funding. That means that any reform in this area has to take into account the different blocks of the dedicated schools grant: schools funding, high needs and early years. Some local authorities shift money among those different budgets, so we must look at this in the round.

Let me return to the difference that the £400 million has made. Buckinghamshire received a further £80 million and Cambridgeshire received more than £23 million, or £311 for every pupil. Bury, Surrey, Shropshire, Salford and more than 60 other authorities benefited from additional funding for their schools. Money was not being shuffled into Conservative areas from other local authorities. The beneficiaries of the £400 million, which is now the baseline, are underfunded local authorities. We looked at underfunding based on characteristics; we did not pick an arbitrary number.

[Graham Stuart]

Westminster was a beneficiary, was it not? I may have got that wrong. Clearly, the money was not always going to the lowest-funded authorities. Only a little more than half went to the lowest-funded authorities. There is a real opportunity to look at this again.

[Mr Gyimah]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are having this debate because the Government want to go further than £390 million. The changes in some hon. Members’ constituencies over the past 10 years have been significant. In Dorset, the funding schools receive does not reflect the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals, even though that proportion has almost doubled. In Lincolnshire—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—the proportion has doubled, but the funding has not changed at all. In other areas, the number of children eligible for free school meals has gone down by 40%, but the authority still receives the same amount of funding. The distribution of funding today does not reflect the needs of our children, so it has to be changed.

It is widely recognised that the impact of the distribution is hugely unfair, as many hon. Members have said today. A child who goes to school in Trafford will attract £4,228, but in next-door Manchester they will attract £5,081. At the extremes, Wokingham—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is no longer in his place—receives £4,151 for every school pupil, while Tower Hamlets receives £7,000, or 70% more. Of course, we have to ensure that Tower Hamlets receives the funding it needs, based on the characteristics of its pupils, to enable its schools to do their job, but a discrepancy of 70% or more shows that rooting the funding formula in the historical allocation has allowed things to get out of kilter.

As I said, we have made some progress, and many schools that are doing an excellent job are benefiting. I want to draw hon. Members’ attention to York, because my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) is here. It is one of the lowest-funded authorities in the country, yet 86% of its primary pupils and 93% of its secondary pupils are in good or outstanding schools. I congratulate the teachers in York on the excellent work they are doing. However, schools in York could do even more to help us in our mission to build a world-class education system if their funding matched the schools’ and pupils’ needs.

A system in which a school can get 50% more money for providing the same education to the same pupils just by moving from Barnsley to Hackney is not fair to schools, parents or children. To be fair to taxpayers at a time of austerity, we need to ensure that we get the most out of every pound we spend on our schools. Although we have protected the schools budget overall, we will not make the most of it until it is targeted where it is needed.

[Graham Stuart]

Perhaps the Minister is about to move on to what I am going to ask him. Can he set out the principles that will be used, so that we have some idea of the parameters that will be used to determine allocation? This will be politically challenging, so it is important that the terms on which it is done carry the widest possible support across the House.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his third intervention so far. The good news is that there is consensus on the need for reform, and support for how we plan to get there. Devising the new system will be a big, difficult job. There is no other way of describing it. We are being encouraged to move quickly, but also to listen; the best thing to do as we set out our proposals, soon after the spending review, is consult carefully and widely with local authorities and schools. That will be our approach.

Also, I received the letter sent to the Prime Minister from over 100 Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

What I can say on timing is that, whatever the changes, schools need enough time to adjust and plan; I have heard that from a lot of schools. That will guide us in implementing any reforms.

[Graham Stuart]

2017-18?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. What a delight this is! It was 10 years ago when I first asked a question about F40 funding to a Labour Minister, and I got a singularly inadequate reply. It was in March 2006 when I got my first debate on this subject. I called for an urgent debate in January 2007, and secured one in May 2007. This has been going on for a long, long time. The Minister and the Government are committed to delivering fair funding for our schools; that is long overdue and very welcome.

I think colleagues would like to hear more about the principles; we will perhaps do so when the Minister comes forward early in the new year—certainly by the end of January—with proposals to be consulted on.

[Mr Gyimah]

No timings.

[Graham Stuart]

We need more on the timing, because while consulting widely and seeking consensus is credible, the Government are committed to this. It does not require consensus; it requires the implementation of the manifesto promise. Seeking consensus is entirely right, but requiring it is a different matter altogether.

Then there is the element of ambition. How far are the Government prepared to go? I think it was a Treasury official who said, years ago, “Minister, the people you make happy, you never make as happy as the people you make unhappy, unhappy.” That is the problem. When we finally get the proposals, we and our constituents will grunt and say, “About time,” but there has to be redistribution; it is unfortunate that the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), was not prepared to say that. As it is, there has been a 7% increase in the education budget in this Parliament because of the number of pupils. Given the context, there has to be redistribution. Some people will lose, which means looking them in the eye and explaining why it is fair and right that they should do so. That takes courage, but if we are going to do it, we could do with both sides of the House joining in and accepting that principle. I welcome Labour’s support for fairer funding, but it needs to be followed by the recognition of the need for redistribution.

In my final seconds, I want to comment on the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), the Scottish National party spokeswoman. It seems that the free university education of middle-class children, who are predominantly the most likely to go to university, has been funded at the expense of working-class kids in further education colleges, who have had their vocational opportunities stunted as a result. I do not think that the SNP has much to teach us about that, although they do seem to have more equal funding of schools, per pupil. It seems a good principle to have pretty much level funding, except when the reasons not to are overwhelming, such as higher teaching costs in London. That does not mean, however, that we need have the gross discrepancies that we see today.

It has been a great debate, and I thank all my colleagues for being here. I look forward to the Minister coming forward with proposals as soon as possible.

School Funding Formula

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I agree.

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

Yet again, my hon. Friend is leading off the debate—in 10 years in the House, I have raised this matter only eight times, so I stand behind him in that respect. Does he agree that the Government did the right thing last year by closing the gap a little but that we need all parties to commit to a new funding formula in the next Parliament, as the Conservative party has done, to ensure that we have a fair and just settlement, not just in rhetoric but in reality?

[Mr Walker]

I absolutely agree with the Chairman of the Education Committee and join him in that plea to all parties to deliver a fair funding formula, as has been promised.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow both the excellent speakers whom we have heard so far. We all agree on the need for a fair and transparent system. As has been said, much of that is in the eye of the beholder. However, the Ministers in the last Government whom I lobbied knew perfectly well that the system was not fair, although they did not have the political courage to face down their own people and say, “We are going to have to redistribute your funds to areas that we do not typically represent, because that is obviously fair.” This is not just about perception. I have never heard anyone attempt to explain why the present system is fair, because they cannot do so. The system is not fair. It is time for someone to recognise the need to do the right thing regardless of party-political interest, which may be something of a challenge.

I am delighted that the Conservative party is committed to a new national funding formula, and I am also pleased that the F40 group is presenting detailed proposals. Its members have worked out who will be losers and who will be winners, to narrow the gaps. Whichever party is in government, whichever system is used to fund schools and regardless of whether 16 to 19-year-olds are protected, money will be tight, so we must have the courage to do the right thing, and then find a way of explaining it to people and carrying them with us.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) was right to say that we must do what all fair-minded people would recognise as the right thing. I say that on behalf of the people in the East Riding of Yorkshire, the area I represent. It is rural, coastal and absolutely has the problems the chief inspector of Ofsted has identified, yet from this coming year, although it will have slightly more money thanks to the £390 million, it will be the lowest-funded area in the country. If the Minister gets a chance to do so in his time-limited five-minute speech, perhaps he will say something about the technicality by which, because of our high needs block funding, we got a disproportionately small amount of that £390 million, to add to our existing inequities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laws]

That is certainly a sensible principle, and it is exactly what we have tried to do through many of our reforms.

Throughout the Parliament we have introduced major reforms that have improved the fairness and simplicity of the system and laid the essential foundation stones to allow us, the two coalition parties, to introduce a full national funding formula in future. The major reforms we have made are changes to the local funding system, and changes to the way in which we fund disadvantage, with the introduction of the pupil premium and minimum funding levels. Time does not allow me to speak in detail about the first two changes, but I would like briefly to say something about the third—minimum funding levels.

We introduced minimum funding levels last year. I thank not only all the Members who lobbied for that change in the system but the excellent officials in our Department who worked hard, over a sustained period, on the new model. This Government have introduced the first reforms to the distribution of funding between local areas in over a decade. In 2015-16, every local area will attract a minimum level of funding for each of its pupils and schools. The £390 million increase in funding that we introduced as part of minimum funding levels represents a huge step towards removing the historical unfairness of the schools funding system. It ensures an immediate boost to the least fairly funded authorities and puts us in a much better position to implement a national funding formula in the next Parliament. All the logic of the reforms we have made indicates that they should be baselined into funding in the next Parliament. I can certainly make that commitment on behalf of my party; it is for others to make commitments on behalf of their parties.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Laws]

I will not, I am afraid, because of the lack of time.

In the next Parliament, multi-year spending plans will allow us to give certainty to local authorities and schools about how we transition to a national funding formula. Meanwhile, no local authority or school will lose out from the introduction of minimum funding levels from 2015-16, but about four in 10 areas will gain. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, whose area gains some £100 per pupil—an increase of just over 2%—as a result of the changes for which he lobbied. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon has been a great campaigner on this issue for many years and has helped to secure an uplift of about 5% in his part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has helped to secure a huge increase of about 8% for funding in his part of England—an additional £311 per pupil that will make a massive difference to schools. This is only one step in the transition to fairer funding and a national funding formula, but it is the biggest step towards fairer schools funding in a decade.

The three major reforms over this Parliament do not, of course, complete the reform of school funding. We recognise that we still need to introduce a full formula to ensure that pupils with similar characteristics attract the same level of funding regardless of where they live. Nevertheless, I am proud that the changes we have made have delivered the big improvements that we have seen. They put us in a much better position than we were in at the beginning of this Parliament. We now have to do the important preparatory work that will be necessary to put in place a national fair funding formula in the next Parliament. We also need to review funding on deprivation to make sure that it is fair across the whole country, and that we can build on the enormous improvements made in this Parliament and the massive contribution that the pupil premium has made.

We are now in a position to finish the job of introducing, for the first time in decades, a fair funding system for schools in this country. Once we have long-term spending plans, we will be in a position to introduce, in a stable and sensible way, the full national funding system for schools for which Members have argued. Both governing parties in this House—both coalition parties—have put on the record very clearly their commitment to a national fair funding formula. Those of our constituents who care about this issue can best ensure the delivery of this policy through the choices they make—

Child Sexual Exploitation (Oxfordshire)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is right that what we have seen in Oxfordshire and elsewhere are abhorrent, sickening crimes, and they are crimes. He is right to say that any of us in any position of authority feels that those are a stain on our society and must be eradicated. He is right to say that we do not want to rush into responding, but where immediate action must be taken, it is important that it is taken. That is what we have seen in Rotherham, for example, with the appointment of the commissioners. The Secretaries of State have been meeting since last autumn to discuss the Government’s response to Rotherham in particular, which will be announced at Downing street this afternoon. We have taken time and there will be further consultations coming out of the response. We have already announced reforms to children’s social work practice, and that is a long-term response about improving training. He will understand that there needs to be a mixture of responses to something as sickening as this.

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

We must do everything we can to reduce the vulnerability of the young people we have heard about today. Further to the question from the Opposition spokesman and the Secretary of State’s response, my Committee agrees about the need for excellent sex and relationship education in schools precisely to give resilience to young people, to enable them to talk about consent in a meaningful way, as one witness put it, and to tell them about age gaps and predatory behaviours so that they start to recognise those. We wrestled with how we would get the curriculum time and the investment in teacher quality if we do not make such education statutory—reluctantly, because we do not want to impose further duties on schools. We came to the conclusion that that had to be made statutory if we are to deliver it. If the Secretary of State thinks it should not be statutory, will she tell us why, or tell us what else could be done in lieu of what we suggested to make these things happen?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee for his remarks. The Committee produced an interesting report and I know that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), gave evidence to the Committee. We will consider the conclusions carefully. In relation to consent, it is important to know that the victims in these cases knew that they had not given consent. There was no question about consent being given. They knew that what was happening to them was absolutely wrong. Sex and relationship education is already compulsory in secondary maintained schools. Most academies and free schools also teach it, and I suspect that many primaries do so in an age-appropriate way. I was at Eastbourne academy last week talking to the students there about what they call SPHERE, which is like PSHE. The academy taught it in a fantastic way. It did not need to be told to do so; it did not need such teaching to be statutory. It was doing it because, exactly as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, it was preparing young people to be resilient.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I can provide my hon. Friend with that reassurance. We are offering generous bursaries, including in computer science, to attract the highest quality graduates into teaching.

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

7. What assessment she has made of which of her Department’s policies since May 2010 has been most successful in achieving its original objectives.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

There have been many outstanding achievements during this Parliament, but I particularly highlight our reforms to raise standards in schools as a key success. This has led to more children than ever before—as I said, almost 1 million pupils—attending a school rated good or outstanding by Ofsted.

[Mr Stuart]

We currently have the fastest expanding economy in the western world, which is obviously extremely welcome, but the improvement in standards in our schools has come about because of recruitment of the best possible graduates into the profession. What more can the Government do to ensure that these graduates come into our schools, particularly those in rural and coastal areas?

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We now need to see excellent teaching right the way across the system in every school. Every child’s life chances are only as good as the quality of teaching they receive. That is why the Prime Minister recently announced that our manifesto would include a national teaching service to encourage more good teachers to enter the profession and to be represented in all schools right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I feel sure that there will be a full debate on this matter on one of the long summer evenings that lie ahead of us.

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

T6. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to maintaining a focus on social justice and rooting for those who do not go to university? Will he reject out of hand a policy that has been described by the New Statesman as “dire”, by Martin Lewis as “financially illiterate”, and by The Times as Labour’s worst policy? Tuition fees cuts amounting to £2.7 billion would subsidise the very richest at a time when we need to do more for the very poorest.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We are taking money from the welfare budget to pay for apprenticeships that will set our young people up in life, while the Labour party is taking money away from pensioners in order to fund a misguided policy on tuition fees. According to the vice-chancellor of my own university, Loughborough, that policy would make 500 people redundant. Which 500 people in Loughborough does the shadow Secretary of State think should be made redundant?

Careers Advice (14 to 19-Year-Olds)

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Williams. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) for securing this excellent and important debate.

I come at the matter from two perspectives. My key priority is the people of Hartlepool. There is huge potential in my constituency. We have a nuclear power station providing well-paid jobs, and there is the prospect of an additional power station in the next 10, 15 or 20 years. We have got Nissan up the road. We have got Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe. We have the largest concentration of chemical engineering anywhere in western Europe, and we have the potential for carbon capture and storage. There is massive opportunity in my local economy, and yet the Office for National Statistics report from last year on young people in the labour market shows that Hartlepool, alongside Wolverhampton, has the largest number of young people unemployed and outside education or training anywhere in England and Wales. Why is that the case? Why is there such a mismatch between potential, skill shortages and the level of youth unemployment? Careers advice has a role to play in making sure that we address that mismatch.

My second consideration is that for the last 11 months of the previous Labour Government, I was the Minister in charge of 14-to-19 reform and apprenticeships, and I had responsibility for information, advice and guidance. I was conscious that in far too many cases, careers advice was seen as a secondary activity—often even a nuisance—that took time and attention away from the core business of learning. Careers advice was often delivered as a one-off event in a single afternoon. I was keen to see a new approach, which was the purpose of the new strategy for information, advice and guidance published in October 2009. I am not suggesting that there was ever a golden age for careers guidance, but as a Minister I was keen to push it up the agenda.

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the provision of careers advice to young people under this Government has got markedly worse. Reductions in funding and personnel, increases in fragmentation in the school system and organisational change, such as the dismantling of Connexions, have meant that young people often face real barriers to navigating what is on offer. Good careers advice can also be an important tool of effective social mobility. A young person should get good careers advice regardless of where they live, their background, who their parents are or who they know. That is often not the case, however, and it is a question of who they know and their connections when it comes to getting into a good career or profession.

The CBI has said that 93% young of people are not getting the careers information that they need, but good careers information, advice and guidance are needed more than ever, because the certainties of the past have gone. In my patch, my grandfather’s generation could leave school at the age of 15 on Friday and be working in the steelworks or the shipyard the following Monday, and they would stay there for 40 years. That certainty and that clear route have gone for ever. The futurist Thomas Frey has said that 60% of the best jobs in the next decade have not even been invented yet. At the same time, technology threatens a third of all UK jobs over the next 20 years, especially at the low-skilled end of the employment market. As Andreas Schleicher of the OECD has said,

“because of rapid economic and social change, schools have to prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created, technologies that have not yet been invented and problems that we don’t yet know will arise.”

In those circumstances, there needs to be much greater alignment between education policy and business and industrial policy, with effective careers advice and meaningful engagement between businesses and schools acting as the bridge, but the Government have to help. Government policy is not addressing the issue, and a narrowing of the curriculum by Ministers means that creative learning, problem solving and team building in the widest sense—enterprise education, in the widest definition, is required for the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century that will allow us to compete in the modern world—are not being championed, and careers advice is being downgraded.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was no golden age. The careers system that he left behind at the end of the Labour Government was pretty weak. Does he agree that there has been a failure to change the incentives in order to ensure that all schools provide first-class careers advice and guidance, as a small number currently do? One of the major things is to ensure that, in places such as Hartlepool, young people get qualifications that add value. He will be delighted, as I am, to see the number of young unemployed people aged between 18 and 24 in his constituency go down from the 1,200 when he left government in 2010 to, I think, 615 according to the latest figures. That is fantastic news, and we are seeing that transformation across the country under this Government.

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that we want a universal and properly resourced careers service that is staffed by committed and professional people with the necessary breadth of knowledge and experience to be able to say, “This is what the future looks like. The potential for you, as a young person, is huge. This is what’s on offer. Let me guide you through it.” That is not happening at the moment. I have six specific, brief points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I strongly congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on securing this debate on a crucial subject. I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the country. I can barely walk down the street, and I can certainly never visit a school or educational establishment, without young people directly raising their concerns and demands about the careers services that they want. I am here to speak for them.

I completely endorse the comments of most hon. Members who have spoken today. Young people tell me that they want face-to-face guidance when they need it. That is particularly important in my constituency because many young people do not have connections. They do not have parents with understanding and knowledge of the modern world of work. Many of them have come to this country, and perhaps their parents do not have good English.

On Monday, I was at the KPMG City academy in my constituency with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). A year 12 pupil told us that she wants to be a doctor but that her mother is a single parent. She said, “I don’t have the connections that some of my friends in the school have.” The school helps to provide her with the connections that help to level the playing field. KPMG and the City of London sponsor the academy, and KPMG helps to provide her with support—other pupils also have mentors through KPMG. Those business links, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said, are vital.

When I talk to businesses in the community and head teachers, one of the key things they mention is linking those businesses with individual pupil achievement in the school, as well as giving pupils a view of the world of work. That is more complicated than simply careers advice, but I have always supported embedding business connections in schools, and it is one of the reasons why I am broadly in favour of the academies programme.

On careers advice more specifically, I am delighted to have worked from the outset with the charity My Big Career. We found each other because I had been working to encourage professionals in my area to become the family for young people in Hackney who do not have their own connections. I got professionals and sixth-formers into networking events, where they shared notes and found each other. Those young people made their own connections.

The redoubtable Deborah Streatfield decided to set up My Big Career because she is a professional careers adviser working in the private sector and, as well as the private school that employs her, she is often privately commissioned by parents. She realised that the careers advice in many state schools was not of the same standard, so she set up the charity. Happily, I was able to secure office space in Cardinal Pole school in my constituency, which now has an outstanding sixth form. Deborah Streatfield has been offering face-to-face advice, and it is not just her. She has been getting in volunteer careers advisers and, crucially, professionals from business who are trained to give the right kind of professional advice to pupils.

The charity also offers a results day service, which was so effective last year. Shockingly, it was the first time in Hackney’s history that pupils received a results day service from volunteers trained to go in at 7 o’clock in the morning so that young people who had missed a grade could access discussions with universities. For example, four young people who would not have got on to their nursing degree did so because of that input, which should be standard. That happened because a professional, qualified careers team was there at that point.

Young people tell me that they want such advice. For many young people, face-to-face advice is so important because they are just not getting it through other routes. The key thing about My Big Career is the service’s high-level professionalism. I echo the point raised by other colleagues that we need good, properly qualified careers advisers.

I also echo the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) about ensuring that teenagers make the right choice early on. One of the things that My Big Career has discovered is that many young people are being encouraged, quite rightly and effectively, to get a good GCSE in maths, but for many a C grade was just not enough for the course they wanted to take at university. They needed a B grade, and even many heads of maths did not understand the significance of a B grade for the future career choices of their pupils. Bright, able and capable sixth-formers were finding that that one dropped grade in GCSE maths was limiting their future career options. That goes to show that the professional understanding of good, qualified careers advisers makes a difference throughout a school, not just at 14.

The Government have thrown money at careers advice. At one level, we should accept the £20 million that has gone to the careers company, but I have serious questions about how that has been tendered and whether it is really best at national level. There is no road map for how the careers company will deliver good quality careers advice throughout our educational establishments. I hope the Minister can give us more information, because we are all desperate to know how that will help people in Hackney, Hartlepool, Scunthorpe and around the country. I want to know how we will be monitoring the independent advice and guidance provided directly by schools, because the quality varies enormously, as we have heard.

I, too, have a list of asks for the Minister. First, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne described, we want a clearer set of requirements on appropriate and good guidance. We do not have a common set of standards at the moment, and it is vital that we do. It is not fair that a young person going through a school—sometimes a very good school—might have their future completely altered by the lack of quality careers advice. We want a common standard.

Crucially, we need really good evaluation of what works and quality control. The key thing is the bit in the middle, which my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe talked about—the broker between businesses and young people. The broker could be the careers adviser, but there could be work placements. Rather than young people just being thrown at work placements that have been brokered by a careers service, they could say, “I want to do this, and I need to know who I can speak to so I can go and do that particular role.”

I represent Shoreditch, which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor called “tech city”. It is a hub for future jobs and growth in this country, but most of the jobs in Shoreditch do not exist as such. They do not have job titles, because they are so new and emerging. I can sometimes broker the connections, because of the peculiarity of an MP’s role, where we see a lot of different things. We need to make sure that our teachers and particularly our careers advisers are aware of the opportunities and can make those links. That crucial bit in the middle is the broker. When the broker finds a young person with a particular skill, the broker will know how to make the two or three phone calls that will get the young person the connection to the career opportunity that they can really learn from. We also need to see greater stability of funding so that we can be sure there is a career path for good quality careers advisers.

I welcomed the Government’s decision to include outcome data as a key part of schools. We still do not have much of an update from the Department for Education on how it is going to work. Many schools in my area feel challenged about how they are going to deal with it. I believe—I represent Shoreditch, so I would—that good, well-worked-up software that would allow alumni to be tracked and, crucially, give alumni something back in terms of networking, could be very useful. I have been talking to UBS, the bank that sponsors the Bridge Academy in Hackney. There is a real opportunity to be grabbed, but it needs to be fleshed out. I hope the Minister will do so.

I have mentioned the issues about grade B maths. Such issues underline the need for clear understanding throughout schools of how early choices can affect careers and damage career options. The Government need to ensure that that is embedded through a set of standards.

I have set out my asks. Careers advice is crucial. My young people in Hackney want action. They want to see the best provided to all and I back them in that.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you for fitting me in, Mr Williams. I am afraid I was not originally down to speak because I was chairing the Education Committee this morning.

Careers advice and guidance is such an important topic. The Select Committee produced a report. People are listening to thoughtful speeches from many colleagues, but the heart of the problem is a simple one. It does not come out in myriad reports that have been produced on the subject, or indeed in enough speeches given by colleagues in the Chamber. The problem is that there are insufficient incentives for schools to take the matter seriously. That is why 80% of them do not. It is simple: they do not have to take it seriously. No one loses their job and no one gets fired or publicly humiliated for failing to do it properly, but they do if five good GCSEs are not achieved. We therefore have to change the accountability regime and have a high-stakes environment in which someone very easily gets publicly humiliated or sacked. That is the central problem.

We need a better balance—perhaps a nudge that does not simply add further burdens on leaders within schools and colleges, but addresses the central problem. The Committee did not have any perfect solutions, but we said—I will say this to the Minister—that schools should at least be made to publish their careers plan, so that parents and employers can have a look at it. Ofsted could check in advance. Hard-working Ministers could sit in Whitehall, as I know my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools often does late at night, and look at it on the website.

The Government helped to fund a quality in careers standard for schools. It exists, so we can make schools work towards it and keep to it. I know it is bureaucratic—a bit input-esque—but we have not got great destinations data yet and we do not have another solution, so we have to give it a nudge. Let us not have any more reports from the alphabet soup of organisations. Teach First has done one this week that has some good stuff in it, but the central issue is that schools are not incentivised to take the matter seriously, and they have perverse incentives such as filling their sixth-form places, which means they will not even let colleges in.

Let us address the incentives, get the framework right, stop faffing around with all the other talk, and we could make a real difference to the lives of children. It is worth looking at what happened under the previous Secretary of State, who, it is fair to say, was pretty dismissive of this agenda, but he was not dismissive of the need to raise standards in schools, to challenge the low standards that prevailed for too long, and to put in place a pressure on the system to get people to sit for qualifications and do a curriculum and syllabuses for exams that matter to people and were of some value. That is already starting to pay off. Combined with an economic plan that focuses on enterprise and growth, we see transformations.

I am sad to say that for those who are trying to be fair-minded, those transformations do not get properly reflected in speeches by Opposition Members. I admire enormously the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), as I do all the Opposition Members in the Chamber, but he does not mention that youth unemployment in his constituency has gone from more than 1,000 when the Labour party left office—there were more than 1,000 young people in his constituency who were scarred for life by unemployment, because we know that youth unemployment scars people for life—to 425 today. Similarly, in Hartlepool, about 600 young people’s lives have been transformed by a Government who are delivering and not just talking. The youth unemployment figure there has gone from 1,200 to 600, so another 600 young people have had their lives turned round. In south Hackney, the youth unemployment figure is down from 750 when Labour left office—750 young people just sitting there—to 250 today. That is all great news.

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Order. This debate is about careers advice and not about unemployment among young people.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on raising this important topic. I also congratulate all the hon. Members who have spoken; their speeches demonstrate the importance of this subject.

Careers advice is “broken”; it is on “life support”; and the Government show a “reluctance” to take it seriously. Those are not my words as an Opposition Member; they are the words of the CBI and the Skills Commission. Also, the Education Committee has been fairly critical; in 2013, it described

“the worrying deterioration in the overall level of provision”.

That is all pretty damning, because careers advice is absolutely vital, as I think we have heard from everyone who has spoken today.

Young people need to know what the options are—not only which A-levels to take or which university to go to but what training they may need to become an engineer or to work in IT. They also need to know what the emerging jobs market in their area is, and what they need in order to access the full range of education and training options, as the Association of Colleges has said in its excellent report. But what have the Government done? They have pushed the responsibility for careers advice on to schools and colleges.

Schools must provide access to impartial careers advice for young people aged between 14 and 19. They are told that this advice should be independent and involve outside providers. However, the schools have a vested interest in keeping up the number of students studying A-level courses, to ensure a viable number if they have a sixth form of their own; in some cases, the survival of a school’s sixth form depends on the school keeping those students. I have heard from some sixth-form and further education colleges that they are being denied admission to schools, and consequently they are not being allowed to give the full range of options to students.

Many teachers follow the academic route so they do not have experience of the world of work, know the local economic conditions in their area or understand the range of experiences that are offered by going down the “earn and learn” route. Indeed, I have heard from some young people about the pressure they are under to stay on at school and take A-levels, rather than starting apprenticeships. One young person told me that they were ostracised by the school when they said they wanted to do an apprenticeship. Another particularly savvy young person said to me, “I’m just seen as a walking pot of money.”

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the issue of apprenticeships. The TUC and Unionlearn have said—I think it was in the past few days—that they completely oppose the Labour party policy to abolish level 2 apprenticeships. Will the Labour party look at that policy again? Level 2 apprenticeships, where they transform income and provide high-quality training, should be retained; we must not lose this vital building block in providing support to young people.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I will not go into that issue too far, but I will say that level 2 will not be branded as apprenticeships, and the training will certainly not be going; it will be a pre-apprenticeship. However, that is a different issue.

It is no wonder, therefore, that careers advice is simply not being provided. Three quarters of schools that Ofsted visited were not providing adequate advice—so far, not so good. And what else has happened? We have heard about the new careers and enterprise company, and a number of questions have been asked about it. I wonder whether the job it will do is already being done. The Chairman of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who is here today, has said:

“It is clear that the…new body replicates the very role and remit of the National Careers Service...and only the leadership and governance is different”.

I would like to hear more about what will happen with that situation.

The fact is that we need more than an unenforced duty on schools, which simply leads to buck-passing. One in three teachers say they do not have the right expertise and resources to adequately provide effective information, advice and guidance. We need a complete rethink about how we deliver careers advice to young people, and rebuilding the careers advice service will be an early and vital priority for a Labour Government. Fragmentation and short-term and unsuitable initiatives are absolutely endemic. We need a careers service that is modelled around what provides the best outcomes for the young person and for the country, because young people are our future work force, as we have heard today. We need a careers service that guarantees that face-to-face, one-to-one guidance is available for all young people who need it, and that ensures that businesses and employers are linked in with it, the importance of which we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin).

Building closer links with industry is absolutely vital, but I would like to add my support for the face-to-face guidance, as somebody who has worked in providing face-to-face advice, even if it was not in this sector. Websites can help many young people, but many more will need face-to-face contact. The level of contact may well be different: it may just involve initial contact, or there may be contact that takes young people further through the process. As Centrepoint has said, particularly young people who have little parental support, as well as those with poor literacy or who have other support needs, may need more assistance.

Working together is the other watchword. That is why I support the idea of careers hubs, which we have heard about from a number of hon. Members today. I visited the Bristol campus of South Gloucestershire and Stroud college the other month. The college has an excellent careers hub, working with schools across the area—independent schools, academies, state-controlled schools and primary schools—and providing one-to-one advice from professional careers advisers, which it employs. The college is the point of contact for all employers, it works with the local enterprise partnership, and it is considering expanding its service. It is an excellent model for the careers advice of the future. If such hubs were rolled out across the country, they could provide a single point of information about careers advice and career options in each area and employ the professional careers advisers whose work is so valuable.

Careers hubs could also co-ordinate work experience. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) how important work experience is for young people. Currently, however, work experience provision is another postcode lottery.

A taster session of work experience is valued by young people and employers, but not enough employers are incentivised to provide them, even though they can provide real benefits, including introducing the reality of work to young people. My daughter found that out on her first day of work. Horrified, she told me when she came home, “The manager told me what to do, and d’you know what? It wasn’t sensible!” I thought, “That’s a good life experience for you.”

Taster sessions also allow students to consider a wider range of roles than they may have been told about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said, young people put their toe in the water and they might not like it. However, they might like it, especially if taster sessions give them a wide range of roles to consider. It is also indisputable that if people have an early experience of work, they are less likely to end up unemployed and more likely to get better jobs and earn more money. However, at the moment less than half of young people have access to high-quality work experience. We have really fallen behind countries such as France in this regard.

We also need to work more with employers to break down some of the barriers faced by young people who are perhaps harder to place than others, including those with disabilities, in order to dispel the preconception that the employers themselves may have that those young people cannot do the jobs that are on offer. A careers hub could help those young people, as well as others who are perhaps more in the mainstream.

We believe that destination tracking is another activity that should be taken further. Schools actually have a responsibility for their pupils that goes beyond simply where they go on leaving school. A young person who goes to university and drops out in the first term because the course is unsuitable for them is not a success; a young person who takes an apprenticeship and completes it is a success, and should be celebrated as such. We therefore need to track destinations for much longer than we do now. Also, there has been a worrying rise in the number of “unknowns” recorded by the local authorities. We not know where those people are, which is a concern from a safeguarding point of view as well.

Our young people are the work force of the future, as we have heard before; we rely on them to pay and look after our pensions, basically. They need to be given every opportunity to have a worthwhile and satisfying career, and to develop their skills throughout their working lives. If we do not give them access to advice at the beginning of their working life, when they are thinking about what work to do, in order to help them navigate the confusing landscape of the world of work, which is becoming ever more confusing, we are failing them. In fact, we are not only doing that but we are jeopardising our future economic success as a country.

[The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on securing it and congratulate all hon. Members on their contributions. However, I am clearly not able to respond to every question asked and every point raised.

I start by observing that, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said, there has never been a golden age of careers advice and guidance. I think we can all agree about that. He is a former Minister in this field and took office at the end of a long Government full of largesse, so I think he will have noted that large Government budgets have not proved to be the solution to the lack of advice and guidance. He made a perfunctory reference to Connexions, but nobody has come up to me, either since I was elected to Parliament or since I was appointed to this job, and mourned the scrapping of that service. There may well have been good intentions behind it, but the reality is that it achieved very little, with a relatively large budget. When we faced the largest peace time budget deficit in our history, it was a right and proper economy to make to get rid of Connexions as it was then constituted.

There was never a golden age and, certainly, the previous Government did not manage to produce a system of careers advice and guidance that led to high-quality advice for young people throughout the country and in all schools. We as a Government have recognised that, thanks to the good work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Education Committee, and others, and have taken steps to ensure that schools are more focused on their responsibilities. Hon. Members have mentioned the introduction of statutory guidance requiring schools to provide independent advice and guidance. We certainly recognise that too few schools are doing so. There were many calls from Opposition Members for proper resourcing for this. However, there is a difficulty here, because proper resourcing means more money either dedicated to or ring-fenced for the provision of careers advice and guidance and the employment of more careers advisers. In that case, Opposition Members have to answer questions—I know they never like doing so—about what other things they are going to cut, what taxes they will raise or what borrowing will be increased to provide that resourcing; otherwise, that resourcing will have to come from within the existing schools budgets.

The reality is that good schools of all kinds—grant-maintained schools, academies, and all kinds of schools—realise that it is critical for them to make an investment from their budget and employ a careers adviser or co-ordinator. Lots of different models work. Good schools realise that this is a priority and there is nothing stopping any school deciding to invest some of their resource in proper advice and guidance.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Just for the record, the Committee did not call for additional money. It recognised that, in an ideal world, it might have been a good thing, but that the most important thing was to change the incentives for schools, because the fact that 20% of schools can find the budget—they tend to be successful schools delivering outstanding academic results as well—shows that it can be done. In fact, those things are mutually enhancing.

If the Minister wanted a crude proxy for the success of the education system—I remember saying this to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) when he was a Minister in the Labour Government—it would be how many young people end up as NEETs. I am pleased that the number in the shadow Minister’s constituency has gone from 900 when Labour left office to 140 today.

[Nick Boles]

Of course, I am always particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee. I will come on to his point on incentives, which is a good one.

Probably the most useful thing I can do for hon. Members who participated in this debate is to answer some questions about the new careers company, because I understand that although people are broadly and in principle supportive of it, they question how it will fit into the landscape and particularly what its relationship with or functions relative to the National Careers Service will be.

The key point about the new careers company is that we observed that there is no shortage of organisations offering high-quality activity. Straight after this debate I am meeting the people who run Inspiring Futures, which is an excellent programme with speakers for schools and any number of online resources. Of course, the National Careers Service provides high-quality advice to lots of young people as well as to adults. There is no shortage of provision, but schools face great difficulty understanding what is available, what is high quality and what would really meet the identified needs of their young people.

The point of the careers company, under Christine Hodgson, is to create a structure whereby every school has somebody it can ask to help it through this forest and identify the resources and the providers who will help provide a much better range of experiences and inspiration to young people. It will focus initially on mapping what is out there, because people have to know that before they can start offering guidance. It will then focus on Lord Young’s excellent idea, in his report to the Prime Minister, of appointing an enterprise adviser. That person will be a current or recently retired local executive from the public or private sector, who will be attached to a school and whose role will be to help it identify local businesses and employers that can come in to the school and provide work experience, and resources relating to programmes relevant for the school. A school will identify that local enterprise adviser with the help of their local economic partnership.

I agree with those who have said that local economic partnerships have an obvious role to play in helping schools understand who out there can help them deliver on their duty. I do not think many teachers or head teachers are failing to provide careers advice and guidance because they do not believe in it; it is because they are busy and not particularly qualified to do it. It is no criticism of them to suggest that. They need some help. As we have heard, a plethora of local business executives is only too willing to get involved. However, we need some structure of brokerage in that regard and some guidance to schools on how they can give better advice and guidance to their young people.

Those will be the two main priorities for the careers company. It will have a small pot of money of about £5 million—a small part of the £20 million—from which it will be able to back new ideas for new kinds of experience and advice and guidance. That will act more as a sort of seed fund or a venture fund. It will also work more long-term on Lord Young’s other idea, which is for an enterprise passport that would probably be an online record of all of the non-formal educational achievements of a young person—all the volunteering and holiday jobs they have done, all the clubs they have joined and all their other extracurricular achievements at school—so that employers have an objective record of the full range of a young person’s contribution to their community when judging their fitness for school.

In the final minutes of this debate I should like to focus on the point of careers advice and guidance, although I am happy to answer in writing any questions from colleagues about the careers company. The point of careers advice is to lead to a career, and the point of every career is to have a series of satisfying and fulfilling jobs. I hope that every hon. Member of every party will recognise the signal achievement of this Government, which is to have created more jobs in Yorkshire—as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment reminded us—than have been created in France, and to have created more jobs in the United Kingdom than have been created in the whole of the European Union.

The key to a career is having an economy that creates jobs—new jobs in new sectors, requiring new young people with new skills. Of course, they need advice and guidance, and of course they need clear data that help them understand which choice of qualifications leads to which possibilities regarding a career. However, ultimately, without an economy that is creating employment at the speed we have been doing so in this country, there is no point having even the best careers advice and guidance in the world. Right now, even with fantastic careers advice and guidance, someone who has the misfortune to be a young person in Spain will have a pretty small chance of having a fulfilling career because youth unemployment there is pushing 40%.

Let us remember the point of careers advice and guidance, which is to guide people on to a path that will give them a satisfying range of jobs in the economy, creating jobs like no other.