GCSEs

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to be praised with faint damns by the right hon. Gentleman, and I entirely agree with him; it is important that speaking and listening sits alongside the composition, written and analytical skills in English language. That is what we propose to do, by ensuring that speaking and listening, which is inherently more difficult to assess, in what is a benchmark qualification, is assessed alongside the written component of English. I always look forward to hearing from the right hon. Gentleman, who is far, far more often right than wrong.

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

May I thank hon. Members from all parts of the House for their kind words and support since my accident?

I congratulate the Secretary of State on today’s statement. We have the broad outlines of the right policy and, unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I think that a Secretary of State who puts forward ideas, listens to the response and changes a Government policy as a result is making policy in the right way. However, may I put it to the Secretary of State that this has a tight timetable, so will he assure the House, parents and teachers that he will always ensure that getting it right is more important than sticking to the timetable he has set out?

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous words and may I say how good it is to see him back in his place in the House? May I also thank him for the fantastic work that his Committee has done in its report on what happened to GCSEs last summer, which is published today? I entirely take on board his endorsement of the Department for Education’s Hegelian approach to policy making of thesis, antithesis and then synthesis. We will make sure that the timetable is kept under review. We have already extended the timetable for A-level implementation to take account of precisely the concerns he has so wisely articulated.

Children and Families Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Timpson]

My hon. Friend touches on the heart of the Bill, which is to tackle the perennial problem of special educational needs, in that education, health and social care have tended to work in parallel rather than in conjunction with one another. In many of the clauses, both through the general duty to co-operate, the joint commissioning clause, and now the duty on health as well as the duty to consult parents and children themselves, there is already, with the pathfinders, a growing involvement of each of those different agencies in coming together and concentrating on the central and most important issue, which is the child. I hope he will see that the Bill gives local authorities an opportunity to nurture and grow their relationships with health and other agencies, and ensure that as a consequence they are providing better services for children in their local area.

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

I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of the Education Committee for taking such a positive and constructive approach to our pre-legislative scrutiny report, and implementing so many of the proposals, as he has just listed.

My hon. Friend appeared before the Committee this morning in our inquiry into school sports, and he suggested that he would consider looking at the code of practice to ensure that rather than disabled children being sent to the library while others are doing sport, as we heard in evidence sometimes happens, they have access to sport in schools, and that that is part of an overall package to meet their needs.

[Mr Timpson]

As ever, I am grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee for raising a crucial element for many young people with a disability, and that is access to other activities outside those of the classroom. I am mindful of that and as I told the Committee this morning have seen for myself, at a special school in Chislehurst only last week, how the integration of sport in schools, where children with both physical and other disabilities are able to participate, can have a huge knock-on effect in other areas of their life. It would not always be appropriate through the identification of the needs and therefore the support for each child in relation to their plan to have a built-in element that incorporates and encompasses physical activity, but clearly we want to provide as much opportunity for them as for any other child. The schools should be doing it anyway under the Equality Act 2010 and the reasonable adjustments for which they are responsible, but it also makes good sense, as we know. I am happy—I made this commitment to the Committee—to look at that in the context of the code of practice, but also to work with many of the organisations and charities who are already out there, through the project ability scheme and others, to see what more they can do to spread good practice in this area. I am happy to keep my hon. Friend informed of that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Timpson]

The short answer is yes. That is the intention of the Bill. There are a number of reasons for saying that. One of the complaints from parents about the statementing process relates less to the statement itself and more to early identification and the need for much greater effort from different agencies in co-ordinating the assessment and the plan. Everything in the Bill tries to encourage that and, in some circumstances, cajole the different bodies to come together and work with the family, rather than, as we have heard far too often, the family feeling that they are working in a different environment from those around them. By ensuring that that happens, we will reduce the prospect of conflict, misunderstanding and, therefore, the road to tribunal, which we all want to avoid. That is why we included the mediation process, albeit on a voluntary basis, to give parents and those responsible for providing services every opportunity to work together, co-operate and consult at every stage, but particularly in the early stages, in order to avoid unnecessary discord and damage further down the line.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

While the Minister is on the subject of conflict between local authorities and parents, may I press him, as many of my amendments do, on home-educating parents, who all too often have been subject to misinformation and abuse of power by local authorities? Will he give serious consideration to including a provision stating that parents who home educate are not to have their children’s SEN support removed and that local authorities, despite their duty to find children with SEN, do not have their powers to demand access to children strengthened? We should reinforce the primacy of parents in deciding what should happen to their children and ensure that local authorities are the servants of families, not their masters.

[Mr Timpson]

I have a strong memory of spending a late night in the House a few years ago when my hon. Friend managed to get more than 100 of us to present petitions on behalf of many of those parents who decided to home educate their children. I know that he, as chair of the all-party group on home education, has been a great advocate on their behalf. Clearly we want to ensure that every child with SEN, however they are educated, during the period of compulsory age and beyond, from nought to 25, gets the support they require to meet their full potential. That should be no different in the circumstances he describes. I will be able to respond in more detail when we debate his amendments, and I am happy to continue that conversation with him outside the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

It is a pleasure to serve in the House with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a long and honourable track record of campaigning for young people and adults with disability. He understands very well from his experience that the repercussions of decisions made at that stage in life echo down the years. We mentioned mental health and employment prospects. Only one in four young people with autism get into employment. I believe we can improve on that shameful statistic. I know there is a will among Ministers, including the noble Lord Freud, to change that, which I believe we can do.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Buckland]

I will give way to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Education Committee.

[Mr Stuart]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful speech. I wonder whether he is right to propose removing “wholly or mainly”, because the Bill would read:

“Health care provision or social care provision which is made…for the purposes of the education or training of a child”.

Such provision does not have to be made for that purpose to be significant to the education or training of a child. I put it to the Minister that a better wording would result in provision that is significant to the education or training of a child or young person being treated as special educational provision. It would capture that which is important to deliver the education a child needs. The original motivator is not the key point.

[Mr Buckland]

I do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on the precise wording, but it is important to go back to the case law—London Borough of Bromley v. the SEN tribunal in 1999, in which Lord Justice Sedley stated:

“Special educational provision is, in principle, whatever is called for by a child’s learning difficulty,”

which he goes on to define. He states:

“What is special about special educational provision is that it is additional to or different from ordinary educational provision”.

In that phrase, we have a more fundamental definition. Provision is not what is significant, but whatever is necessary. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for looking at that. My hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully. Either in this House or in the other place, we need to achieve clarity and a replication of the words of the Lord Justice of Appeal, so that we do not end up moving away from the Government’s clearly stated intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tom Clarke]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). For politicians these days, a few kind words go a long way. I congratulate him on his effective work on autism. The House will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to speak for long, as there is so much business today, but I wish to focus on amendments 46, 66, 67, 68 and 69. If I find myself on a different path, I am sure you will keep me in order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I would like to pick up on comments made on both sides of the House. I thank sincerely my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who led for the Opposition. She rightly focused on education, which is vital in bringing out the talents and abilities of children, and recognised that these issues should, at every level—for education, certainly, but also employment, health matters and so on—be person-centred. My hon. Friend will agree when I say that disabled people are one of the groups that are the furthest away from the employment market, and education has an impact on that. Disabled people are twice as likely to be unemployed as their non-disabled peers. In 2012, the Office for Disability Issues estimated that 46% of working age disabled people are in employment, compared with 76% of working age non-disabled people. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members were absolutely right to focus on the big issues that have an impact on those with learning disabilities.

I am joint chair, with Lord Rix, of the all-party group on learning disability. We have achieved a great deal, but we still have much more to do. One of the key features of the Bill, for example, under clause 19 is the move to involve young people and children under the age of 16 in decisions about their special educational needs provision. Children and young people with special educational needs, particularly those with a learning disability, have trouble reading and understanding material unless it is fully effective, and that applies to Braille and other things.

Although localism is appropriate and schools should be judged on how well they are doing, there nevertheless ought to be standards that are accepted across the whole of the UK. I remind the House, as a Scottish Member, that although these matters have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the annual economic and fiscal settlement has to bear the Barnett formula in mind, so it is as appropriate to discuss these issues in England as it is in the devolved institutions.

It is essential that any information for, or consultation with, people with a learning disability is accessible and meaningful to ensure effective participation and involvement. Mencap has highlighted that this means using easy read formats for blind or partially sighted people. Organisations such as Scope point out that such necessities should not be a postcode lottery, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West also rightly said. This is the challenge before us. I am a little envious that I was not on the Committee, because I am sure that its considerations were thoughtful and progressive, and I congratulate it on its work.

I would like to conclude on this note. On the issues that we are dealing with—education, health, care and social matters—coming back to the child and the family is vital. Before I sit down, I shall give one example. A few years ago, I was invited to an exhibition in Glasgow organised by the National Autistic Society demonstrating some of the wonderful work in art and music that young people with autism were nevertheless able to produce. The VIPs opening the exhibition stood beside a particularly impressive painting, but as we listened to the speeches we were discouraged by the noise that one of the children was making, until we realised that this beautiful painting, which we had all admired, was painted by that young woman. That is the opportunity. We can do it. We can deliver for special educational needs. I hope that as the Bill progresses through both Houses, it will be seen as a major step in that noble direction.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke). The right hon. Gentleman’s final point was right: this is a flagship Bill. Just as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 turned out to be an historic step forward and a great achievement by the then Conservative Government, so I think this flagship Bill will be a great achievement of this coalition Government. It is symbolic that the Minister’s predecessor was a Liberal Democrat and that he has carried the Bill forward.

I know that we have limited time but I want to make a few comments. I was a little sceptical at the beginning of this process, and I remain worried that we might create a level of expectation among parents greater than the Bill can deliver, especially in this time of austerity, not least for local government budgets, but my scepticism and doubt have been eroded over time. The way successive Ministers have worked and the way the Bill has taken shape gives me hope that it can be as significant for children with special educational needs as the Disability Discrimination Act was for those with disabilities.

I wish to speak to my amendments 59 to 64, but first I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for his close and courteous co-operation with my Committee. His actions to improve the Bill in response to our recommendations have been appreciated, and he was big enough to list the changes that the Select Committee had suggested and which the Government had adopted. Ministers should not be embarrassed—quite the contrary—to change their proposals on the basis of evidence and submissions from people in the Chamber and outside.

The Education Committee paid particularly close attention to part 3 of the Bill on children and young people in England with special educational needs. As I say, we welcomed many features of the Bill in our pre-legislative scrutiny, such as the introduction of integrated education, health and care plans and the fact that the new statutory framework for SEN will cover children and young people from birth all the way to age 25. We should not underestimate the significance of these changes. They will deliver a process for assessing and meeting children’s and young people’s individual needs that could be more coherent, comprehensive and compassionate. As always, however, the devil lies in the detail, so my Committee will closely monitor the impact of these changes in practice.

My amendments have a common theme: to ensure that nothing in the Bill reduces the centrality of parents in making decisions for their children. I am particularly concerned to ensure that local authorities do not use the Bill to seek to change the balance in their relationship with the parents of children with special educational needs. I wish the Bill to enhance, not diminish, the role, power and influence of parents. I have particular concerns about parents who have chosen to educate their children at home. From discussions with the Minister, I know it is not the Government’s intention to undermine the parental role, but unless that is made clear in the Bill, there will always be the risk that these things will creep in.

That is why I have proposed amendment 59. It would insert a new subsection (e) in clause 19 expressly requiring local authorities to have regard to the right of parents to make their own arrangements for their children, in accordance with the Education Act 1996. Without this, the possibility will remain that local authorities might try to steamroller home-educating parents, who are only trying to do the right thing by their children. I am not saying it will necessarily happen, certainly not in all cases, but it is conceivable. My amendment is intended to prevent the situation from arising, whether through sins of omission or of commission. That is to say, the aim is to prevent local authorities from forgetting that parents have the primary responsibility for their child’s education. My amendment would assert that responsibility and the right of families to be free to educate their children independently, if they so wish.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I apologise for coming in a bit late. Some years ago I had a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject and I welcome the fact that the amendment will address it. I would like to put it on record that, as far as I am concerned, this is a welcome amendment.

[Mr Stuart]

I welcome that intervention.

These statistics are unacceptable and reflect a situation that places unfair pressure on children, parents and teachers alike. The new clause would require schools to engage directly with parents and to co-operate with local NHS authorities in preparing and implementing strategies to head off these risks. I suggest to the Minister that its inclusion would strengthen the Bill and help end the status quo whereby the quality of support available to children and families coping with conditions such as diabetes is largely a matter of chance.

I am mindful of your strictures on time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to speak in support of amendment No. 43, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). I am concerned that requiring local authorities to review the continuance of EHC plans for young people aged over 18 with specific regard to their age may make it more likely that support would be curtailed or dropped altogether on the basis that the young person would be deemed to have made the transition into adulthood. This concern is heightened by paragraph 231 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which explains the thinking behind clause 45. It gives examples of potential stages at which EHC plans can be amended or replaced. These include the end of a specified phase of a young person’s education or when a young person becomes a NEET. This runs contrary to the recommendations made by my Committee in our report, where we acknowledge the particular position of NEETs and apprenticeships and the potential of EHC plans to assist young people with SEN into constructive employment. We recommended that the Bill should provide entitlement to EHC plans both to NEETs of compulsory participation age and to young people who are undertaking apprenticeships.

We heard from Dai Roberts, the principal of Brokenhurst college, who cited the case of two learners with profound deafness who were then on marine engineering apprenticeships. They had to have signers to help them with their training. These are precisely the young people who need extra support in order to follow their ambitions so they can get on and make a success of their lives. The amendment deserves support and clause 45(4) deserves to be scrapped.

My final remarks will be on the local offer. Getting that right will be essential to ensuring that the Bill overall helps young people. I am confident that those who get an EHC plan will be in a better situation than those under the previous regime of statements. In fact, it is essential to ensure not that it is easier to get a plan—the Minister, surprisingly in my view, said he wanted to make that case. I hope that there will be fewer people having plans than under statements, not because there is an effort to guide them away from them, but because local offers meet so many of the needs of parents and young people that there is not a requirement for the bureaucratic involvement that will be required even in our streamlined EHC system.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

It is good to follow the Chair of the Select Committee. I hope the constructive and cross-party description that he has given of the passage of the Bill so far means that, as the Bill goes into the other House, many of the amendments that we have discussed today, which clearly need to be made, will be made.

Before he spoke, we heard two strong—including one long—speeches on special educational needs. I am not going to speak up for children with special educational needs. Instead I would like to speak up for children with specific health conditions and, in particular, to lend my support to new clause 8, which was first tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and now stands in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders).

Four years ago, I met an inspiring young woman called Emma Smith. She was 12 years old, from Dalton in Rotherham, and I was her MP. She was on a lobby for Diabetes UK to the House. I met her here, and met her and her family at home. I also met a couple of other young children and students at school in Rotherham who were suffering from diabetes. They described a lack of recognition and appreciation by staff at school of their condition and a lack of knowledge about what they had to do to manage it for themselves. They described a suspicion, sometimes, of the needles they had to use to inject insulin. Occasionally there was nowhere for them to do those injections during the school day. They also spoke of friends of theirs with similar problems who had been forbidden from eating or going to the toilet during lessons when they needed to because of their condition. I pledged my support to Emma Smith and her campaign, as I did to the ten-minute rule Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), which he introduced around that time. I thought that my hon. Friend could not be here today, which is why I am in his place, but I am glad to see that he has come into the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Timpson]

I understand the intention behind the new clause, but when the raft of legislation directly or indirectly related to the point that my hon. Friend raises is still not bringing about the required support for children in our schools, one wonders whether additional legislation is necessarily the answer. We are seeking to provide the best possible guidance to schools on managing medicines, set against the current legislative framework; and under the new Ofsted inspection of schools, safety is a key feature.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I find the Minister’s answer inadequate. It is shameful that successive Governments have gone for so many years with a significant minority of children simply not having their needs met in school. When they have a condition or a flare-up that requires action, they get sent off to hospital, or their parents get called, whereas if the school had trained someone up, it could meet that need. This is not good enough. The Minister has done so much under the Bill; this is another area where there could be an historic, positive settlement coming out of the legislation. It would be a shame if the opportunity were missed.

[Mr Timpson]

I had been doing so well with my hon. Friend, throughout the day. He is quite right to continue to challenge us, and schools, on this point. The question that has to go back to schools is why some are able to manage medicines effectively and others are not. That suggests to me that there is not necessarily a direct relation to the legislative framework that they are working under, and that it is down to differences in practice and to the school’s commitment to dealing with the issue. As I say, I am not stopping the discussion at this juncture. I am sure that there will be other opportunities for us to explore what more we can do. Reissuing the guidance is an important step, because it will provide very clear advice to schools on how they should approach this important issue. We will follow that up closely, both through Government channels and through Ofsted’s work in its role as inspector.

My hon. Friend tabled amendments to part 3 in respect of children who are home-educated. I know, because we have discussed the issue, that he takes a keen interest in these matters, both as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on home education and as the Chair of the Select Committee on Education. He recently wrote to the Secretary of State about the Bill’s implications for home educators. He will receive a reply shortly. In the meantime, I reassure him that the Bill will bring benefits to all children and young people with special educational needs, including those who are home-educated. In particular, clause 19 says that in exercising their functions under this part of the Bill, local authorities have to have regard to parents’ views, wishes and feelings, which might, of course, include a wish for home education.

Parents will still have the right to educate their children at home. Where local authorities draw up education, health and care plans that say that home education is right for the child, the local authority will have a duty to arrange the special educational provision set out in the plan, in co-operation with the parents.

[Mr Timpson]

As to the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, I am sure that they will; that is the beauty of the process that we find ourselves in. We are content that we have the right balance. We also need to be alive to the fact that home-educated children require support—this goes to the earlier point about proportionality and reasonableness—that fits in with their education. Clearly, every child’s needs have to be assessed, and local authorities should have that in mind.

Where a child has a plan that names a school as the appropriate environment in which to receive his or her education, parents will still be able to decide to home-educate; that is an important point. If they do, the local authority must assure itself that the parents are providing an education in accordance with section 7 of the Education Act 1996—that is, a full-time education that is suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs. If the local authority is so assured, it will be relieved of its duty to make the special educational provision set out in the plan, just as it is now with regard to statements. However, local authorities will continue to have the power to help parents to make suitable provision in the home by providing support services. To take on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, I would strongly encourage local authorities to consider exercising that power when making decisions about whether the provision being made by parents is suitable.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend says that local authorities must assure themselves that parents are delivering the education in accordance with 1996 Act. I do not think that that is the case. They have to act if they have reason to believe that parents are not providing suitable education. They have no such overarching duty to assure themselves that every single home educating parent is doing so. The parent, not the local authority, has primacy in the education of their child. The local education authority acts only if it finds out that there is a problem. It does not have to seek it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree that we have very high child care costs and I will do everything I can, where we can secure cross-Government agreement, to address that. I want to outline some of our proposals.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I think there is merit in the work my hon. Friend has done and I pay tribute to her for the effort and energy she has put into it. I am disappointed that it has been brought to a halt. Will she confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister agreed to the proposals initially, only to renege on that agreement later?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. It is true that the reason we are not proceeding with the proposals is that we have failed to secure cross-Government agreement.

As I have said, the current child care system is not working for parents and the costs are very high.

[Mr Stuart]

May I confirm my understanding that the Deputy Prime Minister signed up to this but later, for political or other reasons—who knows?—withdrew his support? That is shameful and it could lead to less flexibility in a child care system that lacks quality and is too expensive.

Careers Guidance

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to be here to lead this debate under your august chairmanship, Mr Benton, and to have the opportunity to discuss my Committee’s report. I am also pleased to be joined by so many Committee members and ex-members, and to see that all three main parties are represented in the debate. The reason why we are here is that the ministerial decisions considered in our report will have profound and far-reaching consequences. Young people need good-quality careers guidance if they are to make informed choices about the courses that they take at school and their options when they leave school. That is all the more important now due to the difficult economic backdrop.

Is such good advice typically available? No. It is worth putting on record that the Government inherited a bad situation: a dysfunctional system of careers guidance. In 2009, the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions reported on the low level of satisfaction with the careers guidance work provided by the Connexions service, which is little mourned overall. In 2010, Ofsted criticised inconsistencies in provision.

The Education Act 2011 represented a chance for a fresh start. The Education Committee’s report was prompted by the introduction of the new statutory duty on schools to secure access to independent, impartial careers guidance for pupils in years 9 to 11. The Committee came to the conclusion that the transfer of responsibility to schools was regrettable, as was the way it was done. Our view was prompted not by any nostalgia for the previous arrangements but by concern about how the transfer was implemented. At the time, Ministers had other priorities. They were under great budgetary pressure, and careers guidance lost out. None of the £196 million in funding that the Connexions service received for its careers guidance work—£196 million to provide the signposting that we argue is vital for young people to make the right choices and ensure that the public money that serves their needs is spent in the right way—was passed to schools.

Following the change, a survey by Careers England found that only one in six schools had the same level of investment in careers activities as the year before. That is, one in six maintained what they had. The Minister needs to take that seriously. The survey also found that not a single school had increased its level of investment, even after the Connexions service, however patchy its performance, had been removed from the scene.

Evidence from countries that have transferred responsibility for careers guidance to schools, such as the Netherlands and New Zealand, does not support that approach. In those countries, the schools were at least given funding to supply the service when they were given the duty to do so; nevertheless, the Committee was told that even there, the transfer of the duty had resulted in a significant reduction in both the quality and extent of careers guidance provision in schools. That is why we described the transfer of responsibility as regrettable, much to the Government’s chagrin.

Separately, the OECD has highlighted the limitations of a purely school-based model of careers advice. They include lack of impartiality, weak links with the labour market and inconsistency of provision between schools. That matters, because young people need guidance in order to make good decisions. A recent study by the Education and Employers Taskforce, led by Nick Chambers, underlined the problem. The taskforce surveyed 11,000 13 to 16-year-olds, mapping their job ambitions against the employment market up to 2020. It showed that teenagers have a weak grasp of the availability of certain jobs. For example, 10 times as many youngsters as there are jobs likely to be available were aiming for jobs in the culture, media and sports sector.

I acknowledge the pressing need to deliver spending efficiencies where possible, but this is not a spending efficiency; it is the promotion of spending inefficiency, as we waste money by placing students on the wrong courses. When the Committee visited Bradford college in October last year, I met a young man whose experience typifies the waste of time, money and potential to which poor careers guidance, or the complete lack of it, can lead. He was taking a course to join the uniformed services. He had wasted the previous year on a course that was not right for him and would not have led to a job in the fire service, which he wanted to join. To add insult to injury, this young man, who wanted to be a fireman, found out during the appropriate course that the fire service is now shrinking, and that there was unlikely to be a job for him at the end of his course. The system let that young man down, and it is doing the country no good at all. How did it happen? He did not receive proper guidance about the courses that he needed to realise his dreams, or even guidance about the dreams that he had a chance of realising.

That is just one anecdotal example. When the experience is scaled up, huge amounts of money are being wasted. With youth unemployment at 21% and the CBI currently characterising the transition from school to work as “chaotic”, the policy smacks of false economy.

None the less, the Committee accepts that the new arrangements involving the statutory duty on schools are in place, and being so freshly put on the statute book, are not immediately likely to change. Schools have the duty. If I appear to be giving the new Minister a hard time, I recognise that he only has one foot in the Department for Education, whose performance on the issue has been so woeful. He also has responsibility in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, whose performance has been much better.

The launch of the National Careers Service is a huge boost to careers guidance for adults. It is essential in an integrated and competitive world, and it is re- professionalising careers advice. The Committee was therefore pleased—nay, delighted—that the Government accepted our recommendation that the remit of the National Careers Service should be expanded to enable it to perform a capacity-building and brokerage role for schools.

On the subject of the NCS, I note with regret the recent resignations of Heather Jackson and Professor Tony Watts from the National Careers Council because they believe that the Department for Education has been “escaping its responsibilities” by proposing that the funding provided by BIS for the National Careers Service should be stretched to fill the gaps in services for young people. They observe that the Department for Education has provided the NCS with only £7 million in funding, compared to the £83 million that BIS has provided for adult careers services.

Will the Minister reassure us that the Department for Education is committed to supporting the work of the NCS properly? Will the Department realise the opportunity that the NCS provides to ensure that we have an all- ages, competent, re-professionalised careers service? An opportunity has arisen from the Government policy that established the NCS. An extra £50 million in funding, set against the £56 billion education budget, could make a huge difference and deliver a much more sophisticated and responsive service.

There are some changes that the Committee welcomed. We were pleased by the decision to expand the duty on schools to offer careers guidance down to pupils in year 8, and up to 16 to 18-year-olds in school or college. We think that was logical, and our Committee heard strong evidence for doing it. It might seem an obvious thing to do, but the Government should none the less be congratulated on doing it. That decision was taken during the course of our inquiry. I know that Ministers always—well, mostly—take note of the powerful arguments coming from our Committee, which makes for a much more coherent policy. It is a big win for young people, particularly those about to leave the school system, and I congratulate Ministers.

However, the Committee was disappointed that the Government rejected several of our other recommendations. We advised that each young person should be entitled to at least one face-to-face careers interview with an independent adviser, an opportunity that 98% of schools consider important. We also suggested that schools should be required to publish an annual careers plan setting out information about the careers guidance provided to pupils and the resources allocated to it. Careers plans could form an important part of the new accountability regime for schools. At the moment, schools simply do not see careers advice as a priority. Being obliged to publish their plans would put them under pressure to deliver in that area and not merely to focus on things such as GCSEs, which tend to drive behaviour in secondary schools.

Regrettably, neither of those recommendations has been adopted. Like all organisations, schools are driven by the things on which they are evaluated, and they are not evaluated on careers advice—except during Ofsted’s rare visits—so it gets neglected by head teachers.

We welcome Ofsted’s ongoing thematic review of careers advice and guidance, which is due to report this summer, but Ofsted’s routine inspection framework for schools is simply not designed to make a clear judgment on careers guidance provision, as Ofsted itself acknowledges. Accordingly, we urged Ministers to pursue the development of more sophisticated education destination measures, to make the data analysis more meaningful.

Only yesterday, I questioned the Secretary of State for Education before the Select Committee. He apologised for failing to include destination measures in the Government’s accountability consultation for schools, and he made a commitment to do further work to strengthen the accountability proposals in that way. We support our Ministers’ ambition to expand the time frame of the destination measures and to try to make them a reliable set of data that can be used to hold schools to account—something which, for now, we do not do.

Careers guidance can provide a crucial signpost for rewarding employment. It can help young people—such as the young man I met in Bradford—to make the right choices first time. With the right advice, that young man could have a clear sense of where his opportunities lie. If the fire service was not recruiting, he could explore a job with another branch of the services, such as the Army. He would not waste time repeating a year, and could get a job when he left education. High-quality, independent and impartial advice has a key role to play in helping pupils to make good choices. If the system fails young people, a human and economic cost is incurred, by both the young people and the wider society that risks squandering their talents.

In their response to our report, the Government complained that the Committee

“focuses on the process of planning and providing careers guidance, whereas the Government’s priority is outcomes for young people.”

With respect to Ministers, our so-called process points were about ensuring that young people can access proper careers advice, at a time when five in six schools are cutting back on it. That could help to prevent obvious mistakes. For example, our report highlights the lack of awareness in many schools regarding apprenticeships, despite their being a flagship coalition policy.

Ministers assume that schools will always do the best thing for the children in their care but, in reality, schools will deliver what they are measured on. The system will not deliver when schools are not evaluated on the quality of the careers guidance they provide, and when they are not given funding to supply it. In truth, the Committee is perhaps better focused on outcomes than Ministers who made such a hash of the policy in the DFE.

What is the point of all the education reforms the Government have undertaken, if there is no decent signposting between education and the world of employment? The honourable exception is the new National Careers Service, which needs proper funding if it is to expand its remit and do a good job for the young as well as the old. But if Ministers think that this is about process, I assure them that it is not. It is about our Committee, working on a cross-party basis, recognising that careers services for young people are not up to the job, and identifying what needs to change.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Mr Benton, I recall that you chaired the very first Westminster Hall debate I ever took part in, when I first arrived here in 2010 and had absolutely no idea what was going on. It is, therefore, a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, when I hope I know a bit more about what is going on—we will see. It is also a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and to welcome him back to Parliament and witness his speedy recovery.

I want to talk today about the Committee’s report, and a little about the Government’s response. In taking evidence from many of those involved in the education of young people, the Committee visited careers services and schools, looking at what good practice was emerging, and identifying where deficiencies were most acute. Most importantly, perhaps, we also spoke to young people themselves about the services they received. The crux of our findings is wrapped up at the start of our report:

“The Government’s decision to transfer responsibility for careers guidance to schools is regrettable.”

We had a lot of discussion in the Committee about using “regrettable”. We could easily have used much stronger language, but we were looking for something that would be helpful to the Government rather than something that would be seen as lecturing.

Secondly, we found that international evidence suggests that a school-based model does not deliver the best provision for young people, and we concluded that the weakness of that model had been compounded by the Government’s failure to transfer any budget to schools with which to support the service. That led, predictably and perhaps inevitably, to a drop in overall provision, with fewer than one in six schools providing anything like a reasonable service.

In its inquiry, the Committee was very realistic about the historical performance of career services and Connexions, and did not see the previous service provided to young people as good or not in need of considerable reform. It was clear to us that the Connexions service had fallen well short of expectations in most areas, with the probable exception of its services for vulnerable children, where I think that the level of provision and service was at least reasonable if not good. It was also clear that the service delivered far from the high expectations that the Government had of it on its creation.

However, the Government’s response has been not to reform the Connexions service but to abolish it altogether, transferring the statutory duty to schools, and not providing any of the £196 million of funding that was previously available for the service. That is leaving schools and pupils high and dry, and it is clear that young people will make less informed decisions and choices about their future education and training as a result. That will have a major, negative and long-term impact on the lives of some young people, and it will be those who do not have access, within their families and family circles, to well-informed professional advice who will be hardest hit and lose out the most.

It is fair to say that we were dismayed by what we found, but we chose our wording carefully. We spent a long time discussing what we wanted from the report. We wanted the Government to recognise that the current situation could not continue, and to take action to improve it. We wanted to agree on language that did not solely focus on the problems or lecture the Government about what was going wrong, but provided an honest analysis of what we found, and offered positive recommendations about how the current situation could be improved. We were particularly disappointed, therefore, by both the tone and content of the Government’s response.

The Government’s response tells us:

“While the Committee’s report does acknowledge the failings of the Connexions service we are disappointed that the Committee describes our decision to transfer responsibility for careers to schools as regrettable.”

We found it regrettable not because of the transfer, or even because it happened against international evidence that suggested it was the model that was least likely to succeed, but because responsibility was transferred with all its limitations but without any funding. It was surely bound to fail, and the failure would be regrettable.

Instead of acknowledging that they might have got it wrong, and considering the Committee’s recommendations for improvement, the Government’s response appears to focus on criticising how the inquiry was carried out, stating that we cited evidence of one survey carried out by the careers sector that suggested a reduction in service. I want to tell the Minister that we based our findings not just on one survey: we listened to a huge amount of evidence from schools, local authorities, careers specialists, employers, sixth-form college representatives, further education colleges, teachers’ representatives and head teachers’ representatives, and we listened to what young people told us about the service they received. If that is not enough, I suggest to the Minister that he look at what is happening in schools now. Careers provision for schoolchildren has largely collapsed.

I was a member of the Education Bill Committee more than two years ago, and we discussed at length what was happening then. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), at least acknowledged that there were problems, recognised what was happening and promised to look at the matter, but I understand that he was subsequently blocked from doing so by the Secretary of State for Education. That is regrettable. If the Minister is not convinced by our report, I suggest he talk to the people we talked to and come back and tell us that the system works well.

The Government’s response also complained that the Committee chose not to highlight examples of good practice. I disagree. We went to places such as Bradford, and looked at where local authorities and schools were working together, pooling resources and delivering a good service. It was clear, however, that even where there was good practice, they were doing it on very little funding, or by borrowing from Peter to pay Paul—taking money from other parts of the education service to deliver the bones of a careers service for young people.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Lady recall that in Bradford, where nearly all the schools signed up, money was taken from each of them, but the bulk of it was still provided by the council? Adding all that up, if I recollect correctly, the service provision of careers guidance—in a place such as Bradford, where the council had made it a priority—was still lower on the ground in schools than it had been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and to follow the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who talks of his steel roots. I represent a steel town, so I hope that a thread of steel runs through this debate, which started so well with the Chair of the Select Committee elegantly setting out his stall. He explained why the Committee described the transfer as having been handled “regrettably” and the fact that the resources were not passed to schools along with the responsibility. I was pleased too to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) express disappointment at the Government’s defensive reaction to the report.

The Minister does not have to be defensive. He has the opportunity today to respond to the concerns that are expressed and stride forward rather than glance backwards. Knowing the Minister as I do, I am sure that that is what he will do at the end of the debate.

The hon. Member for Calder Valley explained very well the need for careers guidance to be seen not only in a national context but in a local one, too, and to be matched to the needs of the local region and local area. For the past year, I have been privileged to serve as chair of the Humber Skills Commission, on behalf of the Humber local enterprise partnership, which has people from large and small businesses from across the region represented on its board.

When I took both written and oral evidence from businesses across the Humber, I heard what they were saying about the challenges in skills that face them. To my surprise, career education and guidance came out as a strong concern; indeed, it is one of the prime areas in our report, which we are finalising at the moment.

Let me pause to pick out the points that the commission highlighted. Interestingly, those points, which come from a regional perspective, accord with what the Select Committee has found nationally. First, it was noted that information, advice and guidance is frequently not impartial or focused enough. Secondly, many young people do not know about the roles that are available; they are just not aware of the jobs and roles that are available either locally or nationally. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, there is a mismatch between what they might be interested in and what jobs are there. Thirdly, it was said that we need more employers involved in mentoring and coaching, but we need an infrastructure to make that happen. If the money has been taken away and the responsibility transferred, how does that happen?

Fourthly, the commission noted that labour market information is insufficient and restricted—a key point made by the Chair of the Select Committee at the start of the debate. Career opportunities need to be sold to young people, so a process is needed by which their eyes are opened. The hon. Member for Calder Valley talked about inspirational teachers, but we could have inspirational careers advisers, too.

The commission also said that parents need to understand the opportunities that are available for their children. It is important that they have access to advice and guidance as well. There is a lack of information with regard to opportunities in the offshore wind industry and the supply chain. Given that there is a big opportunity in such an industry, it was quite a stark moment to realise how little was known about it within the educational system, which needs to be preparing people for the jobs of today and tomorrow and not the jobs of yesterday.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the National Careers Service’s initiative offers a huge opportunity? It is embryonic at the moment, but it is building for adults that kind of local labour market knowledge. Having started to gather that information, why on earth would we not want to leverage that for young people as well? Furthermore, does he agree that if the Government found from the Department for Education not necessarily the kind of money that they were spending on Connexions but a fraction of that and put additional resource into the NCS, they could build on a coalition and the successful policy of the NCS and turn all careers advice for young people in the right direction?

[Nic Dakin]

The Chair of the Select Committee is prescient, because the last thing the Humber commission found was a mismatch between the standard of support for young people and adults, with adults generally getting a better service. The Chairman is absolutely right and he lays down the challenge to the Minister, but the Minister can be inventive. We have heard one way forward. Another way would be to provide the resources to local enterprise partnerships. The matter could then be taken forward through city deals to allow the LEPs to innovate. The Chairman gives a good way forward, but there are other ways, and I am sure the Minister will be up for taking on board those interesting ideas.

Let me draw attention to the concerns of the Association of Colleges—this is coming from my background as a college principal. There is concern at the moment about the perverse incentives in the current system, which allow new schools to be established even where there is an over-supply of places. When that happens, we create a competitive environment in which schools are trying to maintain their pupil numbers through compulsory education up to 18 years old. That militates against the provision of truly independent information, advice and guidance because such advice might, for example, recommend that a young person remains in the school because that benefits the school but not necessarily the young person. Independence of advice is crucial; otherwise we get the outcomes that have already been described in this debate that are not in the interests of either young people or UK plc because we are wasting talent.

Let me close by quoting the words of Vince Barrett, the immediate past president of the Association for Careers, Education and Guidance who lives in the Humber area. He has spent his whole life in careers education and guidance, working with young people. He said:

“Removing the statutory duty for secondary schools to provide careers education and replacing it with a new duty to provide only careers guidance has resulted in young people having to make decisions about their future without fully understanding the range of opportunities that may be open to them. It’s a bit like being told to choose a pair of shoes without trying them on and hoping they’ll be a perfect fit.”

I hope that this debate today gives the Government an opportunity to step up to the plate for the young people of this country and put in the resource to allow proper, impartial careers education and guidance to be given to every young person in the land, so that they can achieve their potential.

Apprenticeships

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Others need to get into the debate.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South referred to an article written by the Leader of the Opposition. I grant that it was an unusual article; it actually set out some policies—on apprenticeships. I read it to find out exactly what was there. The first policy was to introduce a national application system for apprenticeships, rather like UCAS for universities. That is a good idea. It is such a good idea that we have already brought it in and linked it to UCAS. It is called the apprenticeship vacancy service; it is run by the National Apprenticeship Service and it was used by more than 1 million applicants last year—evidently none of them from the Labour party research department.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Fallon]

indicated assent.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister said he would not give way to anyone.

[Mr Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong. My right hon. Friend is prepared to give way and I congratulate him. He may not know that my constituency has the highest number of adult apprenticeship starts, and overall has one of the highest numbers in the country. I congratulate him and his colleagues on increasing the number of apprenticeships and ensuring quality. Does he share my surprise that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) does not mention the tripling of apprenticeships that has occurred in his constituency since Labour left power?

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend does the House a service by drawing attention to that rather revealing statistic.

I turn to the second policy we discovered in the Labour leader’s article. He said:

“Let’s respond to employers who say they can’t hire young people with the right skills, and put them in charge of how training money is spent.”

That is a good idea, but the Prime Minister launched the employer ownership pilot in November 2011. There are now some 26 of those pilot schemes. Only this morning another one was launched, for digital marketing. The support of the Opposition—a bit late—is very welcome.

Thirdly, let us turn to the idea of apprentices in Whitehall. I agree. In 2010, we found hardly any apprentices in Ministers’ offices. There are now 1,800 across Whitehall. We announced a fast-stream apprentice scheme that will take 500 apprentices—the same number as the graduate fast stream. Other of the Leader of the Opposition’s colleagues mentioned the number of apprentices in my Department. They were wrong; there are 79 apprentices in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and its Executive agencies, hired despite the broader hiring freeze. [Interruption.] Other than apprentices, the Department employs no one at all aged under 19.

Fourthly, we come to the policy on procurement. The Opposition say we should put apprentices into the procurement contracts for High Speed 2. Of course, HS2 has yet to go through the House so its contracts are yet to be signed, but the Department for Transport has already made it clear that it will ensure that any procurement for the construction of HS2 meets our wider Government commitments to deliver apprenticeships and training. In the case of Crossrail, the largest construction project in Europe, the contracts signed by this Government require apprentices. I think we now know where the Opposition got the idea for all these Labour policies—they looked up what we are doing and they are playing catch-up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and if I have time I will come to that very point.

One of the Select Committee’s recommendations was that the Ofsted assessment criteria should include the number of students that a school puts into vocational and further education. It is only by changing school targets that teachers will change the culture of schools to overcome this discrimination between higher education and the vocational route. Unfortunately, the Government declined to take up that invitation.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) for a very good Select Committee report that highlighted the problems of the careers service. By delegating careers advice to schools, the existing bias within the education system to encourage students to take the higher education route rather than the vocational route is being reinforced. We need careers advisers who are aware of apprenticeships, aware of the benefits of vocational education, and prepared to advise students in schools that that is the best possible route for their particular range of aptitude.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about careers advice is absolutely right. Does he agree that one of the Government’s successful initiatives has been the National Careers Service, and there could be a role for that service, working with schools, to ensure that they fulfil the duty that they have been given? All too often the institutional interest of the school and the individual interest of the young person are not the same, and that is why we need some kind of arbitration to make sure that the interests of the child are put first.

[Mr Bailey]

I read the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee on that, and in the current situation I think it is probably the best option. I await the Government’s response to it with interest.

Work experience is another topic that has been raised. Removing the obligation on schools to have their students involved in work experience removes from those students an experience that potentially will enthuse them to pursue an apprenticeship. In my area, many of the apprentices in the foundries went there as a result of work experience they undertook. Removing this obligation undermines the overall thrust of the policy, which is to get young people into vocational education.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) raised the issue of business involvement. That is another crucial element in developing a strategy that works. I believe that, first, there must be a vocational qualification, and the BTEC, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), should provide that. I support the Government’s employer ownership scheme as I believe that our vocational qualifications must be determined, monitored and assessed by business, in conjunction with the education service. I also believe more group training associations and apprenticeship training associations should be developed so we can reach the smaller small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the hardest to reach and which otherwise would be unable to provide the resources for apprenticeship training.

I am not going to repeat my hon. Friend’s arguments in support of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee recommendations, but I will emphasise that my local authority of Sandwell is pioneering in this area, and has so far obtained 250 apprentices, is playing a brokering role for students with local businesses, and has taken 300 people off the unemployment register by giving them work experience in a pre-apprenticeship scheme.

If local government can do this, why cannot the Government? The half-hearted response of the Government is to be lamented, and I hope we will get something more positive in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are ensuring that physical education is a core part of the curriculum for children aged up to 16, and we have introduced new topics to the subject.

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

I am worried about the curriculum for children who are currently being flexi-schooled. The Government recently announced—without consultation and without notice—the abolition of flexi-schooling, which has existed for decades and which meets the needs of many children. How will the Minister ensure that the needs of those children are met in the immediate future?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We will ensure that our attendance procedures are absolutely correct, so that we know whether students are at school or not. If they are being home-schooled, that is a decision for their parents; if they are at school, they must be properly at school, and their attendance records must be properly monitored.

Children and Families Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Timpson]

I am aware of the issue the hon. Lady raises. I have just set out the principles that remain in place, and it is worth noting that the concept of fostering for adoption is not new. A number of local authorities already use fostering for adoption very successfully, for example East Sussex county council. That is in no way trying to undermine the principles in law that already exist whereby local authorities must look at potential future placements within the family before considering a placement outside the family, and that will pertain as a consequence.

We also know that black children take, on average, one year longer to be adopted than white children or children of other ethnicity. Again, that is totally unacceptable. As Birmingham city council’s recent report illustrated, potential adoptions are still being blocked by misplaced and misguided efforts to find the perfect ethnic match over and above all other considerations. I want to make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that we do not intend that ethnicity will never be a consideration. However, ethnicity should not block a placement that is in the best interests of the child and that can provide them with the loving and stable family home they so badly need. The Bill will remove the explicit requirement to have regard to a child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background when matching them with prospective adopters. In doing so, it will ensure quicker and more balanced decision making when matching them for adoption.

As of 31 March 2012, 4,650 children were waiting for an adoptive family. We need more than 600 additional adopters a year just to keep up with the growing number of children waiting. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), unfortunately we have a situation in which many small local problems are adding up to one big national crisis. There are currently around 180 adoption agencies, including 152 local authorities, each recruiting and assessing an average of 17 adopters a year. Many operate on too small a scale to be efficient and have no incentive to recruit adopters to meet the needs of children outside their area. That system is simply not fit for purpose.

We need to ensure that the national crisis of children waiting for adopters ends, and that it ends as soon as possible. Therefore, we are continuing to work with local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies and have recently provided them with over £150 million to scale up adoption recruitment services and bolster capacity to meet the growing demand for placements. However, if local authorities are unable to develop a sustainable approach, we will be prepared to use the provisions in the Bill that enable the Secretary of State to require some or all local authorities to outsource their adopter recruitment and assessment function to one or more other adoption agencies.

As we discussed a few moments ago, sadly some adoptions break down, with inadequate therapeutic and other forms of support often being a contributory factor, yet we know that properly assessed and well-planned support can help prevent problems that can lead to a placement breaking down. People adopting children need to be confident in the support available, but that has been sadly lacking, with many adopters not even being made aware of their right to request an assessment. So we are placing a duty on local authorities to provide information about the support that is available. We are also introducing personal budgets to give adopters more control over who provides the support and how it is delivered. With appropriate safeguards, the Bill will also widen access to the adoption register so that adopters can take a more active role in identifying children for whom they may be appropriate adoptive parents.

Taken together, the Bill’s measures on adoption will mean more children being adopted more quickly where that is the right thing for them. It will mean adopters having a greater degree of control and support so that they can give those children the best start in life.

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

Will the Minister say something to reassure Barnardo’s and others that, given that 80% of current adoption recruitment is carried out by local authorities, Ministers do not plan to force whole swathes of local authorities into the voluntary sector, which might not have the capacity or capability to step up?

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Select Committee Chairman and I take his question in the spirit in which it was meant. The first thing to say is that we have provided £1 million to the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies to boost their latent capacity, and those agencies have already seen 20% growth this year and the year before that. It is recognised that this sector comprises only 20% of the current market, so by scaling up the market by making more astute economies of scale, we are ensuring that we move towards a much more mixed market, maximising capacity right across the country to meet the demand. Of course we do not want to sit idly by and watch this money have no effect whatever. That is why the Bill contains this enabling clause to make whatever changes are necessary to recruit the number of adopters we need so that children waiting to be adopted can have the opportunity of getting an adoptive placement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her lengthy record of work on this issue, including securing legislation as an Opposition Member under the previous Government. I shall move on to the elements of the plan that we do support, including the extension to the age of 25. I know that she has campaigned for that, and the Government now propose it. We very much welcome that proposal, in part for the reasons that she has set out.

We support the switch from statements to education, health and care plans, and we absolutely share the ambition to encourage joint working between different agencies in drawing the plans up and providing the services described in them. We also welcome changes that have been made following campaigning by charities and parents, supported by Labour, and also through the pre-legislative scrutiny, which will maintain access to independent special schools and colleges as an option for children with SEN, and the extension of education, health and care plans for those young people on apprenticeships.

What is striking about this part of the Bill is not so much what it contains, but what it does not. If the Government are to meet the high expectations that they have themselves raised, important changes will need to be made during the Bill’s passage. As the Bill is currently drafted, the education, health and care plans will offer no more legal entitlement to support from health and social care than statements offer at the moment. We will press for stronger requirements on health and social services throughout the passage of the Bill, as well as a strengthening of the plans for those in post-19 education.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about imposing as best we can on health, but the NHS has a constitutional requirement that can conflict with attempts to impose duties on it. Has he thought up some creative ways past that barrier?

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman refers to an important point, which makes the case for the agenda on health and social care set out by the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), which moves towards a whole person approach. That has been a focus for adult health and social care, but the Bill is an opportunity to demonstrate that that can also be the case for children and young people.

Let me turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). We, too, agree with the Select Committee that disabled children should be included in the provision of education, health and care plans whether or not they have a learning difficulty. Education, health and care plans should codify and bring together the current entitlements for disabled children and young people. The statutory rights that disabled children and young people have in terms of both assessment and provision are already laid out in disability legislation. Including disabled children, therefore, would serve to promote better co-ordination and integration of the duties that already exist, and could even lead to savings.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has been interesting throughout. I congratulate former Ministers and the Secretary of State on their contribution to the Bill. In particular, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), on the way in which he presented the Bill today, on how he dealt with pre-legislative scrutiny by the Education Committee and on his general willingness to listen. If Ministers have the right attitude, the pre-legislative scrutiny approach is exactly the right way to go about creating legislation. With reference to another issue, I think that Ministers who listen to suggested changes and then change tack accordingly should be seen not as weaker as a result, but as stronger. It is about doing the right thing in the long-term interests of children, rather than trying to avoid political embarrassment on the day. Fortunately, pre-legislative scrutiny allows no such embarrassment anyway.

Although I broadly welcome all the provisions in the Bill, I will focus today on special educational needs, which the Education Committee has looked at. The Committee’s recommendations were addressed very thoroughly in the Government’s response, on which the Minister deserves to be congratulated. The regulations and the code of practice will be absolutely key to whether the legislation delivers for children with SEN, as we hope it will, but we are yet to have any sight of them. It will be so important that the Bill Committee looks at, understands and scrutinises those regulations as it does its work.

Of course, those regulations will include the detailed requirements on local offers, which will be critical. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole Committee when I say that we have no doubt that for those with education, health and care plans the framework set out in the Bill will definitely lead to an improvement, although not perfection. Getting it right for those on school action and school action plus schemes—in other words, not the 3% who have a statement now, but the 17% who are on other types of support—is critical, and that comes down to the local offer.

I am delighted that the Minister agreed to extend the pilots, but, in truth, as we scrutinised the legislation we had little information back from the pilots that would allow us to understand what local offers would actually look like. The regulations relating to local offers need to address our recommendation on the need to clarify what will be available for pupils with low to moderate SEN, particularly those with speech, language and communication needs, who make up a substantial group within the category. That is dealt with in paragraphs 52 to 53 of the Government’s response.

The Committee recommended having minimum standards for local offers in the Bill. We wrestled with the idea of a framework, so I was pleased to hear the Minister say today that there would be a common framework. I am not sure whether he will also be summing up at the end of the debate—

[Mr Timpson]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Stuart]

No, that would be unusual. Perhaps the Minister who will sum up can tell us more about what the common framework for local offers means. Will that go some way towards our minimum standards? Will it create a formal basis to make it easier to compare provision in one area and another? It will be important to find out.

We are delighted that the Government accepted the Committee’s recommendation that the code of practice should be a statutory document and be laid before Parliament, although Her Majesty’s Opposition, doing their job, will rightly press on whether that should be by negative or affirmative resolution, which I am sure will be a useful debate to have.

The role of health remains unclear in the Bill, but not because Ministers are not trying their best; it touches on the issue I raised earlier about the NHS constitution. On the positive front, we are encouraged by the Minister’s clear determination to find ways to hold the NHS to account for how well it meets the needs of children. The Bill makes provision for time scales—they apply, for example, to responding to requests for assessments of SEN, and to carrying out the assessments—to be included in regulations, including provision for aligning time scales between local authorities and health. That is to be welcomed, because it is critical, but it needs to be watched closely when implemented.

The Bill will maintain many essential protections, entitlements and freedoms for parents and young people, including a specific right to request a statutory assessment. We also welcome the fact that the Committee’s recommendation that the detail in an education, health and care plan should be “specified”, as opposed to “set out”, was accepted by the Government and is in the Bill. The Committee’s recommendation on mediation being advised but not made compulsory has been accepted, for which I am grateful.

The Bill also shows a good level of commitment to ensuring the involvement of children and young people and their parents and carers in how provision is made for them. Explicit provision has now been made for regulations to set out how local authorities should involve young people and their parents in preparing and reviewing the local offer. The Bill now provides for more choice for young people with SEN and their parents about where they will receive their education. In response to the Committee’s recommendation on independent specialist colleges and independent special schools, provisions have now been included, so the Secretary of State can approve individual institutions for which parents or young people express a preference in their plan.

The Bill will entitle NEETs of compulsory participation age and apprentices to a plan, following the Committee’s recommendations, and I am again grateful to the Minister for listening and taking that on board. The Committee expressed concern about SEN pathfinders failing to involve colleges adequately in trialling the approaches to nought-to-25 provision. The Government’s response explains that pathfinders will redouble their focus on the post-16 sector, along with additional funding for well-performing pathfinders to advise others on implementation, but I ask the House to note that the Association of Colleges is concerned about the implementation of new funding a year ahead of the Bill’s proposed implementation. It states:

“The poor management of the funding changes are threatening the goodwill of Colleges towards the Bill.”

I hope that Ministers will take that on board. It might be something that can be looked at closely in the Bill Committee.

The Minister shares the Committee’s view that special educational needs co-ordinators should be required to be qualified teachers, and he has expressed his intention that regulations should make that a requirement in future. That, too, is welcome.

Briefly—I have 40 seconds left—the Committee’s recommendation was that disabled children with or without SEN should be included in the scope of entitlement to integrated provision and to education, health and care plans, but that was not accepted by the Government, which is disappointing. I accept that they made a cogent case as to why that was, but I hope that they might be able to look at that again. The Committee’s request for reassurance that ensuring statutory protections for 16 to 25-year-olds will not compromise provision for others has not been fully answered, so I hope that can be looked at as well. If we are to have the big improvement we all hope for, we must ensure co-operation and have seamless systems in place across all sectors, including health.

A-level Reform

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is absolutely no surprise that the Labour party opposes any change to our system: they are the educational reactionaries; we are looking to the future. We are looking to compete in the modern world, which is why we have leading universities, such as Cambridge and Imperial, helping us to develop the new curriculum. The Opposition oppose any change; they want students to be on an exam treadmill at age 16, 17 and 18. We want students to have the opportunity to think, to learn, and to study subjects in depth; they just want constant exams.

We have discussed these changes with the Russell Group, which is bringing forward proposals and leading these reforms. I have also been in conversation with Universities UK and the 1994 Group, as they want to be involved too. I suggest that the Opposition get with the programme, otherwise they will be left behind even further. Let us not forget what happened under Labour Governments. Let us not forget Curriculum 2000, which saw a drastic reduction in the number of students doing maths A-level—down 20% in two years. We are now the country with the lowest number of students who are studying that important subject in the entire OECD.

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

My feeling has always been that our children are over-examined, and I had a certain prejudice against AS-level as we go from GCSE to AS-level to A-level, but I was struck, talking to schools in my area and elsewhere, by head teachers saying that the confidence the AS-level brought to some pupils was a benefit. We should, therefore, be careful about any reforms and make sure that we can carry everyone forward. We should encourage as many pupils as we can to think deeply, but make sure that we keep everyone on board. Will the Minister tell us what assessment she has made of those risks?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. One thing I would point out to him is that 75% of universities offer places based on predicted grades at A-level, rather than on AS-level results. The big increase in participation at A-level took place in the 1990s, before Curriculum 2000 was introduced. That was when we saw a massive increase in the number of students going to universities, particularly from low-income backgrounds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have said, ensuring that more students are taking core subjects means that they will have better career opportunities later in life, and extending the opportunity to study maths and English beyond GCSE level for those who have not got a grade C means that they will get those important points. We have developed the National Careers Service, and the helpline has had 62,000 contacts with 13 to 18-year-olds, giving people these opportunities. We also ask schools to offer face-to-face advice. The key is that students get a good education; that is what will help them to compete in the world.

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

Tens of billions of pounds are spent on post-14 education alone, and the choices made by young people are crucial to their future and to that of the nation. The Education Committee’s report on careers advice and guidance will come out on Wednesday. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that the right advice and guidance is in place, not only to help those most disadvantaged in our society but to ensure the most effective use of public funds?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Of course I will be extremely interested to see what the Select Committee report says on the subject. We do need good careers guidance, but we also need a system where students have an incentive to take subjects that will prove of value to them later in life. That is the whole point of the English baccalaureate.

Examination Reform

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The right hon. Gentleman has explained the need for change at GCSE and provided an analysis—an accurate one for the most part—of the legacy from the Labour party. Can he explain why abolition of one suite of GCSEs is the right response, rather than simply introducing the measures and changes he has itemised for GCSEs as they stand?

[Mr Laws]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points and the work that the Select Committee on Education has done on this and associated areas. I believe that in some of the core subjects where we are making these changes there is value in signalling the extent to which they will be improved and varied from the existing GCSE qualifications. There is some merit in underlining—through a change in how we describe these qualifications—how fundamental the changes could be. That will also be relevant for people when they assess the suite of qualifications and their future value in the labour market.

[Mr Stuart]

rose—

[Mr Laws]

I will give way again, but then I must make some progress.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. He is right about signalling. Is there not a risk from the Government’s saying officially that GCSEs as a brand are broken and irrecoverable of sending the signal that the remaining GCSEs—most subjects—for which children will spend an awful lot of time studying are also broken? Surely he must either have plans to abolish GCSEs altogether or recognise that such signalling has risks as well as benefits?

[Mr Laws]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is exactly why we say in paragraph 4.7 of the consultation paper that to

“ensure the benefits of this more rigorous approach to the English Baccalaureate subjects are felt across the whole curriculum, we will ask Ofqual to consider how these new higher standards can be used as a template for judging and accrediting a new suite of qualifications, beyond these subjects at 16, to replace GCSEs”.

I promise him—I will come to this later—that we have no intention of allowing the status of the other subjects, which are not at present in the core English baccalaureate certificate, to be downgraded. We place huge value on those subjects, and I will set out later how we will take the matter forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laws]

I am going to have to make some progress, I am afraid.

Parents want to see their children secure a strong grasp of the core academic subjects, but they also want them to have a fully rounded education, with opportunities in the other areas that I have mentioned. We are determined to ensure that those opportunities will be available. We are committed to ensuring that pupils will be able to take good-quality qualifications in all subjects at the end of key stage 4 that are fair, rigorous and rewarding. Indeed, we said in our consultation that we would ask Ofqual to consider how the higher standards that we are proposing for core EBCs could be used as a template for judging and accrediting a new suite of qualifications at age 16 to replace current GCSEs. We acknowledge that there are subjects for which 100% reliance on formal written examinations is not the best form of assessment, and we will be working with Ofqual, the Arts Council and others to review qualifications outside the core EBacc subjects. We will make an announcement, including on a proposed timetable for reform, in due course.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

May I probe my right hon. Friend a little further on the subject of tiering? The GCSE was tiered in certain subjects, and I understand that, with the introduction of the EBCs, that will be abolished. Will he tell us what share of children took tiered GCSEs last year? What are the positive and negative implications of the loss of the tiering that was found to be necessary to provide an appropriate assessment of a child’s level of attainment?

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue. We are looking at it closely as part of the consultation. I think he would acknowledge that the principle behind our reform is absolutely right. We will look at individual subjects to ensure that the reform is deliverable and that it has the intended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has been interesting and stimulating up to this point. What are the aims of Government policy in education? There are two: to raise standards for all, and to close the gap between rich and poor. I think those two aims bring the whole House together in support.

Expert advice from the university of Durham and elsewhere is that there has been grade inflation, which means an undermining of confidence in the currency of GCSEs. It has to be said that we saw some occasionally rushed changes driven by the Department under the last Government, which contributed greatly—although we have not yet reached our conclusions on it—to the GCSE English furore last year. The truth is that changing so many elements at the same time contributed to the difficulties we saw with the English GCSE last year.

I agree with many of the criticisms made by Ministers. I believe there are issues surrounding modularity, and I am delighted to hear from the Minister that he is not moving towards an absolute position on every single subject. It is right to be informed by an understanding that modularity has been counter-productive in too many ways, without necessarily getting rid of it where it is the best way of delivering the most effective assessment.

The Government’s move to reduce the number of re-sits is also correct, as is their move to address equivalences. The shadow Secretary rightly raised some issues about one of the few successes that came out of the diploma debacle—specifically, the engineering diploma. As disasters go, the fact that it has been reconstituted at whoever’s behest suggests that it has not been that catastrophic and that sufficient flexibility exists in the system to allow the good elements to be retained.

As I have said before in education debates, we attempt to define what is wrong with the current system, perhaps spending rather too long on that, and we then talk about the nirvana we would like to move towards, doing very little on what is in front of us now—the mechanics of the changes. We do not give them enough protection because we get into a fight with one side defending its period in office and another side pointing out that there are some serious problems and asking whether the other side is going to deny it.

To his great credit, as has been acknowledged, the shadow Secretary of State has said that he could see a few problems but that that was as far as he could go. That does not mean, however, that the Government’s particular recommendations are the right ones. It means that there is a case for change. We then have to make sure that we examine it. As for the controversy over the diploma, I recall the now shadow Chancellor, whom I would describe as gleaming-eyed in his certainty, sitting before us as expert after expert came before the then Children, Schools and Families Committee and said, “Slow down; listen to the evidence; take your time; get this right; there is a real chance for a legacy”—leaving something that, if got right, would last for whoever was in government in the future. The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) did not listen, and we ended up with much of what was positive about the diploma being lost, with only some of the good salvaged from it. We do not want to make that mistake again. It is important that we carry people with us, not least politically. Otherwise, whatever happens to the Labour party at the next election or the one after that, we will not see the benefits of having a more rigorous system in place.

I ask the Government to consider some slowing down. The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that

“coherence comes at the end of the process.”

Well, I think coherence comes at the beginning of the process. To look at it simply, if we are dealing with assessment, we first need to work out what needs to be taught—the curriculum. That can be looked at in isolation and work can be done on what we think should be taught. Everything else then needs to be looked at coherently. We need to look at the assessment that matches it, and then at the system of accountability that drives behaviour in schools, drives the allocation of teachers to certain types of pupils in all sorts of ways. The Government have acknowledged that, and we need to get it right.

We have had an announcement on new qualifications before we have had the findings of the secondary curriculum review. I think that looks like putting the cart before the horse. It would be helpful to have those findings. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for undertaking to do an accountability review, but qualifications and accountability need to be seen as a coherent whole, working with the curriculum and the syllabus. I worry that we have not quite got that right.

Appropriateness of assessment is an issue. The Government want to set the bar higher. The Secretary of State is a dynamic man, who wants people to aspire and thinks that a lack of aspiration and acceptance of poor performance has gone on too long, and has entrenched poverty. He is right about that. But if we move the metric up, what is it about the measure that will change teacher quality? It can have some effect, but let us face it, is it the key driver of improvement in education quality? I do not think so. If we exclude equivalencies, in 2011 48% of children did not get five good GCSEs including English and maths. If the GCSE currency is so bankrupt, weak and devalued, and yet half of children are failing to achieve that measure, it is not obvious that pushing it up will magically lift performance, unless the accountability is wrong. However, our accountability is driven and focused to an obsessive and damaging extent. It pushes schools to focus desperately on trying to get people over the line, and yet 48% of kids still do not get over it. That is not because they are not focused enough on it; they could not be more focused—they are excessively focused on it.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Is it not possible that moving the metric up could have the perverse outcome of demotivating people?

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend, who serves on the Education Committee, leads me neatly on to structure.

How sufficient was the understanding—I did not have a sufficient understanding—of the nature of how our qualification system works? I come back to tiering. Ministers did not know—they will correct me if I am wrong—the share of young people who were doing tiered exams. Last year, in AQA English—the largest board—45% of children did the tiered exam. One of the Secretary of State’s objections is that by putting them into this thing where, a bit like the old CSE, the top grade they could get was a C, the two-tier system was alive and well within our GCSE system, we just did not know it, and that we must get rid—maybe it came out of coalition politics; maybe it was the leak of the new O-level—of any form of separation or tiering. We must make sure our assessment is appropriate, because otherwise children will sit exams that, unless some genius designed them, put them off learning, rather than encouraging them. [Interruption.]

[Bill Esterson]

While the debate rages in front of me, I want to check—[Interruption.]

[Bill Esterson]

I thought the Secretary of State was giving another of his famous soliloquies in his team meetings, which we heard about this morning.

What is the view of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on the role of assessments within qualifications and the balance between that and end-of-year exams, because that is one key change in the EBCs proposed by the Secretary of State?

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who serves with distinction on the Education Committee. I am sympathetic to the Government’s view on a move to more linear exams, notwithstanding that the Secretary of State must be careful not to tread in areas that are rightly those of Ofqual, the independent regulator. The fact that controlled assessment is being reviewed—I forget exactly what stage it is at—by Ofqual suggests that it, too, has concerns, which I think it has expressed to the Education Committee previously. It is right to ensure that the system has public confidence. If we improve assessment within schools, and our confidence in it, we might be able to move the balance back in the right direction. I think the Government are right to say that the assessment should come more towards the end of the process.

There are two parts to the administration of exams. First, there is the wholly new EBC qualification, which has been introduced on the basis that the GCSE brand is broken, at least for the main subjects that are not being upgraded—the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) was right to mock slightly the idea that one can upgrade one without effectively downgrading the other. I am not sure the case has been made. It takes a long time to establish a brand in the education market, and I do not see why we should not repair what we have got, which I do not see as fundamentally broken. I have met Engineering UK and employers of all sorts, and notwithstanding their agreement with the Secretary of State on many of his insights about the need to tighten what we have, none of them thinks that establishing a wholly new qualification is the right answer.

The second part is the issue of moving to a franchise system. On that, the Department for Transport and its troubles are lesson enough to go slowly. Ofqual itself has said that if we insist on creating new qualifications, we should at least consider decoupling from the market reform. Handing over to lots of people a five-year monopoly on provision of the most sensitive exams before really thinking through the incentives and possible implications is perhaps not the wisest thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

I am not suggesting that Lord Adonis supports everything that we are doing; I am saying that there is some continuity. That is good, because we need more continuity in education policy. A lot of the measures that we are introducing will be useful, in that they will make things better and build on some of the achievements of the previous Government. That needs to be said.

My third point is that I am a firm believer in the Ebacc, as I stated when the Education Select Committee looked into that subject. In fact, that was the only time I ever voted against the publication of a report. I did so because I believe it is important that the Ebacc should be promoted. One of the myths that needs to be completely debunked is that the Ebacc will stop other subjects being taught. That is clearly not the case, because most, if not all, schools also offer a wider variety of subjects. That is what they are supposed to do, and what they will continue to do. I do not believe that enough attention has been paid to the role of Ofsted in ensuring that schools are going beyond the Ebacc subjects. We need to be much clearer about the process involved in the inspection regime, and about the impact that the Ebacc will have on the delivery of other subjects.

Linked to that is Professor Alison Wolf’s report, which has been discussed by the shadow Secretary of State and the Minister for Schools. I think that Alison Wolf’s report is first class. It sets the scene for proper vocational training. She makes two points, however, that have thus far been overlooked. First, she believes that an academic framework is absolutely necessary for pupils, and that it is not inconsistent with going on to vocational studies. In fact, she notes that it is a good thing to have an academic basis for vocational training. The second point that she makes very clearly in her report is that there is plenty of time in the school day to go beyond the Ebacc and into vocational training. I think that is critical, because it applies to post-16 education—beyond school and into colleges—as well. We need to bear those two points in mind when we think about the EBacc.

It is important to underline what the Minister of State said about universality. I was particularly impressed with it, as I think we should have a system in which all pupils are treated fairly and all pupils have a fair chance of taking an examination, so that we do not get division between one type of pupil and another. One of the great achievements over the last decade or so has been exactly that—and we should celebrate it. I would say, however, that the EBacc builds on that and does not threaten it, which is something of which we should be proud.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend describes his support for a universal exam. To achieve it, the Government have said, the boundary must be higher than the grade C GCSE. There must be a risk, must there not, that quite a number of people will feel that they have failed and that the certificate of achievement will not be a currency of much value in reflecting the work they have done.

[Neil Carmichael]

The currency with the least value is the one that allows too much inflation. The brutal fact is that we want to avoid grade inflation, and the measures being introduced in parallel to this change seek to do precisely that. I think that that is exactly what we need to do.

[Mr Stuart]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. When grade inflation is inadvertent, denied, counter-productive or whatever, there is an argument about the level at which the qualification should be set. If we cease grade inflation at some point in time, we will be fixing it as being “the level”. It is interesting to reflect on what the appropriate level is: perhaps we should have something much harder, but the Government appear to be talking about reversing that inflation and setting the level of a pass—however it comes out—at a higher level than it is now. Already, 50% of kids do not achieve five good GCSEs including English and maths.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for his second intervention. The simple answer is this. What we need to ensure is that we have a set of grades whereby the student can be properly assessed and valued. That is what we need to do, that is what the EBacc is all about and that is why grade inflation should not be welcomed or tolerated. It needs to be dealt with not just through the type of examination and certificate, but through the way in which marking and so forth is done.

I shall finish on the point about business. Much has been said about whether business wants the change. In my constituency, business definitely does. I run a festival in manufacturing and engineering each and every year. I do it because I really want to encourage young people to get involved in those key areas, which would clearly benefit from the EBacc. At every festival, I pick up the fact that business wants to know that people are coming out of schools with more experience and more capacity in mathematics and the STEM subjects more generally. The EBacc will help, so that is what we should aim for.

It is a false description if people say that when something starts off, nobody wants it. When it proves itself, as the EBacc undoubtedly will, business will see that the right decision has been made. That is an important point. Anyone who talks to the organisations that represent engineering, manufacturing and associated activities will find that they are interested in the move towards the EBacc, that they think it is the right way to test and examine children and that they think it will be useful to them when they start recruiting. I shall conclude on that note.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

I am not sure what that gap is, but even in difficult times this Government have produced a fantastic settlement for schools and are doing what her Government never did: deliver a £2.5 billion pupil premium which will get more money to the most disadvantaged youngsters in the country.

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

The Minister accepts that there are gross funding discrepancies among schools, not on the basis of need but simply because of the local authority in which a school sits. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider the f40 group’s appeal again and look to take action in this Parliament? Such gross unfairness cannot be allowed to last into the next Parliament.

[Mr Laws]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s points. I met representatives of the f40 group recently and had a detailed discussion. As I have already explained, we are making the first moves to introduce a national funding formula in the next spending review period. I assure my hon. Friend that in the meantime I will keep a close eye—as will the Secretary of State—on the representations that the f40 group is making about how we get a fairer funding formula.