Black Country University Technical College

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Winnick

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss a matter of concern to my constituency and to the black country. In May 2011 I received a letter from the then Education Minister telling me that the Black Country university technical college was to be opened in my constituency in September. A funding agreement had been entered into for this to happen.

A year later the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, the body that promotes such colleges and plays an active role in these matters, wrote to me and said that more such colleges were being opened across the country. The age group involved was 14 to 19-year-olds. As was emphasised by Ministers and the trust, the purpose of such colleges, as the name implies, is to provide intensive and advanced technical schooling, combined with a normal secondary education. The hours are somewhat longer—from 8.30 am to 5.30 pm—and a further aim is to improve behaviour and reduce truancy. We are all in favour of such aims and objectives, and I was told that a good deal of that had already been achieved.

The cost of equipping each UTC was at that time around £10 million. The Minister may want to give us the latest figure. It should be emphasised that for UTCs and other forms of state education, such as secondary schools and academies, the money inevitably comes from the public purse, and rightly so. The UTCs were funded 100% by the Exchequer, as all state education is. There is no criticism of that.

The UTC in Walsall opened just four years ago in 2011, as I said. It was one of the first five in England. Of those first five, the one in my constituency is to close. Another, in Hackney, is to close at the same time. There is, I understand, a question mark over the future of yet another one. The Baker Dearing Educational Trust had brought out a glossy report, which I am sure the Minister has seen, to celebrate such colleges. Needless to say, everything in the pamphlet was positive. Nothing could be better, apparently, and there were plenty of quotes from well-known figures.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about the technical college in Walsall. In my constituency the technical college, or the further education college as it is now, prepares and trains people for future employment. Has he been able to ascertain the impact that the closure of his college will have on the employment prospects of the young people in the area? That would concern me and I am sure it concerns him as well.

[Mr Winnick]

That is undoubtedly a useful intervention. I shall mention the issue to some extent and am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened.

I want to make it clear from the start that I accept there is much to be said for an extensive and advanced technical education, not least in the black country. Such skills are necessary in the four boroughs, certainly in my own borough of Walsall. The new and latest skills are much in demand. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is also in attendance, totally agree with that. The skills will, to a large extent, replace the older industries, which tend to be described as metal-bashing industries. More potential engineers—both male and female—and others with specialist skills would certainly be welcomed by employers. There is no dispute about that. It is not part of my case that such extensive advanced technical education should not be given. How it is given, and how it should fit into secondary education, is another matter altogether.

It was after the last Parliament ended at the end of March that an announcement was made that the Walsall college on Vernon Way in Bloxwich in my constituency was to close. I must confess—I shall come to this in a moment—that I am not altogether happy about the way in which it was announced. In fact, I learned about it informally. Rumours were running around that the college was to close and the local authority had been told, but the official announcement was made a little later and during the election campaign, not afterwards. Currently there are 158 students, more than 100 of whom—this relates to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said in his intervention—will need to complete their secondary schooling elsewhere come the autumn.

There has been much concern over the college closing. The announcement has gone down rather badly, to say the least, in the locality. The president of the Black Country chamber of commerce said it was a sad day for such education and a hard day for students, parents and employers.

The Ofsted report on the Walsall college was highly critical. The inspection was carried out in March. A few moments ago I mentioned the glossy pamphlet that was sent to us. It said that everything was positive and successful, but the Ofsted report said that student achievement was inadequate, teaching was weak, attendance was well below average, and discipline simply was not good enough. Moreover, Ofsted was critical of the governors and sponsors. It criticised the fact that the governing body had failed to understand how students were doing and to tackle what Ofsted describes as the underperformance of staff. It also says, in all fairness, that the more recent principal has done good work in trying to improve standards. That should be said on the record.

The decision to close, and the manner in which it was done, does not provide much confidence in the way in which the UTC was governed. It should not be overlooked that the Ofsted report, however critical—indeed, it was highly critical, as I have already said—made no recommendation that the college close. It was stated that it should be put in special measures, which is the normal approach. Whenever Ofsted makes a highly critical report, it does not usually state that the institution should be closed, and it did not do so in this case.

When was the Department for Education notified of the closure? Was it at the same time as the official announcement was made locally? Given the acute weaknesses in the Ofsted report, has the Department been kept informed over the past two or three years, or did this come as a surprise? It would be interesting to hear what the link is between UTCs and the Department. The Department funds them with taxpayers’ money, and rightly so, but are reports made to the Department? Did the Department not realise what the situation was at the Walsall UTC until the Ofsted report? Some answers would be useful.

Interestingly, when a Tory Back Bencher intervened during the Prime Minister’s first speech in this Parliament to ask about UTCs and say how useful they are, the Prime Minister’s response could not have been more enthusiastic. I would say only this. Bearing in mind not only the college about which I am speaking, but the other closure in August of one of the first five colleges as well as the one with the question mark over it, is there not a case for the Department to pause and look at what has happened over the past four or five years? I simply say that university technical colleges are necessary and provide a useful sort of education—I have mentioned all that, and I do not disagree—but there should be time to pause and reflect.

I quoted the president of the Black Country chamber of commerce saying how the closure was a blow to the locality. I want to emphasise that it is a heavy blow. There was much enthusiasm about the UTC. One did not know much about UTCs, but the site was that of a former secondary school and one felt that it would be a successful venture. It has not proved to be, which is very unfortunate. Perhaps the Minister has the latest information about the alternative places to which students who have not finished their secondary education will be going.

Education Maintenance Allowance (Walsall North)

Debate between Jim Shannon and David Winnick

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Winnick]

The figures on household gross income show that, without any doubt, those who receive EMA come from households with a much more limited income than us and than those who earn much more than Members of Parliament and so on. I have given all the reasons why EMA was justified and why I would like it to continue.

What the heads particularly emphasised in their replies to me, apart from their concern about the abolition of EMA, was that there is a possibility—perhaps it is more than that—that under the substitute they will be in the rather invidious position of deciding which of the pupils staying on beyond 16 should receive the financial help, limited is it will be. At the moment, of course, the school is not involved. The school or college is only involved over attendance, ensuring that those who receive EMA attend. If they do not, they lose the allowance, and rightly so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate tonight. It is a very important issue for a great many of us. The situation in Walsall is replicated in other constituencies, including Strangford. There are more students than ever in this financial year, more courses than ever and a greater demand for EMA. I support the point that he is making, but does he agree that the largest number of people who will be affected will be those who can least afford it?

[Mr Winnick]

Indeed, and I hope that the Minister has taken on that point. I have been emphasising all along the sort of people and the households affected.

The principal of Walsall college—perhaps the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) will listen to this with particular attention—writes that the students in receipt of EMA

“are primarily drawn from the poorest parts of the Borough. This financial support has enabled parents to encourage their children to stay on in education and training, where previously they would have encouraged them to take low paid employment rather than fund their studies.”

In conclusion, he writes:

“Unless we see a significant rise in our DLSF to offset the reduction in EMA, we will undoubtedly see a reduction in enrolments from learners from the poorest families.”

He adds:

“If we do not support our young residents to become skilled, professional and enterprising by supporting them to access and remain in high quality post 16 education and training,”

the borough

“will never achieve its ambitions for regeneration and sustainable prosperity.”

I endorse everything that he says.

I hope—although it is rather optimistic for me to do so—that even at this late stage, Ministers will reconsider the position and recognise that there is a great deal of justification for continuing with EMA. The argument has been paraded before and will be again—I understand that there is a debate on this subject of a national character next week—that, in the main, those who are eligible for EMA would stay on all the same. I question that, but again I come back to the point that I made earlier. Even if that were so—I do not accept it for one moment—is it not right to give a modest sum, and this is a pretty modest sum, of £30 weekly to those who come from low-income households? Is it not right to give some help to those who would otherwise be short of financial assistance in carrying on their education? Is it wrong? Is it some sort of crime to give this sum—£30 a week? I find that difficult to believe.

I do not want to make too much of it, but if we look at the Cabinet and at where they were educated and where it is quite likely that their children will be educated, we know that those children will not receive EMA. If someone comes from a prosperous household, they know full well that there will not be any financial difficulties in their staying on in education right up past university. I am dealing with constituents, and their children, from a very different background. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), want to do everything in my power to encourage the 16 to 19-year-olds who would otherwise leave school at the first opportunity to continue in education for all the reasons that we know are so important: for their future and for the future of our country.