Examination Reform

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Dan Rogerson

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

We have had, as others have said, a good debate. There are areas of consensus, which is what the shadow Secretary of State wants us to achieve, and those are to be welcomed. The first of those is that there is a need for some reform. I will not rehash what we have already heard, but there have been problems with the system and with people’s confidence in it, which I share.

We need to look at rigour, which is now a fashionable word on everybody’s lips. We also need to examine the pressures of assessment crowding out learning. We want to make sure that there is room for deep, wide-ranging learning so that teachers are free to teach. The coalition Government have been clear about that from the outset. We should be clear that we have excellent teachers, probably the best qualified and best motivated that we have ever had, who are doing a great job. If results have improved, it may be in part because there has been competition between exam boards and changes in assessment patterns. It has also been because of improvements in teaching—the Secretary of State has acknowledged that, and I do too—and because young people themselves have worked incredibly hard to achieve those results. It is not an either/or situation. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, we must remember that those young people should be at the heart of all the decisions we take and the discussions we have.

Our duty as legislators is to raise aspiration even further, but to raise it across the ability range too. The Secretary of State has rightly highlighted the small number of people from the most deprived backgrounds—those on free school meals—who have gone on to attend Oxford or Cambridge, so that gives us one measure to consider. I hope—I am sure it is true—that we as a Government will look across the ability range to make sure that whatever people are capable of achieving, they are supported in doing so. It is not just about the very high flyers; social mobility is about making sure that everybody gets to where they could go. That is good for them, but it is also good for us as a country to ensure that we are making use of their skills and talents in future. We want a system that allows them to achieve, supports them in doing so, and does not dispirit or disillusion them in any way.

The Government have acted on vocational qualifications to distil what has worked and what has not—what is of value and what is not—to try to ensure that we have a suite of qualifications that people in business understand and can have confidence in. I welcome that work. The Government have also been prepared to revisit issues with engineering to make sure that we have got things right. That is a mature and grown-up way of doing things.

On qualifications at 16 and the GCSE, the Government have discussed internally how they should respond to the need for reform. It is unfortunate that back in the early summer a leak was reported in a national newspaper suggesting, some thought, that there was an intention within the Conservative party to move towards a two-tier qualification. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is happy with a pattern of having one wider qualification that develops in future. The shadow Secretary of State seemed to want to return to where we were with the business of the leak instead of looking at it in the context of a formal Government announcement, but we have moved on from that. I am sure that he would acknowledge that people such as Mike Tomlinson and John Dunford have acknowledged that the proposed qualification is not a two-tier system. For example, the proposed statement of achievement would ensure that the same small number of young people who are not entered for GCSEs get something. Under the current system they have not had anything, so that is a step forward. It is important to get my understanding of that on the record. To his credit, the Secretary of State, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and other Ministers, is considering the views expressed in consultation to make sure that we get it right. That is absolutely the right approach.

I welcome the fact that Opposition Front Benchers have used some of their supply time for this debate. I might question the terms of the motion, but I welcome the debate. In recent weeks I have submitted several bids for a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, and this debate has given me the chance to make the points that I want to make.

I should like to draw attention to a couple of issues that others have raised. On assessment, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that nothing was set in stone. However, the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), from whom we have already heard, have been very keen that examination is a recognised and rigorous way of carrying out assessment. The system must work as a good assessment of the young people who are able to take that approach and to achieve under those circumstances.

Others learn and should be assessed in a slightly different way. That is not to say that I agree with programmes of study that are assessed by 100% continuous assessment. We need a balance. In the past, GCSEs were much more balanced, and that has got out of kilter. Assessment through examination during the course is another problem, because it can lead to constant learning and cramming towards a test. I can understand that from young people’s point of view it is good to bank something early on but, on balance, that has negatives.

We want to make sure that coursework is assessed properly. We in this Government trust teachers, so we know that they will be able to tell the difference between something written by the student they have in front of them week in, week out and something that has been written by their parents or friends or has been taken from the internet. It is possible to make those judgments, and we need to support teachers in making sure that they have the skills and knowledge to do so if they are lacking. We can also tighten up through moderation and so on. I hope that the door is not bolted on 100% examination for all subjects, because that bears greater exploration.

Another issue is the name of the qualification. We already have in the English baccalaureate a suite of qualifications that means one thing, and now we have an English baccalaureate certificate, so it is debatable whether the name is right. However, as long as the qualification is right I am more relaxed about its name. There is some justification for discussing which subjects are included and which are not. If it is introduced gradually to different subject areas over time, it is possible that those who get it first will be seen in a different way from those who get it later on, and we have to be careful about that.

I broadly welcome the focus on reform, which has been widely called for by people outside this place as well as by parties in the House. In particular, the statement of achievement is a big step forward for young people.

[Kevin Brennan]

Given what the hon. Gentleman has said so far, what is it in the motion that he disagrees with?

[Dan Rogerson]

The motion is set up to say that the Government should scrap their thinking and start again. The Government are examining and will respond to the consultation, which one could call rethinking. [Interruption.] We know what Opposition days are about—they are a chance for the Opposition to get their point of view on the record, as I am sure that they will; in fact, they have done so more successfully today than they have in the past on these issues. [Interruption.] Both sides have had the chance to clarify matters through their conversation over the Dispatch Box; I was not being churlish about the shadow Secretary of State’s ability to get his point across.

I hope that as the Government look at the responses to the consultation they re-examine some of these issues to make sure that we have got this absolutely right. What we want at the end of the process is a qualification that stands the test of time so that the young people who are now being born in my constituency and others across the country and who may well take the examination in future will find that it is still valued and understood by employers, teachers and everybody else. We must get it right. We have an opportunity to do that, and I am sure that the Government will take it.

Secondary Education (GCSEs)

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Dan Rogerson

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a fascinating debate, with contributions from 13 hon. Members: my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). It has been an interesting, although not entirely illuminating, debate.

The Opposition have no disagreement with the case that there is a need to reform the GCSE. As the House knows, the GCSE was first sat by pupils 25 years ago. I was teaching at the time. The idea that the world has not changed sufficiently since then for the GCSE to require reform is as ludicrous as the idea that the world is sufficiently similar to how it was 50 years ago that we have to return to O-levels and CSEs. The raising of the education and training leaving age to 18 raises the fundamental question of what public examinations we need at 16 and what they are for. That is a legitimate debate. One hon. Member asked whether we need to spend the huge amount of money that we spend on examinations at the age of 16. We have to ensure that GCSEs are fit for purpose, but we do not need to go back to the future.

In the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, we do not need to recreate

“a two tier system where children at quite a young age are somehow cast on a scrap heap”.

The more observant hon. Members will have noticed that we included those words in our motion. However, the Government amendment, which is signed, among others, by the Deputy Prime Minister, would expunge those words from the motion. That is a novel approach. It might well be the first time that a senior Cabinet Minister has tabled an amendment to delete his own words.

[Dan Rogerson]

There would be a problem if the Deputy Prime Minister had said something in the amendment that disagreed with what he said before. The amendment has a different emphasis, but there is no contradiction between the two.

[Kevin Brennan]

In that case, the Deputy Prime Minister could have left his own words in the amendment that he signed, but he chose to delete them. I am tempted to say, in the words of the late, great Amy Winehouse, “What kind of Lib-Demery is this?” Let us allow for a moment the notion that the Deputy Prime Minister meant what he said about a two-tier system, despite trying to delete his own words from the motion.

The Government amendment appears to contradict the leaks from the Secretary of State’s advisers last week that he would not need parliamentary approval or Lib Dem support for his proposal to bring back CSEs and O-levels. We have it from the Financial Times that Downing street now insists that the Secretary of State cannot go ahead without approval with the proposals that he leaked to the Daily Mail last week. The Financial Times article goes on to say that

“the idea of a lower qualification for less academic children”

is “dead in the water.” Perhaps when he responds, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) will confirm whether that idea is dead in the water. If it is, why are the Secretary of State’s advisers at this moment spinning to the press lobby in the House of Commons that a lower qualification known as an N-level will be introduced—something that he did not announce to the House?

The Minister needs to come clean when he winds up. Is the two-tier plan that was leaked to the Daily Mail by the Secretary of State’s closest advisers dead in the water or not? Is it full steam ahead for the Secretary of State, or is this a humiliating climbdown? The Secretary of State was asked on three occasions—or as he would say, thrice—whether the Daily Mail report was wrong, and thrice he demurred and did not tell us. If he is making a humiliating climbdown, he must apologise to all his friends who came out in support of the proposals in the media.

The manner and timing of the leak to the Daily Mail were a disgrace, at a time when students up and down the country, who have been working hard for months on end, were sitting their GCSEs. What a contrast that is to the way in which the GCSE was introduced all those years ago. A debate was kicked off in 1976 by Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister. It was developed by Shirley Williams, although she has gone off the tracks a little since then. Come to think of it, we have not heard much from her on this subject. It would be interesting to know what she thinks. The idea was picked up by Keith Joseph—that well known lily-livered, liberal, loony lefty—and implemented by Mrs Thatcher’s Education Secretary, Kenneth Baker, following thorough debate and consideration. It was welcomed across the House.

In contrast, we now have a proposal to rip up the GCSE, with accompanying disparaging rhetoric, cooked up by a cabal, no doubt using private e-mail accounts, with no reference to the Department’s officials or to other Departments, and kept secret even from one of the Secretary of State’s Education Ministers. What a ludicrous way to run a Department that is, and how symptomatic of the Secretary of State’s seething lack of trust in his own Minister and officials.

At least we can assume that the Secretary of State would be kinder to and have more faith in those on his own side. Not so, because we now find out that not even the Prime Minister knew the details of what he was about to leak to the Daily Mail. A Downing street spokesman told the Financial Times:

“It looks as if we’re being bounced into something we weren’t prepared for.”

What about the Education Committee, which is chaired ably by the Secretary of State’s Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, who as always made a thoughtful contribution today? Let us be clear that the Chair of the Select Committee is no fan of Labour education policy. We have had many discussions about it and, to save him any embarrassment, I confirm that he is no fan of Labour education policy. Nevertheless, we respect his long-standing commitment to raising the standards for those at the bottom. As the Secretary of State well knows, the Committee is at this moment undertaking a review of qualifications and examinations that seeks to address some of these questions. What contempt the Secretary of State has shown for the Education Committee by publicising his plans in the press without any consideration of the Committee’s work. I took a sharp intake of breath when the Secretary of State said to the Chair of the Select Committee, “If the cap on aspiration fits, wear it.” That was uncalled for and was off the mark with regard to the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to helping those at the lower end. However, I know that he needs no help from me.

I met the CBI earlier today. Like us, it thinks that the GCSE needs to be looked at again. Like us, it thinks that a much wider debate is needed than the headline-grabbing call for a return to O-levels and CSEs that we have had from the Secretary of State. GCSEs are not, despite the impression that the Secretary of State tried to give last week, a worthless piece of paper, but that is exactly how Kenneth Baker described CSEs, which the Secretary of State last week seemed so keen to bring back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe pointed out, many O-levels were not rigorous qualifications, but required little more than a Gradgrindian regurgitation of facts. Factual knowledge is not enough in a world in which, as the CBI told me today, more data will be created this year than have been created in the previous 5,000 years. Rote learning is insufficient in a world that needs citizens who can process intelligently a mass of information and data in their daily lives. We need breadth and balance in the curriculum.

The GCSE was brought in not as a single examination paper, as some Government colleagues seem to think, but as a single examinations system that would give everybody the chance to succeed if they reached the required standard. That is a principle worth preserving. Reform, yes; back to the future, no.

Education Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Dan Rogerson

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

A number of issues in the policy were passed at the last conference. As a keen student of what goes on at the Liberal Democrat conference, the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps have heard the speech I made there and will have been interested to hear what we had to say.

The question for me on a range of issues concerns where the balance is struck. I am happy, as I say, to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. However, on the question of sticking to key principles, I have a personal philosophical disagreement with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady). I accept that he speaks a great deal about issues arising in areas of the country that have a selective system and that he feels passionately about that. I should possibly have discussed this with my wife before I mentioned it, because she was educated early on in a selective system in Kent and later moved to Cornwall. When she was in Kent, she was not in a grammar school, and in Cornwall she was in the comprehensive system. She went on to get her A-levels, qualified to become a teacher and has taught very effectively. I question whether, if she had remained in the selective set-up—again, this is hypothetical—she would have had the encouragement and support to go on and become a teacher. I have some questions about the effectiveness of the selective system for all pupils, although some prosper very well within it.

I welcome the Government’s commitment not to expand selection and so I hope that those on the Front Bench will resist the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. As far as I am concerned, it is a way of bringing in more selective schools funded by the state. The point I wanted to make when Opposition Members were seeking to talk about their ideological purity is that that new clause is signed by some Members from the party of the right hon. Member for Leigh but by no one from my party.

[Kevin Brennan]

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that he is required to support measures in the coalition agreement, but where in the coalition agreement does it say that the Government will weaken and water down the powers of the schools adjudicator and make fair admissions less available to children from all sorts of backgrounds? Why on earth does he not show some muscular liberalism and stand up for those people?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am delighted that this concept of muscular liberalism has come back. I am sure that we will not hear it very often from Opposition Members! I look forward to its being raised again and again.

Education Bill

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Dan Rogerson

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had an excellent debate this evening on the Second Reading of the Bill. If I counted correctly, following the opening speeches there were 34 speeches from the Back Benches—a full class in the state sector, although perhaps not in the sector in which most Government Members were educated.

There are many reasons to oppose the Bill. Indeed, the provision to increase the interest rate on student loans, which has been snuck into the Bill, would be sufficient reason on its own. The Secretary of State accuses us of being against everything in the Bill because we will vote against its Second Reading. In that case, perhaps we should warn the Liberal Democrats that they will be painted as voting in favour of increasing the interest rate on student loans, even if they voted against the student finance measure in the motion before Christmas.

[Dan Rogerson]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

In a moment. I am sure that people will, in a “Focus”-like fashion, look at the way Government Members vote this evening.

There are many other reasons to oppose the Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) pointed out in his opening speech. It strips power from pupils, professionals, parents and the public. That is not to say that we do not support some things in the Bill. We have heard about that during the course of the afternoon. On the surface, the Bill tries to make further progress on the excellent progress that we made in government on behaviour, including on the ability to search pupils and confiscate items, clarifying the position on the reasonable use of force by teachers, and allowing teachers to discipline pupils for behaviour beyond the school gate.

Like any reasonable Opposition, we want to scrutinise the detail in Committee. We want to be sure that the Government’s proposals will have a positive impact and not drag schools into further bureaucracy or legal challenge. The proposals should broadly promote the ability of a school to create a quiet, orderly environment for learning. That is the kind of environment that we all agree is not only good for the vast majority of non-disruptive students, but is in the interests of pupils whose behaviour impacts on their own learning and that of others. We will consider the proposals in forensic detail in Committee.

[Dan Rogerson]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

In a minute.

In Committee, we will consider the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) and others to ensure that the proposals are not window dressing, but a genuine enhancement of what we achieved in office. We will consider whether they will cause more problems for teachers and schools. Part 1 of the Bill seeks to build on the revolution in early-years provision that Labour pioneered in office. In particular, we will look closely at the power the Secretary of State is awarding himself to decide who gets early-years teaching, how much and when. We will approach the Bill in Committee in that way.

Overall, we oppose the Bill on Second Reading because, along with a number of other pieces of legislation, it fits in with the ideology of the coalition Government; an ideology that the Lib Dems appear to have been duped into going along with, having been seduced, it seems, by Lady Localism. Well, she is not what she seems in this Bill and I ask the Lib Dems to consider carefully what the Bill does about localism. Localism, for them, used to mean enhancing local democracy. This fits in with the Orwellian use of language that the Government have adopted. Just as for the Home Secretary a curfew has become an “overnight residence requirement”, localism is used to describe a Bill that takes away local democratic power from communities, teachers and parents, and puts the power into the hands of one man—the Secretary of State. The Bill is described, unbelievably, as a decentralising measure, but he is taking more than 50 new powers to himself to control almost every single aspect of the schools system.

Funding and Schools Reform

Debate between Kevin Brennan and Dan Rogerson

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a very good debate, which has included contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley), my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). The debate has been well informed, with Back Benchers in particular bringing their expertise to the subject.

The Government are embarking on an ideological experiment with the children of this country. Let us look at some of the measures that have been discussed this afternoon. The pupil premium has featured quite largely. It is supposed to be the Liberal Democrats’ flagship contribution to the coalition Government, so important that any funding for it would be in addition to planned spending on schools. That is what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) said was the benchmark, and that is what the Prime Minister said. He said that it would be additional. That is what a premium is, after all: something on top. Then along came George, and the Treasury boffins.

I know that the Secretary of State is a very cultured man. I would say that he is a very literary man. Some might say that he is sometimes a self-dramatising man. However, no one would ever be so vulgar as to suggest that he is a man with an eye for detail, or with his finger firmly on the figures. How else can we explain the fact that he was popping open the champagne when he received his settlement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite having just been done up like a kipper?

Let me give the Secretary of State some advice. If the Chancellor offers the same amount of cash next year as this year, that is a cut in real terms. If he then offers to top it up so that, per pupil, it does not keep up with cost increases over the next few years, that is not a pupil premium, but a real cut per pupil. It is not a pupil premium, but an old Treasury con. The Secretary of State should have known better.

[Dan Rogerson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I have not enough time, I am afraid. Well, I might give way in a minute.

One can accept that the Secretary of State, with his challenged grasp of numbers, might be beguiled by the Chancellor, with all his confusing charts and tables—that is perfectly possible—but how can we explain the reaction of his Liberal Democrat chum in the Department? How does the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), respond to this absorption of the supposedly additional flagship pupil premium into a schools budget that has been reduced per head in real terms? Answer: she brags about it. She will have trouble bragging about it when she starts trying to explain to head teachers in Brent Central why their budgets have been cut despite the introduction of the so-called pupil premium. She will have to use all the expertise that she has built up over the years in preparing dodgy bar graphs for Liberal Democrat focus leaflets.

We can all imagine the scene. Brent head teacher: “But my budget has gone down! Where is the pupil premium?” The hon. Member for Brent Central: “Let me just show you this bar graph. It clearly demonstrates that although you have less money, you have more money than you would have had if we had cut the budget more deeply. You have therefore benefited from the pupil premium.” Brent Head Teacher: “Oh, well, that’s all right then.” Come off it! The hon. Lady must think that head teachers in her constituency were born yesterday. It is a con. When the final budget figures land on head teachers’ desks across the country, it will take more than a few dodgy bar graphs from the hon. Lady and a few flowery flourishes from the Secretary of State to con professional school leaders into swallowing this nonsense.

It is no wonder the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) walked out when the Secretary of State admitted that this was simply an increase in cash terms. [Hon. Members: “Stormed out!”] Stormed out, indeed. According to the hon. Gentleman’s website, he fights for schools in his area. I believe it, after his reaction to the Secretary of State’s announcement to the House. I know that the Minister who will be winding up the debate loves a bit of poetry, so I will give him some Yeats. It was a case of

“I will arise and go now”

when the hon. Member for Bradford East heard what the Secretary of State had to say.

[Dan Rogerson]

rose—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

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

What else do the Lib Dems get out of this?

[Dan Rogerson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I have not got much time, but I might give way before the end of my speech if the hon. Gentleman is lucky.

What else do the Lib Dems get out of this deal? They get free schools that bypass local democracy, which they used to be so keen on, and that can be set up without any planning permission. They can be set up in an undertaker’s if that is what people want, which would make for an interesting school run. The Lib Dems also get a 60% cut in the capital programme, with resources diverted to the Conservatives’ peripheral ideological experiment, and a systematic dismantling of any system or programme that promotes collaboration and working together within the family of schools. No school is an island. Yes, by all means give schools freedom and autonomy from unnecessary bureaucracy, but let us please acknowledge that, without any structure for co-operation, standards ultimately suffer.

Let us look at school sports partnerships, which were mentioned in the debate. This morning at a meeting in the House of Commons we heard from Jo Phillips, a school sports co-ordinator in the Prime Minister’s Witney constituency, who is about to be made redundant by the Secretary of State. Along with others, she described the transformation that school sports partnerships have brought in Oxfordshire and across the country. She absolutely dismissed the guff we heard from the Under-Secretary of State at Education questions on Monday, and said she could not believe that the Prime Minister could possibly have been told what the full consequences of the complete withdrawal of funding would be for his constituency and the country as a whole.

I hope the Secretary of State has explained to the Prime Minister what he is doing with school sports partnerships. We all saw his dramatic transformation from Dr Jekyll to Mr Hyde when the Prime Minister walked into the Chamber in the middle of Education questions on Monday, so powerful was his zeal to please his boss. Perhaps the Government were a bit hasty in getting rid of those relaxation pods they lampooned before they came into office, because the Secretary of State looked badly in need of a place for a nice lie down at the time. I hope he has explained to the Prime Minister that, for the sake of funding a peripheral ideological programme, he has cut a system that has enjoyed near-universal support among teachers, sports people, parents and pupils, and that has transformed pupils’ lives—and that he did so on a day when the International Olympic Committee was visiting London means he has also greatly endangered Britain’s Olympic legacy.

[Dan Rogerson]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

I will briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman before concluding my speech.

[Dan Rogerson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Along with his colleague the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), he might want to stay behind for some extra tuition about how to square the cuts proposed by the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), with the situation that all Departments would be facing had Labour got back into office, unlike what we have secured in this coalition, which will be extra money for education.