School Capital

Michael Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Mr Justice Holman, on Friday 11 February, handed down the judgment in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) judicial review proceedings brought by Luton borough council and Nottingham city council; Waltham Forest London borough council; Newham London borough council; Kent county council and Sandwell metropolitan borough council.

The judge said that he was

“absolutely clear that the decision is not open to legal challenge on a discrete ground of irrationality, however that argument is developed or put”;

and he agreed that nothing which the Department for Education or Partnerships for Schools had done in respect of these local authorities went

“so far as to create a substantive legitimate expectation that any given project would definitely proceed.”

These were the substantive points in this case and I am delighted that the judge ruled in my favour.

There were further, procedural, grounds on which the claimants made their case, in particular on a duty to consult; and on the duty to have due regard to equalities considerations. On these procedural grounds, the judge has ruled in favour of the claimants.

The judge has not ordered a reinstatement of funding for any BSF project. Nor has he ordered me to pay compensation to any of the claimants. Instead, he concluded that I

“must now, after giving each of them a reasonable opportunity to make representations, reconsider [my] decision insofar as it affects the claimants and each of the projects in relation to which they have claimed, with an open mind, paying due regard to any representations they may make, and rigorously discharging [my] equalities duties.”

Officials have, today, written to the six claimant local authorities to begin a process of consultation on their affected BSF projects.

The process

I have requested that the six local authorities provide me with any and all information about the BSF projects in their area which they consider is necessary for me to take into account when making a fresh decision with respect to those projects.

I will not be making contact directly with the affected schools. Local authorities will want to engage with the schools concerned and will provide the school-level information that they consider is necessary for me to have in mind when making my decision. Local authorities are in the best position to give an overview of the local issues affecting the school estate in their areas.

I have suggested that the local authorities may wish to include information on building condition, basic-need pressures, contractual liabilities, equalities impact and any school reorganisation proposals for each school within their claim. In addition, I have suggested that they highlight the particular circumstances of the schools which are covered by their claims and how these differ from schools which have either already received or are due to receive BSF investment as a result of inclusion in an earlier wave; and schools which are not due to receive any BSF funding at all. They may also wish to include information about costs that the councils have incurred by taking part in the repeat wave of the BSF.

During the consultation period, new general equalities duties may come into effect. As a result, in order to rigorously discharge my duty in relation to all protected characteristics, in addition to disability, race and gender characteristics, I will consider the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, marriage and civil partnership and sexual orientation.

The local authorities have been given a deadline of 11 April to return their representations to the Department.

Partnerships for Schools (PFS) has been commissioned to conduct site surveys of the schools in the consultation and their reports will be sent to the local authorities concerned.

Next steps

I will consider carefully the information that the local authorities provide. Local authority officers and relevant elected members and Members of Parliament will be invited to attend a meeting at the Department. These meetings will allow the local authorities to discuss the information they have provided in more depth and allow them to make further representations on issues that they consider need particular attention. The purpose of the meetings will be to allow local authorities the opportunity to fully present their case and is a further part of the information-gathering phase. No decision will be made at the meetings.

At the next stage a letter detailing my provisional or “minded to” decision will be sent to the local authorities and they will be given the opportunity to make further representations.

After that, I will make a decision on each of the projects, having considered, with an open mind, all of the information gathered over the consultation period and with due regard to my equalities duties. As the judge made clear,

“the final decision on any given school or project still rests with [me]”,

and that I

“may save all, some, a few or none”.

He concluded by saying that

“no one should gain false hope from this decision”.

I have written to all relevant Members of Parliament and local authority elected members to inform them of the consultation process. All schools within the consultation process have also been copied the letter sent to the local authority to ensure they are informed of the process. I have also placed in the Library of the House copies of the letters sent by my officials to the relevant local authority chief executives.

Building Schools for the Future

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his assessment of the High Court ruling on Friday to the effect that the decision to cancel the Building Schools for the Future programme in Waltham Forest and other areas was illegal.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am grateful for the opportunity that this urgent question gives me to repeat the points made in my written ministerial statement of Friday.

On Friday, Mr Justice Holman handed down a judgment on the judicial review brought by six local authorities, including Waltham Forest, following my decision to cancel BSF projects in their areas. It was, of course, deeply regrettable that any building projects had to be cancelled, but the scale of the deficit we inherited meant that cuts were inevitable, and the inefficiency that characterised BSF schemes meant that we needed a new approach. All the local authorities that pursued the action agreed that cuts had to be made, but, as the judge records, they argued that

“other (unidentified) projects should have been stopped rather than theirs”.

The claimants argued that Government decision making was confused and irrational, but the judge made it clear that the decisions I made were clear and rational. He said that

“the Secretary of State intended to draw, and did draw, a clear demarcation between situations where there were obligations under contract and those where there were not. The decision is not open to challenge on irrationality.”

The claimants argued that the chosen cut-off date for projects was wrong, but the judge also made it clear that

“a cut-off date of January 1st reflected government-wide policy and helped to achieve that policy by making very large savings.”

The claimants also argued that there was a breach of promise in stopping their specific projects, but the judge said:

“I do not consider that there was any failure…because there was no such promise or expectation.”

I am grateful that on all those substantive points, the judge found as he did, in our favour.

On two procedural grounds, the judge ruled in favour of the claimants. In essence, his view is that my consultation with 14 local authorities in relation to 32 sample schools and a further 119 individual academy projects did not go far enough, and that I should have included the six claimants in my consultation. He also judged that I should have had rigorous regard to equalities considerations in reaching my decision.

The judge has not ordered a reinstatement of funding for any BSF project, nor has he ordered me to pay compensation to any of the claimants. Instead, he concluded that I must give each of them an opportunity to make representations, and then review the decision, in so far as it affects these six authorities, with an open mind. I am happy to do so. The judge has made it clear that

“the final decision on any given school or project still rests with”

me, and that I

“may save all, some, a few or none”.

He concluded by saying that

“no one should gain false hope from this decision”.

I am grateful to the judge for that direction, for the fair and careful manner in which he appraised the evidence, and for his support for the Government on the substantive decisions that we took.

[John Cryer]

I want to emphasise, first, that the purpose of the urgent question was not to score points, but genuinely to elicit information, and secondly, that the court action was not taken light-heartedly but because, in the case of my local authority, Waltham Forest, we felt that there was no option as the urgency had become so great.

In my constituency, which is not unusual, seven schools were due for rebuilds—George Mitchell, Buxton, Belmont Park, Norlington, Connaught, Leytonstone and Lammas, which is on the boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We were also expecting a new school to be built to deal with the rising demand for places in secondary school. That brings me to the crux of the argument, which is that by 2014 we will be 500 places short in secondary schools. That is a minimum. Waltham Forest is usually a recipient of migration from central London, which means that the actual demand could be 600, 700 or perhaps more. At present, 500 is the bare minimum.

There are three other points to be considered. One is that the structure of many of the schools in question is dreadful and literally falling apart. Teachers, pupils, governors and other staff have fought valiantly, and BSF was the light at the end of the tunnel until it was taken away. Secondly, a number of the schools that I mentioned serve some of the most deprived areas in London, which means some of the most deprived areas in Britain—areas that are struggling with all sorts of problems. Thirdly, some of the schools were on the verge of being decanted, expecting the work to start. In the case of Leytonstone, the school was hours away from moving students to other premises in the expectation that building work would start.

I want to ask a number of specific questions. What is the time scale for finding a replacement and addressing the judgment? Will the Secretary of State approach the matter with an open mind? He has already said that he would, but I want him to reiterate that. Will he consult openly with the schools and the local authorities, but in a fairly tight time frame because matters are becoming so urgent? Lastly, the argument is not about bringing back BSF. We recognise that it has gone, but as he said, we expect a replacement to be announced, and so far that has not happened. When will a replacement be announced?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the fair way in which he makes the case on behalf of his constituents. I should point out that Waltham Forest has already received £68 million from BSF, but I appreciate, as he rightly says, that there are many schools in Waltham Forest which are not in the state of repair that either he or I would wish to see.

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that by 2014 Waltham Forest secondary schools will be 500 places short. I am sure that he, like me, is aware that many primary schools across London are short of places. We must balance the need to ensure that there are places in secondary schools with investment in primary schools, which BSF did not cover.

The hon. Gentleman asked three specific questions, one of which was about the time scale. I have already been in touch, through my Department, I understand, with Waltham Forest. We want to make sure that we can receive proper representations on behalf of the local authority and its schools in a way that enables us to make comprehensive judgments in the most rapid time available. For that reason, in response to his second question, I will of course keep an open mind and will be keen to hear from him, other Waltham Forest Members and anyone with an interest in the decision. His third question was on consultation with the local authority and the relevant schools. I will be in touch with the local authority to find the most expeditious way of ensuring that the judge’s directions can be followed.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

However exemplary the Secretary of State is in being fair-minded, is not the reality that all the consultation in God’s creation will not create money where money simply does not exist? The point about the whole programme is that it was worse than bankrupt, because it cost £250 million without a single brick being laid.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Unfortunately, under the previous Government, the BSF budget increased from £45 billion to £55 billion, yet only 8% of the school estate that was supposed to be renovated was renovated. We must have a more efficient way of ensuring that school buildings can be repaired, maintained and rebuilt, and that is what we intend to do.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The High Court has ruled the Secretary of State guilty of an abuse of power, but anyone listening to him for the first time today would not have thought so. There is still not one word of apology. If he does nothing else, will he at least put that right by apologising to the communities that are suffering the devastating effects of his defective decision making?

Fresh doubts have been raised about the Secretary of State’s competence and judgment. To restore confidence, will he now publish all relevant submissions and advice related to that decision? Did he overrule official advice to consult before making those decisions? Will he confirm reports that a leading QC warned him that the councils had a fairly strong case against him? Why, then, did he proceed regardless, and how much public money has been wasted on legal costs? The judge requested a rerun with an “open mind”. The Secretary of State’s self-justifying response on Friday suggests that his mind is firmly made up. To give the six councils confidence of a fair hearing, should he not now remove himself from any further part in the decision?

This is a damning verdict on a Cabinet Minister by a High Court judge. We saw the same on school sport, Bookstart and the education maintenance allowance: snap decisions, no consultation. The Secretary of State is a repeat offender, dragged here yet again. Is he not now in the last chance saloon, with a clear warning to change his ways?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he responds to the judgment. He refers to an abuse of power, but he will be familiar with the fact that “abuse of power” is a judicial term that has been in use since 1603 and, in particular, has been applied in judicial review cases since 1985. It has been applied to Cabinet Ministers on both sides of the House. It is a matter of open debate that judicial review is there to ensure that decisions taken by Cabinet Ministers can be reviewed in the Court. As I said, I was delighted that in this case, on the substantive points, the judicial review found in the Government’s favour.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether all relevant submissions will be published. All relevant submissions were disclosed in the proceedings and looked at by Mr Justice Holman. He had an opportunity, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, to read the evidence and concluded that the judgment that we made was entirely rational, and he backed us on the substance.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about legal advice that referred to the fact that councils had a strong case. That legal advice, as I have informed him and other right hon. and hon. Members, referred specifically to the 32 sample schools in the 14 local authorities that we consulted. All of those sample schools went ahead. The consultation was right and proper in that respect. I am afraid that, as is so often the case, he is misinformed, jumped to a conclusion and, as a result of asking a question to which he knows the answer is not the one he anticipated, has sadly made another mistake.

The judge acted in accordance with all the evidence and found that, on the substance, the right decision was taken. An opportunity now exists for me to review the decisions in the six local authority areas. As I have said before, I intend to do so in an open-minded way and to take advantage of the judge’s direction in order to hear their case.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

When the Secretary of State carries out that review, will he keep in mind the claims of those schools that were excluded from the Building Schools for the Future programme and might be in more urgent need of repair than those that were included, such as the Duchess’s community high school in Alnwick?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the weaknesses of the way in which Building Schools for the Future was designed was that it did not prioritise schools on the basis of dilapidation; they were prioritised according to other, political criteria. There are of course schools in Building Schools for the Future areas which are in desperate need of renovation, but there are also schools outside those areas, such as the Duchess’s school in Alnwick, which are in a similarly dilapidated state—a consequence of the failure to invest money efficiently over the past 13 years.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s initial remarks seem to indicate an attitude that the play was a success, but the audience was a failure. He did, however, move on and offer to look at those decisions with greater care. He will know that Sandwell is a hugely deprived borough with growing school rolls, and that many of its schools were told year on year that they could not have improvements because they were part of BSF. Will he now look at those cases again? People are faced with crumbling schools and, frankly, dashed hopes. Will he now listen to Sandwell’s representations in order to remedy that gross injustice?

[Michael Gove]

I appreciate the passionate and effective way in which the right hon. Gentleman makes his case. I had the opportunity to talk to Sandwell’s council leader on 5 August, when he brought a delegation of teachers, parents and young people to the Department for Education, and I am very, very happy to ensure that, in the process that we now have, I listen fairly to all the representations made by Sandwell and its Members of Parliament.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

The Building Schools for the Future programme was put together according to political criteria rather than being based on Schools’ state of dilapidation. Does my right hon. Friend feel that that was right?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair case. As I mentioned earlier, some local authorities and schools in the Building Schools for the Future scheme were badly in need of investment, and I, like all right hon. and hon. Members, am sorry that the money simply is not there to invest in every school that needs it. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) quite rightly makes clear, the school estates of many local authorities outside BSF were also in need of renovation.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Regrets will not solve the problems of many Walthamstow schools affected by the judgment—problems including asbestos, leaky roofs and a lack of space for the curriculum. It was for precisely those reasons that on 12 July I asked the Secretary of State to come to Walthamstow himself. Will he now, finally, in the light of the decision, make good on that and see for himself the issues that BSF was trying to deal with in Waltham Forest? Then, we might finally have schools that are fit for purpose in our borough—unlike the Secretary of State, who it appears is not fit for purpose, according to the judge.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her case. Waltham Forest, as an effective and efficient local authority, has already been in touch with my Department, and I am delighted to say that we will be in conversation with it to ensure that the right judgment is made in due course. But, with respect to the hon. Lady and all Opposition Members, although many schools are in desperate need of rebuilding, the question that must be asked is, “Why weren’t those schools rebuilt effectively in the last 13 years, and why did the Building Schools for the Future scheme operate in such a wasteful and inefficient fashion?”

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Sixty million pounds spent on consultants; £1,625 per pupil spent on IT. Would my right hon. Friend say that Building Schools for the Future represented the very best way of spending money for the future education of our children?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend, who serves on the Education Committee, has made a study of the waste inherent in Building Schools for the Future, and he is right: it is a scandal that, while buildings, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) pointed out, were in a state of decay, unfortunately millions of pounds were spent on consultants. One individual, in one year, made more than £1 million as a result of his endeavours as a consultant working on Building Schools for the Future.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that last year the Secretary of State took the decision to abandon all those schools under Building Schools for the Future in too much haste? As a result, he has had revised lists—I think there were six in all—and now this court judgment. We have a school in my area, more than 100 years old, being held up by pit props. A contract was made with the builder, but the case is still waiting to be decided. His junior Minister said that it is a compelling case, and there must be scores like that all around Britain. Why does he not stop the arrogance and get on with the job?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman says on the one hand that we acted with unprecedented haste, and on the other hand that we should get on with it. One of the reasons we acted as we did is that the scheme we inherited was wasteful and inefficient. I should point out that as a direct result of changing the scheme we have been able to ensure that a school that was part of Building Schools for the Future, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), is going to be built one year faster than it would have been under Labour, with 30% savings. Under this coalition Government, we are making the savings and beating the time scales to ensure that in the most deprived areas, the schools are built.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is it not the case that despite the huge amounts of money spent on BSF projects before a brick was even laid, the Government architecture watchdog judged that 88% of those projects were either mediocre or not good enough? Does not that underline how badly managed the scheme was under the previous Government?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment made it clear that far too many of the designs were not up to scratch under the previous Government. We want to make sure that every young person has a school that is fit for purpose. That was not the case under the previous Government.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The priorities for BSF were set according to social and economic deprivation and educational underachievement. Is the Secretary of State really saying that those are the wrong priorities when deciding what educational investment should be? Liverpool schools have been hit hard by last year’s announcement. A month ago, I wrote to the Secretary of State inviting him to visit St John Bosco school in my constituency—one of the schools that was affected by the announcement. Will he, or one of his colleagues, visit that school at his earliest convenience?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the case. Initially, the Building Schools for the Future criteria were exactly as he described, but subsequently they were altered so that readiness to deliver became a factor. That meant that, for a variety of reasons, the money was not always targeted at the areas most in need. He has made the case for St John Bosco and for other schools in Liverpool very effectively. One of my ministerial colleagues or I will make good on the promise to visit Liverpool.

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

Does my right hon. Friend find it outrageous that under the slow and over-complex BSF process, it usually took about 30 months before construction began? What can he to do ensure that the process is simpler and more efficient for schools such as Chiswick community school and Hounslow Manor school in my constituency?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes the very good point that it took 30 months from the moment of starting the process to the first brick being laid. In the project that we have used as a pilot in Doncaster North, the procurement process took just 10 weeks and the school will be delivered one year ahead of schedule. If that is not proof that there was inefficiency in the existing scheme that we inherited, I do not know what is.

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

Will the Secretary of State tell us when he is going to make an announcement about a replacement for BSF for Coventry schools? A large number of our schools are dilapidated or have scaffolding around the buildings, and this situation cannot go on. I do not want him to blame the previous Government. You are in charge now. You put this question earlier: what did we do over the past 13 years? Well, we had 18 years of your previous Government when capital programmes were cut.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not in charge of anything other than the chairing of this session, but I look forward to what the Secretary of State has to say.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman, along with the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), met me last summer to make the case for Coventry, and he did so very effectively. I appreciate that a number of schools in Coventry need investment at some point in the future and have suffered as a result of the way in which the BSF timetable has operated. We hope that the James review of the allocation of capital will be published shortly—as I said, some of the pilot projects have shown that there is significant scope for savings—but naturally I want to make sure, as part of this process, that we can receive the submissions from the local authorities cited in this case.

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

Under phase 3 of BSF, 19 school projects in Bradford were frozen. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it was a cruel deceit to sign off phase 3 just before the general election when there was no money available to build those schools. However, is it not also cruel to spend new capital money on free schools before we first meet the needs of the schools tied up in BSF?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a balanced point. The point I would make about free schools is that in the work that we have done so far, we have established that we can cut significantly—by up to 50%—the costs of providing school places. There is a proposal for at least one free school in Bradford, and it will be considerably cheaper than BSF schools. I hope that he will work with me to ensure that all new schools that are built—whether free, maintained or academy—are value for money and admit students on the basis of social justice and equality for all.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that Luton was one of the six authorities covered by the High Court action; the specific school was the Cardinal Newman Catholic school in my constituency. I visited that school on Friday and spoke at length to the head teacher. It is desperately overcrowded and has poor facilities, as is the case with all high schools in Luton. It is not so long ago that Luton had the highest proportion of school-age children in the country. In reconsidering these building projects, will the Secretary of State consider overcrowding and the lack of school capacity?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good case. I am well aware of the problems that affect Luton’s schools. I shall, of course, look closely at the case that he, other Luton Members and Luton’s local authority have made.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In Dover and Shepway, £2.9 million was spent on consultants. One Kent bidder spent £5 million on a bid only to lose. The scheme was a bureaucratic nightmare and a complete fiasco. Does the Minister agree that it was a fiasco? Who was responsible for this fiasco, and are they in the Chamber today?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend asks a series of questions, but I must resist the temptation that he extends to me. We all know that the scheme had to be reformed. Those who embarked on Building Schools for the Future did so for the best and most idealistic of reasons. Those who made promises immediately before the last election, which no Government could honour, must look to their own consciences.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has assured us that he will keep an open mind in receiving representations from the six authorities, including Newham. I ask him to take a close look at the cases of Plashet school and Little Ilford school, whose pupils made a DVD to show him the state of their buildings. Renewal now would avoid continuous costly patching up. Should it not be allowed to go forward?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good case. I have had the opportunity to visit schools in his constituency and I appreciate the challenges that teachers face there. One reason why these six local authorities brought the case was that they were among the closest to the finishing line when the line was drawn. By definition, wherever the line was drawn, those closest to it would have felt the most acute sense of injustice; also by definition, those closest to it would have been among the most needy. Wherever the line was drawn, there would have been a feeling of grievance. I understand the feeling of grievance in Newham and I take on board the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and others.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BSF scheme spent £20 million on a school in Essex that closed a few years later? A local authority official said that all the money had been spent, but that they had no idea where it had gone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows the failures of the BSF scheme?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend underlines the fact that under Building Schools for the Future, the capacity of local authorities to spend money as they saw fit took second place to the diktats of a centralised bureaucracy. As a result, there was inefficiency, which meant that public money was not spent as effectively as it should have been on raising standards.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Given that the Secretary of State’s actions have been judged an abuse of power in relation to six local authorities, does it not follow that there was an abuse of power in relation to other authorities whose BSF projects were cancelled and which have not yet taken legal action against him? Will he commit to review all BSF projects that were cancelled, including the building projects at two schools in Warrington that serve the most deprived areas of my constituency? If he will not, is he not open to the risk of further action from other local authorities?

[Michael Gove]

That is an understandable response from the hon. Lady, but the judge was clear that only the local authorities that received a specific form of approval after 1 January and that took part in this action were governed by it, and that no other local authority should consider that it is in time or within its rights to bring a judicial review.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain why, in spite of having schools with the same leaky roofs, dilapidated classrooms and overcrowding as those described by many Opposition Members, my constituency was told that there was no chance of even being considered for a BSF project for the next five to 10 years?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend repeats a concern that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed—that the process by which individual schools and local authorities were selected for entry into Building Schools for the Future, even though it might have been conceived idealistically, in the end was not seen as fair. We need to ensure that the successor scheme guarantees that money is spent effectively and efficiently on those in the most need.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The residents of Sandwell have been let down twice by the Secretary of State. First, it was announced that Sandwell schools would be unaffected by the cuts, only for that to be rescinded a few days later. Secondly, he undertook to visit Sandwell to explain what had happened and then decided that he would not do so. Will he do something to restore the faith of the people of Sandwell in the Government’s intention by agreeing to make the consultation and review process totally independent, so that he is not left in the position of reviewing his own previous bad decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. He, along with the leader of Sandwell council, Sandwell teachers, parents and young people, was able to come and meet me in the Department, and he made the case for the schools in his local authority very effectively. An opportunity now exists for the decision to be reviewed, but the judge was quite clear that that decision should be taken by the Secretary of State.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I welcome the very reasonable tone of the Secretary of State’s response to the reasonable judgment. Does he agree that it is not reasonable to ask pupils to be educated in schools that are falling down, or that after 13 years of a Labour Government, they see dripping wet rain coming in and, in some cases, skylights falling in, because dilapidation was not as significant a factor in the scheme as it should have been, and affected schools were therefore not eligible for BSF funding?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. I note that while he was talking about dilapidation and making the case for reform of how we allocate capital with passion and urgency, Opposition Front Benchers were laughing. They might consider that this is an appropriate subject for levity, but I believe that they should reflect on their record in office and consider why, after 13 years and after they inherited a golden economic legacy, so few schools were in a fit state. Was it anything to do with any of the mistakes that might have occurred on their watch?

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

To return the Secretary of State to the judgment, which was about consultation, will he give us details now of what consultation he will carry out with the six local authorities involved? Will it include children and young people themselves and their families?

I noted from the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) that the judgment does not rule out other local authorities that incurred expenditure also taking legal action. Will he consult those local authorities?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point. The judge was clear that it is only with regard to the six local authorities in question that I have to consult, and that no other local authorities are either in time or entitled to mount a judicial review. The manner of the consultation with those local authorities is very much a matter for them to outline in conversation with me and the Department, but I want to ensure that the process is as fair and expeditious as possible. With respect to other local authorities, such as those in Durham, I have of course had the opportunity to visit her constituency and that of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) to see the specific case for investment outside BSF, which I know may be necessary.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that schools in Hammersmith and Fulham lost £200 million in well worked-up, mature BSF proposals. Instead, we have free schools enrolling pupils, despite the fact that they have no approved business case, their consultation is not complete and they have no secured site. Will he reconsider decision making in Hammersmith and Fulham, before he has to go back to the High Court?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. I have had the opportunity to visit with him many of the outstanding schools in Hammersmith and Fulham, including Phoenix high school, which we both hold in high regard. The new free school that is likely to be opened, the West London free school, is being opened at a significantly lower cost than that for which schools were built under BSF. It will be in a handsome building adjacent, I believe, to the fee-paying independent school Latymer Upper, where he enjoyed such a great education.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I hoped that the Secretary of State would be able to bring us sunshine today in relation to some of the schools that have been affected, particularly Seaham school of technology, which suffers from terrible problems of dilapidation. The opportunity cost of not replacing the school and having to fund the repairs is considerable. It is the only school serving quite a large town, and it has rising demand. Will the Secretary of State consider the case for that school?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not only for proving that he is a reader of The Times, and a fan, as I am, of Sarah Vine’s writing, but for making the case for investment in east Durham. I have had the opportunity in the past couple of months to visit the north-east twice, and I always enjoy doing so. He makes an impressive case. I know that with Building Schools for the Future gone, we must all look at how we can get money to the schools that need it in the best way. I also know that in Seaham and Easington there are schools that desperately need investment at some point in the future.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Staff at Trinity, Bluecoat and Fernwood schools in my constituency are desperate for extra investment in their buildings. Will the Secretary of State say when he will meet Nottingham city council to review our city’s excellent case for that additional investment?

[Michael Gove]

At the earliest possible point.

Departmental Expenditure Limit (2010-11)

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for Education (DfE) departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be increased by £752,963,000 from £57,899,096,000 to £58,652,059,000; the administration cost budget will decrease by £195,000 from £182,003,000 to £181,808,000. The Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED) which has a separate Estimate and DEL, will remain at £190,196,000 with the administration cost budget remaining at £27,337,000. The Office of Qualifications and Examination Regulation (OFQUAL) which also has a separate Estimate and DEL, will remain at £23,400,000.

Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is as set out in the following table:

Building Schools for the Future

Michael Gove Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Mr Justice Holman has today handed down his judgment on the judicial review brought against me by Luton borough council and Nottingham city council; Waltham Forest London borough council; Newham London borough council; Kent county council; and Sandwell Metropolitan borough council, following my decision in July 2010 to cancel Building Schools for the Future projects in their areas.

The judge said that he was

“absolutely clear that the decision is not open to legal challenge on a discrete ground of irrationality, however that argument is developed or put”;

and he agreed that nothing which the Department for Education or Partnerships for Schools had done in respect of these local authorities went

“so far as to create a substantive legitimate expectation that any given project would definitely proceed”.

These were the substantive points in this case and I am delighted that the judge has ruled in my favour.

There were further, procedural, grounds on which the claimants made their case, in particular on a duty to consult; and on the duty to have due regard to equalities duties.

I acknowledge that, on these procedural grounds, the judge has ruled in favour of the claimants. In essence, his view is that my consultation with 14 local authorities (in relation to 32 sample schools) and a further 119 individual academy projects on their particular circumstances, did not go far enough and that I should have included the six claimant authorities in my consultation. And he judges that I should have had rigorous regard to equalities considerations in reaching my decision.

The judge has not ordered a reinstatement of funding for any BSF project. Nor has he ordered me to pay compensation to any of the claimants. Instead, he has concluded that I

“must now, after giving each of them a reasonable opportunity to make representations, reconsider [my] decision in so far as it affects the claimants and each of the projects in relation to which they have claimed, with an open mind, paying due regard to any representations they may make, and rigorously discharging [my] equalities duties”.

I am happy to do so. He has made clear that provided I discharge my duties in this way,

“the final decision on any given school or project still rests with [me]”;

and that I

“may save all, some, a few, or none”.

He concluded by saying that

“no one should gain false hope from this decision”.

The judge has made clear that any other local authority, outside of the claimant group, would be far too late to apply for a separate judicial review on this matter.

My Department will shortly make contact with the claimant local authorities to set out a process through which they can make their representations to me.

Education Bill

Michael Gove Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

What a pleasure it is to appear before you, Mr Speaker, for the third time within 24 hours.

The Bill is a response to three specific challenges that our country faces in this the second decade of the 21st century—the challenge of how to respond to an economic crisis, the challenge of how to respond to the scandal of declining social mobility, and the challenge of how to respond to our educational decline, relative to competitor nations.

We on the Government Benches, both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties, believe that it is only by radically and fundamentally reforming our education system and learning the lessons of the highest performing nations that we can generate the long-term economic growth on which prosperity depends and that we can produce the level of social justice that is appropriate for a modern liberal democracy. I hope that across the House tonight we can develop consensus on the need for fundamental reform.

It was striking that just five years ago across the Dispatch Boxes in the House there was consensus between those on the two Front Benches on the fundamental need for education reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) and the then right hon. Member for Sedgefield both recognised the fundamental need for reform. I hope that we can see the same consensus across the Front Benches tonight. If not, that will tell us something about the state of the Labour party in the second decade of the 21st century.

What about the state of the economy that the Labour party bequeathed the coalition Government—the state of the mess that we have to clear up? It is against that backdrop that we need to appreciate the fundamental need for educational reform. It is only by having a well-educated, capable and highly skilled work force that we can deal with the economic crisis generated by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. We had a structural deficit for seven years before the banking crisis began. When we entered that period of unprecedented global turbulence, our economy had been undermined by the actions of the previous Government. [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members find that difficult and that it is painful to be reminded of the desperate position in which they left the country, but the need for urgent reform is underlined by the terrible mess they made—[Interruption.] No matter how much they chunter, object or interject from a sedentary position, these are truths that they and the country have to face. They cannot run away from that fact.

When the OECD graded this country in 2000, we had the best fiscal position in the G7, but in 2007 we had the worst fiscal position, and that was before the banking crisis. By 2010, we had the largest deficit of any G20 country, and today we are paying £120 million a day in debt interest. Manufacturing output fell by 9% as a share of the economy in Labour’s years and we lost 1.7 million manufacturing jobs. According to the World Economic Forum’s ranking of global competitiveness, we moved from fourth to 86th. No country can succeed economically or respond to an economic crisis unless it ensures that its education system is fit for purpose, and under the previous Government it was not.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can we get back to education? The previous Labour Government tried in their last Bill to bring in compulsory sex education. The Bill before us is an excellent Education Bill, which I fully support, because it is all about devolving power to schools. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will resist any amendments on Report that would bring in compulsory sex education for primary schools?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for, as ever, leaping straight on to sex—I know that it is a subject of great interest to him and to many in this House. I always feel that one should discuss money before discussing sex, because the one and the other are so intimately connected in the minds of so many Members. That is why I was so anxious to ascertain whether Opposition Members were proud of the economic record they bequeathed. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that I will not accept amendments in Committee that seek to make the curriculum any more prescriptive or intrusive. The Bill will enhance professional freedom and autonomy, because we recognise that it is only by doing that we can ensure that our economy and education system are fit for the 21st century. It is not only the economy that was undermined by what happened on Labour’s watch; social mobility also worsened.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

In due course.

Inequality worsened under Labour and the education system exacerbated it. If we look at the gap between children eligible for free school meals and their more fortunate and privileged counterparts, we can see that as those children moved through the education system and progressed under Labour the gap between rich and poor widened.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

In due course.

At age seven, the gap in reading scores between those children who were eligible for free school meals and those who were not was 16 points. At age 11, the gap was 21 points in English and maths. At age 16, the gap was 28 points at GCSE, and only 30% of children eligible for free school meals got five good GCSEs including English and maths. In 2009, only 4% of children eligible for free school meals even sat a chemistry or physics GCSE, and in 2008 40% of those children did not get even a single C in any GCSE.

At A-level the situation is worse still, with the gap between private schools and state schools doubling under Labour: in 1997 only 12% more privately educated students got three As at A-level than their state school counterparts, but by 2010 that figure was 24%. In 2008, no child in Hackney, Newham, Sandwell, Knowsley or Lambeth got three As at A-level including maths and further maths. Only 53 children eligible for free school meals, from an entire cohort of 75,000, even sat further maths A-level.

The number of children eligible for free school meals who made it into Oxbridge under Labour fell. In the last but one year for which we have figures, the number was 45; in the last year for which we have figures, it was 40. No wonder the Sutton Trust found that children’s levels of achievement are more closely linked to their parents’ background in England than in any other developed nation. The truth is that, under 13 years of Labour rule, this country became the sick man of Europe in terms of social mobility. Opportunity was capped, aspiration was depressed and, as a result, the life chances of the most vulnerable were failed by the former Ministers who now sit on the Opposition Benches.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I want to bring the Secretary of State back to his comments on the economy. Up until 2008, the Conservatives were committed to sticking to Labour’s spending plans. In 2007, the current Chancellor wrote an article in The Times entitled, “Tories cutting services? That’s a pack of lies”, in which he made it clear that they were committed to Labour’s spending totals at the time. Why is the Education Secretary pushing through these cuts now? Why the change of heart? Did he not agree with those comments at the time?

[Michael Gove]

I know that there is a worry throughout the country about libraries, but I see that the hon. Gentleman clearly spent quite a lot of time in the cuttings library of the House given the faithful way in which he read out that handout. It was on the watch of the Government whom he supported that we moved from having the best fiscal position in the G7 to the worst. My right hon. Friend was not in charge of the economy then; the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and borrowing money hand over fist. If the hon. Gentleman shares my anger and rage at how his constituents were let down by a debt and deficit mountain that is holding the next generation back and if he is angry about that intergenerational theft, he knows where to point the finger: at the robbers on the Opposition Front Bench.

[Andy Burnham]

I am not entirely sure that that was parliamentary language, again, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might consider that while I make this intervention.

We know the right hon. Gentleman likes history, but is he not guilty of rewriting it? On the plans that I made as Chief Secretary, his leader called them “tough” at the time, but let me put this point to him, because he has not given us the true picture on social mobility. Is it not the case that, between 2005 and 2007, the number of children on free school meals who went to university increased by 18%, against a 9% increase among the rest of the population?

[Michael Gove]

The total increase as a proportion of the cohort was actually less than 1%, because it was a remarkably low base. The right hon. Gentleman cites a selective statistic, because he chooses only two years from Labour’s record. It is interesting that he chooses only those two years, because, when we look at the broad spectrum of statistics, we see that he cannot gainsay any of them.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants more statistics, why does he not look at the OECD programme for international student assessment—PISA—statistics? He quoted them yesterday, and they tell us what happened on Labour’s watch to every child’s education. We know that the poorest were worst off, but the other set of statistics that he invoked yesterday demonstrates that, actually, all our children were failed by Labour. We moved from fourth to 14th in the world rankings for science, seventh to 17th in literacy and eighth to 24th in mathematics by 2007.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not yet. I shall be delighted to give way in just a second.

By 2010, we had moved from fourth to 16th, from seventh to 25th and from eighth to 28th in those subjects. In mathematics, 15-year-olds in Shanghai are more than two years ahead of 15-year-olds here. The OECD found that, in this country, the number of 15-year-olds who can generalise and creatively use information based on their own investigations and the modelling of complex problem situations is just 1.8%; in Shanghai, it is 25%—more than 10 times better.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Gove]

In a second.

The only way in which we will generate sustainable economic growth is by reforming our education system so that we can keep pace with our competitors. How can a country that is now 28th in the world for mathematics expect to be the home of the Microsofts, the Googles and the Facebooks of the future? The only way in which we can hope to compete effectively is not just by educating a minority to a high level, but by utilising the innate talent of every child, and that is what the measures in this Education Bill will do.

[Mr Blunkett]

Of course it is true that many countries throughout the world are investing in and driving forward their educational standards in a commendable way. However, the PISA study to which the Secretary of State referred and the changes in tables that he described are affected substantially—are they not?—by the fact that the number of countries taking part doubled, so he was not comparing like with like.

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely was comparing like with like, because the whole point about these tables is that they show us how we are doing relative to our competitors. Much as I admire the right hon. Gentleman, and much as I am grateful to him for embarking on a course of reform which, sadly, was thwarted subsequently, I have to acknowledge, as does he, that the statistics produced by the OECD are ungainsayable. I would love to be able to celebrate a greater level of achievement, but I am afraid that this is the dreadful inheritance that our children face as a result of the Government whom he latterly supported from the Back Benches.

[Mr Redwood]

The Secretary of State is making a powerful case. If a free school gets a grant to buy land and buildings from a council or other public sector body, will that be classed as a windfall receipt for that council or will there be some adjustment to its capital regime so that it is not a winner from it and we control public spending? That is a live issue, and I would like to know what the position is.

[Michael Gove]

I appreciate that it is a live issue. One of the striking things about how the free schools programme is proceeding is that we are discovering that in some cases local authorities are happy to buy the sites themselves, as was the case in Wandsworth, and in other cases they are happy to lease them for a peppercorn rent. In specific situations where a site is purchased from a local authority, of course we will seek to ensure that the best deal possible is secured for the taxpayer and for the school and the pupils who will be attending it.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State always has the figures at his fingertips, can he say how much the Department for Education is giving to West London free school to purchase the Palingswick House site in Hammersmith? The school was going to get a capital receipt of £8 million to develop the site for residential accommodation after it had evicted local charities from it. How much is the DFE going to pay for the site via West London free school?

[Michael Gove]

The full details will be disclosed when the funding agreement is signed, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the amount that the DFE is investing in this four-form entry school will be significantly less than the £35 million that had to be invested under the previous Government to secure a school of a similar size. I hope that he will join me in welcoming the fact that there will be at least three free schools in his constituency helping to provide superb education for the children whom he has represented so passionately over the years.

We must all recognise that the reforms that we are talking about, including the creation of new free schools, are the sorts of reforms that we are seeing across the developed world. Ministers such as Arne Duncan and John Key in New Zealand and Julia Gillard in Australia, and countries such as Sweden, Singapore, Finland, Hong Kong, Alberta and South Korea all recognise the need to reform their education systems, and we cannot afford to be left behind. That is why this Bill includes measures to allow us to invest in the early years, improve discipline, remove bureaucracy, and raise standards for all children, with new powers to intervene directly to tackle failure. Above all, it generates more good school places for all children, especially the very poorest.

There is a key test for Labour Members tonight: will they vote against these measures? Will they vote against improvements in discipline? Will they vote against reductions in bureaucracy? Will they vote against powers to intervene early when schools are failing? Will they vote against additional cash for disadvantaged two-year-olds? Will they prove themselves to be old Labour populists or new Labour modernisers?

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I will be very interested to hear the hon. Lady’s view.

[Helen Jones]

I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could tell the House why he believes that having unqualified teachers can raise educational standards. Why does he think that teaching is different from any other profession in that people who are totally untrained and unqualified should be allowed into it? He would not do it for a doctor or an engineer—why is teaching different?

[Michael Gove]

As I am sure that the hon. Lady knows, one does not need any training or qualification to be a Member of Parliament—or, indeed, a Labour Government Minister. Mind you, looking at the record of those who have occupied that position, I am prompted to ask a variety of questions. I should point out, of course, that many of the highest performing schools in this country—in fact, some of the highest performing schools in the world—are the fee-paying independent schools, which have earned this country so much foreign currency and have ensured that we continue to have beacons of educational excellence in the fee-paying and state sectors alike. Such schools draw in and welcome a wide variety of highly trained individuals, some of whom do not have qualified teacher status. It is important that we continue to innovate and to learn from the fee-paying independent sector. We must also continue, as we are doing, to invest in high-quality training for all teachers. That is why we are reforming initial teacher training, investing in Teach First, and setting up a new generation of training schools for teachers to develop the best practice from higher education institutions and elsewhere.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I had to come in after the last interesting intervention. Is it not the case that more young people than ever are now taught by unqualified staff, precisely because of the changes rightly brought about by the previous Government, including giving higher-level teaching assistants far more ability in the classroom and bringing instructors into schools to fill gaps caused by staffing problems? The issue of unqualified staff coming into our schools is not new.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend, as a former teacher, always adds to our debates with his experience and authority. He is right that some of the work force changes made by the previous Government mean that a number of children are taught by cover supervisors or teaching assistants. We all want to ensure that everyone who is teaching and who is in the classroom is trained to the highest possible level.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one problem, if we are honest, is that for too long many of us have accepted bad teachers? To get rid of a teacher has been almost unthinkable. The question is not really about unqualified teachers, but about teachers who are not doing the job of raising standards properly.

[Michael Gove]

As so often, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. One problem in the education system is that we need to make it easier for good heads to tackle underperformance by encouraging staff to do the professional development that they need to improve. If they do not improve, they should move on. No one benefits when poor teachers are in the classroom. It not only places an additional burden on hard-working and talented staff, but denies children the chance that they need.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted to give way to the Select Committee Chairman.

[Mr Stuart]

The Secretary of State plans to keep a register of teachers who are barred from teaching. Will he confirm that schools will be able to refer someone who is sacked for gross misconduct to the Secretary of State to be put on the register, but not someone who is fired for incompetence? If that is the case, will he explain the reasoning behind it?

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted to confirm that. We want to ensure that people who are barred for gross misconduct are kept on a central list, which is updated continually. As my hon. Friend and I know, the General Teaching Council, which was responsible for dismissing and barring incompetent teachers, succeeded in barring only 14 teachers over the 10 years that it was in existence. We need to ensure that at school level, head teachers have the power to dismiss those whom they consider to be inappropriate. We must ensure that head teachers who are doing a fantastic job and are generating improved results have freedom and flexibility over the staff that are required to carry on doing that great work.

[Mr Stuart]

I agree with the Secretary of State that the previous system was not working effectively. However, that is no reason to believe that we should not have a system that ensures that an incompetent teacher who is removed and sacked—we know how difficult that is, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) just said—does not reappear in another school. That will happen if the Secretary of State does not put that person’s name on a register. I ask him to reconsider this issue.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and we will have an opportunity to consider it in Committee. The phenomenon that he refers to is known in the United States as “the dance of the lemons”, whereby teachers who are not up to the job are removed from it and reappear in another educational setting. We have explored with a variety of professional bodies the best way of ensuring that that cannot happen. There is no consensus that a central list of the kind he mentions is the answer. I am happy to discuss with him, in Committee and elsewhere, how we can ensure that teachers who are not effective do not continue in the classroom.

I mentioned that there are six principal areas in the Bill. The first is investment in the early years. It is critical that Opposition Members appreciate that if they vote against the Bill tonight, they will be voting against additional funding to guarantee 15 hours of learning for all disadvantaged two-year-olds. Under Labour, 20,000 of the poorest two-year-olds would have received 15 hours of free learning. Now, under the coalition Government’s proposals, 120,000 two-year-olds will be able to have the best possible free learning. Because of that investment, we will be able to ensure that those children are school-ready when they arrive at primary school. We can ensure that when we have in place the literacy check at the end of year 1 that we intend to impose, those children will have a grasp of the basic skills required to make the most of their time at primary school.

[Bill Esterson]

The Secretary of State makes a very important point about children being school-ready. That need has been expressed to me by children’s centre staff and the parents who use those centres, and he will know of the concern that I have previously expressed about the review of children’s centres in Sefton. Will he comment on the good practice that already exists in Sure Start children’s centres and in early-years provision generally, and on the importance of protecting good practice there and elsewhere rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

[Michael Gove]

I think throwing out the baby with the bathwater would be very poor practice in any Sure Start children’s centre or any other early years setting.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Sure Start children’s centres can do a fantastic job, which is one reason why we are providing additional support, why the Department of Health is investing in additional health visitors and why the early intervention grant will ensure that there is sufficient money for local authorities to continue to discharge their statutory responsibility.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

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

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I will be happy to give way in due course, but I want to make a little progress. It is important that I move on to one of the central parts of the Bill, on which I am genuinely worried that the Labour party may be about to put itself on the wrong side of the argument.

If Labour Members vote against the Bill tonight, they will also be voting against the measures that teachers and teaching unions want in order to ensure that teachers are safe in the classroom. We know that the biggest reason why professionals leave teaching, and the biggest barrier to talented graduates entering teaching, is the quality of behaviour and discipline in our classrooms. We know that every day, there are 1,000 exclusions for abuse and assault and that last year, 44 staff were assaulted so severely that they had to be taken to hospital as a result of violence in our schools. We know that two thirds of teachers surveyed say that poor behaviour is driving people out of the classroom.

I believe that the time is now right for the House to send an unambiguous signal to the professionals who work so hard on our behalf in the nation’s classrooms that we back them, and that we will give them the tools they need to keep order. We will ensure that they have the power to search students for items that may cause violence or disorder in the classroom. We believe that it should be easier for teachers to detain pupils who are guilty of disruptive behaviour, and that the authority of head teachers should not be undermined by exclusion decisions being overturned, allowing excluded pupils, many of whom might have been guilty of violent offences, to march back into the classroom. We also believe that teachers deserve the right to enjoy anonymity up until the moment when they are charged with any offence that occurs in school. We believe that those four basic protections are no less than our professionals deserve.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I would be very interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees, or whether he intends to vote against those protections.

[Kevin Brennan]

I believe that the Secretary of State will find that there is a good deal of consensus about behaviour issues in Committee. I understand why he wants to portray a vote against the Bill on Second Reading as a vote against every part of it—that is a politically convenient thing to do. If that is his position, however, surely a vote in favour of the Bill is a vote in favour of every part of it. Is he therefore saying to his Liberal Democrat colleagues that if they vote in favour of the Bill on Second Reading, even if they voted against the changes to tuition fees in the autumn, they now support the tuition fee changes and the interest rate increase contained in the Bill?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point and for his personal support on discipline. I know that when he was a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, he did good work in that area. However, I have to let him know that if he votes against the Bill on Second Reading, he will be voting against the measures that I have described. If he believes that those measures are worth while but has problems with other aspects of the Bill, he is perfectly at liberty to seek to amend parts of it in Committee. We are very fortunate that we will have in Committee, in the person of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), one of the most reasonable Members of the House. As I said earlier, we will be happy to work in a consensual fashion when the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members make cases to improve the Bill. I am sure that the Bill can be improved, but it should not be opposed or thwarted for narrow political reasons by politicians who are not prepared to stand with our professionals and say, “You’re doing a fantastic job and you should be defended. Discipline and behaviour are the foundation stones of good learning, and we will ensure that you are backed with one voice by a committed House.”

[Glenda Jackson]

Has the fact that the Secretary of State stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and argued that we need unqualified teachers in our classrooms passed from his memory? That did not seem to be a message of endorsement for our teachers.

Not only in my constituency, which is served by two boroughs, but throughout the country, Sure Start and children’s centres will close, and there is no protection for them. They are important because they prepare children for primary school, but the situation is further exacerbated by the fact that nothing in the Bill will create more of the desperately needed primary school places in both boroughs in my constituency.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is passionate, and I do not doubt her commitment—

[Glenda Jackson]

Don’t patronise me—just answer the question!

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady has won an Oscar for being successfully patronising to others. It is a pleasure to be patronised by the Virgin Queen—I feel rather like the French ambassador. I hope this requires no translation: the Bill includes provision for improved primary education and for extra investment in the early years, which is why I hope she will put aside the histrionics and give us her support.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

As the Secretary of State knows from the conversations that he has had with colleagues and with me, we do not believe, as I assume he does not believe, that the Bill is perfect. However, we are absolutely ready to work collaboratively to get the best Bill on the statute book. That is how I understand we do legislation. I hope he confirms that that is how he intends to do this piece of legislation too.

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman is typically astute. The Bill is the best that I can make it. I am sure that it is not perfect—we have a Committee stage so that the right hon. Gentleman and others can propose amendments, which I hope happens in a suitably constructive spirit. However, we cannot move to that stage and ensure that we have proper legislation, and we cannot protect teachers from indiscipline and poor behaviour or invest in the early years, unless the Bill receives the support of the House tonight. That is the challenge for Opposition Members.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall try to make a little progress.

There is a related challenge. Do hon. Members want to remove bureaucracy? Do we want to lift the burden of duties that our teachers and head teachers currently have to shoulder? Do we want to ensure that a number of non-departmental public bodies—quangos, in plain phrases—are allowed to continue to exist and to drain resources from the front line, or do we want to see every penny that the taxpayer gives to the Exchequer for their children’s education sent into the classroom? Do we want to keep the Training and Development Agency for Schools, the General Teaching Council, the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, Becta and the Children’s Workforce Development Council in their current forms, or do we want the money that is spent on them spent on our teachers?

Let us take the QCDA—just one of those organisations —which has 393 employees. Can any Member of the House tell me how many of those work in the QCDA communications department? [Interruption.] There are a variety of guesses, but not even the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), can tell me. The answer is 76 of the 393. How can it possibly be an effective use of public money to have 76 people involved in communications at a curriculum quango, when that quango has been responsible for a secondary curriculum that mentions not a single figure in world history apart from William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano? How can it be right that we have spent money—so much money—on that curriculum authority, when its geography curriculum mentions not a single country other than the UK, and not a single river, ocean, mountain or city, but finds time to mention the European Union? How can it be right that we can find money to employ 76 people in communications—76 spin doctors—when our music curriculum does not mention a single composer, a single musician, a single conductor or a single piece of music? How can any hon. Member justify this unreformed status quo? The Bill gives every Member the chance to vote not just for money going into the classroom but for a reformed, 21st-century curriculum.

We will also remove bureaucracy by tackling Ofsted. I am delighted to inform the House that Ofsted has a new chair, Baroness Morgan of Huyton—formerly Sally Morgan and political secretary to Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister. I am delighted that someone who has direct experience as a teacher and in government at the highest level is helping Her Majesty’s Government in their work of improving educational standards. She joins Ofsted at a crucial moment—at a time when we are refocusing its inspection on what really counts. We are getting rid of the tick-box mentality, which has meant that far too much time has been taken up by pointless bureaucracy and political correctness. Instead, we are telling Ofsted to concentrate on four areas: the quality of behaviour and discipline in our schools; the quality of leadership, because nothing matters more than having great leaders; the quality of teaching, because every moment in the classroom is precious; and the quality of attainment and achievement, including the progression of the poorest pupils. This relentless focus on what counts and this stripping away of bureaucracy are at the heart of the Bill, and I hope that these measures will commend themselves to every Member.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I was glad to hear the Secretary of State mention pupils. We have heard a great deal about teachers, which is welcome, but we have heard very little so far about children. I would like to ask him about one particular group of children who will be devastated by the behaviour proposals that he is seeking to introduce, and that is young carers, who often do not tell anybody that they have caring responsibilities because they are ashamed of it and wish to be seen as normal. I worked with many young carers for several years, and I have consistently asked for safeguards in the legislation to ensure that those children will not suffer undue prejudice because of the no-notice detentions that have been brought in, but I have been unable to get any answers from his team. Will he assure me that he will find a way to protect this group of children, and will he tell us today what it is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady has championed children with caring responsibilities in her role working for the Children’s Society and now in the House, and I take her point on board. However, the power that we are giving to teachers is a discretionary one—we trust professionals. There is a distinction between the position of some Labour Members and Government Members. We do not believe that teachers are whimsical, capricious or wilful in the exercise of their powers. We believe that teachers should be supported and backed at every point, but we also believe that it is necessary, when we recognise that there are children exercising caring responsibilities, to make appropriate provision for them. That is what we will ensure and properly fund every school to do.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

May I take the Secretary of State back to his remarks about the refocusing of Ofsted? I welcome the fact that it will be more about what is happening in the classrooms than in the filing cabinet in a school, but may I ask him specifically how looked-after children will be monitored through the inspection process to ensure that their progression through school is being closely watched to ensure that their outcomes are as good as possible?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We all know that in his work as a children’s lawyer before he entered the House he was a very effective advocate for the interests of looked-after children. We will ensure that the system of virtual heads is built on and that looked-after children, whatever their circumstances, are in receipt of the pupil premium. We are consulting on which performance measures we should use to ensure that looked-after children, children eligible for free school meals and other children whose prior attainment was poor are captured, so that every school has an incentive to ensure that those children are educated at least as well as other children, and that the attainment gap between those children and others, which grew under the previous Government, is at last closed.

There will be a relentless focus on standards, not just to help children with caring responsibilities or looked-after children, who might perhaps have received less than their due in the past, but to ensure that our education system can stand comparison with the best in the world. That is why the Bill contains explicit provisions to ensure that schools will take part in international studies, such as the programme for international student assessment, the progress in international reading literacy study and the trends in international mathematics and science study. It will also ensure that Ofqual, the exams watchdog, is explicitly tasked with ensuring that our qualifications and examinations can compare with the world’s best.

It is long overdue that we should do that, because it is a sad fact that our curriculum is not keeping pace with changes that are occurring in other, educationally high-performing nations. In the primary curriculum for mathematics in Hong Kong, students are expected to be able to master calculations with fractions and the solution of equations, and to know about the properties of cones, pyramids and spheres, but not in England. In Singapore, students studying science at primary school are expected to have a basic understanding of cells as the basic unit of life. They are also expected to know about the importance of the water cycle and the earth’s position relative to the sun as a factor in its ability to support life. However, those core curriculum details are not in the curriculum in this country.

Let us look at other nations. The principle of adding and subtracting fractions is in the core curriculum in Armenia, Colombia, El Salvador and Yemen, but not England. Comparing and matching different representations of the same data is in the curriculum in Lithuania, Ukraine and Tunisia, but not England, while finding a rule for the relationship between pairs of numbers is in the curriculum of Hungary and Slovenia, but not here. We cannot possibly expect our children to compete in the 21st century unless our curriculum equips them with the knowledge and skills that our competitors are giving their children.

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

I welcome many aspects of the Bill and would like to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the situation of sixth-form colleges, which offer an excellent and inexpensive education. In particular, Hereford sixth-form college, which he may know from personal acquaintance, fulfils many of the requirements that he would want in any curriculum, yet it is currently caught by a combination of a cut in the Young People’s Learning Agency, the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, which especially affects rural areas, and the rise in VAT. Will he perhaps take a second glance at that unfortunate combination?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning Hereford sixth-form college, which I have had the opportunity to visit; indeed, I enjoyed dining there with him and others. We are committed to ensuring that we increase funding for 16 to 19-year-olds who are studying in sixth-form colleges such as Hereford sixth-form college. We will also specifically increase the proportion of funding going to the most disadvantaged, who I know are a particular care for my hon. Friend.

[Andrew Percy]

Let me take the Secretary of State back to the curriculum. I welcome the changes that he has announced. Important as it is for our young people to understand how to do quadratic equations and all the rest, it is also incredibly important that they should learn functional skills through the curriculum. I would therefore like to make a plea for financial education for young people, which could play a particularly important role in the mathematics curriculum, in functional maths. Although we obviously want our young people to learn all the important skills in the various subject areas, they must also learn something functional that they can put to use later in life.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an impeccable point. One of the problems with the mathematics curriculum is that it lacks many of the skills—and much of the knowledge—that are being taught in other countries, equipping the young people there with the ability to take advantage of the opportunities of the 21st century. The point that he makes could not be better made.

It is also the case that, as well as our curriculum not being fit for the 21st century, many of our schools are not fit for the 21st century either. It is a sad reflection of the last Government that there are still so many schools that are below acceptable standards. The Bill will therefore give the Department for Education the power to intervene where there is failure. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that where children are trapped in an underperforming school, there should be the opportunity to ensure that the leadership and the investment are in place so that those children have the same opportunities in life as those who were fortunate enough to be born in areas where the schools are stronger.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

In just a second.

We are raising the bar on floor standards; we are showing less tolerance of failure than has ever been shown before; and, where a school is failing, we are taking powers to intervene to ensure that when an academy solution is right, when the local authority can find a superior head teacher and when that school deserves to be federated, then whatever action is required will be taken. I hope that all hon. Members, in every part of the House, will join me in saying that there can be no excuse for failure. The culture that so often prevailed in the past which says, “These children come from such and such a background, or these children have such and such parents, so we cannot expect more of them,” should be consigned to the past, where it belongs. We must ensure that in every part of the country, children have a right to high-quality education. We must also ensure that the absurd bias of the past, which suggested that just because children have working-class parents or come from immigrant backgrounds, they cannot access an academic curriculum, is ditched too.

For anyone who doubts that that is possible, I would ask them to visit some of the superb schools out there, such as Mossbourne in Hackney or Durand in Lambeth, the latter in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). One of the things that they will find at Durand, for example, is that it has a higher proportion of children who are eligible for free school meals than the Lambeth average, and a higher proportion of children on the special educational needs register, yet every child attains at least level 4, and many get level 5, at key stage 2. In other words, they are performing well above the national average.

Mossbourne community academy is outside local authority control, and it has an inspirational head teacher, Sir Michael Wilshaw. This year, 10 of its children are going to Cambridge. What are their backgrounds? They are from one of the poorest boroughs in London—

[Kevin Brennan]

They did not do the English baccalaureate.

[Michael Gove]

They certainly did! The hon. Gentleman should listen, because he fails to appreciate that schools such as Mossbourne academy have head teachers who recognise that every child deserves an academic education. He can sneer if he likes, but if those 10 children had been in a school where he was the head teacher, they would not have had the opportunity to go to Cambridge. He would have said to them, “I’m terribly sorry, but it’s not for the likes of you.” He would have said of their studying academic subjects, “I’m terribly sorry, you’re not good enough.” It is that culture of “know your place”, of enforced mediocrity and of denying opportunity and aspiration that the Bill directly challenges.

The reason that there is so much discomfort among those on the Labour Front Bench is that they have been rumbled. They pose as meritocrats, but in fact, whenever an educational change comes about that tells people from disadvantaged backgrounds that they can achieve far more than they ever imagined, they say, “Oh no, we don’t want that. We don’t like it. It’s inappropriate.” For that reason, the unrepentant and unreformed socialists who form an increasing part of the representation on the Labour Benches object. It will be interesting to see whether every Labour Member votes against the Bill tonight, or whether some are sufficiently enlightened and reformist to see merit in the proposals and in aspiration, and to join us in supporting it.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I would never accuse of being unrepentant or unreformed.

[Stephen Pound]

I am really not too sure how to take that, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman is now taking provocation to previously unimagined heights. He is rocketing down that pathway at breakneck speed, but I hope he will forgive me for taking him back to the point made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). Does he agree that religious education is an absolutely core part of the curriculum? When he comes to consider, say, an English baccalaureate, will he recognise the significance, importance and vital nature of religious education as the core of the curriculum in our schools?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman’s own saintly behaviour while he has been in the House of Commons is an advertisement not only for religious education but for the religious education offered by the Roman Catholic Church, of which he is such a distinguished ornament—[Laughter.] He is certainly venerable, and he might be blessed and, one day, perhaps, saintly, but at the moment we will settle for ornamental. He is both ornament and use. He is formidably well informed; I know from our previous exchanges in Committee that he knows every single member of the Aberdeen team that won the European cup winners cup in Gothenburg in 1982—[Interruption.] My dad was there, as a matter of fact. [Interruption.] I am grateful. We Aberdeen fans need all the support we can get at times like this. I was going to say to the hon. Gentleman that he is misinformed on this particular point, because religious education is in the curriculum. It is a compulsory subject. Moreover, the English baccalaureate is not a compulsory measure; it is simply a performance measure that will allow us to see how many students have access to five core academic subjects. The sad fact is that only 16% of students succeeded in securing the mix of subjects that make the English baccalaureate, when every other developed country demands that its students have that suite of qualifications at 15, 16 or 17. This is another example of our falling behind.

The case for reform, as I have mentioned, is one that many Labour Members might be tempted to support. One reason they may be tempted to support it is that they will see that progressive figures from across the world are moving in the same direction as this Government. Just two weeks ago, we were privileged to have visiting the UK Mike Feinberg, the founder of the Knowledge is Power Program set of schools.

Mike Feinberg used to be an intern for Senator Paul Simon, Barack Obama’s predecessor as Senator for Illinois. Mike Feinberg, a career Democrat, was here to support our free school programme. He was joined by Joel Klein, a former Assistant Attorney-General in the Clinton Administration, and was also here to support our free school programme. They followed Arne Duncan, Barack Obama’s Education Secretary, who also came here to back our free school programme. Our free school programme has also been backed by Conor Ryan, an adviser to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and to the former Prime Minister. He described the Labour party’s opposition to our proposals as “ridiculous”.

Conor Ryan is not a lone voice. He has been joined by Andrew Adonis, who described 400 academies as “a phenomenal achievement”. He said:

“Neither I nor Tony Blair believed that academies should be restricted to areas with failing schools. We wanted all schools to be eligible for academy status, and we were enthusiastic about the idea of entirely new schools being established on the academy model, as in Michael Gove’s Free Schools policy.”

It is not just a matter of what Conor Ryan and Andrew Adonis said, as I shall cite what Tony Blair himself said:

“In many areas of… policy, the Tories will be at their best when they are allowed to get on with it—as with reforms in education”.

I have a question for every Opposition Member: are they going to listen to the reformist Prime Minister who secured them three election victories, or are they going to go back to the atavistic class warrior instincts that will lead them to oppose this Bill? Tony Blair in his memoirs also pointed out that when a reformist Government are in power, it is very easy for an Opposition to oppose. He went on to say that when there are reforms like ours, the Opposition should support them, but he pointed out that Oppositions tend to get

“dragged almost unconsciously, almost unwillingly into wholesale opposition. It’s where the short-term market in votes is. It is where the party feels most comfortable. It’s what gets the biggest cheer. The trouble is it also chains the Opposition to positions that in the longer term look irresponsible, short-sighted, just plain wrong.”

That is Tony Blair’s verdict on the opposition of the current official Opposition Front-Bench team to this Bill—“irresponsible, short-sighted” and “just plain wrong”.

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

I cannot remember how many years the Secretary of State has been a Member of this House, but I would like to know how many times he voted for one of Tony Blair’s Education Bills on Second Reading, which is what he is asking us to do tonight?

[Michael Gove]

One of my first acts was enthusiastically to support Tony Blair’s Education Bill on Second Reading. In fact, when I was a journalist, I was always happy to support Tony Blair—rather more conspicuously than some Labour Members, including the shadow Chancellor and indeed the current Leader of the Opposition, did—and I am happy to say that our Bill, as Fiona Millar points out in The Guardian today, is in many respects one that builds on what Tony Blair wanted to do in 2005, but was thwarted by reactionaries on the Labour Benches.

That brings me to the heart of the challenge for the Opposition tonight. Will they be on the side of reform, consensus and progress in favour of a 21st-century curriculum and a 21st-century school system, or will they vote against that and put themselves in a Division Lobby thus saying no to money for early intervention, no to support for students at primary school, no to turning around our weaker schools, no to getting rid of bureaucracy and no to more good school places.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall not give way again.

This Bill provides an historic opportunity for this country. It will help to guarantee every child a high quality education, which will equip them for the technological, economic, social and cultural challenges of the next century. Throughout history, the opportunities we give to our young people have far too often been a matter of time and chance. Accidents of birth or geography have determined children’s fate, but education can change all that. Education allows each of us to become the author of our own life story. Instead of going down a path determined for us by external constraints, it allows each of us to shape our lives and the communities around us for the better. What this Bill offers is a chance for every Member to shape our education system for the better, to give every child a greater level of opportunity and to transform their futures. That is why I so enthusiastically commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I wonder what evidence the hon. Lady has for that statement, because those countries—I cited the Hong Kong Minister—want to give young people skills for the world as it is now, not for the 1950s. How can it make sense to send the message to young people and schools in her constituency that it is better to study a dead language than to study information and communications technology, business studies and all the other things that will help young people to make their way in the world? The Secretary of State said in his speech, “We want to encourage the Googles, the Facebooks and the Microsofts.” I think I quoted him almost perfectly. Why, then, is ICT not in his English baccalaureate? How are we going to have a work force that can give a supply of trained people to those companies and encourage them to come to this country? Has he spoken to employers about his English baccalaureate?

[Michael Gove]

indicated assent.

[Andy Burnham]

He nods, but I have severe doubts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

As a proud Scouser, I can say that I never read The Old Mancunian. Indeed, I am surprised to find that I agree with something in it, but I do. I have visited schools recently and I have been struck by the anger and, in some cases, despair of head teachers. They have worked night and day with their staff to raise standards in their schools, and along has come a retrospectively applied league table, which has knocked the stuffing out of them. I think it is quite immoral to say to those schools, “You are now at zero: you have 0% five GCSEs under this measure,” when they were not being judged by that measure previously. That applies to all kinds of schools, many of which might ask why the Secretary of State has chosen those five subjects on which to test them. Schools are voting with their feet and young people are choosing to do other things.

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it is immoral to tell parents in which subjects schools are performing well? Will he also tell me which other European countries do not ask their students to have a suite of academic subjects assessed at the age of 15, 16 or 17?

[Andy Burnham]

Why did I make that comment? I made it because I believe in student choice and parent choice. I believe that the same subjects will not be right for everyone and I do not believe that an arbitrary selection of subjects that seems to have come from the Secretary of State and his office should be used to judge the performance of every child and school in the country. I do not understand why ICT, religious education and business studies are not in the selection if he wants to create the work force of tomorrow, as he said earlier. Yesterday, he stood at the Dispatch Box and quoted the Henley review of music education in England that he was publishing on that day. We all received a fairly pious lecture about this issue yesterday, but let me quote from the review. Paragraph 3.6 states:

“Music is an important academic subject in the secondary school curriculum. When its constituent parts are next reviewed, I believe that Music should be included as one of the subjects that go to make up the new English Baccalaureate.”

So, experts commissioned by him are telling him that his choices are too narrow and restrictive. [Interruption.] Does he want to comment on that?

[Michael Gove]

I just wanted an answer to my question about which other European countries do not ask of their 15, 16 or 17-year-old students what level of competency they have achieved in those academic subjects. I would be very interested to know which countries the right hon. Gentleman holds up as an exemplar because they deliberately do not insist on an academic core. Can he answer that?

[Andy Burnham]

As I said to the Secretary of State yesterday, the programme for international student assessment research says that the systems that give the most autonomy in choice are the most successful. Is the Secretary of State saying that they all replicate his English baccalaureate? I do not think so. They have a better mix of academic and vocational qualifications. [Interruption.] He would not listen to the example I just gave him about an expert whom he—

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

No I will not. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State is not even convincing his own activists. On ConservativeHome today, there was an article by Ed Watkins, a music teacher in south London and the deputy chairman of Dulwich and West Norwood Conservatives. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Conservative Members cheer him, but will they still be cheering in a moment? He wrote:

“The principles lying behind the English Baccalaureate are therefore grounded in a sensible solution to a problem.”—

He is halfway there with that. He continued:

“Those principles have, however, been applied in an arbitrary manner in the selection of subjects. Why History but not R.E.? Why Biblical Hebrew but not Art? Why Geography but not Music?”

It seems that rather than heckling me, the Secretary of State has a little more work to do with his own side.

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

No, I will not.

My point—[Interruption.] My point, if the right hon. Gentleman will listen to it, is that children have a right to a broad and balanced curriculum, and his prescriptive English baccalaureate is taking us away from that. The body that has independently advised Ministers, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, is being abolished, so what can we expect in the future? We can expect ministerial whim replacing independent expert advice. As the Education Committee pointed out last week, a mix of academic and vocational options is more likely to keep young people engaged and help reduce behaviour problems.

We welcome provisions in the Bill to ensure that every young person has access to independent careers advice, but we fear that this is yet another instance where rhetoric will fail to live up to the reality. Is not the truth that the Secretary of State’s mismanagement of transition arrangements to an all-age careers service and front-loaded cuts to local authority budgets have meant that careers advice is disappearing?

Why does the Bill remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to enforce the new legal participation age of 18? Is it because, with the scrapping of EMA and the other measures that I have described, he knows that full participation until 18 will never be achieved? Alongside the clauses on higher education, no wonder ASCL talks of a Bill with

“serious implications for social mobility”.

In the ways that I have described, the Bill takes power from pupils and, in the words of UNICEF,

“risks narrowing the educational agenda and limiting children’s rights within schools.”

Let me turn to how the Bill takes power from parents. The National Children’s Bureau has called this a Bill which

“chips away at hard-won parental rights”.

It removes their ability to challenge decisions about admissions and exclusions and to make local complaints. The Bill abolishes the local admissions forum. ASCL raises concerns that there

“may now be a void in policing admissions”.

Admissions forums involve local parent representation, governors and heads. They exist to give parents avenues of redress and to help them get a fair deal. As with many provisions in the Bill, their abolition seems at odds with ideas of localism. With no group co-ordinating fair admissions, the NASUWT says that there are real risks of increased inequality, back-door selection and covert discrimination.

We welcome the extension of the schools adjudicator’s powers in relation to academies and individual cases, but we fear that this move is undermined overall by a weakening of the adjudicator’s role and his ability to change admission arrangements. ASCL has said that it is

“essential that parents have a well defined route to deal with their grievances relating to admissions” ,

yet the Bill repeals parents’ power to complain to the local commissioner.

The Secretary of State mentioned Tony Blair and our reforms. They were all about empowering parents, just as in the health service we empowered patients with guarantees. The Bill strips away those powers from parents. That is why we do not support it.

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It brings me on to the subject of parents whose children have special educational needs or disabilities. Her point is particularly important in respect of such parents. Concerns have been raised about the measures in the Bill disempowering parents in relation to exclusions. The removal of the ability of appeals panels to tell schools to reinstate a pupil who has been expelled has been described by the National Children’s Bureau as

“counter to the principles of natural justice.”

These changes affect the rights of every parent and the life chances of every child, but they have big implications for the most vulnerable.

Parents of children with disabilities and special needs already face a battle to get them a good education. With its changes to admissions and exclusions, which will see schools become judge and jury, the Bill stacks the odds against those children even further. Poor behaviour can arise from a failure to identify or support a child’s special needs, yet in future any exclusions that might result will be much harder to challenge.

The changes must also be seen in the context of the diminishing ability of local authority to fund and co-ordinate specialist services that help children facing the biggest challenges. The Education Committee has noted that some pupils could be left

“without access to critical support”.

The autism charity, TreeHouse, fears that councils will no longer be able to plan services for children with complex needs.

That brings us to a central problem with the Government’s rush to reform: the Bill has been brought forward before the long-promised Green Paper on special educational needs. The National Autistic Society has stated:

“The impact of certain aspects of the Education Bill on children with SEN and disabilities… will not be known until the Green Paper has been made public.”

That means that the Government are asking Members to vote on these measures without giving them either answers to the questions posed by TreeHouse or the ability to feel sure that the most vulnerable children in their constituencies will not be adversely affected. That is profoundly wrong. It is an abusive process and an affront to this House, but, much worse, it sends a clear message to the parents who are most affected that their children are an afterthought for the Government.

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way on that important point.

[Michael Gove]

I note that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my previous question about EU nations, but can he perhaps enlighten the House on—

[Glenda Jackson]

He is talking about children with special educational needs and you are going on about other matters. It is a disgrace—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

[Michael Gove]

Those of us who have family members with special educational needs will have found the hon. Lady’s outburst objectionable. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many special schools closed under the Labour Government and how many more parents were forced to buy private education for their children with special educational needs over the past 13 years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I will not; I am making some progress.

On the abolition of the General Teaching Council for England, ASCL says that

“in this and other matters, we are concerned about the large number of additional powers being granted to the Secretary of State.”

How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly be judge and jury over every case of misconduct? Surely teachers have a right to be judged by their peers, not by politicians in Whitehall. I speak as a former Health Secretary, where we had well developed, independent systems of self-regulation for the medical profession. Surely that model is the right one for teaching.

Perhaps the Secretary of State’s biggest slight on the professional status of teachers is his insistence—

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will not.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman’s biggest slight on the professional status of teachers is his insistence that free schools must not be held back by the requirement to hire qualified individuals to teach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) said, it makes a mockery of his claims to value teacher training. Either he believes it is important or he does not; he does not have a convincing answer to that question.

The abolition of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body sets back efforts to improve professional standards among support staff, as well as fair pay and work force planning. Support staff are key members of the education team around the child. Unison has said that the Secretary of State is

“ignorant of the reasons for its establishment”.

This impression is given further weight by the fact that the Bill overlooks support staff in introducing anonymity for professionals facing allegations from pupils. The Secretary of State asked whether we would support that measure, and we do, but we agree with the ASCL that it should be

“extended to cover teachers and support staff in colleges and support staff in schools”.

The Secretary of State nods, and I hope that he will give that suggestion serious consideration.

On other provisions relating to behaviour and discipline, we are broadly supportive of a direction of travel that builds on our achievements, although we will seek reassurance in Committee that powers to search pupils are necessary and proportionate. We welcome the proposed changes to make schools find and fund alternative provision for excluded pupils, but we would like that measure to be included in the Bill.

Fourthly and finally, this Bill takes power from the public. Schools should be at the heart of local communities, but the Bill removes communities’ rights—

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will not.

This Bill removes communities’ rights to decide what kind of school they have—the Secretary of State is offering a one-size-fits-all model: an academy or nothing— and restricts the information available to them about their schools. It makes strategic, community-wide planning for children and young people more difficult. According to the National Children’s Bureau,

“it fails to promote and indeed protect the strategic relationship that schools must have with their local community.”

We know the Government’s answer to this—that communities can set up their own schools. It is the same with libraries, forests and children’s centres. Communities want control and involvement, but they do not want chaos and cuts to be unleashed on the services they value and then to be told, “It’s okay—you’re free to set up your own.”

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

No, I will not.

Communities need other, more practical avenues of redress. Free schools are approved by the Secretary of State with no requirement for groups setting them up to consult widely with the local population. There is a complete lack of transparency and accountability over funding. We know that the Government have set aside £50 million to pay for new free schools, and we know from reports yesterday that about £25 million has been pledged to just two schools. Earlier, the Secretary of State failed to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) about this. We know that a further 13 have been given promises of funding, but we do not know how much. Named day questions to Ministers simply go unanswered. It is not surprising that many communities believe that existing local schools are being left to fall into disrepair to allow free schools the money to be set up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

It is simply not acceptable that we have not had any figures. Pledges are being made; Ministers are going round the country waving cheque books at people wanting to set up their pet projects. When the Government have cancelled Building Schools for the Future, it is unacceptable that they are not prepared to answer parliamentary questions to tell us how much money has been committed to these new schools. It gives the impression that, shamefully, ideology and not need is driving the allocation of capital to schools.

We support autonomy for head teachers, but the Bill strips back the role of the local authority to an extent that even head teachers are uncomfortable with it. The ASCL has said that it is

“concerned that there may now be too few points of contact between local authorities and schools”.

The removal of the duty to co-operate in the production of a children’s plan and to work with children’s trusts raises concerns over the safeguarding of children and young people. The Laming review highlighted the need for all agencies involved with children, including schools, to have a joined-up approach to ensure that no child slipped through the net. Every Child Matters was an effort to remedy the failure of services to work together. Unison says that the Bill

“drives a wedge between schools and other local services and negates Every Child Matters”.

As I have said, the Bill takes power from the public and local communities.

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I will give way one last time.

[Michael Gove]

If the right hon. Gentleman were in power, would he rescind the academy status that has been acquired by schools and head teachers who want that new-found freedom?

[Andy Burnham]

That question is not for here and now. We would not close a good school that was well integrated with its local community and played its part in a local partnership to raise standards. I do not have a dogmatic position, as some of the acolytes of the Secretary of State like to say. I do not just want to close all free schools and all academies out of spite. That is not my position. If a school was not well integrated with its local community and was not playing its part to raise the standards of all children in the area, of course that would have to be looked at.

In conclusion, last year’s Liberal Democrat conference passed a motion supporting the role of local authorities in education and opposing an uneven playing field between schools, where some schools get more funding than others. This centralising Bill is the polar opposite of that motion. As I have shown today, it takes powers from pupils, parents, professionals and the public and leaves a huge democratic deficit in every community. Where are the Lib Dem voices now? Why are they not howling down a Bill that strips local councils of any meaningful role? They seem silent and defeated. This is a battle for the soul of state education. I hope for the sake of young people that the Lib Dems rediscover some principle and backbone, and stand up to a Bill that grants one man huge power to foist an elitist view of education on everyone.

The vision is of a 1950s curriculum in a 19th-century school system; a free-for-all where parents have no guarantees, where there is a lack of protection for the most vulnerable children, and where for every winner there is a loser. I respect the undoubted passion for education of the Secretary of State, but his is a vision for some children, not all children. In his rush to reform, he is failing to take people with him; he is losing the confidence of head teachers; he is inflicting an ideological experiment on young people, with no pilot schemes, no consultation and no evidence to support it; he is taking power away from parents; and he is gambling with the life chances of our children. Today, in the interests of a fair education system for all, I ask the House to put the brakes on him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glenda Jackson]

Oh yes they are. Children’s centres are being closed—

[Michael Gove]

Where? At half-past 9 on a Tuesday night?

[Glenda Jackson]

The lack of imagination from Government Members never fails to amaze me.

The idea that this Bill is going to ensure that every child has an absolutely clear ride from the age of two to 18, that there will never be a bump on the way and that at every single point they will be encouraged, inspired and told to aspire is utter nonsense. I shall not go down the road of discussing the abolition of the education maintenance allowance for those who stay on at school until aged 18.

For Liberal Democrat party members—who I presume obtained their degrees from the Pontius Pilate school of political philosophy—to support this Bill is yet something else of which they have real cause to be ashamed. But no one should be as ashamed as the Conservative party, which, despite its protestations about caring for every child in this country, is setting in train an educational system that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said, will create not just one or two but three tiers of education in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Michael Gove]

List them.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not have time to list them all, as the Secretary of State knows, but here are a few examples: which subject students should study, how teachers should teach and what types of schools communities should have. He will say that he is just nudging them in that direction, but a nudge with a loaded gun is very different from a gentle steer.

What is it about the Secretary of State, assisted by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), that makes him so obsessed with grabbing more and more power at the centre?

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

There is nothing more important to a child’s education than the quality of their teachers, which is why I set out plans to raise the status and standards of the teaching profession in the White Paper “The Importance of Teaching”. We will focus on recruiting the best candidates to become teachers, we will improve their training and we will create more opportunities for all teachers to learn from the best.

[John Stevenson]

Will the Secretary of State reassure pupils and parents in my constituency of Carlisle that the quality of science and maths-based teaching will not suffer as the academies programme continues successfully to expand?

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted to be able to reassure my fellow Aberdonian that the quality of education that children in Carlisle enjoy will continue to improve. I have had the opportunity to visit some of the superb academy provision in his constituency. I know, and I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member will be pleased to know, that we will guarantee an enhanced level of support for graduates who are scientists or mathematicians who wish to enter teaching in order to ensure that the subjects that will help to equip our children for the 21st century are given the boost they need.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I know the Secretary of State will want to acknowledge that, thanks to Labour’s reforms, we already have the best generation ever of teachers—that is according to Ofsted. He says in his White Paper that quality teacher training is vital, but he is allowing taxpayers’ money to be used to employ unqualified individuals to teach children in his so-called free schools. If having well-qualified teachers is vital for some schoolchildren, why is it not essential for all?

[Michael Gove]

We are making sure that all children have access to improved quality of teaching by ensuring that we reform initial teacher training in a way that builds—yes—on some of the successes that we have seen in the past. We are also ensuring that new teaching schools are established. Many of these will be free schools and many higher education institutions, including the university of Cumbria, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), are playing a role in helping to improve teacher training. Thanks to the expansion of Teach First, which the previous Government—yes—supported, but not as generously as we are doing, there are more talented teachers everywhere. I was delighted to be able to share a platform and a room with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on Friday, when we signalled that Teach First was expanding into the north-east of England, something that was never accomplished under the previous Government, but which, under this reforming and progressive Government—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State will resume his seat. We are moving on to the next question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect on music education in schools of reductions in his Department’s funding for music services.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am happy to inform the House that this morning we published Mr Darren Henley’s review on music education, and I am hugely grateful to him for his in-depth consideration of the issues and for the realistic and practical measures he has put forward. Following that report, I can now confirm that funding for music education in 2011-12 will be the same as it was in 2010-11—£82.5 million. That is not a cut; it is a very good settlement for music services, which is consistent with our broader strategies for school autonomy and deficit reduction.

[Diana Johnson]

I, too, pay tribute to the work of Darren Henley, who has at heart the need to ensure that young people get a good music education. Labour’s £332 million investment in school music helped children from poor and average backgrounds access good education in music. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the £82.5 million, although ring-fenced, is a real-terms cut? Local authorities are already slashing music services in their areas, so rather than blowing his own trumpet, should the Secretary of State not admit that this is really a cut, just like his cut to school sport?

[Michael Gove]

Once again, we have had a superb pun: we had trumpets from the Back Benches and fiddles from the Front Bench, but what a pity they are not singing from the same hymn sheet as Darren Henley, local authorities and all those who care about music. From Alfie Boe the tenor, to Julian Lloyd Webber the cello player, everyone in the world of music is saying that today is good news for all children who want to learn more about music, including your own, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Bedfordshire Orchestral Society has an enviable record of promoting music in schools, but it is reliant on funding from two local authorities. Even ahead of today’s good news from the Secretary of State, Bedford borough council has committed funding, so will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging Central Bedfordshire council to do likewise?

[Michael Gove]

When Central Bedfordshire council hears that my hon. Friend and I are both on the case, I am sure that it will be only too happy to join in and become as one in harmony with us both.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Once again, there is a chasm between rhetoric and reality: the big announcement is a cash freeze, which in real terms is a cut. It is another example of confused decision making. The right hon. Gentleman promises to increase access to music, but the cuts mean that 60% of schools, as surveyed by the National Association of Music Educators, are cutting music provision this year. Does he accept that, unless music is protected and ring-fenced not just for one year but into the future, all his rhetoric will lead to is less music provision in deprived areas?

[Michael Gove]

There is a huge chasm between rhetoric and reality: the chasm between the apocalyptic rhetoric that we heard from the Opposition Front Benchers and their sock puppets elsewhere, and the reality of increased funding for those areas that need it most, and new funding for the teach music first scheme, ensuring that some of our most talented musicians from leading music schools and conservatoires work in our most challenging schools to ensure that every child has an opportunity, which I, like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), believe should be extended to all. It is only under this Government, with this announcement on school music and our pupil premium, that we are at last ensuring that money goes to those children who need it most, instead of being wasted on the quangos and bureaucrats that characterised the past 13 wasted years.

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to improve the quality of the work force in early years education.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

9. Whether he plans to include religious education in the humanities section of the English baccalaureate.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Religious education did not count towards the humanities element of the English baccalaureate in the 2010 performance tables, because it is already a compulsory subject. One intention of the English baccalaureate is to encourage wider take-up of geography and history in addition to, rather than instead of, compulsory RE.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but does he think that the exclusion of religious education from the English baccalaureate might dramatically reduce the number of students studying the RE full course at GCSE and have a knock-on and detrimental effect on the number of candidates for religious education teacher training?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making her point. We all recognise that high-quality religious education is a characteristic of the very best schools—faith schools and non-faith schools. However, the decision to include geography and history in the humanities section of the English baccalaureate will mean that those subjects, which have seen a decline in the number of students pursuing them, will at last see an increase, alongside modern foreign languages. As the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) pointed out, the English baccalaureate is intended to be a suite of core academic qualifications, which every child can be expected to follow alongside other qualifications, whether vocational, RE or others.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State tell the House on what research or evidence he has based his selection of subjects in the new English baccalaureate?

[Michael Gove]

Yes. The research and evidence that I undertook was to look at what the highest performing education jurisdictions do. When the OECD published its table on how our country had been doing in education over the past 10 years, I was struck to see that under Labour’s stewardship we had slipped in the international league tables for English, for mathematics and for science. I was also struck by the fact that the numbers of students studying modern foreign languages, history and geography were declining. I was particularly struck by the fact that only last week the Russell group said that these are the subjects which the best universities expect of students if they are to go on and prosper and achieve the level of social mobility that sadly eluded us when the right hon. Gentleman was in government.

[Andy Burnham]

The Secretary of State mentions the OECD, so let me quote from last year’s PISA—programme for international student assessment—report, which says:

“Most successful school systems grant greater autonomy to individual schools to design curricula and assessment policies”.

That is in direct contradiction to what he has just said. I support the right of every child to take these five GCSEs, but it is a narrow selection, and not right for everybody, and the way in which he has introduced it is restricting student choice right now. Many feel that it is not a fair way to judge all children and all schools, suggesting that some are second best. So is he really saying to young people and employers today that dead languages are more important than business studies, engineering, information and communications technology, music and RE? Will he not listen to the call from the Chair of the Select Committee, made just a few moments ago, to allow a broader and more flexible English baccalaureate?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but these questions are becoming excessively long. I hope that we can have a pithy response, and I am sure we will, from the Secretary of State.

[Michael Gove]

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to quote the PISA figures when they show that on his watch the standard of education which was offered to young people in this country declined relative to our international competitors. Literacy, down; numeracy, down; science, down: fail, fail, fail. I am surprised that he has the brass neck to stand here and to say that working-class children should not study modern foreign languages, should not study science, should not study history and should not study geography. If it is good enough for the likes of him, why should it not be good enough for working-class children elsewhere? Why is he pulling up the drawbridge on social mobility? Why is he saying that they are only fit to be hewers of wood and drawers of water rather than university graduates like you and me, Mr Speaker? Rank hypocrisy!

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

While I entirely accept the Secretary of State’s point that RE is compulsory, it is not obligatory to sit the GCSE. Does he agree that the very many faith schools where RE is compulsory are thereby penalised in the calculation of their English baccalaureate achievement?

[Michael Gove]

I appreciate the care with which my hon. Friend puts his question. I also appreciate the fact that he has been a very strong advocate for faith schools in his own constituency, including St Mary’s, whose cause he has championed with particular eloquence. Many schools will want to offer RE as a GCSE, and indeed we would encourage them to do so, but the core element of the English baccalaureate relates to five subjects which we believe are the essential academic knowledge that students should be able to master. The news from the Russell group of universities last week that the subjects that we have chosen for the English baccalaureate are the subjects that they expect students to have if they are to go on to leading universities ensures that there is an appropriate match between schools and universities in advancing social mobility rather than seeing it decline, as happened over the past 13 years.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to ensure the provision of good quality youth services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

13. How many applications his Department has received to establish free schools for children with special educational needs.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

My Department has received a number of proposals from groups and individuals interested in establishing free schools wholly or mainly catering for children with special educational needs. We have received more than 240 applications overall.

[Stuart Andrew]

It has been a pleasure of mine to work with two groups that are hoping to take advantage of the policy. One of them, the Lighthouse project in Leeds, this weekend submitted an excellent application to open a school for young people suffering with autism spectrum disorders. It is eager to do so in the autumn, but after what it has heard from the Department, it is concerned that there may be some delays. It does not want to lose momentum. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and representatives of that organisation to see what we can do to progress the application?

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the Lighthouse group. I have to stress that it is important to ensure that all the issues surrounding the establishment of any new school are successfully navigated. Opening any free school in September 2011 is a challenging timetable. Under the last Government it would take between five and 10 years for a new school to open, so it is remarkable that so many may open within a year. I will look closely at the matter, but I suspect that given the complexity of some of the issues involved we may not be able to open in September 2011. However, let us discuss it and ensure that we can support—

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

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that successful special educational needs provision depends very much on integration with other schools? That was the finding of the former Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families. We very much support good SEN provision, but it must be integrated with the local schools that take other kinds of children.

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely recognise that when we are talking about children with special educational needs, there is such a broad and complex spectrum that one solution will not fit all children. I had the opportunity to visit Redcar community college on Thursday, and I saw there an imaginative proposal to co-locate Kirkleatham Hall special school with that college. That seems to be the right solution there, but different solutions will apply elsewhere. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) for his impassioned advocacy of those two schools.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Further to the Secretary of State’s answer, is he open to suggestions for replacing provision offered by pupil referral units in some parts of the country? Outcomes at such units are variable across the country.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and one thing that the Education Bill will do is make it easier to ensure that we can have high-quality provision for students who are excluded for whatever reason.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

14. Whom his Department plans to consult in its review of home-to-school travel; and when that review will be completed.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

My Department is reviewing home-to-school transport policy, which has remained largely unchanged since the Education Act 1944, when the social, economic and education landscape was very different. As part of our review, we are considering how best practice can be spread to all local authorities. We will make further announcements in due course.

[Mrs Glindon]

North Tyneside’s Tory-led council is currently reviewing its home-to-school travel policy to include a proposal to stop free and subsidised travel for children who travel more than 3 miles to school. As that will affect more than 400 pupils who travel from across the borough to St Thomas More RC high school, which is the only faith school in North Tyneside, will the Secretary of State please make a statement to support my constituents and their children against that unfair proposal?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. It is important that we support the exercising of school choice, and that we support faith schools and the great schools of North Tyneside, such as Whitley Bay high school, whose headmaster I had the opportunity to talk to on Thursday when I visited the north-east. I will look into the specific situation that the hon. Lady mentioned, but of course one thing that all local authorities are dealing with is the drastic economic inheritance bequeathed by the last Labour Government.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State, who I know is a friend of North Yorkshire and a frequent visitor, look carefully at the proposals that North Yorkshire county council is coming up with for a similar review, bearing in mind that the distances that children have to travel cannot be covered by anything other than either bus or car?

[Michael Gove]

I am very well aware of the specific challenges that North Yorkshire has in helping to ensure that children can exercise school choice and go to the most appropriate local school. I know that it is one of the most successful local authorities in terms of both value for money and school performance, so I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and the local authority to come to the right outcome.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

15. What steps he is taking to improve school discipline in (a) Kettering constituency, (b) Northamptonshire and (c) England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

16. What estimate he has made of the savings to accrue from terminating education maintenance allowance payments in September 2011 for students who are already part of the way through a two-year programme of study.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The cost of continuing to pay EMA from September 2011 for a further year to all students currently receiving it is estimated at £300 million, excluding the costs of administration.

[Hugh Bayley]

York college tells me that, last September, on the Secretary of State’s watch, 650 students started two-year courses in the expectation of getting an education maintenance allowance for two years. To continue it would cost less than £500,000. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful for the moderate and considered way in which the hon. Gentleman puts his point—I know how passionate he is about further education. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hon. Gentlemen should not yell from a sedentary position. I want to hear the Secretary of State’s answer, and I hope that the House does, too.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is ironic that we were just discussing poor behaviour and people in class disrupting those who want to learn. I am keen to work with the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), and college principals in particular, to ensure that our new, enhanced learner support fund can help all those vulnerable young people who need support to stay in education and learning.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

When the Secretary of State assesses the size of the discretionary learner support to be made available to each college, will he consider at least making one of the criteria the number of second-year students who currently receive EMA, to assist colleges and students in the transition to the new system?

[Michael Gove]

That is a constructive suggestion, which I will consider as part of the review.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am pleased to announce that, on 1 February, more than another 30 schools converted to academy status, meaning that there are now more than 440 academies. Tomorrow we will debate the Education Bill, which will give all Members an opportunity to consider the further advance of the movement, which gives all head teachers more autonomy, and promises all children the raising of standards. The Education Bill will also provide all Members with an opportunity to vote for measures that will ensure better discipline and higher standards in every school.

[Mr Slaughter]

The Schools Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), is fond of saying that there is adequate money in the early intervention grant to fund the network of children’s centres. An education authority such as Hammersmith and Fulham is cutting by half in one year the children’s centre budget, closing nine out of 15 centres, including phase 1 centres in deprived areas, and sacking 50 staff—does that give the Secretary of State and the Minister pause for thought? If so, what will they do about education authorities that are wrecking children’s centres?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T3. One of my local head teachers said to me last year that it can take up to a year to move a teacher who is not up to their particular responsibilities. Given that that could be a critical year for the children concerned, what steps can my right hon. Friend take to speed up that process?

[Michael Gove]

No one is served when people who should not be in the classroom continue there. It increases the burden on other professionals and deprives children of the highest quality education. We are reviewing the professional standards for all teachers to make it easier for head teachers to ensure that staff who underperform are given the support that they need to improve or to move on.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

T6. Given that the cuts in EMA will affect more than 2,600 low-paid families in my constituency, is the Minister not ashamed of that policy? What will he do to increase the top-up learner funds to help at least some of those families?

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T4. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of getting more capital into free schools would be to enable them to obtain it on the open market by allowing them the freedom to make a profit, as they can in Sweden? When will my right hon. Friend have the courage of his convictions and enable free schools to have the same freedoms as they have in Sweden?

[Michael Gove]

It is always a pleasure to hear the radical proposals of my hon. Friend, whose stewardship of money when he was a councillor in Wandsworth and a Minister in a previous Conservative Government is a model to all. I shall look carefully at the case he makes, but the one thing that is clear is that we already know that our programme ensures that more new school places are being provided more cheaply than was the case under the previous Labour Government.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

T7. Today is the first day of national apprenticeships week. We know that one of the most significant barriers to young people taking up apprenticeships is getting the right advice at school. In fact, there is now a confused situation, because the Government want to end Connexions and introduce an all-age service. Will the Minister explain what extra funds will be available to schools to procure advice for young people?

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T5. Cambridgeshire gets less school funding per pupil than almost anywhere in the country. If we received the per pupil average across England, we would have some £34 million more for education. Can the Secretary of State explain why pupils in Cambridgeshire deserve so much less money, and will he review that?

[Michael Gove]

They deserve to be treated like every other student. We are reviewing funding and will be publishing a paper in the spring to try to ensure greater equity in the allocation of schools funding.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

All 19 of the children’s centres in Sefton are under review. Does the Minister stand by her statement that local authorities have a legal duty to maintain a sufficient network of children’s centres? If she does, how many of Sefton council’s 19 children’s centres should it keep open to meet those legal duties?

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

T8. Can the Secretary of State assure me that changes to education maintenance allowance will not leave college students disadvantaged compared with school sixth-formers, who will still be entitled to free school meals?

[Michael Gove]

That point is well made by my hon. Friend. We have an anomaly at the moment, whereby the position of those in colleges and those in schools is not the same. The whole thrust of our policy making has been to try to ensure a level playing field between schools and colleges. The point he makes with respect to EMA weighs heavily with my colleagues and me.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Staff at the Independent Safeguarding Authority in Darlington learned from The Daily Telegraph on Saturday that the vetting and barring scheme is to be significantly scaled back. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Home Secretary about the reduction of that scheme, which is likely to affect child protection?

[Michael Gove]

I had the opportunity to visit the hon. Lady’s constituency on Thursday, when I spoke to staff at Mowden Hall, the Department for Education headquarters in Darlington. I am pleased to say that I am the first Secretary of State to visit Darlington and Mowden Hall since the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), which is indicative of this Government’s commitment to the north-east, which was sadly not shared by the previous Administration.

A response to the Government’s review of vetting and barring will be made. The House will be informed of the details first. The one thing that we know is that the bureaucratic burden on the voluntary sector will be lifted. We will not only have a more proportionate system, but more children will be kept safe. Above all, we will ensure that volunteers and those who do so much to help in our society are given the trust that they need in order to carry on doing the wonderful work that they do.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

T9. Will Ministers be prepared to look again at the rather puzzling exclusion of classical civilisation from the list of humanities scored in the English baccalaureate? Is classical civilisation not a humanity?

[Michael Gove]

I am tempted to reply, “Timeo danaos et dona ferentes,” which, broadly translated, means, “Beware of geeks bearing gifts.” However, my hon. Friend is an impassioned champion of both Latin and Greek and the wider application of the classics in state schools. Latin is now on offer in more state schools than independent, fee-paying schools, and Latin and Greek are included in the English baccalaureate, along with modern foreign languages. His impassioned advocacy of classical civilisation certainly weighs with me.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I recently met some of the 229 students at Lewisham college in receipt of education maintenance allowance who told me that they had spent hundreds of pounds on equipment, IT and books. The Minister knows that there is a difference between the aspiration to be at college and sustaining attendance over a two-year period. Will he guarantee that no student in that situation will be forced to discontinue their second year because of lack of financial assistance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State had a look at the letter from the headmaster of Tibshelf school explaining the difficulties of having to deal with the split school site in Bolsover and North East Derbyshire? Has he also received a letter from the Derby building company Tomlinson and Sons which expected to build the school, or does he have the same disease as the Deputy Prime Minister and stop dealing with his Red Box after 3 o’clock?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for that well-crafted question from the eloquent, grammar-school-educated Member for Bolsover. I am well aware that Derbyshire county council, under many years of Labour rule, did not secure value for money for the taxpayer. I am pleased that the incredibly wasteful Building Schools for the Future scheme is being replaced with a more effective way of ensuring that money goes to the front line, and I look forward in due course to visiting Bolsover and North East Derbyshire with him and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) in order to salute what a coalition Government are doing for a generation betrayed by Labour.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I know that the Secretary of State is a strong supporter of our state boarding schools, such as Wymondham college in my constituency, which is doing excellent work pioneering special needs and academy schooling in the area. As he may know, Wymondham college was recently awarded academy status in order to pursue that work. Today, however, I received a letter from the college saying that the decision has been inexplicably reversed by officials in his Department. Will he agree to meet me and a delegation of Norfolk MPs to discuss the matter?

[Michael Gove]

I have to confess myself perplexed by what my hon. Friend tells me, but of course I would be delighted to meet him. I know what impassioned advocates he and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) have been for Wymondham college.

[Natascha Engel]

(North East Derbyshire) (Lab): Children, parents and their teachers were delighted last month that the Government changed their minds about scrapping school sport partnerships. Unfortunately, however, the Secretary of State forgot to reinstate the money for them. I know that he is a very busy man and it was just an oversight, but will he take this opportunity to reassure the House that he will give school sport partnerships their money back?

[Michael Gove]

I am overjoyed that in all my meetings with Baroness Campbell, the head of the Youth Sport Trust, since the announcement, she has expressed her delight that the funding that we have made available will be sufficient to ensure that the good work continues. I am reassured by her enthusiasm for this proposal, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured too.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

As Ministers review policy for young people and the youth services, will they ensure that they engage with local authorities, young people themselves and the voluntary sector to ensure that no local authority withdraws youth services where, with a bit of imagination, alternatives are available?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend investigate the activities of the Anti Academies Alliance, which is threatening a series of political strikes against any school seeking academy status?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to the activities of the Anti Academies Alliance, a group that is sponsored by, among others, the Socialist Workers party. There are a number of politically motivated strikes that some have been contemplating. I hope that Members in every part of the House will condemn any politically motivated strike action that makes children a political plaything. I also look forward to hearing from the Opposition Front Bench a clear and unequivocal condemnation of such activity.

National Curriculum (England)

Michael Gove Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I am today announcing the Government’s intention to review the national curriculum for both primary and secondary pupils in England.

It is my ambition to reduce unnecessary prescription, bureaucracy and central control throughout the education system. That means taking a new approach to the curriculum.

The Government believe that it is teachers, not Ministers and civil servants, who know best how to teach. We must give our teachers more time and space to create lessons that engage their pupils and enable students to fulfil their potential. The national curriculum will be slimmed down so that it properly reflects the body of essential knowledge which children should learn. Individual schools should have greater freedom to construct their own programmes of study and develop approaches to learning and study which help us to catch up with high-performing education nations.

It is important to distinguish between the national curriculum and the wider school curriculum. The national curriculum was originally envisaged as a guide to study in key subjects which would give parents and teachers confidence that students were acquiring the knowledge necessary at every level to make appropriate progress. But as it has developed, the national curriculum has come to cover more subjects, prescribe more outcomes and take up more school time than originally intended. Reforms to the national curriculum that have been introduced in recent years, such as the inclusion of skills development and the promotion of generic dispositions, have also distorted the core function of the national curriculum and diluted the importance of subject knowledge. International surveys of educational achievement show that in the same period our standing has declined.

The review will therefore revise the national curriculum in line with the best international practice so that it sets out clearly the essential knowledge that all children should be expected to acquire in key subjects during the course of their school career. The new national curriculum should embody for all children in England their cultural and scientific inheritance, enhance their understanding of the world around them and introduce them to the best that has been thought and written. I intend to ensure that our national curriculum is informed by the best international practice, as well as evidence about the knowledge children need to deepen their understanding at each stage of their education.

The Government recognise that there are a number of important components of a broad and balanced education for which it would be inappropriate to prescribe national programmes of study. This applies, for example, in the case of religious education, where what is taught needs to reflect local circumstances. Religious education will not, therefore, be considered as part of the review of the national curriculum. The Government do not intend to make any changes to the statutory basis for religious education.

Similar considerations apply to PSHE (personal, social, health and economic) education. The Government recognise however that good PSHE education supports individual young people to make safe and informed choices but that often schools need more support and help in the way that they cover the important topics that are dealt within PSHE education, including sex and relationships education. We will therefore conduct a separate internal review to determine how we can support schools to improve the quality of all PSHE teaching, so that teachers are in a stronger position to deliver appropriate PSHE education.

The new national curriculum will represent a standard against which all schools can be judged. It will be a national benchmark, to provide parents with an understanding of what progress they should expect. It will inform the content of core qualifications, and it will inform the new basis of assessment in primary schools. Academies will retain the freedom to disapply the national curriculum, but it is crucial that we have a national curriculum against which all schools can measure themselves

The new national curriculum will begin to be taught in maintained schools from September 2013. In order to allow schools time to manage the transition to the new curriculum effectively, the new programmes of study for English, mathematics, science, and physical education will be introduced from 2013, with programmes of study for other subjects coming into force the following year. The review will also advise on how the new curriculum should be phased in for each key stage.

The review will be led by my Department, supported by an advisory committee of respected and successful head teachers and employer and higher education representatives. The review will be informed by an expert panel of academics who will construct an evidence base and ensure that the new curriculum is based upon the best international practice. The review will also be shaped by the views of teachers, subject communities, academics, employers, higher education institutions, parents and other interested parties as it develops its proposals. As a first step my Department has today launched a call for evidence. I would invite all interested parties to contribute to the review and the development of the new national curriculum.

I have today placed a copy of the remit for the national curriculum review in the Library of the House.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Michael Gove Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that disadvantaged young people should gain greater access to further and higher education; recognises the valuable role that the education maintenance allowance (EMA) has played in supporting young people from less well-off backgrounds to participate and succeed in education; further recognises how EMA has supported choice for students in post-16 education, allowing them to travel to the best institution for their studies, which is of particular importance in rural areas; further notes that EMA is used by the majority of recipients to fund travel to college, as well as books and equipment, and allows recipients to focus on their studies rather than taking a part-time job; notes that EMA has been retained in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; further notes research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies stating that EMA costs are completely offset by its benefits in raising participation; further notes the inquiry into educational access announced by the Education Select Committee; and calls on the Government to rethink its decision on EMA, retaining practical support to improve access to, interest in and participation in further and higher education.

Over the past decade, we have debated the funding of higher education on many occasions. Today, we rightly focus on an equally, if not more, important prior question: whether hundreds of thousands of young people from less well-off backgrounds are to stay in education long enough to have a realistic dream of going to university.

To know what is at risk, we must look at how far we have come. Twenty-five years ago, the staying-on rate in England was 47%; throughout Merseyside, where I left school in 1986, the figure was even lower; and today it is 82%. Those figures tell an incredible story of human and social progress from the mid-1980s to today. A deep-rooted culture in some communities whereby employment at 16 years old was the norm, not education, has begun to be broken.

Students and families who in the past might well have felt that education was not for the likes of them now see it as a viable route, and in the past 10 years the education maintenance allowance has played an important part in that progress. It has sent out an empowering message of hope—that we can dare to dream, whoever we are and wherever we come from. It was one of the best policies of our Government, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) who brought it in.

Sustaining that progress must be worked at; instead, it is about to be thrown into reverse. In the real world, the debate about tuition fees is already changing views on university, but for the least well-off the full impact becomes clear only when it is set alongside the abolition of EMA. To those young people, it feels as though we have a Government who are stacking the odds against them—a Government who talked about social mobility in their early days but have now launched an all-out attack on the aspirations of those facing the biggest obstacles in life. They see a Government who are kicking away the ladder of opportunity. Today, the House has an opportunity to change that message and to make Ministers change course.

Before we get into the detail, however, I want the House to focus on the 650,000 young people who receive EMA. They have a strong sense that many Members do not have any idea what their lives are like.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that every single one of those 650,000 recipients should receive exactly the same amount of money that they currently receive, or does he believe that there is any scope for saving and better targeting?

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman used to believe in EMA, because he stood right where I am standing now and told the House that he would keep it—no, that he would build on it. So it is pretty desperate—

[Michael Gove]

Answer the question.

[Andy Burnham]

I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but a little more humility might serve him well during the course of this debate.

Those young people feel that Members here—

[Michael Gove]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy Burnham]

I shall not give way; I am sorry. Those young people feel that Members, and indeed that the right hon. Gentleman, have no real idea of what their lives are like.

Some 80% of recipients come from homes where the household income is less than £20,800 a year, and many live difficult lives. Many are part of larger families and go without the basics during the average week, because they know that anything they take off their parents deprives younger brothers or sisters. Many others are young carers who face some of the toughest circumstances imaginable—like the one whom I met, caring for both parents, at Lambeth college—and try desperately to keep their own hopes alive of a better future while supporting loved ones on meagre resources. Some are young parents who might have missed out on an education and want a second chance, like the young mum from Gateshead who came to our hearing here in Westminster. Some have special needs and disabilities, like Daniel in my constituency, who is on the autistic spectrum. I helped him to find appropriate supported accommodation when he was in his early teenage years, and his grandmother told me at the weekend that EMA had been a vital part of his transition from residential care to mainstream college—vital in helping him to learn the everyday skills of managing his life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

It will be felt keenly in such places. Combined with the trebling of tuition fees, my worry is that it will have a depressing effect on the aspirations of young people in the former industrial and inner-city communities that we worked so hard to lift during our time in government. That is why today’s debate goes to the heart of why I and many of my hon. Friends came into politics. We care passionately about people’s opportunities in those areas, and we are not prepared to see the ladder kicked away from under young people in the way that the Government propose.

The evidence that I have given on the educational benefits of EMA demolishes the claim that it has no benefit to society beyond persuading 10% of students to stay on. Until recently, I was at a loss to understand how Ministers could make that one-sided argument and use such selective facts to back up their decision, but maybe I have stumbled on the answer. Last week, I came across a parliamentary question answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), asking how many further education and sixth-form colleges the Secretary of State had visited since he was appointed in May. I shall share with the House the revealing answer:

“The Secretary of State has made no such visits since this date.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 342W.]

The Secretary of State was quick to get to his feet a little earlier, and I trust that he will rise again now to correct what surely must have been an inaccurate answer.

[Michael Gove]

I certainly will. All those who saw me at Farnborough sixth-form college, when I had the privilege of opening the John Guy building, will know of my great commitment to that superb college, at which so many of my students are educated.

[Andy Burnham]

Either that is a school sixth form or the answer that the Secretary of State’s Department issued was wrong, but it is an appalling state of affairs if he has barely ever managed to take himself along to a sixth-form college to speak to the staff and students who will be affected. [Interruption.] Yes, he has been to one in his own constituency but no one else’s. That is very helpful of him. I might remind him that he is responsible for everyone’s constituents. At a stroke he is axing a £500 million scheme, which will have a profound effect on 650,000 young lives and on the viability of 230 FE colleges and 95 sixth-form colleges, for which he has policy responsibility, without so much as troubling himself to go along and hear at first hand what the decision will mean.

The Secretary of State needs to climb down from his ivory tower once in a while and get out in the real world. How many students has he met who will be directly affected by the changes? Has he met any? I am not sure whether he is nodding, but if he had met some I am absolutely sure that, if nothing else, he would long since have asked his Ministers to stop implying that those high-achieving and talented young people can be described as “dead weight”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

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

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

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

[Michael Gove]

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many children eligible for free school meals made it into Oxford and Cambridge in the last year for which we have figures, and in the year before that, and whether he considers it to be a triumph of social mobility or an indictment of his Government’s record?

[Andy Burnham]

Is the Secretary of State worried about anything else, or is that it? The figure is 40, which came down from 44. It did go down, but I have just told him that if he looks at all universities, he will see that the rate of increase in successful applications from children on free school meals was double the rate in the rest of the population. Is he not proud of that fact, and why does he talk only about Oxbridge? If his real passion in life is helping young people on free school meals to gain places at Oxford and Cambridge—as mine is, by the way, as somebody who took that route many years ago—can he tell the House how on earth scrapping EMA is more likely to make that happen? Precisely how does he imagine those kids on free school meals will get to Oxford and Cambridge when there is no EMA?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“believes in full participation in education and training for young people up to the age of 18 and considers that support must be in place to allow those who face the greatest barriers to participation to access this opportunity; notes that the previous Government left this country with one of the largest budget deficits in the world and that savings have had to be made in order to avoid burdening future generations; further notes that the Government has increased funding for deprivation within the 16 to 19 budget and has already begun to replace the current education maintenance allowance system with more targeted support for those who face genuine barriers, including travel; and commits the Government to working with young people, schools and colleges and others outside and inside Parliament on arrangements for supporting students in further education and on improving access to, enthusiasm for and participation in further and higher education.”

It is always a pleasure to debate education with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). In previous Opposition day debates and on other platforms, I have always been impressed by the passion and commitment he brings to the aspirations of extending opportunity and advancing social mobility, and I believe he is right to focus in particular on what we can do better to support children in the 16 to 18 age range, whom we want to succeed in the examinations they take, and to whom we want to extend broader opportunities. In that respect, I welcome both the opportunity this debate provides and the wealth of interest it has provoked.

I may also say that it was uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection, to make a personal comment about a member of my family in the course of his speech. I am sure that, on reflection, he will recognise that it was inappropriate and beneath him, and that he will withdraw it.

I also recognise, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was motivated in bringing forward this debate by his passion to increase social mobility. I also recognise that his bringing this passion to bear allows us all to consider what the right policies are for generating a greater degree of social mobility and for making opportunity more equal in our society.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not yet.

Let us consider policies on vocational education. One concern I have is that in a debate about staying on in education, the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of specific proposals to improve vocational education. I therefore have this question: does he back or oppose the policies we are putting in place? Does he back or oppose the additional investment that is going into university technical colleges? If he backs that, it is welcome, and shows that he recognises that action is being taken. If he opposes it, however, he will have to answer for saying no to reform. Does he back or oppose the expansion in the number of studio schools, specifically targeting disadvantaged young people who need a special type of education in order to encourage them to stay on? Does he back or oppose the growth in apprenticeships—the 75,000 additional apprenticeships that we are providing? All of these questions are to do with decisions about investments in improving education and the life chances of the very poorest, and we do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in favour or against.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

In a few seconds.

This is not just about improving vocational education. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I believe in aspiration. I believe that other young people born into circumstances similar to our own, whose parents never went to university, should have the chance to go to university. That is why we are putting in place policies to improve academic education. Again, however, we do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman supports or opposes the investment we are putting in to improve it. Does he support or oppose our reading check at the age of six, to make sure every child is decoding fluently, and will be literate by the time they leave primary school? Is he in favour of that, or against? Does he oppose or support our position on GCSEs? Does he believe it is right or wrong to get rid of modules in order to make them more rigorous? Does he back or oppose the English baccalaureate? Does he believe it is right to encourage more students—[Interruption.] There is only one answer that he and some—some, I stress—Opposition Members have to the question of how to increase aspiration, and it is represented by three letters: EMA. It is important that we remove barriers and that we have the right support, but in respect of social mobility it is also important that we have a coherent and inclusive widespread education policy. From the Opposition, on all these areas we have either mulish silence or reactionary opposition.

Is the right hon. Gentleman for or against our drive to ensure that more students get good GCSEs in English, mathematics, sciences, languages, modern history and geography? I could not tell last week. At the beginning of last week he was against, in the middle of last week he was almost in favour, and towards the end of last week Labour MPs were telling me that it was now their party’s position to support our English baccalaureate.

[Paul Farrelly]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me which of these policies he supports or opposes.

[Paul Farrelly]

The one thing that I can tell the Secretary of State is that 1,700 students in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be affected by the withdrawal of EMA. This is his policy, so can he tell the House how many students in Surrey Heath will be affected?

[Michael Gove]

Overall, 45% of students are eligible for EMA. The proportion is smaller in Surrey Heath than in Newcastle-under-Lyme, but of course the number of students who will receive enhanced support depends on the new improved provision that we hope to bring in.

[Emily Thornberry]

Ten youngsters from City and Islington college have come to Westminster to listen to this debate on EMA and they would very much like to have 10 minutes with the Secretary of State. I warn him that they are articulate, clever and very persuasive—but may I ask him to give them 10 minutes this afternoon?

[Michael Gove]

If the hon. Lady will join us, I would be delighted to talk to them at any time. Perhaps I should visit their college so that rather more than 10 of them can have a word with me.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No, thank you. It would be a pleasure to spend time with the hon. Lady and her constituents. I know how many of them in London schools are passionately committed to greater equality.

[Hazel Blears]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady and then I will try to make some progress.

[Hazel Blears]

The Secretary of State has said time and time again that he supports breaking down the barriers and that he supports aspiration. Is he aware that Salford had the lowest staying-on rate in the whole of Britain before the introduction of EMA, but within months of its introduction the number of young people staying on at 16, not just to go to university but to get the vocational qualifications they need to have the chance of a decent future, increased by 10%? I am at a loss to know why he thinks that abolishing EMA will give young people in Salford the same opportunities as they have had for the past few years. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State is setting out on a deliberate path to limit the aspiration and social mobility of young people in Salford.

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Lady knows that I am a fan of her and her policies. [Interruption.] It is a pity that more of them are not adopted by the Labour party now. However, she will also be aware that a number of things have helped to improve the staying-on rate and ensured that children have more opportunities. Central to that is ensuring that the right offer is in place in terms of the nature of qualifications, and that we improve both vocational and academic learning, as well as teacher quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said, policies to improve teacher quality were not mentioned in the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leigh, which lasted for nearly an hour. He did not make it clear, at any point, whether he backed or opposed our investment in expanding Teach First.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not yet. That was a choice and it costs, so does the right hon. Gentleman support it? We do not know. Does he back our expansion of Future Leaders? That is an investment, it costs, and we chose. Does he back it? Our expansion in the number of national and local leaders of education costs, and we invested, so does he back it or oppose it? On all those policies, we hear silence. On policies to tackle underperformance, we are extending academy freedoms to 400 new schools. Does he support that extension of opportunity? Does he support, or would he reverse, our policies to get stronger schools to help weaker schools? Does he support, or would he reverse, our policy on getting the schools commissioner back in place to turn failing schools around? Those are all policies being introduced by this coalition Government to extend social mobility and opportunity, but on every one the right hon. Gentleman is silent. He has only one policy: to spend money that we do not have.

[Ms Buck]

The right hon. Gentleman visited Westminster academy, in my constituency, which was established by the previous Government and which introduced and piloted Teach First. Some 80% of sixth-formers at that school receive EMA, but how many will receive a version of EMA when he withdraws 90% of it?

[Michael Gove]

I did have the great pleasure of visiting Westminster academy, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so again later this month. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me then, when we will have a seminar on how we can extend school autonomy and freedom in order to drive up standards for the poorest. The number of children who will receive support, which may be enhanced support in some cases, depends precisely on their circumstances. The point was made in research commissioned by the previous Government—not by us—that the current arrangements for EMA are poorly targeted. Some who need more support do not receive it, and some who receive support should not be receiving the amount that they do.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I wish to make some progress, because I wish to discuss one big factor that is referred to in our amendment and lies behind our position, but which the right hon. Member for Leigh completely ignored: the elephant in the room is the dire economic situation that we inherited from his Government. I know that various Labour Members—not all, because some of them are reasonable—will say, “EMA, EMA”, as though they were on the benches at Goodison Park—[Interruption.]—or anywhere else. But any policy involves a choice, the choice is dependent on the money, and the question is: where is the money coming from?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall not give way at this stage, because every Labour Member needs to be reminded of the mess that the Labour party landed this country in. I am not going to be put off, deflected or diverted from spelling out these facts. They are the facts that determine every decision that a responsible coalition Government have to take. Seven days after this coalition Government were formed, the International Monetary Fund said that this country had the largest deficit of any G20 country. Why was that? Labour Members say that it was because of the financial crisis, but the truth is that we entered that crisis with the largest structural deficit of any country in the G7. The fault for that debt and deficit lies—

[Andy Burnham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No, not yet. The fault for that debt and deficit lies with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The OECD said that in 2000, thanks to Conservative policies, the UK had one of the best structural fiscal positions in the world, but by 2007 we had one of the worst in the G7. Why were we in such a weak position? It was because Labour had doubled our debt. In 1997 our national debt was £351 billion, whereas in 2010, by the time the Labour Government had left office, it was £893 billion. You cannot spend money that you do not have. The truth was revealed in a statement secreted in a Treasury desk by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). In a note to the succeeding Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he said “There’s no money.” Not a single member of the Labour party has yet had the courage to accept that truth, and to atone and apologise for it.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will.

[John Woodcock]

The Secretary of State is talking about things that have been written down. Does he also accept that this is also about values? Will he therefore clarify for the House whether he wishes to apologise for the remarks, to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referred, that he made in his article in The Times about the attitude to debt and the consequences for people going to university?

[Michael Gove]

That article in The Times was actually in favour of the previous Government’s efforts to improve access to university. Unlike many Labour Members, I supported what Tony Blair was doing on university tuition fees; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman did. But never mind that, because the truth is that no Labour Member has atoned or apologised for the huge economic mess in which we have been landed. This is appropriate, because the motion stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Leigh, and he was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the ship was steered towards the rocks, so he cannot point the finger at anyone else—

[Andy Burnham]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not yet. Between June 2007 and January 2008 Northern Rock collapsed, the international banking crisis began and the global recession started. All of that happened while the right hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

Not yet. That may just be coincidence, but what was deliberate was that instead of getting control of public expenditure—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) does not like being reminded of what happened under her Government and on her watch, but as long as I have breath in my body I will remind the people of this country of the devastating mess that the Labour party made of the economy. It is rank hypocrisy—

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

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

Sit down. It is rank hypocrisy—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman voted for it; we all know the role he played.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Secretary of State is getting very excited. Members are trying to intervene, but I will decide when they have stood on their feet too long. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to carry on putting his points across to the Chamber.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Yes, I am passionate about this. Why should young people be saddled with the economic mess left by that lot? That lot then come back here to say that we are taking opportunity away, knocking the ladder away and increasing youth unemployment, but who created this mess? It was the guilty men and women on the Opposition Front Bench. When the right hon. Member for Leigh was Chief Secretary to the Treasury—

[Mr Winnick]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

No.

When the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the first three months—we should remember that the economy was growing at the time—he borrowed an additional £7 billion, and in the next three months he borrowed an additional £21 billion. For every hour that he was Chief Secretary, our debt rose by £5 million—and as I said, the economy was growing at that time. Perhaps he will now take the opportunity to defend his impressive stewardship of this nation’s finances during those seven magical months.

[Andy Burnham]

I was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who produced the spending review that was described by the Prime Minister as “tough” in 2007. If the right hon. Gentleman is so clear about all those “facts” that he is setting out for the House, why did he promise in March 2010 to keep the education maintenance allowance?

[Michael Gove]

Since coming into office, I have had many opportunities to look at the devastating mess that was left to us. I have also had the opportunity to reflect on the number of interviews and books written by those who sat alongside the right hon. Gentleman in government. One is a chap called Darling—do we remember him as Chancellor of the Exchequer? He pointed out that in autumn 2007 we had reached the limits of what should have been spent, but when the right hon. Gentleman was still in the Treasury he was spending and borrowing more.

It is also the case that a gentleman called Blair—Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, the former Member for Sedgefield—said:

“from 2005 onwards, Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the structural deficit”.

Mr Blair reflected on what should have been done and said that we should have taken “a new Labour way” out of the crisis. First, he said that we should have kept direct tax rates competitive, which we have done. He thought there should be a gradual rise in VAT and other indirect taxes, which we have brought about, and that we should have pushed further and faster on reform of public services, which we have also done. Why? Because, Mr Blair said, the danger is that

“If governments don’t tackle deficits, the bill is footed by taxpayers, who fear that big deficits now mean big taxes in the future, the prospect of which reduces confidence, investment and purchasing power. This then increases the risk of a prolonged slump”.

And that is precisely what the policies of the deficit deniers on the Opposition side would do—increase the risk of a prolonged slump, with economic policies that make no sense, at a time when we all need to focus on helping the poorest by getting the deficit down.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

It is now a pleasure to give way to the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

[Mr Winnick]

At one moment the deficit is cited as the reason for the abolition of EMA, and in another moment we will no doubt hear the educational reasons. The right hon. Gentleman cannot seem to make up his mind. I wrote to all the secondary schools in my constituency asking what percentage of 16 to 19-year-olds were receiving EMA—in a constituency and borough where incomes are considerably lower than in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. In every case the heads replied that it was more than 50%. In one school it was as high as 75%, and in Walsall college it was nearly 60%. These were matters that I raised on the Adjournment last week. What will happen to those who now receive EMA, and young people in the future, who want to stay on beyond the compulsory leaving age but find it very difficult, financially, to do so?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose commitment to this issue I know to be profound, which is why he raised it on the Adjournment last week, when the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) had a chance to reply. I would, of course, expect that in any disadvantaged constituency such as the one that the hon. Gentleman represents so well, a significant number would be in receipt of EMA. Nearly half of students receive EMA.

I put that to the right hon. Member for Leigh, but I received no reply. He grudgingly acknowledges, under questioning from Government Members, that there is a case for reform—so far, so good—but when put to the test and asked what sort of reform, what numbers, what tests and on what basis, he did not—[Interruption.] Is he now retracting? Free bus travel is mentioned, but has the cost to the Exchequer been taken into account? [Interruption.] Look, I am asking the right hon. Gentleman questions, but once again he is ducking and diving, dodging and weaving, and refusing to address the vacuum where policy should be.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell).

[Gavin Barwell]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion made by the shadow Secretary of State—that the cuts to every budget should be proportional—would have been the wrong course to go down, because that would have prevented the Government from protecting the schools budget in real terms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was interesting to hear the shadow Secretary of State arguing for the equivalent of the Geddes axe, with every service receiving the same cuts. That would presumably mean cuts to the NHS, cuts to the schools budget and cuts to Sure Start simply in order to satisfy his desire for consistency on this policy. As the right hon. Gentleman should have discovered when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to govern is to choose, and to have priorities.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

There are 1,200 students in my constituency who receive EMA. My right hon. Friend is giving them a very good lesson about who is responsible for the difficulties they will encounter over the coming months: the previous Government. Will he also teach them two other lessons? First, the shadow Secretary of State was part of the Government who spent all the money so that there is nothing left. When it has been spent, there should be some answers about what needs to be done with the wreckage left behind. Secondly, there is the lesson that when we are in tough times, we need to focus resources on those who are most vulnerable.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an admirable and correct point.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for—Nuneaton, I believe. [Interruption.] No, I should have said my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher).

[Christopher Pincher]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost 80% of institutions offer tailored support to disadvantaged young people quite separately from EMA, yet only 11% know about it? Is it not more sensible to target help by increasing knowledge about that alternative funding that is available, as it comes from institutions and so will not cost the taxpayer as much?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One point identified by the previous Government’s research commission is that one of the biggest barriers to participation is inadequate advice and guidance.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am now confronted with an embarrassment of riches. I would like to give way to ensure that as many Members as possible have the chance to intervene. I give way first to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey).

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Erdington has high youth unemployment, but excellent young people who want to get on. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that it is the combination of soaring tuition fees, the abolition of EMA, the scrapping of the future jobs fund and now the cuts forced by his Government on local youth services—a toxic combination—that will dash hopes, deny aspiration, fuel rising youth unemployment and lead once again, as in the 1980s, to a lost generation of young people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

That is a passionate intervention, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has devoted his whole life in the trade union movement and elsewhere to trying to secure a better deal for the worse-off. I take nothing away from the force with which he makes his case, but practical steps are being taken, including in his own constituency, to provide a better deal for the worse off. That includes a new arrangement with a comprehensive in Sutton Coldfield to sponsor a school in his constituency so that they can both enjoy academy status and both have their standards driven up. I hope that I can co-operate with him and secure his support on that policy, alongside many other policies that we wish to introduce so as to target support better on the disadvantaged.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

In response to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), the Secretary of State mentioned the discretionary support fund that is available for schools, but one of the most common questions that I have been asked by principals of colleges and schools in my constituency is whether the fund is available for transport. EMA is vital to give young people a choice of college and school courses, so will he comment on whether funds will be available to help young people with the cost of transport?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point. The hon. Lady has alighted on something that is critical and constructive. I shall say a little more about transport in my speech, but one thing I should say is that local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there is no barrier to participation for 16 to 18-year-olds because of transport. Currently the discretionary learner support fund cannot be used to fund transport, but I would like to ensure that any replacement for EMA can cover additional transport costs. However, we must ensure that local authorities cannot shirk their responsibilities in law.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall give way to three more Members—one from each party.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Can the Secretary of State give some assurance that the reform will mean that the people who have been highlighted by the shadow Secretary of State as being most in need will get more help, and that the new system will be better for those people, whom we should care about most?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The aim of the coalition Government is to target support better on those who need it, and our first concern is for those with special educational needs, those with learning difficulties and those who face real barriers to participation. I have had an opportunity to talk to my hon. Friend, who I know is passionate about these issues, and a number of his colleagues to try to ensure that the solution we frame, in keeping with the principles outlined by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), captures exactly those most deserving cases.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Some 1,400 students at Lewisham college, most of whom are from ethnic minorities, receive EMA. Would it not be invidious for the principal of that college to have to choose just 140 of those students under the Secretary of State’s revised scheme? More importantly, what does the Secretary of State have to say to students on two-year courses, 229 of whom will be cut off at this moment without any possible hope of continuing their courses, without the £30 a week that matters enormously to very low-paid families in my constituency?

[Michael Gove]

Any Member of Parliament representing a Lewisham constituency is dealing with a huge range of difficult educational and social issues. I had the opportunity to visit Haberdashers’ Aske’s Knights Academy, which has a sixth form, in Lewisham last Friday. I had a chance to talk to the students and principals there and they would like to see several changes, broadly in line with the coalition Government’s education policy. One position that I think is shared between the right hon. Lady, me and the students to whom I spoke is the belief that any replacement for the EMA needs to be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, targeted on those in the most need. Of course, those people will be more heavily represented in a constituency such as the right hon. Lady’s.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I shall have something more to say on EMA if I am called to speak later, but on transport let me set out the situation in north Lincolnshire. When our Labour-run council came to power it increased the cost of the post-16 travel pass by 500%, so it was giving money with one hand through the EMA and taking it back with the other through the transport passes, which went up from £30, when the Conservatives ran the council, to £180—and they are now £195. Will the Secretary of State ensure that whatever replaces EMA will provide for people in constituencies such as mine who live in very rural areas, for whom getting to college is a great expense?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good case. As he is a former teacher and he came to the House to advance social mobility, I take seriously everything he says on these issues.

[Kevin Brennan]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is tweeting from the Chamber right now that the shadow Secretary of State has refused to meet the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but in fact the shadow Secretary of State has already met him, and is prepared to meet him at any time. Is it in order for a Member, in the course of a debate, to make points about participants in the debate without doing it here so that everyone can hear the point they are making and have an opportunity to rebut it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can say is that it is for me to keep order in the Chamber. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought this to my attention, and I am sure that no hon. Member will be tweeting from the Chamber to let people outside know what is going on.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point, but I do not know what it says about my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) or the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that while they were making their interventions, he thought his own Twitter feed was more intriguing than the points they had to make. However, he is a genial soul and I know they will forgive him everything, as will I.

Let me return to the central theme of many of the interventions we have just heard—the need to target support better on the poorest. In the context of everything we are doing in education, the coalition Government have already made a series of decisions, with constrained resources, to make sure that the poorest benefit from our policies. We are extending free child care to 15 hours a week for all three and four-year-olds. That did not happen under the previous Government and I had hoped they would support it, but we have introduced it. We are also extending free child care to 100,000 of the poorest two-year-olds. That happened on this watch. Those 100,000 children would not have received free child care and preparation for school if it had not been for the commitment of the coalition Government. I am grateful that some Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), support us, and I am sure that many others recognise that this is a progressive step that all should applaud.

We are also implementing a pupil premium—£625 million this year, rising to £2.5 billion by the end of the comprehensive spending review. As a direct result of that, every poor child will have thousands more spent on their education. That money will be invested in better teaching, one-to-one tuition and catch-up learning, all of which is additional money on top of the schools budget. That policy was rejected by the Labour party in coalition negotiations. In order to make sure that all those interventions to help the poorest could be funded, the coalition Government had to take some tough choices, one of which is to replace EMA with a new system of support.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

In a second.

The reason we are replacing EMA—beyond the desperate financial situation that we inherited—is that we are making our policy based on evidence that was commissioned, sifted, prepared and analysed by an organisation that was working for the previous Government. The National Foundation for Educational Research was commissioned by my predecessor to look at the barriers to continued participation in education for 16, 17 and 18 year-olds. I shall go into some detail about what the report argued. It concluded that EMA or any replacement for it should be targeted better at those young people who feel that they cannot continue in learning without financial support. That argument has consistently been made in the debate by a number of people from different parties. Yes, we acknowledge that there will have to be cuts—although the right hon. Member for Leigh will not say how many—and, yes, we acknowledge that some of the people who currently receive it might not be the most deserving. If the economy were growing it would be fantastic to offer that incentive, but given that it is not, let us make sure that those most in need are supported.

Half of young people receive EMA, but only 12% of them—so 6% of students overall—said that they needed financial support to stay in learning. The NFER says that financial support should be increasingly targeted at those most in need, and I could not agree more. Specific financial barriers to learning—which have, I must in fairness add, been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leigh—are faced by particular students. I am particularly conscious of the need to support students who have learning difficulties, and I am aware that when students have caring responsibilities they need more support. I am particularly aware that when students are teenage parents, additional financial support will be required because of their specific circumstances. In the scheme that we are developing, all those considerations weigh heavily with me.

There are also individuals in specific circumstances who need additional support, as the right hon. Member for Leigh has also pointed out. Additional support sometimes depends on the course one pursues. If one is pursuing a catering course, the cost of buying whites and knives and so on will be more than the cost of an academic course in a sixth form where the books are supplied and the costs of participation are less. We need to take that into account, as well as the need for straightforward support. There are poorer students at school who will be eligible for free school meals—and quite right too—who will not have that support in FE colleges. One of the questions in my mind is how we can ensure that the basic maintenance needs to keep body and soul together, which poorer students require, will be available, whatever institution they attend.

There are also students—particularly, but not exclusively, in rural areas—who face barriers to participation because of transport costs and transport sparsity. Again, I am looking at all those areas. I am helped by the detailed work that has already been undertaken by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. His job as access advocate is not just to explain how our policies can help social mobility at every stage; he is making sure that the replacement for EMA deals with all the real-world issues. I am grateful to him for his support, as I am grateful to any hon. Member who can make constructive suggestions about how we can better target the money given the constraints under which we operate.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the research about students staying on was flawed? It was narrow, talked only to young people in sixth forms and did not talk to their parents, who actually make the decision about whether the child can stay on at school.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. In fact, the survey was wide-ranging; more than 2,000 people were approached. It was scientifically conducted, and the organisation was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State. I had my differences with him, but I think the research is impeccable. However, the hon. Lady makes a good point about parents. As I am sure all Members are aware, any child who stays in education beyond the age of 16 makes their family, and of course the mother, eligible for child benefit. One of the things that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) explicitly stated when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he envisaged, in the first instance, that child benefit would go in order to pay for EMA. He said subsequently that actually they could pay for both child benefit and EMA because of the success of the Labour Government in removing our debt. Now that we have a massive debt, there is a tough decision to be made, and this Government have decided to keep child benefit for those over the age of 16. The question for Opposition Members who want to maintain EMA at its full level is whether they would cut child benefit to pay for it.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

Would the hon. Lady do that?

[Barbara Keeley]

I want to take the Secretary of State back to the subject of vulnerable young people, particularly young carers. I have raised the point in debate on a number of occasions, for example in the Christmas pre-recess Adjournment debate. Removing a national scheme, from which a group of young carers in Salford benefit, particularly because almost all of them are in receipt of EMA, and replacing it with a scheme one tenth of the size and at the discretion of college principals, will not be the answer. College principals do not know who their young carers are. The right hon. Gentleman needs to be clearer, and more work needs to be done, because those young people deserve the support offered by EMA and they will not manage without it. They will struggle and their caring work load will swamp them.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We want to ensure that learners with caring responsibilities are looked after. They are a small but growing number, who face enormous challenges and are living heroically, attempting to balance their responsibilities. In any replacement scheme, we need to ensure better targeting. The truth is that the current scheme does not effectively target those people.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

The NFER data that the Secretary of State has highlighted are startling, in that they demonstrate the amount of dead-weight and inefficiency in the existing arrangements. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether he has had any helpful suggestions from the Opposition as to what changes could be made to target support more efficiently, particularly in light of the needs of many students that he has highlighted?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have had a couple of helpful suggestions from Opposition Back Benchers—I shall not name them—who recognise that we need to make reductions and believe that support can be better targeted. I have looked at their submissions and they have helped to shape my thinking. In the same way, I have been fortunate in that a number of Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues have made points to me about how a replacement scheme should be targeted. Many of the arguments had occurred to me beforehand, but many were made with such force and passion and were backed up with such persuasive facts that they have certainly shaped our policy. The opportunity exists for other Members to make such points, and although I am not sure that the seminar-style atmosphere of an Opposition day debate is necessarily ideal for such submissions, I am always grateful to receive them.

[Julian Smith]

On behalf of students and staff at Craven college in my constituency, I thank the Secretary of State. They made strong representations to me about the need to look at travel in the reworked EMA, so I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to do that.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I want to make some progress.

On travel, it is important that we recognise that local authorities are under a statutory duty to support young people aged between 16 and 19, and, up to the age of 24, any young learner with learning difficulties, to get to school or college. It is the law. Local authorities are failing in their statutory duty if they do not provide support. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 strengthened that duty. Local authorities must consult young people and their parents, publish an appropriate plan and ensure that there is access.

I appreciate that local authorities, like all of us, are having to deal with the consequences of the desperate financial mess the previous Government bequeathed us, but the best local authorities are showing the way. Oxfordshire provides transport and totally waives the cost for any student whose family is in receipt of income support, housing benefit, free school meals or council tax benefit. Essex waives travel costs for children in receipt of a range of benefits. In Liberal Democrat-controlled Hull, any student in receipt of education maintenance allowance also receives a travel grant to cope with the full cost—

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

They won’t now.

[Michael Gove]

I suspect they won’t if a Labour council takes power, but if people are wise enough to vote Liberal Democrat at the next local election in Hull—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]—or for the Conservatives in any seat where we are well placed to defeat Labour, they will have a council that is fulfilling its statutory duty. It is no surprise that there are Liberal Democrat and Conservative councils that ensure that all students receive the support they deserve. It is striking that that is in addition to EMA.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Transport costs are obviously a major factor for students all over the country. Can the Secretary of State explain why under the Transport for London fares rise approved by Boris Johnson, EMA-receiving students are charged 65p per bus fare, whereas under the previous Ken Livingstone regime they all had free bus travel to encourage young people in London to stay on in education? Will the Secretary of State have a word with his friend the Mayor of London?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that opening salvo in the Re-elect Ken campaign. Behind it, there is an important point, which is that in London transport and travel costs are significantly less—whoever the Mayor is—than those faced by people in rural constituencies. I was particularly struck by the testimony of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) that students in his constituency may need to undertake a round trip of two hours a day to reach a further education college. In constituencies such as those represented by the hon. Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) or for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), significant journeys have to be undertaken. I am also aware that because of the nature of sixth-form and FE college provision, many students will travel further for their sixth-form education than they would for school education. That is why the statutory duty exists. I am grateful that the Local Government Association has been so positive about so many coalition policies, and I shall work with local authorities to ensure that we can continue to provide that support. Let us be clear: EMA was designed and implemented to augment an existing statutory duty, not to replace it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I shall not give way at this stage. I am conscious of the amount of time that has passed, and conscious too that many hon. Members want to speak in the remaining part of the debate.

If we are to increase participation, and if we are to generate greater social mobility, we need to be clear: we need to remove barriers. We also need to ask who faces the largest barriers. How can we help them better and what are the other barriers, as well as the financial one? The research shows us that, yes, the cost of transport, the cost of equipment or the cost of some maintenance can be a factor for some students, but it also shows us that there are bigger barriers: poor guidance, with students not being offered the right advice; poor choices, with an inadequate range of courses available; and above all, poor attainment. The real barrier to participation in education after the age of 16 is the quality of education that a person has received up to the age of 16. Yes, half this country’s students are in receipt of EMA, but by the time that half this country’s students reach the age of 16, they do not have five good GCSEs. We discovered the other week that barely 15% of students have GCSEs in the five essential areas of English, mathematics, science, languages and the humanities.

If we really believe in generating social mobility in this country, we must ask ourselves how every pound is best invested. Graham Allen is quite clear: spend it at the beginning. Frank Field is quite clear: spend it early on. The coalition Government are quite clear—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than to refer to Members of the House in that way.

[Michael Gove]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North—a Labour Member—and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead are quite clear that we should invest in the early years. That is what the coalition Government are doing, and at a greater rate and in a more powerful way than the previous Government. The investment in early years, the reform of education, the investment in the pupil premium and the range of reforms that I mentioned earlier—the right hon. Member for Leigh has remained silent about them—make up a powerful package to generate greater social mobility.

The question for all hon. Members is: are we going to be sufficiently grown up to acknowledge that we have a deficit, or are we going to be deficit deniers? Are we going to be progressive enough to target support at those who need it most, or are we going to say that the existing system is perfect and need not be reformed? Are we going to say, “Let’s get our whole school system right,” or are we just going to spend more on one unreformed benefit? There is a basic choice today: vote with the Opposition, and therefore vote for reaction, complacency and deficit denial; or vote with the Government, and therefore vote for progressive policies, an education policy that will really change things and an opportunity, at last, to kick-start social mobility in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sheerman]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I agree with it, but may I press on and say two more things? The first is that when I chaired the Children, Schools and Families Committee, it always believed in evidence-based policy. That means listening to all the evidence, not just taking one bit that we like and saying, “I’ll base the policy on this,” and ignoring all the other evidence. I ask the current Chair of the Education Committee, when he has an inquiry on the subject—he will have one; it will be too late, but he will have one—to bear in mind that we always took all the evidence.

I have not heard one mention today of Professor Alison Wolf, whom the Secretary of State appointed to look at 14-to-19 education and vocational opportunities. What on earth happened to that? This is just like the increase in student fees; we are to have a White Paper, after the Government have decided what they will do about student fees. It is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. The fact is that the Secretary of State has got one of the country’s leading experts—Professor Alison Wolf from King’s College London—to look at the issue, but he will make all the major decisions that will influence how many young people stay on in further and vocational education before she brings forward her report in spring.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that the coalition Government enjoy the support and advice of the leading figure in the world of vocational education. I am aware of two detailed reports on the effectiveness of the education maintenance allowance: the 2007 Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which showed that the allowance had a marginal impact on both attainment and attendance, and of course the National Foundation for Educational Research report, which was published in the autumn last year. Can he tell me of any other serious reports, from the NFER or anyone else, that make a contrary case?

[Mr Sheerman]

May I remind the Secretary of State of what one of his favourites, the Policy Exchange, said?

“The only possible remaining argument for the EMA is social justice—that young people from poorer backgrounds deserve to be supported from 16 rather than at 18. This is a pretty weak argument”.

So that is another one, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has looked again at its original research, as he well knows.

[Michael Gove]

Has the hon. Gentleman actually read the 2007 IFS report, or the 2010 NFER report? If he had read those, and the Policy Exchange report, he would have seen that those three serious academic reports all say that EMA does not produce the benefits that he, in his passion, would like it to.

[Mr Sheerman]

The IFS report, taken on its own, shows that even if only 8% to 10% of people took up EMA, that would pay for its cost, in terms of the fuller picture. Today, we are talking about the full cost and impact, and the change in the culture in our country. It is interesting; I thought that the Secretary of State was going to tell us what the hell had happened to the Alison Wolf report, and why he was introducing policy before he had even bothered to listen to the leading expert, who he has working on the issue. A lot of us have actually contributed to her inquiry. What was the point of talking to the Government, and giving one’s advice and experience, when the Government ignore it because the Secretary of State has introduced his policy before Alison Wolf introduced hers? We will wait and see what the report brings us.

We are at a pivotal moment. I think most people in the House would agree that we have to make some changes—extraordinary ones. If I sat down with a group of people who care about education in this House, and we discussed what we were to cut, we could think extraordinary things. If I were really pushed and wanted to defend EMA, I would go for larger class sizes, because there is real evidence that slightly larger class sizes do not make all that much difference. That might upset some of my colleagues, and I agree that there are priorities to be set and choices to be made, but this Secretary of State has never given us a chance to set priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

Absolutely, and I shall come in a moment to how young people have benefited from impressive ways of raising attainment, encouraging increased participation and encouraging better behaviour.

I wish to take the House back to the points that the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), made in June. As has been mentioned a number of times, he confirmed categorically in the House that the Government were committed to retaining EMA. A matter of weeks later, they scrapped it. I have to ask, is anybody in charge at the Department for Education? Does anybody have a clue what is going on there? What utter incompetence!

The justification for scrapping EMA keeps moving, from “It hasn’t been successful” to “Its impact has been limited” to “It hasn’t been an effective use of public money.” I suggest that the Government simply fail to recognise the improving life chances that it has provided. It has been a success, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) has just mentioned and as many other Members have said. It has started to break down the link between participation and success in further education and household income, as my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said.

For far too long, there has been a direct correlation between post-16 participation rates in education and household income. Frankly, moving on from school to the sixth form or an FE college depended not on whether a person was bright enough but on what their parents earned and where they lived. We have started to break that link with EMA. It has been subject to one of the most extensive and robust evaluations of any education policy ever undertaken in England, begun and presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). He made a fantastic contribution to the debate, and I thank him for the points that he made.

An evaluation by Ipsos MORI concluded that the majority of providers believed that EMA had been effective in reducing the number of NEETs, increasing learners’ attainment and having a positive impact on their attendance and punctuality. It has raised participation by about 5% and attainment by about 3%, and the Government seem to acknowledge that. In a ministerial answer in another place in July, the Under-Secretary Lord Hill acknowledged that

“the monetised benefits of EMA outweighed the costs”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 2010; Vol. 720, c. WA118.]

Sadly, the Secretary of State did not acknowledge that today.

We heard from the Secretary of State an elegant, articulate and incorrect argument about the economic picture. We heard about academies, free schools, the English baccalaureate—everything, in fact, except EMA. I seem to recall that it took 19 minutes for those letters to pass his lips. Frankly, we saw alarming mood swings in him. It got to a point where we were really quite concerned about his behaviour. He had a bit of a hissy fit—a bit of a moment. It got to the point where the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) said that it was slightly unfair of the Opposition to hold the Government to account.

The Secretary of State rather lost control, just as he has lost control of his Department. Given his comments before the general election and the comments of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, in June, to which I alluded—he committed to retaining EMA—what has the Chancellor done to wreck the economy that means they have to go back on their word? The Secretary of State said this afternoon that to govern is to choose, and that to choose is to prioritise, but it is very clear from his remarks that young people—or children, as he patronisingly referred to 16, 17 and 18-year-olds—are not the Government’s priority.

The Secretary of State made encouraging noises. He acknowledged that greater flexibility is needed in the system, and spoke of individual circumstances, courses that might be selected, rural areas and travel costs. The Opposition are keen to work with him to look at the matter again. However, I was surprised and shocked when in one of his more surreal, bizarre and psychedelic moments, he urged the good people of Hull to vote Liberal Democrat. That is a worrying trend among senior members of the Government. We saw it in Oldham East and Saddleworth. We look forward to the formal merger of the Conservatives and Lib Dems—or is it a takeover of the Conservatives by the Lib Dems?

Moving away from the Secretary of State’s more psychedelic moments, let me go back to his point about flexibility in the system. I agree with him that more flexibility is needed, but by introducing more flexibility, he runs the risk of making the system more complex, more bureaucratic and therefore more expensive.

[Michael Gove]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

I am more than happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman—I just hope that he does not have a hissy fit. I hope that we see the nice Mr Gove, not the nasty one.

[Michael Gove]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech—I am loving it—but in the four minutes remaining to him, will he answer the question that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) conspicuously failed to answer? If he acknowledges that fewer people should receive EMA and that less money should be spent, will he say how many fewer people and how much less money? Until he can answer those questions—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has his own suggestion. As they say on “University Challenge”, “No conferring; answers please.”

[Mr Wright]

When I was a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, difficult decisions were made with regard to the £100 bonus that students received. We are prepared to talk about this. We want to ensure that we have the best possible system, but frankly, we cannot reduce a scheme of £600 million to around £50 million without a devastating impact on many communities, which was mentioned many times, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Halton (Derek Twigg) and for Huddersfield.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made a very passionate speech, as she is prone to do in this Chamber, mentioning Newham sixth-form college, which I have visited. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who has always stood up for her constituents and particularly for young people, highlighted the poverty of ambition that the Government’s decision produces. She also said that EMA is a something-for-something initiative, because students sign a contract and are bound by certain conditions in respect of attendance, punctuality and behaviour, which is an important point.

It was nice to see a number of my hon. Friends from the north-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) mentioned Queen Elizabeth sixth-form college and Darlington college. In a former life, I audited those colleges, for my sins. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead told how in his part of the world—I think I audited Gateshead college too—EMA changed the landscape of ambition with regard to staying on, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) also mentioned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) mentioned the stance of the Liberal Democrats. Although they are taking over the Conservative party—as we heard from the Secretary of State—they have an important decision to make, as they did on tuition fees. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that he is willing to work to ensure that we have the best possible system and that it is adequately funded, as the Opposition are. The Government need to think again. He is quoted in The Times Educational Supplement as saying:

“If what Labour is saying is a call for the government to rethink its plans, I will support that. There’s some careful brokering to do.”

I absolutely agree with that, and I hope that he walks with us through the Lobby tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect on post-16 participation rates of replacing the education maintenance allowance.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and every Member of the House the compliments of the season and a very happy Christmas? As we all know, Christmas is a season of unexpected largesse when Members will find gifts of all shapes and sizes suddenly descending into their laps from all quarters. In that respect, Mr Speaker, may I also say that I hope you, like every Member, has the chance to enjoy a well-filled stocking this Christmas time? [Interruption.] It is a tradition of this time.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Behind you!

[Michael Gove]

Behind me there are many Members who support our position on EMA and they, like me, are committed to making sure that young people participate in education and training until they are 18. Therefore, we will replace EMA with a fund that can more effectively target those young people who actually need the support to enable them to participate in learning.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My constituency has the highest unemployment rate in the country. In order to reverse that, young people in Birmingham, Ladywood need to stay on post-16, to gain skills and qualifications to enable them to find work. EMA is vital in that. At City college in my constituency, 68% of students receive EMA, and they tell me that scrapping it will have a devastating impact on students in the poorest areas, and put them off staying on. Why are the Government kicking the ladder from under the feet of young people trying to get on?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady; she makes her point with characteristic passion and her question is, typically, well informed. At a time when, as the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “There is no money left”, we have to ensure that every penny we spend is targeted on those most in need. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that it is important that policy is based on evidence, and the evidence suggests that some who are in receipt of EMA would continue in education without it. Therefore, we are going to make sure that the money we have is targeted more effectively on those who need it most, and more details will become apparent in the new year.

[Bridget Phillipson]

On the issue of evidence, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the economic benefits of EMA will outweigh its costs; the money put in delivers results in the long term. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the replacement scheme for EMA is just as cost-effective?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, which is also characteristically well informed. I have great respect for the IFS, and it has previously reported that there is no statistically significant information that EMA has either raised the attainment of young women or increased participation rates among young men. We will ensure, however, that the replacement is sufficiently well targeted to ensure that it provides value for money. I must stress that it is in everyone’s interests that more young people stay on in education for longer.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that where discretionary spending to help students participate in full-time education is available, it should be focused on specific barriers that they face, rather than be a one-off, tokenistic payment that might not actually meet the needs of, for instance, many disabled students for whom participating in education will cost far more than £30 a week?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I thought it uncharacteristically discourteous of Labour Members not to listen to him in silence. As the only Member of this House to have attended a special school, he speaks with a degree of authority that Labour Members would do well to pay attention to. He makes the point crystal clear: we need to ensure that there is sufficient discretionary support for students who are living with handicaps and who have suffered from disability. I am only sorry that Labour Members saw fit to greet his comments with the sort of grumbling and mumbling more appropriate to a student union than the mother of Parliaments.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I agree with the Secretary of State that the money paid as part of EMA should be much better targeted. The current arrangements for the learner support fund exclude payments for travel, so can he assure me that travel costs will be considered a legitimate part of the future discretionary learner support fund?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, describing one of the reasons for reviewing the travel entitlement for all students and learners. We want to make sure that any support we provide is to overcome barriers, which include travel to work costs, as well as paying for rent, subsistence or the supply of textbooks and other materials that are needed. It was striking that during the Labour leadership election the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said that he would be happy to see EMA go if it were replaced by an allowance for travel, so there is a consensus that the current system is capable of reform. It is one that unites the two Front-Bench teams, even if it does not embrace everyone in the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I start by reciprocating on behalf of the Opposition Front-Bench team the good wishes of Government Front Benchers, including the Secretary of State. We are grateful for the gift that he has delivered to us today, although I cannot promise that the good will is going to last for this entire Question Time.

I would like to treat the House to the full quotation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) a moment ago:

“Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”

Will the Secretary of State today apologise to the 600,000 young people who receive EMA and who took him at his word?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the generous seasonal words offered by the right hon. Gentleman, but when it comes to apologies, it is those of us on the Government Benches who are waiting for an apology from him and from all his colleagues who were in government. When he says that we should spend money on this, that or the next thing, one thing is never acknowledged: his and his colleagues’ responsibility for the dire economic mess in which we were left. As a result of forming the coalition Government, two parties are working together to get us out of the mess that his party left us in. May I suggest that he gives us all a Christmas present: a single act of contrition? He should give us a single word for the economic mess that he created: sorry.

[Andy Burnham]

When we hear bluster like that, we see a pattern repeating itself. It is school sport all over again: a bad decision with dodgy statistics to justify it. Let us take the Secretary of State’s only argument against EMA head on: the 90% deadweight. On the Government’s own figures, because of EMA 76,000 young people stay on who might otherwise have become NEETs—those not in education, employment or training. Research for the Audit Commission puts the annual cost of a young person not in education, employment or training at £55,000, and 76,000 times £55,000 is more than £4 billion. Do these figures not demolish the Government’s last remaining argument against EMA and show that the IFS is right to say that EMA more than pays for itself?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for that display of mental arithmetic, which means that Carol Vorderman’s place on Countdown can easily be succeeded by the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It is time to bring it back, if only to provide him with a platform equal to his talents. The truth is that only 12% of young people who are eligible for EMA say that they would not participate without it. We need to ensure that money is better targeted on those who need it most. His Government commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a survey on who was receiving support and who should receive support to stay in learning. That report, commissioned by his Government, pointed out that it would be beneficial better to target financial support at the most vulnerable groups—that was the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). The right hon. Gentleman’s own Government’s research points out that this money is spent inefficiently. Of course it was spent inefficiently under his rule, but this coalition Government will ensure that the money available for 16 to 18-year-olds is targeted at those who need it most, so that those in the poorest circumstances get more.

[Andy Burnham]

I have seen enough of the right hon. Gentleman in action to know that weak jokes clearly mean he is in trouble. I think we can now safely give him his end-of-year report card. On Building Schools for the Future, school sports and now the education maintenance allowance he has shown poor attention to detail and a failure to do his homework. On the big decisions, things that people care about, he is cavalier—

[Andy Burnham]

Let me quote briefly from the Secretary of State’s White Paper. It states:

“No-one is helped when poor performance remains unaddressed.”

Will he make a new year’s resolution today to live by the same exacting standards as he expects schools to apply to their teachers?

[Michael Gove]

I am afraid that that performance fell below even the right hon. Gentleman’s flawed standards. The truth is that the shadow Education Secretary needs to learn that, instead of simply providing a draft of an op-ed piece as a question, he needs to come up with policies that will convince people that he has learned the lesson of his Government’s defeat. He cannot simply say that the answer to every problem is more money. He cannot simply say, as he said during the leadership election, that he wants

“closer ties to the trade union movement”

at the same time as that trade union movement is calling for an all-out assault against this Government. He cannot consistently move to the left, opportunistically—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State will resume his seat. That response—I use the word response, rather than answer, advisedly—has nothing to do with the subject matter on the Order Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

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

6. What recent discussions he has had with head teachers, teachers and governors of educational establishments on the implementation of any replacement for education maintenance allowance.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

We are currently working with representatives of schools, colleges and training providers to finalise the arrangements for the enhanced discretionary learner support fund, including how the funding will flow from local authorities to institutions and what guidance is required to administer the fund effectively.

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Some 4,000 young people in Wolverhampton benefited from the education maintenance allowance last year and, as my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) have said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrates that the EMA is cost-effective. Has there been a cost-benefit analysis of the EMA’s replacement and will the loss of productivity of the young people whom the replacement will fail to support be taken into account?

[Michael Gove]

There was a cost-benefit analysis under the previous Government of the EMA by the NFER—that is enough initials—which pointed out that it would be more beneficial and would cost less to target funds on the learners who are in the most need.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

This Government are to increase the compulsory age of education to 18, thereby removing the need to incentivise 16 to 18-year-olds to stay in education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will increase social mobility if we offer vocational and academic studies?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an impeccable point. We are committed to raising the participation age, and we have funded the raising of the participation age. The Opposition have not yet explained how they would pay for the maintenance of the EMA or any of their other spending cuts, but I look forward to hearing from hon. Members in the course of the next half hour how they would pay for their promises.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Three thousand, seven hundred and fifty-six young people have lost EMA in Tottenham, and Tottenham now has the highest unemployment in London. In light of that cut, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many apprenticeships he has delivered since May?

[Michael Gove]

We have secured funding for an additional 75,000 apprenticeships beyond those that the previous Government secured. As a result of that additional investment, we will be making sure that young people have a better chance than they had under the previous Government.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that children’s centres meet the needs of new parents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

12. What discussions he had with Baroness Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust during his review of school sports policy.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Baroness Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust have been closely involved in developing our proposals to create an Olympic and Paralympic-style school sport competition. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is leading that work and has held regular meetings with a range of interested bodies, including the Youth Sport Trust. Ministers and officials from this Department attend those meetings. My officials and I have had a range of discussions with Baroness Campbell in the course of developing our wider proposals for school sport, and we are delighted that she, like so many others, supports our new approach to school sports, with a new emphasis on encouraging participation in competitive sports.

[Clive Efford]

This is a very humiliating day for the Secretary of State. He wrote a letter to Baroness Campbell, saying that he would spend the £162 million in funding for school sport through schools, but we now know that he has secured only less than half that money. So, it was his intention to pass on those cuts and make schools responsible for them, not to take responsibility for them himself. If Baroness Campbell is so involved in developing school sport, why did it take 600,000 people to sign a petition before he even met her? Should he not get up at that Dispatch Box and apologise?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but he should do his homework first. I met Baroness Campbell on two occasions before we made our announcement: I enjoyed dinner with her and I enjoyed meeting her when we were launching our school sports Olympics at a school sport partnership in south-east London. I subsequently met Baroness Campbell and many other sports people. I have been meeting more sports people in the course of the past two weeks than I might have anticipated at this time of year, and every one of those conversations has been fruitful and constructive. As a result of those conversations, we have ensured that we are able to strip out the bureaucracy that characterised the worst of the previous Government’s legacy and concentrate on building on the best. That is why not just Baroness Campbell but Dame Kelly Holmes has said that our approach to school sport is right. In the spirit of seasonal good cheer, I hope that the rest of the House will get behind those two fantastic female standard-bearers for sport.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

May I say how refreshing it is to have a Government who listen to representations and are prepared to think again? However, will the Secretary of State give the details of any change as soon as possible to people who will be affected? Redundancy processes are already in place, including at a school in my constituency in relation to the roles of development manager, part-time assistant and administrative worker for sports schemes.

[Michael Gove]

The important point about our scheme is that we are giving schools additional money to support the participation of more children in competitive sports. As the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, we are ring-fencing schools spending in cash terms and ensuring that the pupil premium is there to help the most disadvantaged. There will also be additional funding for every secondary school to ensure that it can maintain, if it wishes, its full role in a school sport partnership. However, let me make it clear: that money is for head teachers to spend. We are making sure that the bureaucracy that tied their hands in the past goes.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

John Barker runs the school sport partnerships in Bolsover and works at Tibshelf school, which has already been mentioned today, in my constituency. If the Secretary of State could, under this new deal, give him a job running the whole Bolsover school sport partnership and provide a new school building at Tibshelf as well, he would kill two birds with one stone. The school sport partnership will be happy; the Tibshelf people will be happy; and the 100-year-old school in Tibshelf that is being held up by pit props will be replaced. Can he give that guarantee?

[Michael Gove]

I have to say that if I leave the House at the end of today having made the hon. Gentleman a happy man, I will consider my political career to have reached its peak. I seriously accept both the case that he makes for capital funding for Tibshelf school, which is in his constituency, not that of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), and the case for support for the gentleman he mentions. I am sure that the money will be there to ensure that that gentleman can carry on his good work. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), made clear, capital funding is available for Derbyshire and I will ensure that capital funding is in future targeted on those areas of greatest need. There are few areas of greater need than those that the hon. Gentleman represents, and few are lucky to have such an eloquent advocate.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We welcome the Secretary of State’s humiliating climbdown on the school sport partnerships. It is hard to know what is most disgraceful: the refusal to meet Baroness Campbell or the way the Government badmouthed the Youth Sport Trust, the hundreds of school sports co-ordinators and the thousands of volunteers. The Secretary of State said that school sport partnerships had failed, another Minister slammed them and even the Prime Minister said they had a terrible record. Now, in the face of a storm of protest, the Government claim to be leaving them in place until shortly after the Olympics, albeit with dramatically less funding. We hope that the Secretary of State learns a lesson from this, which is just the latest shambles he has presided over. Will he acknowledge that school sports partnerships have not failed and have not got a terrible record, and will he promise to back them up to the Olympics and beyond?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In future, questions must be briefer, and I know that the Secretary of State will now provide an example of a brief reply.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s pre-written question, which was so old that it could have been a primary source in a GCSE history paper and so long that one could have used it instead of the Bayeux tapestry. Anyway, I am very happy to say that the money is now there from the budget that we had already allocated for sport. If only he had been paying attention during the Opposition day debate that we had four weeks ago, he would have known that.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

13. What recent progress has been made on his Department's academies programme in (a) Tamworth constituency and (b) England.

--- Later in debate ---

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

18. What assessment he has made of the effect on school budgets of funding allocations to local authority education services for 2011-12.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

The Government recently announced the 2011-12 school funding settlement. Indeed, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has just been dilating on it. The schools budget will stay at a flat cash per pupil rate, before the addition of the pupil premium. The actual level of budget for each school will vary according to its local authority’s funding formula and pupil numbers. There will be a minimum funding guarantee, so that no school will see a reduction, compared to 2010-11, of more than 1.5% per pupil before the pupil premium is applied.

[John Cryer]

May I return to reality for a couple of minutes? I represent some of the poorest wards in London, and that is against some pretty stiff competition. The schools in those wards face a sharp increase in pupil numbers over many years, in particular over the next year or two. At the same time, funding is being cut, whatever the Secretary of State says. Even taking account of the pupil premium, funding per pupil will reduce. Is that what he had in mind when he drew up his plan?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the truth is that facts are chiels that winna ding. The facts are that we are ensuring that the education budget increases by £3.6 billion.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In real terms?

[Michael Gove]

That is in real money, actually. It will increase by £3.6 billion over the next four years. The Labour party could guarantee increases in education funding only for two years; we have guaranteed them for four, along with £2.5 billion for the poorest children and £1.1 billion to take account of pupil numbers. We are delivering growth in education spending that Labour could not afford and could not promise. That is a vindication of the progressive goals that the coalition has set itself.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

T2. On the education maintenance allowance, will the Secretary of State comment on two findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies? The first is that the A-level results of recipients are, on average, four grades higher on the UCAS tariff than those of people who do not receive EMA. The second is that the so-called dead-weight costs of the EMA are less than those of initiatives that the Government are introducing, such as the relief on employers’ national insurance contributions. Does that not show that the Government are making less a policy based on evidence and more a cut based on ideology?

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

That is a very good question, actually—much better than any of those from the Labour Front Bench. Unfortunately, the evidence does not stack up. The IFS actually pointed out that there had been no increase in participation and only a modest increase in attainment, and the National Foundation for Educational Research pointed out that the dead-weight cost was roughly 88%, so only 12% of students were participating who would not otherwise have participated. Clearly we can have more effective targeting. Just because many policies carry a dead weight, that does not mean that all policies should. Neither, indeed, should all Front Benches carry dead weight.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T3. My right hon. and hon. Friends will be aware of Operation Golf, the Metropolitan police’s operation in London that has identified several hundred trafficked children on the streets of the capital, mostly from eastern Europe. What consideration have they given to ensuring that those children receive a decent education while they remain in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T7. Young people may be forgiven for thinking that the Government do not like them very much following their decisions on EMA, tuition fees and the future jobs fund, and the destruction of the youth service. Can we assume that they have abandoned “Aiming High for Young People”, the 10-year strategy for positive activities? As many local authorities are not now fulfilling their statutory duties under the Education Act 2005, will the Secretary of State intervene?

[Michael Gove]

Another beautifully read question. I can tell the hon. Lady which Government betrayed young people—the one whom she supported, who left young people with a huge burden of debt around their necks and record levels of youth unemployment. A higher number of young people were not in education, employment or training when they left office compared with what they inherited. She has a right cheek to ask a question like that at this time of year. The first thing she should do is apologise on behalf of the previous Government for the dreadful mess in which they left the economy.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders). The Government have listened and responded on school sport partnerships. I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the system is put right as quickly as possible so that staff do not lose their jobs. May I draw his attention to a Westminster Hall debate last week and an excellent suggestion from me on how the rest of it could be funded?

[Michael Gove]

I have always benefited not just from listening to the hon. Gentleman, but from reading his speeches in Hansard. I am thinking of having them bound and giving them as Christmas gifts to many of my friends. On this occasion, I will read with particular attention his contribution to that debate, which I am sure will make us all happier in the new year.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State or one of his ministerial colleagues agree to meet me to discuss Nottinghamshire county council’s proposed closure of Gedling school in my constituency? It is a well supported school and there has been a big campaign against its closure, but despite that, the county council is to continue with its proposals.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished schools Minister. I should be delighted to meet him at the earliest opportunity.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that North Yorkshire is the most rural and largest county in the country. We have problems with school transport, even outside the current extreme weather conditions. Will he give an undertaking that the pupil premium will apply first and foremost to rural counties such as North Yorkshire, and not to inner-city schools?

[Michael Gove]

The pupil premium will apply equally across the country, and we will ensure that the disadvantaged children in North Yorkshire who deserve it will receive it on the same basis as every other disadvantaged child.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Since October, I have been requesting that the Secretary of State visit two schools in my constituency, but as yet I have had no reply. As he will be in North Tyneside on 3 February, will he commit to visit Longbenton and Seaton Burn community colleges?

[Michael Gove]

I always enjoy visiting the north-east. I particularly enjoyed my visit a couple of weeks ago, when I had the chance to visit the Duchess high school, Alnwick, and schools in Stanley and Consett. I already have a packed schedule for the day to which the hon. Lady refers—I am due to be in Newcastle and Stockton—but I hope that I can visit North Tyneside, because I also want to visit south Tyneside to congratulate a school in Whitburn that has opted to become an academy. I have to remind the House that the number of schools that have opted to become academies under this Government has dramatically increased. Ninety-four schools have converted, 40 more will convert in January, and 333 have applied to convert, including 64 in the last week alone. [Interruption.] That is a record of reform of which I am afraid the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) can only dream.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

There is considerable concern among many parents that elements of the current sex and relationships education contribute to the early sexualisation of children. What can the Secretary of State do to reassure the House that parents and governors will have significant local input into the framework for sex and relationships education in the curriculum review, so that they can know what is being taught in their local schools?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. There is a recognition across the House that we need to strike a sensitive balance between the need to protect the innocence of young people and the need to equip them for the modern world. To my mind, that means that sex education needs to be both inclusive and rigorous, and ultimately subject to parental veto. Parents must have the right to withdraw their children from sex education if they consider it inappropriate, and a right to be informed on a local basis how that curriculum is generated. It is right that sex education is a compulsory part of the national curriculum. My Department wants to look at the guidance it provides, in consultation not just with faith groups but with other organisations such as Stonewall, to ensure that the correct balance between inclusivity, tolerance and respect for innocence is maintained.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

In September, I raised concerns on behalf of my constituents about Seaham school of technology, and the Secretary of State kindly wrote back indicating the criteria that would be applied to replace schools cancelled under the Building Schools for the Future programme—notably those in the worst state of dilapidation and where there are pressures on school rolls. May I remind him that Seaham school of technology is in a serious state and is the only school serving a population of about 26,000 in the town of Seaham? He indicated in his letter that he would try to respond by the end of the calendar year, and I am now looking for that response.

[Michael Gove]

That is a fair constituency case. As I pointed out in reply to an earlier question, I am interested in supporting schools in County Durham and the north-east that have faced difficult circumstances, and I have had the chance to see schools in Consett and Stanley that are also in a bad way and need support. They have embraced academy solutions, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to explore such a solution for Seaham, I would be delighted to explore that. In any case, I will look closely at the situation he described to see what can be done.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

The 2009 OECD assessment of UK schools referred to earlier concluded that 77% of the differences between schools in student performance are explained by differences in socio-economic backgrounds—only Luxembourg has a higher figure. What assessment has the Minister made of that, and what will the Government do to address the situation?

Education Spending

Michael Gove Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Today I am announcing local authority allocations for their Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and capital for 2011-12 and for the Early Intervention Grant in 2011-12 and 2012-13.

Schools

I can confirm that, as proposed in our consultation, we will continue with the current distribution method for funding local authorities.

As signalled in the consultation, we are simplifying the funding system by mainstreaming relevant grants into the DSG on the same per pupil distribution as this year. 2011-12 guaranteed units of funding (GUFs) are therefore the sum of 2010-11 GUFs and the per pupil grant allocations. This means that at local authority level allocations for school funding are flat cash per pupil for 2011-12.

To protect those local authorities that have falling pupil numbers I have put in place arrangements so that no authority will lose more than 2% of its budget in cash terms compared with 2010-11.

Following this announcement, local authorities will now be able to work with their schools forums to produce 2011-12 budgets for their maintained schools. This will include resources from grants mainstreamed into DSG. Local authorities will be required to take account of the previous level of these grants in constructing their settlement for schools. This is to prevent turbulence for those schools who have previously received funding through grants that we are mainstreaming. Although the overall schools budget before the addition of the pupil premium will stay at the same level per pupil, the actual level of budget for each individual school will vary. It will depend on local decisions about how best to meet needs. This does mean that some individual schools may see cash cuts in their budgets—either because they have fewer pupils or because changes are made within local authorities to the distribution of funding. I have, therefore, decided to apply a national protection arrangement for schools—the minimum funding guarantee—and have set it so that no school will see a reduction compared with its 2010-11 budget (excluding sixth form funding) of more than 1.5% per pupil before the pupil premium is applied. The guarantee applies to a school’s overall 2010-11 budget including grants that have been mainstreamed into DSG.

Capital

The capital settlement for my Department was extremely tight, with a 60% reduction in 2014-15 compared to the historic high of 2010-11. I know that there are schools in need of refurbishment which have missed out from previous Government capital programmes, and who feel they have therefore been treated unfairly. I will continue to invest in the school estate. Indeed we are investing £15.8 billion of capital over the spending review period, and the average annual capital budget over the period will be higher than the average annual capital budget in the 1997-98 to 2004-05 period. However, over the next few years our priority is to reduce this country’s budget deficit. This is essential, as the amount we are currently spending on debt interest payments could be used to rebuild or refurbish 10 schools every day. However, I realise that in the short term it will be difficult for schools to adjust to reduced capital funding.

The recommendations from the Sebastian James review of DFE’s capital programmes will inform the allocation of capital from 2012-13. But schools and local authorities need information now on capital for 2011-12 so that they can begin to plan. I am today announcing the allocation of £2,137 million¹ of capital funding for schools in 2011-12.

There are two particular pressures we face which have informed how I have allocated this funding. First, I have inherited substantial forward commitments for the Building Schools for the Future, academy and myplace projects which I did not stop in July. Energetic efforts are being made by local authorities, contractors and others to reduce the cost of these projects, but I expect the cost of these commitments to remain significant over the spending review period. If the Building Schools for the Future programme had not been stopped there would have been no additional funding for schools outside that programme or for urgently needed primary school places.

Secondly, there are significant pressures for additional school places, particularly at primary age, in many areas of the country because of rising birth rates and changed migration patterns. In 2011-12, £800 million will be available to local authorities to address the need to provide additional school places. I have doubled the amount to be spent on what is called basic need from the levels spent by the previous Government. I recognise that this issue needs to be addressed and I am supporting local areas to do so.

Even where funding is tight, it is essential that buildings and equipment are properly maintained, to ensure that health and safety standards are met, and to prevent a backlog of decay building up which is very expensive to address. Therefore, in 2011-12, £1,337 million will be available for capital maintenance for schools², with over £l billion being allocated for local areas to prioritise according to maintenance need. The voluntary aided sector will receive its fair share of this as I have decided to retain the Locally Co-ordinated VA Programme for a further year.

In addition, £195 million will be allocated directly to schools³ for their own use. This is a much lower rate than previously. The Audit Commission criticised the allocation of large amounts of funding to schools that was not targeted to building need. Therefore, in view of the need to prioritise, I have balanced the bulk of maintenance funding to local authorities, to support local prioritisation and larger projects, with co-ordinated and efficient procurement.

Details of the allocations of basic need and maintenance funding to each authority, and indicative amounts of the capital allocations for their schools, are being sent to local authorities today and published on the website. I shall also make copies available in the parliamentary Libraries.

I know that for longer-term planning, local authorities would welcome further security on their capital funding from 2012-13. As I have said, the capital review will inform funding from 2012-13. However, while the methodology of allocation and management of the capital funding may change, I can confirm that the headline annual amounts of funding for basic need and for maintenance will for 2012-13 until 2014-15 be in line with the amounts I have announced today for 2011-12.

Local Authority Early Intervention Grant

In challenging times the Government are freeing local authorities to focus on essential front-line services, and to invest in early intervention and prevention to produce long-term savings and better results for children, young people and families. A key element of this approach is the creation of a new early intervention grant for local authorities in England, worth £2,212 million in 2011-12 and £2,297 million in 2012-13. It replaces a number of former funding streams, which are listed in a note on my Department’s website. In a tight funding settlement, some reduction in central government support was inevitable. In 2011-12, the amount to be allocated through EIG is 10.9% lower than the aggregated 2010-11 funding through the predecessor grants. The new grant will however provide a substantial funding stream, with new flexibility to enable local authorities to act more strategically and target investment early, where it will have the greatest impact.

Universal as well as specialist services have an important role to play in identifying and supporting families who need extra help before problems escalate, and helping them get more intensive support if needed. Our schools, health services, police and other services should all be concerned to spot and support the most vulnerable families early. There are great examples of effective partnerships which already do this across the country.

I want to draw attention to two important aspects of the new grant. The first is the Government’s commitment to trusting professionals and creating local flexibility. Greater freedom at local level, to pool and align funding will help local authorities and their partners achieve better results. That is why we have scrapped top-down performance management, and why we are reducing radically the number of ring-fenced grants. The spending review signalled a power shift between central and local government—ensuring local communities have a greater say in the issues that affect them. The EIG is not ring-fenced, giving local authorities the flexibility to respond to local needs and drive reform, while supporting a focus on early intervention across the age range.

The second key point is the Government’s commitment to investment and reform in early intervention at a time of financial constraint. Against the background of greater flexibility to decide priorities locally, there are key areas of early intervention where the Government are ensuring that the overall grant provides support:

Sure Start Children’s Centres. There is enough money in the EIG to maintain the existing network of Sure Start Children's Centres, accessible to all but identifying and supporting families in greatest need. Local authorities continue to have duties under the Childcare Act 2006 to consult before opening, closing or significantly changing children's centres and to secure sufficient provision to meet local need and Together for Children will be ready to assist LAs in making plans to keep centres open. Important new investment through Department of Health budgets to provide 4,200 extra health visitors, working alongside outreach and family support workers, will enable stronger links with local health services.

2-year olds. Evidence shows that early education is particularly beneficial for the most disadvantaged, for whom gaps in attainment start to appear as early as 22 months. We want to make sure that the poorest two year olds are given the best start, and subject to parliamentary approval have committed to extending free early education with an entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds from 2013, funded by an additional £300 million a year by 2014-15. £64 million and £223 million will be available through the EIG over the next two years so that authorities can build capacity and quality. Local authorities must still have regard to their statutory duties under the Childcare Act 2006 to provide information, training and advice to all providers of early education; quality matters and a highly skilled workforce is critical if we are to have a positive impact on social mobility.

Short breaks for disabled children. Providing respite to the most vulnerable families improves their outcomes and reduces the cost of care. That is why we have included within the EIG £198 million/£202 million, at the same time as investing directly in the voluntary and community organisations that support this work.

The early intervention grant is of course not limited to these areas. The grant underpins creative local approaches to local priorities, across the whole field of services for children, young people and families. Most Department for Education funding for services for young people will flow through EIG. As we maintain the commitment to raise the participation age to 18 by 2015, the grant will help local authorities to support vulnerable young people to engage in education and training, intervening early with those who are at risk of disengagement. This could include preventing young people from taking part in risky behaviour, like crime, substance misuse or teenage pregnancy, supporting young people at risk of mental health problems, and helping young people who have a learning difficulty or disability to participate and achieve. The grant will support transitional arrangements to ensure that young people have access to impartial careers guidance in advance of the all-age careers service being fully operational. EIG also provides an opportunity for local areas to pursue greater coherence of local services for families with complex needs who face the poorest outcomes and pose the greatest cost to local services. Local authorities will want to consider using EIG funds to support local action in support of the national campaign to improve outcomes for families with multiple and complex problems and reduce costs to welfare and public services.

We look forward to Graham Allen’s report on early intervention, which will identify best practice and suggest ways to make it more widespread, including through new funding mechanisms. We recognise that making the transition from the old grant regime, and investing in early intervention at a time when budgets are under pressure, will be demanding. We want to work in partnership with local government to make the case for investment in these vital areas of early intervention. To that end, we will continue to work with the sector, including organisations like C4EO, to develop and disseminate the evidence base. We will promote transparency by working with the sector to measure the key outcomes and incentivise reform and effectiveness through payment of local authorities and providers by results, working with a number of authorities to develop a fair and effective methodology.

I am writing to local authority chief executives, directors of children’s services, head teachers and chairs of governing bodies with details of this announcement. Copies of these letters with details of individual school and local authority allocations have been placed in Libraries of both Houses.

Other Area-Based and Specific Grants

This Government’s decision to prioritise and protect front-line spending on schools and to target local authority spending on vulnerable and deprived children, young people and families has meant that we have had to make some hard choices. As part of the local government announcement we have confirmed that we are ending a number of education related area-based and specific grants. The ending of these grants does not mean that we do not see a future role for local authorities in relation to schools. The White Paper , “The Importance of Teaching”, which I recently published makes clear that local authorities continue to have an important strategic role to play. Local authorities will need to prioritise services and look at opportunities for delivering services more cost effectively including through working in conjunction with other local authorities.

In other areas, although the current grants are ending, we do expect to continue to provide funding. The White Paper made it clear that we are committed to improving music education. Darren Henley is currently conducting a review of music and we will make announcements about future music funding in the light of recommendations which arise from the review.

We want all families to be able to choose the right school for their child. We are therefore reviewing home to school transport so that we can better meet the needs of not only disadvantaged families, but all families, ensuring transport is properly targeted to those that need it most. In relation to the grant which supports extended rights for free home to school travel, we will be announcing transition funding in the new year to enable local authorities to continue to deliver their duty in this area for the rest of this academic year, pending the outcome of the review.

¹This includes all taxpayer funded schools, including in the VA sector, academies, city technology colleges and non-maintained special schools. The figure for local authority and voluntary aided schools is £2039 million.

²This includes all taxpayer funded schools, including in the VA sector, academies, city technology colleges and non-maintained special schools. The figure for local authority schools is £858 million and for voluntary aided schools, £196 million. Local authority maintenance allocations also include funding for maintenance of Sure Start children’s centres.

³This includes all taxpayer funded schools, including in the VA sector and academies. The figure for local authority and voluntary aided schools is £185 million.