School Funding Reform

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on our plans to reform school funding. As Members across the House will know, the current systems for funding schools—both their revenue and capital needs—are too complex and lack transparency, which is why I want to make the way we fund all schools fairer, simpler and more efficient.

I want to turn first to capital spending. Capital investment is crucial to education reform, but at a time of economic difficulty we need to ensure we are getting the maximum value for every penny we spend, and we must ensure that tight resources are targeted on those most in need.

In order to ensure that we could target money on those areas in absolutely greatest need, last year I had to take the difficult decision to stop a number of school rebuildings planned under the Building Schools for the Future programme. In areas where planning was most advanced, more than 600 projects will go ahead, but other projects were stopped. I recognise the deep disappointment that was provoked in communities where hopes had been raised, but we had to ensure money was spent efficiently, and the design of the old BSF scheme was not as efficient as it could have been. Specifically, it did not prioritise schools in the worst condition and it did not procure new buildings as cheaply as possible.

In order to ensure that we spent money properly, I asked Sebastian James of Dixons store group to review the entire Department for Education approach to capital funding. His report makes compelling reading and I commend it to the House. He found that the whole capital system was bedevilled by a complex allocation process with multiple funding schemes, a lack of good- quality building condition data, inefficiency in building design, a lack of expertise in improving new buildings, a failure to make procurement as efficient as possible, a lack of clarity on maintenance, and overly complex regulatory and planning requirements. I am grateful to Sebastian James for his exceptionally thorough work, and I wish to accept the majority of his recommendations, subject to a thorough consultation process over coming months.

Specifically, I have accepted the recommendation to conduct a full survey of the school estate. The last Government stopped collecting any data on school condition in 2005, which has made fair distribution of funding much harder. I have also accepted the review’s recommendation significantly to revise the school premises regulations, so that a single, clear set of regulations applies to all schools. I intend to consult fully on this in the autumn. In addition, I have accepted the recommendation to move towards greater standardisation of design. One of the aspects of the BSF programme that Mr James criticised was that each school was separately designed, costing unnecessary millions in consultancy fees and often resulting in buildings that were not fit for purpose. Greater standardisation will reduce costs, improve quality, and limit the opportunity for error.

However, I recognise that in the short term schools around the country are facing real and pressing problems. The most pressing problem is ensuring that every child has a school place. In some local areas, there are simply not enough school places to meet rising demand. Local authorities have told me that insufficient attention has been given to this issue in the past, which is why I have already doubled the sums available to meet this pressure, announcing £800 million of additional spending given directly to local authorities to meet the demand for school places. Today, thanks to efficiencies and savings that we have identified, including in BSF projects, I can announce an additional £500 million to fund more new school places in the areas of greatest need.

Funds will be allocated this financial year to the local authorities with the greatest demographic pressures so that they can provide enough places, especially at primary schools, in September 2012. Details of those allocations will be provided over the summer and finalised in the autumn. But that is not all. I am also aware that many of our existing school buildings across the country are in desperate need of repair. I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties who have shown me and my colleagues schools in their constituencies that desperately need investment. The energy and skill with which so many colleagues have lobbied underlines how effectively so many hon. Members across the House represent the most needy in their constituencies.

We have already made £1.4 billion available this year to deal with maintenance problems. Overall, we are spending more on school buildings in every year of this Parliament cumulatively than the previous Government spent in every year of their first two Parliaments. But I want to do more, which is why today I am launching a new privately financed school building programme to address the schools in the worst condition, wherever they are in the country. The programme will be open to local authorities and schools that had been due funding via BSF but, critically, it will also be open to those which, despite real problems, had never been promised BSF funding. I believe strongly that those in genuine need should receive the funding they deserve and that no part of the country should be favoured over any other. Individual schools and local authorities will all be able to apply, and I am launching the application process today. The scheme will be rigorously policed to ensure that we do not incur the excessive costs incurred by previous privately financed schemes. The programme should cover between 100 and 300 schools, with the first of these open in September 2014, and is expected to be worth about £2 billion in up-front construction costs.

Some of those local authority areas that had experienced the termination of their BSF projects asked for a judicial review of my Department’s decisions. In February, Mr Justice Holman found in favour of the Department on the substantive matters in dispute, but he found against me on procedural grounds and asked me to look again at the decision in six local authorities. He stressed that the decision to restore all, some or none of the projects was a matter for me. Over the past few months, Ministers and officials have listened carefully to the case made by the six local authorities and I am very grateful to them for the timely and constructive way in which they have presented their case. I have today written to those authorities to let them know that I am minded to indemnify them for contractual liabilities resulting from the stage their projects had reached but I am not minded to restore their specific BSF projects. They now have a further opportunity to make representations to me before I take a final decision.

I appreciate that the local authorities and their representatives will be disappointed, but let me also make it clear that this decision, if confirmed after any representations have been made, does not mean an end to new school buildings in their areas. These local authorities will all be eligible for support from the new programme that I am establishing to cater for population growth in the areas most in need and the new programme to cover the worst dilapidation. That is central to my reasoning on why I am minded not to restore their specific projects. I want to ensure absolute fairness in the distribution of the resources at my disposal. Because the previous Government chose to not to collect data on the condition of school buildings after 2005, I do not have the facts to judge how the needs of these schools compare with the needs of other schools around the country. The fairest thing that I believe I can do is to help to meet the costs which might arise from the stage these projects had reached and then to invite the affected schools to apply to the new school rebuilding programme and be assessed on an equal footing with everyone else, on the basis of need. Of course, should any of those local authorities have severe population pressures, they are likely to receive a portion of the £500 million fund that I have announced today.

I would now like to turn to schools revenue funding. The current system is of course extremely complex, opaque and often unfair. Most colleagues will have lived with the inconsistencies for years now, as similar schools in different parts of the country received widely differing and inequitable levels of funding, and the problem with the system we inherited was recently underlined by concerns expressed over academies funding. Under the system set up by the previous Government, academies received money in lieu of services that would previously have been provided by their local authority, but local authorities continued to receive the same funding as they would if they were still providing those services. That meant that local authorities were, relatively speaking, overfunded for duties they no longer discharged, so at the spending review we announced that from now on we would deduct money from local authorities to take account of the fact they no longer provided services to academies.

The huge success of the academies programme, with 803 open and more than 800 more in the pipeline, has meant that we need to reconsider the issue, and a number of local authorities have asked us to reconsider the amount of money deducted, so today I am publishing a consultation document for local authorities explaining the basis on which it is intended that the money will be deducted this year and next.

This area, however, is only one of those in which the funding system that we inherited is failing to meet the needs of the 21st century. Much wider reform is needed, so today we are also publishing a consultation proposing a fair and comprehensive reform of the way in which schools revenue funding is calculated overall. At present, similar schools in different areas can receive very different amounts of funding for their pupils. That is not fair on head teachers, teachers or pupils. That is why I am proposing a new, fairer national funding formula, with appropriate room for local discretion, in order to have a simpler, fairer and transparent system.

The problems with the current system run very deep, and we will not be able to solve them overnight. We want to consult and take everyone’s views so that we know how much change schools can cope with. We will not introduce change until we are confident in the new approach, and certainly not before 2013, and we will ensure that there are substantial transitional arrangements, but we are determined to start moving as soon as we can towards a system which ensures that all children are given the right level of funding to meet their needs. If that is taken together with our investment in 100 new teaching schools, announced last week, our investment of an additional £300 million in the early years, and an extra £2.5 billion in the pupil premium, I believe we can now begin to ensure that our schools are funded in a way that is modern, fair and just.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and wish him the best of British in securing media coverage for it.

Let me begin on the subject of revenue. Across the House, we share a responsibility to ensure that the £35 billion budget for schools in England is spent as fairly as possible, giving every young person the best start in life, and I can assure the Secretary of State that we will work constructively with him to achieve that. The current system is not perfect, and the principles he has set out are a good basis on which to build, but the devil really is in the detail, and changes need to be considered very carefully.

With that in mind, may I welcome the Secretary of State’s conversion to the merits of consultation before imposing change that affects the lives of young people? Three times he has failed to consult and then been forced to change course under the threat of legal action: on Building Schools for the Future, on the education maintenance allowance, and on academy funding. Today, we have some grounds for hope that he has learned his lesson, with one major caveat. Is it not odd timing, to say the least, to start a 12-week consultation just as schools and colleges start the long break? Will the practical effect of that not be that it is a rushed six-week consultation that will coincide with the start of term, when people’s minds are elsewhere? Given that his announcement has far-reaching implications for every school in the land, and given that these changes are planned to come in only from September 2013, will the Secretary of State agree to a 12-week period of consultation from the start of the school year?

On a national funding formula for schools, the Secretary of State will know that that has been considered in the past and there is considerable scepticism about the ability to deliver it fairly. Does he accept that a rigid national funding formula could bring lots of winners and losers and remove local government’s ability to ensure fairness across an area? Will he commit to retaining as much flexibility as possible and will he ensure that any changes are carefully managed so that we do not see wild swings in school budgets?

As I have said, the changes will take effect from 2013-14, but we know that the Secretary of State was recently forced to agree to an interim review of academy funding. Will he update the House today on the progress of that review and how it will link to the consultation he has announced? Equally, can he assure the House that this review of funding will take account of responses to the special educational needs Green Paper, as parents of children with SEN will have concerns that giving more direct funding to schools will give them fewer guarantees over the funding available for their children?

The Secretary of State was silent today about 16-to-19 funding, which is perhaps not surprising, as it is the subject of a devastating report today from the Education Committee. Is it not the case that changes to post-16 funding, and reductions in funding to school sixth forms, could see some forced to close their doors? He has promised a review of post-16 funding. Would it not make sense to conduct this review concurrently with the consultation that he announced today?

The Secretary of State mentioned progress on academies. It is clear that we are moving at pace to a very different school system. An all-academy world where schools are directly contracted to London under a national funding formula will feel very different from the world we have known. It also raises the question of what happened to localism. Can he tell us what, if any, ongoing role he sees for local authorities in education? His consultation talks ominously about “chains of academies”. Can he tell us today how big he expects these chains to become, and whether he will place any limits on their expansion?

On capital, we will look carefully at the announcements that the right hon. Gentleman made today. Let me set out the context. At the spending review, the schools capital budget was left in tatters. His own officials briefed the Financial Times that the Secretary of State had folded too early in negotiations with the Treasury—possibly the understatement of the year. From that much-reduced budget he is funding his pet projects and giving them priority. There will be deep disappointment in the six local authorities that were forced to take legal action because he failed to consult them first. He says he has listened carefully to them. He made a promise to visit Sandwell, for instance, which I believe he has never carried out, so how can they have any confidence that he has properly looked at the condition of schools in Sandwell, and that this is not just a hollow exercise that has been ordered by a High Court judge?

The Secretary of State said today that he would meet the costs—that he would indemnify the six local authorities concerned. How much will he now have to pay to those schools? Is that not money that could otherwise have been properly spent on schools and children? It is a waste of public money in the current climate. How much money has he spent on legal costs since he became Secretary of State? He has never been out of the dock since taking on that job. We need to know how much money he has wasted.

In my constituency, the Secretary of State is funding free schools, having terminated the Building Schools for the Future programme. That has led to concerns that existing schools are trapped in crumbling buildings while the Secretary of State is funding one of his pet projects. It raises the question whether he can live up to the fairness and transparency about which he spoke today. Can he explain to the House how it is fair to fund the creation of surplus school places in cities such as Bristol, when he is failing to fund basic need in primary schools up and down the country? Is that not ideological rather than fair? With a much reduced budget, should he not be prioritising basic need? And can he tell us what is transparent about a free school programme where cheques are handed out around the country, but parliamentary questions from Members on all sides about the costs of that programme go unanswered?

The statement comes on a day when the Conservative-chaired Education Committee has delivered a devastating end-of-term report on the Secretary of State’s conduct. The education world has learned through bitter experience to be extremely wary of his announcements on funding. As ever, we will be watching closely to see whether the reality matches his rhetoric.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the broadly constructive tone of his response. He asked a series of detailed questions, which I shall do my best to reply to in the time available.

On the timing of the consultation, plans to move towards a national funding formula were outlined in the education White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, which was published last autumn. There has been extensive engagement on the ground with local authorities and school leaders, not least through the task and finish group of the ministerial advisory group on local government finance. This consultation is a step towards ensuring that we can move in the right direction, but judging by the response that we have today, I know that there are many people who are impatient for us to proceed. We will make sure that in the consultation there is, as the right hon. Gentleman requests, appropriate room for local authorities to stress the importance of flexibility.

In the consultation documents, which are available in the Vote Office now for all Members, we emphasise that there are a range of options, and it is clear that we want to ensure that there is appropriate local flexibility—not just room for local authorities to allocate resources to those schools most in need, but greater transparency, for example, over the operation of schools forums. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will engage constructively in making sure that those decisions on the ground can properly balance school autonomy with local accountability.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the interim review on academies and LACSEG—the local authority central spend equivalent grant. We are specifically consulting today in a way which can ensure that local authorities are funded fairly, and that we do not have the double funding that has arisen under the complex funding system that we inherited. As a result of that consultation, I hope we can provide a reassurance to all students in all schools.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about special educational needs. In the consultation overall on schools funding, we make it clear that high needs pupils are a specific priority. There will be a block of funding in the overall dedicated schools grant which is for them and which will be disbursed at local authority level. The central role of the local authority in protecting vulnerable pupils will be protected, and I am sure he will want to work with us in ensuring that that is successfully implemented.

On 16-to-19 funding, it is critical that we ensure that we align any reforms with the Wolf review, which the right hon. Gentleman so warmly welcomed just a few months ago. Wolf argued that we need to ensure that when we reform the funding of 16-to-19 education, we do not recreate the perverse incentives in the old system of 16-to-19 funding, so we aim to align that reform with the broader reforms to improve vocational education.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about progress on academies. Like him, I am delighted that so many schools have now become academies. He asked about the sustainable level of growth of chains. I believe that chains such as the Harris group, Ark or the United Learning Trust are doing an amazing job on the ground, working with local authorities and turning round schools in the worst condition. As far as I am concerned, they should grow at the fastest sustainable rate. That is why we are making the reforms that we can. Our aim always is to help those children most in need, and those academy chains have helped those children most in need.

On negotiations at the spending review, I am proud of the fact that at the spending review we were able to secure the best revenue settlement for any domestic Department, apart from the Department of Health. I am proud of the fact that as well as guaranteeing fat cash payments for all schools for the rest of the spending review period, we secured additional money for the early years and for the pupil premium. I am particularly proud that we have since then ensured that on our capital budget, we have driven forward efficiency. The James review and the associated steps that we have taken have meant that we have liberated an extra £500 million for basic need.

The right hon. Gentleman asked if I would listen carefully to representatives from Sandwell and other local authorities. I shall. I appreciate the particular concerns in every local authority, but the vital thing is that we need to be fair to all local authorities. There are local authorities represented across the House that were not in the BSF scheme and have not had their case heard, and we need to ensure that they receive the funding that they deserve.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about basic need and the importance of prioritising it. We are spending 62.5% more on basic need than the previous Government. They were specifically warned in February 2010 that local authorities were saying that basic need funding was far from adequate, and they were invited to undertake an urgent nationwide review. No action was taken. The lead member for children’s services in the London borough of Newham, the Labour councillor Quintin Peppiatt, said:

“We gave warning for the last five years through various deputations that this was a real problem, and I have to say it was not taken with the seriousness that it should have been. At last, serious action is being taken and not a moment too soon.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making those points, but we must agree to differ on EMA. I think that the new learner support fund that we are introducing with the discretionary capacity that local colleges and schools will have to support students will effectively meet needs. On university technical colleges, I do not believe that they are an experiment; they are on the ground and working well already. I was pleased to read a speech by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) only last week in which he reflected on his visit to a university technical college that JCB helped to establish.

[Andy Burnham]

A Labour academy.

[Michael Gove]

In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the success of the Conservative donor, Sir Anthony Bamford, in helping to establish that school. I, too, should like to pay tribute to Sir Anthony Bamford, who is a great man. May I underline the fact that that is a cross-party initiative? Lords Baker and Adonis are heroes and their work deserves to be supported.

School Closures (Thursday)

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement about the school closures on Thursday and advice to parents worried about the situation.

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

The Government are currently in discussion with trade unions representing public sector workers to reach a fair deal on pension reform. Our proposals draw on the widely praised report from Lord Hutton, who was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under the previous Government. The state of the economy that we inherited and major demographic changes mean that reform is vital. We want to ensure that all public sector workers enjoy pensions that are among the best available, but we need to balance that with fairness to other taxpayers. Talks between the Treasury and the TUC yesterday made real progress, which is why it is so regrettable that two of the classroom unions are planning industrial action this Thursday. This action is unnecessary while talks are still going on, will cause massive inconvenience to hard-working families and will hit working women particularly hard.

In order to minimise the impact of the strike on working parents, I wrote last week to all local authorities, as the employers of teachers, and to all schools, emphasising their duty to keep schools open wherever possible. In response to requests from governors, I also laid out the flexibilities at the disposal of schools to ensure that they stay open. Schools can vary staff-pupil ratios, they can depart from the national curriculum and they can draw on voluntary support from the wider community, with those who have been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau able to provide particular help. Nothing can replace the great teaching offered by gifted professionals, but I would far rather see schools staying open and offering a restricted curriculum than see hard-working families having to lose a day’s pay or paying for ad hoc and expensive last-minute child care.

When I wrote last week, I also asked local authorities and academy heads to let me know which schools they knew would be closing. We collated data from them last Friday, and these data were updated yesterday. At that stage, 118 out of 152 local authorities, and 379 out of 707 academies had replied. The initial returns suggested that 2,206 local authority schools would be partially open and that 3,206 would be closed, while the situation with a further 10,872 was not known at that stage. The figures showed that of the 707 academies, 158 would be fully open, 128 partially open and 84 closed. Nine were still uncertain and 328 had not yet responded. I asked last week that those figures be updated as of 3 pm today, and that exercise is ongoing. Once the provisional data are examined, we will provide updates tomorrow and on Thursday.

It is the responsibility of individual schools to inform parents if they are closed, but the ability of individual heads to determine if and when a teacher has decided to strike—and therefore their ability to make contingency plans—is governed by the employment law that we inherited. Individual teachers have no obligation to tell their school or employer of the intention to strike in advance. Of course, we always keep the law under review.

I remain committed to discussing pension reform with all the teacher unions openly, honestly and constructively. The current generation of teachers in our schools is the best ever, and I want to see them properly supported; but this strike, at this time, will not help our schools, as those unions that are not striking this Thursday know. This action is unnecessary, premature and disruptive. I hope that all parts of the House will join me in working constructively to support those hard-working families who are the victims of this action.

[Andy Burnham]

Let me start by making one thing clear: on Thursday, children should be in school and their parents at work. Opposition Members have said consistently that these strikes are a mistake. We support reforms to make public sector pensions sustainable, and it is wrong for action to be taken now, while talks are ongoing. However, the Government cannot evade their share of responsibility for the disruption that millions of families will suffer on Thursday. We are worried that the Secretary of State has once again not properly thought through the consequences of his statements and has left parents in the dark, because it is we who have brought him here today. For the first time, Members have some information about the likely scale of disruption. Will he give us a commitment that he will keep Members in all parts of the House regularly updated from here on in?

Secondly, what reassurance can the Secretary of State give to parents today that where schools are open, children will be properly looked after, and remain safe and secure at all times? His letter to head teachers urged them to keep schools open, but was silent about children’s safety. We want schools to stay open, but will he say more about what roles he considers it acceptable for parents to perform? What is a safe balance between trained and untrained staff? Are advanced checks advisable or necessary? He has said today that those with CRB checks may be able to do particular jobs, but will he spell out exactly what those roles are? This is not an area where he can afford to look like he is making it up as he goes along, so I would be grateful if he could answer those specific points.

Thirdly and most importantly, what steps are the Secretary of State and the Government taking over the coming hours to try to avert the strike? His letter acknowledged the

“very strong feelings in the teaching profession about teachers’ pensions”.

Does he not accept that those feelings have been inflamed by the Government’s reckless and provocative handling of the issue from start to finish? In retrospect, does he believe that it was wise or fair to pre-empt the Hutton report by slapping a 3% surcharge on pensions, costing some teachers an extra £100 a month, or for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to announce a raising of the retirement age at a crucial moment in the negotiations? Does the Secretary of State recall saying this to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers’ conference while in opposition?

“I…think that, for people who’ve been in the profession, we shouldn’t alter the terms on which they entered. I think that’s part of the sort of broad contract that you expect.”

Is not that exactly the point? Pensions are a contract, and they should not be changed unilaterally in this high-handed way.

During the Labour Government, the number of days lost through industrial action fell to its lowest level ever. Will not parents take a dim view if this Government return us to the 1980s so that the Secretary of State and his friends can rerun the battles of their youth? Do not those parents want a Government who play fair with the professionals who teach their children, rather than one who play politics with people’s pensions?

[Michael Gove]

I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he began his response, but I think that, on reflection, he will consider the way in which he concluded it to be irresponsible at this time. The whole House wants to see people keeping level heads and maintaining an even temper at this time, and the fact that he chose to ratchet up the rhetoric in that way was not appropriate.

I am grateful to him for supporting the direction of Lord Hutton’s reforms and for his initial words about the responsibility of all local authorities and heads to keep schools open in order to ensure that we do everything possible to minimise disruption. Because teachers are employed by local authorities and individual heads, individual local authorities and heads have to depend on teachers telling them whether they will be on strike before making contingency arrangements. That is a direct consequence of the labour laws that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. If he believes that those laws should change, and that we should reform trade union laws, I should like to know about it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked us to update Members of the House with data, and we will do so. At the first available opportunity when the data are reliable, we will share them with hon. Members, with local authorities and with individual parents. He also asked us to do everything possible to keep children safe and secure. The safety of children is always my first concern, and that is why I want to see schools remain open, and why I have written to local authorities and outlined the flexibilities that they have. It is also why I have drawn their attention to the statutory guidance that covers health and safety and child protection.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 3% surcharge that is being placed on pensions. As a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he should be aware that every aspect of the pension reform that we are bringing forward is a direct result of the dire mess in which he and his colleagues left our economy. If people want to know why our pensions have to be reformed, they need only look at the financial mess that was made—[Interruption.] I am afraid that the intemperate response coming from the Opposition Benches reinforces the guilty consciences on that side of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman also quoted from a speech that I gave to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. It is important that he not mislead the House or anyone listening—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I am sure that he would never do so intentionally, which is why I hope that he will stress that the proposals that we are putting forward respect the accrued rights of all those who have been in state pension schemes up until this moment—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw.”] I know that he would wish to make that clear.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that, in the last year of the Labour Government, we had the lowest number ever of days lost to strike action. The truth is that, in the past year under this coalition Government, we have lost even fewer days to strike action. If we are to maintain that record, we need calm on both sides of the House, and not the pandering to the union gallery that we heard at the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted not only that there are free school applications from Brighton, Kemptown, but that Brighton college is playing a part in helping to establish a new free school in the east end of London which is setting out specifically to target talented children from poorer backgrounds. When that is combined with the innovation being shown by the Durand school in Brixton, for example, which plans to establish a state boarding school for disadvantaged children from that area, I have to say that the coalition Government are unleashing a wave of radicalism the like of which will not have been seen since 1944.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

That confidence is clearly not shared in No. 10 Downing street, because last week it gave a distinctly lukewarm end-of-term report on the free schools policy. Let me quote a No. 10 source from The Independent:

“I guess you'd give Michael a six out of 10. The problem with Free Schools is that the scheme was designed to fill gaps in areas where there are poorly performing schools. But that’s not where the applications have come from.”

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of the 26 approved free schools in England come from the 10 most deprived local authority districts?

[Michael Gove]

May I say, in terms of statements emanating from the centre, how delighted we were on this side of the House to read just last week that the Labour leadership has full confidence in the right hon. Gentleman? We are absolutely delighted that he is where he is, and we hope to see him there for many months to come.

All the free school applications that we have received are either in areas of deprivation and educational underachievement or in areas where pupil numbers are rising fast and there is a desperate need to see new school places. Whether it is Bradford or the east end, Slough or Tower Hamlets, in every single one of those areas poorer children are benefiting as a result of our radicalism.

[Andy Burnham]

My son has been doing standard assessment tests—SATs—recently, and I have been saying to him, “Read the question and answer the question.” I am tempted to say the same to the Secretary of State. The answer—the answer he would not give—is two, so it is clear that his policy is based on ideology, not on need.

I am more pragmatic than the Secretary of State. I have always said that each local proposal should be judged on its merit, and there is nothing to stop a free school being truly comprehensive if it is set up in the right way. What I object to is the unfair way in which he is siphoning off resources from other schools to pay for his free schools. Will he confirm today that the average maintained school is this year going to get an 80% cut in its maintenance budget to pay for free schools? If that is true, how on earth does he justify it?

[Michael Gove]

I hope the advice that the right hon. Gentleman has given to his son on how he sits his SATs includes doing his revision and his homework, because I sat open-mouthed as the right hon. Gentleman unveiled his latest position on free schools. It is very different from the answer he gave on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 10 October when he was asked:

“So you are against free schools?”

and he said, “Yes I am”; very different from the answer he gave in The Guardian on 9 November when he said that under Labour

“there would be no more free schools”;

and very different from the answer he gave on 31 January when he said:

“Free schools mean a free-for–all”.

Over the past year, he has been consistently opposed to free schools, and now he says he is in favour—

Vocational Education

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to a make a statement on the next stage of this coalition Government’s radical reform programme to make opportunity more equal. I should like to outline our response to Professor Alison Wolf’s groundbreaking report on vocational education. In her work, Professor Wolf stresses the importance of fundamental reform across the board to improve state education, and I would first like to update the House on our progress towards that goal.

It is a year to the day since the new Department for Education was created to raise standards for all children and narrow the gap between rich and poor. In that year: we have introduced a pupil premium—£2.5 billion of additional spending on the poorest pupils; we have extended the free provision of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds and introduced free nursery education for all disadvantaged two-year-olds; we have launched the most comprehensive review ever of care for children with special needs; we have overhauled child protection rules to ensure that social workers are better able to help the most vulnerable children; we have allowed all schools to use the high-quality exams which the last Government restricted to the private sector; we are ensuring that spelling, punctuation and grammar are properly recognised in exams; we have recruited Simon Schama and Niall Ferguson to restore proper narrative history teaching; and we are doubling the number of great graduates becoming teachers through Teach First and doubling the number of great heads becoming national leaders of education.

We have also created more than 400 new academies, tripling the number we inherited and creating more academies in 12 months than the last Government did in 12 years. I can confirm to the House today that we have now received more than 1,000 applications from schools wishing to become academies and more than 300 applications to set up free schools, many from great teachers such as the inspirational head teacher Patricia Sowter, and the former Downing street aide Peter Hyman.

Those achievements have been made possible by the united strength of two parties with a shared commitment to social mobility working together, and I wish to take this opportunity to underline my thanks, for the part they have played in pushing this programme forward, to the Deputy Prime Minister, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), to the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children and families, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). It is my personal hope that we will all be able once more to make use of his talents in the country’s service before too long.

We will be building on the momentum generated by our reform programme by today accepting all the recommendations in Professor Wolf’s report on vocational education. She found that although there are many great vocational education courses and institutions providing excellent vocational education that are heavily oversubscribed, hundreds of thousands of young people are taking qualifications that have little or no value. That is because: the system is overly complex; after years of micro-management and mounting bureaucratic costs, it is also hugely expensive; and there are counter-productive and perverse incentives that steer students into inferior courses. In short, the damaging system of vocational education that we inherited is failing young people and must be changed now before the prospects of generations of young people are further blighted.

Securing our country’s future relies upon us developing our own world-class education system, from which young people graduate with not only impeccable qualifications and deep subject knowledge, but the real practical and technical skills they need to succeed. This Government support high-quality vocational education not just for its utility; vocational education is valuable in its own right. It is part of the broad and balanced curriculum that every pupil should be able to enjoy. It allows young people to develop their own special craft skills, to experience the satisfaction of technical accomplishment, and to expand what they know, understand and can do. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has repeatedly and eloquently argued, we need to elevate the practical and treat vocational education not, as it has been seen in the past, as an inferior route for the less able, but as an aspirational path for those with specific aptitudes. That is why we are taking immediate steps to rebuild the currency of vocational qualifications.

As recommended by Professor Wolf, we have reinstated several qualifications which lead to professional success, for example, certificates in electrical engineering and plumbing, which we know are highly valued by schools and colleges, and are admired by employers. Because we know that the current set of qualifications does not meet all needs, we will work with awarding bodies and others to ensure that more high-quality courses are available for students of all levels.

Because we know that the current league table system does not reward the progress made by students of all abilities, we will reform league tables to recognise the achievements of the lowest and highest-achieving. And because we know that not all qualifications are equal, we will further reform the league tables to guarantee that vocational qualifications are given a proper weighting. Their value will no longer be inflated in a way that encourages students to pursue inappropriate courses, or overlooked in a way that unbalances achievement.

Because we know the current funding system creates perverse incentives, we will reform it. At the moment, schools and colleges are incentivised to offer lower-grade qualifications that are easier to pass because they get paid on those results. That must end. The dumbing-down of the past has got to stop if the next generation are to succeed. Students should choose the qualifications they need to succeed, not those that bureaucracies deem appropriate.

However, while choice in the qualifications market is crucial, there are certain inescapable facts in the labour market that no student can ignore. Employers rightly insist that students be properly literate and numerate. They remind us that there are no more important vocational subjects than English and maths. As Professor Wolf’s report lays bare, huge numbers of students leave education without proper qualifications in those areas, making it increasingly hard for them to secure jobs. This Government will put an end to that by ensuring that all 16 to 18-year-olds who were unable to secure at least a C in English and maths at GCSE will continue to study those subjects through to age 19.

The best performing education systems not only offer a strong grounding in the basics such as English and maths, but ensure a good general education that cements the ability to reason, to assess evidence, to absorb knowledge and to adapt to new opportunities. In this fast-changing world, few 16-year-olds know exactly what they will be doing at the age of 21, let alone when they are 25, 35 or 45, so we need to ensure that every 18-year-old has followed a broad programme of study and has a core academic knowledge that provides a secure foundation from which to progress. That is why Professor Wolf backs our English baccalaureate as a springboard to future success in a rapidly changing world and stresses that it gives students the maximum freedom to choose between academic and vocational pathways throughout their life.

We know that the most prestigious vocational pathways require a rounded school education as preparation. Professor Wolf’s report underlines that some of the best vocational education in the world exists in our private sector apprenticeship programmes. The best are massively oversubscribed. BT typically has 15,000 applicants for 100 places each year. Rolls-Royce has 10 applicants for every place and Network Rail is similarly oversubscribed. There is far greater competition for some of these courses than there is for places at Oxford or Cambridge.

We want to ensure that all employers get the support they need to offer high quality apprenticeships. The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning is working to reduce the bureaucracy that employers face and to ensure that every penny spent by Government and employers on apprenticeships can be used to the very best effect, including by studying best practice with similar schemes around the world.

Professor Wolf emphasised the need for clear routes for progression, but also for greater flexibility within them. She was right to do so. We will consider what further programmes of study are needed, alongside the general educational component, to give 16 to 18-year-olds the broad education they need.

For more than a century, there have been numerous, failed attempts to reform vocational education. It is now more important than ever that we finally bring an end to the two-tier education system that has scarred our country for too long. Professor Wolf’s report, together with wider reforms like the fantastic university technical colleges being pioneered by Lord Baker, sets out a clear map of what we need to do. I am delighted that Professor Wolf has agreed to continue to provide regular and ongoing advice to Government as we implement her recommendations. I cannot think of anyone better qualified to help us offer young people the genuine and high-quality technical education they have been too long denied. I commend this statement to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am pleased that he has managed to join us today. We touched on many similar themes yesterday in an enjoyable and lively discussion. I hope that, in preparing his statement today, he has had time to catch up on it.

We devote a great deal of time to higher education, but much less to improving opportunities for young people who do not plan to go to university. I have long advocated redressing that balance and it is now an urgent imperative in view of the Government’s changes to higher education.

As I said when the report was published, I find much to welcome in Professor Wolf’s vision for higher-quality vocational education. I agree with some aspects of what the Secretary of State has said today, particularly the commitment to ensuring that every young person reaches a decent level of proficiency in English and maths before they leave school and that all programmes of study lead to progression. I also welcome efforts to simplify the system and qualifications in vocational education to make it easier for young people to navigate their way through.

Professor Wolf recommends the adoption of multiple measures of school performance, echoing the moves we made in government towards a balanced school report card approach. The Secretary of State has accepted that today, in speaking of his promise to reform league tables to create new performance management measures in addition to the English baccalaureate. I will give careful consideration to the measures he brings forward, but I gently warn him that his plans to measure students at the top and the bottom already sound complex. Is he not in danger of recreating in another form a complex target regime of the type of which he complained so frequently when he was in opposition? Will not teachers’ hearts sink when they hear that there are to be more targets? Will they not question whether he is delivering on the autonomy to get on and teach that he promised them? Will he give us an assurance that he will consult teachers before dropping any new performance management measure on them, as he did with the English baccalaureate?

Even with a range of measures in force, Professor Wolf’s report rightly warns of the consequences if a single performance measure becomes dominant. Let me quote from her report, which said that there

“remains a serious risk that schools will simply ignore their less academically successful pupils. This was a risk with the old five GCSEs measure; a risk with the English baccalaureate; and will be a risk with a measure based on selected qualifications. It needs to be pre-empted.”

Rather than pre-empt this risk, however, did not the Secretary of State pre-empt the Wolf report by presenting his English baccalaureate as the “gold standard” for schools?

Schools are clearly seeing it that way. Why otherwise are we seeing music, RE and arts teachers being made redundant right here, right now? Why otherwise are we seeing students under pressure from schools to switch subjects halfway through their courses or to take courses that they do not really want to do, diminishing their choice? This is becoming the dominant headline measure against which all schools and students are judged. The Secretary of State needs more convincing answers on how he plans to stop that happening.

More broadly, has not this highly prescriptive league table measure, and its arbitrary subject selection, already damaged the deliverability of Professor Wolf’s vision by relegating vocational learning to second-division status in the public mind and in the minds of schools? The Secretary of State mentioned a two-tier system, but is that not precisely what this Government are creating—an elitist, two-tier system in which parents have fewer rights on admissions, making it more difficult for them to get their children into good schools? The parent voice is diminished. Creative and practical subjects are crucial to the quality vocational education that Professor Wolf advocates, but they are already a devalued currency in our schools because of the Secretary of State’s actions. Where is the creativity in his English baccalaureate? Student choice has been affected by the subject choice in the bac.

I say again to the Secretary of State that it is time he thought again about the English baccalaureate and allowed more breadth, flexibility and choice so that it caters for the talents of all students? A school system that works for everyone cannot be designed around the requirements of the Russell group. With 103 Members calling for RE at the very least to be added to the baccalaureate, is it not now time for another of the Secretary of State’s famous U-turns?

The deliverability of Professor Wolf’s vision is also affected by some of the Secretary of State’s actions in other areas. Professor Wolf rightly stresses the importance of a quality careers service to inform young people about their options—surely even more important in a world where young people are struggling to make their way. Yet as we speak, the careers service in England is simply melting away. We welcome the vision of an all-age careers service, but we ask again today: where is the long-promised transition plan to deliver it? That is yet another example of the Secretary of State’s trademark incompetence.

Given that careers advisers are being made redundant now, how will the Secretary of State secure the quality of service that Professor Wolf demands? Yesterday, we sought to amend his Bill to give young people a guarantee of face-to-face guidance in our schools. At a time when youth unemployment is at a record high and access to further and higher education is becoming more difficult, is not the web and telephony-based service proposed by the Government completely inadequate to the scale of the task?

The Government mouth platitudes about social mobility, as the Secretary of State did today, but they are systematically kicking away the ladders of support that help young people to get on in life. More young people in further education colleges on vocational courses are receiving education maintenance allowance than those in school sixth-form colleges, and they need that money to buy equipment for their courses. Will not the scrapping of the EMA hit those young people disproportionately hard, and, again, make Professor Wolf’s vision hard to deliver? Colleges and students are four months away from the start of the academic year, and are still none the wiser about what they will receive under the Secretary of State’s replacement scheme. Not for the first time, he has taken a successful policy and turned it into a shambles. Is it not time to listen to no less an organisation than the OECD, and reinstate the EMA scheme? Without it, how will the Secretary of State’s commitment to raising the school leaving age become a reality?

Professor Wolf’s report raises issues that go to the heart of the need to secure the prosperity of our country and a decent future for our young people, but by their actions the Government are taking hope away from our young people. Unless they change course quickly—on curriculum reform, the careers service, EMA and university fees—the Government’s legacy will be a lost generation of young people.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his response, and welcome him back to the Dispatch Box, on day release from his other job as Labour’s election co-ordinator. May I say how much we on the Government Benches are enjoying the progress he is making in that job? From Dartford and Dover to Aberconwy and Pembrokeshire, from North Lincolnshire to Southampton, Conservative councillors who won last Thursday are delighted with the progress he is making, and so are we. The longer he stays in that role, the happier all of us will be.

May I also welcome the fact that, when the right hon. Gentleman returned to his part-time role as shadow Education Secretary, he found time to endorse many of our recommendations? I welcome the support he has given to our aims of improving numeracy and literacy and ensuring that students over the age of 16 who have not secured GCSE passes in English and maths have an opportunity to acquire appropriate qualifications in those subjects.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a good question about multiple measures and the importance of ensuring that we do not create an accountability system that is too complex, but as he himself acknowledged and as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, there must be a golden mean between having so many targets that teachers are pulled in different directions, and having only one target that distorts the performance of all schools. I believe that the balanced basket of accountability targets that we are introducing reflects what teachers believe—namely, that all students of all abilities need to have their achievements recognised, that the autonomy should be over how schools teach and how the school day is organised, and that in return for greater autonomy there should be sharper accountability.

Talking of sharper accountability, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the English baccalaureate. He seemed to suggest—or, at least, seemed to want to lead the House to believe—that Professor Wolf was unhappy with it. On Saturday 12 March Professor Wolf wrote in The Guardian:

“Andy Burnham… is quoted as saying”

that she had said there was

“a ‘serious risk’ that the English bac will lead to schools ‘simply ignoring’ less academically able students. This misrepresents what I said.”

She also wrote:

“For the record, may I also note that the English bac subjects would normally absorb less than 80% of a teaching week. Both it and many other ‘academic’ clusters are therefore perfectly compatible with my recommendations for curriculum balance for 14 to 16-year-olds.”

Professor Wolf deserves better than to be traduced in that way by the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman also referred to careers advice. Let me politely point out to him that the person appointed to lead on social mobility for the previous Government, Alan Milburn, said that we should move away from the failed connection system and adopt a new approach, giving

“Schools and colleges… direct responsibility for providing information, advice and guidance”.

Moreover, Professor Alison Wolf pointed out in evidence to the Select Committee that the “problem with careers guidance” had been the model that the right hon. Gentleman prefers: a model that was stuck in the past, with “one poor teacher” being expected to know about everything. That, she said, had been supplanted by a more modern measure enabling skilled careers advisers and “proper, online, updated information” to provide students with the right answers.

I am afraid that, not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has been found out in his old Labour ways. He has been in office for 200 days. During that time he said that our academies programme would be divisive, but more than 1,000 great teachers have embraced it. He said that free schools would generate poverty and dislocation, but the best and brightest in Labour are now embracing their radical appeal. Today he has said that the coalition Government have got it wrong on vocational education. Given his record, I am delighted to find the right hon. Gentleman sitting opposite me today.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

QPR, as it happens, but I admire Liverpool, and particularly Kenny Dalglish. [Interruption.] We are top of the league, you know.

Another gloomy prediction was made by Labour Members, but it has not come to pass—that of a double-dip recession. That was the mantra at the top of the Labour party, from the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour election co-ordinator, whatever his name is. The news today, however, is that our economy is growing once more—another gloomy prediction confounded.

We also heard a series of gloomy predictions from Labour Members about what would happen to the network of Sure Start children’s centres in this country. We were told by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) that we would see a reduction in the number of children’s centres in Hammersmith and Fulham, but actually, as the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) almost acknowledged, not only are all the existing Sure Start children’s centres being protected but a new one is being built. There is an increase in the number of Sure Start children’s centres in Hammersmith and Fulham.

The right hon. Member for Leigh told us halfway through his speech that Hampshire was going to close all its children’s centres. Sadly, that slur—[Interruption.] It was a slur. That slur on Hampshire county council was very effectively rebutted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage). The council is ensuring that every single children’s centre will remain open. The right hon. Gentleman did not have the grace to acknowledge either that it was a Conservative local authority that was keeping them open or that he had got it wrong. I admire his passion, but he must get his facts right before he comes to the Dispatch Box and attempts to tarnish the good name of an effective local authority that is doing a great job for children and young people.

In a spirit of generosity, I have to say that a great many Labour local authorities are doing a good job and ensuring that Sure Start children’s centres remain open. There are also Liberal Democrat local authorities doing a good job. One of the most disappointing things about the right hon. Gentleman’s speech was his attack on the Liberal Democrats, which I felt was mean-minded and beneath him. I understand that as an election co-ordinator, with just a week to go before he shores up the Labour vote that is collapsing in Scotland and evanescent elsewhere, he has to pick what he thinks is an easy target, but he has picked the wrong target.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, with whom I do not always agree, was right when he said that Liberal Democrat authorities were keeping all their Sure Start children’s centres open. We can look at what is happening in Kingston upon Hull, where all the centres are remaining open and services are being delivered from all of them. The same is true in Kingston upon Thames. The Liberal Democrat councillors in those authorities represent a party that I would not vote for, but they are doing the job a darned sight better than the Labour councillors who used to run Hull when it was the worst local authority in the country according to the Audit Commission. It is now the most improved.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

Talking of room for improvement, I give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andy Burnham]

Before we leave this matter, let us get to the bottom of the point about Hampshire. There was clearly a change of heart yesterday—[Interruption.] Will the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), hear me out? If there was a change of heart, the news had not reached me, and I welcome it. However, we must ask, a change of heart to what? The Sure Start budget there is going from £17 million to £11 million, a 35% cut. Is the Secretary of State applauding Hampshire for making a cut on that scale? He has just applauded the local authority and invited me to do the same. Is he saying that such a cut to Sure Start is acceptable and that the local authority should be applauded for cutting the service by more than a third?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman has not misled the House—he never misleads the House—but I am afraid that he has got himself in what we call in Scotland “a bit of a fankle”. He asserted that Hampshire was going to cut children’s centres, and then he was caught short by the facts. I know that he has more respect for the House than to want to put himself in a position of having inaccurate facts in front of him, so all he needs to do, as graciously as is his natural custom, is acknowledge that Hampshire is keeping its children’ centres open and congratulate it on that.

One reason why Hampshire, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kingston upon Hull, Kingston upon Thames and many other Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, as well as Labour ones, can keep their Sure Start children’s centres open is that there is enough money. I can make that assertion because of the evidence that has been put forward by two of the people who have the best understanding of the early years. Anne Longfield OBE, chief executive of 4Children, has said that the Government are

“continuing to provide adequate funding to keep centres open and councils should resist the temptation to use this money to plug gaps elsewhere.”

Anand Shukla, the acting chief executive of the Daycare Trust, has said:

“The Government has allocated sufficient funding for the existing network of Sure Start Children’s Centres to be maintained”.

The money is there—independent witnesses say so—and well-run local authorities all over the country, represented by councillors of different parties, are maintaining that network. Therefore, every single plank of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument has collapsed beneath him, and I have been on my feet for only six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I believe that money additional to the early intervention grant has been budgeted for to cover the years 2012-13 to 2013-14, and we are currently discussing with the sector how to ensure that the money is spent most effectively. Rather than having a top-down approach to delivering support for children in the early years, we need to work in partnership, not just with local government, where there are many brilliant leaders, but with those in the voluntary and charitable sector who have a huge amount to add.

I mentioned Anand Shukla and Anne Longfield, but I am also very grateful to people such as Bernadette Duffy, who runs the Thomas Coram children’s centre, which has helped the coalition Government to move forward in developing a framework to ensure that children in the foundation years receive the support that they really need. For example, all of them have worked with us on the response to the report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the interim report produced by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). In both reports a compelling case was made—this argument was also made eloquently in the first half of the speech by the right hon. Member for Leigh—that investment and the right interventions in the earliest years can have a dramatic effect in closing the opportunity gap that has grown up in this country.

All of us will have been struck by some of the figures released by the coalition Government and analysed by the Financial Times this week that show that social mobility in this country is still not moving in the right direction. In particular, we see evidence in some of our most deprived areas of children who have not reached an acceptable level of child development by the age of five. In those deprived areas, children who are falling behind continue to do so. I want to ensure that as much as possible we have a cross-party approach to dealing with that problem. Again I have to say that steps were taken by the Deputy Prime Minister, in the launch of his social mobility strategy, to outline exactly what we need to do to tackle these problems. All of his suggestions, particularly the emphasis on intervention at every stage in the life cycle and the prioritisation of early years, would seem to commend themselves to people of good will in every party.

[Andy Burnham]

I want to make it clear that I welcome some of the steps that the right hon. Gentleman is taking, particularly on two-year-olds, which builds on something that we were talking about. However, I want to ask him a serious question. I am listening carefully to what he is saying, and he is itemising some of the individual things that the Government are dong, but I want to know about the big picture so that I can understand his position on Sure Start. He talked about how Sure Start will develop in the future. A simple question: does he envisage Sure Start as a targeted service or a universal service?

[Michael Gove]

I envisage Sure Start as a universal service. [Interruption.] Second question? It is an interview. I almost feel like I am on “The Andrew Marr Show”—I will come to him in a moment. I believe that Sure Start is a universal service, but it is also important to recognise that there are children in greater need on whom we should target greater resources. The original Sure Start programme started out targeting areas with the greatest need, and subsequently, as it moved to phase 3, it became universal. Even within that, it is an example of what one might call “progressive universalism”. Yes, the service is there for all, and yes we recognise that disadvantages exist, even in some of our apparently wealthier communities. That is why the service should be universal. Nevertheless, we know that there are areas of real deprivation, such as the constituency that the right hon. Gentleman represents, and we need to ensure that our resources and energy are targeted in that area.

Post-16 Education Funding

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to a make a statement on education after the age of 16.

Today’s statement builds on the work of my colleagues such as the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), the original architect of the pupil premium; the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has secured additional funding for reform of early years and special needs provision; my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has been leading the coalition’s radical programme of work on social mobility; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), whose work as advocate for access to education has been driven by the ethical imperative of making opportunity more equal.

All of us know that an increasingly competitive world economic environment means that our children need to be better educated than ever. Sadly, however, we have been falling behind other nations in our educational performance. The OECD has reported that despite sharply rising school spending over the past 10 years, England has slipped down the international rankings from fourth to 16th for science, from seventh to 25th for literacy and from eighth to 28th for mathematics. Last month, in a new report, the OECD revealed that we have one of the most unequal education systems in the developed world. We have a system of education spending that is fundamentally inefficient, and we have an insufficient supply of high-quality vocational education.

The OECD’s challenge is underlined by the conclusions of Professor Alison Wolf’s report on vocational education. Professor Wolf has revealed that nearly half of school leavers never secure five decent GCSEs including English and maths, and that many of the qualifications that they currently secure are not respected by employers and colleges. The case for reform that she makes is unanswerable. We cannot carry on with a vocational education system that is broken, and we are determined to ensure that we have a technical education system that is among the world’s best.

Action has already been taken by my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning. The number of new apprentices taken on in the last quarter was 54,000, 8% up on last year, and I expect that number to rise further in the months ahead. More young people are being trained for work, and the number of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 not in education, employment or training actually fell by 15,000 in the last quarter of last year. However, we know that more needs to be done. In particular, action needs to be taken to reduce bureaucracy. That is why my hon. Friend will be working with me in the months ahead to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to hire apprentices, so that we can ensure that the next generation enjoys opportunities that were denied the last.

Critically, we know that the biggest determinant of whether students can stay on is their attainment at the age of 16, and specifically whether they secure good GCSEs in subjects that universities and employers value. So to raise attainment, especially among poorer students, we have radically extended our academies programme, introduced a new, more aspirational measure of performance, the English baccalaureate, and are investing an additional £2.5 billion in the pupil premium for students who are in school to the age of 16. Today I can confirm that, building on the pupil premium, we will introduce additional funding for the education of students over the age of 16 who stay on at school and college.

We are already increasing funding for post-16 education next year to more than £7.5 billion, which is equivalent to more than 1.5 million places in schools, colleges and training. Within that £7.5 billion, £770 million is being spent on supporting the education of disadvantaged 16 to 18-year-olds. That is £150 million more than would previously have been available to schools and colleges specifically for the education of the most disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds. Nearly 550,000 young people will benefit from that student premium.

As we plan for more students to stay on, so we must reform how we fund the institutions that educate young people over the age of 16. I will therefore consult on a fairer funding formula for all schools and colleges in the sector. Already, thanks to the measures taken by the coalition Government, there will be more places in schools and colleges for students, particularly those who want a high-quality technical and vocational education. Because of the steps that we have taken to reduce waste and remove inefficiencies, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer released in the Budget another £125 million to build new schools and colleges in England. We will double the number of university technical colleges planned from 12 to 24, and we will work with leading figures in industry and commerce to create a new generation of 16-to-19 technical academies that will support the growth industries of the future.

All schools should have the ability to benefit from a closer engagement with business, so I have today asked Bob Wigley, the chair of the Education and Employers Taskforce, to bring forward proposals that will allow every school to develop a link with local businesses through engagement with volunteer governors.

However, we must also ensure that no young person is prevented from staying in education or training for financial reasons. The education maintenance allowance was used by the previous Government to provide an incentive for young people to stay on, and it led to a small increase in overall participation, but as a report commissioned by the previous Government pointed out, there are real questions as to whether it is socially just to pay 45% of students a cash incentive to stay in learning when we could concentrate our resources on removing the barriers to learning faced by the poorest.

The social justice case for reform has already been made—by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), when he was Education Secretary in the previous Labour Government. He said in 2007 that the EMA was an incentive that

“we will not be using”

in future. Instead, he argued, a Labour Government would need to “divert that” EMA “money into other areas”.

“What we will need to do”,

he argued on behalf of the Blair Government, is

“offer…assistance to youngsters…from poorer backgrounds”,

which is precisely what I propose to do.

Today, I can announce the shape of the new, more targeted, student support scheme that we pledged to introduce last autumn. We have consulted extensively to ensure that we support those most in need, and I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark for the work that he has done to help to secure a progressive solution.

The Government have already ensured that every household in which the family are not on the higher rate of tax, and where children stay on in school after the age of 16, will receive increased child benefit, and today I propose to increase the amount of support that we give to the most vulnerable. Twelve thousand students, those in care, care leavers and those receiving income support, including the severely disabled, should in future all receive an annual bursary of £1,200 if they stay on in education—more every year than they ever received under EMA.

I also propose that those most in need who are currently in receipt of EMA be protected. All young people who began courses in 2009-10 and who were told that they should receive EMA will still receive their weekly payments. Young people who started courses in the 2010-11 academic year and received the maximum weekly payment of £30 should now receive weekly payments of at least £20 until the end of the next academic year.

In addition, those students will be eligible for support from an entirely new post-16 bursary scheme. Our scheme will help to ensure that the costs of travel, food and equipment for poorer students are properly met, so that no one is prevented from participating through poverty. One hundred and eighty million pounds will be available for that bursary fund, which is enough to ensure that every child eligible for free school meals who chooses to stay on could be paid £800 per year—more than many receive under the current EMA arrangements.

Schools and colleges will have the freedom to decide on the allocation of the bursary. They are best placed to know the specific needs of their students, and we will give professionals full flexibility over allocating support. We will now consult on the implementation of the new scheme, so that allocations can be made for the new arrangements to come into effect from this September.

In these extremely difficult economic times, the coalition Government are prioritising the reform and investment we need across the education system. We are providing more investment in the early years to tackle entrenched poverty; tougher action to turn around underperforming schools; more investment in improving the quality of teaching, especially for the most disadvantaged; higher standards for all children at every stage, to get more going on to college and into fulfilling jobs; more academies to extend opportunity across the country; sharper accountability for how every penny is spent and how every pupil is taught; and more autonomy for all professionals, so that we can compete with the best.

We must ensure that we at last have a world-class education system in the decade ahead, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On Saturday, thousands of young people came out on to the streets to speak out against the unfair decisions of this Secretary of State. On the “Today” programme, he was dismissive of their actions:

“Evan Davis: Will the march, however big it is, change your mind about any aspect of this cuts agenda? Michael Gove: No.”

Given that so many people no longer have any faith in a word he says, perhaps it is entirely to be expected that he is here, just 48 hours later, announcing a humiliating climbdown. I do not think that we can dignify today’s announcement with the word U-turn. He has taken a successful policy that improved participation, attendance and achievement in post-16 education, and turned it into a total shambles.

I will remind the House of the background. Before the election, both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister made personal promises to young people that the EMA would stay. Even after the election, the schools Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), pledged to keep it. Then, out of nowhere, the Secretary of State cut it by 90%, and today, under pressure, he tries to put a positive gloss on a 60% cut. Whatever he says, that is what it is—a successful scheme praised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and leading economists cut by two thirds. Young people have seen through this and will not be taken in by this Secretary of State.

The truth is that with his confused decision making, the Secretary of State has already thrown into chaos thousands of young lives. Even today, many will be none the wiser about their futures. I will take three issues. First, on the money, I have a simple question: where is it coming from? How much is coming from elsewhere in the education budget? Will this announcement not cause chaos elsewhere? Is it true that he is cutting the careers service even further to pay for it—a service already in meltdown thanks to the complete failure of Ministers to manage the transition to a new service? If new money is being provided by the Treasury, how much and why was it not announced in last week’s Budget?

Secondly, on the numbers who will benefit, the Secretary of State claims that the poorest 12,000 students will receive more than under the current scheme. What he did not say is that it amounts to 77p a week more. What has he got to say to the other 588,000 young people who stand to lose over £1,000 a year and to whom he gave a personal promise that they would keep this support? On the Opposition day debate, he stood at that Dispatch Box and promised that his new scheme would help with travel costs and equipment, and provide help for young parents, carers, those leaving care and young people with learning disabilities. Can he today assure the House that all of those promises are met by this announcement? What about the estimated 300,000 first-year students in the middle of a two-year course? He knows that a legal opinion obtained by the Labour party showed that these students had a strong case against the Secretary of State. Is it not the case that today’s partial climbdown was only prompted by the threat of legal action and the panic realisation that he was at risk of yet another reverse in the courts?

Thirdly, on how this scheme will work, we welcome the Secretary of State’s climbdown on keeping a national automatic payment system for about 2% of current recipients. Is it not the case, however, that under his proposed scheme more than half a million young people will no longer have any guarantee of the level of support they can expect? Does not that lack of clarity in this new scheme run the same risk of thousands of young people walking away from education altogether? The fact is that his proposals fail to build on the strengths of the current system. Is it not the case that college principals and senior staff will be spending a huge amount of their time administering this fund and will be placed in the invidious position of having to make impossible decisions between equally deserving claims for support? Will there be any national criteria for eligibility and, if not, are we looking at an unfair postcode lottery?

Will the new scheme replicate the weekly conditional payments that have helped to boost attainment and stay-on rates? Five months ago the Secretary of State made a decision that dropped a bombshell on young people in this country, and we are told today that there will now be a further period of consultation—more consultation! Young people are facing a difficult enough future, but still they do not know what financial support they will get. We are five months away from the start of the academic year, yet people working in education do not have the precise details.

This is yet another shambles from a Secretary of State who lurches from one disaster to another: Building Schools for the Future, school sport partnerships, Bookstart and now EMA. The pattern is always the same—a snap decision, no consultation, no evidence to support it and then a grass-roots backlash as his policy unravels before our eyes. It is becoming ever clearer that this is a Secretary of State out of his depth—who has not worked out the difference between being a journalist and being a Minister, and whose shortcomings have been cruelly exposed in office. His transformation is indeed a remarkable one—from the Tory golden boy to the coalition Mr Bean.

But the danger with this Secretary of State is that his incompetence is having a direct effect on the hopes and dreams of thousands of young people. Even after today’s announcement, with universities lining up to charge the full £9,000 in fees and youth unemployment at record levels, thousands of young people will still have to downgrade their ambitions, leave their studies and give up hope of a university education. Is that not a damning indictment of any Secretary of State for Education?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those questions. I am grateful for his reference to people being out of their depth—I will of course acknowledge his expertise in this area. I am also grateful to him on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills for once more recycling the Mr Bean joke—the copyright on that joke will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman enjoys a successful and happy retirement in years ahead.

The first question that the right hon. Gentleman asked was: where is the money coming from? The answer is that the money for all public spending comes from the taxpayer. It was on his watch that the taxpayer got a spectacularly bad deal from a Government who spent every penny and left this coalition Government with a difficult economic inheritance. He asked whether the money would be allocated by discretionary means. I pointed out in my statement that it absolutely will. He argued that college principals would face an invidious decision, but he must know that it was the Association of Colleges that argued that the new fund should be put in place on discretionary principles. Perhaps he should consult college principals before claiming to speak on their behalf.

The right hon. Gentleman accused the coalition at one point of engaging in no consultation, and of having too much at another. There was no consistency at all in the questions that he asked. There has been a certain consistency in his position in one area, however, and that is his consistent refusal to state what his alternative would be. The truth is that Labour does not have a policy on this issue or any other education issue. We know what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle thought: he said that we should divert money from the EMA to the poorest. We know what the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) thought: that we should divert money from child benefit to pay for EMA. However, we do not know what the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) thinks, beyond believing that students should have money to go out for drinks with friends.

We do not know how the right hon. Gentleman would pay for his alternative to our proposal, because he has opposed every saving that we have made. We do not know what he thinks people should be studying when they are not going out, because he has opposed every reform to raise standards. He has no policies on education other than blanket opposition. No wonder he did not join the march for an alternative on Saturday—he does not have one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I shall specifically ask whether an official from Partnerships for Schools can visit the hon. Lady’s constituency, at a time that is convenient to her and to the staff of the school, in order to see what can be done.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

We found out last week that Education Ministers were the worst in Whitehall at answering parliamentary questions, with 496 questions unanswered. Given some of the non-replies we have heard today, they might well have just hit the 500 mark, so let me give the Secretary of State an easy one. We read last week that the Government’s advocate for access to education, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is negotiating with the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to secure more money for the replacement for education maintenance allowance. Assuming that the Secretary of State has been kept informed of those discussions, would he care to give the House an update on progress?

[Michael Gove]

We are progressing very well in dealing with the problems that we were left by the previous Government, handling the deficit in our budget and the deficit in the number of students staying on after 16. I am pleased to say that we have already succeeded in securing more money for students after the age of 16, including £150 million more to help the most disadvantaged students who are staying on after 16. Participation is increasing, and we have managed to keep the number of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training—NEETs—to an acceptably low level in this time of difficult economic news. We have done all this even though we were bequeathed a drastic fiscal situation by the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a part.

[Andy Burnham]

After that reply, I make the running total 501. More money for students after the age of 16? I should be interested to know how the Secretary of State would back up that claim. The truth is that he is repeating tired old lines, which were blown apart last week by a letter from nine leading economists to The Guardian, in which they said that

“the EMA…is not a deadweight loss as the government claims…The argument that there is no alternative to scrapping EMA is false.”

With youth unemployment at record levels, with fear rising of a lost generation, will the Secretary of State admit that he was wrong on EMA? Will he perform another of his famous U-turns and keep his party’s promises to young people?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he should pay attention. It was pointed out at the time of the comprehensive spending review that we were spending more money on post-16 education. It is interesting that he should mention letters to The Guardian, because the one to which he refers was concocted by nine Labour-supporting economists as part of the save the EMA campaign, which is fronted by a Labour researcher, and is nothing more than a party political exercise.

If we are talking about letters to The Guardian, I recently read one from Professor Alison Wolf, who conducted a review of vocational education. She pointed out two things: first, hundreds of thousands of children were betrayed by the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, because they were forced to take inadequate vocational qualifications. She also pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was—

Building Schools for the Future

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[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?

Education Bill

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

[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.

--- 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—

--- 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

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 ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[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—

School Sports Funding

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I noticed that when my hon. Friend made that impassioned contribution coalition Members laughed, because they have no understanding of what happened to communities such as his and mine in the 1990s, when the coal industry social welfare organisation tried to protect some of those facilities. Some are still there, but not all of them. Coalition Members have no understanding of the role of sport and how hard communities in former mining areas have fought to keep their sports provision.

There was a developing consensus, which was repeated just before the recent general election. A write-up of a Radio 5 Live debate appears on the Youth Sports Trust website and it says that, on school sport partnerships, Hugh Robertson said it would be wrong to dismantle “13 years of work” and, instead, “the party would build on” them. But that broad consensus has now been broken by the Secretary of State. School sport partnerships have joined a growing list of things that the Conservative party said it would protect in opposition, but has scrapped in government.

Let me make one thing clear: Labour Members would have understood if the Government had decided to reduce funding to school sport partnerships and the Youth Sport Trust, as long as they kept the basic school sport partnership infrastructure in place. What we are struggling with is having to accept the Secretary of State’s decision to remove 100% of their funding and demolish an entire infrastructure and proven delivery system that is improving children’s lives here and now. I cannot understand why he has done that.

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

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be happy to reduce central funding for the Youth Sport Trust and the curriculum and support for sport. Will he tell the House by how much?

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that I would have accepted a reduction in funding to school sport partnerships. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I said on the media a couple of weeks ago that I would have accepted a reduction proportionate to the reductions made around Government. It is for him to say how much would keep the school sport partnership system in place. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] How much are hon. Members offering?

[Michael Gove]

Proportionate? Is that proportion a half, a third, 75% or 60%? Until we have clarity from the right hon. Gentleman, all we will have is an empty offer.

[Andy Burnham]

I will accept a package that keeps the basic infrastructure in place and keeps school sports co-ordinators in their jobs. I have said that I will accept a reduction, but it is the Secretary of State’s job to put forward a package that does just that.

What the Secretary of State has done is a senseless act of vandalism defying all logic, leaving people speechless. The Australian sports commissioner has asked how this country could dismantle a “world-leading” school sport system. The chief executive of the Canadian Olympic committee has taken the unusual step of writing to the Secretary of State to ask how, months away from a home Olympics, we can have this wholesale change in sports policy. We have called this debate because we want the Government to listen, to change course and to protect a basic school sports structure before it breaks down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I want to make some progress.

I have mentioned the names of those who are lining up against the Government. They are not people who want to score points; they are fighting for something in which they passionately believe. Until now, the Government have dug in and patronised people with bogus statistics, but this is now turning into a real test for them. Are they prepared to listen and to change course?

Today, I am setting four clear objectives for the debate. The first is to probe the background to this decision. The second is to test the figures that the Government have used and to find out whether they stand by them. The third is to obtain clarity on what has happened to school sport funding. Fourthly, and most importantly, I want to make the Secretary of State a genuine offer that will help us to re-establish the consensus on school sports as we head towards a home Olympics.

Let me start with the decision-making process. We admire the erudition that the Secretary of State brings to our proceedings. Mr Lansley never quoted Dryden to me, and I really admired that about the Secretary of State for Education, but let me extend his cultural references today. How about Defoe? I know that he is thinking “Daniel”, but I want to know what he thinks about—

[Michael Gove]

Jermaine.

[Andy Burnham]

Thank you very much. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has been revising over the weekend. What does he think about the work that Spurs and other clubs do with schools? We never hear him talk about sport; let us hear him talk about it. And what does he think about Strauss? Is he thinking “Johann”? I think he was, actually, but I want to tempt him to talk about Andrew today, and about the excellent Chance to Shine initiative. I want to know that he knows about these things, and that he values them.

I also want to know what sport means to the right hon. Gentleman. Last week, he goaded me about my drama career at school. I have looked up his school sports career. It did not take long. One article on him mentions it:

“In 1979, he won a scholarship to Robert Gordon’s school in Aberdeen, where he spent the next seven years excelling in every subject, except sport.”

There was also a lovely quote from Mrs Gove, his mum:

“When he had finished all his school work, he would more or less revert to reading his encyclopaedia”.

[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] It is a lovely image, but it worried me. Did he ever use the encyclopaedia as a goalpost, or anything like that? Stumps? Anyway, that worried me a little. It also made me wonder—so inexplicable is his decision on this matter—whether this whole thing might be Gove’s revenge. I get the distinct impression that he harbours some unpleasant memories of his own sporting experiences at school, and that he is lashing out at the school sport system, now that he has the chance to do so. I hope that that is not the case, however.

I have an invitation for the right hon. Gentleman. Let us get our tracksuits and our trainers on—I will lend him some if he has not got any—and go to see the school sport co-ordinators in my constituency. The Children’s Minister can come, too. If the Secretary of State comes with me to meet the school sport co-ordinators in Wigan, and if he looks them in the eye and calls them a centralised bureaucracy, we shall see what is left of him afterwards.

I also want the Secretary of State to explain a mystery to me. Week after week, he addresses Members on both sides of the House with unfailing courtesy, but that courtesy seems to have deserted him in dealing with this row. Sue Campbell—Baroness Campbell of Loughborough —is a world authority on school sport. She has given a lifetime of energy and passion to the subject. Surely someone of such stature, with decades of service, should have earned at least a hearing. Will the Secretary of State explain why he refused the many requests from Lady Campbell and the Youth Sport Trust for him to discuss funding before the spending review? It really is not good enough. Why did the Secretary of State wait until the day of the spending review to send Lady Campbell a curt and dismissive letter dispensing with the services of the Youth Sport Trust? Why did a man who is so polite and courteous act in such a way?

That brings me to my second purpose today: to challenge the bogus claims that the Secretary of State and other Ministers are making. We have heard an incredible abuse of statistics as they have thrashed around trying to find an argument. Let us set the record straight on three claims. This is claim one. The Government have said that school sport partnerships are ineffective because in the

“last year the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds playing sport went down.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 259.]

The Government’s source for that is the “Taking Part” survey, which asks people in all age groups whether they have engaged in sport in the last seven days and in the last four weeks.

It is true that on the seven-day test the percentage of 11-to-15-year-olds engaging in active sport dropped from 88.8% to—wait for it—88%. That is a statistically negligible fall in a figure that has shot up since school sport partnerships were established. What the Government do not cite, however, is the four-week figure in the same survey. The percentage of 11-to-15-year-olds engaging in sport in the last four weeks rose from 96% to 96.7%, and, according to statisticians, that is the more important figure. It is estimated that in 2002 only 25% of young people engaged in two or more hours of competitive sport each week, whereas more than 90% do so now.

Let us now consider the survey that deals only with school sport, rather than the “Taking Part” survey. In each year group represented by 11 to 15-year-olds, the percentage engaging in at least three hours of sport each week has risen. In year 7, the rise was 59% this year, compared to 53% last year. In year 8, it was 54% compared to 50% last year. In year 9, it was 49% compared to 44% last year. In year 10, it was 45% compared to 42% last year. On the Government’s first claim, it is “case dismissed”.

The second claim is that there is not enough competitive sport, and that only one in five young people are playing it regularly against other schools. That is the claim that needles me most. I bow to no one in my support for competitive sport, having played it all my life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I shall come to some of those interventions in a second.

Every option that is proposed by the Opposition, whatever the passion or fervour behind it, has to have a price tag. In the middle of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the current delivery mechanism might not be as efficient as it could be and that there might be room for reduction. He said specifically that he would accept a cut or a proportionate reduction that would retain the infrastructure, so he acknowledges that it is perfectly possible to reduce spending and retain the infrastructure, but when I asked him how much of a cut and what would retain the infrastructure he was curiously silent. I would be very interested to hear from any of the Opposition Members who care so much about this—I do not doubt their passion—what level of cut they would contemplate and what they would consider to be a robust infrastructure to be kept in place. We have not had an answer on that.

[Andy Burnham]

If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared seriously to discuss retaining school sport partnerships, I will sit down with him and discuss at what level they could be kept in place and funded. The Opposition would support him if he put forward a figure that would keep them in place. If that is the offer he is making, I will sit down with him tonight to discuss it.

[Michael Gove]

I am always very grateful to sit down with the right hon. Gentleman, but he called this debate now. It is a debate of his timing, not mine, and he said in his opening remarks that he would be prepared to accept a cut. Now he has had an opportunity to state what that would be, but we do not know; there is silence on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady and the way that she makes her point. As I stressed earlier, and as her intervention gives me the opportunity to underline, there are many parts of the country where those who are working in school sports partnerships are doing a great job, but my task as Secretary of State is to analyse the current infrastructure and ensure that we are getting the maximum value for money, where good practice exists to support it, and where practice is less than optimal to try to find a way through to ensure that we have better value for money.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. We are still waiting for the answer to the question what is a proportionate reduction.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving a lot of encouraging signs that he is prepared to look at the system and make it more efficient. I am not arguing that it is perfect. Of course it could probably be made more efficient, but can we make some genuine progress? Will he sit down with me and discuss how we can keep in place enough people on the ground to provide a decent enough sporting offer to children? I will accept the reduction in the funding if he will agree to sit down and talk about the current structure, rather than creating a whole new and different structure that will not deliver for children.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that offer and I am always happy to work in a consensual way, but I should like to lay out some facts which will, I hope, allow the House to have an informed debate. I will take the opportunity, of course, to talk to him, formally or informally, at any point on any aspect of policy, but it is important that we appreciate that he has acknowledged that a proportionate reduction is appropriate. He has not yet come forward with what that proportionate reduction would be. Let us go on to examine the scope for reduction.

Schools White Paper

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to a make a statement to accompany today’s publication of the coalition Government’s White Paper on schools.

England is fortunate that we have so many great schools, so many superb teachers and so many outstanding head teachers. Their achievements deserve to be celebrated, and I was delighted that last week, the Prime Minister and I were able to meet hundreds of the very best school leaders in Downing street to congratulate them on their work and welcome their commitment to the academy programme.

We are fortunate indeed that our schools system has so many important strengths, but our commitment to making opportunity more equal means that we cannot shy away from confronting weaknesses. We are failing to keep pace with the world’s best-performing education nations. In the past 10 years we have slipped behind other nations, going from fourth in the world for science to 14th, seventh in the world for literacy to 17th and eighth in the world for mathematics to 24th.

At the same time, the gulf between the opportunities available to the rich and the chances given to the poor has grown wider. The gap between the A-level performance of children in independent schools and state schools doubled under Labour, and in the last year for which we have figures, out of a population of 80,000 children eligible for free school meals, just 40 made it to Oxford and Cambridge, a drop from the previous year, when just 45 made it. Social mobility went backwards under Labour, and it is the mission of this coalition Government to reverse that unhappy trend and to make opportunity more equal. Under this Government, we can become an aspiration nation once more.

If we are to make the most of the potential of every child, we need to learn from those countries that outperform us educationally and have more equal societies. This White Paper does just that. It takes the best ideas from the highest-performing education nations and applies them to our own circumstances.

The single most important lesson, which is reflected in the title of our White Paper, is the importance of teaching. The best schools systems recruit the best people to teach, train them intensively in the craft of teaching, continue to develop them as professionals throughout their career, groom natural leaders for headship positions and give great heads the chance to make a difference. That is why we will reform and improve teacher training by establishing a new generation of teaching schools, which will be based on the model of teaching hospitals. Outstanding schools will be showcases for the best in teaching practice. We will also invest in doubling the number of top graduates who enter teaching through Teach First, and will create a new programme, Teach Next, to attract into teaching high performers from other professions. We will subsidise graduates in strategic subjects such as science and maths to enter teaching and create a new troops-to-teachers programme to attract natural leaders from the armed forces into the classroom.

Because we know that the biggest barrier to recruiting and retaining good people in teaching is poor pupil behaviour, we will take decisive action on discipline. Unless order is maintained in the classroom, teachers cannot teach and children cannot learn, so we will make it easier for teachers to impose detentions on disruptive pupils by abolishing the rule that requires 24 hours’ notice before a detention is given.

We will give teachers stronger powers to search students if they bring items into school and are intent on disruption. We will give teachers clearer rules on the use of force and we will protect them from false allegations made by disruptive and vindictive pupils if they act to keep order.

We will support schools to introduce traditional blazer-and-tie uniforms, prefects and house systems. We will prioritise action to tackle bullying, especially racist and homophobic bullying, and we will make it easier for schools to exclude disruptive children without the fear of seeing excluded children reinstated over their heads. We will improve education for troubled young people by bringing in new organisations to run alternative provision for excluded pupils.

By improving behaviour, we can then free teachers to raise standards. We will reform our national curriculum so that it is a benchmark we can use to measure ourselves against the world’s best school systems instead of a straitjacket that stifles the creativity of our best teachers. We will slim down a curriculum that has become overloaded, over-prescriptive and over-bureaucratic by stripping out unnecessary clutter and simply specifying the core knowledge in strategic subjects that every child should know at each key stage. That will give great teachers more freedom to innovate and to inspire. We will support their drive to raise standards for all by reforming our exams. We will reform assessment in primary schools to reduce teaching to the test and we will make GCSEs more rigorous by stripping out modules. We will make GCSE performance tables more aspirational by judging schools on how well all students do not just in English and maths but in science, modern languages and the humanities, such as history and geography.

We will also reverse the previous Government’s decision to downgrade the teaching of proper English by restoring the recognition of spelling, punctuation and grammar in GCSEs. Because we know that it is great teaching and great teachers who improve schools, we will reduce the bureaucracy that holds them back and put teachers at the heart of school improvement.

We will double the number of national leaders of education—outstanding head teachers with a mission to turn round underperforming schools. We will raise the minimum standards expected of all schools, so primaries and secondaries that fail to get students to an acceptable level and fail to have students making decent progress will be eligible for intervention. We will make £110 million available to create a new endowment fund to turn these schools round, and we will introduce a reward scheme to make additional incentive payments available for great heads who turn round underperforming schools.

In our drive to improve all schools, local authorities will be our indispensable partners. They will play a new role as parents champion, making admissions fairer, so parents choose schools rather than schools choosing parents. They will act as a strong voice for the vulnerable by ensuring that excluded children and those with special needs are properly supported, and they will be energetic champions of educational excellence.

As more and more schools become increasingly autonomous, local authorities will increasingly step back from management and, instead, provide focused leadership. They will challenge underperformance, blow the whistle on weak schools and commission new provision—whether it be from other high-performing schools, academy sponsors or free school promoters.

The need for thoroughgoing reform is urgent. Our competitors are all accelerating the pace of their education reforms. From America to Singapore, New Zealand to Hong Kong, schools are being granted greater freedom, great teachers are being given more responsibilities, and exams are being made more rigorous. We cannot afford to be left behind.

In the last three years of the previous Government, reform went into reverse. Schools lost freedoms, the curriculum lost rigour and Labour lost its way. Now, under this coalition Government, we are once more travelling in the same direction as the most ambitious and progressive nations. Schools spending is rising, with more money for the poorest through the pupil premium; education reform is accelerating, with one new academy created every working day; and standards are being driven up, with teachers now supported to excel as never before.

The programme we outline today affirms the importance of teaching at the heart of our mission to make opportunity more equal. There is no profession more noble, no calling more vital and no vocation more admirable than teaching. This White Paper gives us the opportunity to become the world’s leading education nation, and I commend it to the House.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for his courtesy in allowing me advance sight of the White Paper? It is just a shame that that happened 10 days after the Financial Times and the rest of the nation’s media were given such advance sight, and that Parliament was the last to know. We were promised new politics, and it is time the Government lived up to their words.

I apply two clear tests to any education policy. First, will it help every school to be a good school? Secondly, will it help every child to be the best that they can be? While we welcome elements of this White Paper, I believe that it fails those fundamental tests. It is a plan for some children, not all children. The right hon. Gentleman will need to work hard to explain how his plan will not create a new generation of failing schools.

Let me say where I think the Secretary of State is moving in the right direction. We welcome the retention of a floor target for secondary schools and his apparent change of heart on the role of targets in raising standards—building on Labour’s successful national challenge programme. We welcome the expansion of Teach First, which we championed in government. Labour’s legacy, according to Ofsted, was

“the best generation of teachers ever”.

We share his aim to have the best in the world. We also support anonymity for teachers who face accusations from pupils and some of his moves on discipline.

However, the Secretary of State’s overall drive is towards a two-tier education system. I support his focus on maths, English and science, where take-up doubled since 2004, but by making the entire focus five academic subjects, is he encouraging schools to focus only on those children who have a chance of achieving that particular batch of GCSEs? Is not there a huge danger that he is cementing the divide between academic and vocational qualifications, which educational professionals have worked so hard to remove?

The risks of the Secretary of State’s English baccalaureate becoming the gold standard by which schools are judged have been highlighted by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which states:

“Schools will have an incentive to focus extra resources on children likely to do well in those subjects, rather than on children receiving free school meals.”

Is not there a real risk that his pupil premium will not be spent on the children for whom it is intended? At a time when we all need to focus more on the 50% of young people who do not plan to go to university, is it not the case that he has very little to say to them today? His message is that a vocational route is second best, and that is unacceptable.

Is there not a real danger that the combined effects of the Secretary of State’s announcements today will be to create a new generation of failing schools? Is it not the case that some improving schools will see themselves plummet down the league tables, damaging morale and risking throwing progress into reverse? Many of those are the same schools that suffered from his decisions on Building Schools for the Future. What hope can he give them today of extra support to raise standards for all their children, both academic and vocational?

The Secretary of State wants to make it easier for schools to exclude children, but who will have the responsibility of helping schools to pick up the pieces? Why is he ending the independent appeals panel for exclusions, which ensures fairness across a local education community? He has rightly placed a strong emphasis on teacher training, but is he not at risk of ignoring the advice of his experts? Ofsted said yesterday:

“There was more outstanding initial teacher education delivered by higher education-led partnerships than by school-centred initial teacher training partnerships and employment-based routes.”

Why, we might ask, is the right hon. Gentleman planning to end university-led teacher training for a schools-based model? Can he assure the House that that will not undermine the quality of teacher training and that it is not a move simply motivated by cutting costs? But is there not a much bigger contradiction? Today he lays down prescriptive standards for teaching training, but his message just days ago to free schools and academies was that they were free to employ unqualified teachers. Is he not mixing his messages and trying to have it both ways?

All this exposes a major flaw in the right hon. Gentleman’s thinking, which is repeated throughout the White Paper. Today he talks a good game on standards; on any other day he says to schools that they will have the freedom not to follow them. Which is it? He sounds confused. That is because his real focus is on potentially damaging structural reforms and he is prioritising competition above collaboration in the schools system. His talk on standards is undermined by his ideological obsession with structures. In his rush to reform, he is making mistakes that will damage our education system. He seems not to have learned from the mayhem that he caused with Building Schools for the Future. At the most crucial moment for sport in this country’s history, on the eve of a home Olympics, why is he abandoning a school sport system that the Australians have called “world-leading”? Does that not embody his approach to education: competitive sport for the elite and forget about the rest?

The right hon. Gentleman briefs newspapers that he will abandon the local authority role in school funding, but then tells the BBC the opposite. Did he rediscover localism last week, or did he cave in following a furious backlash from his friends in local government? Can he tell us today what role he envisages for local government over the long term? Will it have any powers of intervention in respect of free schools and academies? Is not his biggest mistake of all that he tells schools that their budgets are protected—thereby raising expectations—by continuing to mis-sell his pupil premium policy? It is a con: it is not additional, as the Prime Minister said today. Is it not the case that when schools receive their budgets in a couple of weeks, many in the most deprived areas will be the biggest losers and will simply not have the means to deliver on his fancy rhetoric today?

In conclusion, the right hon. Gentleman brings a lethal mix of incompetence and ideology to this crucial brief. Just because he believes in the teaching of history, it does not mean that he has to live in the past. He is in danger of bringing forward a plan for a fragmented and divided education system of winners and losers. He is in danger of creating a lost generation as a result of his elitist education system. He sits in his ivory tower, with nothing to say to young people who do not plan to go to university or whose hope is being cut by his Government—vocational studies downgraded; apprenticeships for young people frozen; the education maintenance allowance scrapped. He has a plan for some schools and some children, not for all schools and all children, and that is the fundamental flaw of his White Paper.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for that performance. Obviously at St Aelred’s in Lancashire, where he was educated, drama was very well taught.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman on those areas where he agrees? I thank him for his support for ensuring a consensus in the House on the importance of floor standards. It is important that we also recognise that, as well as having clear levels of attainment, we will be judging schools on how well all children progress. The one change that we will be making to the way in which the national challenge operated under the previous Government is that schools in challenging circumstances, with pupils from difficult backgrounds, will be given additional understanding and support, and will be judged on how they make progress. That is a clear difference from the record under the previous Government, when one rule was applied inflexibly. We are applying it more sensitively.

May I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the expansion of Teach First and for the statesmanlike way in which he approached the issue of discipline and granting teachers anonymity? I look forward to working with him and his Front-Bench colleagues on bringing forward an education Bill that makes good on those promises.

However, may I express my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that children who are eligible for free school meals are unlikely to do well in science, language or history GCSEs? He specifically said that schools that concentrate on raising attainment in those subjects will not be spending money on children from poorer homes. Has that not been precisely the problem in our education system for three generations? Is not the automatic assumption that because someone is poor they cannot aspire, precisely the problem that we need reform to overcome? Is not the soft bigotry of low expectations alive and well, and beating in his heart? Is it not the case that when it comes to improving vocational education, it is this Government who are taking action?

The right hon. Gentleman asked us what we were doing, but he had three hours to read the White Paper. I thought he would have noticed that we are increasing the number of technical schools and university technical colleges; I thought he would have noticed that we are increasing the number of studio schools, which deal specifically with vocational education; I thought he would have noticed that we have commissioned Professor Alison Wolf, the world leader on the future of vocational qualifications, to overhaul the ramshackle system that we inherited; I thought he would have noticed that thanks to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning we are increasing the number of apprenticeships by 75,000. Vocational education is undergoing a renaissance under this Government, and it is typically grudging of the Labour party not to recognise that.

The right hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing for children who are excluded. Again, I thought he would have seen in the White Paper not only that we are trialling a new proposal whereby schools take responsibility for the children they exclude but that he would have noticed in the White Paper that we are deliberately commissioning extra, additional provision for excluded children from a wider range of organisations, and we are giving pupil referral units the chance to become academies, the chance to acquire appropriate heads, and the chance to turn round the lives of desperate children who need additional help. We have heard not a single word from him about what we can do to help those children, and not a single word of praise for the dedicated people who do so much to help them.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about competition rather than collaboration. Everywhere in the White Paper collaboration is incentivised, with more money for great head teachers who want to work with underperforming schools, more opportunities for federations, trusts and academies to help underperforming schools, and a culture of collaboration entrenched at its heart. But there is one area where I believe in more competition—I make no apology for it. I believe in more competition in team sports. It is wrong that after expenditure of more than £2 billion, only one child in five took part in regular competitive team sports under Labour. That melancholy trend will be reversed, thanks to the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman said that our policy is for some schools, not all. I know that he, by his own estimation, went to an ordinary comprehensive in Lancashire.

[Andy Burnham]

Merseyside.

Funding and Schools Reform

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend raises that issue. I will spend a moment on EMAs. As we heard at education questions on Monday, the EMA is the subject of huge concern among Labour Members. It is feared that it will be pared back or, worse, taken away.

The Secretary of State is good with words and is good at making big commitments, but I want to see some follow-through—I want him to stand by what he says. Young people will look to what he or I say, so that they can have trust in politics and in this place. In an interview in The Guardian on 2 March—just before the election—he said:

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

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

indicated assent.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman nods, because he obviously acknowledges the veracity of the quote. Why is such a move acceptable now? Before the election, he made that statement to the young people who receive EMA, some of whom might be watching these proceedings. What are they to make of such a statement? It sounded commendably clear before the election, but now that crucial support is being removed. Throughout Education questions on Monday, his Minister spoke in an offhand way of the dead-weight cost of EMA. If I understood him correctly, he meant that 90% of young people would have gone into post-16 studies anyway. For young people who come from homes where incomes are low and do not have much support, this allowance can mean the difference between having to get a part-time job or having to walk to college because they cannot afford the bus fare. The EMA allows them to focus on their studies, which gives young kids from backgrounds where life is hardest the chance to exceed expectations and excel in further and higher education. When I heard the Minister on Monday, I did not feel he had any appreciation of the fact that the EMA makes it easier for those young people to fulfil their potential and be the best that they can be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He was a very good Minister, and it is a pity that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench now. I absolutely share his commitment to improving academy provision, not just in the west midlands, but across the country. I can reassure him that all those schools that were recorded as being unaffected will have their building work backed. The money will be there, but we have a duty, to both the taxpayer and those schools, to ensure that when we negotiate with the contractors—with the private sector—we get the best possible value for money. The more money we can save in our negotiations with contractors, the more we can invest in education elsewhere to ensure that the many, many school buildings that are in a state of dilapidation and extreme need receive additional support. I know that the right hon. Gentleman—when he was a Minister, he always sought to secure value for money for taxpayers—will appreciate that that tough negotiation on behalf of the public is exactly what a responsible Government should do.

Hon. Members know that education standards should not just be measured against the past. Countries across the globe are improving relative to the past. We need to measure ourselves against the best in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, the grim truth is that the statistics produced by the OECD show that over the past 10 years, educational standards in this country, relative to other nations, have fallen. We have moved from being fourth in the world for the quality of our science education to 14th, from seventh in the world for the quality of literacy to 17th, and from eighth in the world for the quality of mathematics to 24th. Those are facts that we cannot deny. At the same time as we have fallen behind other countries, the gap between rich and poor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, has grown wider.

In the last year for which we have figures, the number of children who were eligible for free school meals, bearing in mind that every year 600,000 children attend state schools, was 80,000, of whom just 45 made it to Oxbridge—[Interruption.]. It is absolutely the measure. The right hon. Member for Leigh might not like to hear it, but on his and his Government’s, watch the poorest children were denied opportunity. He made it to Cambridge; why should not more children from poor homes make it to Cambridge and Oxford? Why do children from Westminster, St Paul’s, Eton and such bastions of privilege make it to Oxford and Cambridge but not our poorest children in state schools? This Government—the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats united together—are at last investing in social justice, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that figure is a scandal and that at last the investment is going in to secure reform.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful that the Secretary of State acknowledges that I have some knowledge of these matters. He lays all the blame for that figure at the door of the school system in England. Why does he not place any of the blame at the door of Cambridge university and Oxford university? Is he saying that there is no talent in state schools?

[Michael Gove]

The talent is there, but such children do not get in because they do not have the opportunities that they deserve. The school system has failed them. They do not get in because in the school system children from poorer homes fall behind their wealthier compatriots at every step of the way. At key stage 1, the gap grows wide; at key stage 2 it grows wider still. Children from wealthy homes are twice as likely to get five good GCSEs as those who are eligible for free school meals. That is entrenched inequality in our school system. The Labour party had 13 years; they did not take action, and now they blame others instead of taking responsibility.

[Andy Burnham]

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State lays all the blame at the door of our schools. When I went to Cambridge in the late 1980s, the proportion had just changed, and the majority had just become children from state schools at 51% with 49% from the independent sector. The figures today are around 55% from state schools, 45% from the independent sector. I am not saying that schools cannot do more to encourage the highest level of aspiration, but is he saying that the Russell group and the most elite universities in our country can do nothing more to open their doors and to operate less elitist admission policies?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman is taking no responsibility for what happened on his watch, for the inequality in the school system, and for taking no steps to deal with the mess that was left to us. We are the party that is saying to Russell group and elite universities that they must do more to ensure that talented children can go to top universities. Unfortunately—this is a fact that he cannot run away from—social mobility went backwards on his watch. This country is less equal as a result of a Labour Government. There were 13 years of shame and 13 years of hurt, and the Labour Government were responsible.

In place of the Labour Government’s failure, we are introducing a wide range of reforms, all of which are based on best international practice and all of which have been proven, in other nations, to drive up standards. We are ensuring that we learn from all the best performing education nations. We are improving teacher recruitment and training. It is our Government, not theirs, who have doubled the number of students entering Teach First, to ensure that we have top graduates going into the most challenging classrooms. It is our Government, not theirs, who have changed the rules on discipline and behaviour to provide teachers with stronger protection and to ensure that we no longer have the absurd situation in which teachers have to wait 24 hours before issuing a detention to an unruly pupil. It is our Government, not theirs, who are changing the national curriculum and introducing an English baccalaureate to ensure that all students, from whatever background, have access to an academic core by the age of 16.

It is our Government, not theirs, who are reforming key stage 2 tests to ensure that all students have accurate information on their progress at primary school, and that we end the damaging “teaching to the test” that has characterised those tests in the past. It is our Government, not theirs, who have given head teachers in all schools the degree of autonomy and independence for which they yearned for 13 years. So it is unsurprising that, in the 37 minutes of the right hon. Member for Leigh’s speech—[Hon. Members: “Forty-seven!”] Forty-seven? Just see how numeracy went down on Labour’s watch. In the 47 minutes of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, there was not a single new idea on how to improve our state education system. He is an IFZ: an ideas-free zone. Those beautiful eyelashes might flutter, but behind them there is a dusty plain where a single idea has yet to take root.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

It was Labour that gave local authorities funding to raise standards in the poorest areas. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said we had an implicit pupil premium; the Secretary of State might care to read its research.

Let us stop shifting the ground. The commitment the Liberal Democrats said they had was for a pupil premium additional—on top of—a schools budget protected in real terms; that is not just the dedicated schools grant, but the entire schools budget. Have they got that? This is fundamental. Let us have no fine words from the Secretary of State; he must get to the heart of that question. Have the Liberal Democrats got what they told the former Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), they had during those post-election talks? We need to know.

[Michael Gove]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about schools rather than education, but the truth is, yes, the Liberal Democrats have got a fantastic deal—and more to the point, so has the country. There is £3.6 billion extra; £2.5 billion extra spent on schools, and £1.1 billion extra spent on demography, so there is a real-terms increase in education spending, and delivered over four years, whereas the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was going to deliver additional spending only for two years, not four years. More than that, he was not going to deliver, as we have, additional pre-school learning for the poorest two-year-olds. He was not going to deliver, as we have, an extra £150 million to help students from poorer backgrounds to go to universities. He was not going to deliver, as we have, an additional £7 billion over the lifetime of this Government to help the very poorest children. The reason why all Labour Members are so anxious to try to attack this proposition is that they hate the fact that progressive policies are being delivered by a coalition Government.

Education Policy

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to set out the Government’s policy on the fairness premium to disadvantaged young children, pupils and students.

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply to this urgent question as it falls within my departmental responsibility.

I am delighted to have this additional opportunity to confirm the very good news that this coalition Government will be spending more on schools. The House will know that the full details of the comprehensive spending review will be announced on Wednesday, but I can confirm today that we will fund a new fairness premium of £7 billion over the whole CSR period, which will be invested in accelerating social mobility.

This coalition Government will give all disadvantaged two-year-olds 15 hours a week of pre-school education. We will give all disadvantaged children a pupil premium in schools to improve their attainment—that will amount to £2.5 billion a year by the end of the CSR—and we will introduce a student premium to help more disadvantaged children to make it to university.

We have had to undertake a fundamental review of expenditure to deal with the massive deficit bequeathed to us by the previous Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman served as Chief Secretary. As we have protected NHS spending—against his advice—all Departments have had to look for efficiencies. I have already taken steps to halt inefficient programmes, cut out waste, prune bureaucracy, close quangos and drive forward school reforms. The decisions that we took in the first months of this Government to reduce inefficiencies were tough. The outlook overall is tight, but thanks to the steps that we took early in the life of this Government, we can now prioritise spending on the front line, so I can confirm today that school spending will rise in real terms.

In addition, we can spend more on those who need more. We inherited a two-tier school system, with the biggest educational divide between rich and poor of any developed nation. The opportunity gulf begins in the early years and grows over time. By the time they are 16, the poorest children—those eligible for free school meals—are only half as likely as other children to get five decent GCSEs, and of 80,000 children in any year eligible for free school meals just 45 get to Oxbridge. As many children from one top public school—St Paul’s school for girls—get to Oxbridge as the entire population of poor boys and girls on benefit. That lack of opportunity is a scandal—an affront to the nation’s conscience—and thanks to the decisions taken by this coalition Government, the policies are now at last in place to give every child a fairer chance.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and may I also welcome him to his new role clearing up after the Deputy Prime Minister?

On Thursday evening, the BBC was briefed about a new policy—the so-called fairness premium—with huge implications for early years, schools and higher education funding. No notification was given to this House. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister had a bad week, and this had all the hallmarks of a hasty move to get him out of a political hole. The country could hear policy being made on the hoof.

On process first, therefore, when did the Secretary of State for Education hear that the Deputy Prime Minister was making that speech? We know that the Cabinet was kept in the dark on child benefit, but can the Secretary of State confirm that the Cabinet discussed all aspects of the fairness premium policy before it was briefed to the media?

As this announcement came in advance of the CSR, and given the overall reduction proposed by the Chancellor, people are anxious about where the funding is coming from. Can the right hon. Gentleman today give the House an assurance that he is not robbing Peter to pay Paul and that no other part of the education budget is facing disproportionate cuts to pay for the policy? Is he aware that his announcement has fuelled rumour over the future of the education maintenance allowance and universal Sure Start? Can he today reassure the House on those fronts as well?

Finally, the heart of the matter is this: we need to know whether the Government will honour repeated promises that the pupil premium will truly be additional to the schools budget. A BBC report suggested that funding will be recycled from within the schools budget. The Liberal Democrats have broken one education pledge; we need to hear from the right hon. Gentleman today whether another has been broken, or whether the Deputy Prime Minister has secured the reddest of his red lines.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his series of questions, and may I also thank him for his generous words about the Deputy Prime Minister, who had a very good week last week? I think that being able during the course of our CSR to secure a better deal for schools than the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was able to negotiate when he was Education Secretary counts as a significant triumph. I think that advancing social mobility and social justice by delivering on Liberal Democrat manifesto promises is something in which Members on both sides of the House can take pride.

The right hon. Gentleman asks when I knew about the fairness premium. I knew when I read through, and nodded with approval at, the education section of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The Liberal Democrats committed then—months ago—to spending more on early years, to funding a pupil premium and to ensuring that more disadvantaged people can go to university. The Liberal Democrats, in this coalition Government, have delivered on all those goals.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether there will be any disproportionate cuts in any other part of the education budget. I can assure him in respect of Sure Start and 16-to-19 funding that he will find out on Wednesday that we have ensured that the funding is in place in order to guarantee that more people will participate after the age of 16 and that a network of Sure Start children centres is there for every child who needs them.

All of this has been done because our coalition Government working together has dealt with the inefficiencies, the waste and the bureaucracy that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government bequeathed to us. A coalition Government working together has prioritised social mobility after years in which it was frozen. A coalition Government working together has ensured that money goes to the front line rather than being spent on bureaucracy and waste. As a result, we are taking the tough decisions that he and he and he—his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches—ducked. They will not support reducing child benefit in order to ensure that the poorest get more. They will not support our VAT increase in order to plug the deficit. They will not support any of our steps to improve efficiency on the front line in schools. They are a party of naysayers and deficit deniers, and that is why this coalition Government are putting right the mess we inherited from them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Gove and Andy Burnham

Monday 11th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman always makes a compelling case for his constituents, and I am well aware that in the part of Derbyshire that he represents resources have not been devoted to the front line as efficiently as they should have been. One of the aims of the capital review that we have put in place and of the comprehensive spending review, which will report to the House next Wednesday, is to ensure that the schools in greatest need—both secondary and primary—receive resources as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure finally to face the right hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box; he and I have not done this before. I hope that he will not mind my saying at the beginning that my observation of him so far in his job is that he has failed to understand the difference between being a Minister and being a journalist, displaying a fairly loose grip on the facts. He promised hundreds of free schools, but has signed off just 16; he promised thousands of academies but has so far signed up only 50; and his mistakes on the BSF programme threw schools into chaos and prompted four legal challenges from local authorities. Can he give the House a straightforward answer today? Can he confirm that he proceeded with his decision to scrap school building projects despite being explicitly warned by his civil servants that local authorities would have a “fairly strong legal case” against his Department?

[Michael Gove]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. First, may I congratulate him on his elevation to shadow Education Secretary? I admire the way in which he fought his leadership campaign. He was an advocate for both modernisation and aspirational socialism, which is why, of course, he came fourth out of five, neither of those values being entirely flavour of the month in the Labour party at the moment. May I also thank him for his reference to my past as a journalist? It was a pleasure to spend some time in a job outside politics before I came into this House—I recommend it to him. May I also say that, as the permanent secretary made clear to the Select Committee when I was answering its questions back in July, the advice that it was alleged I was offered was not passed on to me?

[Andy Burnham]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristic graciousness. Today he is wearing something of the air of the self-satisfied teacher’s pet who has escaped the attentions of the biggest boy in the playground, but I say to him that my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and I are the strike force for the parliamentary football team—he softens up opponents and gives me the bullets to finish them off. I give that warning to the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman’s answer is typical of the cavalier way in which he is running his Department. He has got himself into a mess because of his determination to inflict a political experiment on our schools, skewing the budget towards pet projects instead of helping all schools through tough times. We have already heard that he has wasted £260 million through his botched decision making—is that what Philip Green would call a shocking waste? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell this House how much his Department has set aside to cover the legal costs and possible compensation to local authorities caused by the mistakes that he has made?

[Michael Gove]

That was a fantastic question—or series of questions. I am impressed that the strike force in the Labour party parliamentary football team comes, according to the right hon. Gentleman, equipped with bullets. It says something about the approach of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) towards playing fair that he regards a Tommy gun as an appropriate thing to bring on to the football field.

There was a certain element of the spraying of fire in the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). May I say that we will vigorously contest the judicial review of our decision? It is really important that people appreciate that the Building Schools for the Future programme had failed. Unfortunately, in 2008, instead of 200 schools being built, fewer than 50 had been built. Under the Building Schools for the Future programme, £11 million was wasted on consultants. One consultant secured the equivalent of £1.35 million, while schools in my constituency, the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and almost every hon. Member’s constituency needed that resource. We will make no apology for ensuring that in the education budget money goes not to lawyers and consultants but to the front line and that 13 years of Labour failure is at last reversed by a coalition Government committed to aspiration.