Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I should of course be happy to look into the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We have allocated a total of £23 billion of capital for school buildings, but it is difficult for me to comment on that specific case from the Dispatch Box without knowing the details.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Information released accidentally from Ofsted shows that only 4% of schools in the most deprived areas achieve “outstanding” ratings, compared to 58% in the least deprived. Inspections are measuring deprivation rather than the quality of teaching and learning. Does the Secretary of State not agree that that is morally repugnant?

[Damian Hinds]

At the heart of our priorities since May 2010 has been raising standards for all children while also narrowing the gap, and I welcome the narrowing gap that we have seen in both primary and secondary schools. Is there more to do? Yes, there is, and that is at the heart of our opportunity areas programme, which—as the hon. Gentleman will know—identifies the pockets of under-achievement that may exist even in otherwise more affluent regions, and seeks to establish what area-specific conditions are required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

The Department provides a range of support to schools, including a national deal to help schools to save money on such things as energy, where there is a 10% saving, or photocopiers and other computer equipment, where there are savings of up to 40%. We are also providing buying hub advice in pilots in the north-west and the south-west and a new framework from this September to help to drive down the costs of agency supply staff.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the unintended consequence of the Progress 8 assessment system, as The Times Educational Supplement put it this week, is that all the losers look the same—they are schools in white, working-class areas with high levels of pupil premium. On the current measures, this will result in Ofsted having no choice but to downgrade these schools, compounding the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, and putting off prospective academy sponsors. What action is the Minister taking?

[Nick Gibb]

Actually, Progress 8 carries widespread support in the sector. It is a far better method of assessing schools than the previous method—five or more GCSEs of A* to C—because it measures progress and takes into account the starting point of pupils when they start secondary school. We think it is a good measure. We are looking at some of the details of the outliers when we calculate Progress 8, and we will have more to say on that in due course.

School Funding

Mike Kane Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is obvious that the Schools Minister is becoming increasingly isolated in this Chamber because he will be the only Member to stand at the Dispatch Box in this debate who is not a Mancunian. The Secretary of State said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), regarding the devastating impact of school cuts that are going on up and down the country and in his constituency, that the funding is what it is. I think that teachers up and down the land, particularly headteachers, will be very worried about that. I remind the Secretary of State that between 2015-16 and 2019-20, Hampshire, his local authority, will be facing a £14 million cut.

The Secretary of State actually went to school very near me, at St Ambrose College in Hale Barns in Trafford borough, which I had the pleasure to visit again only last week. Interestingly, Trafford borough, which I represent—its education authority is a member of the f40 group, as is the case with many Members here—faces a real-terms cut of £3.3 million. That is certainly a big issue on the doorstep as we pound the streets night after night. Meanwhile, the Schools Minister in West Sussex faces his headteachers threatening a four-day week because of school funding cuts.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, this motion, is about what the Conservative party promised at the last election. It promised:

“Under a future Conservative Government the amount of money following your child into the school will be protected. There will be a real-terms increase in the schools budget in the next Parliament.”

That pledge was also made also by the previous Prime Minister, who was very clear about what he meant. He said:

“I can tell you, with a Conservative government, the amount of money following your child into the school will not be cut.”

But the Government are not keeping their promise to the British people. Under this Government, schools are facing the first real-terms cuts to their budgets in nearly 20 years, despite the Secretary of State having inadvertently claimed the opposite in the House earlier this year. The National Audit Office has said that with the current spending settlement there will be an 8% cut in the pupil funding between 2015 and 2020. The same conclusion was reached by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. This means that every school in every region and every town will lose money because of the failure of this Government to protect funding for our schools.

The so-called fair funding formula will simply redistribute the same inadequate sum of money that is already failing to support our schools and provide our children with the excellent education they are entitled to. The National Audit Office, again, has said that the Department for Education is expecting schools to find £3 billion in savings over this Parliament, yet it has failed to communicate to schools how they can achieve this. While we do of course support the principle that schools should receive fair funding, the answer is not to take money away from existing schools and redistribute it when budgets across the country are being cut. The solution is to invest in education to help every child to receive an excellent education.

The Government’s stated aim in revising the school funding formula is fairness. There should be fairness in the funding formula, and there are good things about it, such as an emphasis on high needs and a deprivation index, albeit a crude measure, and a focus on prior attainment. Why would we not welcome those things? However, there is nothing fair about a proposal under which funding will be cut from high performing schools in deprived areas. A fair approach would be to take the best performing areas in the country and apply the lessons from those schools everywhere. It would look objectively at the funding required to deliver in the best performing schools, particularly in areas of high deprivation, and use that as the basis of a formula to be applied across the country.

Unfortunately, though, this Government are not listening to the chorus of voices of schools, teachers and parents across this country. We only have to look at the impact already being played out in our schools. Let us start with class sizes. Over half a million infant school children are now in super-sized classes. New research by the leading education unions shows that class sizes are rising in the majority of secondary schools in England as a result of Government underfunding of education. There is a particular problem in secondary schools because of the shortfall of £500 million a year in funding for 11 to 16-year-olds between 2015 and 2020. This disaster does not end there. When our children get to sixth form, they face even more deep cuts—over 17% per pupil since 2010. Sixty-two per cent. of secondary schools in England have increased the size of their classes in the past two years alone.

The second huge impact is on teacher numbers, as we have heard. Staff numbers in secondary schools have fallen by 15,000 between 2014-15 and 2016-17, despite 4,500 more pupils to teach. This equates to an average loss of over five staff members in each school since 2015. In practical terms, this means nearly 2.5 fewer classroom teachers, 1.6 fewer classroom assistants, and 1.5 fewer extra support staff in every school. Cuts to frontline teaching posts are happening now—at a time when pupil to classroom teacher ratios are rising, meaning bigger classes and less individual attention for children. New research published only last month by the Education Policy Institute shows that many schools that have been struggling financially are now in deficit. The number of local authority-maintained schools in deficit has nearly trebled, meaning that over a quarter of all local authority-maintained schools are now in deficit. In 2016-17, the proportion of primary schools in deficit also increased significantly, to 7%. The average primary school deficit noticeably increased from £72,000 in 2010-11 to £107,000 in 2016-17.

Similar figures are found for local authority-maintained primary schools. In 2016-17, over 60% were spending more than their income. A quarter of local authority-maintained primaries have had a falling balance for two years or more. The Education Policy Institute report points to the inevitable outcome of those growing budget pressures. It states that staff account for the majority of spending by schools—around two thirds—and it is likely that schools will

“find it difficult to achieve the scale of savings necessary”

to shoulder the Government’s real-terms cuts without also cutting back on staff.

We have had a good debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about the £3 million of cuts in real terms to his area. In his excellent speech, the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), said that we must never forget to celebrate the contribution of teachers in our classrooms. The lamp post reference from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) will probably go down in history.

The right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (David Evennett) made a passionate and interesting speech, but he did not say why his borough will be losing £7.2 million in real terms between 2015-16 and 2020. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) made a very passionate speech indeed, and we wish her son all the best on his field trip. The hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) said there were no cuts, yet Derbyshire is losing £11.5 million from 2015-16 to 2019-20. We have seen the excellent campaign being run by Catherine Atkinson‏ in that constituency, where Wilsthorpe school alone is going to lose £200,000.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made another passionate speech about the impact on the poor in her constituency, in addition to her speech on housing last month. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) made a very good speech, and I am also an f40 representative, but he failed to point out that Dorset is losing £3.1 million from 2015-16 to 2019-20. The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) also forgot to point out that her constituency is losing £1.5 million in the same period, but she is right about one thing: this is political. Research shows that 750,000 people changed their vote at the last general election because of school cuts, and the Government are not reversing this, so let us see what happens a week on Thursday and subsequently at the next general election.

Labour is committed to investment in our schools and investment in our pupils, while the Conservative Government offer disinvestment from our schools and our pupils. I call on all Members of the House to be a voice for pupils, a voice for parents and a voice for teachers in their constituencies and to support the motion.

GCSE English Literature Exams

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for her leadership on the Petitions Committee and for her excellent speech. Her clear pedagogical knowledge shone through, as did that of the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). They are both, like me, former teachers.

The new structure of the GCSE English literature closed-book exams raises issues for students and teachers. It is not simply about the subject being made more difficult than it needs to be; it is about the very reason schools teach English literature in the first place. It is an incredible achievement that the petition received 160,000 signatures; that shows that Parliament is being held to account by people who are interested in the subject.

Literature enlightens us. When the matter was last debated in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) referred to the popular quote:

“Life depends on science but the arts make it worth living”.

That is a powerful quote. Literature is not science and it does not make sense to test it in this way. All we create by doing so is a memory test, a test of the ability to parrot quotes, not to truly understand their depth and meaning. I was hoping to challenge the Minister to quote some of his English GCSE, A-level or degree-level literature, but then I thought that he might be able to challenge me back. We have to be careful. Politicians are always being asked to recite their times tables live on national television—or not, as the case may be.

English literature at its best is a way of understanding our world and learning the skills to engage in it. It teaches us research and writing skills, to express ourselves better and be analytical in our thinking. It helps us to build arguments, analyse, probe and read between the lines—skills used exceptionally well by many Members of this place every day. What a place this would be if we all memorised our speeches and parroted them out as pre-learned text. Nuance, banter and humour would be lacking, and the heat and passion of debate would be entirely lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North is probably one of the finest speakers in the House. She can speak at some length without referring to her notes—eruditely, I quickly add. We are not expected to memorise every word we say here, nor should we be, so why do we expect pupils in our schools to do so? Why do we want students to remember up to 250 quotes? What does that tell us about our students other than that they have a good memory?

Closed-book examinations for GCSE English literature encourage the business of learning by rote, which brings to mind Victorian classrooms with students at rows and rows of single desks parroting lines back to the austere teacher, cane held aloft, at the head of the class. I am trying to use metaphor and imagery, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North did with the sabre-toothed tiger story, using repetition as a fine oral tradition. As a former teacher, I know that children repeating back to me memorised text tells me absolutely nothing about their ability to think critically, analyse and understand meaning. Will the Minister therefore explain how remembering quotes is the best way of ascertaining a student’s ability? To me, that is an exam technique that can be mastered, especially by those who can afford private tutors—something most pupils up and down this land cannot. It has also been disregarded by many universities. They do not examine their literature students in that way because they know that rote learning is not a sign of intelligence or original thought. What universities want to know is that their students can analyse a text, understand it and apply critical thinking. That is, rightly, what undergraduates are tested on.

The Government must stop ignoring the advice of teachers, who say that this way of examining pupils is not fit for purpose. Those teachers speak from a place of knowledge and experience on the frontline, one that aims to get the best out of our students. The Government must listen to teachers and industry experts who say that open-book exams place the emphasis on higher- level learning, whereby students can focus on analysing, evaluating and synthesising knowledge—or are the Government determined not to listen to those who are tasked with teaching the new GCSEs?

As has been pointed out, GCSE examinations are a very stressful time in a young person’s life. When students are more stressed than ever before, and teachers and school leaders are struggling to respond to years of what can only be described as chaotic chopping and changing in the curriculum and the school system, the Government should be asking serious questions about the impact of any changes to assessment. Poor mental health in teenagers is a growing issue, and child and adolescent mental health services are hugely overstretched as a result of the neglect. The Government need to be more mindful of the impact that examination changes have on students’ wellbeing and achievement.

The requirement to learn 15 poems, two plays and one novel could be a stretch for the most able students, never mind those who struggle academically. A memory test of that sort is not fair on any student, but the Government appear to have failed to acknowledge the difficulties that it could cause for those with special educational needs. We in this House know that the texts pupils are expected to read frequently contain, as one teacher put it,

“complex and often ambiguous language”.

The expectation that those with SEN will understand the texts well enough to analyse them in the first instance, and then memorise quotes, is simply unfair.

Teachers pointed out in a letter to the former Secretary of State for Education how the reformed English literature GCSE will discriminate against pupils with dyslexia and special needs, describing the Government’s “breathtaking ignorance” of those conditions. I ask the Minister to respond to those concerns and address how they will be dealt with in exam conditions. What provisions, other than extra time, have been put in place to ensure that the exam is fair for pupils with SEN? We need a Government who understand what works and does not work for children, a Government who take advice and work with professionals to do things better when needed, not a Government who are wedded to the educational ideas of the 1950s, of divisiveness, rather than inclusivity. We need a Government who are interested in teaching children how to pass exams and in creating social mobility, so that all children can reach their full potential.

We want children who are instilled with a lifelong love of learning and who recognise the value of education, not children who are prevented by the system from succeeding. That is why I join my hon. Friends, teachers and many others today in asking the Government to reconsider their position on this issue.

School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018

Mike Kane Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 General Committees

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 10).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Owen. I can feel the palpable energy in the room, among Members and officials alike, from being in the House this early for a Statutory Instrument Committee.

The context for the debate is the Conservative manifesto statement:

“Under a future Conservative government, the amount of money following your child into school will be protected. There will be a real terms increase in the schools budget in the next Parliament.”

That pledge was repeated, and the previous Prime Minister was clear about what it meant:

“I can tell you, with a Conservative Government the amount of money following your child into school will not be cut.”

But the Government are not keeping that promise to the British people. Under the present Government, schools face the first real-terms cuts to their budgets in nearly 20 years, despite the Secretary of State’s having inadvertently claimed the opposite in the House last week.

The National Audit Office has said that under the current spending settlement there will be

“an 8 per cent cut in pupil funding”

between 2015 and 2020. The same conclusion was reached by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. That means that every school in every region and town will lose money because of the Government’s failure to protect funding in schools. The so-called fair funding formula—there we are at last—is simply a redistribution of a sum of money that is already inadequate to support schools and provide children with the excellent education that they are entitled to.

The National Audit Office has also said that the Department for Education expects schools to find a total of £3 billion savings in the course of the Parliament, yet it has failed to communicate to them how to achieve it. Of course I support the principle that all schools should receive fair funding, and there are progressor elements in some of the regulations before the Committee, but the answer is not to take money from schools and redistribute it when budgets are being cut across the country.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some schools now tell parents that they have to close at 1 o’clock? They give various reasons, but we all know that they do not have the money to pay teachers in the afternoon. Does he agree that although that may not be unlawful, specifically, it takes vital study time away from young people?

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more. Schools are having to make heinous decisions. In the Minister’s county, West Sussex, some are already threatening a four-day week because of the budget cuts.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the real-terms funding increase that schools across the country are getting between now and 2020?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Lady was recently quoted in KentOnline boasting about a 0.5% real-terms increase in school funding, but when inflation in education is running at 3% or 4% that will be a massive cut for schools in her area.

[Helen Whately]

It is a real-terms increase.

[The Chair]

Order.

[Mike Kane]

The solution is to invest, to help every child receive an excellent education. The Government’s stated aim in revising the schools funding formula is fairness. There should be fairness in the formula, and there are good things in it, such as the emphasis on high need, a deprivation index—albeit using a crude measure—and a focus on prior attainment. Why would the Opposition not welcome those things? However, there is nothing fair about a proposal under which funding will be cut from high-performing schools in deprived areas.

A fair approach would take the best-performing areas in the country and apply the lessons from those schools everywhere. It would look objectively at the level of funding required to deliver in the best-performing schools, particularly in areas of high deprivation, and use that as the basis for a formula to be applied across the whole country. Unfortunately, though, the Government are not listening to the voices of schools, teachers or parents. Evidence from the general election suggests that 750,000 people switched their votes to Labour because of the impact of school funding cuts on their local communities.

We only have to look at the impact already being played out. Under this Government more than half a million infant schoolchildren are in super-sized classes, and new research by leading education unions shows that class sizes are rising in the majority of secondary schools in England as a result of the Government’s underfunding of education. There is a particular problem in secondary schools because of the shortfall in funding of £500 million a year for 11 to 16-year-olds between 2015-16 and 2019-20, plus the deep cuts to sixth-form funding of more than 17% per pupil since 2010.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Subjects such as music are now offered at A-level only in one school in a large area. Is it therefore any surprise that under 44.1% of the Royal Academy of Music’s intake come from state schools?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am a product of the Manchester music service, and the music education that I received as a child is nowhere near what we now provide in our schools. We now have secondary schools in Yorkshire charging parents for music GCSEs. My final point on class sizes is that 62% of secondary schools in England have increased the size of their classes.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend brought up Yorkshire, it would be remiss of me not to intervene. He also talked about 16-to-18 colleges, and another hit for them is that they are charged VAT. Thomas Rotherham College, a great college that gave a broad curriculum, had to cut its curriculum size right down, and giving a holistic education has become so unviable that it has been forced to become an academy. That makes one wonder if there is a grand plan at play.

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more. The curriculum is being narrowed for a whole series of reasons, but the main one is severe funding cuts in our schools.

I have talked about class sizes, and the second huge impact is teacher numbers. Staff numbers in secondary schools fell by 15,000 between 2014-15 and 2016-17 despite their having 4,500 more pupils to teach. There is a huge recruitment and retention crisis. The Times Educational Supplement says that we will be short of 43,000 secondary school teachers in the next few years. The figures are being masked by the greater supply in primary schools. That equates to an average loss of 5.5 staff members in each school since 2015. In practical terms that means 2.4 fewer classroom teachers, 1.6 fewer teaching assistants and 1.5 fewer support staff in every school.

Cuts to frontline teaching posts are happening at a time when pupil-to-teacher ratios are rising, which means bigger classes and less individual attention for children. Research published only last week by the Education Policy Institute shows how many schools have been struggling financially and are now in deficit.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that cuts to other public services and mental health services in particular are putting undue pressure on our schools, given their teacher resource capacity?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extraordinarily valid point. We know from our postbags that a rising number of parents cannot get special educational needs and disability provision for their children because schools are having to cut that and less specialist services back at local authority level. Local authorities have been cut—they have lost around 30% to 40% of their budgets—which has had a direct impact on the services that schools can buy in.

The number of local authority maintained secondary schools in deficit has nearly trebled, which means that more than a quarter of all such schools are now in deficit. In 2016-17, the proportion of primary schools in deficit increased significantly, to 7.1%. The average primary school deficit also notably increased, from £72,000 in 2010-11 to £107,000 in 2016-17.

Perhaps the most worrying finding was that a large proportion of local authority maintained schools are now spending more than their income, and 40% of those secondaries have had balances in decline for at least two years in a row. Similar figures are found for local authority maintained primaries; in 2016-17 more than 60% were spending more than their income. A quarter had had a falling balance for two years or more.

The Education Policy Institute report points to the inevitable outcome of the growing budget pressures. Staff account for the majority of spending by schools, at around two thirds. It is therefore likely that schools will find it difficult to achieve the scale of savings necessary without cutting back on staff. What is the Government response? Only last week we found that the new Education Secretary had been forced into an embarrassing U-turn after he claimed wrongly that school spending is going up. That is the message they would like to put out. The constant delay of the fair funding formula led to constant Conservative press releases about fixing funding in our schools, but that has been far from the case.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that in places such as Bradford West, where we have an excellent cluster of maintained nurseries, we are still not sure where the funding is coming from? If it is coming, will it be to meet the existing deficit—from special needs, early years and so on—or will it be new money?

[Mike Kane]

The biggest impact we can have as civil society and government on the social mobility and educational attainment of our young people is in the early years, but our Sure Start centres have been decimated over the past few years, with no guarantee—absolutely none—of what their future will be. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.

The Secretary of State originally said:

“We know that real-terms funding per pupil is increasing across the system, and with the national funding formula, each school will see at least a small cash increase.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 536.]

Last week, however, he had to respond to the House on that. What had Sir David Norgrove, head of the UK Statistics Authority, pointed out? He had said that funding was being frozen in real terms until 2020, not increased. The Secretary of State therefore had to write to correct the record.

I have a few questions for the Minister. One of the major issues is whether he will confirm that the regulations allow for a 1.5% cut in funding per pupil in cash terms. Our evidence suggests that they do, so that is a fair funding formula that allows for a 1.5% cut in funding in cash terms. Will he confirm that the Government will not increase overall pupil funding? As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, the additional £1.3 billion announced after the election last year keeps funding basically flat in real terms over the next two-year period. Will he confirm that? Will he also confirm that funding has fallen in real terms since 2015? For example, the National Audit Office reports an accumulated £2.7 billion cut from school budgets since 2015, despite the regulations before us.

The national funding formula consultation has been delayed and delayed, and pushed back and pushed back after the election. Looking at the regulations, the formula has been a colossal waste of time, effort and money, and has come with that delay. The Government have come to a conclusion that only tinkers with the edges of the funding crisis in our schools. For now, I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

Having campaigned for the fairer funding formula on behalf of my Kent constituency, I welcome the formula. For many years, similar schools with similar pupils in other areas were getting significantly more money than schools in my area.

[Mike Kane]

It is 0.5%.

[Helen Whately]

It gives children in my constituency a fairer chance of getting the good education they need, coupled with rising funding. It is truly welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

I would be delighted. The hon. Lady and I have discussed education in her area, and I know how passionate she is about improving academic standards in schools in her constituency. I would, of course, be delighted to visit some schools in her constituency with her in the very near future.

Under these regulations, the national funding formula will allocate the schools, high needs and central school services blocks of the dedicated schools grant fairly to local authorities. The school and early years financial regulations govern how local authorities can distribute that funding between schools and early years providers, and they apply for the coming financial year. Regulations that have recently been made will replace those for 2017-18.

In 2018-19 and 2019-20, local authorities will continue to set their own local funding formulae for schools, which will determine individual schools’ budgets in their areas. Those formulae are set following consultation with local schools. It remains the Government’s clear intention to move, in time, to a system in which each school’s individual budget is set directly by the national funding formula without local variation. That will ultimately ensure that similar schools will receive similar funding, regardless of where they are situated.

However, by continuing to allow a small but important element of flexibility for local authorities over the next couple of years, the regulations will be able to help to smooth the transition to the national funding formula at a local level. They set the rules within which local authorities must operate as they set their local formulae. The changes we have made to the regulations for 2018-19, compared with 2017-18, enable local authorities to mirror the national funding formula for schools in their local formulae. Unless we make these regulatory changes, they would not be allowed to do that. Many local councils have decided that they should replicate the national funding formula in their local formulae. We support that decision, which is a strong vote of confidence in the principles behind our national funding formula.

The regulations need to be made each year, and for the most part, the 2018 regulations simply ensure that the rules set in the 2017 regulations will continue in place. The changes we have made are intended to enable local authorities to mirror the national funding formula.

The changes on school funding are, first, the introduction of an optional minimum per-pupil funding level—the £4,600 I mentioned—which local authorities can now use as a factor in their local funding formulae to ensure that every school receives a minimum amount of funding for each pupil. Unless we pass the regulations, local authorities would not have the discretion to do that.

I do not understand why the Opposition prayed against the regulations. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the -1.5% minimum funding guarantee. That is the current position. Currently, if a local authority wants a minimum funding guarantee to smooth the effect of any changes to the local formula, to ensure that no school can lose more than -1.5% per pupil when a local formula changes, it can introduce that minimum funding guarantee. We have changed that in the regulations to give local authorities more flexibility, so that, instead of the option of -1.5%, they can now also vary the amount, up to +0.5%, which is the minimum funding guarantee in the national funding formula.

By praying against the regulations, the hon. Gentleman is entrenching in the rules for the local funding formula a minimum funding guarantee of -1.5% and preventing local authorities from having a +0.5% minimum funding guarantee, which we have introduced into the national funding formula. Secondly, the regulations on indicators of deprivation have also changed. Local authorities can choose to use a combination of the free school meals, Ever 6 free school meals and income deprivation affecting children index—IDACI—formulae. Thirdly, there are also some technical changes regarding looked-after children and the scaling factor used to set funding for pupils with low prior attainment.

The hon. Member for Rotherham also raised issues about significant growth in pupil numbers in constituencies. She cited regulation 13, which is designed to tackle precisely the problem she refers to. Regulation 13(4) states:

“Where (a) there is or may be an increase to the published admission number at the school; or (b) the school is subject to a prescribed alteration that may lead to an increase in the number of pupils at the school, the authority may, instead of ascertaining pupil numbers on 5th October 2017, include an estimate of pupil numbers.”

That will help schools to ensure that they have the proper funding as a consequence of a growth in their numbers.

The change to the high needs regulations removes an adjustment that was previously made to schools’ five to 16-year-old pupil numbers to reflect the number of places that the local authority has reserved for children with special educational needs. From 2018-19, five to 16 year-old pupils in such places will attract funding to their school through the local formula on the same basis as all other pupils at the school. Local authorities will have additional funding of £6,000 for each place from the high needs budget.

We introduced a new early years funding formula in April 2017; therefore, the regulations for 2018-19 are largely unchanged from 2017-18. The changes we have made in these regulations implement previously announced policy or are amendments intended to bring greater clarity to existing policies. For example, when we introduced our new funding formula, we announced that from 1 April this year, local authorities must pass on 95% of the national funding formula funding allocation to providers. That is up from 93% in the previous year, and it is an important change in these regulations.

How funding is used in practice is just as important as its fair distribution. We are committed to helping schools to improve pupil outcomes and promote social mobility by getting the best value from all their resources. School efficiency must start with, and be led by, schools and school leaders, but the Department provides practical support, deals and tools that will help all schools improve their efficiency. We will continue our commitment to securing national deals that procure better value goods and services in areas that all schools purchase. Schools can already save an average of 10% on their energy bills and around 40% on printers, photocopiers and scanners. Those deals have already saved schools over £46 million.

Across school spending as a whole, we are improving the transparency and usability of data, so that parents and governors can more easily see how funding is being spent and understand not just educational standards, but financial effectiveness. We will continue to expand our package of support for schools so they can ensure every pound is achieving the best outcome for pupils.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the question of teacher numbers. We have record numbers of teachers in our schools: we have 457,000, up 15,500 since 2010. Last year we achieved 89% of our secondary target for graduate recruitment and 100% of our primary target. Returners are rising, from 13,000 in 2011 to 14,200 in 2016. We have tax-free bursaries of up to £26,000 for priority subjects. People often talk about retention; 70% of teachers are still in teaching after five years and 60% are still in teaching after 10 years, but the important point is that that figure has remained broadly constant for the last 20 years.

Class sizes have not shifted very much: they are about 27.1 in primary and 20.5 in secondary schools, on average.

[Mike Kane]

Will the Minister confirm that there are more teachers because there are more pupils, that one third of teachers have left teaching since they trained since 2011 and that education authorities have not filled one third of vacancies for teacher training courses next year?

[Nick Gibb]

There were a number of points there. First, the pupil numbers have increased; we have created 735,000 new school places since 2010, and one of the first things we did in 2010 was double the amount of capital spending on creating new school places. The previous Government had cut school places, particularly in primary schools, where 200,000 places were cut during that period despite knowledge of the increased birth rate.

The hon. Gentleman’s figure of 33% leaving teacher training who joined in 2011 is the 30% figure I was referring to; there are 70% still in teaching after five years. That is broadly the same figure that it has been for the last 20 years. People change their minds after starting a profession, and that figure has not changed significantly over the past 30 years.

I forget what the final issue was that the hon. Gentleman raised, but he also mentioned the report by the Education Policy Institute, which I think came out last week. We do not recognise the findings of that report, because the latest figures show that schools hold surpluses of more than £4 billion against a cumulative deficit of less than £300 million. We trust schools to manage their own budgets, and only a small percentage are operating a cumulative deficit. We are providing support to help those schools get the most out of spending.

I thank the Opposition again for securing this debate. For this Government, providing a high-quality education for every child is a top priority. The additional funding we have announced, together with the introduction of a national funding formula, will provide schools with the resources they need to deliver that. The school and early years finance regulations represent a vital piece in the funding jigsaw, making it possible for local authorities to make funding fairer at a local as well as a national level. By doing so, we can continue to drive school standards ever higher.

[Mike Kane]

So there we have it—that is the silver bullet, and a way to get the Government out of the political hole that the previous Government got into over getting fair funding for schools; we are left with a variance of 1.5% down or 0.5% up. The hon. Member for Cheltenham is in the room, and I hope that he had a good weekend, by the way—it seems to be a great festival. However, he has been quoted by Gloucestershire Live as saying that the national funding formula needed “major surgery”. What we are considering is not even a minor intervention.

The Minister said that the manifesto commitment was that no schools would lose money. That was the commitment—not that no schools would lose money because of the national funding formula. Manifesto commitments are not something that can be made up as you go along. It is incredible that there can be a funding formula with so much variance, so that schools can still receive a cut because of it.

The Minister was good with his facts, and in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green he talked about schools in her constituency. Perhaps I may point out the £82,000 cut affecting St. Catherine’s Catholic Primary School in his constituency, and the reduction in pupil funding of £355 per pupil. Schools in West Sussex are threatening a four-day week. That, in the Minister’s back yard, is incredible.

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about his facts. I tend to know the schools in my own constituency quite well, and every school in my constituency will receive an increase in funding according to the national funding formula. Many of the schools there are receiving significant increases—way above the 0.5% that some schools are receiving.

[Mike Kane]

Again, that is a sophist argument that some schools will receive an increase, but not in terms of the general level of cuts since 2015; and it is nothing in comparison with what the Minister rightly pointed out about budget pressure and inflation. All the schools in his constituency will be taking a cut over the next few years.

[Catherine West]

A similar problem has been mentioned to the one in my constituency, where schools are cutting the school day, and I hope that the matter will be raised again, to prevent a domino effect that might lead to a four or four-and-a-half-day week. That would have a huge impact on productivity in the economy, as much as anything.

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate on behalf of schools in her constituency. The way she stands up for them will be on the record.

There is only one party represented here today that has had a reprimand about dodgy stats on schools: the Secretary of State received one from the UK Statistics Authority last week. The Opposition will not take lectures on statistics at the moment. The funding formula has been a colossal waste of time and effort and has not got to where the Minister wanted. I can see from the reactions of some Conservative Back Benchers that the same situation will continue. Schools in their constituencies will be under enormous pressures, and what has been done has not ended the situation.

The Minister talked about having to rescue the economy. The Government have led us to a nearly £2 trillion deficit in the economy.[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

[Mike Kane]

The reason the Opposition will vote against the regulations is that Labour was extraordinarily clear, with a fully costed manifesto at the general election. [Hon. Members: “To increase the debt.”] There is a lot of tutting from Conservative Members, but the only numbers in the Conservative manifesto were the page numbers. We had a well costed manifesto. At the general election, our policy on school funding was to reverse the cuts. That is what we said in June.

[The Chair]

Order. We have had a great opportunity for wide-ranging debate. The hon. Gentleman is now concluding it. If hon. Members want to carry on, they can do so in the Tea Room.

[Mike Kane]

Thank you, Mr Owen.

That would have led to an increase in real terms, which would have left per pupil funding at a record high and cost about £4.8 billion in the final year of this Parliament. That is what Labour committed to: investment in schools and our pupils, compared with disinvestment and cuts from the Government Benches.

Question put.

A-Level Provision: Knowsley Metropolitan Borough

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing this debate. She started with the principle that good education is a right for all. That should happen everywhere—not just in areas of advantage, but in areas of disadvantage. She succinctly outlined the issues facing young people in her borough, where 45% of young people grow up in some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the UK. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) has championed this issue for a number of years. They are MPs looking for a solution for the common good. They are not just critical of Government policy; they want to do the best for their borough. He gave some extraordinarily powerful testimony about the young people studying at All Saints and talked about what their future might look like.

My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood rightly talked about the gap between the north and the south. Evidence from Government reviews shows that, if we draw a line from the Humber estuary to the Mersey estuary, the number of children getting five good GCSEs is about 34%. In London, the previous Labour Government and the London challenge brought the number there right up so that nowadays 50% of children receiving free school meals in London achieve five good GCSEs or more. That gap needs to be challenged. It is not just me and the Labour party saying that. The former chief inspector of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, said that

“the people of Liverpool, Manchester and the north are not being treated fairly—that their children have less of a chance of educational success than people south of the Wash.”

I do not want to talk about my constituency—although there is good provision in my city, it is being centralised to locations many miles away in certain colleges. My hon. Friend said that we are creating deserts of post-16 education in the poorest areas. That is probably the quote for today.

The further education sector educates more than 4 million people a year in England, with students shared between mandatory education and university, including those going back to education in later life. Under the coalition Government, spending on further education in sixth forms fell by 14% in real terms. Core funding is only protected in cash terms up to 2019-20. At the end of the spending review period in ’19-’20, the Institute for Fiscal Studies expects that the spending per student in further education will be just above the level 30 years ago, at the end of the 1980s.

Since 2010, the sector has faced sustained budget cuts amounting to 14% in real terms. That has had a number of serious consequences for the provision of further education, from a sharp rise in the number of providers facing a financial crisis to many reducing the number of courses they have to offer or, as in Knowsley, courses going altogether. Between 2010-11 and 2016-17, spending on 16-to-19 education fell by 17.5% in real terms.

On A-levels, as our Front-Bench team under my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) have raised time and time again, the funding that sixth-form colleges, schools and academies now receive to educate sixth formers covers the cost of delivering three A-level or equivalent qualifications and little more. According to the Sixth Form Colleges Association, the average annual funding received by sixth-form colleges and school or academy sixth forms is now only £4,531 per student. That is 21% less than the funding received to educate younger students in secondary schools, 48% less than the average university tuition fee and 70% less than the average sixth-form fee in the independent sector.

In March 2017, plans were announced to increase investment in 16-to-19 education for students studying technical courses in further education colleges. That will have no impact on the vast majority of students in sixth-form colleges, or school or academy sixth forms, as they are primarily studying academic qualifications such as A-levels.

To come back to the Knowsley situation, the essence of what has been raised today involves six secondary schools in the borough, four of which have been academised. The Gove reforms introduced by the former Education Secretary threw the sector up into the air and brought it down so that there is now little chance of local elements changing the dynamic in their boroughs, because we have lost the principle of subsidiarity in education that was enshrined by Ellen Wilkinson, the first Labour Minister of Education in ’45, when she implemented the Butler Act.

Local leaders can do very little now. Michael Wilshaw has said that he wants to see MPs, such as the MPs present today, leading the charge for higher standards and better education, but there is little that they, local leaders or even elected city-wide Mayors or council leaders can do nowadays, because the power has been brought back to Whitehall. As we have seen, however, Whitehall cannot run 24,000 schools from the centre.

[Mr Howarth]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood rightly said, Knowsley as a local borough council does not have a great deal of purchase in the situation, but it is worth placing on record the support we did get from the local authority and its officers with the Department to bring that about.

[Mike Kane]

I too praise Knowsley for all it is trying to do to get the best provision. It now has no hand in four of its schools, although it has soft power, and its direct influence is on only the two Roman Catholic schools, which are yet to be academised. They are all working as hard as they can with the Archdiocese of Liverpool.

I will finish as I began with what Michael Wilshaw, the outgoing head of Ofsted, talked about. He warned that any attempts to achieve a geographic rebalancing of the British economy would be fatally undermined if children in the north of England could not be better educated. We cannot leave the education of our young people to chance, under a veil of ignorance, just because the place they are born and brought up in has differential levels of education. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood is right: education is a right for all our young people, no matter where they are born and brought up or what their social circumstances are. The Government must remember that in their response today.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister finishes his remarks no later than 5.27 pm that will give Maria Eagle up to three minutes to wind up the debate.

Free School Meals/Pupil Premium: Eligibility

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place in his new Department. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). She is a tireless campaigner as the chair of the all-party group on school food and she has shone a light for many years on this issue. She is also the first Sharon in the 100 years of women being elected to this place, so I congratulate her on that, too. I heard her on Radio 4 a few weeks ago when she was campaigning on secondary ticketing. Unfortunately, the grammar school and private school-educated kids could not get around the fact they were talking to a Sharon. Anybody who was in the Chamber on Friday when she gave her personal testimony in the debate on the registration of stillborn children will know that I have heard nothing more powerful in this place for many years. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate.

I doubt that anyone would dispute the importance of a benefit as wholesome as school meals. As a former primary school teacher, I saw the difference between those kids who got a full school meal and those who brought the rubbish in the packs—the chocolate and the drinks. I actually saw the impact on the difference in attainment during the afternoon. Governments have worked—together with Jamie Oliver—to improve nutritional values in school meals. We know that the provision of free school meals helps to reduce health inequalities, focuses attention in the classroom and brings benefits to attainment. As I said, I have seen it in my own experience.

The Government cannot deny that 1 million children living in poverty in working families are on these benefits. Those both in and beyond this place have outlined the conundrum carefully. By setting a net earnings threshold of £7,400 per annum to determine eligibility for free school meals under universal credit, the Government are contradicting their own stated aim of universal credit, which is to make work pay. If a household is earning just under £7,400 and has the chance to earn slightly more money, the Government are presenting working families with a cliff edge. There are clear questions the Minister needs to answer.

[Ruth George]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the example in the consultation document of a parent gaining free school meal eligibility is misleading? When they transfer from tax credits to universal credit, they will lose £1,600 a year. Those are not the children who should not be getting free school meals.

[Mike Kane]

I cannot agree more with my hon. Friend. We talked about cliff edges. What assessment has the Minister made of the cliff edge issues? In particular, how many children will be affected and how much will it cost families to make up the shortfall?

A second and connected issue has been flagged in the debate: the pupil premium. Pupil premium is additional funding targeted at raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils. It is currently targeted at children registered as eligible for free school meals, looked-after children and children who have had a parent in the regular armed forces at any point since 2012. Since the introduction of universal infant free school meals, schools have been missing out on that vital additional resource, as parents do not need to register for free school meals, which is the basis on which pupil premium is calculated. For schools already experiencing real-terms cuts to their funding, that is a vital additional resource that they can ill afford to miss out on.

[Michelle Donelan]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time we broke the link between free school meals and the pupil premium and broadened the calculations for the pupil premium, so that it also includes social disadvantages such as bereavement, mental health problems, divorce and so on, which can affect attainment?

[Mike Kane]

We will broaden it out and should have more, not fewer, children on free school meals. That was clearly our policy in our manifesto in June.

[Alex Burghart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Kane]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, although I would say that only a former policy adviser would frame a question in the way that he did.

We know that for disadvantaged pupils having a full belly helps them perform. We had a fully costed manifesto at the general election, unlike the Conservative party, which—on its insult and injury tour—was taking away free school meals and making sure that it had no costed proposals for it. Labour would reintroduce free school meals as a universal benefit across the system so that we get proper learning and attainment in our school system. We cannot afford not to do it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Will the Minister conclude his remarks no later than 5.54 pm, so that Sharon Hodgson has two minutes to sum up the debate? I call the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Evidence from last year’s key stage 2 SATs shows that the attainment gap between children on free school meals and their peers has widened since the year before. The results for the Minister’s precious key stage 1 phonics for kids on free school meals actually went backwards last year. At least the previous Secretary of State talked the talk on social mobility. Is it not clear that the Government do not walk the walk?

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. The attainment-gap index at key stage 2 has closed by 10.5%. We have seen a significant increase in the proportion of children who achieve the expected standard in reading, writing and maths: it rose from 53% last year to 61% this year—an increase of 8 percentage points—and the SATs are significantly more demanding than they were in previous years. We are producing a cohort of primary school leavers who are far better equipped in maths and English, ready for the demands of secondary school.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

Yes, of course; I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to try to resolve that impasse. We are spending record amounts of capital on our school system: £23 billion in this period.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I am confused. In 2015 the Education Funding Agency conducted a financial management and governance review of the failed Wakefield City Academies Trust, but the Department refused to publish it, placing the trust’s commercial interests above the interests of the 8,500 pupils. So can the Minister answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh): how many more MATs are in peril on his watch?

[Nick Gibb]

As I said earlier, 98% of academy trust accounts for 2015-16 got a clean bill of health. We take the financial probity of the academy system very seriously. All academies have to publish audited financial accounts, which maintained local authority schools do not. The fact that far fewer schools today are rated as inadequate than in 2010 is a tribute to the structural reforms and the academies programme. Currently, 450,000 pupils are in sponsored academies rated as good or outstanding. Under the watch of the hon. Gentleman’s party these schools were typically underperforming, before we turned them into sponsored academies.

Mental Health Education in Schools

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I acknowledge the good work done by the Shaw Mind Foundation in securing the debate. For Adam Shaw, the foundation’s chairman and founder, after struggling for 30 years with his own mental health, which led him to the brink of suicide, this is a personal issue. It is vital that we listen to the voices of those such as Adam who have experienced mental ill health in their childhood. They are telling us that understanding our own mental health is a life skill, which should be part of our childhood education as much as reading and writing. The response from the public to Adam’s petition shows that that view is shared by many people in the UK. This debate has left us in no doubt that action needs to be taken now to safeguard our children’s mental health.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made an exceptional speech. It was a real tour de force, highlighting national and local policy and bringing in individual cases from her constituency. The 103,000 people who signed the petition so that it could be debated in Parliament today can be extraordinarily proud of her contribution.

Other contributors to this debate include the Chair of the Select Committee on Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). I could not agree more that mental health requires a whole-school approach rather than just being pushed into PSHE lessons. As a former PSHE co-ordinator for a primary school in the borough of Trafford, which I represent, I know that mental health cannot be taught in the time given to that subject. More must be done.

The hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who is also a member of the Select Committee, spoke extraordinarily powerfully about the stigma that needs to be shattered; this debate is part of doing so. I join the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) in congratulating the Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry, who have raised the issue. He also spoke powerfully about the need for teacher training to incorporate mental health education in colleges and universities up and down the land.

The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) gave an extraordinarily powerful personal testimony about his own mental health during his childhood. MPs being brave in that way in public life are beginning to shatter the stigma. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) also spoke eloquently about the good practice that he has seen between NHS councils and schools in his constituency. We need exemplars of good practice across the land.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), citing the World Health Organisation, said that mental health would be the defining issue of the 21st century and that there is a tsunami coming. He is a passionate advocate for mindfulness day in, day out in this place. We have had an extraordinarily good debate. As a former teacher, I know that schools are struggling to deal with an upsurge in mental health needs among pupils.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), in an excellent speech, brought her clinical prowess and expertise to this Chamber. As she pointed out, statistics show that one in 10 children have mental health issues. That is three children in every classroom of 30. One in five adolescents experience a mental health problem in any given year. A recent survey by the union NASUWT involving more than 2,000 teachers and school leaders further underlined the scale of the problem: 98% said that they had come into contact with pupils whom they believed were experiencing mental health problems, and 46% said that they had never received any training on children’s mental health or on recognising the signs of possible mental health problems in children.

We know that half of people with mental health problems as adults present symptoms by age 14, and 75% do so by age 18. Shockingly, suicide is the most common cause of death for boys between the ages of five and 19. Data from a recently published Government study showed that one in four girls are clinically depressed by the time they turn 14, and hospital admissions for self-harm are up by two-thirds; the number of girls hospitalised for cutting themselves has quadrupled over the past decade.

I also want to point to research on the LGBT community. Stonewall found that more than four in five young people who identify as trans have self-harmed; that is an incredible statistic. Three in five lesbian, gay and bi young people who are not trans have self-harmed. Shockingly, more than two in five trans young people have attempted to take their own life. For that community, mental illness rates are huge.

The number of young people aged under 18 attending accident and emergency for a psychiatric condition more than doubled between 2010 and 2015, yet just 8% of the mental health budget is spent on children, although children represent 20% of the population. Referrals to CAMHS, as has been mentioned, increased by 64% between 2012-13 and 2014-15, but more than a quarter of children and young people referred were not allocated a service. Perhaps most damningly, Public Health England estimates that only 25% of children and young people who need treatment for a mental health problem can access it.

Following the groundswell of evidence of mental ill health in our children and young people and the system’s abject failure to deal with it, the Prime Minister announced in January, to a fanfare, a package of measures aimed at transforming mental health support in schools, workplaces and communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out following the Prime Minister’s announcement, that will not deal properly with the burning injustice faced by children and young people with mental ill health.

I am afraid that this Government talk a good game on mental health, but in reality, they have continued to underfund services. The Government’s proposals do nothing to improve waiting times for treatment for children and young people, and they put pressure on schools to take on extra work on mental health, at a time when they are having to cut budgets. The Minister and I have been no strangers to discussing budget cuts in this Chamber over the past six months.

The evaluation of the mental health services and schools link pilots published in February underlined the lack of available resources to deliver the Government’s offer universally across all schools. Headteachers are telling us that real-terms cuts of £2.8 billion to school budgets threaten existing in-school care. On top of that, funding for child and adolescent mental health services fell by almost £50 million between 2009-10 and 2012-13. The Government also cut £600 million from mental health budgets between 2010 and 2015, and the number of mental health nurses in our country has decreased by 6,000 since 2010. Our Government continually expect our teachers, schools and health services to do more for less.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Kane]

I would love to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, so I can regroup and have a glass of water.

[Sir Nicholas Soames]

I do not want to spoil the harmonious general cross-party agreement on this point, but the hon. Gentleman’s litany of despair occurs against the background of a substantial investment in mental health in this country. The problem—I see it in my constituency, and I am sure that everyone in this room sees the same thing—is the time from what, in the Army, they call flash to bang. Once the money is voted and put into the service, it takes a very long time to bring through properly qualified people to deal with the problems.

[Mike Kane]

The right hon. Gentleman spoke eloquently about the need for better mental health provision for teachers throughout our country, but I point out to him, as part of the litany of despair, that a third of teachers who have trained since 2011, on this Government’s watch, have already left the profession. We must deal with these issues if we are to have a future cadre of teachers who are adequately trained in mental health education.

On the upside, there are things that we can do. We could invest in CAMHS early interventions by increasing the proportion of mental health budgets spent on support for children and young people. In order to protect service, we could also ring-fence mental health budgets and ensure that funding reaches the frontlines. We know that school counselling is an effective early intervention; Labour have committed to ensuring that access to counselling services is available for all pupils in secondary schools.

Early intervention is much cheaper to deliver, as has been pointed out. The Department of Health estimates that a targeted therapeutic intervention delivered in school costs about £229, but derives an average lifetime benefit of £72,525. That is a cost-benefit ratio of 32:1. Of children and young people who had school counselling in Wales in 2014, 85% did not need any onward referral to children and adolescent mental health services.

The sad fact is that the Government’s plans for school budgets will result in further cuts to school counselling and wellbeing services. Labour has said that it will fund and ensure that every secondary school in England and Wales offers counselling. This Government’s sticking-plaster approach to our children’s mental health has not been, is not and will not be good enough. I urge the Minister to look closely at the recommendations of the first joint report of the Education and Health Committees, “Children and young people’s mental health—the role of education”.

Teachers are not mental health professionals, but they are the frontline professionals in daily contact with our children and young people, and are often the first to spot the signs of mental ill health. They are also overworked, underpaid and under-resourced, so adding an additional responsibility to their workload without the necessary training and investment will only deepen our teacher recruitment and retention crisis. Our schools need an honest approach from the Government that acknowledges the £2.8billion real-terms cuts in school budgets since 2015.

We must act now and give our children the knowledge and confidence to take charge of their own mental health. If we do not, we will never be able to relieve the huge strain on our NHS, CAMHS, social services and teachers. The Prime Minister must make good her pledge and act on children and young people’s mental health. If the Government believe in parity of mental and physical health, they will ensure not only that age- appropriate mental health education is available for children in our schools from primary school upwards, but that our schools are properly funded with the resources to deliver that.