BTEC (Public Uniformed Services)

Nicholas Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, for this debate, which is important to my constituency and my constituents and to the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education.

In this half-hour Adjournment debate, I want to highlight the important part that MOD service personnel are playing in supporting cadet forces in state schools and, in particular, the involvement of service personnel in delivering the BTEC in uniformed public services. That course and well run school cadet forces generally are making a real difference to the lives of youngsters who attend state schools. Along with the Department for Education, more than £10 million has been pledged to expand cadet units into more state schools by 2015. I understand the budget pressures that the MOD currently faces, but I want to stress that I believe that is a good use of money.

Two state schools in my constituency—Walker technology college and Heaton Manor school—have cadet forces. The benefits have a real impact on individuals. Involvement in cadet units and work on the associated BTEC teaches participants the ethos of public service, as well as beneficial life skills, such as discipline and organisation. Not every pupil encounters those virtues outside the school environment.

The head at Heaton Manor school, Lynne Ackland, told me that the cadet force at the school has had a very positive impact. Attendance and attainment has increased among participants, their physical health has improved notably, and many have had their confidence and self-esteem reinforced. She said:

“As a head teacher who was sceptical at first I have been so impressed with the achievements and presence this opportunity has brought to the school”.

The staff and individuals who offer to help with cadet forces and in teaching the BTEC show great dedication. For many staff, including Ministry of Defence service personnel, the commitment is purely voluntary. Without their efforts, many units would not be viable. For the staff, the benefits are twofold. There is the personal satisfaction of teaching youngsters—sometimes very disadvantaged youngsters—and also the personal professional development through leadership and team-working skills. For the youngsters themselves, the results are even more marked, although not always easy to quantify.

I should declare an interest here, Mr Streeter. I am, and have been since 1980, a governor of Walker school—now Walker technology college. At Walker technology college, the uniformed public services BTEC is delivered as a curricular activity via the cadet unit. The qualifications gained by the pupils currently count towards the school’s value-added best eight GCSE or equivalent points score measure. The way in which Walker technology college has offered the BTEC course has helped to give it real status, and it has been praised by the Cadet Vocational Qualification Organisation as an example of excellent practice. The model has even been adopted by a number of other schools. The school has seen success with the qualification, which has included groundbreaking work with the Ministry of Defence and 15 (North East) Brigade at Catterick. Both the MOD and the school have made significant financial commitments to the qualification by running the cadet unit as though it were a full curriculum department. The school also looks to offer ex-service personnel the opportunity of full-time employment, helping to staff that area.

The crucial point is that Walker technology college relies on the BTEC qualifications associated with the cadet unit being counted in the school’s performance indicators to justify its level of commitment and investment. That arrangement is different to many schools, including Heaton Manor, where the cadet unit and associated qualifications are extra-curricular. The Prime Minister, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education have publicly pledged their commitment to school cadet forces. In a previous exchange in the House, admittedly with a different Minister, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)said:

“It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman”—

a reference to myself—

“and some of his colleagues used their links with the trade union movement to ensure the fullest possible participation among trade unions in helping to support cadet units.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 3.]

Always willing to help out in a good cause, I asked the regional secretary of the northern TUC, Mr Kevin Rowan, to check the position of the TUC-affiliated trade unions, and he very kindly did so. He contacted every schools’ trade union representative in the north-east of England, under the heading “Unusual Query of the Day”, asking for trade union representative’s views.

The quote from Walker technology college’s National Union of Teachers representative, Mr Shaun Dunlop, is typical of the rest of the responses:

“To my knowledge, there have been absolutely no objections raised by unions to the BTEC in public uniformed services that has been followed by many students at Walker over the last few years, nor to the combined cadet forces attachment we have at college. The vast majority of staff see the combined cadet forces and the BTEC course and the effect it has on the confidence of the students who are following it as a great asset to the college. Certainly nothing negative has come my way. I have personally volunteered to help out in probably more than a dozen weekends away with cadets over the last four years or so to help them gain their BTEC qualifications.”

I wrote to the Minister on 29 November last year, asking if he was aware of any specific issues relating to trade unions. I hope that the response I have read out will serve as a reassurance that, when it comes to supporting local cadet units, we are on his side in east Newcastle.

There is, however, a problem for Walker technology college, which I highlighted to the Minister in our exchange in the House, and today’s debate gives me the opportunity to highlight it again. Following the recommendations of the Wolf report and subsequent actions by the Department for Education, the uniformed public services BTEC has been removed from counting towards school performance indicators. Schools must now focus on a narrower range of courses. That puts into jeopardy the excellent provision at Walker technology college. State schools must consequently focus their funding towards courses that count towards pupil and school performance indicators. It is more difficult to justify spending funds on an activity when it would take place on a purely extra-curricular basis, as would be the case for the cadet unit at Walker technology college from 2014. That is of real concern to everyone involved and it is counter-productive, given the Government’s stated commitment in that area.

If we believe in the value of the course, which I do, it must be recognised for evaluation. If the Prime Minister and the Government generally want to realise the course’s objectives, they need to ensure its inclusion in performance indicators. The Wolf report acknowledged the growing importance of BTECs and states that many who take BTEC level 3 national qualifications continue on to higher education. I do not seek to disagree with the recommendations of the Wolf report or with the efforts of the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that significant rigour is present in the education of our children. I am, however, eager to ensure that courses that provide beneficial skills to young people are recognised and included. It seems to me that the uniformed public services BTEC and associated cadet force training is of notable merit and should be one of those recognised qualifications.

The Department for Education has made some changes to the approved list of courses that will be included in school performance indicators from 2014. I am arguing that the BTEC in uniformed public services should be on the approved list. To that end, I have already been in contact with Pearson International, the company that owns Edexcel, which runs the BTEC. Representatives have told me that they are happy to sit down with the MOD and the Department for Education to explore how that could be achieved through looking at the BTEC and how it may comply under new guidelines.

In praising what the Ministry of Defence has done in this area so far—I have nothing but praise for that—I hope to enlist the Minister’s support in progressing discussions about the uniformed public services BTEC within the Government. I know that the Secretary of State for Education is sympathetic, because he has told me so. I have the impression that the institutional view of the civil service in the Department for Education is less sympathetic. Our cause is just and therefore I hope that I can enlist the Minister’s help in championing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I agree absolutely with that. The research done by the universities of Southampton and Portsmouth, which I have cited, is germane to that. Certainly, expanding the range of options, particularly vocational options, that kids are able to take up at school when they might be alienated from straightforward academic subjects is very important. However, I will go on to talk about some of the characteristics that the Department for Education believes are necessary in order to qualify a BTEC for inclusion in league tables. It is important to emphasise that the MOD does not fund the BTEC qualification. It is funded from either Education or charitable sources.

[Mr Nicholas Brown]

For the sake of complete clarity, I point out that that is not what I am asking the Minister. I am asking that the BTEC in uniformed public services be counted in the evaluation of the school. The school to which I am referring serves a predominantly working-class community. Resources are restricted. The school has to prioritise and it has to prioritise those courses that count towards its evaluation, yet the uniformed public services qualification work is doing so well for the school. If it can retain it, it really wants to.

[Dr Murrison]

I am sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that what I am able to say will give him some comfort and be helpful. I should point out, however, that education is of course a devolved matter. We are all still picking our way through the devolution settlement, and it adds a level of complexity to discussions of this sort. Although the MOD has the luxury of dealing with matters that are not devolved, the Department for Education simply does not. In England, as the CVQO-led BTEC in public services has been approved by the Secretary of State for Education under section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, schools can choose to fund it from within their budgets. Alternatively, I can confirm that CVQO is funded by the Education Funding Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Education, to deliver qualifications for 5,000 English cadets a year aged over 16 and under 19. I am aware that, as a charity, CVQO is raising funds to meet an ever-growing demand from within the cadet forces and other youth organisations.

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the issues that he raises regarding changes to the recognition of the BTEC in public services are a matter for the Department for Education, not the Ministry of Defence. However, I am informed that in reforming the school performance tables, the Secretary of State for Education is incentivising schools to offer qualifications that have the greatest value for the majority of pupils at key stage 4—qualifications that will best enable them to progress to further study and into employment. Due to its specialist nature, the BTEC in public services does not feature on the list of qualifications that will count in performance tables from 2014. If it assists the right hon. Gentleman, I can provide the existing characteristics needed for performance tables and a list of BTECs that currently count.

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s conversation with Edexcel and Pearson. It would clearly be desirable to reconcile the list of characteristics with the BTEC in public services. I would be more than happy to discuss with my colleagues at the Department for Education whether a dialogue would be helpful, so that we can reach the conclusion the right hon. Gentleman seeks. I understand the experience he and his local schools have had with the imperatives the Department for Education has established.

Notwithstanding that, in recognition of the fact that there are pupils who will benefit from taking other qualifications, schools remain free to offer any qualification approved for use pre-16, including the BTEC in public services. I know that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that. Ultimately, it is for schools to decide which qualifications are most appropriate to meet the needs of their individual pupils. His testimony about his two schools will no doubt encourage the head teachers of those schools to do what they can to support the qualification.

[Mr Nicholas Brown]

I am grateful to the Minister for the general approach he is taking. I do not think there is a quarrel between us. As he clearly understands, my objective is to get, not the cadet force itself, but the BTEC qualification to count towards the assessment of Walker college. I ask for that because a well resourced, fee-paying school has enough money to offer the cadet experience or even the BTEC experience as an optional extra, but a state school serving an inner-city community at a time of public expenditure constraint has limited ability to do the same.

The cadet force experience offered to young people relies heavily on the altruism of the school’s teaching staff and the voluntary commitment of Ministry of Defence personnel, willingly giving up their free time because they believe in what they are doing and want to help the youngsters on the course.

The benefits of not only the cadet force, but the BTEC are such that the course should be included. I would be more than willing to engage with either Department or with the BTEC providers to make progress towards that.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he and I are more or less on the same page. It is clearly a matter of reconciling the characteristics, which the Department for Education has laid down to assess BTECs and their inclusion in performance tables, with the needs of schools, such as those he described in his constituency, and our need to ensure that young people have something that will be of value to them. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman, and we hear from people in our constituencies, testimonies about the transformational experience that such work can engender in youngsters. We are in agreement.

The Government believe that teachers should use their professional judgment to balance the subjects that are directly linked to a pupil’s future success, and are reported in the school performance tables, with those that match the pupil’s abilities and interests. Where schools judge that their pupils have benefited from the uniformed public services course, we encourage them to maintain that provision, but I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about resources.

In the Ministry of Defence, we recognise that a BTEC in public services can be life-changing for some young people, with its either being the only qualification they receive or the additional qualification that allows them to fulfil their ambitions. That however is not why Defence funds and supports the cadet forces; we do it to improve the awareness and understanding of the armed forces and their role in British society.

Finally, I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute, once again, to the 26,000 cadet force adult volunteers. Most give up at least two nights a week and one weekend a month to provide a challenging and safe environment for young people. Without them, the cadet forces would cease to exist. I hope that everyone here agrees that we owe them a massive vote of thanks.

Nuclear Deterrent

Nicholas Brown Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to make a very short contribution to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) not only on having secured it, which is a triumph in itself, but on how he argued the case for Britain’s independent nuclear submarine-based deterrent. It was the strongest series of arguments that I have heard made in one place for the renewal of the Trident platform. I do not agree with those arguments, but they were strongly made and the hon. Gentleman drew together all the different points that can be made.

Let me make two points back to the hon. Gentleman. First, we are purchasing something we cannot use, and secondly, we are doing it with money we have not got. They seem to me to be two pretty strong arguments to weigh in the balance. The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) referred to the cost and the impact on the defence budget. Frankly, we should think about the impact on the public finances more generally. We are in danger of sleepwalking into a commitment of some £80 billion to £100 billion, with a deployment cost of £1 billion a year, without properly discussing it in this place, so I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest East on having secured this short discussion.

I ask all hon. Members in what conceivable circumstances in the world today they could envisage the United Kingdom taking the decision unilaterally to use nuclear weapons against another nation. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to envisage such circumstances. An independent nuclear deterrent does not address the security demands or the realities of international instability which the United Kingdom faces. This is not to argue that we do not face international threats in the 21st century. Of course we do. What I am arguing is that they are more complex and sophisticated and require a more intelligent response than a big 20th century bomb—a weapon of the cold war whose time, if it ever existed, has most certainly passed.

International terrorism is not combated or deterred by an independent deterrent. Trident does not counter the ever increasing number of cyber attacks on our nation’s digital infrastructure. It does not address political, socio-economic or environmental injustices that lead to global instability. These are the pressing issues that the United Kingdom faces and we hamper our ability to deal with them by focusing our defence priorities and spending on a cold war weapons system.

I am in favour of our membership of NATO. We make a strong contribution to the alliance and we should trust it and rely upon its possession collectively of a strategic deterrent, if there is an argument for the strategic deterrent at all.

In summary, this is a weapons system that we cannot use. The cost is disproportionate to the hard-to-identify benefits and it makes no sense in terms of our alliance with other friendly nations, of our international obligations or even as a response to the security threats faced by the United Kingdom.

[Mr Speaker]

A model of pithiness, which I know the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will want to emulate or better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nicholas Brown Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

I support the Minister in what he is trying to do and draw his attention to the excellent work carried out at Walker Technology college and Heaton Manor school in my constituency. Is a core problem the way in which the BTEC in uniformed public services counts towards the evaluation of state-funded schools more generally? I know the Education Secretary is aware of that problem, and it will have to be overcome if cadet forces are to flourish in state schools.

[Mr Francois]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that part of the new programme of expansion is deliberately aimed at state schools—I take it he welcomes that. I take on board the point about the BTEC. I recently met Lord Hill, the Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Education, to discuss how we can further increase the cadet movement in schools, and when we next meet I will ensure the issue is on the agenda. It would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues used their links with the trade union movement to ensure the fullest possible participation among trade unions in helping to support cadet units.

Nuclear-powered Submarines

Nicholas Brown Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right, and it is worse than that, I am afraid. It is not about building the core reactor in substandard premises—it would not be built at all if the investment in the Raynesway plant were not made. It would not be safe for it to be built there.

I should also say that the policy that we have announced of consolidating submarine operations on Clydeside after 2017, which should be a good news story for people in Scotland as it will bring jobs and prosperity, is not capable of subdivision. One cannot pick and choose; they cannot have the Astute class and not the successor class.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

Why in straitened economic circumstances is it cost-effective for the coalition Government to duplicate a strategic weapons system that NATO already has in its arsenal? In what circumstances would the coalition deploy a strategic deterrent outwith our membership of NATO?

[Mr Hammond]

Our strategic missile submarines serve two functions. They provide a national strategic deterrence and they are committed to NATO as part of the NATO strategic deterrence. Part of NATO’s strategic posture involves having more than one nuclear-capable platform.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Nicholas Brown Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee in this debate. I wholeheartedly identify myself and my constituents with his tribute to our serving personnel; that issue would never divide us.

I also want to take up the theme that the right hon. Gentleman began and place these matters in the context of the public expenditure circumstances that face our country. But before I do so, I, too, would like to welcome the Secretary of State to his new responsibilities. I am pleased that he is here, taking an interest in this Back-Bench debate, and I wish him well in the difficult duties that he has in these strained circumstances.

I want us to look again at the case for Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. I know that that will probably not be popular on either side of the House; others can make their points as the debate progresses. Given the current circumstances, it is time to consider the question again. The Government projects a total cost of £15 billion to £20 billion for the Trident successor programme. Independent research has suggested that the total cost would come in at three or four times that figure and our past experience with such big defence programmes suggests something similar.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Brown]

I remember giving way to the hon. Gentleman the last time I spoke in a debate of this character, back in 2007. I bet his intervention is about the same point.

[Dr Lewis]

Conservative Members are nothing but consistent on this issue. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Polaris fleet and the Trident submarines came into service on time and within budget.

[Mr Brown]

The hon. Gentleman presumably hopes that that will be the case in the future. However, I challenge him to point to any other defence programme from which he could extrapolate that conclusion. I know that he follows these matters with care, but I cannot think of another programme. He is right to point out the special cases of those procurements in the past, but I am not reassured that they will be repeated in the future. In any event, that point is not at the heart of my case. No matter how one looks at it, this is a very large sum of money to spend. My point is that we should look carefully at whether we should spend it.

The maingate decision on final renewal has been pushed back until after the next general election. The cost of that is said to be an additional £1.5 billion to refurbish and prolong the lifespan of the existing fleet. Parliamentary answers from Defence Ministers show that upwards of £2 billion has already been spent on preparatory work for the manufacture of the new submarines.

The Government clearly intend to press ahead with Trident renewal. In my opinion, they should seek explicit parliamentary authority for doing so. The failure to hold a vote in Parliament on the renewal of our independent nuclear deterrent is because of the inability to reconcile different views in the coalition. The question that faces us is whether an independent nuclear deterrent is a good use of such a large sum of public money in the present circumstances. The arguments, which were never that strong, are now moving away from Trident renewal.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I am listening with great interest. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a long-term strategic decision, such as the replacement of our nuclear deterrent, should not be taken in the context of the current short-term economic conditions?

[Mr Brown]

I will come on to deal with that precise point. I have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman for making it.

The current Trident system relies heavily on US logistical, capacity, technological and military know-how. It is nearly impossible to imagine any circumstances in which we would launch a nuclear attack, much less that we would do so independently of the Americans. Likewise, were Britain to be attacked by a nuclear power, the terms of our membership of NATO would require a joint response by all members, including the US.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brown]

I cannot give way because of the rules on these things.

NATO is a mutual defence pact. It is a fundamental strength that its armoury includes the nuclear capability of the US. There has always been a question over why Britain needs to duplicate NATO’s nuclear capability, rather than more usefully supplement its conventional capacity.

When I first entered Parliament in 1983, I resisted joining the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I did not support our decision to go ahead with an independent submarine-based system of our own. However, I did support Britain’s membership of NATO, which CND did not. At the time, that was regarded in the Labour party as a very establishment and right-wing position. It is a small irony of Labour politics that the same position is today seen as very left-wing.

When the decision was taken to adopt the Trident system in the early 1980s, there was an understanding that in exchange for non-proliferation by the non-nuclear powers, there would be restraint by the existing nuclear powers, in particular the US and Russia, when it came to further weapons development and upgrades. That idea was enshrined in article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It can be argued that that has been more honoured in the breach by countries that did not possess a nuclear capability, but that do now. The underlying principle, however, seems to me still to be sound.

The large financial outlay that the Government are committed to in planning to replace our independent deterrent could be better spent in a number of ways. During the economic boom, I argued that we ought to better equip our troops, invest in the specialist field of anti-terrorism capability in line with the real threats that we face, and supplement our existing overseas aid budget. We now face new threats. To take one example, the money that we spend on Trident could be used to bring down substantially the tuition fees of every student. I think that cutting a generation adrift from higher education poses a bigger threat to our nation than the idea that a foreign power with nuclear weaponry would uniquely threaten to use it against us, and not the rest of NATO, and would somehow be able to disapply NATO’s founding terms. The real nuclear dangers of the future come from rogue states and terrorism. The possession of an independent nuclear deterrent does not make us safer. A better investment would be in anti-terrorism capabilities.

Three main arguments are put forward by proponents of Trident replacement. The first is that it is the best weapon that money can buy. The second is that it guarantees a seat on the United Nations Security Council. The final argument is that it contributes to our ability to punch above our weight in the world. I argue that it is not much of a weapon if the circumstances in which it may be used cannot be envisaged. Fundamental reform of the United Nations Security Council is long overdue and the difficulty, as we all know, is getting agreement on what that reform should be. I also think that other countries might like us more if we stopped punching above our weight in the world. We might be better thought of by the international community if we settled for being the medium-sized European nation state that we are, rather than the imperial power that we used to be.

We have a choice as a country: do we want to continue to drift into spending billions of pounds on supplementing a nuclear capability that we already possess through NATO or do we want to spend that money on tackling the problems that Britain actually faces in squeezed economic times? Surely we should resolve this issue now with a vote in this Parliament.