Careers Service (Young People)

Debate between Nick Gibb and Andy Burnham

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government should act urgently to guarantee face-to-face careers advice for all young people in schools.

The motion is in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham). The House this afternoon debated the challenges facing the coming generation; this evening, it is right to consider how, as a society, we help all young people to face up to those challenges, and how we give them the advice and support that they will need to find their way in a changing and highly competitive world.

It would seem that our debate is well timed. After today’s bombshell from the Boundary Commission, perhaps a few more of us all of a sudden have a keener interest in preserving a good-quality careers service. However, our woes are nothing compared with the dejection, disappointment and sheer hopelessness that many of our young constituents are experiencing. Jobs are getting harder to find, with close to 1 million young people now unemployed. Many are struggling to stay in education or training with the loss of education maintenance allowance and local authority travel grants. For a growing number, university is quite simply no longer seen as a realistic option.

Not surprisingly, some young people are feeling lost and do not know where to turn. Some are able to fall back on strong families and family connections to open doors, but that is not available to all young people. Those who feel lost need good careers and life advice more than ever.

What is the Government’s answer? Having kicked away the ladders of support—the EMA, the future jobs fund and Aimhigher—they are now pulling up the drawbridge, leaving young people alone in the dark to fend for themselves. Let me say at the beginning that this debate is not about preserving the status quo, and nor is it special pleading for the Connexions service. The previous Labour Government commissioned a report that highlighted problems with that service and we accepted that there were areas where it needed to improve. I have not come to the House tonight to say, “Nothing must change.”

The Opposition have previously said that we have no real disagreement with the Government over their vision for an all-age careers service. However, with every day that passes, it becomes less likely that the Government’s vision will ever become a reality, because careers services are disappearing, advisers are being made redundant, and young people are being left in the lurch. Schools are being given the statutory responsibility to provide careers advice, but no money to do so. It is a complete mess. Ministers promised a transition plan months ago, and tonight we ask them this simple question: where is it? They are treating dedicated careers professionals with contempt, and owe them the courtesy of some answers. That is why the Opposition have brought Ministers to the House this evening.

We appreciate why the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning is not here today—the Opposition wish him well—but why is the Secretary of State for Education not leading this debate for the Government? Where is he? I say this to the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb): what is more important when young people all over the country face the difficulty of finding a job, uncertainty about their futures and worries about the cost of education? What could be more important than the Government ensuring that those young people have access to good advice? Why is the Secretary of State not here to answer those concerns?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

My right hon. Friend sends his apologies to the House, but he is meeting 100 outstanding head teachers in Nottingham who have travelled there to meet him to discuss the opening of the first 100 teaching schools. That is why he cannot be here. If it had not been for that, he would have been here.

[Andy Burnham]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but debates in the House used to be more important than that. This is an urgent situation facing the careers service in this country. This is more urgent and it needs to be addressed by the Secretary of State. We need him to provide leadership. Frankly, he has provided none to date on this important issue. On his watch, the careers service in England has gone into meltdown, which is unforgivable considering all the pressures on young people today. He has shown next to no interest in this subject and has his head permanently stuck in an ivory tower. Instead of obsessing about Oxbridge, he needs to start engaging with the real world and the challenges that young people face in trying to get on in life.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I am delighted to be able to respond to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I had thought that this might be a policy area where the differences between us were slight enough and that he would not feel the need to overstate his case. Alas, that hope has been dashed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have liked to respond to the right hon. Gentleman but, as I mentioned earlier, he is in Nottingham meeting 100 head teachers to discuss the future teaching schools. I hasten to add that 100 people is more than the number of Labour Members in the Chamber right now, and this is an Opposition day debate. The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning would also have liked to have responded to the right hon. Gentleman, but he has just undergone minor surgery and is recovering in hospital. He sends his best wishes and wanted me to pass on his apologies to the House for the fact that a lesser orator than he is responding.

It is hard to listen to the right hon. Gentleman when he clamours for £200 million here and £200 million there, given that he was in the Cabinet of a Government who left this country with the largest budget deficit in the G7 and interest payments of £120 million a day, leaving the country on the brink of financial collapse. That is why we have had to take some very difficult decisions. Until Opposition spokesmen acknowledge that point, nothing they say on public spending will have any credibility.

[Andy Burnham]

rose—

[Mr Gibb]

I will make this final point and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I dread to think of the damage that would have been done to young people’s prospects had Labour won the last election and plunged our economy into a crisis such as those that Greece and Ireland have faced.

[Andy Burnham]

This evening, will the Minister at least tell us where the money has gone? Was the careers budget in the Department raided to pay for the patched-up version of the successor to the education maintenance allowance that the Government were forced to cobble together?

[Mr Gibb]

As I just mentioned, the £200 million to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring would pay for two days’ interest on the debt left by his Government. In addition, we have put extra funding into tackling post-16 deprivation and providing help for those who need additional support: we increased that by a third, to £750 million. That is how those sums have been prioritised by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the service is very patchy.

Our starting point was that careers advice needed to improve, and I think that there is unanimity across the House on that. We decided to split the provision of careers advice from the provision of advice to vulnerable young people. They are very different disciplines requiring different skills and different knowledge bases, so the decision was taken to provide an all-age careers service—the national careers service. That is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the service will be up and running from April 2012. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning for the work that he has put in to delivering that service.

The duty to provide careers advice to young people will therefore be removed from local authorities and transferred, subject to the passage of the Education Bill, to schools from September 2012. That duty will require schools to secure access to independent impartial careers guidance for their pupils in years 9 to 11. As part of the consultation process, we are also considering whether there is a case for extending that duty down to year 8 or up to the age of 18.

[Andy Burnham]

Will the Minister confirm that it might be independent and impartial advice, but it will not be face-to-face advice? That is to say, the Government’s plan is that it will be delivered over the phone or via the internet.

[Mr Gibb]

The legislation states only that the advice must be independent. We are considering all the issues being raised in this debate, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Gibb and Andy Burnham

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

The NATRE study cited by my hon. Friend suggests that around one in six schools anticipate a drop in religious studies entries at GCSE related to the E-bac, but it is not clear what overall effect that might have on take-up. Well over half of schools specifically indicated in that survey that there would not be a drop in GCSE entries in RS; indeed, a proportion said that there would be an increase in entries. That bears out the fact that the English baccalaureate does not prevent any school from offering RS GCSEs, and RE remains a statutory part of the curriculum.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I do not know whether you are a fan of films of the ‘80s, Mr Speaker, but you might remember one called “Back to the Future”. It starred a man called Michael who was trapped in the 1950s—an echo, perhaps, of someone else in modern politics. Ministers are hopelessly stuck in the past: they drop work experience at key stage 4 and promote Latin above engineering, ICT and RE, yet we know religious education helps young people understand the world today. Ministers tell us that the E-bac is what parents and students want, so will the Minister tell us what percentage of year 9 students who have recently chosen their GCSE options have opted for the English bac?

[Mr Gibb]

We do not collect the figure centrally. We will see the effect of the English baccalaureate when we see the GCSE results this year, next year and the year after that. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a modern curriculum, he should be aware that we need modern languages to be taught in our schools. Under his watch, the numbers entering for GCSE in modern languages plummeted from 79% in the year 2000 to just 43% last year, while the proportion taking geography fell from 44% in 1997 to 27% last year. The range of subjects in the English baccalaureate is mirrored elsewhere in modern emerging economies such as Singapore, France, Japan and Alberta. [Hon. Members: “Alberta?”] In Canada. Those are the most successful education jurisdictions.

[Andy Burnham]

It is just not good enough that the Minister does not know about the impact his policies are having on student choices in schools. In my constituency, about 30% of young people are opting for the English bac; what does the Minister have to say to the other 70% who have chosen not to do it? RE teachers, music teachers and art teachers are at risk of redundancy because of the English baccalaureate. No wonder nine faith leaders wrote to The Daily Telegraph this weekend to say that they were

“gravely concerned about the negative impact current Government policies are having on RE in schools”.

Ministers promised freedom, choice and autonomy in education; is it not time that they started living up to those words?

[Mr Gibb]

If we were to take advice from the right hon. Gentleman, we would have a cap on aspiration for young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. He should be ashamed of the fact that his Government left this Government a legacy whereby only 8% of pupils on free school meals were even entered for the English baccalaureate subjects, and these are subjects that the Russell group of universities regards as the facilitating subjects that give rise to progression. Only 4% of those pupils actually achieved the results in comparison with 15.6% nationally. The right hon. Gentleman had a cap on aspiration; we want to raise aspiration right across the abilities and backgrounds of young people.

Academies (Funding)

Debate between Nick Gibb and Andy Burnham

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on funding for the academy programme.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The errors reported in the Financial Times today relate to mistakes made by local authorities in their returns to the Department for Education, which relies on local authorities to provide accurate information about their spending. Occasionally, individual local authorities make errors that can lead to academies getting too much, or indeed too little, funding. The system for funding academies, which was set up—I have to say—by the previous Government, is unclear, unwieldy and, in our view, unfair. It is no surprise, therefore, that some errors occur, which is why we are proposing changes to the school funding system to ensure that all schools and academies are fairly funded. We are proposing a system without the complexities that lead to these types of problems.

It is slightly odd for the right hon. Gentleman to ask these questions and attack us for the failings of a system created by the previous Labour Government, of which he was a member. We are the ones sorting it out, just as we are sorting out this country’s historic budget deficit. The question for him is: does he agree that we should raise the bar for secondary schools from 35% achieving five good GCSEs including English and maths, to 40% next year? Does he agree that we should further raise it to 50% by the end of this Parliament? Does he agree with our announcement today—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Opposition do not want to hear this. Does he agree with our announcement on extending the academies programme to underperforming primary schools, particularly the 200 worst-performing primary schools, many of which were in that state for a decade while his party was in government?

[Andy Burnham]

When will the Government learn that they cannot just bat away the question and always blame somebody else for the things that go wrong? Today’s Financial Times writes that the Department has given a large number of academies in England more money than they were entitled to. The news comes just days after the Secretary of State caved in to a legal claim from 23 councils that too much money was taken from their budgets to pay for academies. This raises a simple question: do the Secretary of State and the Minister have a grip on the budget?

But where is the Secretary of State? On a day when serious questions are being asked about whether the rapid expansion of his academy programme is backed up by a properly funded plan, only this Secretary of State could be in Birmingham announcing another major expansion of it. Why is he not here making that statement to the House of Commons? Should he not be here to reassure Members that he can proceed with his academies programme fairly and efficiently without penalising other schools in Members’ constituencies? Will the Minister tell the House how many schools have been overfunded, and what is the total amount paid in error? Will this money be clawed back from schools? It is not good enough for the Minister to stand there and blame everybody else. When will he take responsibility for the budget of his own Department? If it did not spot the mistake before the Financial Times reported it, why not? When will it put in place a proper accounting procedure?

Under threat of legal action, the Government have announced a U-turn on academy funding. Can the Minister set out the details and timetable for a review, and does he accept the need for urgency? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State repeatedly finds himself in these positions because he rushes ahead and fails to consult people on changes? We have been here before on school sport, education maintenance allowance and Building Schools for the Future. The only way people can make him listen to them is to launch a legal action. That is no way to run a Department. We hear that he will pay the councils’ legal costs. In the past year, he has spent more money on solicitors’ fees than Ryan Giggs and Fred Goodwin put together. How much has he spent on legal costs, and is this not a scandalous waste, when every penny is needed for children’s education?

The Secretary of State is today raising the floor targets for secondary schools and focusing the academy programme on struggling schools. These are Labour policies, and we are pleased at his dramatic conversion to them. We support raising standards in our schools; it is the standards of the Secretary of State we worry about. Perhaps the plan we needed to hear today was for poorly performing Departments to be taken over by successful ones. The only trouble is—there are no successful Departments. On the radio today, the Secretary of State tried pathetically to blame Labour for his latest blunder. Is it not time that he took responsibility for his own serial incompetence before people lose confidence in him altogether?

[Mr Gibb]

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. First, the Secretary of State is in Birmingham today speaking to the National College for School Leadership, which is a very important part of our system of raising standards, and I am sure that his predecessors spoke every year to those conferences too. We are taking action to tackle the problems, although I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the problem highlighted by the Financial Times occurred every year under the last Labour Government. The difference between the former Government—his Government—and this one is that we are taking action to sort it out. That is why we announced a fundamental review of the school funding system. That review is already taking place, and we will be making further announcements and holding a further consultation on the details later this year.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the LACSEG—the local authority central spend equivalent grant—which is about double funding, where central Government are funding both the local authority and the academy for the same central services. Again, that is something that occurred under the last Labour Government, and we are sorting it out. That is why the Department for Communities and Local Government top-sliced £148 million off the funding to local government—to deal with that double funding. We are now looking at the issue again, as a result of the action taken by the 23 local authorities, and sorting it out. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he supports us in our review of the funding system, so that we can create a simpler and clearer system that all can understand, and one that is similar for schools and academies. We want to achieve a per-pupil funding system that is fair and that all can understand, rather than the system over which his Government presided where schools in some local authorities received some £4,000 more per pupil than other schools with the same problems. Those are the problems that this Government are seeking to sort out, and I hope that he will support us in those plans.

Education Bill

Debate between Nick Gibb and Andy Burnham

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

Take two. I will speak to new clause 10 and amendments 9, 10, 11 and 13, which are in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Our main objection to the Bill is that it takes power away from parents and pupils, particularly at crucial moments in the education journey. Decisions about admissions and exclusions can be life-changing for children, and giving parents the power to challenge them is an essential part of any fair school system. Over the past decade, improvements have been made to ensure fair admissions in English schools, and the Bill will take those safeguards away. It will severely weaken parents’ rights in respect of admissions at both local and national level, and it will limit their ability to seek redress both for their own children and for others who come after them. That would be bad in any event, but when we consider that weakening of accountability in the wider context of the education system that the Government are building—a highly competitive free market—we see that it represents a real danger to the life chances of our children, particularly those with the least support.

Let us put the Government’s changes to admissions in that wider context. First, in time, there could be more than 20,000 separate admissions authorities operating in a free market, accountable only to the Secretary of State and able to bypass local checks and balances. Secondly, on top of that free-for-all we will have the polarising effect of the narrow, academic English baccalaureate. In the competitive education market, schools will desperately try to raise their bac scores, and we can see how the risk will emerge of admissions policies being constructed to support that attempt. Now is emphatically not the time to weaken the powers of the schools adjudicator to rectify non-compliance with the admissions code. With the checks and balances gone, there is a real and present danger that there could be more unfairness in the system and that parents will find it harder to get fair access to good schools.

[Mr Gibb]

Does the right hon. Gentleman support, then, our measure in the Bill to extend the right to complain to the schools adjudicator to parents of children in academies? That right did not exist before.

[Andy Burnham]

Yes, we do, but that is not the central point. In making that move, the Minister is weakening the overall powers of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator and taking away its teeth. We hear that he is also about to weaken the admissions code—I will come on to that in a moment.

My greatest fear is that in Gove’s world, less academic children, those with less parental support and those with special educational needs will be the biggest losers. The Secretary of State is creating by the back door what, as we have just heard, his own Back Benchers are today enticing him to create by the front door—an elitist, two-tier system that is good for some children and some families, not all children and all families. We need safeguards for all parents, and I implore the House to vote to keep them. Otherwise, we will leave uncorrected the real flaw that lies at the heart of the Government’s vision for the reform of public services.

In education and in health, if the Government plan more freedom and autonomy for providers, it is absolutely essential that the change is accompanied by a corresponding empowerment of the public and a greater ability for the users of services to hold providers to account. If the Government do not increase people’s voice, they will create a provider’s market, a free-for-all with an accountability deficit. If primary care trusts or local authorities are no longer there to ensure fairness for all, it is crucial that we keep and strengthen the mechanisms that protect the rights of patients and parents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I sympathise with the Chairman of the Education Committee. I am reading into what he says the impression that he fears the effect of the English baccalaureate on the proposed free-for-all system, in which there is no power at local level to challenge what schools are doing, and in which the adjudicator does not have the teeth to rewrite admissions policies. I am sensing that the hon. Gentleman has real worries about that, and I ask him to urge those on the Government Front Bench to sort it out, before we drive real unfairness into our school system.

Yes, we should have a system that measures every child’s progress in the important things such as maths and English—that will be the bedrock of any system—but I fear that the English baccalaureate is a highly divisive tool that will set some children against others and give schools the wrong incentive.

[Mr Gibb]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that English, maths and double science are already compulsory up to the age of 16, and that until 2004 a modern language was compulsory up to 16? Therefore, only history or geography are added in the English baccalaureate—and they are compulsory up to 14. What is it about history or geography that he so opposes?

[Andy Burnham]

That is utter nonsense from the Minister, who made, with his Secretary of State, great play of autonomy for schools and teachers when in opposition. They complained about top-down prescription from the previous Labour Government, but will he accept that the English baccalaureate is far more prescriptive than anything we ever did? If so, how does he square that with his previous statements?

[Mr Gibb]

The English baccalaureate is not compulsory or prescriptive. It is also not an accountability measure; the accountability measure remains five or more A to C GCSEs including English and Maths, and the floor standard is 35% of those in a school achieving that. This is not a compulsory combination of GCSEs, but one of many measures that our transparency agenda ensures will be put into the public domain.

[Andy Burnham]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West says, this is a nudge with a loaded gun. Of course schools will focus on the English baccalaureate! If the Minister expects us to believe that that will not happen, he is taking us for mugs. The baccalaureate will obviously drive behaviour in our school system. The Ministers know that that is what they are doing, but they are trying to pretend that it will not happen. I am telling the Minister that it will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I think the hon. Lady and, in particular, the shadow Secretary of State overstate their case. We are not just extending the right to access the adjudicator to parents of children attending academies, who can now complain to the adjudicator about admissions arrangements, we are also changing the rules on which parents and members of the public can complain to the adjudicator about a school’s admissions arrangements. We are saying that any parent from anywhere can make such a complaint. We are widening the ability of parents and members of the public to complain to the adjudicator.

I turn to amendment 9. Although, again, I agree with the aim of ensuring fair access, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The admissions code is entirely about fairness, which is why we have an admissions system for schools. I can assure hon. Members that in our work to revise the admissions code and make it more straightforward, we have not in any way removed the focus on fairness.

[Andy Burnham]

The Minister has just mentioned the work to change the admissions code. Will he tell us today why he has not fulfilled his commitment to produce the code in advance of this debate? Will he be honest about the reason for the delay? Is it because there is a row going on about the content of the admissions code, so he cannot bring the issue to a conclusion?

[Mr Gibb]

As I said in Committee, the revision of the admissions and appeals codes is a huge undertaking, and we need to ensure that we produce an admissions system that is fit for purpose and puts trust back in schools and head teachers. We are determined to get the codes right, not just push them out quickly. We will consult on them shortly, and they will free schools of the burden and bureaucracy of the current system.

Sometimes I feel that the right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. If he looks at the Bill, he will see that there is one clause about admissions, clause 34, and it relates to admission forums and one or two of the powers and duties of the schools adjudicator. There is nothing in it about the admissions code, it just happens that at the same time as we are bringing the Bill through, we are revising the code. I would have liked to bring it before the Committee, but the work on it is extensive. As I said, we are ensuring that it is right before it is published for consultation.

[Andy Burnham]

That is just not an acceptable answer. The Minister gave a commitment that the code would be ready for the remaining stages of the Bill’s passage, and he has not delivered on that commitment. I ask him again: why has he been unable to publish a code for the House to consider? What is holding it up?

[Mr Gibb]

It is not right yet. When it is right, it will be published. I want to ensure that the code is right so that it is ready for consultation.

[Andy Burnham]

And we don’t get any chance to look at it?

[Mr Gibb]

Well, frankly, it does not affect the issues in the Bill. There is one clause related to admissions, which is about admission forums and the adjudicator, and as I will explain, the changes that it makes are not as radical as the right hon. Gentleman claimed in his speech. Again, I thought he overstated his case.

Although I agree with the aim behind amendment 9, I cannot agree to it. Admissions policies must be consulted upon with the local community, and every state-funded school and academy in an area signs up to the fair access protocols to ensure that the most vulnerable children are placed without delay. Failing local resolution, objection can be made to the independent schools adjudicator for a binding decision that must be complied with. I therefore feel that we must resist the amendment, which would add little to the practice of admissions or the accountability that is already in place.

I turn to amendments 10 and 11, on admission forums. As I said in Committee, local authorities and the communities that they serve must be allowed to make their own decisions on what systems will work for them. It cannot be right to assume a need in every area, and at considerable cost. Last year, a mere 14 out of 152 admission forums wrote a report, seven of which were too late to be considered by the adjudicator. Only five objections out of the 151 received by the adjudicator were made by a forum, and four of those were from one particularly active forum.

Where they are valued, those admission forums can continue. Seeking to impose a one-size-fits-all system, as proposed in the Opposition amendment, is the wrong approach. In taking the line that he has taken, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has overstated his case about what the Government are doing in the Bill. All we are doing is making admission forums non-mandatory. They can of course continue where they are wanted.