Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

The focus of the amendment is confined to unaccompanied refugee children, but in fact in this country we make no distinction between their rights and the rights of all children. Our statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children,” was developed in the light of the UNCRC articles and applies to all children whatever their status. It also applies to all those who work with children, not just the safeguarding partners and relevant agencies referred to in proposed new section 16F. We will revise “Working together” next year to reflect the changes brought about by the Bill.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not think that, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, it is better for the rules, regulations and requirements to be effectively “colour blind” rather than to segregate and segment our children on where they have come from and their circumstances? That, rather than segmentation and being siloed, is much more likely to lead to a comprehensive and cohesive approach.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

My hon. Friend is right—adoption should not be the only option for a child. It is lazy to think that. That approach does not take into account all the other options that are there and that are in the best interests of the child.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

To the best of my memory, “Philomena” is a film set in the 1950s in the Republic of Ireland, so it has nothing to do with the Government of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Lady is really suggesting that her opposition to the clause should be based on the adoption policies of the Republic in the 1950s, parents interested in adoption may look rather askance at that.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. However, I will not dwell on the point, because I think he has missed the context of what we are trying to describe here.

National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Again, there is a lot of rhetoric, but in the end the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have listened to my statement, which was very clear that this funding formula absolutely reflects issues of deprivation and lower prior attainment, as well as local cost issues. It is a step forward in making sure that we have a much fairer approach than in the past. I do not think he would be able to justify the current situation to many parents who simply cannot understand why their children get less funding than other children purely because of where they grow up.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Earlier this year, I held a roundtable for all the headteachers of primary and secondary schools across North Dorset. One big issue they raised was the recruitment and retention of staff in a rural area where living and other costs are higher, and all the rest of it. This announcement is very welcome. The sparsity quota that my right hon. Friend has referred to will be warmly welcomed by those headteachers. On their behalf, may I simply say, “Thank you”?

[Justine Greening]

I am grateful for that. As my hon. Friend points out, it is important that the formula reflects the very different challenges that schools face in very different situations and parts of our country. That is why the sparsity factor matters.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It shows strength on the part of the Lords who made the amendments, but weakness in the Government who introduced a Bill in need of so many changes.

Since Second Reading last week, I have been inundated with expressions of concern that the Bill has progressed so rapidly to Committee without any sittings to take evidence from the sector or agencies that work closely with vulnerable children. Neither the Opposition nor the sector and the agencies working in the field feel particularly comfortable about the Bill’s passage through Parliament. My amendments would strengthen the wording, in expectation of the local authority’s having an active duty to make the provision in question, and remove the weaker, passive expression, “have regard to”.

Of course, when Labour was last in government, it introduced the first ever statutory framework for care leavers, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, and followed that with the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. It is clear that the party is committed to children who are leaving care. We welcome any measures that make improvements for the thousands of care leavers, whose numbers are due to grow—bearing in mind that the March figures for looked-after children were the highest since 1985, at 70,440. It is more vital than ever to get support for care leavers right.

We also welcome the spirit of the corporate parenting principles, with the clear definition of expectations about how the local authority should fulfil its role in relation to looked-after children and care leavers. We feel, however, that the principles are totally undermined by the fact that the provision will require local authorities only to “have regard” to them rather than have a duty to fulfil them, as is the case in Scotland, for example.

In another place, Lord Nash said the principles are

“about changing and spreading good practice, and making sure that the local authorities’ task in loco parentis does not burden them with a tick-box approach and extra duties.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 1558.]

I have sympathy with that approach, but I fear that, as it stands, it is too woolly and open to interpretation. There is a clear need for the emphasis to shift from the reactive to the proactive. Unless the principles are worded more robustly, local authorities, which may strive to do their best as corporate parents, may nevertheless be obliged to cut corners, especially in these times of stretched budgets. We cannot just rely on culture change or assume that, if there is no duty, new principles will be put into practice just because they exist in theory.

There is already far too much variation in levels of care, because different local authorities have different numbers of looked-after children and children leaving care. All too often, because of the Government’s disproportionate approach to local government cuts, it is the local authorities in the most deprived areas whose budgets have been cut the most. The Government’s misguided idea that they can deliver the outcomes they seek through culture change, without looking at any of the underlying challenges that face councils around the country, is absurd.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady take it from me that reductions in local government expenditure have happened across the country? This myth that it is the more deprived, northern towns that have been hit hardest is just that—a myth.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Unfortunately, I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The most deprived local authorities have received the biggest cuts.

--- Later in debate ---

Local authorities also carry out a range of other provision functions, including housing, council tax and so on, which can have an impact on looked-after children and care leavers. Importantly, the principles do not duplicate or replace those duties; they are there to inform, in a proportionate and flexible way, how the existing duties should be carried out. In other words, when carrying out all existing local authority responsibilities, they must pay attention to the seven key needs in subsection (1)(a) to (g).

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend mentioned local authorities on a number of occasions in relation to the clause. Subsection (3)(a) to (f) sets out what local authorities are, but are county borough councils, such as Cheltenham Borough Council, also included? It mentions district councils and London borough councils, but there is no reference to shire boroughs.

[Edward Timpson]

My understanding is that it is relevant to borough councils such as the one my hon. Friend mentions, but I will ensure that I have complete clarity on that point, because it is imperative that this proposal covers the whole of local government where it has responsibility for the children in its care.

Removing “have regard to” would constrain local authority discretion, which is not the outcome we are looking for. Instead, we want to achieve a culture change so that the corporate parenting principles genuinely inform how existing duties are carried out. For example, if the local authority is fulfilling a refuse collection function to a care leaver, the need to promote high aspirations may not be entirely relevant to that function—I think we can all see that. It is something that the authority must have regard to, but it can take the view that it is not possible to do anything towards meeting that need when exercising a particular function, hence the need for local discretion and proportionality. On the other hand, when fulfilling housing functions it may be relevant to have regard to the need to secure the best outcomes for care leavers. To that end, the needs identified in the clause must work in a way that is proportionate, meaningful and pragmatic.

The clause articulates for the first time the guiding principles that will change local authorities’ culture and practice when they discharge their responsibilities as corporate parents. That approach is supported by Dave Hill, the president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. We want to encapsulate in the corporate parenting principles a set of clear and helpful priority needs for this group of children and young people. We want them to be reference points for the local authority to take into account across the discharge of all its functions. That means that everyone in the authority—not only front-line staff in children’s social care and leaving care services, but all local authority services—will have regard to those needs when carrying out functions in relation to care leavers and looked-after children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It is a classic tale of this Government: give with one hand, take with the other, and we still end up in a worse situation.

[Simon Hoare]

We all have to accept that local government budgets are under pressure, which presents challenges. Does the hon. Lady accept that she is striking at the heart of the Localism Act 2011 and, in particular, the general power of competence? If local authorities such as Birmingham and Wolverhampton decide to set those sorts of priorities, they can do so. That is what localism and local decision making is all about. We do not need the great dead hand of the state and central diktat to allow local authorities to do it.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Spoken like a true Conservative.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady pays me the greatest compliment.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It is not a compliment where I come from.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 14th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is another story, which may not be true, about what happened when incorporation was introduced in 1993. When the legislation was going through, the then Education Secretary was asked what was going to happen to sixth-form colleges and he said, “Oh, shall we put them in the FE sector?” It was a last-minute thought just to drop them into that sector. Sixth-form colleges are really schools and had they stayed with the local education authorities, we would by now have a lot more of them because LEAs would never have given away all the sixth-forms from their schools to create new sixth-form colleges because they were a different, independent sector.

Unfortunately, LEAs, and indeed, councillors are possessive about their institutions and do not want to give them away. I have experience of that, because when I was chair of governors of the Luton College of Higher Education, we had a battle royal to get that college into the higher education sector—out of LEA control and into the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The chief education officer threatened to sack the college principal for pursuing that avenue, and I had to intervene to say to the CEO publicly, “If you sack the principal, you will have me to contend with and I will fight you all the way.” He backed off and we got what became the University of Luton and, subsequently, the University of Bedfordshire. LEAs are, understandably, possessive and they are not going to give away their sixth-forms to move towards sixth-form colleges. Had they done that, our education system would be much better, but that is another story.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about people’s understanding or experience of the FE sector, but may I just invite him to reflect on the statement he made a moment or so ago? He said that the Conservative Benches are full of posh boys and girls who went to posh schools. A good four or five of us sitting on the Parliamentary Private Secretary Bench this afternoon paid no fees at all for our education and are products of state school, hard work and good teachers.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. gentleman for his intervention, but I think the majority of Members, probably on both sides of this House, have not gone through the further education sector. A small number have, and they understand this, but a high proportion are not very familiar with FE and the vast contribution it makes to our society, in all sorts of ways.

Schools that work for Everyone

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I have a lot of respect for Sir Michael Wilshaw, but I do not agree with him at all on this issue.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As the product of and with three children at state faith schools, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s recognition of the huge importance of faith schools and welcome the proposals that she has set before the House. However, I have questions about two areas. Deprivation, poverty and lack of aspiration are not restricted to our urban areas and exist across rural areas. Will she ensure that all proposals are rural-proofed, particularly in large rural areas where only one comprehensive secondary school serves a large catchment area? Will she also underscore that the Government’s commitment to fairer funding to the benefit of our rural schools will be in no way hindered by the proposals announced today?

[Justine Greening]

First, on my hon. Friend’s last point, the Government will shortly respond to the first phase of the consultation and will set out the second phase on how to ensure that the national funding formula is fair—he set out why it is so important that we do that. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right to highlight that rural schools are in a position to improve more strongly. One of the lessons of London is that schools are close together—I see this as a London MP—and it has been easier for teachers to spend time together working out how to raise standards. We need to ensure that we can take that approach while ensuring that it still works in areas where schools are more dispersed.

Schools White Paper

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I am happy to clarify that the Government propose to remove the requirement for parent governors. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a semantic debate about that, it is in the White Paper, on the page to which he referred. The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to talk about that in a moment.

That brings me to the evidence for and the performance of multi-academy trusts—MATs—or chains as they have become better known. It may come as a surprise to many Conservative Members that the Government’s free school and academy agenda has quietly but significantly shifted in policy and practice from stand-alone academies to MAT or chain models. That shift was made clear in the White Paper, in which the policy preference is emphatically for schools to become part of chains. Indeed, Department for Education guidance issued yesterday said:

“We expect that most schools will form or join multi-academy trusts as they become academies.”

There is evidence that schools do better working collaboratively with clusters of schools, especially where they are clustered geographically, as many do in local authority areas.

However, the evidence for the performance of chains so far is mixed. There are some notably good academy chains, but there are many more that are not good. Of the 850 current MATs or chains, only 20 have been assessed, and just three have proved more effective than non-academies. The chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, wrote to the Secretary of State only a week before the Budget highlighting “serious weaknesses” in academy chains. He went on to say that, in many cases,

“academy chains are worse than the worst performing local authorities they seek to replace”.

To continue with forced academisation of all schools after such a damning letter is frankly irresponsible.

There are major questions for the Government on capacity too. Academy chains are in their infancy and clearly require a closer look, yet the Government want them to take on thousands more schools. Maybe that is why the Secretary of State cannot rule out poorly performing chains being given otherwise good schools under the proposals. One of the main reasons why the track record of many chains is not good is the dearth of any real oversight or accountability.

I share the concerns expressed by many Members of all parties, including my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who said that we are in danger of creating distant, unaccountable bureaucracies for schools. That the Department for Education, via its small group of schools commissioners, can provide robust oversight and accountability of all schools in the country, is frankly for the birds. It is an impossible job, and it is also not desirable.

The Secretary of State seems hell-bent on cutting out communities, and cutting out parents from having any say over how their child’s school is run. First, let us take the Tories’ plan to scrap the requirement for parents to sit on governing bodies. Abolishing parent governors and removing any role for parents in choosing whether their child’s school becomes an academy and what type of academy it becomes has unsurprisingly been met with a huge outcry. I understand that the Secretary of State wants to take this opportunity to clarify that parents can still be governors. However, as she well knows, under her plans, there will no longer be a requirement for governing bodies to have them. I do not think that that is the kind of clarification parents are looking for. Perhaps she would like to take the opportunity to go further. In any case, she and I both know that in a world of academy chains, the role of the individual school governing body is greatly diminished and key decisions are taken by the two new levels: the board of trustees and the member board above that; bodies that are all too often appointed by the head or the chief executive whom they are supposed to be holding to account.

If we want to avoid more scandals such as Perry Beaches, Kings Science Academy and E-ACT, to name just a few, and if schools are genuinely to be held to account, we need a much more robust governance regime than remote trustee boards appointed by their executive, held to account only by a regional schools commissioner, who is responsible for overseeing thousands of schools.

There are also very real issues on the ground about accountability and responsibility for excluded children, placing children with SEN and admission policies. They all have very real problems under the fragmented schools system. Such a system of oversight also needs to have recourse to the needs of the local community. We cannot have a situation where the needs of the local area are not considered, such as the case of Knowsley, where the last A-level provision across the entire borough is about to be lost, based on a decision taken by one school. There has to be a better-joined up approach to school improvement and local oversight, involving school leaders and councils as well as parents.

The Government claim to lead the devolution revolution, so their centralisation of schools is both wrong-headed and contradictory. In places like my own, Greater Manchester, the Chancellor talks of releasing the combined authority and elected Mayor to create a northern powerhouse. That the skills and education of the next generation are being taken away at the same time shows what a sham that project is.

That point leads me to one last argument the Government make, which is that it would be simpler to have one funding system. That argument is nonsense and certainly does not support the £1.3 billion reorganisation of the schools system that is being proposed. It is also disingenuous of the Government to link the proposals to the fair funding consultation. There is broad support for a fairer funding model, as long as deprived areas and areas that require improvement do not lose out. Forcing all schools to become academies does not need to be linked to that.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State was absolutely right to say at the start of her remarks that this should not be a debate about quality. Does she agree that if we reach a certain tipping point in the number of schools recognising the direction of travel and academising, it is sensible to have a discussion about what, if any, future role there should be for LEAs as we understand them, and what the future of education planning will be for the next 20 or 30 years? It seems to me that we have arrived at that tipping point and so it is right to have that debate.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but disagree that we have reached that tipping point. We certainly have not done so with primary schools, as only 17% are academies. A longer-term look would be welcome, but an arbitrary timetable set by the Chancellor and Prime Minister as part of their legacy is a totally false track. For decades, we have had a multifaceted funding arrangement for our schools. There is no real reason why that cannot continue.

The proposal to force all schools to become academies and part of academy chains is a costly reorganisation that schools do not want or need. Heads are dealing with some very real and big challenges, such as teacher shortages, significant real-terms cuts to their budgets, flux and chaos in assessment, and insufficient school places. Asking them to take time out to change their legal status and to become an academy against their wishes is wrong, and will impact on standards.

This agenda is not about school improvement, as most of the schools affected are already good or outstanding. It is not about more autonomy or more choice, as a one-size-fits-all approach is being forced on all schools. It is not about parents, as they are being cut out of the picture. It is not about devolution, but centralisation. There are real and serious concerns about capacity, oversight and accountability under the Secretary of State’s plans.

There is a growing alliance of heads, governors, parents, teachers, politicians from all parties and many of the original advocates of the academy programme against forced wholesale academisation. Yet this Government, who used to say they were all for choice, profess to be about standards and claim they are on the side of parents and schools, seem to be ploughing on regardless, without a single coherent argument or a shred of credible evidence to support them. They still have time to listen, pause and reflect, and today’s debate gives them a chance to do just that. I commend the motion to the House.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to speak, and to speak after fellow members of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. I shall focus on clauses 20 and 21 in part 4, both of which relate to apprenticeships.

Addressing the skills gap is a key component in improving our productivity, and it is an issue that is regularly raised by businesses in my constituency. The Government's target of 3 million apprenticeships in England by 2020 is a key policy, demonstrating their commitment to addressing that gap. It is right for our young people, our workforce, our businesses and the economy. While university is the right choice for some young people, apprenticeships will suit others better, and it is time we recognised that.

If we are to achieve the overall 3 million target, all employers in both the public and the private sector must play their part. While there are examples where public sector organisations are already employing apprentices, such as in my local fire service in Cannock Chase, the measures set out in clause 20 will set targets on the public sector to ensure that they all fulfil their duty.

For too long there has been inequality between degrees and apprenticeships. This is why I welcome the measures set out in clause 21 to protect the term “apprenticeship” and ensure only those courses that meet the statutory requirements can be described as an apprenticeship. The term “degree” is protected in legislation so it is absolutely right that the term “apprenticeship” is put on an equal footing and protected too.

To achieve our 3 million target we must engage young people, parents, schools and employers. To reach this figure, we must increase awareness and understanding of apprenticeships, and also, critically, ensure that they are valued. The measures in clause 21 will strengthen and protect the apprenticeship brand and provide the foundations for increasing awareness and understanding, and enhance their value.

I was particularly pleased to hear the Secretary of State for Education’s announcement last week that will require schools to give access to apprenticeship providers and colleges to create a level playing field in terms of academic and vocational career options. To date, there has been an imbalance, and little incentive for schools to direct young people towards apprenticeships. In my experience, the best advocates are more often than not the apprentices themselves.

I ask the Minister, however, what other measures are being taken to promote apprenticeships. Exports are another Government priority and they are being promoted through the “Exporting is GREAT” campaign. May I suggest that we enter into a similar high-profile campaign to promote apprenticeships? I ask the Minister to update the House on whether such plans are being considered.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned schools, and does she agree that it might be helpful for Ofsted, when it inspects schools, to ascertain how many pupils have been put on to apprenticeship schemes as part of how it measures a school’s success or failure? That could be a driver to encourage schools to engage more proactively with the apprenticeship scheme.

[Amanda Milling]

I agree that we need to do more, and there is a role for Ofsted in that, by promoting apprenticeships in schools.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to a number of facts which I believe go to show the value of an apprenticeship. Some 96% of businesses which have taken on an apprentice believe their company has benefited, and 86% of those who did an apprenticeship stayed in work afterwards, 67% with the same employer. We should contrast that with data that show that 47% of recent graduates who were in employment in 2014 were in “non-graduate roles.” A report published by the Sutton Trust in October 2015 suggested that the earning potential of the best apprenticeships rivals that of degrees. For example, level 5 apprenticeships result in greater lifetime earnings than undergraduate degrees from non-Russell Group universities.

I realise that in reality the majority of apprenticeships are currently level 2, but I am concerned that some of the commentary regarding level 2 can be quite negative, which, in my view, is rather dangerous. Level 2 apprenticeships give young people the opportunity to develop their skills and are a gateway to advancing on to higher levels. If we are not careful, we may create a two-tier apprenticeship system, replicating the very problem we have faced and are trying to address in terms of the inequality of qualifications. I therefore ask the Minister what measures we are taking to encourage level 2 apprentices to go on to level 3 and beyond.

To conclude, I welcome clauses 20 and 21 and believe they will provide the foundations to build awareness and understanding of apprenticeships and also to build their perceived value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Howlett]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes her point well. Apprenticeships should be available to older people as well as younger people. I hope the Minister will address that in her summation.

Apprenticeships have delivered that deeply Conservative belief of aspiration—something that an entire generation lost when I was at school from 1997, just as Tony Blair took the leadership of the Labour party, to 2003.

[Simon Hoare]

Child!

[Ben Howlett]

Thank you.

Young people who once thought that they would be second-class citizens if they did not go to university now have a new nationally recognised and praised status. Apprentices are building Britain and driving our country forwards while others have stayed static. To those millions of people who have delivered that growth for us, we must say thank you—in particular, I thank those in my constituency and Bath College for the work they have done—and we ought to do everything we can to deliver even more.

In order to do that, we must ensure that all sectors of our economy deliver. The private sector has taken the lead in creating apprenticeships. It has seen that they are hugely beneficial not only to ending skills shortages, but to productivity growth and future profitability. The same must be applied to the public sector if we are to hit our target of 3 million by 2020. I therefore welcome the amendment to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

As the Government look to increase the number of people who are able to access an apprenticeship, it would be very valuable if the Minister would consider the small number of older people taking on an apprenticeship, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond). There is no statutory reason why older people cannot take on an apprenticeship, but there seems to be a stigma that prevents them from taking up such an opportunity. I hope the Minister will consider that issue in her summation.

In summary, this nation of shopkeepers has continued to grow while other nations have remained static or contracted. The British entrepreneurial spirit and tenacity for business and enterprise have created jobs and opportunity. The more we champion the sector, encourage more people to upskill, and create more opportunities for businesses to grow, the stronger Britain will become. I look forward to supporting the Bill later.

Childcare Bill [Lords]

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Although I endorse and support the main thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying, and indeed the Government’s agenda, will he and the Department, and ministerial colleagues, make certain that parents who decide that getting back to work is not for them and prefer to stay at home to look after their children, particularly in the early years, do not feel penalised or ostracised from Government thinking? A number of my constituents have said to me that having taken that decision they feel slightly obligated to take a different one to try to meet different agendas.

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about a concern felt by some parents. The first 15 hours is universal, but it is voluntary—parents do not have to take it. The previous Government were very mindful of supporting parents who chose to do something else, so we introduced the marriage tax allowance, which supports those parents. In terms of school readiness, the key thing is that the evidence shows that it is helpful for children to attend an early years setting little and often. The universal part of this offer is 15 hours so that those children do not lose out.

Where a family choose to work because that is right for their family circumstances, it is right that the Government respond to the cry from many parents that childcare is too expensive. That is precisely what this Bill does. Rather than widening divisions in society, as the hon. Member for Darlington suggested, this Bill, by enabling more parents to fulfil their aspirations to work, is helping to narrow the economic gap that she mentioned.

Student Maintenance Grants

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why such efforts have been made to address the A-level and exam system. As someone who was outward-facing in my career at the University of Leeds, I was shocked to go to countries in Europe such as Germany and be told of worries about the standard of UK degrees because of the A-levels that were done to get on those courses. As a prime example, we had to lay on two extra modules of basic maths in year 1 of our engineering degree because we had students who could not cope with the mathematics used in engineering, although they had good grades at A-level.

That is part of a bigger picture, and the point of today’s debate—opportunity for everybody to go to university. It is all very well to say that grants should not be cut without proposing an alternative way of raising the money, but the system would become unaffordable as a consequence, limiting the numbers of people going to university. I went to a comprehensive school. My parents were teachers. I became a professional engineer and then a Conservative MP. My sister qualified two months ago as a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. No money was spent sending us to private school. We went out and got our own part-time jobs to fund our way to university. I took on a private job at WH Smith when I was still at school.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is telling the House in clear terms an explicit Conservative story of hard work, opportunity and meritocracy, in sharp contradistinction to the narrative from the Opposition, who were too busy thinking about their reshuffle to pray against the order and are far too busy plotting and planning to keep people in their places, rather than busting the glass ceilings.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is what today’s Opposition debate is about. It is not about how we best move this country forward. That is why, under 13 years of Labour government, social mobility decreased. The statistics and the facts cannot be argued with. The fact that there has been a 36% increase in those from the poorest backgrounds going to university, the fact that we raised the income at which a student loan had to be paid back to £21,000, the fact that we reduced the amount to be paid back each day, the fact that people do not start paying interest on it until they leave university, the fact that it is time limited so that it is written off after a specified time—all these are key aspects of making sure that we get people to university and reap the best of their potential.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for the fact that this debate is taking place. The Government would have been more than happy for these sweeping changes to higher education to pass through Parliament unnoticed, hidden away in delegated legislation—worst of all, a negative SI—with no public scrutiny. I am therefore pleased that at least we are able to call the Minister to account. However, it is extremely disappointing that he showed no contrition whatever for introducing policies that are likely to limit the aspirations of many young people in this country, or at the very least make it more difficult for them to achieve them.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because we are very short of time.

We know that these changes will affect many students. The House of Commons Library states that in 2014-15, 395,000 students received a full grant, with 135,000 getting a partial grant. That amounts to over half a million students. Currently, students who go into higher education from families with an annual income of £25,000 or less are eligible for the full grant of £3,387, and students from households with an annual income of between £25,000 and £42,620 are eligible for a partial grant. However, in the summer Budget of July, plans were announced to remove the student maintenance grant, arguing that the grants had become “unaffordable”. This, in itself, is an assertion that needs to be deconstructed. Politics is about priorities, and this Government have chosen not to prioritise the needs of students from low-income families and, astoundingly, to make them a target for cuts.

The Government have talked endlessly about the importance of hard work and rewarding those who want to achieve, yet now they are undoubtedly making it more difficult for a number of our young people to have the opportunity to access higher education. The move to £9,000 fees in 2012 has meant that students and graduates now contribute 75% towards the overall costs of their higher education. The replacement of grants with loans will further increase the contribution of individuals compared with that of Government. Yet no conversation has taken place with students, their parents or across the country as to what the balance should be.

These changes will lead to a substantial increase in debt for poor students. Assuming that students take out the maximum loans to which they are entitled, the IFS estimates that average debt from a three-year course will rise from about £40,500 under the old system to £53,000 under the new system. This is not just a fear of debt—it is an actual increase in debt. We also know from the impact statement that these changes will particularly affect women, older students and students from ethnic minorities—reason enough to stop these policies in their tracks.

I stand here as someone who is passionate about supporting students from all backgrounds who can to get to university in accessing higher education. These changes are likely to make that more difficult for them. As a country, we need to ensure that our young people have the skills to enable them to compete in a global labour market, and I am concerned that these changes will prevent them from doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I recently visited Ormiston Forge Academy, which is an improving school in my constituency, and took part in an aspiration day. What struck me when I talked to the year 8 pupils was that the barriers to their thinking about going on to higher education were only partly to do with money. Primarily, they were to do with their background, whether their parents had been to university and whether their friends aspired to go to university. That was an important part of the conversation that I had with them.

The arguments that we hear from the Opposition about loans are like a recycled debate from a few years ago. Young people and students are becoming much more attuned to and understand the progressive nature of the loans system that we have introduced. Low-income graduates will not have to pay back the loans until they get over a certain income threshold.

As the Minister rightly pointed out, putting our higher education system on a sustainable footing was a choice that the Government made. They chose to design a progressive loans system to enable students of whatever background to aspire to go to university. As hon. Members have pointed out, the system that has been designed by the Government introduces maintenance loans for part-time students for the first time, which will have a considerable positive impact on social mobility. It also introduces maintenance loans for MAs and other post-graduate courses, which will provide different ways of accessing higher education.

Hearing the arguments from the Opposition feels a bit like groundhog day. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, no alternatives have been posited.

[Simon Hoare]

I think that the answer to this will be yes, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my irritation with this debate because all of us in this House should be committed to improving social inclusion. He is stating very clearly the narrative that we deploy to explain these policies. The narrative from the Opposition, in my judgment, is tailored specifically to preclude people from applying to go on to further education. Is it not time that we all explained to students precisely what my hon. Friend is saying?

[James Morris]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. When I spoke to the students, it struck me that we needed to educate them about the realities of going into higher education, whether by providing better information about courses that they might be able to take or explaining what it means to take out a student loan. As he says, there is a lot of propaganda about being saddled with debt. There needs to be more education about what it means in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We have had a lively and extremely interesting debate, with contributions from 17 Back-Bench speakers, by my calculation. I will not mention them, because time is short as a result of the interest in the debate.

I have some sympathy for the Minister for Universities and Science, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), because we all know that the decision to scrap maintenance grants for the less well-off students in favour of loans was really made by the Chancellor and not by him. I know that he and the Chancellor are old friends—this goes back to the days when they were penniless students together, having to scrape by on their student grants and meagre Bullingdon club dinners—but I find it hard to believe that he went to his old friend the Chancellor and said, “Having been appointed as Universities Minister, I have suddenly decided that we were wrong to have maintenance grants for the less well-off students and it would be a great idea for the worse-off students to have the most debt after they have been to university.”

I might be wrong about the Minister, but he does not strike me—he has not until today—as the kind of person who would think it right to change the system so that, as the British Medical Association points out in its briefing for this debate, medical students from the poorest backgrounds could graduate with £100,000 of debt. Nor does he strike me as the kind of person who thinks that it is all right to go back on promises made by Tory Ministers when the new system was introduced. It was David Willetts after all who said that the tuition fees increase was progressive precisely because of the higher education maintenance grant. That was the argument made. The Minister does not strike me as the kind of politician who would cynically pursue policies that penalise younger people who are less likely to vote Tory, or even to vote at all, than others.

Despite what was said today about page 35 of the Tory party manifesto, I do not think that the Minister for Universities and Science would think it was really okay to carry out this kind of major change of policy direction without explicitly putting it into the party’s manifesto, so that the public, including young people, could see what they were voting for or against. Is he really the kind of politician who, having done all this, would then slink away from debating such a major change openly and properly on the Floor of the House in Government time? I may be wrong, but I never thought that he was that kind of politician, or that he was that cynical.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Kevin Brennan]

However, I think we know someone who is that cynical. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Simon Hoare]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to me. Will he flick back through his archives and find where, in the 1997 manifesto, the Labour party had the introduction of student loans in the first place, because I cannot remember seeing it?

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman told us in his speech how hard he has worked. Given that he is from Cardiff and that he has such an accent, I can absolutely acknowledge that he is a very hard-working individual. He will know that a general election was fought following that decision being taken and before they were introduced.

We all know that the Chancellor prefers governing from the shadows, and this shameless betrayal of previous promises and the shabby manner in which this has been handled in Parliament bear all the hallmarks of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer. Being young in Britain should be a time of opportunity—a time when opportunity knocks. Instead, we have the Chancellor introducing an opportunity tax. His proposals are an assault on aspiration, on opportunity and on those who want to get on in life. That is why we oppose them and also why the Welsh Government, under Labour First Minister, Carwyn Jones, is keeping maintenance grants. By the way, those who say that these proposals affect only England should think again—I say this to Welsh Conservative MPs as well: of the 30,000 students studying at Cardiff University, nearly 9,000 are from England.