Careers Service (Young People)

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent contribution; she puts her finger on the problem. I hear anecdotally that, increasingly, schools are saying to young people, “Can you sort out your own work experience? Is someone in the family able to give you an opportunity?” I understand why they might say that because there are lots of pressures on schools, but that highlights the dangers of what is being created. If we live in a world where people say, “The schools do it; we’ll leave it up to them”, that can reinforce low expectations. It is basically telling kids that they cannot break out from their family circumstances because they will dictate what they have experience of and where they will set their expectations. That is what is so wrong about that approach—this random laissez-faire approach to this crucial issue.

My hon. Friend and other Opposition Members will remember a report by Alan Milburn on fair access to the professions during the last Parliament. He made the point that we need to do the reverse—take those young people who have no connection with the powerful worlds of the professions and transplant them into those worlds. We need the highest quality careers advice and work experience for those young people. As the Opposition develop our policy, that is exactly what we should aspire to deliver—alongside excellent careers advice, of course, which has to be impartial, independent and personalised.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I agree, just as I did with the Education Committee report, with much of what the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said in his report. I look forward to hearing what he has to say and to his support for our motion.

[Simon Hughes]

May I absolutely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)? All the evidence from my conversations around England in the early part of this year showed that there was not only very poor careers advice for many young people, but really poor work experience. In a difficult economy, the chances of getting a job from 16 onwards are, to put it bluntly, reduced horribly for those who do not have work experience.

[Andy Burnham]

I agree completely, but the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to do something. I say that not to make a party political point. In some ways, this is not the most headline-grabbing of debates. We are raising this issue out of a genuine concern about what is happening to the careers service and what it might do to damage the life chances of some young people. He has produced what I consider to be a very good report for the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, but if Government Members troop through the Lobby against this motion tonight, where does that leave the advice he is giving to the Government? Is he happy about that? There has to be a change.

[Simon Hughes]

I will obviously wait to hear the Minister and I hope to be called to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) said to me earlier that this is exactly the sort of issue where we should avoid party politics and seek a consensus. I commit myself again, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman and to ministerial colleagues, to doing so, even if it is sometimes very hard work to get us all in the same place. Careers, work and work experience seem to me to be issues on which there is much more than a party interest in getting to that right place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), with all his expertise as the former Chair of the Education Committee and his reminder of what the Skills Commission, on which he so honourably served, so clearly said.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for choosing this subject. I shall let him and the House into a secret: the more pressure that we as a House can put on the Government on this issue between us, the better. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for the way in which he responded. May I pass on through him my thanks to the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, with whom I have had several pragmatic and good conversations, and to his colleagues at all levels who have said that, having received the report that I gave them in July, they are taking seriously what I asked them to do?

May I now go back a step? In May, we sent the Education Bill from the House to the House of Lords. We held robust debates on this and other issues. It left with two relevant provisions. First, clause 27 states:

“The responsible authorities for a school in England…must secure that all registered pupils at the school are provided with independent careers guidance”.

I support that. Secondly, it states:

“For the purposes of this section the relevant phase of a pupil’s education is”

between 14 and 16. That is an adequate starting point.

Two months later to the day, the Education Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—a Conservative Back Bencher—produced its report. The cross-party Select Committee had a clear, unanimous view on the issue. It said specifically, at paragraph 156:

“Professor Watts told us that ‘we used to have a careers service for young people, and all we had for adults was a strategy… What we now have…is a careers service for adults, and a very loose”

information advice and guidance

“framework for young people’. Online career guidance, which allows young people to explore at their own pace and according to their own interests, is valuable; and we heard praise for the online careers services offered by DirectGov. However, this is no substitute for personal advice, given on the basis of an understanding of a young person’s circumstances and ambitions. We recommend that the all age careers service should be funded by the Department for Education for face to face career guidance for young people.”

It could not have been clearer.

I did not know that the Select Committee would say that specifically, but the following week, on 21 July, I gave my report to Ministers. Let me summarise the recommendations and then make a point about my passion for the issue and ask Ministers to consider where we go from here. In passing, I pay tribute to all those in the careers services, including the Institute of Careers Guidance and the trade unions, who have been to see me and are absolutely passionate that this issue needs to be accepted by the Government.

I was clear, because the evidence given to me was clear, that people should start to talk about careers in year 6 in primary school. I was clear, which is why I was so glad about the intervention made by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), that work experience was seen as something where the cleaner did not take a child to work to clean or the accountant take another to do accountancy, but where the cleaner’s child had the same exposure to the opportunities that the accountant’s child would have and, to be honest, vice versa.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman shares my concern about what is happening in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, where Futures used to charge £13 per pupil to fix up work experience, but as a result of the loss of a £500,000 Government grant, it now charges £31 per pupil. Many schools are unable to buy in the service to match students with work experience opportunities, yet individual parents can pay £150 to buy just those opportunities for their children to be matched with work experience. What does that say to the children of cleaners and school dinner ladies about the importance of their opportunities?

[Simon Hughes]

I absolutely share that concern. We need a system that guarantees more than just one week of work experience once in July—at the same time all around the country—at one stage in a person’s career. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and I were at City hall today with some young people who argued that they should have at least two weeks’ work experience. I am clear that it should be for those aged from 14 through to 16, and be held at an appropriate time and in an appropriate place. It should not be something that people charge to fix up; we should develop it so that it is part of the expectation in secondary school, and part of youngsters’ lives.

[Andy Burnham]

I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman, and I welcome the spirit in which he is speaking. He would probably agree with Labour Members that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, work experience is so important that it should not be left to random chance. We have to find a way of offering structured opportunities, particularly to those young people who have the least. With that in mind, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to comment on the Government’s intention of removing the requirement on schools, at key stage 4, to offer work-related learning, which essentially is work experience? Is it not the case that if they remove that requirement, provision will be completely random? Some schools will offer it, and some will not.

[Simon Hughes]

Let me be absolutely straight with the right hon. Gentleman: I understand the Government’s wish not to burden heads and schools with over-prescription. I am chair of governors of a primary school, and a trustee of a secondary school, so I understand that completely. However, some things have to be guaranteed, and in my view we have to guarantee the opportunity of work experience during secondary school time, and we have to guarantee face-to-face careers advice. I say that not because I have some theological view about it, but because the evidence that we have heard, and that I collected, is that youngsters are overwhelmingly saying, “We’ve had bad careers advice and bad work experience.”

In a tight economic situation, people even more need both careers advice and work experience. The figures that I collected show that there are more than 4,000 different qualifications that a young person can gain between the ages of 14 and 18. There are millions of combinations of qualifications that they can end up with. Navigating a way through that requires more than a person’s ability to go online and discover what they think they might want to know; that, bluntly, is different depending on how bright the person is, what family support they have, and other things. It is about more than having some books to look at; it is about speaking to somebody who can relate to them where they are, and engage with them.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) said to me when the debate began, in the end what is required may be more than one half-hour session; there may need to be follow-up—mentoring, support, and continuous commitment. That might mean a local employer—PricewaterhouseCoopers could step over the river to my constituency—coming into a school to continue to support somebody as they work things out. It might mean working out how somebody who fluffs some exams, and does not start very well academically, can recover and be told, “You haven’t lost everything just because you had a terrible year when your parents separated and your family situation was a disaster.” We have to understand that people have only one school time in which they can do work experience.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman must be commended for speaking with great foresight and spelling things out with great common sense. Does he agree that there is real urgency, as is reflected in the motion? Young people have only one chance, and getting things right tomorrow is no good for today’s kids. We need to get things right now. There is a transition gap; to be fair, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has recognised that that is an issue in talking to me. That gap needs to be addressed immediately.

[Simon Hughes]

I do not disagree with that; I said it in my report, and I remind the hon. Gentleman to go back and look at it. I just have time to list the recommendations and give my conclusion on where I think we should go.

The second recommendation, which is relevant, is that the Department for Education should continuously consider how best to support schools and colleges in their access activities, and in building up much more available information.

The third recommendation is that at the age of 13 and 14—in year 9—every student should have available to them a proper, broad base of information on what the pathways are. Indeed, it is not just the young people who need that information; their parents do, too, so that they are not prejudiced by their own experiences and past.

The fourth recommendation is that the Government “should act urgently”—those are the words on the Order Paper—to guarantee face-to-face careers advice for all young people in schools; that should be taken up to age 17 and 18, as the school leaving age increases.

We need a plan on how to keep the expertise of current careers services providers, given the change in the system. I welcome the change in the system—Connexions was often not successful, but we must make sure that we do not lose the expertise of the people who delivered the service. We must hold events for parents and carers to make sure that they understand that. Someone in each school—not the independent provider—should be responsible for access issues and someone for careers issues. Finally, Ofsted should evaluate the careers service given to the school and report on it, and how it makes use of destination data.

I am grateful for the Minister’s courtesy and his Department’s consideration. I can hold back my colleagues from voting with the Opposition only because of the undertaking he has given. [Interruption.] No: the Government are going to respond to all the recommendations, not one. I accept absolutely the point about urgency made by Back Benchers. Our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Lords feel equally strongly that we must ensure the provision of face-to-face guidance.

I represent a strongly working-class constituency. If we believe in social mobility, we must additionally assist those who do not have the advantages of privilege and finance, which is why the Government must deliver. I await the recommendations and their response, but there must be a yes to the proposal.

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

I greatly admired the speech given by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but I am slightly perplexed as to how he can speak eloquently and passionately about something in which he clearly believes but then, at the last minute, say that he will be able to vote with the Government—that is extraordinary— and that he will encourage his colleagues to do the same. It is his call to vote with the Government and support them. I shall support young people in all of this, as they need us now.

We decided to call this debate on careers advice—not the sexiest subject out there—because it matters to us in the Labour party. This is about social mobility, and if the Labour party cares about something, it is social mobility. If we get this wrong, it will make a huge difference to young people’s lives.

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Lady rightly said that we all have to show that we are on the side of young people, and I hope that I have shown that and that my colleagues are, too. The Government must not just provide one response to one question but respond comprehensively. They also have to find the money. That is their job, not my job. I want them to do it, and we are putting pressure on them. Let me put pressure on in my way; if the hon. Lady puts pressure on in her way, I am determined that the Government will deliver.

[Mrs Chapman]

I listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, and clearly he is far more experienced in the ways of the House than I am. It really is not about what we get up and say—it is what we do. We must show support for young people through our actions, not just by giving a fancy speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

I fear that the Opposition are on the wrong track with the subject they have selected for today’s debate. I fear that much more damage has been done by the dilution of maths, sciences and languages in our schools than by poor careers advice, and yet we have yet another Opposition day debate on education that does not address the core issue. We are not talking about what students actually learn in school.

During their period in government, Labour presided over a hollowing core that failed to prepare people properly for the world of work. Britain has been left with a skills shortage in crucial areas, and I fear that we are losing the race against international competitors. An OECD report published today indicates that there has been a rebalancing of skills between west and east. The leagues tables for the OECD’s programme for international student assessment speak for themselves, with the UK falling to 28th place in maths.

The previous Government, instead of addressing the fundamental weaknesses in our education system, further skewed education towards those subjects that employers did not want and spent money on careers advice that only a few people appreciated. Only 20% of students said that they thought the careers advice provided was useful. Alan Milburn, a former Labour Minister, said that the careers advice simply was not good enough.

[Simon Hughes]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s interest in this wider subject. The really important thing is that both should work. The reason we need good, personalised careers advice is that it enables young people to make the right choices, for example on what subjects to study, so that they do not end up excluded from university courses—medicine, for instance—because they made the wrong choices when they were 14 or 15.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

I disagree. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made an excellent and measured contribution about expanding the provision of careers advice to younger pupils, about making sure that we have a wide variety of work experience and about making sure that careers guidance is not offered on a wet Wednesday afternoon, as we mentioned in the Committee on the Education Bill. I agree with every word. This is more complex than it just being about face-to-face guidance, but face-to-face guidance is an important complementary step. I should have thought that he agreed with that and would want to show his support and put pressure on the Government by joining us in the Lobby tonight.

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I respect his commitment to these issues both before he came to the House and since he has been here. We are very clear that we want the same objective. Tonight is a chance for the Labour party to put its cards on the table, and we have made our position clear about where we want the Government to get to. I believe that they have listened and that the Minister will respond, and I hope that in not many weeks from now we will end up where we all want to be.

[Mr Wright]

The Minister said earlier that he did not want to rule anything in or out regarding the right hon. Gentleman’s recommendations and I should have thought that meant an abstention in tonight’s debate to make sure that all the cards were on the table, but that does not seem to be the case. I do think that the Minister is thinking about moving in that direction and I hope that he will accept an amendment to the Education Bill—we will certainly put pressure on him as the Bill makes its way through the Lords—but it is disappointing that, in the spirit of consensus that we have seen in tonight’s debate, he cannot make more positive remarks to make sure that we make provision for face-to-face guidance.

Two or three weeks ago, our young people got excellent GCSE and A-level results and, as hon. Members have said tonight, we should all celebrate their success. The Minister said in August that

“we have to make sure we prepare young people for the future, whether they are going onto further education, training or into the workplace.”

He reiterated that tonight by saying that it is important for young people to make the right choices in order for them to be guided in the future. We could not agree more, but it is abundantly clear that the Government are failing to do that.

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has made clear, young people are facing the most difficult and turbulent prospects for at least a generation. The modern world is complex and often disorienting and is unrecognisable from what it was a few short years ago, both in its challenges and in its opportunities. The certainties that we had in the labour markets in the 1950s and 1960s when the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), listened to his gramophone records have gone for good. Much of that change is due to large-scale shifts in global forces, such as the economic rise of China. The present economic situation is made more difficult by the current turbulence in the global economy. I fully accept that when global aggregate demand goes down, additional pressure is placed on youth employment, but the Government’s policies are making a bad situation very much worse.

As we heard in an earlier debate today, the loss of EMA, the abolition of the future jobs fund, the scrapping of the young people’s guarantee, the trebling of tuition fees and the ending of Aimhigher have made it more difficult than ever for young people in this country to work hard, to get on and to succeed. That implicit contract that we had, in place since the post-war era and shared by successive Governments, that somehow the next generation would do better than the previous generation, is in real danger of being broken. That was made clear in an excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg).

In difficult and confusing times such as these we need, now more than ever, an effective, functioning and professional careers service to support and navigate young people through the turbulence. We need a personalised service, with close links between the young person and the adviser. We need, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said tonight, face-to-face guidance, helping to motivate, inspire and enthuse young people in difficult times.

In the current economic difficulties, when a young person receives rejection letter after rejection letter, it is neither use nor ornament just to point them to a phone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, IT is important but we cannot do it with technology alone. We need a professional to say to that young person, “Keep going,” or “I think you should try this,” or “This might suit you.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said, we need in the careers service trusted professionals who know the young people—young people such as Thomas—who can help inspire and motivate them. Tragically, the cuts to such services mean that the professionalism and expertise of careers personnel has been lost, and lost for good.

Time and again in the debate we heard that our young people from places across the country have been denied such opportunities. We heard that from my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield and for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), who in a powerful speech expressed her concern that high-quality advice might be confined to those in fee-paying schools.

Ministers in the Department for Education pride themselves on trusting professionals to make the right decisions, but we have had in the last month the astonishing, and possibly unprecedented, situation where a Government advisory group of some 20 renowned experts and professionals considered resigning en masse in protest at the Government’s shambolic and incompetent handling of careers services for young people. Steve Higginbotham, president of the Institute of Career Guidance, blasted the Government and stated that the service

“will not be an all-age careers service. It is a rebranded Next Step service for adults plus an all-age telephone advice line and website.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, if the Government truly wish to aid social mobility and break the cycle of multigenerational worklessness or low aspiration, they need to provide all possible tools. By removing face-to-face careers guidance for all young people, they are taking one of those vital tools away.

Ministers also often cite international comparisons to support their policies. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) cited those a lot tonight. But international evidence shows clearly that devolving such career advice to schools has not worked in other countries. Professor Tony Watts, giving evidence to the Education Committee, stated that in studying 55 countries it emerged that three negative things happen when it comes to school-based guidance. First, impartiality goes out of the window because schools have a direct and vested interest; secondly, there is a weakening in links with the labour market; and finally there is an unevenness in performance in schools. Professor Watts said that two countries, New Zealand and the Netherlands, have recently done what this Government are now doing, and in both cases it resulted in a significant erosion in the quality of help as well as the breadth of its extent.

I mentioned the Education Committee. In its excellent report on participation in education and training by 16 to 19-year-olds, it makes a valued point on the unease about the Government’s changes to careers. That was highlighted several times tonight. It draws attention to the fact that the Department for Education’s funding commitments to an all-age careers service consists only of online and phone services. As we heard tonight, the Select Committee makes the very clear recommendation that the Departments should fund face-to-face careers guidance for young people under the age of 18. Opposition Members very much agree.

So I ask the Minister—for the sake of his career, let alone the careers of hundreds of thousands of young people—to look again at this important matter. Will he listen to the impassioned pleas made tonight by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he consider the almost unanimous view of professionals? Will he take on board the Education Committee’s reasoned comments? Will he listen to what is best for young people? Will he listen again to the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and act urgently to guarantee face-to-face careers information, advice and guidance for all and not just some young people in schools? Listening to the speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that definitely seems to be the will of hon. Members tonight. I commend the motion to the House in a spirit of consensus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

The most important way we will discover how well the new system will work is not through measuring inputs, but through measuring outcomes. Ofsted will therefore have a role in looking at the destinations of young people leaving school, and that will be part of the performance measures we are currently discussing, which will be in place for 2012.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

It is obvious from information around the country that the young people who most need face-to-face careers guidance are those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, where they do not receive that support at home. As Ministers consider how to deal with the Education Bill in the Lords and this guidance, will they reflect on the fact that specific advice that would lead to face-to-face careers guidance would be hugely valued, particularly in the most disadvantaged schools and areas?

[Tim Loughton]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and, as I say, those considerations will form part of the summit that my colleague is holding this Friday. He makes the point that every child is different, and we need to ensure that we provide tailor-made careers advice that is suitable and appropriate for the child. The new arrangements will give schools far greater flexibility to make sure that they are delivering what works to the children they know best.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

1. What steps he plans to take to encourage young people to take up careers in engineering and manufacturing.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

8. What steps he plans to take to encourage young people to take up careers in engineering and manufacturing.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

We are funding STEMNET, a programme that encourages young people to look at the possibilities offered by science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—study and employment; we are providing a £180 million package that will see 50,000 new higher apprenticeships in sectors including STEM-related industries; and, of course, the main incentive is good manufacturing jobs, which is why I welcome the announcements yesterday and today from Nissan and BMW of large new investments in British manufacturing industry.

[Simon Hughes]

I obviously welcome my right hon. Friend’s interest in both areas and the interest of organisations such as Engineering UK, which has a fantastic route map on its website, showing exactly what one has to do to get from school into engineering. May I encourage Ministers, however, to work with the Department for Education to ensure that, as part of the engagement between employers and schools, we also have one-to-one and face-to-face careers advice for school leavers, so that they receive personalised support in the choices that they make?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, my colleague is absolutely right. Indeed, I was at the Royal Academy of Engineering during the week, talking about how we strengthen that interface between education and the engineering industry, and as regards the careers service my colleague the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning has already written to schools, reminding them of their statutory responsibilities under the new careers service as it develops.

Education Performance

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right, and I believe that the Shanghai region of China is included in the study that I mentioned. The appetite for education in some of those countries—as shown by the thousands of applications for the Indian Institute of Technology—shows a cultural attitude towards education that will help drive those countries in the future.

In Britain, we hear the idea that introducing new subjects is somehow modern, or that it is inclusive to different types of people and that is what is wanted by employers in the broader world. That is simply not the case, and the accusation that it is somehow retrograde or old-fashioned to want those core subjects is wrong. We can see the subjects studied by our international competitors. The reason why those subjects are taken is that an in-depth study of an academic discipline provides a level of rigour and the ability to analyse and think, which prepares a person for any kind of job. Technology is changing rapidly, and we do not know what skills and abilities we will need in 20 or 30 years’ time. Studying an academic discipline to a high level gives a person that vital ability to think and learn. Such study is not an elitist or minority pursuit. If it were, how come 95% of students in Japan already study in that way? Why do many emerging countries aspire to study those subjects?

The system in Britain actively encourages students to study subjects that provide little return. I was pleased to hear the announcement earlier by the Secretary of State for Education that some of those qualifications will be removed from the league table, but I think we should go further and also remove low-quality GCSEs and A-levels that are not equivalent to the more rigorous core subjects. Our system hampers young people’s chances of going to university, particularly our country’s top universities. Computer programming can be studied at Oxford, but it requires maths, not an A-level in information and communication technology. A student is 20 times more likely to study A-level law if they attend a sixth-form college as opposed to a private school. If they take that subject, however, it will not help them to study law at a Russell group university, because that is specifically prohibited. Students are being misled about the kinds of subjects that will help them get ahead in life.

This debate is not only about the sort of subjects that people study, but about the way some subjects are studied. A combination of modular examinations and bureaucratic intervention has damaged the intellectual integrity of many subjects at A-level. I frequently hear academics in universities complaining that students do not have a holistic view of the subject, and that they have been taught a pick-and-mix of various elements and therefore do not have the deep understanding and practice that they need to move to a higher level.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Before the hon. Lady leaves the topic of subject choice, I recently visited many schools around the country, and the strong message coming across from young people was that they become interested in, and start thinking about, what they want to do quite early—perhaps as early as year 6 of primary school or the first year of secondary school. By the time they receive what they regard as good advice, it may be too late to have an influence on the subject choices that they need to make to achieve their aspirations. The hon. Lady makes an important point; it is about starting early and not underestimating pupils’ competence.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. Too often, limiting choices are made early in a student’s educational career. I support the English baccalaureate because if that becomes a more general qualification, people will not limit their choices early on. The lesson from other education systems seems to be that delayed specialisation is a good thing, and that too much early specialisation has a damaging effect. I oppose the suggestion that GCSEs be taken earlier, for example, as I think that would be damaging.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I would not personally have such a system, but existing grammar schools do very well, and to abolish the most successful schools would be a mistake; we should improve the other schools instead. My point is about how wide a choice students are given in each school. I am all for freeing up schools and enabling them to select should they so desire. A school in my constituency, for example, wants to select the 20% of pupils who find school hardest. That is a good thing, because it will put a group of learners together to study and achieve academic qualifications. I am in favour of more flexibility, although I am not in favour of imposing mass-selection across the education system.

I was speaking about examinations and how they have changed. One of my concerns is that in trying to ensure that examinations are fair for all students, a lot of use of judgment has been removed. For example, rather than having multi-step questions in which a student has to think about where they want to get to, we have one-step questions that ask for a simple response. That has damaged the ability of young people to think, be flexible and solve problems.

Our system has also diminished the role of teachers, who, for too long, have been forced to jump through hoops. We have a textbook regime; many textbooks are designed by exam boards and are essentially “how to” guides on how to pass the exam, rather than engendering a deep knowledge and interest in the subject. I speak to a lot of teachers who spend their weekends preparing lessons for the week ahead and essentially reinventing the wheel in subjects that have been taught for decades, if not centuries. Teachers in other countries often use a respected textbook that enables students to study in their own time, rather than only in the classroom. One of our problems is that not enough responsibility for study is given to the student; instead, it is passed to the system. The student is seen simply as a cog in the wheel, or a sausage in the factory. A process that focuses on getting through the exam encourages students to value education as a piece of paper, rather than as a way of gaining and developing capability.

I am an ardent free marketer, and in answer to the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I generally support freedom. However, I question our current set-up of examination boards, which is not a free market but an oligopoly of three organisations in a system. The innovation mentioned by those exam boards often involves innovating a race to the bottom to put easier qualifications into schools. The system also involves an incredible amount of regulation from Ofqual, which I have criticised in the past and which consumes a lot of public money. There is a strong reason for us to look again at the examination system and at how it can be better delivered. If we are to have national standards for exams such as the E-bac, and if we are to regulate exam boards, does it make sense to have those three exam boards in their current structure?

The issue of textbooks urgently needs to be addressed. We are one of the only countries in the world with this exam board structure, and where textbooks are set by the exam board. In my view, that is a conflict of interest. It would be better if independent bodies produced textbooks that students could study, and with which they could take responsibility for their own learning.

I mentioned subject choice. I want particularly to address the issues relating to low-income students, because one of the worst aspects of our educational performance is how much we let down low-income students compared with other countries. The OECD particularly highlighted that in its report; 77% of the performance in UK schools is down to socio-economic background. That is the second highest percentage after Luxembourg.

On the point about subject choice, someone at a private school or grammar school is twice as likely to study A-level maths as someone at a comprehensive school, and three times as likely to study a modern language. Students at comprehensives are seven times more likely to study media studies than students at private or grammar schools. What we have is essentially a reintroduction of the secondary modern in our school system. That huge segregation is a big problem. I have met bright students who are studying subjects such as psychology and media studies. Realistically, they will not have the opportunity to go to Russell group universities. We need seriously to address that.

The other point to make about Britain is that a study from Chicago showed that we have the largest differential between the teaching qualifications of teachers teaching low-income and high-income students. We are actively giving worse teachers to low-income students compared with other countries. The present Government have made excellent progress in reforming the supply side of our education system—opening up academies, developing the free schools programme and reforming the teaching profession. I would like further reforms, including an abolition of national pay bargaining. I would like teaching to become a really well-respected profession, and would like teachers to lead on some of the issues that I have been talking about.

However, the reform that we look to across our education system cannot be just about Government. We have been through 25 or 30 years of education reforms that Governments have tried to drive from the centre. That has happened under both Labour and Conservative Governments. It has shown that a wand cannot be waved by central Government. There must be a change in education culture in this country, and that must involve many institutions and people. One reason why I was so keen to have the debate today was to open up the discussion, not just in Parliament but at national level, about what sort of education system we aspire to.

We need to end the mindset that trades off quality and quantity. It is possible to have a high-quality, high-quantity education system. Countries such as Japan and Germany show that. Germany shows that it is possible to reform a system that has previously educated just the elite so that it becomes a much more broadly based system. The Germans are doing well on that basis. The English baccalaureate is a good start to focusing on the core subjects. We need to widen the number of people taking it. Reporting it on a points basis would be a good idea. Reporting how every student does proportionally on the E-bac would be a good idea. I would like that to be extended to A-levels, so that we get rid of the divide in what A-levels students are studying in different types of schools.

There is a strong case for removing low-value A-levels and GCSEs from the league tables. I said earlier that I thought that there was mis-selling of some vocational qualifications that were given the same value as other qualifications. We are lying to students if we say that those qualifications are of equal weight and worth when they are not. All we are doing is putting our universities in a very difficult position, because they are not getting the necessary applications. We are not getting people ready to enter the top universities because they simply have not studied the necessary subjects.

[Simon Hughes]

I will intervene just once more; I have come here specifically to hear the hon. Lady. Will she accept that another thing that might help—consensus appears to be growing on this—would be for all schools to have to publish information about their successes in widening participation and access? That would enable people to know where young people go on to from a school—what they do after 16 when they have those choices. Once we start showing that to the wider world, people will start challenging those schools that have a poverty of ambition and a poverty of aspiration.

Education Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the key issues for me is that in Committee the Minister talked about schools triggering an assessment of behaviour, but there is no clarity about how that process might take place. I hope that he will address that point when he responds.

I have a great fear about asking head teachers to become educational psychologists, but that is the implication of putting that power in the hands of schools and making them responsible for trying to work out what provision is best for the children without the support to be able to deliver it. No one is suggesting that head teachers and teachers are not committed to their pupils, but in a system in which they will face only a small financial adjustment of £4,000, in contrast to the cost of supporting a child with emotional and behavioural difficulties and providing special educational needs, it is easy to see where the incentives to act might be.

All Opposition Members ask for is some comfort, assurance and accountability for the use of those new powers, so that we can ensure that young people are not left in the lurch, not left unable to access the appropriate educational systems that they need, not abandoned by schools that are desperate to meet other targets and not abandoned by the professionals from whom they need help because those relationships no longer exist.

The Bill makes putting in place support for children with special educational needs much less likely, not more likely. There might be some wonderful ambitions in the Green Paper, but I am deeply concerned that this Bill means that they will be harder to realise. All of us will be the worse for that, as we see young people in our communities struggle to get the educational opportunities that they need early in life, and are not able to progress later in life.

The new clause and its proposed report would shine a spotlight—a powerful phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) used in Committee, and on which I hope the Minister has reflected—on those young people, and on what is being done to help them to achieve in life. I hope that the Minister will do more than he did in Committee, when he simply said, “Well, we’ll continue to publish individual datasets,” and bridge the gap between what happens to the data that local authorities previously collected, the data on exclusions and the data on special educational needs. He should commit to bringing to the House those regular updates, so that we might all be confident that young people in our communities are being given the support that they need to achieve. We will all be better for that if he does.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am really here to take part in the debate on the next group of amendments, but I want to refer to one issue in this group in my capacity as the advocate for access, because an access issue arises.

New clause 10, in the name of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State, addresses the obligations in the Education Act 1996. The 1996 Act says:

“The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales,”

and the new clause suggests that it be amended to say,

“and ensure fair access to opportunity for education and training.”

That is an important point, which I recognise and want to flag up. I will rehearse it in the next group of amendments, which I have looked at, have much sympathy with and have spoken to Ministers about, but I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to moving from the current definition of the Secretary of State’s duty to a wider one. If the Government are clear that we have to have better and fairer access to opportunity for education and training, they should recognise that it begins in schools, not in sixth-form and further education colleges. It starts earlier.

I have not engaged in the technical debate, and I guess that there is one concern about the wording of the new clause, but I hope that by the time the Bill reaches the Lords we will have been able to seek consensus and agreement. The lawyer in me anticipates that, if we introduce a duty to ensure fair access, we will probably precipitate people going to court, challenging a decision and looking for judicial review. After the Bill has been through its stages here and before the other House deals with it, however, we might consider whether the Secretary of State will accept a duty at least to promote fair access to opportunity for education and training, moving from the current duty to one that ensures that the fair access point is understood throughout the whole education sector in England, including in schools.

[Kevin Brennan]

What the right hon. Gentleman says is welcome, but is he content to allow for the weakening of the schools adjudicator’s power, which is what this Bill brings about? I cannot imagine that a predecessor Liberal Democrat Front Bencher, someone like Phil Willis, would ever have been content with what the Government are doing in this Bill.

[Simon Hughes]

In my introduction I was careful to say that I wanted to limit my comments on this group to that one issue, not to get into the debate that I have heard across the Floor of the House today, but let me make two points, while trying not to avoid the question. First, the Government’s policy is a combination of ours and the Tories, so not everything—

[Kevin Brennan]

It’s not in the agreement.

[Simon Hughes]

I understand that the policy is not part of the coalition agreement, but secondly, if there are such matters—my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) leads for us on these things—whereby on reflection, or having listened to the whole debate that I have heard today, people think that the adjudicator’s responsibilities are not sufficient, there is a robust team of colleagues at the other end of the building, and I am sure that the matter will be returned to.

May I add a postscript? I chair the school governing body of a Church of England primary school and I am a trustee of a Church of England secondary school. Clearly, there is always an opportunity for abuse of the system if people are not really vigilant and held to their principles. We need to ensure—the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made the point well—that those who are potentially the most disadvantaged do not find themselves accidentally or intentionally excluded because the inclusion of everybody works to the disadvantage of other school targets, aspirations, goals, figures and statistics. Eternal vigilance is our duty. We need to ensure that the Bill is robust, and I am sure that further conversations will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

Let me concede that the Minister has been the best Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning that I have ever seen in this Government. He has been exceptional in that regard.

The Minister talked about online and electronic information, advice and guidance about careers. That has its place, but this is my point and the point of new clause 9: a central part of any successful careers advice system is the face-to-face personalised and tailored interaction between a young person and a careers professional, preferably not on a one-off basis on a wet Wednesday afternoon, as we discussed in Committee, but repeated time and again so that trust can be established between the student and the careers professional, and a relationship built up where the professional can know about the student’s wishes, skills, ambitions, potential and limitations, and accordingly challenge, motivate and provide good tailored advice about their prospects.

In Committee, the Schools Minister did not provide huge reassurance on the matter. He seemed to believe that face-to-face information, advice and guidance was not appropriate for all students. I asked him whether he thought such face-to-face access should be the cream of careers advice, available only to a select few students, and he said in Committee that it would depend on the school, which might think it was appropriate for some students, but then again, might not. That is worrying.

Steve Higginbotham, the president of the Institute of Career Guidance, said that as a result of the Government’s plans and the incompetence regarding the transition scheme and because face-to-face advice has not been prioritised,

“The likely reality is that hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of young people will never get access to personalised impartial career guidance, having to rely on the national telephone helpline or website and school staff”.

Young people deserve better than that. I believe very much in allowing the professional judgment of teachers and head teachers to flower, but more than anything else I want the potential of the young person to be nurtured. For a Department that states that it trusts the judgments of professionals, Ministers seem remarkably reluctant to allow careers professionals to meet pupils at the school.

The purpose of new clause 9 is to ensure that that would occur. The clause would help to ensure that relevant and personalised advice could be provided for every single student, rather than just a select few in a school. The school governing body—the Minister will recall that I have always believed that school governors have a positive and largely untapped role to play in the provision of first-class careers advice—would have the responsibility to ensure that careers professionals had face-to-face meetings with pupils. It would make sure that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe and for Wigan mentioned and as the hon. Member for Wirral West alluded to, there was not a postcode lottery or even a school lottery for careers advice, with pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds being disadvantaged still further by a lack of resources to fund face-to-face services. If the Minister and the Front-Bench team are serious about wishing to help every child fulfil their potential—and I think they are—I cannot see how they would have a problem with new clause 9. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept it. I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House by pressing it to a vote.

Finally, I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) did not take offence earlier when I commented from a sedentary position about flabby liberalism. I was speaking about his policy position, rather than any personal appearance. On careers advice, I think the Liberals are like Joe Bugner rather than Muhammad Ali or the late, great Sir Henry Cooper, whom we lost earlier this month. I wish they were more like Ali and Cooper, and it is disappointing that they have not been so in debate in Committee and in the House today.

[Simon Hughes]

I, too, am conscious of the time so I shall be brief. I welcome the debate, as I welcome the co-operation and exchanges that I have had with the Minister responsible for these matters. I know he has been listening to Opposition Members in Committee, colleagues in both parties and those outside.

On new clause 6 moved by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), and his comments and those of the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), they are right about the need for the new system for EMA, for those who will continue to receive it, to be subject to the two criteria of attendance and punctuality. That is extremely important. That was seen to be a discipline, and in one of the reports I gave to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister I made the point that EMA should be continued for those who have started receiving it and that it should be subject to eligibility criteria.

I am sure that the Government will have noticed the equality impact assessment on the EMA plans. In my recommendations to Ministers, I made it very clear that entitlements were better than general localised discretion, because knowing how much they will receive is a consideration for young people, just as knowing what the score is for university costs is a consideration for students. I hope that the Government’s response to the consultation—there are a few days remaining for anyone who has not yet responded and wishes to do so—will not be so prescriptive that it is burdensome and that it will make it clear that certain things will, in effect, be entitlements for young people so that from this summer they will be able to say, “Yes, I’m going to college next year. It will be a good thing for me.” I hope that there is a favourable response. The wording of the proposed new clauses as they are given might not be accepted, but we have more opportunities during the passage of the Bill to get to the same place.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Under the existing provisions for EMA, around 600,000 young people were helped to continue their education. Under the Government’s new plans, 12,000 people will be helped. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think that that is good enough?

[Simon Hughes]

Again, the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead people. The scheme proposes that everyone who this year is in their first year of receiving EMA at the top rate—£30 a week—will next year receive £20 a week. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people, not 12,000. The figure he refers to relates to the additional agreement, which was never there before, that those with special needs, such as those on income support, those who have been carers and those who have been in care, will be entitled to a minimum of £1,200 a year. I welcome that. The Government will have to keep under review whether that is enough for that cohort of young people and whether the figure might have to be adjusted in years to come.

New clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and his friends, makes an important point that was also raised by the hon. Members for Scunthorpe and for Wirral West (Esther McVey). I am in the process of finishing my report for the Government on the careers service and the implications for access to further and higher education, and I am very clear not only that there should be a careers service available for every secondary school child, but that it should include a personalised service. It is not enough that everyone should have access to a telephone service or an online service or be given a book. I know that the Minister understands that point and is sympathetic to it. I hope that we will arrive at the situation in which everyone knows that they will be able to engage with someone who knows about careers and can assist them. It should certainly be one session, but more may be needed.

Those careers advisers also need to be professionally recognised. The six main groups that have provided careers guidance are getting their act together and hope to be together in one organisation this summer. When that is done, they can be recognised, which I think will give us the basis for a good service of general careers information, advice and guidance. I welcome that and hope that Ministers will be sympathetic to the fact that that service must be offered by recognised professionals.

There is obviously a concern in the House, which the hon. Member for Wirral West expressed, about the transition from the current Connexions service, which was good in parts and less good in others, to the all-age careers service, which is generally welcome and could be very good when it is up and running. Ministers understand the need to ensure that a year’s worth of young people do not fall through the gap between the old and new services. We must ensure that resources and arrangements are in place to prevent that.

I want to make one last pair of suggestions for Ministers to consider. I have been across the country talking with school students, and students in sixth-form colleges and universities, and some very unfortunate evidence has come out of that. Some young people, of course, say that their careers advice was excellent, but the majority say that they did not get good enough careers advice or work experience. This was a clear majority, probably about 80%, whether on Merseyside, in Cornwall or anywhere else, and we really have to improve those things.

At the end, I hope Ministers will accept that, in every sixth form, college and school, somebody should have responsibility for the careers service and careers advice, and that another person should have responsibility for the access arrangements—for making sure that people are shown the life opportunities that will come to them after school or college.

Higher Education Policy

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denham]

I am going to make a little more progress, because I am aware of Madam Deputy Speaker’s strictures about time and I need to draw to a close very quickly.

Let me complete the point I was making about the unfairness that is being introduced into the access system. Labour’s progress on social mobility must be maintained—[Laughter.] There is laughter from those on the Government Benches, but let me remind Ministers and the House that under the previous Labour Government the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university increased every single year after the changes we made to higher education. We will wait to see whether this Government can maintain that progress.

These Ministers have put the burden unfairly on the shoulders of hard-working squeezed middle families and the Commons Library suggests a significant risk of no overall increase in money spent on widening access because schemes such as Aimhigher have been scrapped and the widening participation premium is in doubt. That risks the worst of all worlds: middle income students and their families being asked to pick up the tab, with no increase in spending on widening access.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

First, will the shadow Secretary of State confirm that, under Labour, a widening of participation did not occur in the Russell group universities? Secondly, if he is concerned about those on middle incomes, is not the answer for him to say that universities should offer no fee waivers, because if there were none, the inequity that he suggests will follow would not happen?

[Mr Denham]

This is bizarre. The right hon. Gentleman is the Government’s access tsar, but he is asking, “Why do not we all agree that there should not be any fee waivers?” Because it is a requirement of the national scholarship programme that there should be fee waivers. That is the scheme that he has advocated, designed and developed.

The right hon. Gentleman has been as guilty as anybody of raising false hopes about what the Government’s policies are going to do. It was he who said there was going to be

“a really tough regime that does not allow any college or university to charge more than £6,000 unless it is in exceptional circumstances”.

The truth is that he is one of those who have no understanding of how the system operates. I hope that further progress is made on widening participation, including in the Russell group universities. However, nothing that Ministers have set out, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said, matches the rhetoric that he has been putting all over the newspapers. He has played a role in trying to persuade the media in this country that the Government are serious about social access while doing absolutely nothing to deliver on that. He should be ashamed of the role that he has played. He knows that he should have voted against the measures in the first place but he was bought off with a title and he has done nothing to deliver on the responsibilities he has been given.

The Government have broken their promise on the level of fees. They have made claims about access they cannot deliver and they have based their arguments on savings that may never materialise. They said that they wanted to set universities free but they are planning the biggest attack on university autonomy in history, and the sad truth is that all this was not only predictable, but was predicted. From the outset, the Opposition have said that the Government’s policy was unfair, unnecessary and unsustainable. We called for a delay in the fees vote and said that the House should not vote before the Government were clear about how they would control student numbers and how private providers would be regulated. We wanted them to give details about the cost and fairness of the new loans system and to be clear about having an independent assessment of the effect of their measures on social mobility, but they ignored us and four months later they have still failed to answer those crucial questions. In January, the Minister for Universities and Science told the House:

“We are consulting students, universities and other experts and will publish a White Paper in the early part of this year.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 421.]

It is nearly May and there is no sign of this White Paper.

England’s higher education system is not perfect, but it is widely recognised as one of the best in the world. That is not just because of the quality of its world-class research institutions but because of the diversity and quality across the whole higher education system. No one should be afraid of having an honest debate about how it can be made better, but it is so important to all our futures that it needs competent Ministers who are capable of protecting all that is good about it.

Public concern about the Government’s NHS reforms has at least forced a temporary period of reflection on that policy, but no such luxury exists for students and universities, which are on a tight timetable to introduce the new system for 2012-13. The Secretary of State must act now, so will Ministers tell the House today what action will be taken to deliver the promise that fees of £9,000 will be charged only in exceptional circumstances? Will they legislate and if so how and when? Will they promise that there will be no further cuts to student numbers and no further cuts to spending on the teaching grant, research or public funding for widening participation? What will they do to deliver the wild promises of widened participation and improved access? Will they strengthen the powers of the Office for Fair Access to set fees or to impose quotas? If the measures, which are the biggest interference in university autonomy in history, are rejected, what will they do? If the Minister for Universities and Science cannot answer these questions, the House must conclude that he and the Secretary of State have lost control of the policy for which they are responsible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in what is a timely debate, four and a half months or so after the House took a decision on the future financing structure for universities. As the House knows, it was not a decision with which I, or the majority of my parliamentary party colleagues, agreed. It was proposed by the Government after negotiation between the two coalition parties, and after they had read the Browne report commissioned by the last Labour Government. But the House made that decision, and I believe that the issues to be addressed now are, as the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, the issues that are in the minds of the students whom she represents—indeed, those whom we all represent—in the minds of their families, and in the minds of future students.

I want to make four brief comments. I want to talk about the future as opposed to the past, about the cost to future students, about whether the fees being announced by universities are justified, and about what we and they should do in the months between now and the time when the system begins to operate. First, I ask Labour Members and other colleagues on the Opposition Benches to change their rhetoric from today onwards, after they have had this debate, because it is not the amount of the fee that is going to determine the cost to the student. The key question for young people and their families is: what will it cost me if I go to university? The new proposal has many improvements over the last and the present systems. First, as everybody has agreed, the monthly repayment will be less for everybody. Secondly, the starting point for repayment is higher: it is £21,000, not £15,000. Thirdly, for everybody who pays it will be a progressive system under which people pay more for the privilege of a university education according to their ability to pay more. It is therefore fundamentally different from a system—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

Labour Members should calm down for a second. It is fundamentally different from a system under which we pay the same irrespective of our earnings.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

I will of course give way in a moment, although I am trying to be brief as many colleagues still want to speak.

Under the new system, the cost for those who earn £22,000 a year—which is just above the threshold—will be £90 per year or £7.50 a month; that will be the cost of their university education.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall give way in a moment.

Those who earn £25,000, which is just above the average wage, will have to pay back £360 a year, or £30 a month. Those who earn £41,000 a year—which is much more than the average wage, let alone the average graduate wage—will have to pay £150 a month. These sums will be deducted from their salaries, in the same way tax is deducted. Those who earn £71,000, which is more than a Back-Bench MP earns, will pay £375 a month.

The first and most important step is to get the message across that there are no up-front fees—no fees when students are at university, and no fees for part-time students at university. They will pay only when they have the money to pay. In that respect, it is therefore not a debt in the normal sense; rather, it is a repayable sum contingent on income. I shall now give way to the former higher education Minister.

[Mr Lammy]

First, let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that £375 a month is a lot of money to our constituents. Secondly, he knows that not a single Member of this House would accept the new terms if their mortgage company were to ring them up and say, “I’ll treble your mortgage, but you’ll pay a lower monthly sum.” That is why students think it is patronising to suggest that this is a good deal.

[Simon Hughes]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have many concerns for the same sorts of people in our communities, and I respect what he has done in that regard, but most of our constituents do not earn £71,000 a year. They will not be earning that amount, and he and I do not earn that much as Back-Bench MPs.

[Mr Lammy]

They want to earn that much.

[Simon Hughes]

Yes, they may want to, and people in this country understand that if they earn more they will pay more to the state and pay more back into the system. That is fair Britain; it is not fair Britain if they pay the same amount for a service they have received irrespective of their earnings. Of course there are issues about perception—and they are big issues, which is why I did not vote for the policy—but I hope the right hon. Gentleman agrees that we now need to concentrate on the cost to the individual who will graduate in 2015 and later. If we start getting that message across, we will be helping young people to go to university, not hindering them, and our prime obligation now is to encourage, not reduce, access.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine share a local university: London South Bank university. May I ask him two questions? First, does he accept that the concerns expressed on this side of the House about the new regime and its deterrent effect on students are not, as it were, crocodile tears, but, rather, reflect real concerns that are felt not least in both of our constituencies? The worries about what this proposal will mean for students and their families have been raised by my constituents, and I am sure they have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman’s too.

Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept or buy into the principle that higher education should be a partnership between government and the individual? If so, how does he explain the 92% cut in the teaching grant, the 60% cut in the capital grant and the 50% in the innovation grant for London South Bank university from the Government?

[Simon Hughes]

That was a lot of questions and I shall try to answer them briefly. Of course I share a concern about perception, which is why I took on this job. By the time I have carried it out and given my final report to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister at the end of June, I hope—I have been working with Ministers to make sure this happens—that we will have the right messages coming out about the real cost in the future in a way that encourages people to go to university rather than discourages them.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second issue, the Government have to take responsibility for the tough spending decisions, as they have done. There were other choices they could have made, but if the choice was reducing the money going from the state to universities or reducing the money going to fund apprenticeships for people who do not go to university, I, on behalf of my constituents and his, believe that it may well be better to fund those who go to further education college and have apprenticeships, rather than spend the money on people who will be earning £71,000 a year.

[Mr Thomas]

rose—

[Simon Hughes]

If the shadow Minister will excuse me, I will not give way for a moment.

My second point is what now is the issue for universities that have submitted to OFFA their case for wanting to go above £6,000 with any fee. There is an issue as to whether the Government were justified in saying that £9,000 would be the fee only in exceptional circumstances, as that appears, on the basis of the incomplete evidence, not to have been an accurate prediction. Some questions need to be asked, not least about the advice that Ministers were given about what the prediction should be, but there is also clearly something wrong with the universities’ response. It is not just us saying that, because the principal of Queen Mary college, a part of the university of London in the east end, said:

“I think we could say, based on the brief press releases, the possible implication or inference could be that £9,000 fees have not been based on any calculation of cost but on perception of status.”

Universities should not be charging above what it costs them to deliver a course, but many appear to have forgotten that. They appear to be taking an opportunity which they should not be taking. The money is also there for one more thing, which is to make sure that access is improved as a part of widening participation, and universities will be watched to make sure that they are really delivering.

[Mr Thomas]

On that point—

[Simon Hughes]

I cannot give way at the moment, but let us see whether I can do so a little later.

I hope that next year when future OFFA guidance is given by the Secretary of State that fee waivers will not be allowed and indeed will be excluded. I do not think it is logical to state, “You don’t have to pay fees up front or when you are there” and then to say, “But actually we are going to give you a mechanism for you not paying the fees at all.” If we are really going to support students from poor families, the money should go towards the accommodation and living costs, which is where the real bill will apply and where the credit card debts will accrue. I hope that we will not be trying to pretend that reducing fees is the most useful thing for students who may not have to pay them or much of them at all.

Thirdly, I hope that Sir Martin Harris and OFFA will be extremely rigorous. The hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) made the point that powers are now in place and OFFA is able to make sure that each institution has to make sustained and meaningful progress, year on year, on its own benchmarks, measures and targets. OFFA is entitled to say to universities that they cannot have fees above £6,000 and I hope that it will be robust. If widening participation processes are not in place, I hope that OFFA will say so, and some universities may have to be told that they cannot go above the limit. I wish to make two final points and if I still have some time remaining, I will give way.

The Russell group, in particular, must do much better. It did not improve on widening participation under Labour and it must change its interview and recruitment process. At the moment, those universities are being far too subjective, particularly Oxbridge. Harvard does not have the people who are going to do the teaching doing the recruiting; it has selection on a needs-blind basis and it is one of the best universities in the world—other places are the same. The Russell group has no excuse now for not changing its process of recruitment, and if it does not do better I sincerely hope that the Government will make conditions that will require it to do so in future.

Finally, we need much better requirements on universities to give satisfaction to students. That should be written into the system in future and should be part of the preconditions for higher fees to be charged.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

As the hon. Lady knows, and as we have discussed many times in this Chamber, the introduction of graduate contributions at the level we have will ensure that universities are indeed properly funded and maintain funding at world-class levels.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Is my right hon. Friend still reminding universities that it is unreasonable of them to charge fees significantly above the cost of providing the course and asking them to make sure that when they set their final fees in the coming weeks, they honour the cost that they said they would charge some months ago?

[Vince Cable]

May I first thank my right hon. Friend for the extraordinarily useful work that he has been doing on social mobility? On his question, the Browne report estimated that universities would need to charge something in the order of £7,500 simply to replace their income, but no more, and that if they made the kind of efficiencies that other institutions are effecting, it could be as little as £6,000.

Post-16 Education Funding

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

As I explained in my statement, enough money is available in the fund to ensure that every student who is eligible for free school meals could receive £800, which is more than they would receive at the moment. Of course there is a lively debate about how we should define “poverty”, but the decision by both parties on the Government Benches to target help on those eligible for free school meals seems to be a very good metric, as a starting point.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State not only for his statement and for the additional financial support, but for a new scheme that seems to be a strong, grown-up successor to the education maintenance allowance. Does he agree that the evidence is clear that the wider the participation in further education is, the wider the participation in higher education will be? The new scheme will mean that no youngster from a poor family should be precluded from going to college for want of reasonable travel costs, all of which can be met under the scheme.

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I want to take this opportunity to underline my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for the painstaking way in which he has consulted students across the country, and for the thoughtful way in which he has put forward his proposals to ensure that our aim for a discretionary fund targeted on the very poorest can be implemented effectively. He is absolutely right to say that if we encourage more students to take part in further education, we will be able to achieve our joint aim of ensuring that more students, particularly from the poorest backgrounds, go on to college and university.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

As it happens, under the growth review that Ministers are conducting, yesterday we reviewed the creative industry sector to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The sector has serious problems of access to finance, because of a lack of tangible security, and issues around copyright protection. We are pursuing both those issues, and if we can crack them it will help creative industries across the country.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

4. What recent progress he has made in his discussions with representatives of the banking industry on increasing levels of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

16. What recent progress he has made in his discussions with representatives of the banking industry on increasing levels of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

As announced last week in the House by the Chancellor, the UK’s five major banks have stated a capacity and willingness to lend £190 billion of new credit to business in 2011. That includes £76 billion of new lending to SMEs, which is a 15% increase on the amount lent in 2010. If demand exceeds that, the banks will lend more.

[Simon Hughes]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s work and the Government’s announcement. To have maximum transparency, will Ministers negotiate with the banks for the figures on lending to small and medium-sized businesses to be published by principal local authority area on a regular basis, so that we can see exactly what is happening throughout the country?

Education Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady has won an Oscar for being successfully patronising to others. It is a pleasure to be patronised by the Virgin Queen—I feel rather like the French ambassador. I hope this requires no translation: the Bill includes provision for improved primary education and for extra investment in the early years, which is why I hope she will put aside the histrionics and give us her support.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

As the Secretary of State knows from the conversations that he has had with colleagues and with me, we do not believe, as I assume he does not believe, that the Bill is perfect. However, we are absolutely ready to work collaboratively to get the best Bill on the statute book. That is how I understand we do legislation. I hope he confirms that that is how he intends to do this piece of legislation too.

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Gentleman is typically astute. The Bill is the best that I can make it. I am sure that it is not perfect—we have a Committee stage so that the right hon. Gentleman and others can propose amendments, which I hope happens in a suitably constructive spirit. However, we cannot move to that stage and ensure that we have proper legislation, and we cannot protect teachers from indiscipline and poor behaviour or invest in the early years, unless the Bill receives the support of the House tonight. That is the challenge for Opposition Members.