Local Government Finance (England)

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me tell the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) that this is an issue about distribution and the unfairness of the distribution of these cuts. Some parts of the country that have the greatest social and economic need, such as Liverpool, are facing the biggest cuts yet again. That is what Labour Members are genuinely very angry about, reflecting the anger in the communities we represent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) has already spoken about the challenges that we face in Liverpool. I join her in paying tribute to the mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, who has done a fantastic job in leading Liverpool over the last six years. Where did he start? He started with efficiencies. Efficiencies could be made, and he made them. Then he turned to innovation. He made a city deal with the Government that enabled him to rebuild or refurbish 12 schools that had lost out when the Government cancelled Building Schools for the Future. He took the lead, working with other council leaders in Merseyside, in securing city region devolution.

It is not a question of a choice between efficiency and innovation on the one hand and cuts on the other. Liverpool is facing up to the challenges, but even with efficiencies and innovation, its funding from central Government has been cut by 58%. That is simply not tenable. It is simply not possible to balance the books without harming front-line services.

That brings me to the £300 million of Government transitional support. Conservative Members have made legitimate points about rural payments. Rural poverty is undoubtedly a real issue, as is an ageing population, but if that is what the transitional money is about, why on earth is Surrey the biggest beneficiary of the additional money? It is not going to the poorest rural areas. Despite that 58% cut in central Government funding, Liverpool will not receive a penny, while Surrey will receive a substantial amount.

Let us have a fair system of funding. I do not want to talk about “urban versus rural”, because this should be about need and deprivation. Yes, there is deprivation in rural areas, but there is also considerable deprivation in constituencies like mine. I want to ensure that there is fairness and justice in the treatment of different types of authority, but hitting a council like Liverpool with a 58% cut and then providing no transitional support does not strike me as reasonable.

[Graham Stuart]

According to the figures that I have seen, the average cuts in Government-funded spending power in this Parliament will be 19% in metropolitan areas and 30% in rural areas, and the figure for Liverpool is just over 15%. Where did the hon. Gentleman find his figure of 58%?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am talking about the actual reductions in Liverpool’s actual funding from central Government. However, the hon. Gentleman has helped me by bringing me to my next point, which other Members have already made today.

In areas with greater social and economic needs and higher levels of poverty, such as my constituency, the council tax base is such that allowing local authorities to increase council tax simply does not have the impact that it has in Surrey and some of the wealthier London boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside spoke about social care. The increase in council tax that Liverpool has been allowed will enable us to raise £2.7 million. That is better than nothing, but the city’s social care budget has been reduced by £90 million since 2010. We can raise £2.7 million, but the gap is still £90 million.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) made the important point that, while we must take account of demographics and the number of older people in each area, we must also take account of ability to pay. One Member mentioned the number of people aged over 85 in one of his constituency wards. Clearly that brings pressures, but life expectancy in poorer parts of the country is such that not many people live until they are 85. Those are the kind of pressures caused by an ageing population that are faced in areas of high poverty, and they are different from those that are faced in other parts of the country.

I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to think again, and, in particular, to take up the excellent suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West and make the better care fund money available immediately. That could at least help us with what is an emerging social care crisis. As a number of my hon. Friends have said, it is a human crisis not just in terms of the provision of social care, but in terms of the additional pressure that is placed on our health service.

I am hopeful that devolution for the Liverpool city region will bring many benefits, but those benefits are more than cancelled out by the scale of the cuts, which are simply unfair because they hit the poorest parts of the country—constituencies like mine—much harder than the rest.

Teaching Quality

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although when I was shadow Secretary of State I enjoyed working on a cross-party basis with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), I have to say that his speech was unnecessarily partisan and did not add to the merits of this important debate.

This debate is about how we can both raise the quality of education and narrow the achievement gap. We have all welcomed the improvement in results, and, in particular, the fall in the number of schools that are below the floor target. That is of huge benefit to our society and our education system. However, the Demos report, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), is of great concern. It shows that if we take inner London out of the picture, we see a worsening position—a widening of the achievement gap between those from the richest backgrounds and those from the poorest—and that must be of concern to Members in all parts of the House.

How can we change the position? I think that the big challenge for all of us who have been engaged in education policy in the House, in government or in opposition, is to step back as politicians and policy makers, and to empower teachers and school leaders to lead that change. I welcome the motion, because it is about the profession leading change, and in my short speech I want to refer to some of the teaching pioneers who are already doing that.

The brilliant organisation Teaching Leaders is seeking to create the middle leaders of the future who can ensure that our schools improve, particularly those that serve the most deprived communities. ResearchED 2013 was set up as a grass-roots project by people who loved education and loved teaching, but felt detached from the education debate. They came together to create a national conference for teachers, researchers and others who were interested in how we inform the way in which we teach our children, in drawing out the best of policy theory and practice, and in finding out what works in the classroom. Then there is the long-standing and brilliant work of subject associations. When I was an Education Minister, I once went to the Geography Association’s Easter conference. Teachers were attending it voluntarily, during their Easter break, and were exchanging in a passionate way their interest in, and information about, their subject. That, I think, must be the way forward, but how can we best get to where we want to be?

There is a great deal of discussion about what happened under the last Government, but I think that we did some fantastic things to empower teachers. The Secretary of State mentioned Teach First. I am proud to have given Teach First the go-ahead when I was a Minister, 11 years ago. Its aim is to attract the best and the brightest graduates to teaching, and then to empower those teachers to use the latest research and evidence to inform their classroom practice. The sponsoring of academies was intended to ensure that the best teachers went into the schools that served the neighbourhoods with the greatest social and economic need. The London Challenge has succeeded in changing a position in which London schools were below the national average, to one in which London has the best-performing secondary schools in the country.

However, we also got some things wrong. Sometimes we were too centralist. We directed too much from Whitehall: there was too much of a “The Department knows best” approach. My former boss, Baroness Morris—Estelle Morris—said this week that the danger of such a centralised approach was that while the policy might be

“designed to empower teachers and raise the status of the profession, it was seen as being owned by the government and not by the profession itself.”

That is why I think that the movement initiated by the profession in favour of a royal college of teaching is vital, and deserves the cross-party commitment that it has attracted so far. I believe that it could represent a significant step forward for the teaching profession.

[Mr Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his thoughts about the college of teaching?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful for the extra minute. That is what I was about to do.

It is absolutely right that the movement is independent of Government and independent of politics. I ask the Minister: if, and only if, the royal college comes to the Government to ask for financial help on start-up costs, will the Government consider providing that start-up support? We want something that is independent, but if it needs that help when it is getting set up, can they give it that support?

I want to make a point that I have made before and that is incredibly important. The countries that have been most successful in education have often forged a cross-party consensus and a wider consensus in society about education and its role. Look, for example, at Germany, and at the technical and vocational education system in Switzerland. Switzerland has a national centre for the use of evidence in education. A number of people, particularly John Dunford but also Baroness Morris, have put forward that idea, whose time has come. I called for it two years ago, when I used the title “Office for Educational Improvement” and the Secretary of State’s response was, “We already have such an office—it is called the Government.” I took that in good humour but I do not think that that is a good enough answer.

Part of the problem with education in this country, under successive Governments of different parties, is that the line between education and politics has been drawn in the wrong place. Politicians rightly decide how much money should be available, how it should be divided and the legal structure for education, but I do not think that politicians should get involved in the pedagogy and the curriculum. The professionals should lead on that and I believe that a centre for evidence could play a crucial role in delivering that. I welcome the opportunity today for a serious debate about how we enhance teacher professionalism, and promote greater continuing professional development and the opportunity for teachers themselves to lead that, but let us also say that evidence can play a much bigger role in education policy.

The morale of the teaching profession matters. It is undoubtedly the case—the Secretary of State needs to acknowledge this—that morale at the moment in school classrooms is low. Despite having this fantastic generation of teachers and results getting better, morale is low. He has to accept the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that sometimes the Secretary of State’s rhetoric, in this place and outside, has contributed to that decline in morale. I hope that that is something that he can reconsider.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Graham Stuart

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for her lengthy record of work on this issue, including securing legislation as an Opposition Member under the previous Government. I shall move on to the elements of the plan that we do support, including the extension to the age of 25. I know that she has campaigned for that, and the Government now propose it. We very much welcome that proposal, in part for the reasons that she has set out.

We support the switch from statements to education, health and care plans, and we absolutely share the ambition to encourage joint working between different agencies in drawing the plans up and providing the services described in them. We also welcome changes that have been made following campaigning by charities and parents, supported by Labour, and also through the pre-legislative scrutiny, which will maintain access to independent special schools and colleges as an option for children with SEN, and the extension of education, health and care plans for those young people on apprenticeships.

What is striking about this part of the Bill is not so much what it contains, but what it does not. If the Government are to meet the high expectations that they have themselves raised, important changes will need to be made during the Bill’s passage. As the Bill is currently drafted, the education, health and care plans will offer no more legal entitlement to support from health and social care than statements offer at the moment. We will press for stronger requirements on health and social services throughout the passage of the Bill, as well as a strengthening of the plans for those in post-19 education.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about imposing as best we can on health, but the NHS has a constitutional requirement that can conflict with attempts to impose duties on it. Has he thought up some creative ways past that barrier?

[Stephen Twigg]

The hon. Gentleman refers to an important point, which makes the case for the agenda on health and social care set out by the shadow Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), which moves towards a whole person approach. That has been a focus for adult health and social care, but the Bill is an opportunity to demonstrate that that can also be the case for children and young people.

Let me turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). We, too, agree with the Select Committee that disabled children should be included in the provision of education, health and care plans whether or not they have a learning difficulty. Education, health and care plans should codify and bring together the current entitlements for disabled children and young people. The statutory rights that disabled children and young people have in terms of both assessment and provision are already laid out in disability legislation. Including disabled children, therefore, would serve to promote better co-ordination and integration of the duties that already exist, and could even lead to savings.

Education Bill

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Graham Stuart

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in congratulating Liverpool city council, which, despite one of the worst funding settlements from central Government, has been able to create a new programme. I thank him for that opportunity, although I am in grave danger of moving beyond the scope of this debate, so I shall return to my speech.

Our amendment would change the term “reasonable” in Lords amendment 36 to “best”. In contract law, making a “best effort” requires a higher level of commitment than making a “reasonable effort”. Our amendment would place a greater duty on the chief executive to secure employer participation in apprenticeships for the specified groups and would reintroduce, in part, the previous Government’s commitment, which placed a duty on the chief executive to find an apprenticeship for all who wanted one.

This is a major challenge for us all. In a recent speech, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set out a new policy on apprenticeships, giving a commitment that in future all major Government contracts should

“go to firms who commit to training the next generation with decent apprenticeships,”

and that none should

“go to those who don’t.”

I invite the Minister today to consider making a similar commitment on behalf of the Government. I seek assurances from him about how the new clause proposed by Lords amendment 36 will be implemented in the context of the Government’s broader approach to apprenticeships. For example, concerns have been raised about Train to Gain places being replaced or rebadged as apprenticeships. Today we have seen early coverage in the media of a report—to which I understand the Minister has contributed—by the Institute for Public Policy Research, due to be published later this week, setting out concerns that younger people are not getting a fair share of the increase in apprenticeships. I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck, and we very much welcome older workers having the opportunity to take up apprenticeships, but with youth unemployment almost certainly set to hit 1 million this week, we need to maintain the important focus on young people and the opportunity that is provided by having an apprenticeship place.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a thoughtful speech. In light of his amendment (a) to Lords amendment 36, which seeks to ensure that the chief executive should try to make reasonable efforts to secure employers’ participation, does he agree that we would not wish this or any other Government to get on the hook over the numbers? We must maximise the numbers, but also ensure that we have quality. If we have apprenticeships that do not lead to a major improvement in the earning potential of the young people in question, we will have betrayed them. If courses do not last long enough to give them the skills to raise their value in the market place, we will have betrayed them. It is important not only to provide opportunities, but to ensure that they are valuable opportunities that deliver lifelong benefits.

[Stephen Twigg]

I found myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Gentleman had to say in the earlier debate on schools, as I do with what he has just said. He makes a critical point, which enables me to bring my remarks to a close. Clearly, with 1 million young people unemployed, having high-quality apprenticeships is going to be a vital part of a strategy to address that problem, but it must not become simply a numbers game. I would like apprenticeships to become the gold standard of vocational education. I attended an Edge Foundation event a few weeks ago and made the point that it would be wonderful if the parents of a 17 or 18-year-old who gets an apprenticeship were as proud of their daughter or son getting that apprenticeship as they would have been of them getting into higher education. That should be what we aspire towards, and at the heart of that is quality, as the hon. Gentleman said.

[Mr Stuart]

In the light of the requirement to try to secure places, does the hon. Gentleman agree that apprenticeships need to be for a decent period and that an important part of making them work for employers—thus being provided and sustained in the long term—is that the rate of pay should not be too high? The aim should be to make the ticket at the end the valuable part; that is when the benefit comes. Keeping the rate of pay relatively low and ensuring that it lasts for a decent long time will mean that the apprenticeship will work for the company and that at the other end the young person will earn considerably more money.

[Stephen Twigg]

I might be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me say that the quality of the education and training elements of the apprenticeship are vital. What we must not do, however, is allow apprenticeships to become a form of exploitation. A balance has to be struck. Clearly, an apprenticeship should be first and foremost about quality education and training, but with a decent amount of pay, too, for those who are apprentices.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. These are very important issues. I do not believe that any Opposition Member doubts the personal commitment of the Minister, particularly on apprenticeships. We have concerns that we have expressed previously about the impact of other changes—the abolition of the education maintenance allowance and the trebling of tuition fees—and we would be very concerned if there was any weakening of the apprenticeship brand. Let us perhaps forge a cross-party national consensus to the effect that we want apprenticeships to increase in number, but more importantly we want to see them as a high-quality gold standard for those young people who follow a vocational route of education.

Careers Service (Young People)

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I was going to make a similar point later, but she has made it very powerfully.

The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, who is not here this evening, has been cautious in his criticism of the previous Government’s programmes, and rightly so. Of course, as Members on both sides of the House have said, there were serious imperfections with Connexions and Next Step, but we must be careful not to write off the positive features and the important work of many talented and committed professionals who have worked, as some still do, in those programmes.

Today, in advance of tonight’s debate, I spoke to people in some of the secondary schools in my constituency. Those at St John Bosco school in Croxteth told me about the work they have been doing with the Aimhigher programme. They have drawn particularly on the importance of the role of face-to-face contact by employing a graduate mentor to assist the girls at the school with their university applications and career development. This is a school in a very deprived neighbourhood that has an excellent reputation and a high percentage of its girls going on to university.

Cardinal Heenan school for boys has pioneered a particularly innovative approach to careers advice. I want to commend Dave Forshaw, the head teacher, and his team for their industry day programme, which I have had the opportunity to visit on two occasions. The programme draws on alumni, partners and a range of local organisations to deliver rich and effective careers advice, starting in year 7. Its recent industry days have had contributions from a former pupil of the school, the actor Ian Hart, who appeared in the Harry Potter films, as well as local and national journalists, sports professionals, solicitors, accountants and others. West Derby school has adopted a similar approach and held its first careers convention last year.

I cite those examples because they demonstrate two important points. The first is the critical importance of giving information and advice at an early age. Too often, these things are left too late. The second is the importance of drawing on expertise, including among the alumni of the schools themselves, to inspire young people.

The head teachers of those schools said to me today that quality careers advice needs resources. They are very concerned about what they see as a potential shift in policy away from face-to-face interaction to online and telephone-based services. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State set out the research published by Unison that was done at the university of Derby, which shows the sheer scale of the cuts in careers services up and down the country. That is the backdrop for this important debate.

Some of this debate has focused on low-cost solutions and how effective they are in delivery. I would like to bring the House’s attention to the work of an organisation called Future First. It has done excellent research on careers services. Like the head teachers of the schools in my constituency that I have cited, it emphasises that careers advice cannot be reduced to online information and telephone services. A complementary model is surely the best way forward. Future First seeks to increase social mobility by building communities of alumni around state schools to inspire young people about their futures.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a passionate speech. He has just said that careers advice should be complementary, and I agree. However, the Opposition motion does not say that the Government should seek to find additional funds to provide face-to-face careers advice; it says that all young people should be provided with face-to-face careers advice whether they need it or not. That does not sound complementary; it sounds like the cumbersome over-specified and overly expensive processes that we saw too much of under the previous Government.

[Stephen Twigg]

Not at all. What I mean by complementary, and what I understand Future First to mean by complementary, is that we need face-to-face advice, but that that is not enough. We also need the other projects to which I and other Members have referred.

Education Bill

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and to see so many faces from the Public Bill Committee, as well as Select Committee members, including the stellar four or five Labour Back Benchers under the Gallery there.

I want to discuss my new clause 22 on home education. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) has made most of the key points about his new clause 2. This is not about extending selection in our schools; it is about taking existing institutions—in many cases, institutions originally set up to serve some of the poorest in our communities—and allowing them to serve those communities again. I must confess to having been torn before deciding that supporting new clause 2 was appropriate, although there will be differences of opinion on both sides of the House—the shadow Secretary of State failed to note that supporters of the new clause include Labour Members as well as Government Members.

[Stephen Twigg]

The Select Committee Chair says that new clause 2 would not extend selection, but it would involve its extension within the state system. Does he not acknowledge that a number of independent schools, including Belvedere school in Liverpool, have entered the state system and been willing and happy as a condition to become local comprehensive schools? Is that not a better approach, if we are to widen opportunities for as many young people as possible?

[Mr Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Where the institution feels that it best serves its mission to improve education by becoming a comprehensive, it would be free to do so. If I have read it correctly, which I hope that I have, the proposal does not insist that schools should retain their existing selection or non-selection criteria, so the tone of what the hon. Gentleman has said is perhaps unfair.

My new clause 22 would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local authorities on how they handle families who seek to home educate their children ahead of changes in the regulations. However, my new clause has been overtaken by events. The Government have let me know today that they have decided not to go ahead with those regulations, which would have changed the rules on what happens when a parent deregisters their child from a school in order to home educate.

The Badman review, which many hon. Members will remember, under the previous Government recommended a 20-day period in which a child’s name should remain on a school’s register, so that if the parents had been pushed into home education because of failures on the part of the school or local authority to meet the needs of their child, they would not automatically lose a place at school, but would have time to think through the implications of home education.

That recommendation by the Badman inquiry was accepted by the then Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families. I always thought that that was right, because it seemed to place no restrictions on the rights of parents and families, but seemed to restrict the rights of schools and local authorities, which, according to Badman, if I recollect correctly, were in some cases using home education to push away children whose needs they were failing to meet, finding it easier to push that responsibility on to parents who did not really wish to pursue it.

On the face of it, that recommendation seemed reasonable, which I am sure is why the Government came forward with proposals to implement it, having seen that both Badman and the Select Committee supported it. However, it was not recognised that the Government’s formal consultation on the Badman recommendations had shown that, far from being uncontroversial, the proposal had attracted opposition from 75% of those who responded, with only 13% agreeing. Why would that be the case? Why would families be concerned about having the power to return their children to school within 20 days, with no restriction whatever on their freedoms and no delay forced on the start of their home education? The answer lies in the behaviour of local authorities.

Many home educators expressed alarm and horror at the proposal when it came out recently—those home educators were not formally consulted by the Government, because the proposal was supposedly uncontroversial—because, they said, it would lead to bullying and intimidation of parents who had decided to home educate. Those home educators said that the proposal would serve as another excuse for local authorities to misinform parents and tell them that the local authority would decide on the quality of the education provided by parents and that it should sit in judgment on whether they were fit and proper people to educate their children. That would be an entire reversal of the long-standing legal settlement in this country, which says that it is the parents’ duty to educate their child. Most parents choose to delegate that to the state, through state schools, and some to private schools, with a small number choosing to carry it out themselves. It is a fundamental basis of education in this country that the parent remains the No. 1 decider of how their child is educated.

In case that response was just overly paranoid home educators who felt that properly caring local authorities would be asking them impertinent questions or who had misread or misunderstood what they were doing or saying, I can share with the House the fruits of my labour last night, which I spent on the internet looking at various local authority websites. A colleague texted me at 6 o’clock to say that we were going to be let go unusually early, and that a night of fun and frolics could lie ahead. I had to say, “No, my fun will involve looking at local authority websites.” Tameside metropolitan borough council’s elective home education guidelines say:

“It is up to parents to show the local education authority that they have a programme of work in place that is helping their child to develop according to his/her age, ability and aptitude and any special educational needs he/she may have.”

But it is not up to parents to justify that to the local authority; all too often, it is the local authority that has let down that family and those children through its failure to provide proper education. The local authority should be the servant of the family; the family should not have to answer to the needs of the local authority.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I give my apologies in advance in case the debate continues beyond 4 o’clock, because I am hoping to speak in Westminster Hall.

I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) about the importance of evaluation. There have been constructive speeches from Members from across the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, we have to start by looking at the evidence of what is working in our country and, as several hon. Members have said, what has and has not been successful in other parts of the world. Several hon. Members talked about the balance between having universal expectations of services in all parts of the country and local flexibility. I am a fan of local flexibility. The hon. Member for Stroud said that the situation must depend on the needs on the ground. I say to him gently that although that is true, meeting those needs on the ground depends on the resources being there. In the latter part of my speech, I will talk about the impact of the Government’s cuts to these grants on children’s centres and nursery provision in Liverpool.

I absolutely concur with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on the need to focus on those who are not in education, employment or training. Ultimately, the success or failure of Sure Start and other investment in early years will be assessed by whether we succeed in cracking the nut that all speakers have referred to: that so many people’s life chances are set before they go to primary school or even, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said, before they enter a Sure Start children’s centre.

Before 1997, I had the privilege of working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), who is now Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. She was asked by the then Leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair, to develop a policy for early years. That ultimately became the Sure Start policy that was taken up in Government by my right hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). Our approach then was very much the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield set out. We looked at the evidence and at the examples of excellence from our own country. They did exist, but they were individual cases rather than occurring nationwide. Perhaps more importantly, we looked at the head start programme in the United States, which seemed to be having such a big impact on the life chances of children and young people from poorer communities, and at similar programmes in European countries.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has had to leave the Chamber, but his speech was an important contribution to the debate. In the latter part of my remarks I will focus, as I am sure will other Labour Members, on the impact of Government cuts, and in doing so we are saying that not everything in the garden is rosy. Of course some children’s centres are doing better and are more effective than others, but we need a proper quantitative and qualitative analysis of what is working so that lessons can be shared across the country.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I believe it was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) who had the courage to say that if one believes in early intervention, in the current financial situation one must reduce funding further up by taking money away from primary schools, secondary schools and colleges, and give it to early years. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore support the fact that two-year-olds will now have nursery education at a cost of more than £300 million, which perhaps reflects a redistribution from later school years by this Government?

[Stephen Twigg]

I welcome that element of what the Government have done. On its own, it would represent something of a redistribution. The trouble is that it exists alongside other changes that work in the opposite direction—principally the removal of the ring fence. The hon. Gentleman referred to the debate on ring-fencing. It has always struck me in debates about education and other public services that people tend to be against ring-fencing in general, but in favour of it in particular. We all want our favourite thing to be ring-fenced, but we do not like the general idea. The principle of moving away from central Government saying, “You must spend this funding on this, regardless of local circumstances,” is good. However, it is concerning in this instance, not least because it is happening in the context of cuts in many areas. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult for local authorities to maintain expenditure on early years with the ring fence removed, when they are having to make such big cuts in other areas of their budgets. I will come back to that point, but I urge the Government to think again about the proposal to remove the ring fence for this area of spending.

I think that the case for investment in this area is now accepted across the House. It can make such a difference to the life chances of all children, and in particular those from the poorest and most deprived areas with the greatest need. The formulation set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is right: we want a universal service, but within that, we must focus without relenting, and without any apology, on the needs of those from the very poorest communities.

That brings me to the financial predicament that is being faced by local authorities of all parties up and down the country. There is no quarrel about the need for cuts, or about the fact that some of the cuts will affect children’s services, but our concern is that the scale, speed and distribution of those cuts, combined with the removal of the ring fence, will cause enormous damage.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stephen Twigg and Graham Stuart

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

The difference on this occasion is that the schools affected have worked for years on a programme for their own improvement, and they came together in Building Schools for the Future. Now that has all been stopped, except for schools that will potentially have academy status. The problem is the uncertainty. I want schools to make the decisions that are best for them. The head of De La Salle wants his school to be an academy and sees the educational advantages, whereas the head teacher and chair of governors of Holly Lodge, another school that was due to be rebuilt under Building Schools for the Future, have decided that they do not want that for their school. I do not want schools to make such decisions simply on the basis of whether the extra money is available.

I wish briefly to make a point about where we go from here. Although there is a real sense of loss and devastation in Liverpool that we are not getting Building Schools for the Future funding, there is also a hard-headed pragmatism. We recognise that there will be a new show in town, and we are starting to consider what the alternatives might be for securing the much-needed capital funding for the city.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that Building Schools for the Future would have carried on precisely as originally envisaged had Labour been in power, and that the 50% reduction in capital spending that the last Government had pencilled in, in broad terms and with no details given, would not have had an impact on it?

[Stephen Twigg]

That is absolutely my understanding, and the figures that the Department for Children, Schools and Families gave under the previous Government were those signed off by the Treasury.