School Places (Bristol)

Stephen Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing this important debate. I know she is no stranger to the issues surrounding education provision in Bristol, as she has served the community well in local and national politics for a number of years. As she said, earlier today we met with the right hon. Member for Bristol South (Dawn Primarolo) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) and for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) to discuss the issues facing Bristol in terms of population increase.

I am aware that the hon. Member for Bristol East has been active, as she has been today, in raising the difficulties faced by schools in her area, especially with respect to her concerns surrounding the establishment of the proposed Bristol free school. I hope that, by now, she has received a response from my noble Friend Lord Hill to the letter regarding the Bristol free school. There is overwhelming demand for a Bristol free school from parents in that area. She is right to point out that it was in the BS9 area that the community campaigned for a new school. That community felt that too many pupils had to leave the local authority to receive a good standard of education. In fact, hundreds of parents attended a recent parents’ evening for the September 2012 year 7 intake, which demonstrates that there is significant demand for the new free school.

The hon. Lady referred to capacity issues. She is right: the reception to year 6 primary population in Bristol is forecast to increase from 27,000 in 2009-10 to around 33,500 by 2014-15. She is also right to point out that, at the moment, there are 3,074 surplus places across 70 schools, 15 of which have more than 25% spare places. However, the council is also projecting a deficit of primary places from 2012-13 based on the May 2010 school capacity figures.

The greatest demand for places is in the east central area of the city, but the surplus places tend to be in schools located in the north and south city boundary areas. That is why the hon. Lady is concerned with the methodology of how capital is allocated to local authorities. She made that point powerfully, with other hon. Members, at the meeting this morning. I also understand, and am sympathetic to, the logistical problems. I think that representatives from the local authority said that 94% of parents in the Bristol area achieve one of their first three primary school choices, but that still leaves 6% who do not. Some parents find themselves having to travel significant distances to secure a primary school place.

The Government are aware of the pressures that many local authorities face in light of population increases and the very tight spending review capital settlement for the Department. We must never forget why we are in this difficult position and why we have to make these difficult decisions. It is, of course, due to the difficult state of the public finances that we inherited. That has made it necessary for our top priority to be to reduce the country’s budget deficit, rather than being able to provide significant additional money for capital funding of school projects. We are now paying £120 million in interest every day of the week. Those interest payments could have been used to rebuild or refurbish 10 schools every day of the year, but we are not in that position.

Despite the difficulties we face, we have still been able to announce that the Department for Education’s capital spending will be £15.9 billion in the four years of the spending review period. We know only too well that there are schools in need of refurbishment that missed out on the previous Government’s unsustainable capital programmes. We appreciate fully that some people will feel that they have been unfairly treated. Even though we have had to take some very difficult decisions on spending, we will still be able to continue putting money into the schools estate at an average of almost £4 billion a year. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is still a significant sum. More importantly, we believe that it is affordable in the current financial circumstances.

It is essential that we maintain buildings properly to ensure that health and safety standards are met and to prevent an increasing backlog of decaying buildings. However, by stopping the wasteful Building Schools for the Future project, to which we were not contractually committed, we have been able to allocate £1.4 billion to local authorities to prioritise their local maintenance needs. That includes £195 million of devolved formula capital that has been directly allocated to schools themselves for their own use. In addition—the important point as far as the hon. Lady is concerned—we allocated £800 million of basic need funding for 2011-12, which is twice the previous annual support for new school places in areas of population growth.

As the hon. Lady pointed out in her opening remarks, in July the Secretary of State announced that, in addition to that £800 million in 2011-12, he could announce a further basic need allocation of £500 million to provide extra school places where there was greatest pressure caused by the increasing pupil population. That additional funding has been made available thanks to efficiencies and savings that the Department, working with Partnerships for Schools, has been able to identify in the Building Schools for the Future projects that are continuing. Officials in the Department are working on the allocation methodology for notifying local authorities of their share of that additional £500 million. The intention is to use the 2011 school capacity and forecast information that was submitted to the Department by local authorities in August 2011. By using those data, we can ensure that the additional money is indeed allocated to those in greatest need.

Bristol’s capital allocation of the £800 million is approximately £9.36 million in 2011-12. In addition, in 2011-12 it has received more than £6 million in capital maintenance allocations, as well as £1.1 million in devolved formula capital. Therefore, Bristol is already due to receive £17.1 million of capital this year. Once we have allocated the £500 million, based on the 2011 statistics, other sums should be forthcoming to ensure that there are sufficient school places for primary school pupils, particularly in the Bristol area.

We have been working with stakeholders, including local authorities, to understand better their basic need forecasts and pressures. It is clear that some authorities face greater pressures, as the hon. Lady highlighted.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the key point that the four MPs and the city council tried to get across to him in his office this morning is that, while there are several authorities around the country that face population pressure, Bristol’s pressures are more significant than those for the family of core city authorities and indeed outstrip the population growth of inner London? Of all the family of urban centres in the country, Bristol faces the greatest pressure from demographic change, and therefore has the greatest need and perhaps the greatest call on that extra £500 million of welcome resources.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point; it was made strongly at the meeting this morning and I took it on board. A 20% increase is significantly higher than most others. There are one or two areas—such as Plymouth, I think—that have a higher increase. Nevertheless, looking at the country as a whole, Bristol is significantly high in terms of its population increase in that age group compared to other parts of the country. That will be taken into account when we analyse the 2011 data, which will be used to allocate the £500 million.

As the hon. Member for Bristol East knows, last year the Secretary of State commissioned, from Sebastian James, a full and independent review of the Department’s capital programmes. That review has been published and the Secretary of State has commented on—indeed, has already agreed with—some of its recommendations. The recommendations propose a new approach to the future allocation and use of all available capital funding, including that funding continue to be prioritised to the provision of pupil places and addressing condition needs. The Department is consulting on the proposals made in the James review. In fact, the consultation ends today.

Future capital allocations and the management of funding for 2012-13 until 2014-15 will be informed by the outcome of the capital review. That was raised in this morning’s meeting by the local authority and by the hon. Lady. They want a degree of certainty about future capital allocations. The outcome of that consultation and its conclusions will, I think, steer her and her local authority in that general direction. However, as I have said, the Secretary of State has already indicated that local authorities can expect that the headline amounts of capital available in future years will be broadly in line with those allocated for 2011-12. I hope that that will help her local authority to engage in a planning process to help to eradicate the shortage of places in the Bristol area.

As well as radically reviewing the way capital funding is allocated and spent, the Government are continuing to press forward with their academy and free schools programme. That includes a focus on funding an academy solution for the weakest primary schools in the country. Bristol has a number of open academies. Indeed, I had a very informative visit to Merchants’ academy in July. The introduction of the academies and free schools programme should be viewed as an additional tool in the armoury of local authorities as they seek to eradicate any basic need pressures that they are encountering. By giving those involved in education the chance and the freedom they need to shape the future of our schools, and by opening up the opportunities for others to enter the education sector, we believe that we are offering an education system that will meet the needs of local communities.

The meeting this morning with the hon. Lady and other hon. Members who represent Bristol was very constructive and helpful. Officials will continue to work with local authorities to find a solution to the basic need problems facing Bristol.

Question put and agreed to.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Stephen Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an interesting debate, but I found it hard to concentrate on the Secretary of State’s speech because I was expecting a speech that was focused particularly on the motion and on EMA, but he seemed to want to talk about almost everything else. He spoke endlessly about the economy but said little about EMA.

In my brief speech, I want to make a couple of points. First, as a former Chair of the Education Committee, I say to the current Chair that, as Nye Bevan said, it is a question of priorities, but he and I, and other hon. Members, served on the Committee when it conducted an inquiry into NEETs—one of our last inquiries under the previous Government, and I believe that the impact on NEETs of the removal of EMA will prove very much more expensive than the NEET budget.

I beg the Government to think in terms of the broader picture. The previous Government introduced EMA because we knew that if we could keep a young person on in education from 16 to 18, we had got ’em—they stayed on, and not just to go to Oxford and Cambridge, which the Secretary of State is obsessed with. The one thing that annoys me most is the obsession with which kids who had free school meals went to Oxford and Cambridge. I am a London School of Economics graduate, but I must point out that there are many much better universities than Oxford and Cambridge. There are brilliant universities—the university of Huddersfield in my constituency is fantastic. It has one of the best design and engineering departments in the country. So please, Secretary of State, do not be obsessive about Oxford and Cambridge.

The record is there to show that as a result of the successful policy of introducing EMA, many more young people—a tremendous number—now stay on from 16 to 18. They do not do all the posh things such as going to Oxford and Cambridge or the Russell Group universities, but they stay on for apprenticeships and training; they go for craft training and become technicians. The Secretary of State shares my desire to get more kids to become technicians. There is nothing wrong with that, and EMA has meant that many more have come through. We know that without EMA, many young people will be put off doing so.

With EMA, we have changed the educational culture; it is the one area in which we have done so. Kids now stay on until they are 18 and that opens up their lives to new opportunities. The abolition of EMA will change the culture back to what it was before.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Sheerman]

In a moment.

We must also consider the long-term implications and the unintended consequences. I pray in aid a recent report from the Equalities Commission. It showed how many young people from ethnic minorities were unemployed and the sort of employment those who worked had. For example, 25% of Pakistanis are taxi drivers. It showed how many Pakistani, Bangladeshi, black and white working-class young people have been brought into education and stay in education because of EMA. If those young people are not in education or training, they will not get jobs. The long-term cost to our communities will be frightening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

May I say how pleased I am that the Secretary of State is working with schools and colleges on how the enhanced learner support fund should operate? The few comments that I shall make today are intended to feed into the work that I understand is going on in the vital area of supporting participation in 16-to-19 education and training, and into the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is carrying out. I believe that there should be a comprehensive view across all education and training for that age group.

Over several years, I have received a number of representations about the unfairness of the EMA system, and I am quite convinced that there is a need for reform, but equally I am concerned that its replacement should provide sufficient support. On the point about unfairness, I would like to quote just one constituency case—a rather unusual one. A single parent, earning just over £30,000 a year, had triplets in a local sixth form. I wrote pleading letters to the relevant Labour Minister, saying that surely there should be more flexibility to take into account individual circumstances, but to no avail. Of course child benefit is not very helpful when one has triplets, either, because for the second and third triplet, the rate is considerably lower.

There must be many cases where a family has two or more siblings in post-16 education, yet the system that the Labour party is defending so vigorously did not have the capacity to respond to individual circumstances. I believe that we need something that is individual and targeted. It is clear to me that we need to address potential barriers to entry faced by individual students in accessing the most appropriate courses of their choice, and how those barriers can best be overcome.

Like the Secretary of State, I believe in choice and social mobility. That means access to the right institution that offers the right range of subjects for the particular student. I represent a constituency that is relatively affluent, but it certainly includes young people who need and deserve our support. It has a mix of urban and rural areas. I concur with the points made about the very long journeys that have to be undertaken by some students.

I shall deal briefly with the main barriers, as I see them. I see transport as a major barrier. It is not enough to say that local authorities have a statutory duty. The local authorities that cover my constituency have long since abandoned providing transport for sixth-form students, and have taken the attitude that EMA replaced the need to cover public transport. They have been quite gruelling, saying, “Ah, there’s another school or college that is closer, where you could do more or less what you want to do.” That is not good enough.

Poole local authority, for example, has grammar schools. If a young person has gone to a secondary modern school from the poorer part of town, it is right that they should have access to the grammar school if they have worked hard to get the qualifications. I ask the Secretary of State to look at that. We believe in social mobility, and with the grammar school system there is a particular problem.

With reference to FE colleges, we need to take on board why young people go on to further education. It is often because it offers a totally different type of course from those they were able to do at school. Again, there is a problem with a local authority funding transport because somebody wants to go to a college of further education rather than to their local comprehensive school. School might have been a bad experience. I have lectured in further education for many years. It is inspiring to turn around students who have had bad school experiences and turn out to be brilliant students in a different setting. I am concerned that we may be depriving some children of those opportunities.

My constituency has no FE colleges, which inevitably means a great deal of travel for youngsters there. Students from my constituency go further afield, beyond Bournemouth and Poole college, in the opposite direction to the specialist college, Kingston Maurward, which has incredibly interesting courses. Originally one of the agricultural colleges, it offers many courses that are suitable for particular interests, such as work with animals. It is extremely important that transport is paid.

I am concerned that the issue of transport costs is not as simple as it sounded when the Secretary of State was talking about it. I would support the introduction of a young people’s travel card. I would make a sacrifice. I am eligible for a bus pass although I do not have one. Even if I had it, I do not think I need to be able to travel all over the country for free. I believe many people would accept a cut there.

A further barrier is the cost of equipment. Bournemouth and Poole college has an amazing reputation for catering and hospitality, as hon. Members might imagine. Of course, the equipment is expensive, and students must have help with that. We have discussed the fact that some courses need more expensive books than others—for example, students going on to study art will need expensive materials.

[Stephen Williams]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Annette Brooke]

I had better not, given the time.

There is a big difference between school, where free school meals are available, and the local college. Young people’s life chances can be transformed by going to college, but they need to have enough food.

I draw attention to the young people who are vulnerable and particularly disadvantaged—those not living in a family home for whatever reason, children in care, care leavers, young people who are homeless, children and young people with learning difficulties, teenage parents and young carers. We need some red lines: some groups of young people must be protected, come what may. In future, we must enhance access, ensure success and allow our young people to achieve their potential, regardless of background and financial circumstances.

I have two specific questions. One is about young people who are part-way through courses and who may not have EMA for the next year of the course. How will that be tackled? Will there be ring-fencing? I am worried about colleges and schools having pots of money and its going off into other activities. Finally, we seem to be facing a big threat today, but together we could work on the opportunities arising from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

The debate was called by Opposition Front Benchers. Perhaps if they had waited until we had that information, we could have had a more informed debate, but that was their decision.

EMA has undoubtedly made a difference to some people. The important thing is that whatever replaces it reaches those young people and keeps them in education, and empowers people who are in a similar situation in future. It is also clear that there are issues with EMA and examples of it not working, some of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). It is right for the Government to consider doing something slightly different, and I hope that that is better at reaching people and makes a difference to those who have not received the support that they need.

We are in an incredibly tough financial situation. It would be far easier for the Government, in terms of popularity, to ignore that, as the Opposition seek to do, and to carry on borrowing to fund spending that there is no money to meet, but we have chosen not to do that and to face up to some of these things. It is right for the Government to open up this issue and explore it, and for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) to work on it and discuss ways forward.

[Stephen Williams]

One issue that needs to be looked at, which we pressed the Labour Government to address on many occasions, is the anomaly that those who are eligible for free school meals receive them if they are in school, but those who go to sixth-form or FE college at 16 do not. I was potentially in that situation when I was at school. The Labour party refused repeatedly to address that anomaly in the previous Parliament, so we should take some of its anxiety with a pinch of salt.

[Dan Rogerson]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution. Some crucial issues have been raised, including those on food and the cost of living as people continue their studies. I will come back to those in the questions that I ask the Minister.

Transport is a big issue in rural constituencies such as mine. Many students stay on in the excellent school sixth forms and others explore different opportunities, such as travelling to the fantastic Cornwall college, which is dispersed across the peninsula of Cornwall. Its excellent chief executive officer is concerned about what may happen because of the proposed changes to EMA. I welcome his contribution in talking to the Education Committee about those concerns. The fact is that changes and cuts in spending are needed, and the Government have decided to focus the money on the kind of early intervention that the Secretary of State spoke about.

I want to put some questions to the Minister on his deliberations about what will replace EMA. First, will he assure that House that he will work with other Departments, as well as considering the resources at his disposal, on issues such as transport; access to higher education, which is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; and how local authorities can do more to help young people, which should be discussed with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Association? The issue of free school meals is also important, and has been raised by several hon. Members. I would welcome his comments on that.

Will the Minister ensure that in the discussions that he and colleagues have with local authorities, the availability of transport is considered? We are not talking about a token provision of resources that will allow some people to access transport. In some rural areas, the existing network of buses will just not get people there in time. That needs to be addressed.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of young carers and young people in care who need extra support. It would help if strong guidelines were set up for these funds to ensure that such groups are protected and given every support that they need to access education. Those people need it the most. Action for Children raised that problem and suggested those guidelines in its briefing.

If there is to be a discretionary element, with college and school principals being able to consider how resources should be used locally to achieve access, we should ensure that there are clear guidelines about equality of access. For example, if two students apply to a college, one of whom looks likely on the basis of past performance to achieve grades that mean it will be good for the college to have them on board, and one of whom will need extra support to achieve such grades, the college should consider their home situation, where they live and so on rather than just their academic attainment. We need such safeguards in place.