Holidays (Low-income Families)

Bob Russell Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

In view of the lead story in The Daily Telegraph today, I thought that perhaps I should cancel the debate, which in many respects relates to child poverty. The headline says, “Recession? You’ve never had it so good”. However, I will not cancel it because, for millions of children, what is in the headline is manifestly not the case. The Prime Minister’s enterprise adviser, Lord Young of Graffham, is quoted—no doubt raising his voice above the clink of champagne glasses—as saying that

“people will wonder what all the fuss was about”

when looking back at the Government’s spending cuts, the deepest in more than 30 years.

However, back in the real world, things are different, as I shall explain. The timing of the debate could not be better because today is the BBC’s annual Children in Need day. With memories of the summer holidays still hopefully fresh in people’s minds, and with holidays in the UK or abroad doubtless the norm for Members of Parliament and their families, I invite the House to reflect on the following disturbing statistic: for almost one in three families, there was no holiday away from home—not even a single day trip to the seaside for a third of the nation’s children. That is the reality in the UK, one of the world’s richest countries, where the divide between rich and poor widened over the past decade.

When answering a question in the House of Lords on 8 February this year, on the then Government’s attitude to social tourism, the Minister, Lord Davies of Oldham, was interrupted and asked to explain what exactly was meant by social tourism. He replied:

“The concept behind social tourism is to ensure that those in society who are less well off get the opportunity to go on holiday…That is the concept...and the Government are of course sympathetic to it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 2010; Vol. 717, c. 478.]

Today, I would like to talk about social tourism and why we need to pay more attention to it in the interests of those who would get the most direct benefit, particularly children, and the economic benefit it would generate. In the UK, social tourism is a concept that is little heard of and even less well understood.

I am therefore grateful to the charity, the Family Holiday Association, and its director Mr John McDonald, whom I met recently. I was so impressed with what he told me that I decided that I would bring its excellent work and objectives to the attention of the House, in the hope that perhaps someone in Government will listen and conclude that it should be supported and encouraged. As Mr McDonald told me, movingly and powerfully:

“Holidays help to make stronger, healthier, happier families, which in turn contributes to a healthier, happier, caring society that benefits everyone.”

However, some 7 million people in the UK are excluded from breaks through lack of money, and more than 1.5 million families cannot even afford a day trip.

Of course, I am not talking about holidays that some people—I exclude myself— have, sipping cocktails by the pool under the Caribbean sun, but relatively simple off-peak breaks here at home—more Skegness or Sheringham than Spain or the Seychelles, more train than plane. Many of us manage to take a decent holiday at least once every year. We consider it a necessary part of life to ensure that we stay healthy—physically, emotionally and mentally.

The Government already use the lack of a one-week break away from home as a measure of poverty, and the Office for National Statistics provides the shocking figures that tell us that more than 2 million families with dependent children—almost one in three families—cannot afford a simple holiday. Sadly, that is likely to get worse as austerity measures gather pace. Official Government statistics reveal that 3.9 million children already live below the official poverty line.

Figures supplied by the Family Holiday Association, which describes itself as the

“charity that gives families a break”

show that 21% of children from households with either married parents or a cohabiting couple cannot afford a one-week break. For single mothers or fathers, the figure is 57%. The number of children, therefore, who do not have a holiday is 3,770,000. According to figures from the Office for National Statistics 2004 social inequalities report, 7 million people do not have a holiday—that figure includes children and parents. I am not sure whether there has been a report since, so perhaps it is time the ONS undertook a fresh one to reflect the current situation. I doubt that things have improved, or that they will improve without Government intervention, which I am calling for today. The 2004 report also gave depressing statistics on how many children did not enjoy even a single day trip—a total of 2,570,000.

Not only the lack of finance prevents children from having a holiday. Families often face complex issues such as long-term illness, chronic depression, disability—both physical and learning difficulties—family break-up and domestic violence. Sadly, more often than not, the families struggling in the most difficult situations cannot get away but would most benefit from a break.

Children especially suffer if their family can never have a break away from home. Not only do they miss out on quality family time, they have few opportunities to broaden their horizons, and have no special memories or stories to share with friends. They can feel excluded and isolated, which may eventually contribute to even more serious problems. A worker at a Women’s Aid refuge has told me this:

“I see some of the terrible difficulties families must deal with. A simple holiday helps families forget for a short time all the horrible things that are happening in their lives. After their break, I see mums and their children smile again. But more importantly, they seem much better able to cope with the everyday pressures they face.”

There is a growing body of scientific research—both British and international—that supports the contention that a break away from home can improve well-being and reduce stress, increase self-esteem and confidence, strengthen family communication and bonding, and provide new skills, widen perspectives and even enhance employability. A study from the university of Westminster published in April last year in the highly rated Annals of Tourism Research

“examined the value of social tourism for low-income groups, in terms of the benefits it can bring to the participants both in the short term and in the medium term…It has shown that for a modest investment in terms of time and money, holidays can facilitate significant benefits in the personal and family development of the participants. It has also highlighted new aspects of the social impacts of tourism, and has shown the potential of tourism as a part of social policy: not only because of the inherent benefits of the holiday, but also as a support for the success of other, existing interventions.”

However, the UK has a long way to go before access to holidays for disadvantaged families is an integral part of social welfare policy. Is social tourism a new-fangled idea with little or no real track record? The truth is that the concept of social tourism has deep and historic roots in the social welfare policies of many European countries.

In France, the “Chèque-Vacances” scheme, which is administered by the state-sponsored ANCV, last year helped more than 7.5 million people with a break. The mechanics of the scheme mirror those of our child care voucher system. Employees save money from their pre-tax salary to purchase their holiday vouchers, which can then be used to pay for accommodation, travel and restaurant costs. Some 135,000 establishments in France accept the vouchers, which come in €10 and €20 denominations.

In addition to the social welfare benefits that the scheme delivers to the millions of French citizens who participate, it is also recognised as a significant economic driver for French domestic tourism by pumping more than €3 billion into the tourism economy. The dual impact of social welfare and economic benefit is repeated in the multitude of schemes to be found across Europe, including the state-sponsored IMSERSO scheme in Spain. Last year, that holiday-subsidy project helped more than 1.2 million Spanish senior citizens to access an off-peak break at the Spanish seaside. A PricewaterhouseCoopers evaluation of the scheme for the Spanish Government found that for every €1 of subsidy, an additional €1.5 of tax receipts was generated for the Spanish Treasury.

One million-plus pensioners heading towards the coast during the quieter off-peak periods generates a great deal of economic activity, helping to extend the season and to generate and extend employment. PWC was at pains to point out that it had not even looked at the cost savings accruing to the Spanish health care system from animating so many senior citizens. Similar schemes are to be found throughout Europe from hard-up Greece, through to Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Scandinavia.

Not all social tourism schemes are huge like the French and Spanish examples. In Belgium, the Flanders tourist office has made it a condition of registering with the tourist board that holiday establishments provide free or discounted holiday nights. These offers are then aggregated into a brochure that is made available to social organisations throughout Flanders to help disadvantaged families access that much-needed break away from home. This year the Flanders Government expect to help more than 90,000 people with a Flanders-based break.

Perhaps the Government could undertake a trial scheme, based on what is achieved across the North sea in Flanders, to see how it could operate here—and I nominate the counties of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk with their long coastline and seaside towns, large and small, whose economy would get a welcome boost while at the same time providing much-needed holidays for so many of the nation’s children who do not experience even a day trip to the seaside. From Hunstanton in north Norfolk to Southend in Essex, taking in such wonderful destinations as Cromer and Great Yarmouth, Felixstowe, Clacton and Walton, the East Anglian coastal towns would get a fantastic boost through the economic tourism that I propose today. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) told me only yesterday that he is doing research into economic tourism for his constituency, so I hope that the coalition Government will take forward what we are both seeking to achieve.

Linked with this, I draw the House’s attention to early-day motion 982 tabled last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), which is headed “Impact of Spending Cuts on Seaside Resort Economies”. Clearly any reduction in the spending capacity of already low-income families is likely to increase the number of children who will not have a holiday in future years. The motion calls on the Government

“to review urgently the impact of welfare reforms on coastal economies, and seaside resorts in particular, so that such areas do not suffer disproportionately from public spending cuts.”

In blunt economic terms, social tourism delivers economic benefits as well as huge benefits to disadvantaged and low-income families, not just children but parents, and to senior citizens with little disposable income. It seems that in many other parts of Europe, social tourism is intuitively understood to deliver benefits to individuals and families that makes it a very cost-effective prescription for improved health and family strength. There is also a clear understanding of the huge economic benefits that can follow if those people not currently able to participate in tourism can be supported to do so.

The European Economic and Social Committee, in its 2006 report “Social Tourism in Europe—The Barcelona Declaration”, dubbed social tourism

“a miracle in that all the practitioners and users obtain all kinds of benefits: economic, social, health, employment, European citizenship...no one is harmed by this activity…and the bottom line is that it would be difficult to find a human economic activity that is so universally recognised and supported”.

Following the Lisbon treaty, the European Commission has taken an ever-greater interest in tourism and has recently established the €3 million Calypso programme to promote social tourism and the social and economic benefits it can deliver. Some 21 EU and candidate countries have signed up to the programme. I report with profound regret that, according to the Family Holiday Association, the UK has yet to express an interest. As a result of today’s debate, I hope that this omission will be corrected, and our coalition Government will take seriously the importance of introducing measures— established in other countries and with a proven track record of success—to assist low-income British families and disadvantaged pensioners to have holidays.

Whatever our views on Europe, we need to pay attention to what is happening there. Spain has recently launched a scheme—Europe Senior Tourism—that has started to attract senior tourists to Spain on heavily discounted and state-subsidised low-season breaks. In its first season, some 40,000 people from elsewhere in Europe arrived in Spain to enjoy a break in which the Spanish had contributed €100 to the cost of each person’s holiday. When one considers the profit for the Spanish tourism economy, and the way in which its domestic IMSERSO scheme has developed, this scheme can be expected to grow substantially. My understanding is that the French ANCV is developing a similar scheme to attract EU visitors to France. Of course, only the hardened cynic would refuse to accept that this was all being done to promote anything other than European citizenship. I cannot imagine that already hard-pressed Blackpool and Great Yarmouth landladies, or their counterparts struggling to make a living on the sunshine Essex coast, will relish the thought of their low-season customers being attracted by heavily subsidised breaks to the continent when their Government do not seem to know what social tourism is.

People in Britain value their holidays as much as our European cousins, but the concept of social tourism has never been picked up by the British Government. Amazingly, I have been told about a report published in 1976 called “Holidays: the social need”, which was jointly sponsored by the English Tourist Board and the Trades Union Congress. Authored by the Social Tourism Study Group, it spoke about social tourism and its benefits just as you might expect to hear an exponent of the benefits of holidays speak today. It has been ignored by successive Governments for 34 years. Britain could have been the leaders but, sadly, the concept, in British terms, has lain forgotten and dormant.

Yet, of course, helping disadvantaged people get a break has been done by charities, trade unions and good employers for generations. Charities such as the Family Holiday Association helped some 2,000 families with a UK holiday this year, the trade union Unison has its own holiday park in Croyde Bay in north Devon, and there are good employers such as John Lewis plc, which owns five holiday centres that it runs for the benefit of its employees.

All Governments profess to want to lift people out of poverty by putting more cash in their pockets. With more cash, people would have access to more choices, and one choice that people could make would be to take a holiday, so the argument goes. But that is to imply that a holiday is merely a purchasing choice and to ignore the benefits to individuals, the family and hence to the community that a break can deliver. That argument has been comprehensively undermined by recent research.

Going back to the question in the Lords, Lord Davies indicated in his answer that the Government were sympathetic to social tourism and acknowledged the benefits that it can deliver. He went on to say that the Government even gave £10,000 to Tourism for All, a charity that supports holidays for people with disabilities. But he and his advisers seemed unaware that the long-established Family Fund, a charity fully funded by Government and set up to help families with children affected by long-term disability, spends almost half its £30 million budget providing short holidays for these families.

In this country, we already use the lack of a break away from home as a measure of poverty, we count the numbers of people who cannot afford to enjoy even a day trip and we spend lots of money, both private and public, addressing this issue, albeit in an ad hoc and unrecognised fashion. We need to take the issue of social tourism more seriously. We need to understand the significant benefits that it can deliver both from a social and from an economic point of view. I would have liked social tourism to have featured in the Marmot review, “Fair Society, Healthy Lives”, which was published in February. It will be recalled that Professor Sir Michael Marmot, at the invitation of the then Secretary of State for Health, chaired a year-long independent review into health inequalities in England, producing proposals to introduce evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities. I believe that he is supportive of the work of the Family Holiday Association.

I strongly believe that the new independent review on poverty and life chances being led by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) should take note of what can be learned from successful social tourism models elsewhere. I also believe that the domestic tourism industry needs to wake up to what is happening in the rest of Europe and to grasp the opportunities that social tourism can deliver here in the UK. Imagine what a French-type programme could do to support our seaside resorts.

Let me repeat my call to the Government to fund a pilot scheme for the counties of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, not just for the seaside towns, but for other tourist destinations inland, of which I nominate Colchester, Britain’s oldest recorded town and home of Colchester zoo, as a prime example of how to boost the local economy through economic tourism. With children in mind, I point out that the world’s favourite nursery rhyme, “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”, was written in Colchester, so that is another reason to promote my home town as a place for children to visit, where they can see the house where the rhyme was written by the Taylor sisters in 1805.

Over the past few years a growing number of organisations have begun to join together to discuss how best to get social tourism on to the political agenda. The Family Holiday Association has led the effort, bringing together organisations as diverse as the Youth Hostel Association and Unison in a social tourism consortium. Social tourism seminars have been held in London and Edinburgh. Scotland, of course, has devolved responsibility for tourism. Joint programmes have been established both among the UK groups and with European partner organisations. Joint presentations have been made to the European Commission directorate-general of enterprise and industry meetings, and a staff member from the Family Holiday Association has been co-opted as a private sector stakeholder of the Commission’s Calypso programme.

A few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) hosted a reception at the House on behalf of the Family Holiday Association, at which those attending heard about social tourism and proposals for a cross-party group of MPs and Members of the Lords to establish an all-party group on social tourism. The anticipated all-party group will establish an inquiry into social tourism and aims to publish a report as quickly as is feasible. A wide range of potential witnesses have already indicated a willingness to participate in the inquiry, including representatives from Spain, France, Belgium and the European Commission. It is also expected to have input from local government and various tourist authorities together with members of the social tourism consortium.

I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members had an enjoyable holiday this summer. Millions of our fellow citizens, particularly children, did not. Even in these difficult economic times, putting that right should not be too much to ask. It would make both economic and social well-being common sense to do so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing this debate. I am glad that he did not cancel it, as he said he nearly did, and instead, in his inimitable manner, gave a twinkling delivery at high speed about this important subject. I fear that the Hansard reporters might have to revisit his notes on the IMSERSO Spanish scheme, the ANCV in France and assorted other names. He did not miss the opportunity to take us blatantly and unashamedly on a Cook’s tour of the east of England, and not least of his own constituency—and why not?—and the sunshine Essex coast; I am sure he would like me to repeat that phrase. The Essex coast is almost as sunshiney as the Sussex coast, where my constituency is based.

This is an important subject, and it is perhaps appropriate, as the hon. Gentleman said, that it falls on Children in Need day. One of my most important duties this morning was judging the cake competition in aid of Children in Need in the Department for Education—and a fearsome competition it was! I thought it safer than the cycling marathon on the ground floor. However, I am glad to say that the most innovative cake was the “cruffin”, which is a combination of an apple crumble and a muffin, made by somebody in my private office. But I digress, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman is a redoubtable and tireless campaigner on behalf of all children and young people, as well as pensioners, whom he mentioned, and many other specialist categories of people. It is no surprise to me that we are here on a sitting Friday—although not in a packed Chamber, alas—discussing one way to improve those people’s lives. I echo his comments about the Family Holiday Association. He is right to praise the excellent work that it does with families who would otherwise be unable to benefit from a holiday, and it deserves our fullest praise and deepest thanks. I am also glad that he mentioned the important Family Fund, which provides much needed breaks for particularly needy families who have children with long-term disabilities. That has proved very effective in the past.

The hon. Gentleman is also right that there is a growing body of research indicating that holidays can greatly benefit families. They allow them time to spend together outside their normal circumstances, relaxing in different places, and they can make for happier and healthier families, as he rightly stated. When holidays are taken in England, as I would always recommend, they provide a boost to local tourism as well—especially in Colchester and Worthing. However, the people who benefit the most from the chance to get away from the trials and tribulations of their daily lives are naturally also those for whom it can be most difficult.

I am fully aware that, in some European countries, such as France and Spain, which he flagged up, family holidays are regarded as a right. Sadly, that is not the Government’s view in this country. Many people who are not in poverty choose not to go on holiday for many different reasons, and we would not want to force them to do so. It is surely up to families how they spend their time and money, and at this time when resources are tight and there are many competing priorities for taxpayers’ money, it is, I am afraid, unaffordable for the Government to subsidise holidays.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s calculations for minimum income standards estimate that the cost of one week’s self-catering holiday in the United Kingdom for a family of two adults and two children is about £620, with associated travel costs of about £130. The Family Holiday Association figures from 2004, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, suggest that each break costs £1,500. However, the Government are determined to focus their limited resources on reducing the deficit, putting public services on a sustainable footing and tackling the underlying causes of poverty, thereby putting everyone’s finances back on an even keel, so that families in the future can decide how they want to use their discretionary spending money.

Living in poverty, particularly at a young age, is a deeply distressing experience that can have long-term consequences. We want to end poverty and to do so not by treating the symptoms, but by eliminating the root causes, hence our commitment to the elimination of child poverty in particular. It is because nothing is more important than overcoming barriers to social mobility that we are investing more in getting early-years education right, for example. We recently announced that the entitlement to 15 hours per week of free education that the Government introduced for all three and four-year-olds will be extended to disadvantaged two-year-olds. We have also protected funding for Sure Start children’s centres and will refocus them on their original purposes, so that families who most need support get it.

It is because we are committed to improving education for the poorest families, so that they can go on to get the good job to which they have always aspired, that we are radically reforming education, including through the introduction of a new pupil premium that will attach extra money to the poorest pupils. It is because we believe that work is the best possible route out of poverty that we are introducing reforms to the welfare system to ensure that those who can work do so, while those who cannot receive the support that they need. We think that the right approach is to give families the power and resources to be able to take advantage of some of the things that the hon. Gentleman rightly flagged up.

With a good education and a job comes choice, and it will then be for families to decide whether they go on holiday and what sort of holiday they may want to take. But such is our determination to tackle poverty and inequality that we have asked Alan Milburn to assist us in our work to reinvigorate the social mobility agenda so that deprivation is not destiny.

[Bob Russell]

Will the Minister ask Mr Milburn to look at how the French and Spanish Governments in particular regard their holiday schemes? Not only do they benefit the children of low-income families, but they boost the economy of seaside resorts and other locations in those countries. They generate income.

[Tim Loughton]

I heard the hon. Gentleman’s point about a double benefit. Social tourism is good for families who need a break, and for the industry and the resorts where they choose to go. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to forward his comments—the Hansard report of today’s debate—to Alan Milburn so that he can take them into consideration. I am happy to support him in doing that.

In addition to the work that we have asked Alan Milburn to do, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is leading a review of poverty and life chances. Again, the hon. Gentleman’s comments are relevant to that review, and I encourage him to send further details to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) was also enjoying the cakes in the Department for Education when I was having a conversation with him this morning. He is leading a separate review into how we can support local councils in early intervention because, as we all know, prevention is always better than cure. All that is relevant to what the hon. Member for Colchester alluded to this afternoon.

We announced as part of the spending review that we will bring together funding for services for the most vulnerable children, young people and families through a new early intervention grant, which will be worth around £2 billion a year at the end of the comprehensive spending review period. It will allow local councils to decide how they can best deliver their local priorities. Again, that may focus on leisure opportunities for deprived families.

We fully support the Family Holiday Association, and all organisations that provide support to families who cannot otherwise afford holidays. Their work is admirable, and improves the quality of life of thousands of families every year. We cannot promise large sums of financial assistance to support them at this stage, but I hope that they will continue their work.

I again thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter in the House this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Russell Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That was a brilliantly couched question, which reflects the many years that the hon. Gentleman spent, with profit, in the Government Whips Office. I think that the Department for dumbing down was presided over by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), during his three years as Secretary of State. As our new schools White Paper will point out when it is published, we will do everything possible to increase the prestige and esteem of the teaching profession. Throughout the House, we all recognise how important it is to get the best people into the classroom.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the teachers—or whatever description they are given—at free schools be required to go through checking by the Criminal Records Bureau?

Historic Towns and Cities

Bob Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on calling this debate. However, my sentiments and sympathies are more with the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), which is perhaps not surprising, given that I represent Britain’s oldest recorded town. For the record, it was the first capital of Roman Britain when London was just a few huts on the mud banks of the River Thames.

When we talk about historic towns and cities, we must recognise the need for central Government. They cannot be left to the local council of the day. We are, after all, today’s custodians of yesterday for tomorrow. Short-term, quick decisions that are made can have a lasting legacy of the wrong sort. I say thank goodness for English Heritage. None the less, I wish that it had more powers in the decision-making process rather than had its powers weakened. Often, it takes a wider view. Is it right that a local authority should, to all intents and purposes, be lumbered with the financial consequences of maintaining national heritage? Colchester has the largest surviving Roman walls of any town or city in this country. They go back some 2,000 years, and they desperately need £500,000 to maintain them.

Colchester has applied for world heritage site status. It deserves such recognition not only in view of its status as the first capital of Roman Britain but because, in December 2004, the remains of the only Roman chariot-racing circus, or stadium, were discovered. The circus would have been a massive structure, accommodating 16,000 people in an all-seater stadium. We are lucky that the Victorians who designed the Colchester garrison in the mid-1850s left a huge expanse of greenery between the barracks to the east and the barracks to the west without even realising that they were doing so. The barracks have now moved out to the new barracks site and the standing requirement in Colchester for planning is that there must be an archaeological dig. In the dig at that site, the circus was discovered.

Colchester has a pre-Roman history. It was the home of the Trinovantes, the local Celtic tribe. The Romans invaded in 43AD and it was in the ancient British settlement that was located two miles to the south of modern Colchester—if we can call a Roman town “modern”—that eight Celtic kings offered their surrender to the Romans.

In 60AD, Colchester had a visit from Queen Boudicca, ruler of the Iceni tribe in Norfolk, who destroyed the town. In those days, the town, which subsequently became a Roman city, had a population of 10,000, a huge figure for that time. Remarkably, Colchester is the only Roman city that today does not have city status. When I queried that at the time of the millennium city appeal and the golden jubilee city appeal, I was advised that the only person who could remove city status once it had been granted was the head of state. The head of state who granted city status to Colchester was the Roman emperor. There is no record from the subsequent 2,000 years of the head of state ever withdrawing the title of “city” from Colchester and I put it to you, Mr Dobbin, that justice demands that we should have that city status reinstated.

We have to be careful with our historic towns and cities. I can show people around my town and show them that the Roman street grid pattern still exists today. The high street is the Roman road—people can see that it is still straight. Unfortunately, in the early 1970s in a street parallel to the high street, the “experts” said that the street pattern ought to be broken up. Consequently, a street that had stood for nearly 2,000 years—or rather the line of that street—has now been obliterated by a new shopping precinct, because that is what the “experts” said should happen in the early 1970s. However, about 10 years ago other “experts” said that that was the worst thing that had ever happened to Colchester, so we have to be careful with “experts”.

We are also a Saxon town. In fact, the tower of Holy Trinity church was built by the Saxons before the Normans came and it was built out of Roman remains. Furthermore, the Norman castle, which is vastly superior to any other castle that still remains in Britain and indeed is the largest Norman castle in Europe, was also built largely out of Roman remains.

I mention the Norman castle because it also needs loving and regular care and attention, as do the Roman walls, the Roman circus and Gosbecks archaeological park—or rather, Gosbecks would be an archaeological park if the Heritage Lottery Fund had coughed up the money that was sought in the park’s application to achieve such status.

We cannot expect a local authority to fund nationally acclaimed historic tourist attractions. So I am making a special plea that we need to provide national funding for such attractions. However, it is quite interesting that the last Government recognised that tourism had an important role and it provided millions of pounds, through the Arts Council and urban regeneration funding, for the arts. In the case of Colchester, what they thought would make a great tourist attraction was not all that Roman or Norman heritage, nor the fact that Colchester was one of the last major scenes of the English civil war—during the siege of Colchester, Colchester lost more lives within the Roman walls than it did during the two world wars. No, it was decided that what Colchester needed was not something to do with history but rather a visual arts facility to promote contemporary Latin American art. Such art is a subject that the people of Colchester constantly talk about—actually, I think not.

The original project price of that facility was £16 million. Today, the construction of the facility is running approximately four years late and £8.5 million over budget. I recognise that that money came from different pots, but I am criticising the previous Government for channelling it through “culture” when, in the case of Britain’s oldest recorded town, it should have been channelled through “history” and gone into the town’s history. If that £25 million had been spent on the various Roman and Norman sites that I have mentioned, it would have been far better spent.

So that is where we are. I want to conclude by referring to a relatively small part of the history of Britain’s oldest recorded town. The world’s most popular nursery rhyme was composed in Colchester in 1805. That nursery rhyme is “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”. I will not recite all of it. However, the house where the Taylor sisters wrote it, which is in West Stockwell street, is currently on the market. I believe that the purchase of that building and its promotion as the place where the world’s most popular nursery rhyme was composed would draw in more visitors than the visual arts facility, which will also require an annual subsidy from the public purse of £600,000. So, on top of the £25 million that it cost to build an arts facility that most people in Colchester did not want but that was dumped on them, taxpayers will have to find £600,000 a year to subsidise the facility. As I have already indicated, if we had national financial support for our national heritage—whether that heritage is Roman settlements or “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star”—that money would be better invested and it would bring in the tourists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

It is true that the Government need to set national priorities for transport infrastructure, but if those priorities are set outside the assumptions and wishes of local communities at sub-regional or local level, they will be frustrated. They will be unpopular at best, and undeliverable at worst, so getting a better balance between local wishes, sensitivities and understanding of economic need, and Government priorities, is at the heart of what we hope to do.

[Bob Russell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will do so briefly, but I want to have time to make more points of substance.

[Bob Russell]

Of course localism is crucial, but does the Minister agree that if a local council has responsibility for buildings or structures that are, in effect, of national or international significance, there has to be financial support from the centre? It cannot be left to the local authority to pick up the bill.

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, that is a fair point. Where there are, for example, buildings of national significance, it is right that we take a bigger view about the contribution that they make to their locality, but also to what we are as a people. In those cases, there must be an overarching view. Indeed, the hon. Member for York Central made it clear that the Government’s approach to English Heritage reflects exactly that view.

Let me briefly describe how I think the marriage of local decision making and national priorities can be made. The approach that we seek is one that distinguishes between strategic national needs and local economic priorities. A distinction must be made between what is best determined at national level—for example, innovation and sector leadership—and specifically local issues such as transport, planning and housing, notwithstanding the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South. We will publish a White Paper on sub-national economic growth outlining the way forward in those terms.

Our approach is that we can promote growth by freeing enterprise and innovation, and that it is vital to do so. Business confidence depends on sound finances and a Government who are there when they are needed, and who offer support that does not get in the way. Our growth White Paper will set out a new relationship between business and the state.

Our approach will empower local civic and business leaders to determine how to enable their community to create wealth and jobs. If we want to build a bigger, better society, we must bring forward and make real new forms of community engagement. In the strategy that we are putting together, the tension—I believe that was how it was described by one speaker—between the local and the national must be embraced, as must the marriage between the strategic and the tactical. We must find a happy solution to that and I am not sure that that has always happened in the past. I do not want to be excessively party political—this debate is not about that—but I am not sure that previous Governments got that marriage right.

That was well illustrated by some of the points that were made about what was described as the tension between the old and the new. I do not think it is necessary to have tension between the old and the new. It is only through a symbiotic relationship between the two that we can accommodate the familiar touchstones of enduring certainty which make all that is disturbing and surprising in life tolerable, and the constant need for change. The hon. Member for Blackpool South quoted Deng Xiaoping, but I prefer to quote Disraeli, who said:

“Change is inevitable. Change is constant.”

However, change is dependent on seeding an acceptance of it in people’s hearts, and, to some degree at least, that is about local decision making, and local people taking ownership of change.

Governments have been insensitive to that symbiosis. It is true that York, Chester, Colchester and Bury St Edmunds are fine places, but much damage has been done at street level—at human level—in many towns. As well as the scars of much of the building that has emerged since the war, there is also the pain of what has gone. I am sure that that has happened because of an insensitivity to beauty; the triumph of soulless utility over all that elevates and provides our sense of pride and purpose.

The issues that were listed at the beginning of this debate are too numerous for me to cover in detail, but if I had the time, I would be delighted to do so, Mr Hollobone, as you know. In drawing them together, we must take a view about what we see—the buildings, townscapes and landscapes; what we feel—the values and ideas that permeate the towns and cities that we have heard about today and the whole of the nation; and what we do—what workplaces look like, and how our communities are shaped. What we see, feel and do add up to what we are as individuals, as communities, as a people and as a nation.

I am grateful for the opportunity in this all too brief time to congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, and to thank all those who contributed and also you, Mr Hollobone, for it is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Bob Russell Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

We have had an interesting week of debates on the Bill, and I thank all hon. Members who took part, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who made their maiden speeches during these debates. I should also like to thank the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), for her help, and the right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench for their careful and thorough scrutiny of the Bill.

I thank officials in the Department for the long hours that they have spent on the Bill during its passage through the other place and this House, and for their support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We should also thank the Chairs of the Committee: Mr Evans, Mr Caton, you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and Ms Primarolo, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) lovingly referred to as “Miss P”. I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Hill, who skilfully steered the Bill through the other place just days after being appointed a Minister, and to my hon. Friends and noble Friends who have improved the Bill and the model funding agreement in both the other place and this House.

Throughout the process we have been keen to listen to concerns, particularly, though not exclusively, those of our partners in the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition. Amendments in the other place have given children with special educational needs greater rights to admission to academies than existed in previous academies legislation, and new requirements for funding for low-incidence special needs have been added. New duties to consult have been included in clauses 5 and 10, and the Secretary of State will now be obliged by statute to take into account the impact on other schools of any new school established under the Bill. That is now in clause 9.

My noble Friends have added greater parliamentary accountability through an annual report to Parliament, which will also enable us to analyse issues of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), such as the viability of primary schools that opt for academy status. He made a compelling case for increasing the number of parent governors, so as I mentioned earlier, the model funding agreement will be changed to increase the number from one to two. Opposition Members have successfully ensured that the funding agreement includes a requirement for looked-after children to have a designated member of staff.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the two parent governors be elected by other parents or appointed?

[Mr Gibb]

My understanding is that they will be elected, but if I am proved wrong I will write to my hon. Friend.

After 22 hours in Committee and nine hours on Report in the other place between 7 June and 13 July, and after 19 and a half hours of Second Reading and Committee in this House, not including this afternoon and evening, we finally reach Third Reading of a Bill that, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State,

“grants greater autonomy to individual schools…gives more freedom to teachers and…injects a new level of dynamism into a programme that has been proven to raise standards for all children and for the disadvantaged most of all.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 24.]

I shall start by saying what the Bill is not about. It is not about a “full-scale assault” on comprehensive education—a ludicrous claim by the shadow Secretary of State in The Guardian on Saturday. We believe in comprehensive education and are committed to it, and the Bill will strengthen it. Nor is it about scrapping the admissions code, another spurious claim about the Government’s education policies by the shadow Secretary of State. We are committed to fair admissions through the code, and all academies will be bound by it through the model funding agreement.

Nor is this Bill about the creation of a two-tier education system. Two tiers are what we have today—the best performing state schools and the worst. The independent sector, which educates just 8% of children, is responsible for 44% of all A* grades in GCSE French. It educates just 10% of 16-18 year olds, but is responsible for 35% of all A grades in A-level physics.

The Bill offers all schools the opportunity to acquire the kind of professional freedoms that have proved so successful not only in the independent sector, but in the city technology colleges and in academies. After 20 years of independence, CTCs are among the most successful schools in the country. On average, in those schools, 82% achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths. In those academies that have been open long enough to have had GCSE results in 2008 and 2009, a third have GCSE results that improved by 15 percentage points compared with their predecessor schools.

There have been 1,958 expressions of interest from schools in all parts of the country. Of those 1,071 are from schools graded outstanding by Ofsted. Many of the heads and governing bodies of those schools are hungry for the freedoms in the academies legislation that the previous Administration introduced. They are in a hurry to have them by September and, for those schools that are ready and able, so are we.

We are in a hurry because we do not think that it is right that 40% of 11-year-olds leave primary school still struggling with reading, writing and maths. It is not acceptable that nearly three quarters of pupils eligible for free school meals fail to get five or more GCSEs or equivalents at grades A* to C, including English and maths, or that 42% of those eligible for free school meals fail to achieve a single GCSE above grade D.

I know that there are some concerns among hon. Members of all parties about the future role of local authorities if all schools become academies. However, I should point out that there are 203 academies out of 3,300 secondary schools and some 17,000 primary schools. It will be many years, if at all, before all those schools acquire academy status. The Bill is permissive, not prescriptive or mandatory. We see a new and stronger role for local authorities emerging over the years as champions of parents and pupils, challenging rather than defending underperforming schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has established a ministerial advisory group to take that forward and written to all education authorities seeking views.

The Bill is the first step in the coalition’s ambitious plans to raise standards in all our schools. We want parents not to have to worry about the quality of education that their children will receive at their local school. We want behaviour in all schools to be as good as in the best. That is why we are clarifying and strengthening teachers’ powers and abolishing the statutory requirement for 24 hours’ notice for detentions. We want a teaching profession with renewed morale and confidence, no longer struggling under the yoke of monthly Government initiatives and ever-demanding bureaucratic requirements.

The Bill is about trusting the professionalism of teachers and head teachers. It is about innovation and excellence, about giving parents a genuine choice and children the opportunity for a better future. It is a short Bill, but its impact will be long lasting. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Rogerson]

I extend my thanks to all hon. Members who participated in the debate, to the Minister, who has done his best to listen and take on board the issues raised, and to the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for—famously—Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who have led ably for the Opposition.

I am delighted to say that the Bill is better than when it started out. Clearly, in another place it was altered to reflect some of the concerns generated there and outside. During the Committee stage in this place, we have heard, on the record, that there are no extra sources of funding for the academies above and beyond the money that will go to the local authority for them; that the role of the Young People’s Learning Agency with regard to monitoring will be clarified; and that there will be wide consultation, the intent of which will be explained, which is helpful. The Minister has also generously pointed out that the role of parent governors will be strengthened.

[Bob Russell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that the Minister was not able to say whether parent governors would be elected or appointed? The other issue is that existing comprehensive schools can have as many as eight elected parent governors, whereas under the Bill the number is only two.

[Dan Rogerson]

My hon. Friend has made his point to the Minister and the House as is his wont.

The progress that occurred in the other place on the impact statement has been crucial. Tonight’s discussions about community cohesion have also been important. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place, made some useful points on that, and I was delighted to hear the Minister’s reassurance.

It is nice to see the shadow Secretary of State for Education in his place. He was not here for most of the debate—someone was, because they wrote his speech for him. As a comprehensive-educated boy, I can point out to him that a basilisk is a mythological reptile that can freeze someone with its breath or stare. That point aside, it is clear that he has not listened to the debates too closely. For some of us who do not have the widening of the number of academies at the top of our political agenda, the explanation of the Government’s thinking has reassured us about a Bill that, with some welcome safeguards, allows that in places that are keen for it to happen.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Bob Russell Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My understanding is that the Bradford Dixons CTC operates a banded entry system, which is one of the truest and fairest methods of comprehensive entry, but I recognise that demographic change in Bradford and elsewhere is posing challenges for all schools. One of the things I believe is that the success of many CTCs shows that children, including those with special educational needs and those who have English as an additional language, can flourish. I hope that other schools in Bradford will contemplate—as several of them are—taking on some of the freedoms in the Bill to address the very real deprivation that exists in that city and that my hon. Friend has done so much to address, both as a councillor and as a Member of Parliament.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The Secretary of State makes a compelling case about why schools should get away from the control of local education authorities, such as the dead hand that we have in Essex. In the era of the big society, should not the number of elected parents on an academy’s governing body at least match the number of elected parents on a secondary school’s governing body?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend mentions the big society. I was asked earlier today on Radio 5 Live, “What is the big society?” and an image of him came to my mind. In many respects, he sums up the big society. He is not only an exemplary legislator, but a dedicated citizen activist who has always put Colchester first and last. I believe that he will be able—I know this from our informal conversations—to use the legislation to ensure that schools in his part of the world can acquire academy status, with an equal number of parent governors and other governors, thus providing him with the sort of model that, I am sure, he will press other hon. Members across the House to emulate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

The hon. Gentleman needs to explain why it will be impossible to amend the Bill, why it will have no Report stage, and—if it is not impossible to amend the Bill—whether he would welcome amendments. Some of his Back Benchers have serious concerns about the Bill, but if he accepted amendments, we would have to have a Report stage and the Bill would have to go back to the House of Lords.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) mentioned the differences in the profiles of the new academies as opposed to those of existing academies. That set out for us clearly the difference between the academies programme as pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood and the previous Government in which academies were designed to tackle social disadvantage and educational underperformance in some of our poorest communities and the schools that have applied for academy status under this Government, which have lower proportions of children with special needs and are in much more socially advantaged areas.

To be fair to Government Members, we heard some good contributions, which were not all supportive of the Government. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) seemed to suggest that amendments were needed, but was unsure about how he could achieve them. I suggest that the Minister of State consider that point.

I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) was excellent. He explained why the Academies Bill is unnecessary and will in fact undermine the education system. I very much agreed with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East, whom I cannot see her in her place, also made some good points about special needs.

We all thought that the speech by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) about the need to ensure that the Bill in no way disadvantages those with special needs was an important contribution and we all learnt from his comments. Other hon. Members also made important contributions.

Apart from the name, this Government’s academies policy could not be further removed from the values and goals that underpinned the introduction of academies under Labour. We believed in practical, targeted intervention to help struggling schools, not a free-market free-for-all. We believed that if a school was already judged outstanding, it was clearly succeeding within the existing framework and could only be damaged by centralised, ideologically driven policy experiments. We believed in local accountability, not unwieldy powers for a Secretary of State far removed from the realities of local circumstances. We believed in local co-operation and mutual support, not isolation, competition and division. We believed in fair funding and fair admissions, not the introduction of unfair advantages and resources to be exploited at the expense of those already most vulnerable within the education system. We believed in evidence over ideology. We believed in listening to educationalists, teachers, head teachers and other professionals who understand better than anyone what does and does not work on the ground.

[Bob Russell]

I recognise the powerful case that the hon. Gentleman makes, but does he accept that in a constituency such as mine this Bill could be the great escape from Conservative-controlled Essex county council?

[Vernon Coaker]

I wish the hon. Gentleman luck with Essex county council. He and I have worked long and hard to try to free Colchester from various people on the council. But I will not go there, Mr Speaker. I have been to Colchester three times. Perhaps the new Schools Minister will now take up that task with great relish.

It should be obvious that when a Government do not listen, when they do not bother to consult and when they rush through legislation grounded not in evidence or experience but in ideology, they will get things badly wrong. In this instance, that will result in the undermining of our education system in a way that could damage the educational prospects of a generation. Whatever their motive, a coalition Government who have declared an interest in helping those who are disadvantaged in the education system are championing a model of schooling from other countries about which serious questions are now being asked.

According to recent studies, charter schools and free schools in the US and Sweden have led to a deterioration in overall standards, to a greater differentiation in attainment between the haves and the have-nots and to a decrease in racial and socio-economic integration. Just last month, the Swedish Education Minister warned the UK against adopting the free school model, stating:

“We have actually seen a fall in the quality of Swedish schools since the free schools were introduced…The free schools are generally attended by children of better educated and wealthy families, making things even more difficult for children attending ordinary schools in poor areas.”

Stanford university published the first national assessment of charter schools in America and found that 37% delivered learning results that were significantly worse than those that the students would have realised had they remained in traditional public schools, and that nearly half the results were no different. That evidence was ignored by this Government.

It is ironic that a party that professeses to champion localism will now fatally undermine the ability of our most local layer of democratically elected government— the local authority—to plan for and support fair and excellent schooling in its area. “What could be more democratic than giving power to parents?”, ask the Government, but in the context of the Bill, that claim is deeply disingenuous. Parents are not mentioned in it once. Around the country, parents are rightly up in arms that governing bodies may seek to convert their children’s schools into academies without so much as speaking to them. In a MORI poll this year, 95% of parents and the general public opposed external organisations such as private companies and charities running schools, and 96% opposed the creation of so-called free schools. Parents know what is best for their children.

Sadly, the Liberal Democrats have yet again demonstrated their elastic convictions when it comes to notions of fairness and justice, redefining them at every turn to accommodate their desire to be at the top table.

Schools Funding

Bob Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question; it gives me the opportunity once again to apologise to his constituents and to other parents and teachers in Sandwell for the confusion that was caused by the mistake that I made on Monday. I understand the passion that he brings to the issue, and I understand how hard he fights for his constituents. I shall be very happy to go to West Bromwich and apologise to those who have been misled by the mistake that has been made. I am more than happy to do so. As I said earlier, the mistake was mine and mine alone, and I am happy to acknowledge it.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement here this evening, because one school that has been wrongly classified is the St Helena school in my constituency, which by some happy coincidence is the one that I used to go to. However, will the Secretary of State have words with Conservative-controlled Essex county council, which, notwithstanding his statement, still proposes to shut two secondary schools in my constituency? They were going to be shut if Building Schools for the Future money had been forthcoming. There is no money, but the council is still going to shut them—despite the fact that 96% of my constituents do not want them shut.

[Michael Gove]

I know exactly what my hon. Friend means; I am very well aware of the situation in Colchester; and I know that the situation to which he alludes is one that now, as a result of the decision that was taken on Monday, we can freely and, I hope, constructively discuss.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Russell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

There is no uncertainty. Let me be clear about this Government’s commitment to apprenticeships. Even in the short time that we have been in office, we have transferred money into the apprenticeship programme that will allow the creation of 50,000 more apprenticeships. That is just the start. My ambition is no less than to build a system that facilitates more apprenticeships in Britain than we have ever seen before.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

My Department’s responsibilities include helping to drive growth, including rebalancing the economy; building on the strengths of manufacturing, the knowledge industries and the science and research base; helping businesses grow by getting rid of excessive regulation and ensuring that they can access credit; being open to trade and foreign investment; and encouraging the development of a skilled and educated labour force.

[Bob Russell]

I trust that, within that roll-call, the Secretary of State can persuade his Department or other relevant bodies to look into the debacle of Vergo Retail Ltd, now in administration, and its acquisition—less than a year ago—of the non-food outlets of the East of England Co-operative Society, with the pending loss of up to 300 jobs, given up by the caring, sharing Co-op across the east of England.

[Vince Cable]

I very much welcome back my colleague, the voice of Colchester, and I know that he will continue to fight assiduously for his constituency. I do not know the facts of this takeover and closure, but I will be happy to investigate if he writes to me or meets me to discuss it.

Education and Health

Bob Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

It is a great honour to be asked to speak in support of the Gracious Speech this afternoon. As the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) will know, there are few greater honours and few more daunting invitations than being asked to lead the Government Department responsible for the country’s schools. I am grateful beyond words for the chance to serve my country in this job.

I am grateful also to have a team alongside me that is distinguished and dedicated to ensuring that every child has a better start in life. I am grateful that my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) have agreed to serve in this partnership Government. I look forward to working with them in the years ahead.

This Gracious Speech contains two education Bills. Those measures will grant more freedom to teachers, give more choice to parents, reduce bureaucracy for all schools and provide additional help for the weakest. They will ensure that standards rise for all children and will specifically target resources on the most disadvantaged, so that we narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

In due course. This is a progressive programme and, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) appreciates, it comes from a partnership Government. I know that our programme commands support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It also owes a great deal in its design to someone I am proud to call a right hon. Friend. Before I say anymore, may I therefore say a few words about my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who was for three years the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education? During that time I, like the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood, got to know, like and admire my right hon. Friend. In all our dealings, he was unfailingly honest, considerate, thoughtful and principled. He never, ever sought personal advantage, but instead sought at all times to do the right thing, consistent with his principles.

My right hon. Friend always sought to deploy his considerable personal gifts—his intelligence and capacity for hard work—in the service of those who were less fortunate. In particular, he championed the interests of poorer children, making the case for more investment in their education and for more freedom for teachers to close the gap in performance between the poorest and the rest. It is thanks to him more than anyone that a commitment to investing more in the education of the poorest—a pupil premium—is at the heart of this coalition Government’s plans for schools. In securing that reform, he has already secured an achievement in government of which he and his many friends can be proud. It is my profound hope that he will very soon have the chance to serve again, and I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him well at this time.

Although we might disagree about much, I know that the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is wholeheartedly in agreement with me on that issue. I pay tribute to him, too, for the work he did in office. He is a pugnacious political operator, as his rivals for the Labour leadership—including the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—are about to find out if they do not already know. Having shadowed him for three years, I know that his pugnacity is matched by passion. He came into politics for the right reason: to help the underdog. During his time at the Treasury, although we may have argued with much that he did, it is to his credit that he never forgot to prioritise the fight against child poverty.

During his time as Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman secured real achievements. He secured a better deal for children living with disabilities, with more respite care for parents and progress on improving the education of children with special needs. The separation of exam regulation from curriculum design, with the creation of a new regulator, Ofqual, which has the potential to play a part in restoring confidence in exam standards, was a real step forward. He also showed real leadership on child protection, with swift action in the aftermath of the terrible tragedy of baby Peter Connelly’s death. The right hon. Gentleman also took constructive steps to help social workers in the vital task that they perform. The coalition Government will build on his initiative in this area, in particular taking forward the recommendations of the social work task force.

I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for the robust way in which he made the case for the continuation of key stage 2 tests to mark and monitor the achievement and attainment of children in primary schools. These are a vital accountability measure, and his robust case for their continuation ensured a consensus across the House for more data, greater parental accountability and a relentless drive for improvement in early years education. We are all in his debt, and I hope that we can maintain that consensus in months to come.

The right hon. Gentleman also always made the case robustly for his Department in budget rounds. He fought with determination, and he was never reticent in letting the Treasury know just how it should discharge its responsibilities towards our schools. That is perhaps why the shadow Chancellor has today come out in favour of the David Miliband leadership campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a passionate case, and I know that Leicestershire is one of the F40 local authorities that have had to do a remarkable amount with not enough. I will listen sympathetically to him and to other colleagues from both sides of the House who represent areas that need a fairer funding formula.

[Bob Russell]

Will any revenue and capital funding for the so-called free schools come from existing education budgets?

[Michael Gove]

I know how committed my hon. Friend is to the education of children in Colchester and, indeed, to that of children throughout the country. He will be relieved to learn that we will ensure that front-line funding for existing schools will not be damaged by the reforms that we intend to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend served in a distinguished way on the Select Committee that deals with these matters, and I am sure that he will continue to serve in a distinguished way in the future. He will know that many of the Select Committee’s recommendations chimed with those that we made in opposition, but we need to learn from countries like Finland and Singapore that have succeeded in attracting an ever-more talented group of our graduates into teaching. In fairness to the Government, we have seen over the last 15 years an increase in the number of talented people coming into teaching. We have among the most talented cohort that any of us can remember, but we need to build on it and ensure that organisations outside the reach of Government such as Teach First are given the opportunity to expand; the Government must support them. Unlike the last Government, who refused to fund their expansion to the north-east of England, we will support that expansion while ensuring that the current graduate teacher programme, which is too bureaucratic and puts barriers in the way of those who want to enter teaching, is expanded by turning it into a Teach Now programme. I see from the nods coming from the former Chairman of the Select Committee that he appreciates that there is room for consensus and for constructive work in this area, which unites everyone who is serious about raising teacher quality. [Interruption.]

As well as mentioning the support we enjoy from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), I should say that it is across the piece of public sector reform that our belief in trusting professionals and attracting more talented people into the front line guides our hand. That is why the Health Secretary has said deliberately that our reforms to the health service will be led in future by clinicians and not by bureaucrats. He has called a halt to the reorganisation of health services promoted by his predecessor, so that we can ensure that every change is driven by professional wisdom and not by bureaucratic convenience. That should mean that in communities across the country, the maternity and A and E services that are cherished by our constituents are protected, because clinicians put their needs first. It is also why my right hon. Friend has ensured that in place of the more than 100 targets insisted on by Ministers in the past, we will have a health care system driven by results, not by processes, by clinical evidence, not political whim, and by patient choice, not top-down diktat.

[Bob Russell]

In the spirit of an holistic approach to education and health, may I ask the Secretary of State to look at early-day motion 25, entitled “Fitness of Children”, before the end of the debate, and may I ask whoever sums up the debate to reflect on it? It clearly states that children who walk or cycle to school are fitter than those who are driven in a car or school bus, but everything that the Secretary of State is proposing is literally driving children out of their communities into cars and buses to travel to schools at the other side of town.

[Michael Gove]

I thank my hon. Friend for another constructive contribution. It is true that as I listened to it, the words “On your bike” passed through my head, but I have to say that I agree with him. It is because I believe in community schools and want them to survive that I believe we should work together to ensure that they are saved from the pressure—whatever it is and from whoever it may come—that may lead communities to be robbed of the schools that they love. One of the aspects of the reform programme that we are proposing, which I hope will commend itself to him and to many of my hon. Friends, is our determination to ensure that small schools, urban or rural, can survive where there is strong parental support for them.

The vision that we have for our education and health reforms is driven by the shared values of this partnership Government. We believe in devolving power to the lowest possible level. We believe that the function of the state is to promote equity, not uniformity; to enable, and not to conscript. We also believe that the power of the state should be deployed vigorously to help the vulnerable and the voiceless, those who lack resources and connections, and those who are poor materially and excluded socially.

However, we also believe that those most in need will never be helped to achieve all that they can unless we harness the full power of civil society, the initiative of creative individuals, the imagination of social entrepreneurs, and the idealism of millions of public sector workers. That means reducing bureaucracy, getting rid of misguided political intervention, respecting professional autonomy, and working in genuine partnership with local communities. It is that genuinely liberal, and liberating, vision that unites every Member on this side of the House and gives our reform programme its radical energy, not least in education.

We have—we have been bequeathed—one of the most stratified and segregated school systems in the developed world. The gap in exam performance between private schools and state schools grew under the last Government. That was a reverse for social justice, and an affront against social mobility. In the last year for which we have figures, just 45 of 80,000 young people eligible for free school meals made it to Oxbridge. More students went to Oxbridge from the school attended by the Leader of the Opposition, St Paul’s, than from the entire population of poor boys and girls on benefit.

I know that the consciences of Opposition Members who are motivated by idealism will have been pricked by those figures. No one contemplating that record can be in any doubt that reform is urgent. That is why we are pressing ahead with the sort of changes that will drive improvement across the whole of the state school system. We are cutting spending on the back office to prioritise spending on the front line.

As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham)—who, sadly, is no longer in the Chamber—we have already saved millions of pounds by taking steps to abolish BECTA and the QCDA—two bureaucratic organisations with their own chairmen, their own chief executives, their own boards, their own communications teams, their own strategies and their own stakeholder groups—so we can ensure that money goes to the classroom. Today I can announce—as the hon. Member for Huddersfield anticipated—that we will take steps to abolish a third quango, the General Teaching Council for England.

The GTCE takes more than £36 from every teacher every year, and many of them have told me that it gives them almost nothing in return. I have listened to representations from teacher organisations—including teaching unions such as the NASUWT—which would prefer that money to be spent in the classroom, and I have been persuaded by them, the professionals. The GTCE does not improve classroom practice, does not help professionals to develop, and does not help children to learn. In short, it does not earn its keep, so it must go.

To those who argue that we need a body to help police the profession, let me say that this Government want to trust professionals, not busybody and patronise them; but when professionals dishonour the vocation of teaching, action needs to be taken. When the GTCE was recently asked to rule on a BNP teacher who had posted poisonous filth on an extremist website, it concluded that his description of immigrants as animals was not racist, and that therefore he could not be struck off. I think that that judgment was quite wrong and that we need new proposals to ensure that extremism has no place in our classrooms, and I also believe that the bodies that have failed to protect us in the past cannot be the answer in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I take my hon. Friend’s point that deprivation matters, which is why we have secured a partnership agreement guaranteeing that deprived pupils receive more for their education. I believe in the pupil premium and the progressive alteration to education spending. However, deprivation does not automatically mean destiny. As has been pointed out, there can be outstanding schools with challenging intakes, and what marks them out is the quality of their leadership, which is why it is so inspiring and encouraging that so many great head teachers, including of schools in some of the most challenging circumstances, have endorsed our proposals.

[Bob Russell]

Does the Secretary of State consider that the rush for freedom, as he would describe it, is perhaps more a vote of no confidence in local education authorities, which are predominantly Conservative—for example, Essex county council, which totally ignores the views of my constituents?

[Michael Gove]

Once again, my hon. Friend makes the sort of constructive contribution that I know will make our encounters over the next few years things to cherish. I say to him that it is across the board, whether under Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour-led local authorities, that schools want to embrace freedom. Many of them want to do so, not because they resent or are critical of local authorities, but because they relish the additional autonomy and freedom to disapply parts of the national curriculum, and because they want to work in partnership with existing schools. I want to encourage that sort of partnership, between our two parties and between academies and local authority schools. That is why I have requested that every outstanding school that acquires academy status takes with it an underperforming school on its journey, so that the process of collaboration, with the best head teachers driving improvement, continues, and so that schools can use academy freedom and head teachers can use additional powers to ensure that every child benefits.

In addition to asking that of outstanding schools, we will ensure that the academies programme delivers faster and deeper improvements in deprived and disadvantaged areas. Many more of our weakest schools will be placed in the hands of organisations such as ARK, the Harris Foundation and other academy sponsors best placed to drive improvement. We will also ensure that parents have more information about all schools, so that pressure grows on schools that are coasting to improve, and work in partnership with local government, from Essex to Cumbria, empowering strong local authorities to continue to drive improvement. Most importantly, as I have pointed out, we will target resources on the poorest. Our pupil premium will mean taking money from outside the schools budget to ensure that those teaching the children most in need get the resources to deliver smaller class sizes, more one-to-one or small group tuition, longer school days and more extracurricular activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Balls]

But I asked whether the funding for schools, Sure Start and 16-to-19 education would be guaranteed to match our rising spending above inflation in 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. What we discovered from the right hon. Gentleman was that he does not have those assurances for the next two years—this year maybe, thanks to the right hon. Member for Yeovil, but for the next two years he said we would have to wait and see.

I shall come to the issue of funding. Given that the Secretary of State spoke for 50 minutes and rather a lot of hon. Members want to make their maiden speeches, I will be briefer, but I will take a couple of interventions and try to resist promising a meeting with the former Schools Minister.

[Bob Russell]

The shadow Secretary of State mentioned all the good things that new Labour had done for children, but does he agree that after 13 years of a new Labour Government, levels of child poverty in this country were among the worst in Europe, worse even than those to be found in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia?

[Ed Balls]

I am happy to get into robust debates and look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman defend his coalition, but between 1979 and 1997 the party that he is now propping up in government saw child poverty double. From 1997, we had one of the fastest falls in child poverty of any country in the developed world because we prioritised money going to tax credits, which the Conservative party is now putting into question, and his party as well. We will wait and see what the record shows when his party has had a chance to make a few decisions, but I am a bit of a sceptic about what it will do for child poverty.

Let me come back to money, because, as I said, without the promise of extra and rising resources, not just this year but next year and the year after, I do not see, on the basis of my experience, how it is possible for the new Government to fund free schools and more academies without cutting deep into the budgets of existing schools to pay for it. Even with the settlement that I negotiated, which had within it £1 billion of efficiency savings passed to the front line, it was tough for us to be sure that we would protect front-line staff, and that was before the new schools, the new academies and the thousands of extra places that the Secretary of State wants to finance, and even before the pupil premium, which I understood was to be paid for by abolishing the child trust fund, but that has now been used to cut the deficit, so that is one source of money that has been taken away from the right hon. Gentleman.

My first question therefore is where will the money come from? We have already seen parents, teachers and head teachers throughout the country planning for long-awaited new school buildings. I have lost count in the last two weeks of the number of Members, not just from my side of the House, asking what will happen to the Building Schools for the Future programme and the months of work, the thousands of pounds spent and the raised expectations in 700-plus schools that thought they were getting their new school and now find that it is at risk. We had no reassurance today from the right hon. Gentleman or in Prime Minister’s questions from the Prime Minister about the future of those new school building plans. All we have heard so far from the Secretary of State is a promise of £670 million of cuts from his Department this year to help reduce the deficit in 2010-11. Even then, he provided almost no details.

When I set out efficiency savings in March, I specified the £300 million I had found and said that I needed to find more. So far there has been no statement to the House and no details have been set out. There are hints of cuts to school transport through the local government line and to one-to-one tuition, but there is no detail at all. This is not good enough. The right hon. Gentleman is in government. It is he who must answer the questions now when he is making these big policy announcements. In passing, we would also like to know—we will ask this at Question Time next Monday—how the £1.2 billion of in-year cuts to local government services this year will impact upon vital children’s services such as child social work, libraries and looked-after children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I have been here throughout the debate and there have been some excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate all those who have spoken so far, and there will be more to come. I also thank those who paid tribute to their predecessors. That is appreciated as well.

I will be voting for the Queen’s Speech, warts and all, because I think that a Government must have a programme to take forward. However, I give notice that, when some of those warts come back, I shall need some convincing if I am to vote for them.

In Essex, there is an attraction about getting shot of Essex county council. It is not so much that it has a dead hand on education: as far as Colchester is concerned, it has a warped hand. The council has failed to listen to the people of my constituency even though, in a consultation exercise, in excess of 96% of them said no to the secondary school reorganisation.

If we can persuade the sixth-form college and the Colchester institute to come together with all the local secondary schools in a co-operative—or whatever name we want to give it—my hope is that we can build on what the coalition is putting forward and get shot of Essex county council. As the previous Government well knew, the council is a disaster as an education authority. Indeed, hon. Members who were in the last Parliament will know that I raised the shortcomings of the Essex education authority time and time again.

The coalition needs to look at a policy paper put to the Liberal Democrat spring conference of March 2009. It stated:

“the Academies model is unfair in relation to freedoms granted and unsustainable given the way it is centrally run from Westminster.

Liberal Democrats would replace the Academies programme with a new devolved model of Sponsor Managed Schools in which…All schools, including existing Academies (which would become Sponsor Managed Schools) would be under the strategic oversight of local authorities and not Ministers in Whitehall.”

Nothing that I have heard or seen in the succeeding year and a bit since has altered my view on that. A letter appeared in last Friday’s Liberal Democrat News from Helen Flynn of Skipton and Ripon, and I should like to put it on the record. It said:

“Though much has been achieved in terms of shoehorning in Lib Dem policy in many areas of the Coalition Agreement the Queen’s Speech shows how we have dropped the ball on education—massively.

It defies belief that as the party supposedly set apart for its stance on localism in education we have allowed in massive expansion of the Academies Programme, which is at once centralised as opposed to local in its accountability framework, and is divisive as opposed to inclusive in terms of its admission arrangements.”

I will delay more comment until the Second Reading of the Academies Bill. We look forward to that with great interest, but I return to the fact that Essex county council has failed the secondary school system in Colchester. I was greatly encouraged by the Secretary of State—and I shall be reading Hansard closely tomorrow—because I think that there is a glimmer of hope in what he said.

It was confirmed only this week that Colchester is the fastest growing borough in the country, yet Essex county council has plans to shut two secondary schools there when all the figures show that they should be retained, and that a new school will be required elsewhere. That is nonsense: shutting schools while expanding others to provide for up to as many as 2,000 pupils is not localism and does not make sense.

I hope that Colchester schools will come together and that we can save Thomas Lord Audley school in Berechurch and Alderman Blaxill school at Shrub End. In one of my interventions in the speech by the Secretary of State, I drew attention to early-day motion 25 in my name, which relates to the fitness of children. Linked with that is early-day motion 24 on learning outside the classroom, and Ministers may also want to look at early-day motion 65, which raises questions about the results achieved by academy schools.

Lastly, this debate is about education and health. I therefore urge the Secretary of State for Health to draw together health and education in an holistic approach, and bring education about first aid into the school curriculum. All the evidence shows that that would save the NHS tens of millions of pounds a year by reducing the numbers of people going to hospital accident and emergency departments. Lives would be saved in the precious two or three minutes after an incident happens, for example when someone falls down the stairs or is involved in a road crash.

To conclude, although I will be voting for the Queen’s Speech, I have set out my serious reservations about school academies and free schools.