Schools White Paper

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that every child deserves an excellent education; notes that the Government is proposing to force all primary and secondary schools in England to become academies as part of multi-academy trusts or chains by 2022 at the latest; further notes that the vast majority of schools affected by this policy will be primary schools, over 80 per cent of which are already rated good and outstanding; notes that there are outstanding academies and excellent community schools but also poor examples of both types of such school; further notes the Fourth Report from the Education Committee, Academies and free schools, Session 2014-15, HC 258, which highlights that there is no evidence that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement; notes that the Schools White Paper proposes the removal of parent governors from school governing bodies which will reduce the genuine involvement of parents and communities in local schools; and calls on the Government to put these proposals on hold as there is insufficient evidence that they will raise standards.

I am pleased that we have secured this debate following the Government’s rushed publication of their schools White Paper, which has caused much concern among parents, communities, heads, teachers and others. The main and most controversial proposal is to force all schools to become academies and the vast majority into multi-academy trusts or chains by 2022. That is the proposal on which we have decided to focus this debate, because we believe that the plans are deeply flawed, are not supported by evidence, have already caused huge disruption in schools, and notably, seem to have very few supporters.

There is a growing alliance of those with concerns, including Conservative Members and local government leaders, as well as leading headteacher unions such as the National Association of Head Teachers and the Association of School and College Leaders. It is my intention that this debate be used as an opportunity to air such concerns, and I hope that the Secretary of State will listen carefully, put the plans on hold, and not plough on regardless.

There are elements of the White Paper that we can support, such as the independent college of teaching, but we cannot support the main thrust of forced, wholesale academisation.

The Government’s plan has been met with such concern, even by the very school leaders they claim to be supporting, because it is a bad policy with no evidence base. It is yet another policy from this Government that is obsessed with school structures instead of standards. What is more, given the very real pressures faced by schools today—including huge teacher shortages, real-terms cuts to school budgets for the first time in 20 years and major overhauls to curriculums, assessments and exams—the idea that heads should spend time, money and energy on a £1.3 billion top-down reorganisation of our schools system is, at best, a distraction and, at worst, will have a very damaging impact on school standards.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a governor of Denton West End primary academy in my constituency. The point is that that school chose to become an academy because parents and teachers decided that that was the best model for school improvement. Should not we also respect the parents and teachers at those schools that wish to remain under local authority control?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I will come on to make myself shortly.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal could lead to more school closures in the public sector? More importantly, we might face difficulties recruiting teachers. The £1.9 billion could have been better spent on public services rather than on an ideological argument.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend echoes the concerns raised by the NAHT union in a memo it sent this morning to all MPs.

The Tory obsession with school structures has completely missed the point. Just as there are some excellent academies, there are some excellent community schools. There are also some poor academies and some poor community schools. No type of school has a monopoly on excellence. We need to build an education system that provides an excellent education for all children, rather than pitting one type of school against another. Nearly a month has passed since the Chancellor made the announcement, but we have yet to hear any answers to the question “Why?” When schools that want to become academies can already do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has said, and when schools that the Government deem to be failing or coasting can already be put into an academy chain, why force all others? This is not about school improvement, nor is it about autonomy and freedoms. The multi-academy trust model is in its infancy, and real questions are emerging about accountability, probity, capacity and, for some, standards.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lucy Powell]

I will make some progress, because a lot of people want to speak. I will take interventions shortly.

Let us look at each of the Government’s arguments in turn. First, the Government say that this is about school improvement. Let us look at the evidence. The vast majority of schools that will be affected by the policy will be primary schools, of which more than 17% are already academies. Of those that are not, more than 80% are already rated good or outstanding. In secondary, where more than two thirds of schools are already academies, there are more failing academies than non-academies. In places such as Doncaster, Bexley and north-east Lincolnshire, where school improvement remains a real concern, all the secondary schools are already academies.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Would she care to reflect on performance in Greenwich, which has become one of the highest-performing education authorities in the country without the enforced academisation of a single primary school, and in which only three secondary schools have become academies? That performance has been achieved without enforced academisation. Parents in our borough are concerned about why they have been removed from the process and will not be consulted about changes to their schools.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that we have an absurd situation in Coventry North West? The Secretary of State refused to meet me about this, but she is aware of it. After having been encouraged to become an academy, Woodlands underwent forced academisation a couple of years ago. Woodlands Academy is not doing well, but instead of putting in an intervention team, as the Prime Minister indicated at Question Time, the academy is being closed and another one is being started a mile up the road. What a waste of resources.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

Only today, Ofsted has reported that the performance of secondary schools in Reading is “not strong”. Eight out 10 secondary schools in Reading are already academies and are directly accountable to the Secretary of State. Why has she failed to improve those academies, and what is the Government’s school improvement strategy for that and other areas?

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

I will take some interventions later, but I am going to make some progress.

The Government claim that there are more children today in good or outstanding schools than there were in 2010, as proof that academisation leads to school improvement. However, the Secretary of State knows that, as ever, she is being selective with her figures. The truth is that the vast majority of those new good and outstanding places are in primary schools, where academisation is limited. Moreover, according to Ofsted, the number of pupils in inadequate secondary schools has risen by a staggering 60% over the last four years where academisation has taken hold significantly. Not for the first time, the Government’s selective use of statistics and their dubious link between cause and effect do not withstand any scrutiny. Perhaps that is why the Conservative majority Select Committee on Education recently concluded, after an extensive inquiry:

“Current evidence does not allow us to draw conclusions on whether academies in themselves are a positive force for change”

and:

“There is…no convincing evidence of the impact of academy status on attainment”.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I declare an interest as the chairman of governors of Goole Academy, an academy school that is doing very well. In north Lincolnshire, we have had a big academisation programme, and we have gone from having 38% of kids in good and outstanding schools to having 92% of children in such schools. Although I may agree with some of the points that the hon. Lady has made, will she confirm that the Labour party’s position is to support academies? Her speech so far has seemed very anti-academies, and that concerns me as a governor of one.

[Lucy Powell]

Not at all. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there are some excellent academies and other types of schools. Academisation can be an ingredient of a wider school improvement programme, but the overall evidence is underwhelming at best.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lucy Powell]

I am going to make some progress.

Although the Sutton Trust found excellence in a small number of academy chains, it found that the majority were underperforming. Not only is the forced academisation programme evidently not about school improvement, but the Government’s drive on it may greatly diminish what capacity there is in the system for school improvement. The regional schools commissioners, their officials, the energies of school leaders and local authorities will now, as we are already seeing, shift almost entirely away from schools that need improvement towards creating trusts and changing the legal status of a huge number of schools, most of which are already performing well. Indeed, the national schools commissioner and the Department for Education have not even acquired the powers they sought from Parliament in the Education and Adoption Act 2016—they will get them on Monday —to put more schools they deem to be coasting into academy chains. Was that piece of legislation therefore a complete waste of time?

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is talking about coasting schools. In the NHS, which had a huge reorganisation that nobody voted for, performance absolutely went down while people had to deal with that big reorganisation. Is she worried, as I am, that this is heading in the same direction? If there is a big reorganisation that nobody has voted for, performance in our schools and the achievement of our children will fall away.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government, as they have no other ideas, seem to enjoy such reorganisations.

I will shortly return to some of the very real concerns about the performance of academy chains, but I first want to look at another of the Government’s arguments for forced academisation, which is that it is about autonomy and freedoms. This Government say they are for choice in education. Choice? What choice is there in a one-size-fits-all policy? What is autonomous about forcing a high-performing school into an academy chain? Will the Secretary of State promise that every outstanding school leader who wants their school to remain as it is can do so? No, she cannot. Where is the autonomy for the small village school, which the White Paper makes clear cannot be a stand-alone academy? I see some nods from Conservative Members to these points. Perhaps this is why even one of the Secretary of State’s main allies, Toby Young, has described this policy as Stalinist. The curriculum and other freedoms described by the Government could easily be given to all schools without the need for a change to legal status.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is talking about autonomy and democratic control. We have a model of that in the form of co-operative schools, in which parents, pupils and school leaders all work together. Why does she think they should be forced to academise?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes another excellent point.

On curriculum freedoms, the Secretary of State and I both know that the autonomy the Tories say they are providing just does not exist. During the past five years, parts of the curriculum have been personally drafted by the Education Secretary and then circulated for sign-off among Cabinet Ministers. This sort of ministerial diktat on the curriculum puts schools into a straitjacket. In fact, what we are actually seeing with academisation is a further narrowing of curriculums as schools aim to improve their Ofsted judgments on an increasingly narrow set of measurements.

While the academy programme was originally about bringing new partners and innovation into the system, a wholesale academisation programme will undoubtedly create an increasingly sclerotic and one-dimensional system. It is no wonder that the chief executive of England’s largest academy chain, Academy Enterprise Trust, recently admitted that there is in fact less autonomy for schools in multi-academy trusts than there is for local authority schools.

[Steve Brine]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to comment on that, I am more than happy for him to do so.

[Steve Brine]

No, my intervention is not about that, but I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being very generous with her—or probably our—time. She asks us to support the motion on the Order Paper, which is in her name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. This point came up at Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier. She says that the White Paper proposes the removal of parent governors from school governing bodies, but paragraph 3.31 on page 51 of the White Paper makes it very clear that it will not do so. Clearly, she did not have an opportunity to clarify that during PMQs, but will she now take the opportunity to strike that phrase from the motion?

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

[Lucy Powell]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me answer the point and then I will invite the shadow Education Secretary to clarify what the Opposition motion actually says. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two errors in the motion. The first is that it says we are abolishing the role of parent governors. We absolutely are not. The second is that we will force all schools to join multi-academy trusts. That is also not the case.

[Lucy Powell]

This may be a semantic argument, but does it not say in the White Paper that the Secretary of State is removing the requirement for parent governors? Is the Secretary of State removing the requirement—yes or no?

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me just remind the hon. Lady what her motion says. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to listen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend very much, and I am delighted that we are making progress on this important issue. Is it not typical that it takes a majority Conservative Government to do that? I urge my hon. Friend to encourage his constituents and schools in his constituency, such as John Taylor High School, which I recently had the pleasure of visiting, to ensure that they take part in this important consultation.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the MP for the home of British cycling, may I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the amazing success of the British cycling team in the track world championships last week? On the day before International Women’s Day, the incredible Laura Trott should be singled out for her medal haul. Let us hope she is paid as much as her male colleagues, if not more—something that the Secretary of State does not seem very good at achieving for women in her own Department.

There will be 156 new GCSE and A-level specifications taught from September. With just 17 teaching weeks left of this school year, how many of those are ready?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Lady. Is it not typical that she identifies an issue—the gender pay gap—which her party did nothing to address when it was in power? It is this party that is publishing the regulations to make sure that public sector and private sector organisations will disclose that. The gap is not widening; it is narrowing. I join her in congratulating the cycling team, including Laura Trott, on their tremendous achievements. Ofqual is working with the exam boards to make sure that all the specifications are ready. I understand that more than 65 are now ready, but there is further information on that to be made public by Ofqual.

[Lucy Powell]

That is right: just 65 or 66 of the 156 specifications are ready—less than half. Core EBacc subjects, such as sciences and modern foreign languages, are still to be approved. The Government’s own workload challenge promised teachers a lead-in time of one year for significant changes to qualifications, but as matters stand teachers will have just weeks or no time at all to prepare for these huge changes. Is not the truth that the Government’s fixation with micromanaging every part of the curriculum—including, we hear this week, the use of exclamation marks—is causing the delay, and that they are way behind with these new exams? It is no wonder we have a teacher shortage.

[Nicky Morgan]

The exam boards have already published the specifications and assessment materials in draft. They are working their way through to make sure that the specifications are ready to be published. We want to give teachers as much notice as possible—[Interruption.] Is it not typical that the Opposition need to learn the lesson that the Vote Leave campaign needs to learn as well—that if they talk about the negatives all the time, they will find that those are self-fulfilling? If they want to set out an alternative, they need to do that with some policies. What we on the Government Benches are doing is raising the standards of our qualifications. I met Ofqual last week to talk about specifications. It is making progress. [Interruption.] Either the hon. Lady wants to raise standards in our education system or she does not. By the nature of her question, she clearly does not.

Childcare Bill [Lords]

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and does so very well. We all like a keen and perky and eager Minister, but it would be good if he were more willing to hold himself to account, after the introduction of this Bill, by adopting new clause 1. However, I shall move on to new clause 2.

This new clause, also in my name and that of my hon. Friends, requires the Government to monitor and report on the state of the attainment gap between young children, and it specifies between “different genders”, “different ethnic backgrounds”, “different socio-economic backgrounds”, those living in different parts of the country, and those

“who do and do not have a disability”.

Our experience tells us that unless Ministers monitor, and are required to report on, the gap, focus will be lost and equality of opportunity for all young people will never be achieved.

I would like to acknowledge the invaluable work of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in helping us to prepare new clause 2. I believe that setting up the commission was relatively easy for the Government, but listening to it and acting on what it says seem to be a step too far for them. The new clause would provide an opportunity to put that right in a very small way. The commission states that the Britain we should all aspire to help to build is

“one where opportunities are shared equally and are not dependent on the family you were born into, the place where you live or the school you attend. It is a society where being born poor does not condemn someone to a lifetime of poverty. Instead it is a society where your progress in life—the job you do, the income you earn, the lifestyle you enjoy—depends on your aptitude and ability, not your background or your birth.”

The commission’s most recent report warns that Britain is on the verge of becoming a “permanently divided nation”, and exposes some of the deep divisions that characterise our country. Those at the top in Britain today look remarkably similar to those who rose to the top 50 years ago. For example, 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces personnel and 55% of civil service departmental heads attended private schools, compared with just 7% of the general population.

Britain could become the most open, fair and mobile society in the modern world, but the policy and practice of this Government need to change, and that all starts with the early years. All children, whatever their background, should be school-ready by the age of five. However, less than half of the poorest children in England are ready for school by that age, compared with two thirds of the others, and a deep gender divide means that girls from the poorest families do almost as well as boys from the better-off families at that point. The commission has found that,

“efforts to improve the school-readiness of the poorest children are uncoordinated, confused and patchy.”

It also comments that,

“the complexity of the childcare funding system is hampering efforts to increase maternal employment.”

The commission has some straightforward suggestions for the Government to help to narrow the gap at the age of five. It says that the

“Government should end the strategic vacuum in the early years by introducing two clear, stretching, long-term objectives: to halve the development gap between the poorest children and the rest at age five; and to halve the gap in maternal employment between England and the best-performing nations, both by 2025.”

Further, the commission argues in relation to childcare that the Government

“should radically simplify the multiple streams which finance it”.

New clause 2 tells the Government that willing the gap in attainment and development of children to narrow is not enough. However, I believe that they have the will to do it. I have heard some of their mutterings and comments, and I believe that they have the will—

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

They are not intervening now, though, are they?

[Jenny Chapman]

No, they are very quiet now.

Willing the ends without the means will cause more resentment and division, rather than less. The new clause would force the Government to assess and report on the gap in development and attainment, which would ensure that progress was measured. Unless that happens, opportunities to intervene will be missed and inequality will be further entrenched.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I am delighted at the Minister’s—erm—willingness, when it had seemed that those on the Government Front Bench were confused.

[Lucy Powell]

Commitment.

[Jess Phillips]

Yes, that is the word I will use. There is now a firm commitment from the Government.

I was about to say that I recognise that the Bill includes a three-month grace period, which I welcome, but that the children will still have to give up their place in the end. I do not need to say that anymore because the Minister has made his commitment. He has recognised that it is laughable that a woman, after escaping violence, would be tickety-boo, back in another property and gainfully employed after just three months. Unfortunately, the reducing availability of social housing for families to move on to means that many women and children live in refuge for much, much longer than three months. The cuts in local authority spending have meant that newly localised social funds, which are there to help such families, have limited women in respect of where they can and cannot move across local authority boundaries. That leaves them stuck in supported accommodation, even if they are ready and safe to move on.

These children need and deserve consistency. I welcome the Minister’s intervention because he said that he will give it to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I rise to support the Bill on Third Reading.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) to her new role as our early years spokesperson. She is a passionate campaigner for social mobility, and she has done a brilliant job today on Report, raising several important issues. Of course, I also pay tribute to her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass). She did a fantastic job on the Bill in Committee and she will be missed by our team, but she goes on to fight a great cause for this country.

Opposition Members have long campaigned for and supported more investment in childcare. Childcare is an investment in our economic success. More childcare means more opportunities for families and it may begin to reduce the growing gender pay gap. Better childcare can also do a great deal to give all children a better start in life. Far too many women are still priced out of work by the high cost of childcare, particularly those on low and middle incomes. Childcare can help women into work and enable them to work more hours. That is why in government Labour introduced the original 12.5 hours free childcare for all three and four-year-olds. We created the Sure Start centres, massively extended maternity leave, introduced paternity leave and developed the first, and only, 10-year childcare strategy.

Our introduction of free early years education was designed to help to support child development and enable children with disadvantages to attend a high-quality early years setting in an attempt to close the school-readiness gap that is so present by the age of five.

Aside from our specific concerns about the deliverability of the scheme, which I will come on to, there is a larger problem with the Government’s approach to childcare: the widening attainment gap between children on free school meals and their peers. The Government seem focused only on the maternal employment needs of childcare—important as they are—while having no vision or action plan for narrowing that gap. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington made a powerful case, based on the recommendations of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, for a comprehensive and joined-up approach to early years to address this issue.

It is the job of the Opposition to scrutinise the Government’s plans and try to make them better, but the Government have not really listened to many of the points we raised in both Houses. I will give it one last go and set out the measures by which we will judge the success or otherwise of the scheme. The detail of the policy and the Government’s legislative approach have not been the best. Ministers have failed to give us, parents or the House confidence that their plan to extend free hours is deliverable, affordable and sustainable. Even now, so many months since it was announced, we are none the wiser on how the extra hours and the necessary expansion of places will be found, funded and facilitated.

A key concern about the policy is whether it is adequately funded. There are three key funding issues: whether the overall budget is sufficient; whether the new hourly rate is sustainable; and the scaling back of the eligibility criteria. Before the general election, the Early Years Minister said that Labour’s plans to extend free childcare from the current 15 hours to 25 hours would cost an additional £1.5 billion, yet the pledge of 30 hours in the Conservative party manifesto was costed at just £350 million. That was then revised to £650 million, once Ministers returned to the Department. That still leaves a massive funding shortfall, which the Institute for Public Policy Research identified as £1 billion. This gives a whole new meaning to back-of-the-fag-packet policy making and I hope Ministers will be able to provide us with some reassurance on that. An extra £300 million was allocated in the autumn statement to increase by 30 pence the hourly rate paid to providers, less than half of which will go on the new offer. I welcome that, yet even with that review, independent analysis for the Pre-School Learning Alliance shows there is still a £450 million shortfall, over the course of this Parliament, for providers in meeting this offer. I will say more on the consequences of that in a moment.

It seems to me that the Government made all those figures add up by slashing eligibility. We now know that one in three families who were promised more childcare at the election will not get it. Ministers had said that all families in work would gain an extra 15 hours of childcare if they had three and four-year-olds. Their original press release said that this would mean 630,000 three and four-year-olds. That figure has now been slashed to 390,000. Of course, parents earning over £100,000 a year do not need extra help with childcare and we agree it is right to reduce eligibility at the top end. However, the Government have now taken their offer away from many low-paid families at the bottom end of pay scale.

The new offer is intended to support parents returning to work or support them to work more hours. Both parents, or a lone parent, need to work the equivalent of 16 hours a week at the minimum wage to qualify. Those in low-income jobs are more likely to lose out under these eligibility rules. For many parents on the edge of the labour market, short hours, part-time work and zero-hours work are often the first and best route back to work. The Government have cut those parents out and damaged the scheme as a work incentive for them. For example, an investment banker or a lawyer would earn eligibility for the extra hours by working one day a week—or one hour a week, in some cases—whereas someone on the national minimum wage would have to work for 16 hours.

There is an inherent unfairness here. Strivers will be working longer to get free childcare than people higher up the income scale. That is not something that Government Members should be proud of. The cost of childcare is a big barrier to parents; we know this for a fact. A low-income second earner would have to find an extra eight hours of work to gain from this new benefit. The policy will hit women particularly hard. Gingerbread says that 20,000 lone parents will now lose out.

Another key issue with the Bill is the lack of capacity in the system, and key question marks remain about the sustainability of the scheme. These could lead to a shrinkage in the market and we have not received sufficient reassurance on that. Some 40,000 early years childcare places have disappeared on the Government’s watch. To deliver this offer is not as simple as saying that eligible three and four-year-olds will just stay in the same setting for an additional 15 hours in the afternoon. In many cases, the afternoon sessions are full of children who are eligible for the 15-hour offer only. We have seen the problems Ministers have had in expanding provision for two-year-olds, particularly in schools where space is at a premium. With three and four-year-olds, the problems will be greater. Facilities will need kitchens to serve lunch, and some settings currently providing 15 hours will not be able to expand because they are sessional and taken up by other community groups at other times. This is not just about money, albeit the £50 million is welcome; it is about logistics and practicalities.

There are issues, too, in the private and voluntary sector. Many say that offering 30 hours to parents would leave their businesses on the brink of collapse. Currently, many providers are only able to offer the 15 hours free childcare by cross-subsidising with full-paying parents. This is why so many providers say that doubling the free offer to 30 hours a week would make their businesses unsustainable. The Government face a big task in convincing parents that providers will actually offer the extra 15 hours without caveats and in real terms. The overall impact of this market intervention without a proper strategy could lead to an exacerbation of trends that we have already seen over this Parliament and the last—a reduction in childcare places and an increase in cost to parents. For parents not in receipt of free hours, the mix of complicated cross-subsidy and price inflation will mean that the cost of childcare could rocket further. What plan do Ministers have to ensure that that does not happen? We still need reassurance on that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington so eloquently said on Report, the Government seem to have no strategy for raising quality in childcare, or for reducing the stark gaps in development that exist by the age of five. Indeed, with the decimation of early intervention, early years support services and the virtual disappearance of Sure Start children’s centres from our communities, and with family support services impossible to access, the Prime Minister’s latest speech, in a long line of speeches, on the importance of family frankly rings hollow.

The Government urgently need to turn their rhetoric into reality. Not only are they not doing enough; it is quite possible, for the reasons outlined this evening, that only focusing on maternal employment drivers could damage the objectives of raising quality and of encouraging disadvantaged families to access high-quality early education. I ask the Secretary of State once again to bring forward a comprehensive long-term strategy for reducing early years inequalities and thereby give a step change to social mobility.

In conclusion, as I have made clear, we support the Bill. We want parents of three and four-year-olds to have an additional 15 hours of free childcare, and for this to be a real offer that helps parents to find and afford childcare, so that they can do well for themselves and their families. I worry, however, that the Government will turn a deaf ear to constructive concerns. I fear Ministers are going in the wrong direction if they continue to ignore the problems this policy could have for the childcare market, and for families if they fail to act. We need a bigger vision for childcare: a system that delivers flexibility, price and stability for parents, while providing the best start for children and closing the developmental gap that already exists in pre-school.

Childcare is too important to get wrong—[Interruption.] Would the Minister like to make an intervention? No, he is just chuntering from a sedentary position. As he admits in private, he is concerned about the developmental gap but he has no strategy to deal with it. Childcare is too important to get wrong, yet the Government’s piecemeal approach endangers the market and the efficacy of the system. We stand willing to work with the Government to secure a winning approach for parents. We will support the Bill in that spirit, and we will keep a watchful eye on delivery as the scheme progresses.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might have misunderstood, but when last autumn we discussed the new certification process for English votes for English laws, it was my understanding that it would be used only rarely. Since the House returned from the Christmas recess, however, we have used it on the Housing and Planning Bill, on a statutory instrument last week and on the Childcare Bill this evening. Have you, or has the Speaker’s Office, had any indication of whether this dreadful procedure will become routine, or will it be used only on rare occasions—all the rare occasions having occurred this month?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Of course, as some Members will know, we commemorated Holocaust Memorial Day in a reception in Speaker’s House last week. Many survivors of the holocaust were there, and I do not think anybody present is likely to forget the occasion.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As somebody who went on a “Lessons from Auschwitz” visit with schoolchildren from Manchester in the last few weeks, may I echo earlier comments about how moving and important it is?

In their manifesto of 2010—notably dropped in 2015—the Conservatives pledged to

“close the attainment gap between the richest and poorest”.

Revised GCSE results published last week showed that, despite Lib Dem policies such as the pupil premium, the GCSE attainment gap between pupils on free school meals and their peers has actually widened since 2010. With the Conservatives now governing alone, can the Secretary of State tell the House whether closing the attainment gap is still an objective and, if so, why she is allowing it to widen on her watch?

[Nicky Morgan]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments about the “Lessons from Auschwitz” project. Like her, I have visited Auschwitz with schools in my constituency. It was an incredibly moving experience, and I recommend that all Members of the House take the opportunity to do so.

Of course closing the attainment gap remains absolutely a goal—and not just a goal, but something we are moving and working towards in Government, which is why we continue to fund the pupil premium. [Interruption.] The difficulty with the hon. Lady’s statements on this and other matters is that she needs to understand and interrogate the figures that are published, because the changes we have made to the accountability of the examination system make it impossible to compare GCSE threshold measures across the years. If she had interrogated them, she would know that the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers has narrowed by 7.1% at key stage 2 and 6.6% at key stage 4 since 2011.

[Lucy Powell]

The Minister is moving the goalposts, as ever. All the evidence tells us that the most important factor in determining how well children do is the quality of teaching, especially for the most disadvantaged, yet at the start of this academic year half of all schools were struggling to cope with unfilled teaching positions, relying on supply teachers, non-specialists and unqualified staff. Teacher shortages are particularly acute in maths, science and English. Talk to any head anywhere in the country and they will say that such challenges are the biggest challenge they face. Given that the situation is getting worse, will the right hon. Lady, first, admit to this House that there is a problem—indeed, a crisis; secondly, agree that she should urgently look again at her Government’s chaotic and confusing approach to recruitment; and, finally, come forward with a proper strategy for retaining excellent teachers by looking at workload issues and the constant chopping and changing being inflicted on schools by her Department?

[Nicky Morgan]

What the hon. Lady calls moving the goalposts, I call restoring rigour to the exam system, making sure that our young people are getting qualifications that will set them up for life and for the world of work. Yet again, I am afraid to say that she has missed the point, because we have already talked about teacher recruitment and we have already announced plans for the National Teaching Service to help schools to recruit. Again, if the hon. Lady interrogated the figures properly rather than jumping for the quickest soundbite, she would know that not only have we increased the number of teachers we are seeking to recruit in subjects such as English and maths, but we have exceeded our recruitment targets for precious years—in fact, we have recruited more postgraduates in both English and maths, and we recruited 116% of the teachers that we needed at primary schools. It is extraordinary that she should seek to give lessons to this House, as she was the lady who not only commissioned the “Ed stone”—the carving of the promises—but then managed to lose the receipt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

Our ambition is that by 2020 the vast majority of young people will study maths to the age of 18. We have strengthened GCSE maths, to provide a more secure basis for studying the subject at A-level. We have increased mathematical content in science GCSEs and A-levels. We have introduced the new core maths qualifications so that all students have the opportunity to study the subject after the age of 16. We have also launched the Your Life campaign, to promote to young people the value of studying mathematics and science.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to arrive a few moments late, as I had to attend a very high-profile meeting elsewhere on the estate. Members can read all about it in the papers later.

Does the Secretary of State now accept that there is a growing teacher shortage in our schools?

[Nicky Morgan]

I hope the hon. Lady might be able to tell us whether she is going to continue to be a member of the shadow Cabinet after this very exciting vote, but let us talk about the issue at hand. We have always been very clear that there is a challenge in teacher recruitment. Although the overall vacancy headline rates are low, we are aware that there are issues in certain subjects and in certain parts of the country, which is why I announced the creation of the national teaching service earlier this month.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. It is good to hear that she now accepts that there is a growing problem of teacher shortage. That stands in contrast to some of the earlier answers given by the Minister for Schools. Last week an important report showed that half of all schools had unfilled vacancies at the start of this academic year. To try to plug those gaps, one in four schools are increasingly using supply teachers; one in six are using non-specialist teachers to cover vacancies; and more than one in 10 schools are resorting to using unqualified staff to teach lessons. Does the Secretary of State think that that is good for raising standards in schools, or does she think that that is not happening?

[Nicky Morgan]

What is needed is for all Members on both sides of the House to recognise the enormous contribution that teachers make. Those who try to talk down teaching at every opportunity by talking about the problems do not help our schools and education service at all. One of the subjects where recruitment is hardest is modern foreign languages, so the hon. Lady might like to reflect on the fact that in 13 years of her party being in power, the number of those teaching, studying and taking exams in modern foreign languages plummeted. That means it is now much harder to find students to teach modern foreign languages.

Childcare Bill [Lords]

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill. Labour has a proud record on childcare, and on enabling women to return to work. We introduced free childcare for three and four-year-olds; delivered the first and only childcare strategy across Government; created Sure Start centres, serving families in every community; expanded school nurseries; more than doubled childcare places; increased maternity leave from 12 weeks to 12 months; increased maternity pay; introduced paternity leave; introduced the right to request flexible working; and gave parents help with the cost of childcare through tax credits and vouchers. Childcare was a key part of our plans to support families and to make work pay. We welcome any investment in childcare.

I am pleased that the Government now seem to accept that supply-side funding through free entitlements is a more effective way of helping parents with the cost of childcare, controlling prices and increasing quality, something for which I have long argued. For all the Secretary of State’s trumpeting of the Government’s achievements, the record tells a different story. Financial support for childcare for most families fell in the previous Parliament. In that time, the cost of childcare rocketed by a third—up more than £1,500 since 2010. The pre-election promise of tax-free childcare remains undelivered, and early years childcare places have fallen by more than 40,000 since 2009. The offer for two year olds, while a good policy, remains under-subscribed, and Sure Start centres have gone to the wall in many areas. Even the Prime Minister disagrees with his own Government’s record on Sure Start centres in Oxfordshire.

I welcome the U-turn on tax credits from the Chancellor today. However, cuts to tax credits to date have hit families really hard. The story of the previous Parliament by this Government is one of reducing support for working families, childcare costs going up, and the gender pay gap remaining stuck for the first time in 15 years.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady mentioned cuts to child tax credits in the last Parliament. Does she accept that it is unfair and unjust that nine out of 10 families, even families of Members of Parliament, are eligible for child tax benefits?

[Lucy Powell]

Most families under the Government’s plans for tax-free childcare will be eligible for support with childcare. The point is that the Government took away the financial support on which many families relied for childcare and are now reintroducing it by different means.

Today’s claim of significant resources for childcare belies the reality for parents. Families were promised that tax-free childcare would be delivered now, but it will be another two years behind schedule. The three and four-year-old entitlement, which is also due in autumn 2017, still has funding question marks, as we have already heard from Members today. Parents with a two, three or four-year-old at the last election might have expected to have received additional support for childcare after the election, yet none of them will receive an extra penny, as their children will have passed the eligibility ages by the time the policies are eventually introduced.

Childcare is vital to our future success for two key reasons: for growing our economy through enabling parents to work and to work more hours; and to close the development gap pre-school, which is critical to educational achievement throughout a child’s life.

High-quality, flexible childcare is critical to the economy. We have made great strides in childcare over the past 20 years, but important policy challenges remain. Our maternal employment rates—particularly for mothers with children aged between one and four—are poor compared with other OECD countries. More than a third of mothers who want to work are unable to do so because of high childcare costs, and two-thirds would like to work more hours but cannot because of unaffordable childcare bills. That is particularly true for second earners, as the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research have illustrated.

Many mothers still face a pay and status penalty in the labour market for having children. Although the pay gap is small for younger women, once people hit the age of 40 the pay gap can be stark. Increasingly, work is becoming the only option for both parents as pressures on family budgets have increased. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, single-earner households are now more likely to be in poverty.

To boost our economy and give families the chance of a decent job and income, childcare investment is essential, and high-quality childcare is vital to tackling the disadvantage that exists. We know that many of the most disadvantaged five-year-olds start school 18 months behind their peers. Good-quality childcare can close that gap and give children a firm foundation for school and later life.

The two aims of economic output and early education require different policy solutions, but too often they are conflated and seeking to improve one element sometimes comes at the expense of the other. That is why supply-side support—such as extra free hours—is a good way to deliver both aims. Although tax-free childcare is still some way behind being delivered, it is designed to put cash in parents’ pockets, and does not contain levers to deliver quality or control prices. The offer for two-year-olds aims to reduce inequalities rather than be an economic driver, although that will be a consequence. The extension of the 15-hour offer to 30 hours should be about delivering both objectives, but that will require quality and funding.

As I have said, Labour supports this Bill, but there are a number of challenges with the Government’s plans and it is only right to scrutinise them. First, the childcare policy must be considered in the context of the totality of childcare support, which is complex, and overall support has fallen for families while costs have gone up. Any measures such as those in the Bill should be robustly analysed for their impact on the market in which they operate, including the impact on price, places and quality. Given those tests, many questions remain.

Put simply, high-quality affordable childcare is not cheap, and attempts by the Government to cut corners will ultimately fail. At the heart of the Bill is a serious funding gap, and today’s announcements go only some way towards answering that. The other place voted to amend the Bill on three separate occasions, mainly on procedural grounds because the Bill lacks substance and clarity on funding. When Ministers first announced the free offer, they said that it would cost £350 million. That figure was pie in the sky by the Government’s admission, and the figure was recently revised to £640 million. The IPPR has identified a £1 billion funding gap in the Government’s plans, even on the basis of the current hourly rate. We welcome today’s announcement, which seems to show that the Government understand there is a funding shortfall, but we must investigate that issue further as the Bill proceeds. As we have heard, that hourly rate still remains below the true cost of childcare.

Reducing the numbers of those entitled to extra support to provide funds for the offer for three and four-year-olds is a switch-spend, not new money, and it still leaves a funding shortfall. Families where one parent works between eight and 15 hours a week—those are often among the poorest families—will rightly be disappointed that they are no longer eligible for that extra support. The Secretary of State is right to reduce entitlement at the top end of the salary scale to £100,000 per parent—something we strongly argued for—but will she clarify how that funding will be allocated? The danger is that the Government’s failure adequately to fund the free offer could have far-reaching implications on the childcare market.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am a little confused. There has been a review, which the hon. Lady will not yet have had an opportunity to see. The Chancellor has announced, as the Secretary of State said, that there will not be a cap, so the figures that the hon. Lady identifies must necessarily be out of date because they do not take into the account the review, which she rightly says—I do not criticise her for this—that she has not yet seen, and they do not mention the cap that she refers to.

[Lucy Powell]

With respect, neither has the hon. and learned Lady seen the review, and she misunderstands the nature of the market. The hourly rate that is paid to nurseries via local authorities is not a cap on the cost of the childcare but a cap on the amount that the nursery can claim. The true cost of the childcare, as we have heard, is significantly more. In places like Islington, the true cost of the childcare provided can often be as high as £9 an hour. In the case of nurseries in my constituency, it can be considerably higher than the hourly rate, which I understand has gone up by 30p. Therefore, the private providers cross-subsidise from the free offer that they make to parents, with paying hours that other parents pay for. The hon. and learned Lady may well look puzzled. I know a considerable amount about this topic, having been the shadow childcare spokesperson for two years, so she can have a debate with me if she likes.

I do not need to see what has been put in the Library to know that there are major problems with the childcare market, even if the hourly rate is increased by 30p, and even if the early years pupil premium is used to cross-subsidise, taking money from elsewhere.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

The cost of childcare review that was undertaken by the Department over a period of six months had 2,000 responses, including from all the sector representatives. The hourly rates that have been announced today reflect the data that were given to us by the sector, including the profit and loss accounts of providers. I would encourage the hon. Lady to look at that before criticising the rates that have been announced.

[Lucy Powell]

Of course I will look at it. Perhaps next time we are having a Second Reading debate where funding is so critical, Ministers might care to let Opposition Front Benchers have sight of such important information before we embark on it. As the Minister knows, there remain key issues about the ability of the vast majority of providers in the sector, who are private and voluntary providers, to deliver these free hours, notwithstanding the challenges that remain for schools.

[Emily Thornberry]

Reference has been made to the cost of childcare review, and we have been told that 6,000 people have put in for it. It has 184 pages. We know that it is yet to be found in the Library, because people are burrowing away there looking for it.

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, but it is taking a certain amount of time to print it off. Therefore, we have not been able to look at it in advance of this debate, nor even during the debate. In those circumstances, my hon. Friend presumably agrees that it really is a farce having this Second Reading debate now.

[Lucy Powell]

I do of course agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. This is all regardless of the fact that this policy still has a considerable funding shortfall, even under the new hourly rates, as the Minister himself has said. When Labour announced before the last election that we were seeking to increase the number of free hours from 15 to 25, he said that that policy would cost £1.2 billion. That is far greater than the funding allocation that the Government have put forward for an additional five hours a week. There are big funding gaps that they have yet to address, regardless of the hourly rate being paid and the information that has been put in the Library.

House of Commons Library analysis has shown that there are over 44,000 fewer early years childcare places today than there were in 2009. In addition, six in 10 local authorities tell us that they do not have an adequate supply of childcare for local parents. There is a downward trend in childcare places that should cause concern. As I said, private and voluntary providers make up the vast majority of childcare places in England. If there is not adequate resource for these nurseries, they will simply not offer the 30 hours, leading to a reduction in choice for parents. I welcome the increase in the hourly rate, but questions remain about how many new places will be provided. Without an increase in supply, costs will continue to rise for parents.

Parents will also be very concerned that the quality of childcare could be damaged by the Government’s failure to adequately support their proposals. A wealth of evidence from the Education Committee and Ofsted clearly identifies strong links between outstanding provision and the best qualified staff. Poor childcare is worse than no childcare, as the Committee reported, and can be detrimental to a child’s development. I am very concerned that unless the Government have answers on adequate funding, the result will be a diminution in quality provision. Can the Secretary of State give a commitment today that, beneath the proposals and those outlined in today’s autumn statement, there are no plans to reduce quality, to increase ratios or to lower requirements for those who can offer the free entitlement? In summary, insufficient funds and poor delivery could have the opposite effect to what the Government want and lead to fewer places, poorer quality and higher cost for parents.

The Government have ample time to address those concerns before their policy is due to be introduced in autumn 2017. We want to work with Ministers to ensure that their plans are credible and affordable and meet the tests we have set out. Part of the problem is that the Government have no clear strategy for childcare. I hope the Education Secretary will reflect on that and come back to this House in due course with an overarching childcare strategy. [Interruption.] Would the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) like to intervene?

[Mr Gyimah]

indicated dissent.

[Lucy Powell]

I would be happy if the hon. Gentleman had a childcare strategy; this is a very complex market that could do with a proper strategy.

We will continue to support the progress of this Bill through Parliament, but it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to satisfy this House and the other place—and, indeed, parents—that the plan for childcare is deliverable, sustainable and affordable. To make the policy work, she must set out her funding plans and reassure us throughout the passage of the Bill. Other questions also remain unanswered. For example, who will be liable to prove that parents are working and are on sufficient hours, and how will disabled children be supported by the Bill?

I want this policy to work. I want it to be a success, to have real meaning for parents and to ensure that children are supported to achieve a great start in life. I look forward to working on it with the Education Secretary, and I recommend that we support the Bill this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

I would be interested to know whether the Minister regrets producing the document entitled “Cost of delivering the early education entitlement” halfway through the debate rather than earlier, if it was produced some time ago. He knows that one problem throughout the passage of the Bill in the Lords was that people criticised the fact that it was a cut-and-paste job from the Tory party manifesto put in a four-page Bill and that it has had no detail. The reason the Government have been getting into trouble is that everyone has been saying, “Where is the detail? Where is the plan? How much money are we getting?” And when the Bill finally reaches this place, keen people like me get a copy of half of this document halfway through the debate.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points and scrutinising the Minister extremely well. She makes a good point about the true cost of childcare and how many private, voluntary or independent nurseries cross-subsidise to deliver the free offer. Is she aware that in parts of London in particular, and in other more expensive cities, many providers do not even offer the free entitlement because there is not a good enough business case for them to do that, and so families in Islington are probably missing out altogether?

[Emily Thornberry]

I think that that is right, and there was a hint of that, I think, from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) when she was talking about the importance of the rate that is being paid in order to ensure that there is childcare provided in her area. Although Cambridge is not as expensive as Islington, I imagine that it is another area where childcare is likely to be provided at a fairly high rate, and is likely to be very expensive.

Having looked at the Blue Book, I have another question. As I understand it, to pay for these additional hours of childcare, the Government will not provide free childcare for parents whose income is more than £100,000—I do not think that there is any problem with that—but the other part is—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am asking the Minister a question. I can say it again. The other part of the condition is

“and a minimum weekly income level per parent equivalent to 16 hours (worked at the national living wage)”.

Does that mean that my single parents on the Market estate, who are currently working nine hours, will not get free childcare, and that in order to get free childcare they will need to work not only 16 hours but—because they are all on the minimum wage—16 hours at the equivalent of the national living wage, which presumably means that they will have to work something like 24 hours?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Today is an exciting day for the childcare sector. At a time of austerity when we still have to work hard to balance the books, the Government have made a strategic decision to invest more in early years and childcare. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, by 2019-20, £1 billion will be invested in the manifesto pledge of free childcare for the three and four-years-olds of working parents.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said that it looked like we had cut and pasted the Bill from our manifesto. I am pleased that people think we are delivering what we said in our manifesto.

The shadow Secretary of State started her speech by talking about Labour’s legacy. She mentioned Sure Start and maternity leave. As she spoke, it occurred to me that the Labour party is still living in the past when it comes to childcare. At one point, there was only one Back Bencher on the Opposition Benches. There clearly is not as much interest in the future of childcare on that side of the House.

Given that the shadow Secretary of State dwelt on Labour’s legacy, let me tell her what our legacy is in this area. In the last Parliament, we invested £20 billion in childcare. We increased the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds from 12.5 hours to 15 hours. We introduced 15 hours of free childcare for disadvantaged two-year-olds. We introduced the early-years pupil premium for the most disadvantaged three and four-year-olds to ensure that they do not start school behind. This Bill builds on a strong track record of success.

The extremely generous funding that the Chancellor announced for the sector today is, for the first time, built on detailed analysis. This is the first time that any Government have undertaken an analysis of the cost of providing childcare. It is important to distinguish between the cost of providing childcare for providers and the cost of childcare for parents. We looked at 2,000 responses, looked at the accounts, analysed the true cost of providing childcare and came up with a couple of rates—£4.88 for three and four-year-olds and £5.39 for two-year-olds—that are fair for the taxpayer and sustainable for the sector.

Some Members have asked whether the first 15 hours of provision will be different from the second 15 hours. We will pay the same rate for each, so there is no dumbing-down of the policy, as some researcher who was quoted in the debate has said. Nor are we changing staff to child ratios again, as some reports have said we will have to do to deliver the policy. Staff qualifications will remain the same.

[Lucy Powell]

Aside from the hourly rate, the bigger question that the Minister has been asked today is about the overall package of funding for the offer, which by any calculation falls well short of previous predictions. The key variable is the number of families who will access the offer. On the basis of the original calculation of a cost of about £1.5 billion, about 650,000 families would have been accessing it. However, the costings that the Government have outlined today suggest that they now believe fewer than 250,000 families will access it.

[Mr Gyimah]

indicated dissent.

[Lucy Powell]

Well, the Minister can work out the maths himself. I can help him if he likes.

[Mr Gyimah]

That point is completely irrelevant. The first 15 hours will be a universal offer. Every three and four-year-old in the country will get 15 hours of early education. The Chancellor outlined today that there will be an income cap for the second 15 hours, so that people who earn more than £100,000 do not get it. The progressives on the Conservative Benches believe that is right. We also believe that, given that the measure is a work incentive, it should encourage people to work more hours.

The overall cost has been mentioned a number of times. The Labour party’s proposed 25 hours of childcare would also have applied only to working families, and Labour did not say that it would increase the rate paid to providers, which we have done. I am on record as saying that the proposal would have cost £1.5 billion. The reason for the discrepancy between Labour’s numbers and our numbers is that we recognised that if we extended the free entitlement, there would be less demand for other Government-funded childcare programmes. Once again, Labour got its numbers wrong.

[Lucy Powell]

I actually made the costings calculation myself at the last election. The discrepancy in the figures is way bigger than the Minister has outlined. The cost per year of the Government’s additional hours proposal will be about £2,500 for each family who qualifies for it. If the Minister divides the overall budget that they have allocated for it by that number, he will find that his Department has significantly reduced the number of families that it anticipates accessing the offer from about 600,000 to about 250,000.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that fewer families will access the additional hours, particularly among the well-off. It is right that we have introduced an income cap.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made some fantastic points. I particularly welcome her suggestion that Hampshire participates as one of the early implementers of the policy, which I would definitely like to consider. She rightly mentioned childminders, who are often forgotten in debates on childcare. They offer excellent childcare based in the home, and they can offer parents much needed flexibility. We will look at the burdens of bureaucracy that affect them.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned the need to make the offer as simple as possible for parents, and we will examine that in detail. It should also be simple for providers, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. We want not only to provide more money to the sector but to reform the system that underpins it. That means having a national funding formula that allows as much of that money as possible to get to the frontline. It also means examining the bureaucracy that means that a provider operating across different local authority areas has to have different contracts within different systems. We will look at that to ensure that providers can deliver as easily as possible.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) made some good points about the distinction between childcare and early education. She is right to say that early education is about the child’s development, while childcare is about the parents. This policy ticks both boxes. The first 15 hours, which is the universal offer, applies to every child and is about school readiness, whereas the second 15 hours helps parents to work more hours. That said, I do not necessarily agree with her point about Scotland being a good example. Just 15% of Scottish local authorities, for example, said that they had enough childcare for working parents in 2015 compared with 23% in 2014. I do not think Scotland is the best example as regards sufficiency issues.

Further Education

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that a 21st century economy cannot be built on falling investment in education; notes that the 16-19 education budget fell by 14 per cent in real terms over the last Parliament, and that many colleges are reporting severe financial difficulties, including no longer offering courses in subjects key to our country’s competitiveness; further notes that over 100 chairs of further education colleges have warned that further cuts to 16-19 funding will tip their colleges over the precipice, and risk the nation’s productivity; believes that, given that the participation age has now risen to 18 years old, it makes no sense for the post-16 education budget to be treated with less importance than the 5-16 schools budget; further believes there should be a joined-up approach to education across departments; and calls on the Government to protect the education budget in real terms, from the early years through to 19 years old.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“A good education shouldn’t be a luxury—the preserve of those living within a certain postcode or those who can afford it. It should be something everyone in this country can get…if we don’t educate the next generation properly, we will not secure Britain’s future.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister just before the election, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. Indeed, I am sure that every parent and member of the public would agree that the route to success for a country lies in ensuring the best possible education for our children. Education is a down payment on the future success of our economy. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State for Education agrees with me, too. Yet as we approach the comprehensive spending review next week, I am concerned that she is losing the argument with her Treasury colleagues. That is why we have called this debate: to give her a bit of moral support in her battle to stop further, damaging wrong-headed cuts to the education budget.

In all honesty, I am perplexed that we are having to have this debate at all today. Conservative rhetoric at the election may have fooled many parents that the whole education budget was being protected, when we all know that the reality is far from that. If the principle exists that education is so important that we should shield schools’ budgets—and we absolutely should—why does the principle stop at GCSEs and not extend to A-levels and other post-16 qualifications? That is the central question, and I hope that we shall hear a real answer from the Secretary of State today. Why do the Government ascribe less value to the education of 16 to 19-year-olds?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Why does the hon. Lady think that, during a period of economic growth, her party presided over rising numbers of people who were not in education, employment or training and rising levels of youth unemployment? By contrast, the number of NEETs under this Government, both in my constituency and throughout the country, is the lowest for 15 years.

[Lucy Powell]

Well, we are not seeing the biggest investment in post-16 education; and we shall see what happens to those budgets in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

Let us look at the context. Over the last Parliament, 16-to-19 funding fell by 14% in real terms, and many efficiencies have already been delivered. Moreover, children must now remain in education or training until they are 18. We want young people to go on to study A-levels or take up high-quality apprenticeships, we want to raise attainment in literacy and numeracy, and we want to deliver a new curriculum. In that context, how does the Secretary of State imagine that school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges will be able to make further cuts of between 25% and 40% over the current Parliament?

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Earlier this month, I was delighted to visit Central Sussex College, which is expanding its STEM subjects facility. Its new building will enable it to provide many more courses for local people. Does the hon. Lady not welcome that?

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely, but it sounds like an exception to what is happening in many other parts of the country.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend, I have received a letter from more than 120 chairs of further education colleges. As well as presenting the picture of funding cuts and increased responsibilities that my hon. Friend is painting, the letter laments sudden funding reductions which have taken place not once but twice this year, and which have made it impossible to plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is no way to run a whelk stall, let alone a further education sector?

[Lucy Powell]

I entirely agree with that very well-made point. Not just FE colleges but sixth-form colleges—some excellent institutions in this country—would say the same.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The scale of these cuts is huge. Two FE colleges in Coventry have written to me in the wake of the letter to the Secretary of State from, I think, 147 colleges. They speak of cuts of up to 40% in their budgets, 1,000 redundancies, and the elimination of whole courses—important courses for apprentices and courses in English for non-English-speaking students, which we desperately need. It is the scale of the cuts that is unprecedented and unmanageable.

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely, and I shall say more about that shortly.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

I shall make some progress before I give way again.

Cuts of between 25% and 40% over this Parliament would have a devastating impact on the opportunities that sixth forms and colleges offer young people, and on our ability to build a high-wage, highly skilled, productive economy. If the principle that education spending is critical to the future prospects of the country is right, that principle should reflect the whole education journey. All the evidence shows not only that investment in 16-to-19 education is right, but that it reaps economic dividends.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

No. I am going to make some progress.

High-wage, highly skilled and more productive economies have high levels of attainment and investment in 16-to-19 education. International evidence tells us that investing in the literacy and numeracy of students in post-16 education is directly linked to higher productivity, and research shows that the economic returns from investing in 16-to-19 education exceed £20 for every £1 spent.

[John Redwood]

What did the hon. Lady learn from the very high levels of youth unemployment that we saw in 2009-10, when Labour left office, and why were people unable to secure apprenticeships then? [Interruption.]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Answer the question.

[Lucy Powell]

Give me a chance!

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) will remember that when Labour left office, we were in the middle of a very difficult global recession, but for the vast majority of our time in office, our record on youth attainment and educational achievement was excellent.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will remember the landmark future jobs fund that was set up by Labour in government, in stark contrast to the Conservatives who when they came in in 2010 cut it off and cut off access to technician training, as they are doing for another generation of young people in 2015.

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely.

I know we will hear from the Conservatives that these spending decisions are all necessary to deliver what they like to refer to—I hope this will get me some brownie points—as their long-term economic plan—[Hon. Members: “Hooray.”]—and a strong economy, but, as the Prime Minister agrees, investing in education and skills helps our economy to grow and reduces the deficit. Indeed, the reverse is also true: slashing and burning education, whether in schools, sixth-forms or further education, will lead to greater reliance on the state for unqualified young people and lower tax returns for those in lower paid jobs. Cutting education spending at the altar of deficit reduction is a false choice, and it is economic stupidity.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some very important points about the impact on the economy of short-sighted cuts to the post-16 education budget. In the north, of course, we have our part to play in delivering the Chancellor’s northern powerhouse—[Hon. Members: “Hooray.”]—brownie points, again. What does my hon. Friend think the impact will be on progressing the northern powerhouse if we cut back significantly on the investments we need to see in productivity in places like Barnsley in south Yorkshire?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If we speak to anybody overseeing some of the big infrastructure projects under way at the moment, they will say their biggest problem is bridging the skills gap they face in delivering those infrastructure projects, so this is a very serious issue.

If the Conservative party, from the Prime Minister down, truly believes in the principle that education is a public good, it is baffling why provision for 16 to 19-year-olds is wholly unprotected and facing further massive reductions.

Let us look now in more detail at what is really happening on the ground and the potential impact of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in condemning the Labour Welsh Government’s 6% cuts in this year’s 2015-16 Welsh FE budgets— I speak as a former director of an FE college—and the likely loss of 1,000 jobs, which is leading to industrial action this week in Wales? This is no way to run a whelk stall, let alone a country.

[Lucy Powell]

Well, there are going to be devastating things coming further down the track, as the Barnett formula will have impacts for Wales, and for Scotland as well.

Let us look at the context. First, with the budget for provision for 16 to 19-year-olds down by 14% in real terms over the last Parliament, post-16 education is at breaking point. Principals are desperate to maintain provision and parents are worried about the narrowing opportunities for their children, and this is filtering down to our young people who feel this Government do not value their education. This is not scaremongering. As has already been said, 139 chairs of FE institutions wrote to the Chancellor recently warning that further Government cuts threaten the viability of their colleges.

Already we are hearing that sixth-form colleges and FE colleges are dropping courses and reducing classes and teaching hours, and it is not beauty courses or fashion courses that are going first, as many Conservative Members want to think; it is the expensive A-level courses such as science, maths and modern foreign languages. Let us repeat that for Conservative Members: we have a Government who are overseeing the loss of A-level courses in science and modern foreign languages. What modern-day Government have ever done that?

Secondly, the raising of the participation age to 18, which we legislated for and continue to support, comes with extra pressure on institutions, with an increase in student numbers. New requirements on compulsory resits and a new A-level curriculum also further increase expectations on sixth-forms and FE colleges. During a period of such significant change, we would expect the Government to support teachers in the transition to a new system. In New South Wales and Ontario, where the minimum school leaving age was increased recently, additional resources were provided to deal effectively with the extra numbers; instead, changes in our country are taking place in the context of significant reductions, with more severe cuts on the way. That will lead to poorer outcomes through fewer teaching hours and less support.

A recent report has found that, from next year, A-level students face the prospect of being taught for 15 hours a week—just three hours a day—because of the fall in funding since 2011. And that is before we have heard the announcements in next week’s comprehensive spending review. In Shanghai, Singapore and other high-performing education systems that the Secretary of State likes to talk about, sixth-formers are taught for more than 30 hours a week. This Government are downgrading our education system to part time, leaving our young people behind their counterparts abroad in the global economic race. I think I get brownie points for mentioning the global economic race, too.

The Government’s area reviews also threaten the viability of some high-performing institutions in a sector that the Education Secretary herself has described as fragile. Yes, there are opportunities for joint working and efficiencies, but it is impossible for the area reviews not to be seen in the context of cuts to the sector, which further undermines the viability of those institutions. What is more, it is simply ridiculous to look at only half the provision and to ignore the many institutions that are in the greatest peril. Studio schools, school sixth forms, new free school sixth forms and university technical colleges are not included in the area reviews. They are the institutions that are most likely to be in danger of losing their viability, yet they are out of the mix. At the same time, the Government are content to put many high-performing and excellent colleges at risk. Our sixth-form colleges are outstanding providers of 16-to-19 education. They offer fantastic value for money by delivering strong outcomes for young people at a lower cost to the public purse than school and academy sixth forms.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

How much more money does the hon. Lady want to spend, and where is it going to come from?

[Lucy Powell]

The question we should be asking is: what will be the cost of these cuts? People will be getting lower-paid, lower-skilled jobs and drawing down on the state for longer periods of time.

There is excellent sixth-form provision in Greater Manchester, my own area, which is currently undergoing an area review. Winstanley College in Wigan and Loreto College in Manchester provide some of the best value-added in the country, and they outperform schools in getting kids from all backgrounds the highest grades in A-levels. I am sure that Conservative Members would be appalled to think their local sixth-form colleges could be under threat, but this is the reality in other parts of the country. Further massive reductions in funding will result in good sixth-form colleges and good school sixth forms closing. The 25% cut that the Chancellor has asked the Secretary of State’s Department to find is equivalent to the loss of half of all sixth-form colleges and one third of FE colleges.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that FE colleges are further disadvantaged in that they have to pay VAT, whereas free schools and sixth forms do not?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; she is absolutely right.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

South Devon College in my constituency is just such an example of a fantastic sixth-form college doing amazing work in the further education sector. Everyone in the House hopes that the Chancellor will be as generous as possible to further education, but another challenge that these institutions face is that they need multi-annual settlements so that they can make forward plans. Will the hon. Lady join me in asking for such a measure to be introduced?

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely. That is a very sensible suggestion, and I hope that those on the hon. Lady’s Front Bench will listen to it. The problem is not just the nature of the cuts but the fact that they are coming so late in the cycle.

On the figures that I have just outlined, sixth forms will no longer be the proud beacons of success that they are now, and Conservative Members will need to get their heads out of the sand if they do not want to see some of these valued institutions go to the wall.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

I am not going to take any more interventions—oh, go on then! I will take one more.

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Lady, my near neighbour, for her generosity. It is much appreciated. She has talked repeatedly about the importance of budgets, and of course they make a contribution, but does she agree that more innovative practices need to be adopted, including forging stronger links with businesses and the community, to ensure relevance and the best possible outcomes for young people? Will she talk about that, too?

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely. There is some really good best practice in this area, but as was suggested in previous comments, it is hard to innovate with such short budget settlement timelines—for only a few months later—in a difficult funding climate. We need to look at how we can ensure that innovation happens in the sector.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has referred to international experience. I am sure she is aware that investing in the literacy and numeracy of students post-16 is linked to higher productivity in their working lives. Does she therefore agree that the wrong-headed policy of the Government towards further education is threatening our economic success?

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely. Raising productivity is the key challenge that our economy faces, and I do not understand a Government who say that the principle is right on protecting education spending up to 16, but not on doing so up to 18 and 19, given that such attendance is now compulsory. I do not understand that logic, and I hope that the Secretary of State can explain it to us today.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Lucy Powell]

I am not giving way as I want to make some progress.

In conclusion, I think we can all agree that investment in education is a good thing. I hope the Secretary of State can explain how further education and sixth-form colleges are to deal with further significant reductions, on top of the efficiencies they have already delivered. I hope she is fighting a rearguard action against the Treasury, and in that she has my full support. I hope she will join us in supporting this motion, which recognises that an education journey for every child now continues up to 19. Good and outstanding sixth forms and FE colleges are under threat. Expensive courses such as A-levels in science and languages are being dropped. Teaching hours are half of those in our competitor countries. That is the reality of 16-to-19 education today. As a parent, it gives me a huge cause for concern, but as a politician I believe that cuts on this scale are a false economy which will damage our productivity, our economy and our ability to pay down the deficit. I commend the motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

All local authorities receive capital funding for schools, including for school places and conditions. Cambridgeshire has been allocated almost £160 million in capital allocations between 2011 and 2018. It is important that capital funding is targeted on the school areas that need it most. Academies can also bid for the condition improvement fund. Bottisham’s application to the fund was assessed in relation to other expansion bids. Although I understand my hon. Friend’s point for capital to be considered as part of the revenue funding formula, she must realise that capital is part of what is done on a needs basis, which is different from how revenue is allocated.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. It is good to be here this afternoon.

Yet again today, Ministers are doing the rounds asserting that the expansion of free childcare is one of the measures that will offset the cuts in tax credits for families. As the Secretary of State knows, however, the increase to 15 hours’ free childcare will not take place until September 2017 at the earliest, well after the tax credit cuts. Given that the Department is, in its own words, “unable to understand” the costs of childcare following the Secretary of State’s review, there are now real questions to be asked about the deliverability of the scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that families need help with childcare now, especially those who face losing vital tax credits? What help is she providing for families before 2017?

[Nicky Morgan]

I would believe in the hon. Lady’s concern a little bit more if her party’s peers had not voted against the Childcare Bill last week, delaying the introduction of both the Bill and the new scheme.

[Lucy Powell]

Perhaps they would not have done that if the Secretary of State had provided adequate funds. Is not the truth that only a tiny minority of those affected by tax credit cuts will receive this childcare help anyway when it is eventually introduced? What is more, the Institute for Public Policy Research has said that the Secretary of State’s childcare pledge is underfunded by £1 billion. Given that the tax-free childcare is already 18 months behind schedule, the Government’s childcare policy is a mess. What has the Secretary of State to say to parents who, at the election, thought that they would be better off voting for her?

[Nicky Morgan]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is that the reason funding in all areas of Government is so tight is the fact that we are dealing with the economic legacy left by the hon. Lady’s own party. If she were so interested in this, she would have allowed her peers to support the Bill.

If the hon. Lady wants to—[Interruption.]

School Expansion

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of her statement, and I would never be so unkind as some of her colleagues and suggest that she get back in her fish tank.

I want an excellent education for all our children, and over the past 20 years we have seen many advances towards that. However, there are currently real challenges in our schools: a chronic shortage of teachers, especially in science, technology, engineering and maths; huge pressure on places; and a widening attainment gap between the disadvantaged and their peers. Since the election we have heard little from the Secretary of State on those important issues. Instead, it is now clear that she has spent a disproportionate amount of time focused on this thorny and vexed issue. It is a shame that she did not come to the House last week to make a statement, rather than being forced to do so today.

Before I go into detail on this decision and its implications, it is worth putting on record why successive Secretaries of State for Education have not only resisted calls for new grammar schools but—as in the case of the late Margaret Thatcher—overseen their demise. Far from being the bastions of social mobility that some romanticise about, selective grammar schools have entrenched social advantage. As the Sutton Trust recently found, fewer than 3% of those attending grammar schools qualify for free school meals, compared with 18% in the communities that those schools serve. The Weald of Kent intake includes just 1.3% of pupils on free school meals, and further research shows that poorer children do far worse in selective areas. Today’s grammar schools cannot deny that their selection criteria favour the privately tutored and those with the means to acquire that tuition.

The decision to allow a so-called annexe 10 miles from an existing school in a different town is what everybody knows it to be: a new school. As such it will be the first new grammar school to open in more than 50 years. It is also the first test of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and as such it warrants proper parliamentary scrutiny. That legislation is clear: no new state-funded grammar school can be opened. The Secretary of State has tried her very best—rather unconvincingly—to say that the decision is about the expansion of a good school, but it is already possible for existing grammar schools to expand. Changes to the school admissions code in 2012 made it easier for schools, including grammar schools, to expand. Indeed, the number of places at grammar schools has risen by 34,000 since the 1998 legislation—expanding not only in real terms but as a proportion of all school places. This is, therefore, not about expansion. It is why the Secretary of State’s predecessor withstood pressure and why the Department has been locked in a legal wrangle for the past 18 months.

I wrote to the Secretary of State on Thursday, calling for her to publish the advice she has been given. I reiterate my call for her to do so today. It is vital that we understand the terms under which she feels this is permissible, given that it was previously rejected and that it sets a precedent that could allow for many, many more similar proposals. Those proposing the expansion of an existing school on an additional site

“need to ensure that the new provision is genuinely a change to an existing school and not a new school”.

Her Department has provided a list of factors to be taken into account. Will the Secretary of State set out how this proposal meets the list of factors in each and every case? She has outlined how she feels full integration is achieved, but does she really accept that half a day a week is full integration? What is more, will she clarify that full integration includes all admissions?

The Secretary of State’s decision last week will open the floodgates, and there are reports that 10 selective areas are already preparing so-called expansion plans on different sites.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

Ten is a flood?

[Lucy Powell]

Ten areas.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that further applications are pending? Will she tell the House today what the maximum distance is for a so-called satellite site? Will she outline the advice she was given about the legal precedent and the implications this would have? What steps is she taking to ensure that all grammars are open to many more disadvantaged kids?

During the Conservative party conference, we heard the Prime Minister talk laudably about increasing social mobility, but yet again we see actions and policies going in the opposite direction. I really hope the Secretary of State will rethink this decision.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response, because I think it is customary to do so, but talk about being greeted by the usual Labour party doom and gloom about our education system, the achievements of our pupils and the hard work of professional teachers up and down the country! It was the usual paucity of ideas from the hon. Lady and her colleagues.

The hon. Lady talks about the priority given to this matter since the application was made by the school. My job involves dealing with a lot of different issues all at the same time. [Interruption.] She should stop scaremongering about teacher recruitment. We are ahead on a number of key areas in relation to teacher recruitment, including primary education, but today’s statement is not about that. I am sure we will deal with that, but she should not be talking down a profession that she says she aspires to represent.

The hon. Lady is absolutely wrong to say the advantage gap has increased. It has narrowed since 2010. She talks about social mobility and grammar schools. The greatest tool for social mobility we can give to any young person is a great education, and this is exactly what this expansion is all about. The admissions code, which was changed by this Government, specifically allows grammar schools to give priority to children who are eligible for the pupil premium in their admission arrangements. Half of the grammar school sector has introduced, or intends to consult on adopting, that admissions priority, and I would like more of them to go further.

This is about expanding a new school. There have been no legal wrangles. The hon. Lady will know that we do not publish legal advice given to Ministers. She ought to ask her predecessors in her own party about the publication of legal advice, if she feels so strongly about it.

We are clear about the benefits of integration. I looked in detail at the application made by the Weald of Kent to ensure that the legal criteria have been absolutely satisfied. I am satisfied that they have been.

The hon. Lady talked about floodgates. I think the Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), got it right. I can assure the hon. Lady that there are no applications sitting on my desk at the moment, but if she thinks that 10 is a flood she needs to go away and re-examine this issue.

Finally, “deciding on each case” means exactly that. I am not going to set down criteria; it will mean looking at individual cases that cross my desk.

Recent weeks have taught us that the Opposition are finding it difficult to outline firm policy stances on anything. The Leader of the Opposition has said:

“I would want all grammars to become comprehensives and to end the 11-plus where it still exists.”

May I give the shadow Education Secretary the chance to confirm whether there will be another flip-flop, or is this in fact Labour party policy? Should grammar schools be added to academies and free schools on the list of schools at risk from the Labour party?

At the end of the day, this matter is simple. The Conservative party trusts front-line professionals to run schools and lead our education system and wants parents to have real choice over their children’s school, but the Opposition do not; they do not want to see more good school places and do not believe in parental choice or high academic standards for all. We will leave them to fight the old battles, while we get on with the task of making sure that every pupil in this country has the excellent education they deserve.

Education and Adoption Bill

Lucy Powell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her kind words of welcome. It is a pleasure to be the new shadow Secretary of State for Education, a role that I am passionate about. I am sure that she will agree that Secretary of State for Education is one of the great offices of state, and it is great to see two women in these roles today. I was, however, less comfortable with one aspect of being offered this job. Unfortunately, given that I am an October-born, bossy politician who studied chemistry at Somerville, the parallels between Margaret Thatcher and me take another step forward. I very much hope that that is as far as they go.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He has been a passionate campaigner for education and it is an honour to follow in his footsteps. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for all their hard work on the Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who has served as the Whip on the Bill and who, I am sad to say, will leave the Whips Office after today. I also thank the many colleagues who served on the Committee and contributed to the debate.

For me, education is personal as well as political. With children at secondary, primary and nursery school, I see at first hand the immense value of an excellent education. It truly is the best investment any country can make. Coming from a family of teachers and headteachers, I have the highest regard for all those in education, who do amazing jobs, often in challenging circumstances.

Education is our route to a successful, rich, vibrant, tolerant and inclusive society and economy, but with globalisation, the digital age, emerging economies with high skills and a shrinking number of low-skilled jobs, we need to ensure that we continue to meet the needs of the next generation.

Labour is committed to excellence in state education, to raising aspirations for all children and to continued increases in standards. We also want an accountable system with strong local oversight, collaboration and support. That should apply equally to all schools, whether or not they are an academy, free school or local authority school. We cannot support this Bill, because it does nothing to meet those challenges and it takes school oversight, parental involvement and support for headteachers backwards. Yet again, the Government seem to want to apply these measures only to local authority schools instead of addressing failure across the system.

The sponsored academy programme of the last Labour Government brought new resources, leadership, partnerships and higher standards to some of the most disadvantaged schools and it was very successful. However, what we have seen from this Government is the wholesale academisation of schools, with little evidence to show that that in and of itself raises standards. Indeed, Ofsted has raised concerns that the academisation of schools can often be a detrimental distraction for school leaders when they could be focusing on other interventions. What is more, the Bill fails to address the very real concerns about whether the Secretary of State is best placed to offer the oversight and support that the majority of schools require, and it does nothing to address failure in academies or academy chains. No parent wants their child to be in a failing, inadequate or coasting school. We should all be intolerant of failure in our school system, but I am far from being convinced that the Bill’s measures will deal with those issues.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has said, we support many of the Bill’s adoption measures, although we have raised concerns about the threat to specialised adoption agencies.

I shall focus the remainder of my remarks on the schools element of the Bill, which has a number of serious flaws. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West has said, the very narrow definition of coasting schools, which is purely a data exercise, is flawed. It gives no recourse to other information from Ofsted or elsewhere. It could also have serious unintended consequences.

Children not achieving their potential or not being stretched, which may lead one to think that the school is coasting, has long been an issue, but the Bill’s crude measure will potentially exclude many schools that require intervention and include some that do not. That is a major flaw. It also sets up a parallel judgment of schools outside, and often in competition with, the Ofsted framework.

The Bill also fails to devolve powers of oversight and intervention from the Secretary of State; indeed, it concentrates further powers into her hands. Regional schools commissioners are nowhere near an adequate response to that growing problem, which is widely recognised. Although devolution is rightly the agenda of so much public policy, education is going in exactly the opposite direction under this Government and with this Bill.

Another of the Bill’s failings is the exclusion of academy schools and academy chains from required interventions. Many examples have been given, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). The Bill deals only with local authority maintained schools. There is no parallel requirement on the Secretary of State to take equivalent action against a failing academy.

The Bill’s focus on forced academisation is only justified if the evidence supporting academy status as a path to improvement is overwhelming and unchallenged. In fact, there is no such evidence. The Tory majority on the Education Committee was unable to find any convincing evidence that academy status itself led to school improvement, but the Secretary of State continues to maintain that, rather than a useful targeted intervention in appropriate circumstances, academy status is the single magic bullet that will lead to improvement. We all know that it is much more complex than that, and the Bill does nothing to strengthen and speed up other interventions that we know work.

The views of local stakeholders, particularly those of parents, will be completely removed by the Bill. That is the wrong direction of travel, and we cannot support it. It also fails to address major challenges in our education system, such as the growing teacher shortage as recruitment and retention collapses, and it does nothing to solve the crisis in school places.

The Government should develop policy based on evidence and proper analysis. When using individual examples, I am always mindful of the fact that we can all find those that make our point one way or another. On reading the Secretary of State’s speech on Second Reading, I noticed that she gave two or three examples of school improvement to justify the Bill. One such case, that of the Manchester Enterprise academy, stuck out for me because I know that school well and, dare I say, better than the Secretary of State. She cited the school as a clear demonstration of why academising a failing school works, but the situation is much more complex. I do not want to politicise the school, but it is important further to draw out what is happening there because it highlights all the issues we are debating.

First, given the Secretary of State’s clear belief that local authorities cannot be part of the solution in supporting and turning round poor schools, I was surprised that she chose a school whose sponsor is none other than the local authority, in partnership with Manchester airport. The city council has had a great deal to do with the recent success of the school, as indeed it has with all schools across Manchester, in which standards have risen significantly in recent years. She and her Government seem to think that local authorities can never be part of school improvement, but I beg to differ—as her own example shows.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to her new position at the Dispatch Box. The school she mentions is in my constituency. It was academised under the previous Labour Government, sponsored by Manchester City Council—a Labour council—as well as Manchester airport and the local Wythenshawe community housing group. It has been transformed under the leadership of James Eldon. The Secretary of State spoke about the Manchester Enterprise academy on Second Reading, so I challenge her to come and see how a local authority has got to grips with turning around such a school.

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight such issues, particularly the important role played by the city council. Manchester is at the vanguard of the right hon. Lady’s Government’s programme for devolution. Indeed, some might argue that the leaders of Greater Manchester are closer in outlook to the Chancellor than she is. Why is she not part of that agenda? Instead she is taking education in the opposite direction.

Secondly, had the Secretary of State looked further into the history of the Manchester Enterprise academy, she would have found out what any local representative, such as my hon. Friend, or education professional in the city could have told her—that it took many years after academisation for the school to be turned around. There were leadership changes, financial problems and low attainment for many years after it became an academy. It was not academisation in and of itself that improved the school, but a range of interventions, many of which have been more recent than its academisation.

Thirdly, as the Secretary of State cited this example on Second Reading, I wonder whether she is aware of the school’s results this year. Through no fault of its own—indeed, the school continues to go from strength to strength—its GCSE results this year dropped by 9%. As she may be aware, as in many deprived and challenging parts of the country, the new system of comparative results means that no matter how hard the school works and how excellent the teaching is, results can fall as grade boundaries change, making the gap impossible to close. That comparative results system, with its constantly changing grade boundaries, may result in excellent schools, such as the Manchester Enterprise academy, being labelled as coasting. Has she considered the consequences of that? She will also be aware that schools face a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, particularly in maths and science. That, too, could affect a school’s results through no fault of its own.

The Secretary of State’s example highlights my bigger point. Despite having a whole Department working on her speech and sourcing examples, no one brought the real situation of the academy to her attention. Local representatives could have told her about it. That only highlights the difficult job that she has in being solely responsible for thousands of schools. This Bill and the Secretary of State miss the most fundamental point: we need to devolve oversight for all schools to a level where support, collaboration and accountability can happen effectively. The Bill rejects that and her regional schools commissioners fall well short.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There are 2,024 maintained Catholic schools in England and 386 Catholic academies. As the hon. Lady is speaking on behalf of the new Labour Front-Bench team, may I ask her to pay tribute to our faith schools and assure us that the Labour party is fully committed to their continued existence? In the context of the Bill, will she commit her party to ensuring that if, sadly, an interim executive board has to be appointed, the religious nature of such a school will be preserved?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I reiterate the Labour party’s commitment to faith schools. As he raises the input of Catholic schools, he may be interested to hear that they are opposed to many aspects of the Bill, as we highlighted in Committee. In particular, they are very much opposed to clause 7.

I will spend the coming months listening, responding and developing and setting a course for an ambitious vision for education in this country—something that the Bill fails in. The Bill takes school oversight and parental involvement backwards, and further demonises local authority schools. That is why we will oppose it. It is also a huge missed opportunity for a newly returned majority Government. The Secretary of State has the best and most important job in this country. Is this Bill the best she can do? If I had any doubt as to why the Bill is before us this evening, I do not after reading her interview in The Daily Telegraph this morning. It is clear that the Secretary of State’s primary interest is not raising standards and supporting pupils, parents and teachers; it is narrow political tactics aimed at the Labour party. I am afraid that that is quite a sad and pathetic development.