Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes, I will.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

How does the Government’s rhetoric on supporting catch-up literacy match the ongoing closure of libraries up and down the country? Do his Government ever attempt to join up, or are they just extraordinarily bad at it?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady again shows the devotion to partisanship that has characterised her time in the House. The truth is that some local authorities do a superb job in making library services more relevant and more effective, but others are not doing so effectively—as we are in an election season, it is probably worth pointing out that they are mainly Labour, whether, for example, it is Brent or Newham. If she is serious about raising standards in literacy and ensuring that children have the opportunity to enjoy great works of literature, perhaps she will throw her support behind the national curriculum reforms and the academy and free school reforms we are making. I fear that, once again, she will go into the default mode of Opposition Members, which is to make cheap sloganeering points rather than to care about children.

Offshore Gambling Bill

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Friday 25th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in horse racing. He and I share a love of horse racing, and I shall a say little about the contribution that racing makes to the rural economy in my constituency. The Bill’s main purpose is to bring things onshore to the United Kingdom, where the racing takes place, and to emphasise that when a bet is placed online the point of consumption is in this country. The whole thrust of the Bill is to bring money back into racing, and I shall explain how. The Treasury’s proposals, which I understand can be introduced in any Budget—perhaps not this year; possibly next year—will restore the tax situation to those offshore betting companies. That is not the purpose of this Bill. The main difference between it and the draft Gambling (Licensing & Advertising) Bill, which has been drafted by my right hon. Friend the Minister, whom we welcome to the Chamber—we look forward to his response—is that this Bill relates to the levy.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

One of the issues that I should like the hon. Lady to address is enforcement. An awful lot of international co-operation will be necessary. What mechanisms will she be able to employ to achieve that?

[Miss McIntosh]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk for the groundwork that he has done in that regard.

One of the unintended consequences of offshore betting has been to remove this activity from the remit of the Gambling Commission. It is my understanding that that was not the intention of the House when the Gambling Act was introduced in 2005. The Gambling Commission plays a key role in protecting young people and vulnerable people from such activities, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree on the need to protect the young from parts of the internet; indeed, one of my hon. Friends has just been appointed as adviser to the Prime Minister on that matter. In my view, it was never the intention of the House that this activity should be summarily removed from the remit of the Gambling Commission, which offers an enforcement mechanism.

Regarding the levy, we have to look at the European Commission, which should allow the proposals in clause 4.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I look forward to listening to both the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) and Mr Finkelstein of The Times this evening. Let me place on record my gratitude to the last Government for instituting state support for the Holocaust Education Trust, and particularly to my predecessor as Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), for the courage and commitment that he showed to the fantastic work of the HET. I extend my congratulations also to its chief executive, Karen Pollock, who is an inspirational public figure and richly deserved her recent recognition in the honours list.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

T8. I have just come from an excellent event hosted by Newham council called “Every child a musician”. It is a scheme that was launched in 2010 to give all children from whatever background access to a musical education. It has been rigorously evaluated by the Institute of Education, and Professor Graham Welch has stated that evidence already exists of“a link between progress in EcAM and progress in writing and English.”Can the Secretary of State explain, therefore, why arts subjects will not count towards the English baccalaureate?

[Michael Gove]

I congratulate Newham council on its leadership, and I congratulate all those involved in music education, who have been supported in London by the Mayor through the scheme that he has introduced to ensure that more children have access to instrumental tuition.

Darren Henley’s report on music education was greeted as probably the best report on the subject that had been written, and enacted by any Government, since the dawn of time. I am grateful that there is such widespread recognition of our commitment to school music.

Financial Education

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on the work that they put into the report. However, before this turns into a complete love-in in which we all congratulate each other on our efforts, I should observe that I see financial education as being about 20% of the solution to the problem with debt in this country. We also need to look carefully and quite quickly at regulating certain parts of the industry, especially payday loans and the high-cost lending sector. I would also like to improve advice services and secure advice services that are under threat at the moment. I would look at advertising, too. I think that it is at the root of some of the severe problems that people get themselves into with debt. On loans, some very dodgy products are made to look commonplace, and young people are encouraged to take out short-term loans for things such as going to a music festival, which sends completely the wrong message. We need to do something about that fairly urgently.

As a nation, many of us lack the knowledge we need to properly manage our finances. About two thirds of people in the UK say that they feel too confused to make the right choices about their money and more than a third say that they do not have the right skills to properly manage their cash. Only 36% of people understand that the term APR relates to payments. Within families, about 19% of parents have never discussed how to spend money with their teenagers and 32% have yet to discuss how to budget or even describe what one is. Research has shown that 43% of parents do not know what basic financial terms such as APR or PPI mean. On Tuesday, I was in a financial education class in a women’s prison and I was quite impressed by how well informed some of the inmates were, but there was quite a long discussion about PPI, which seems to be a huge issue on which many people feel they have been misled. They say they would have benefited from clear information at a young age.

Frighteningly, about three quarters of us say that a lack of basic financial understanding is to blame for our debts. The gaps in our national financial knowledge are worrying but are made all the more troubling in these times of austerity. The citizens advice bureau in my constituency tells me that in the past 12 months it has dealt with just under £9.5 million of debt. Between 2004 and 2010, individual insolvency levels rose sharply. Apparently, in the 12 months ending in quarter 3 of 2011, about one in 361 people became insolvent, which is significantly higher than the annual average of one in 1,655.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, even more people coming to her surgery with financial issues than previously? Is she as worried as I am that they are coming to us at a time when even less independent financial advice is available for them to access?

[Mrs Chapman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. She tempts me to break a promise that I made to myself when I came into the debate not to have a rant about the economy and make a wider political point, because I thought that that probably would not be what this occasion demanded. However, she makes that point for me and I thank her for it.

Education is the armour against being misled and I believe that advertising is misleading us. I refer the House to my ten-minute rule Bill of about a year ago, which I am sure all hon. Members have followed closely, which would curb some of the advertising on financial products. Financial education provides protection against some of the most traumatic circumstances a person can find themselves in, from paying an additional fee on an unauthorised overdraft because one is not aware of how the charges work, to losing one’s home or having one’s belongings repossessed and being declared bankrupt. Many of us have been able to learn from our mistakes because either the economy has been in a good state or we have been able to rely on family or friends. We have been lucky but young people now, as the hon. Member for North Swindon said, are in danger of financial mismanagement having a much longer-term effect on their lives. On finishing education, young people immediately face tough monetary decisions. At 17, they are already in debt and tied into contracts that they did not fully understand for things such as mobile phones. I take the slack given to me by the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) who made a good point about gambling. If that is an issue at primary level, which I had not appreciated, it is right that that be included in the curriculum. Therefore, we need to be properly prepared to deal with these decisions. Put simply, an informed borrower is a safer borrower.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Chapman]

I agree with that to a point. I have A-level maths and I am very glad that I studied that. One does not have to be a maths expert to deliver good financial education, but one does need to have confidence in the subject, have a good grasp of the knowledge and be a good teacher. A good teacher who can get the ideas across can probably teach the things that we discuss in the report quite well.

[Lyn Brown]

Given that I could not tempt my hon. Friend to have a rant on the economy, perhaps I can tempt her one more time to deviate on to the Government’s record on this matter. In November 2011, applications for training courses for secondary maths teachers fell by more than a quarter on last year. Is she as concerned as I am about the implications of that?

[Mrs Chapman]

I am very concerned about that. I am not only concerned about mathematics. My region has seen a drop of about 20% in higher education applications. We are assured that there will be a last-minute surge in applications. If that is not the case, I fear that we will face a serious problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can promise that I will not take too long over my speech.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) on the all-party group and all Members who have contributed to the report.

I was lucky enough to be involved with a financial education project for 10 years when I worked for Citizens Advice in St Helens, and we started from a very low base, with schools that had never before thought of having such a project. We also worked with tenants’ and residents’ groups and with a wide range of organisations, and I was fortunate to employ a passionate member of staff who gained the first-ever teaching qualification in financial education. That was vital in moving our project forward into schools, because we found that teachers were not confident about teaching the subject. They understood that it needed to be taught, but they did not have the confidence to include it in the curriculum.

I therefore totally support the idea of a financial education champion in schools, because in our work we found that the maths department was not always the one that came forward. In one school in which we worked, the drama department was keen on the idea, and an excellent play, which I think is on a website somewhere, was written about the three little pigs living in their houses. We also offered qualifications, including the ASDAN qualification and open college network qualifications, so schools and organisations involved in the Work programme, with which we also worked, could offer qualifications to young people. That was important in making teachers realise that financial education was an actual subject. It was not an add-on; it was an important part of the curriculum.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned, there was an unexpected side-effect; we had not anticipated the rise in the number of parents coming to us with their debt problems. Students would go home and say, “Today I learned all about annual percentage rates. Let’s have a look at our household finances as an example.” The parents would sit there and think, “We’re beginning to hit a problem here. We are noticing that we cannot pay all our bills and that we’re borrowing on one credit card to pay off another.”

There absolutely needs to be a referral mechanism for advice about debt. It has to be sensitive and local. As my hon. Friend also mentioned, it could be the local citizens advice bureau. We were fortunate; somebody from the CAB delivered the financial education classes and they could talk to the parents and refer them to a specialist money adviser.

The only thing that I would like to take issue with is the part of the motion that mentions “irresponsible” debt. I can honestly say that in 24 years of working for a citizens advice bureau, I never saw anyone who had aimed to get into debt. Debt was often caused by irresponsible lending; innumerable people came to us with debt, cut up their credit cards, sent them back and were immediately sent a new credit card. Now, obviously, there is also the rise of the payday lenders, who will roll over debts when people say that they cannot pay them. I really feel that there needs to be regulation on that.

Most people take out loans intending to pay them back, whatever the level of interest. However, anyone’s circumstances can change. One of the most distressing cases that I ever saw involved somebody whose child was born with a disability. They had taken out an awful lot of loans to pay for the conversion of their property and were relying on the disability benefits for the child, who died unexpectedly. They were left with a mountain of debt. That was responsible, not irresponsible, borrowing. We need to look at the causes of debt. I agree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole—we should not be moralising. Debt happens. It could happen to any of us. If a person walks down the street and gets hit by a car, they are likely to end up not being able to pay their bills.

I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), who is no longer in her place, that education is only 25% of the solution. Debt advice has to be available and there has to be regulation on the advertising by payday lenders and debt management companies, which offer to get people out of debt but often push them further into it, to make sure that they do not make a bad problem even worse.

[Lyn Brown]

May I ask my hon. Friend the question that I asked our hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman)? Does she, like me, see more such cases in her surgery week by week? Are there fewer people offering good-quality and independent advice who we can refer constituents to? Is that not the biggest problem that many of our people face at the moment?

[Yvonne Fovargue]

I completely agree. I am extremely concerned for the future, when the transition fund ends. To be honest, I do not know where the advice agencies are transitioning to—some are transitioning to oblivion. There is also the ending of legal aid for debt. The Minister mentioned the importance of early advice. Much of the funding for early advice is going, because legal aid funding is now for advice only at the point of eviction, which is absolutely not cost-effective.

Yes, I totally support the idea of compulsory financial education in school, but it has to be part of a package. Part of the package should be to ensure that people do not get into debt with payday lenders, do not go to the fee-charging debt management agencies but do have access to early advice to help them when they realise that they are getting into debt. They need to be able to realise when the debt is becoming a problem.

English for Speakers of Other Languages

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, but I would rather that the need for such a debate had not arisen. Last November, the Government published a document that was somewhat euphemistically entitled “Investing in Skills for Sustainable Growth”. Alongside various changes to the funding of further education and training in the UK, Ministers announced that from 1 August this year, many people who currently qualify for free courses in English for speakers of other languages will have to pay a significant amount towards their studies. From August, anyone who receives council tax benefit, housing benefit, income support, working tax credit or pension credit will be expected to contribute £2.91 per hour to the cost of their ESOL course. Anyone who is dependent on someone who receives what the Department for Work and Pensions has defined as “inactive benefits” will also be expected to pay.

The sum of £2.91 per hour may not sound like a lot of money, but it amounts to a minimum of £1,300 in tuition fees for a full-time course. Although as a point of principle I tend to agree that those who can pay should pay, the Government are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that those currently on such courses, or those who most need them, will be able to pay—they will not. If someone’s husband has a job on the minimum wage and works full time but still earns less than £12,000 per year, will they really be able to pay £1,000 for an English language course? It will not happen.

I cannot help but think that the proposed changes to the way ESOL is funded are woefully short-sighted. Set alongside the Prime Minister’s repeated pronouncements on immigration and the need for everyone to speak the language of their new home, they are nothing short of hypocritical. I called this debate to give the Minister an opportunity to explain the rationale behind the changes and to question him on the impact they will have, to ask him to reconsider the crude distinction that has been made between those on active and inactive benefits, and to urge him, at the very least, to delay the changes by a year to allow those involved in the provision of ESOL to work with the Government to find a way forward.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes are another example of this Government’s attack on women? Figures from the Association of Colleges suggest that about 77% of those affected by the changes will be women who, in a two-parent household, will not be in receipt of the benefits required.

[Heidi Alexander]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and believe that the changes will have a hugely disproportionate effect on women and on members of black and ethnic minority communities across the country.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The Government’s decision to abolish EMA will damage young people’s prospects throughout the country, but in a constituency such as mine in east London, the results will be frankly disastrous. Removing seven eighths of the money and establishing, possibly, a residual discretionary support fund will be no compensation. It will place colleges and schools in the impossible position of allocating resources thinly but fairly among many deserving students.

At present, more than 5,000 students in my local borough of Newham receive EMA—more than two in five of all of our 16 to 19-year-olds. It makes a real difference to them and to their families. Our 16-plus participation rate is up almost 13% since EMA came on-stream, from 81.4% in 2003-04 to 94.1% in 2008-09. Newham sixth-form college is the largest in London, and more than three quarters of students receive EMA. The vast majority are on the full £30 weekly allowance. Students I met reported giving the contribution to their parents for their keep, so let there be no mistake: this money will be sorely missed.

Newham’s average household income is £455 a week. Only three other English local authorities have higher levels of child poverty. Silver spoons are in short supply in Newham. For most of the students at Newham sixth-form college, EMA is not just nice-to-have pocket money but a financial necessity. It helps with the costs of travel, buying books and other course requirements, and contributes to household incomes. EMA is not a bribe, as has been claimed, but a pathway to further and higher education for young people in low-income families. EMA offers a lifeline to many against whom the odds are already stacked. But now, EMA recipients who are halfway through their courses say they do not know how they can carry on when their funding is withdrawn. Others worry about the motivation for younger brothers and sisters to keep attending school and doing their best.

Do we really want a country where young people have to worry about the significant sacrifices that their parents will have to make to allow them to undertake further education? Do we really want young people to have to forgo their lunches a couple of times a week, or walk miles to college because they cannot afford the bus fare? Do we really want them to spend every spare minute they have in part-time work?

Since its creation, EMA has sent a strong signal to teenagers that a positive future is available if they work hard and play by the rules. We can contrast that positive and inclusive message with the hugely discouraging signals we are now sending to our young people: the abolition of EMA alongside the cutting of Aimhigher, the trebling of tuition fees and the ending of the future jobs fund. It is obvious that we are storing up problems for the future, and the Government’s decision to slash the support for young people to stay on in education will be viewed by future generations as a betrayal—a costly mistake—as well as another broken promise.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lyn Brown]

I am sorry, but I promised not to give way.

The Government, and even the Prime Minister earlier today, try to justify the abolition of EMA by relying on a single research study. But as ever with this Government, when it comes to their use of statistics it pays to read the small print. The research that they point to was carried out by the highly reputable National Foundation for Educational Research, but that study was not an evaluation of EMA; it was a much broader project, looking at barriers to learning for all 16 to 19-year-olds. The research sampled only year 11 students—students not in the sixth form, with no experience of the additional costs associated with further education—so the study cannot legitimately bear the conclusion that the Government want to draw from it. The research is an excuse for their decision to abolish EMA, not a reasoned explanation.

As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, other independent studies found that EMA does increase participation in post-16 learning, particularly among young people from families on low incomes. Members do not have to take my word for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—that well-known left-wing organisation!—looked at the Government’s case and found it wanting, stating that it was based on selective assumptions. It concluded that EMA is an effective use of public money. I do not believe that cutting EMA is inevitable in the light of the financial situation. I am not a deficit denier; I simply believe that abolishing EMA is not economically sound. Bankers’ bonuses flourish, yet ordinary young people pay the price. There is no policy justification for the cut. Let there be no mistake: the abolition of EMA is a political choice.

Let me tell those who still think that the allowance is a bribe about Tom Chigbo, a London boy, and the first black president of Cambridge student union. He lives in my constituency. He tells me that he would not have got to Cambridge without EMA: he used it for travel and food and to attend additional lectures and seminars in London, which made his personal statement stand out and gave him something to talk about at interview. Members who will vote in the Government Lobby should remember Tom and the others up and down the country whose future they are blighting and whose potential they are capping.

Education

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

Young carers are one of a number of vulnerable groups for whom EMA is especially important, and its loss would hit them and those who depend on them particularly hard. I hope that the Minister will consider that point among others.

My constituent told me that some of the means by which students will support themselves might be less than legal. He said that that was

“an opinion that I have heard in person on more than one occasion from students themselves”.

I have also heard similar comments about the potential of drug dealing as a source of income for students who lose EMA. I thought his was a balanced and responsible view of the impact of EMA from a member of staff with much experience.

The principal of Hugh Baird college in south Sefton, Jette Burford, also wrote to me saying that 84% of young people at the college currently receive EMA; that there is a clear indication that it has become a key part of the family income for those families; and that its discontinuation is very likely to impact on the participation rate locally. Ms Burford mentioned both the impact of losing the EMA on participation and attainment, and the fact that many students depend on it for help with their transport. When she wrote to me she did not know that Sefton students were likely to lose their free travel passes because Merseytravel has had its budget cut by two thirds.

EMA is essential for many students from low and middle-income families when it comes to travel, books, equipment and food, and its loss will make it very difficult for students to continue to study. EMA is a means-tested allowance of between £10 and £30 per week. Some 635,000 learners received at least one EMA payment in 2009-10, and about 80% of those received the full £30. That means that the people receiving the £30 come from low-income families on less than £20,800 per year. The loss of EMA for students from such low-income households will create a big hole in family incomes, which college principals have commented on.

EMA was introduced by the previous Labour Government to help with the cost of books, travel and equipment, and payments are made on the condition that students attend classes regularly. The evidence from colleges is that the incentive to turn up on time has worked well, and the evidence in Merseyside is that those on EMA outperform by 7% those who are not in receipt of it. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies gives a similar result.

The Department for Education is stopping new EMA at the end of this month, before it has alternative arrangements in place. The Department plans to stop paying the EMA in July 2011 to existing 16 to 18-year-old students who will be halfway through their courses. That means that EMA will be completely gone by July 2011—an unseemly rush. EMA has been widely credited with helping to create a big increase in the number of young people going on to college in the last seven years. The IFS revealed that EMA increased the proportion of 16-year-olds in full-time education by 4% and the proportion of 17-year-olds in full-time education by 7%.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Newham sixth-form college in my constituency has the largest percentage of students receiving EMA. When I spoke to those at the college last week, they informed me that, in order to stay on at school, many students just handed the £30 a week to their families.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the impact on family incomes, not just on the incomes of individual students.

The Association of Colleges continues to make it clear to Ministers and MPs that it thinks that the decision to abolish EMA will have a detrimental effect on recruitment, retention and achievement among 16 to 18-year-olds. A number of trade unions are also worried that axing EMA will mean that colleges are hit by further funding cuts—cuts that will put even more college jobs at risk. The coalition argues that 90% of the cost of EMA is “dead-weight”, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, that is an offensive statement to many students. It implies that students would have gone on to study without EMA. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Research by 157 large colleges and other, smaller colleges shows that students who receive the EMA have better attendance records and are more likely to complete courses than wealthier students who are not eligible for support. That research was published in The Times Educational Supplement on 3 December. Despite coming from the poorest families and, in some cases, having low qualifications, EMA students miss fewer classes and are more likely to stay in education than wealthier students. The IFS has confirmed that the costs of EMA are completely offset by the benefits, even taking into account the so-called “dead-weight” effect.

EMA has been a big success for students and the economy. It has improved the life chances of many, from low or middle-income families. EMA has improved this country’s skills base, because of the improved results among students receiving it, and has increased access to university for many, many students. The case for abolition is flawed, as it will see a cut in attendance that will not be addressed by the enhanced learner fund. As one college principal said to me, there is no way of knowing which students would stop attending and which would carry on if EMA was withdrawn. A review of EMA would be one thing; its abolition quite another. The coalition needs to withdraw its plans and it should continue with the widespread support for our young people that EMA promotes.

School Sports Funding

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As we know, he is utterly committed to ensuring appropriate provision for children who are living with disabilities, and I want to ensure that we get the spirit of both the Olympic and the Paralympic games into our schools. A lot of good work is going on, and I want to ensure that the money that we spend in future is targeted, in particular, at schools which often have a large number of children who are living with disabilities.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Michael Gove]

I am just answering my hon. Friend’s point.

I want to ensure that those schools get the support that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

It is important that we ensure that the very many Back Benchers who have not yet intervened but want to contribute have a chance to do so, and I should like to make some progress. With respect to the hon. Lady, there may be room for some interventions later.

I have talked about the nature of the bureaucracy. It is also important to talk about the nature of what has been delivered. It is important to recognise that, yes, there have been improvements, but they must be put into this context: £2.4 billion spent, and what have we seen for it? The right hon. Member for Leigh chided me in saying that in his view there had been an abuse of statistics. Well, the motion refers, I think, to 22% of children taking part in sports in 2002 and 90% doing so now. I have to point out to him that that is an abuse of statistics. The 22% figure was an estimate by Ofsted; 90% is a figure from a genuine survey. The first survey of involvement in school sports, in 2003-04, showed that more than 60% were already taking part. Yes, that is an improvement—I am happy to acknowledge it—but what we have seen is a manipulation of statistics for political purposes. I am happy to forgive the right hon. Gentleman, but let us be clear that he was not comparing like with like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I will not give way at this point.

If some schools can offer every student an opportunity to take part in intra-school and inter-school competitions, why cannot more do so?

[Lyn Brown]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

No, I shall not.

I believe that the time is right to consider a different approach. We should listen to some of the voices that are equally as committed to sport as the right hon. Gentleman. They include organisations such as Compass, which represents those who are involved in providing coaching support for schools. In a letter to me, it says that it is important that we cease

“to fund a costly central management and control system”,

and argues that

“the most sustainable model in primary schools is where coaches work alongside teaching staff...This will require no expenditure on centralised management and infrastructure.”

I have to take account of what it says.

In the same way, I listen to Greenhouse, a charity that has done a fantastic job in encouraging more children, particularly from areas of deprivation, to take part in sports. One of the trustees of Greenhouse, David Meller, says to me—[Laughter.] For the avoidance of doubt, I should stress that this is David Meller, the sponsor of Harefield academy, which I have had the opportunity to visit.

Schools White Paper

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is vital that we ensure that the pupil premium follows looked-after children as well. We all need to recognise that care leavers need not only support after they leave school but focused interventions while they are at school. We will be doing everything possible in that regard, and I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I represent one of the poorest boroughs in the country, and my head teachers are afraid that the introduction of the pupil premium will mean that they receive less money. Are they right to be afraid?

[Michael Gove]

The short answer is no. I am under the impression that Newham is an outer London borough and it will definitely benefit from the additional resources of the pupil premium. If it is in inner London, it will definitely benefit as well. The pupil premium will go—[Interruption.] Everyone will benefit, because there is more money overall.

Building Schools for the Future

Lyn Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg]

I have not yet answered the last question. The permanent secretary in the Department for Education wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and clearly said that the money was there. He would have asked for a letter of direction if there had been any impropriety or problems with that, but he did not do so. That is the key point, and something that the Conservative party keeps trying to push, although it is plain wrong.

I would like to make some progress. It is self-evident that the quality of the built teaching and learning environment, which embraces school buildings and the state-of-the-art facilities that they should house, will have a bearing on pupil attainment and the quality of teaching.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the cuts to the BSF programme are devastating, cuts to the information and communications technology upgrade are equally, if not more, damaging to the future of our children’s education?

[Derek Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I shall return to it at the end of my speech in some of the questions that I put to the Minister. He should not take my word on the situation, but should consider the findings of the 2010 school environment survey, conducted by the British Council for School Environments and the Teacher Support Network, in conjunction with the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. The report shows that 95.8% of teachers believe that the school built environment influences pupil behaviour, and over half felt that their surroundings had a negative effect. Investment in school buildings has had a more positive impact on teachers and learners, and such work must continue. That is evidenced by the fact that three quarters of teachers now regard their school as effective and adequate at providing an effective learning environment. That compares with two thirds of teachers in 2007.

Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, asserts:

“Teachers work incredibly hard to give their pupils a good education regardless of the physical environment, but it is much harder for children to concentrate if the classroom is too hot or cold or they can’t hear properly. We can’t stress enough that for teachers and children to teach and learn in an effective manner, school buildings need to be safe, clean, and inspiring.”

I also draw the Minister’s attention to last year’s report by the Government’s favourite auditor, KPMG, on the effects of the private finance initiative, which is central to many BSF projects, on education standards. It concluded that student attainment is 44% higher in PFI schools than in conventional schools, and it built on an American report from 2002 entitled, “Do school facilities affect academic outcomes?” That report found that

“spatial configurations, noise, heat, cold, light and air quality obviously bear on students’ and teachers’ ability to perform. This can be achieved within the limits of existing knowledge, technology and materials; it just requires adequate funding, competent design, construction and maintenance.”

In his article in The Guardian on 8 July, John Crace said that Michael Gove underestimates the impact of surroundings on school pupils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing the debate. Like him and like thousands of people in my constituency and millions throughout the country, I was appalled that the very first casualty of the Conservative and Lib Dem policy of savage cuts was investment in our schools. That will be deeply damaging to education and demoralising for students, parents, governors and teachers alike. It is also a big political mistake, because a lot of people who voted Lib Dem or Conservative were certainly not voting for that. In future, when people think of this Government, they will remember that the very first thing Ministers did was take the axe to our schools.

I want to highlight the casualties among schools in my constituency. Iffley Mead is a great special school. Ofsted rated it outstanding for care, guidance and support, and for personal development and well-being, and good in all other respects. The school anticipated the total replacement of outdated buildings, with state-of-the-art teaching areas for special needs, residential accommodation for looked-after children and respite facilities for families in need of additional support. People will find it impossible to understand why they evidently do not figure as part of the big society.

Cheney school, which is a community secondary, has been doing excellent work and has been building on an overall good Ofsted rating. It was looking forward to extensive rebuilding, including the replacement of science labs that were condemned as unsafe last year and which have now been closed. The school has significant numbers of children with special needs, for whom the current buildings, which do not have lifts, are not fit for purpose.

[Lyn Brown]

I am enjoying my right hon. Friend’s contribution very much, and it chimes totally with what is happening in Newham, where the John F Kennedy special school is one of 14 projects to have been cancelled by the Conservative party. Is it not ironic that some mainstream schools will be far better resourced than some schools that cater specifically for special needs children, who are the most vulnerable children in our communities?

[Mr Smith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Cheney is a good school that serves mixed communities and gets great results. It is a specialist school in languages and leadership, but, to add insult to injury, it has now heard that its £250,000 specialist schools money is also being cut.

We have to ask what message it sends simply to hack support away from schools such as these. I can assure the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who has just spoken, that there is nothing synthetic about the anger of Labour Members or the teachers, students and communities affected. There has been no assessment or evaluation of schools’ particular needs, and programmes are simply cut. Schools are now in limbo: they are told that Building Schools for the Future has been cancelled, yet they do not know what resources, if any, will be available to meet their pressing needs. That is a kick in the teeth for everybody who cares about those schools and who has been working hard for their success. What is the Minister’s message to those schools for the future?

I would also like to press the case of Bayards Hill primary school, which is due for total rebuilding and which had primary capital grant approved a couple of years ago. The catchment area includes one of the most disadvantaged communities in my constituency, and rebuilding would be a huge boost to aspiration and confidence. The school’s plans were all set to go, but they are now at real risk because Oxfordshire county council is looking at making huge cuts in all its programmes. I call on the county council to honour the pledges that have been made and to ensure that the project can go ahead.

This saga of school cuts is a shameful indictment of the priorities of the coalition Government, who are diverting resources from good schools with a proven track record and a clear need for investment to the damaging ideological experiment of their so-called free schools—let us remember that that is where the money is going. If the Government were listening to parents, teachers and governors, they would abandon this damaging policy now and reinstate investment in schools in our communities so that they could deliver the best opportunities and standards. If the Government do not listen, everyone will know in the years to come that the first big message from this coalition Government was that whereas Labour invested in the future of our schools and brought hope and opportunity, the Conservatives and Lib Dems brought cuts and despair. It is a tragedy that children’s education is paying the price for the Government’s monumental misjudgment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am sure that we are all glad that the former Minister has got that off his chest, but he has not left me much time in which to answer the real questions that hon. Members have asked. This is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and it is a pleasure. I welcome the large number of Members who have sought to participate in the debate. That demonstrates the interest in this matter, although it is notable that there are twice as many Conservative Members present as there are Labour Members.

[Lyn Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I will not give way.

[Lyn Brown]

I have sat through the whole debate to ask one question—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Tim Loughton]

Conservative Members have shown great interest in the debate, while Labour Members who have jumped up and down cannot be bothered to come here in the numbers we were promised.

[Lyn Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I will not give way.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing this interesting debate. I certainly recognise his passion for the subject and for the schools in his constituency. I also recognise the big impact that the Building Schools for the Future changes have had on his constituency and the good progress that those schools have made. He acknowledged that the BSF system was certainly not perfect, but he did not state what the effect on BSF would have been in the event of the re-election of a Labour Government committed to axing 50% from capital spending. The cuts have not just come about—

[Tim Loughton]

I will not give way because I want to answer the specific questions that the hon. Gentleman has asked. I can either take more interventions and not answer his questions, or I can answer his questions. The choice is his.

[Lyn Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) said in his speech that the coalition Government’s first cut was to the BSF budget, but it would have been the same had the Labour Government been re-elected because the money was never there for the scheme, despite all their vague promises.

Many hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken passionately about the effects of the BSF changes in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) has built a reputation for standing up for the schools in his constituency since his election in 2001, and I will certainly nudge my colleagues about the visits to his constituency and to the Department that he was promised. I also acknowledge the passion with which the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) spoke, particularly on his work in the interests of the young people in his constituency. I will answer three of the specific questions from the hon. Member for Halton, but if I miss any other hon. Members’ questions I will be happy to write to them if they nudge me afterwards.

First, the hon. Member for Halton asked about the review. It is led by Sebastian James, the director of DSG International, and is due to be completed by the end of the calendar year, with interim advice to be produced in September, ahead of the comprehensive spending review. Secondly, he asked about the impact on ICT funding. Basically, those decisions will be taken along with those on schools still under consideration and on the future of the scheme, which is being decided under the James review. Such considerations will be part of that review.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman made a point about playing fields. The review will include consideration of all requirements on schools, including their buildings and land. However, there is simply no intention to get rid of playing field regulations. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the review will support the coalition aim to protect such playing fields.

I also want to respond to the specific point made by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), about the consultant paid £1.35 million. The National Audit Office’s BSF report of 2009 said clearly, on page 37, in section 4.8, that the £1.35 million was paid to the firm KPMG for the financial services of “one individual” exclusively in that period. The hon. Gentleman knew that—[Interruption.] If he did not know that, he had not done his homework. He was a Minister in the Department at the time.

Let me restate the Government’s absolute commitment to raising standards of education in this country, an ambition shared by all hon. Members and certainly those in the Chamber today. From day one, we have been totally committed to raising educational standards and to tackling head-on some of the big problems bequeathed to us by the former Government.

The achievement gap between private and state schools has grown over the past 13 years. Just as painfully, standards have declined to the point at which 42% of pupils eligible for free school meals are not achieving a single GCSE above grade D. Only a quarter of GCSE students are achieving five or more GCSEs including English, maths, science and a foreign language. We are 24th in the league table for maths, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned.

The hon. Member for Halton claimed that all the changes to BSF are ideologically driven. That is true: the Government are ideologically ambitious to raise the quality of education for every child and to raise the standard of education in every school. The hon. Gentleman also said that the changes were the biggest attack against Labour-supporting areas. What about the attack on the aspirations of the constituents in those areas, building up their hopes of new school buildings when there was never any prospect of a re-elected Labour Government delivering them? That is the attack, and it was misleading, dishonest, opportunistic and immoral. Yet now Labour Members cry foul about how things are happening.

In contrast, we have committed to doubling the number of highly accomplished graduates teaching in our schools, to make sure that every child—especially the poorest—has access to excellent teaching.

I understand the grave disappointments of hon. Members about the BSF programme. I also understand the disappointment of the affected heads, teachers and pupils in the constituencies of the hon. Member for Halton and others who have spoken. It would have been wonderful to have inherited a decent financial legacy so that we could carry on with an efficient building programme to renew all our schools.

The hon. Member for Streatham said that abandoning the BSF programme made no sense. However, what does not make any sense is to leave our Government with a Budget deficit of £155 billion and a public sector net debt of £926.9 billion, or 63.9% of GDP. That is what does not make sense, and that is what is unfair to the children, teachers and parents who are now being let down by a plan that would never have been delivered in practice. It also discriminated against many schools in the later phases. They had no prospect of the money, because it had been lavished disproportionately—wasted—on the earlier schools. That is the truth of the matter.

It is vital to repeat the fact that, contrary to some of the wild reports, the BSF changes do not mean that school buildings and capital works will suddenly be stopped dead in their tracks. We remain committed to investing in the schools estate, to ensure that pupils are educated in buildings of a good standard, where they feel safe, comfortable and ready to learn. However, we must acknowledge that, as the Chancellor made clear in his Budget last month, we are living in a difficult fiscal climate and one in which £1 of every £4 we spend is borrowed. Increasingly, professionals across all public services are being asked to do more with less.

BSF was the flagship programme of the previous Government. Where it has delivered, it has seen some impressive new buildings, but at a huge cost—rebuilding a school under BSF is three times more expensive than a commercial building and twice as expensive as building a school in Ireland.