Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Yes, I will certainly do that—that seems a very helpful intervention. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, logistics, including ports, were a major part of our work in the growth review. A lot is now happening to open up British ports and invest in them, and I will certainly pursue his inquiry.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am very much looking forward to welcoming the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who is responsible for business and enterprise, to the festival for manufacturing in my constituency to celebrate what we have achieved in the constituency, and to promote more investment and employment. But one area that we need to focus on is the supply chain, so what are the Government planning to do to help with that?

[Mr Prisk]

I am pleased to say that not only will I be able to attend the Stroud manufacturing festival, which is an excellent example of the initiatives taken by those on this side of the House, but the Government have put in place a £125 million supply chain initiative. It builds on the work we have done in the automotive sector, it is a great opportunity and I hope it will be one of those areas where the Labour party will set aside the posturing and work with us positively.

Education Bill

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the Minister’s intervention, which reassures me somewhat, but Lords amendment 37, on setting up pilot schemes, reassures me more significantly. I think we will find that more significant issues arise here. It is not sufficient, from my point of view, to say that because two thirds will accept it, it must be fine. Two thirds might well accept it, but that does not mean that the administrative problems and complexities will not have made their lives more complicated. People might say, “Yes, I will accept it”, but it is not a straight choice leading to the accrual of untold benefits. There are costs and consequences from the decision made.

As I was saying, I spoke to some parents in my constituency and they told me that they wanted a system that was easy to administer and wanted to ensure that support was available. They wanted to ensure, too—this was a point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff West and others—that this was not an avenue to cost cutting. They wanted to make sure that Ministers understood the complexities of handling different panels, facing different options on statementing and having to look for disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and so forth. Those are costs placed on individuals. Two thirds might well say, “This is what we want to do”. That, however, with respect to the Minister, is not the point. The point is to make the system so simple and easy to do that everyone wishes to do it. I am not sure that we are at that point yet, which is why I welcome the proposal for the pilot schemes in Lords amendment 37.

My other reason for welcoming the amendment is that, as I have said, I do not want a measure that constitutes an avenue to cost-cutting. I accept that the Minister and his colleagues in the Department are absolutely committed to maintaining support and funding for the most vulnerable children, but in the present environment, every good policy can be open to talk of cuts and reductions. We hear such talk almost hourly from Opposition Members, in relation to a range of topics. Some may have valid points to make, but it is generally understood that those who have borrowed too much money and are living beyond their means have to make cuts in certain areas.

It would be devastating for the Government if the strong reforms that they want to make in regard to special educational needs, building on what the last Government did, became part of the debate about cuts. We can learn from a pilot scheme, and it will enable us to create a better system. Its mission should be to relieve parents of the burden of additional complexity. We should focus not on the take-up rate, but on reducing the cost to parents of individual budgets. That will help to ensure that the changes that are made bed down for the long term.

Having commented on those three issues—the duty to co-operate in a changing environment, the need to ensure that school admissions do not become the Achilles heel of the move towards new academies and free schools, and the need to reduce the complexity of special educational needs individual budgets for the benefit of parents—I offer my support for the amendments.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I want to talk about five aspects of the amendments. The first is the question of Ofqual. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Education Committee, about the fines. [Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] He is fairly used to disagreements, and always accepts them cheerfully, as he has just demonstrated.

The Government are right to think in terms of fines. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) put his finger on it when he noted that it was difficult to change examination boards in a timely manner if there were mistakes. There must be no mistakes in the preparation of exams.

The real problem, it seems to me, is that we have far too many examination boards, and I believe that the Education Committee will consider that in due course. We need accurate examinations so that students can feel confident that they are taking tests that are fair, proper and competent, and fines should be applied when those priorities are not honoured.

There is the important question of whether Ofsted should inspect outstanding schools. We must ensure that it concentrates on schools that are failing or coasting: as the Prime Minister rightly says, we must never fail to recognise that some schools are not doing a good enough job at present, and that they require our full attention. An Ofsted report is, of course, a snapshot of the situation that the Ofsted inspectors found during their visit, and is likely to convey contradictory messages. What I frequently find in my constituency, and certainly found when I was involved in education as a governor, is that such reports may not tell the story that other statistical evidence might tell.

I raised the problem when the Education Committee was considering Ofsted and its future. I asked witnesses what should be done when a school that is able to brandish very good exam results—five passes graded between A-star and C—receives an Ofsted report that tells a different tale. I know of two schools in my constituency that have been able to counter one bit of evidence with another, and both cases involved Ofsted reports. I therefore think that the Government are right to use the tool of Ofsted to focus more on the schools that are failing or coasting.

There are many different ways of measuring performance. We must enable parents to see, from year to year, that things are moving in the right direction in the schools that they choose—or may choose in the future—for their children. An annual assessment will be helped by effective league tables and the right kind of evidence presented in the right way.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Is my hon. Friend comfortable with the idea that some schools might not be inspected for 10 or 12 years?

[Neil Carmichael]

I would certainly be willing to see schools go without an Ofsted inspection for some time if they are consistently performing effectively and efficiently. Several years might elapse before an inspection, but I do not believe that we are talking of decades.

We must bear it in mind that there are other accountability mechanisms: the choice that parents make; the measurements that league tables offer; and the role of governors. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is not going to press the issue to a Division, but I consider it very important, and I think that the Government are right to be less prescriptive than they have been in the past. It is critical that we focus on what governing bodies should be, and on the role that they should have.

I have been involved in the establishment of an all-party parliamentary group on school governors, because I think that the issue has been overlooked for far too long. One of the key themes that the APPG is developing is the need to focus on skills rather than representatives of governing bodies, and it is reflected in both the Bill and the amendment. It is obvious to me, and, I believe, to most people—it was certainly obvious to all who were involved in the formation of the APPG—that a great many skills are required. It is a good idea to ensure that a local authority appoints a governor in consultation with the governing body, so that together they can come up with the right person to fill the skills gap. The school will then have a governing body that reflects its priorities and has the appropriate skills. I am glad that the Bill mentions the crucial role of governors, on whom I think we should turn the spotlight when we think about accountability.

That brings me to the question of reporting restrictions. Over 20 years, I have been involved in situations in which members of the teaching profession have had to undergo disciplinary procedures. Ironically, none has been connected with pupils, and I am pleased about that, but I could have done with a few reporting restrictions in one instance in particular. It is very difficult to manage such situations when they are being second-guessed by the press, which may investigate or discuss them in ways that are not helpful to the requirement that evidence is presented fairly and honourably so that people who are not involved in a case can make proper judgments and reach an unbiased conclusion. I discovered that if someone wants to get something published, they should simply mark it “private and confidential” and away it will go. It is right that the Bill examines this issue, because we have to ensure that our processes can be properly managed and controlled so that investigations can be undertaken and judgments made consistent with justice and good practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I think that we need to calibrate the system to ensure that there is a good age spread. I probably should have emphasised to an even greater degree—you know what I am for understatement, Mr Deputy Speaker—the need to make growth sustainable. If it is to be sustainable, it will be necessary to address issues such as those that have been raised tonight. By “sustainable growth”, I mean growth that offers older learners the opportunities to upskill and progress that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness—opportunities to create a vocational pathway of the quality that we both seek, the “gold standard” for apprenticeships. I had used that term myself, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby may have read it, imbibed it subliminally and repeated it. I know that he would normally have attributed it; perhaps it was by accident that he did not.

We also need to be constantly vigilant about the quality of the offer. Let me set out some of the things we are doing in that respect. I have made it very clear to the National Apprenticeship Service that poor provision should be eliminated. We have to be very tough on any provision reported to us that we investigate and find not to be of sufficient quality.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one key measure of the success of apprenticeships—this certainly applies to levels 2 and 3, and is consistent with his views about economic growth, sustainability and so on—is what happens in manufacturing and engineering? Does he agree that all the measures that we should be thinking of in terms of developing that sector should be implemented?

[Mr Hayes]

Another bit of good news when we saw the figures from the statistical release was the substantial growth in manufacturing and engineering apprenticeships; the number of starts was 47,000, which was an increase of 20% on the 2009-10 figure. So we had very strong growth in the very apprenticeships that my hon. Friend rightly identifies as crucial to our future prospects. Interestingly, the figures clearly show that there is growth across the system. Again rather counter-intuitively from the perspective of the critics, there has been growth in sectors where employment more generally has either slowed or declined. So apprenticeships seem to be bucking the trend in areas such as manufacturing and engineering. Even in construction, where there has been a very sharp decline in employment, apprenticeship numbers have held up. That suggests that businesses are investing in training and in their future, and that apprenticeships are succeeding. This is a flagship policy, devised in opposition and delivered in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Perhaps we will see the end of this speech, but not the end of my career, not the end of this Government and not the end of my time here, which I see stretching a great long distance into the future.

Let me return to the points made by the shadow Secretary of State for Education in respect of the Lords amendment and particularly the apprenticeship offer. He implored us to go further. Indeed, his amendment to the Lords amendment asks us to do so. He asks us to strengthen the offer, having acknowledged with typical generosity, the progress that we have made in this respect. I will again take seriously his remarks about how we market this. An important part of what we do with apprenticeships is selling the product. I have made it clear to the National Apprenticeship Service that its job is as a marketing and sales organisation. Its job is to get more companies to understand the value of apprenticeships, more individuals to understand the opportunities that they provide to them personally and more providers to rise to the challenge and to ensure that they are in the best place possible to deliver apprenticeships. As a result of his overtures, rather than accepting the amendment to the Lords amendment—he would hardly expect me to do that—I will look again at how we can market the renewed offer in the most effective way possible.

[Neil Carmichael]

On marketing apprenticeship schemes, does my hon. Friend agree that the key area that we should focus on is small and medium-sized enterprises, because they need to grasp the opportunities that apprenticeships can bring them and the apprentices?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. In opposition, of course, it was our policy to offer a financial incentive to support SMEs, which we felt would have a real and perceived risk associated with taking on apprentices, through the means of some kind of payment. We were unable to do that because of the financial constraints that affect the whole Government, but we can make more progress in respect of bureaucracy. We need to make the system accessible, straightforward and simple. We need to get rid of the bureaucracy that has sometimes inhibited small businesses from engaging in the apprenticeship programme. Yes, we will go further, and spurred on by my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm, I will make further announcements on reductions in bureaucracy, specifically for SMEs. He is right that their engagement in apprenticeships is critical, not least because if we are to spread apprenticeships and seed them into every community, village and town, we cannot simply rely on the excellent apprenticeship schemes of major businesses, such as BT, BAM, BAE, the Royal Navy, Ford Motor Company, EDF, the Royal Air Force, Sellafield, Bentley Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, GE Aerospace, Caterpillar, Honda and others. We need to have apprenticeships in smaller businesses and micro-businesses, too, such as those in my constituency—in the small villages and towns, where if we were to ask young people in particular to get an apprenticeship, they could only do so locally, because of travel and accessibility issues.

New Schools

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted that one of the first free schools was opened in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I would be delighted to visit it with her. I am also delighted that organisations such as University college London have sought to extend academy provision in Camden. Sadly some small-r-reactionary and small-c-conservative elements in the local Labour party have not advanced that cause. I cannot imagine that she would make common cause with those who put ideology above children’s futures.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision today. I also think that he is absolutely right to quote Mr Hyman’s comments about inspiring young people to do great things. However, will he ensure that those great things include contributing to manufacturing and engineering in this country?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all know that in contributing to economic growth, we cannot at this stage anticipate all the skills that the jobs and companies of the future will require, but we know that a rigorous training in mathematic and scientific disciplines will help. That is the emphasis of so many of the schools being set up today.

Careers Service (Young People)

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend speaks with customary clarity on these issues, and tells us what life is like for the young people he represents, many of whom might be new arrivals in this country who do not understand how young people can open the doors to education, training and jobs. He has put his finger on the problem. The Government take the view that schools can do everything, and that everything can be pushed down to the schools. Some things need to be organised across the whole local authority, however, if we are to maintain quality and expertise.

I am prepared to believe that schools could provide the necessary advice, but the transition process needs to be managed so that the experts who are currently working for the local authorities can be brought into the schools to provide the advice from those schools. Instead, this lot are allowing those people to be let go and made redundant, even though they have many years experience in the careers service. They are being lost to the profession, and in a few months’ time the schools will be expected to subscribe to a phone or web-based service.

Government Members might think that this is funny, but I do not. We are talking about young people’s life chances, and those young people deserve better than what the Government are giving them. We owe them more, because the world that they are facing is far harsher than the one that we lived in 30 or so years ago. Young people today can expect to have at least 10 different jobs throughout their careers—probably more. Unlike their grandparents, who did specific jobs in large industries, they will be most likely to work in smaller companies. They will need to be all-rounders, able to adapt quickly to new situations. It is also more likely that they will be employers as well as employees.

The harsh truth is that it is getting harder for everyone to get on, but the odds are being stacked much more heavily against those who have the least. If we do not act, this century will see us return to a world in which the postcode of the bed that people are born in will pretty much determine where they end up in life. In today’s world, as traditional structures break down, social networks and connections are becoming the key to jobs and opportunities. In some industries—sadly, we can count Parliament among them—it has become almost expected that a young person will have to work for free before they can get their first foot on the ladder. That is wrong; it is the exploitation of young people’s determination to get on.

If we allow the situation to continue in which there is no careers advice and in which the only way in is through having a connection with a company or organisation and moving to London to work for free, we will limit the job opportunities in the most sought-after careers in the country to less than 1% or 2% of the population. That is not a situation that I am prepared to accept. Parliament needs to step in and level up the playing field, to ensure a fair distribution of life chances around the country. We need to help those young people who have the least.

A statutory careers service is important because not all young people get the same support and advice at home. Dame Ruth Silver, chair of the Careers Profession Task Force, says of the Government’s approach:

“It will further deepen deprivation, because some people come from families who have never worked; the ones who need it most are those who don’t have successful adults in their lives.”

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State rightly talks about levelling up the playing field. Does he acknowledge the concerns expressed by Dr Alison Wolf about courses leading to no employment, or leading to a “road block” because they are not allied to any specific employment prospects?

[Andy Burnham]

I have some sympathy with that argument, but it is an argument for more and better careers advice, not less. We have some sympathy with the view that we need to ensure that all qualifications should be of a decent standard and should lead somewhere. We accept that view and we will support the Government in that regard, but that is not an alternative; we still need good quality careers advice alongside those routes. I feel passionately that, collectively, the whole lot of us here have failed the 50% or more of young people who are not going to go down the university route. We have not done enough to provide them with a proper structure or a proper route through to good qualifications and a good job, and it is about time that we addressed that balance. It is about time that this House, rather than focusing on the top 20% and the English baccalaureate, thought about a pathway for all children, so that they can all fulfil their potential.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Lady was not here at the start, and I am not sure whether she has heard the whole debate. Her point does not quite fit. We want young people to make the right choices for them. We should strongly encourage the teaching of foreign languages, particularly in primary schools, but they will not be right for all young people. The question I would ask her is this: why are young people who want to do engineering, information and communications technology, business studies, economics, music, art or other creative subjects being told that they are somehow second best because those subjects are not in the English baccalaureate? What is it that justifies the Government ranking some subjects above others—and, by definition, ranking some children above others?

[Neil Carmichael]

rose—

[Andy Burnham]

I give way one last time to the hon. Gentleman.

[Neil Carmichael]

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s response to my previous intervention, will he shed some light on his view on the need to involve employers in creating the courses and qualifications that lead to outcomes for young people? One thing Professor Alison Wolf made very clear is that employers should be much more involved in the FE sector and in the formation of courses and qualifications.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman makes another good point. I agree with him, but urge him, perhaps when the Minister is speaking, to stand up and ask his Front-Bench team what discussions they had with the CBI before they introduced the English baccalaureate. What is the CBI’s view of it? Does it respond sufficiently to the needs of employers. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding and I hope he will direct those questions to his Front-Bench team. Quite frankly, we risk preparing young people for a world that no longer exists and we need to ensure that young people have the crucial skills—good communication skills, critical thinking and good presentational skills—that they will need if they are to survive in a workplace where much more is demanded of them.

The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning is not in his place this evening, but when we last debated these issues he said:

“Let us once and for all kill off the bourgeois, left assumption that working-class people do not aspire to the same things as their middle-class contemporaries. Their ambitions are the same; what they lack is the wherewithal.”—[Official Report, 11 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1257.]

I agree with that statement. Let me share a shocking statistic with the House; I genuinely find it appalling. It is that 39% of 16 to 19-year-olds who went to a state school say that they do not know anyone in a career in which they would like to work. This rises to 45% among the poorest young people who receive free school meals. What Ministers fail to recognise is that if someone does not know a single person in a career in which they would like to work, they might not be able to fulfil their aspirations in the same way as others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

On the first point, the duty to provide advice to vulnerable young people who face problems in accessing education will remain with local authorities, whereas the duty to provide careers advice is transferring to schools. Of course, schools currently have a duty to provide careers education, within which an element of careers advice is also required. We are introducing that duty in the Education Bill at a time when we are acting to reduce bureaucracy and remove unnecessary duties and burdens from schools to allow them to focus on driving up standards, so the fact that we are introducing that new duty is a signal of the importance that the Government attach to high-quality careers guidance.

We are giving schools that duty for two reasons. First, we believe in the concept of decentralisation and of devolving decision making. We trust schools to take decisions in the best interests of their pupils, and restoring trust to the teaching profession is the cornerstone of our approach to education reform. Some argue, as has been argued today, that schools have an inbuilt bias to advise pupils to stay on in the sixth form regardless of whether it is in their best interests. That is why the Education Bill imposes the duty on schools to give advice that is independent.

Many of the incentives for schools were distorted by the structure of the league tables. Professor Alison Wolf set out this problem in her landmark report on vocational education. She said that false equivalencies have encouraged schools to enter pupils for qualifications that score highly in performance tables but are not necessarily valued by employers—effectively building bad advice into the system. Some qualifications have been proclaimed as being equal to four GCSEs, but they do not provide the broad grounding that students need to progress. As a consequence, some pupils have been encouraged to make choices that significantly reduce their prospects for success in later life.

That is why we are reforming performance tables—to end the damaging impact of false equivalencies, as well as removing perverse incentives in the funding system that have encouraged schools and colleges to offer qualifications that are easier to complete but do not necessarily provide the rigour and quality that students need. We are also introducing destination measures that set out where school leavers go after they leave school—whether into high-quality employment with training, to further education colleges or to university.

[Neil Carmichael]

The shadow Secretary of State asked me to ask the Minister about the E-bac, and I do so with pleasure because I welcome its introduction. I think it will have a huge impact in improving opportunities for young people. Does the Minister agree that it respects and represents the preferences of many employers and universities in that it encourages students to do the right subjects and get the right range of qualifications?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes; my hon. Friend makes a very good point. Whatever people say, employers disproportionately employ people with the E-bac subjects among their qualifications.

Our approach is to measure and report on the outputs—on what schools achieve for their pupils. The destination measure will say more about the success of a school’s approach to careers advice and will do more to deliver high-quality advice than will any number of detailed regulations.

The second reason for giving schools the duty is that they are best placed to decide what support their pupils need to make the right choices. We have considered carefully the evidence about what works and what does not work in the provision of information, advice and guidance. The approaches that are most effective work because they are part of a wider approach in a school or college that promotes ambition and aspiration, and encourages pupils to think about their future throughout their education. Effective careers guidance is not a one-off event.

There is no single right way; many different approaches work, depending on the precise circumstances of the school or pupil. That is why it is right to leave schools to decide how to provide impartial independent advice. How they choose to do that should be determined by what works for them. In making choices about how to provide impartial advice, they will benefit from independent benchmarks of quality—something that was recommended by the taskforce on careers guidance led by Dame Ruth Silver, which was commissioned by the previous Government and reported to us last year.

Alongside the duty for schools, local authorities will also have responsibility for encouraging young people to stay in education to the age of 17 or 18 by 2015. They are free to determine how best to fulfil that responsibility, taking account of local priorities. That is a duty that local authorities take seriously.

There will also be free online and helpline services for young people, which will be provided through the national careers service from April 2012. The motion mentions a requirement to provide “face-to-face” guidance for every young person, and that was also recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark in his report as the advocate for access to education. The issues that he raises in his report are important: making the right choices at the key decision points in a young person’s education and career can open or close a lifetime of opportunities. We are still considering all 33 recommendations in his report—not just the one recommendation that has been picked up by the Opposition—so we are not, at this stage, ruling anything in or out, and we will respond in full to his report in due course.

We also need to recognise that although advice is important, other elements are also fundamental to a pupil’s ability to achieve and progress. If a pupil does not have a thorough grounding in the basics of literacy and numeracy, or is not given the opportunity to study the subjects that are the best foundation for progression, the best information and advice in the world will not help that pupil to progress far beyond the constraints that a poor education has put on him or her. The evidence is very clear that the longer someone stays in education, the higher their earnings are and the less likely they are to be unemployed. OECD figures show that the earnings premium resulting from a university degree is between $200,000 and $300,000. People with two or more A-levels can earn 14% more than those without. For those who secure five good GCSEs the chances of being NEET are just one in 40, whereas for those who do not achieve five or more good GCSEs the odds fall to one in six.

For young people who are set on pursuing a vocational route at an early age we are promoting university technical colleges and studio schools, we are encouraging FE colleges to consider recruiting students at age 14 and we are allowing further education lecturers to teach in schools. That is also why we are increasing apprenticeship places for 16 to 18-year-olds, with 102,900 young people starting apprenticeships in the first nine months of this year compared with 117,000 for the whole of the last academic year. That is why we have protected school budgets in cash terms, and why we have ensured that we are funding participation at age 17 by 2013 and at age 18 by 2015. It is also why we make no apology for prioritising resources on funding for early years on the pupil premium in schools and on funding for disadvantaged young people post-16.

School Funding Reform

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, and I am particularly interested in the private finance side of things, with regard to improved specification systems. Will the Secretary of State consider the need to build in more capacity when looking at the school funding formula, so that schools can plan ahead?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good point from another member of the Education Committee. One of the things we want to do is to ensure that good schools can expand. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made the point earlier that when we have good schools we often find that the original pupil place planning is out of date. We need a system of school buildings that is flexible enough to accommodate parental choice.

Academies (Funding)

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman’s inquiry is that we are discussing this matter because an urgent question application was submitted to me and granted by me. No further discussion of that point is required.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Is it not the case that this urgent question has certainly underlined the need for a full investigation and inquiry into the discredited system that the last Government used for the funding of schools, which was unfair and inefficient? Is it not ironic that this issue has been raised when schools want more autonomy from such systems? Is it not also the case that we should support—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is enough. The hon. Gentleman has had a good outing and I am sure he has enjoyed it.

Vocational Education

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Ultimately there will never be a single perfect accountability measure. The one he mentioned on floor standards has helped us to raise attainment in schools, but one measure does not fit all. I therefore welcome his support for developing a more sophisticated way of analysing attainment, so that students with lower ability but real commitment can be recognised, and in particular so that schools that take students with low levels of previous attainment and transform their outlooks can be properly recognised and applauded.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I welcome Professor Wolf’s report and the Government’s response. I was on the Education Select Committee that discussed the baccalaureate and was left in no doubt that Professor Wolf thought it was consistent with her interest in ensuring a proper academic basis to the measurement of pupils’ performance. Does the Secretary of State agree that the baccalaureate will enable pupils to make sensible, informed choices and give them the confidence to implement those decisions when opportunities arise?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members on both sides of the House listened attentively to his question. We should pay particularly close attention to him, given the role he has played in further education. We know—every nation knows—that if students can reach a solid academic level by the age of 16, they will be in a strong position to choose which academic and vocational pathways they can move between later. Having a solid academic core creates no tension. In fact, it is an absolute precondition to success in vocational education.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

20. What progress he has made on the implementation of his proposals for a groceries code adjudicator.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

The groceries code adjudicator Bill is being drafted. I had hoped to publish it before Easter, but now I expect that publication will happen soon after Easter.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Farmers in my constituency are very anxious to see the introduction of an adjudicator. Will it have sufficient powers to impose financial penalties if there is persistent avoidance of the code of practice?

[Mr Davey]

When we publish the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will see that we wish to have a reserve power for the adjudicator on penalties, but there is also a real case to be made for the adverse publicity that large supermarkets would face if they breached the groceries supply code of practice.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to follow that very lengthy and detailed speech by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

This debate needs to cover several points, some of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Education Committee. For example, unfortunately we have a huge number of NEETs in our country. That is a measure of the failure to deal with children in early years education in a proper and satisfactory way. Until we got into government, there was a failure to deal with the widening inequality gap—a damning indictment—and we have to tackle that.

I want to say a few words about resources. This debate is, to some extent, influenced by the fact that we are in a period of reductions in public expenditure, so it is worth noting that we spend almost 40 times as much paying interest on this country’s debt as we do on the subject that we are talking about. That puts our funding difficulties into perspective.

Of course, we have Sure Start facilities in my constituency—for example, Treetops in Dursley, which is first class. It is very important to ensure that Sure Start really does what the label says. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) is right that it is a very good brand, and it does say something that is really encouraging—a sure start. However, we must be completely certain that that is exactly what happens. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) was right to talk about the importance of evaluation and ensuring that Sure Start works in every different area.

[Bill Esterson]

I want to give an example from personal experience. My own family were lucky enough to have access to a children’s centre some years ago when my son was three years old, and we certainly benefited as a family, but this is more about the other families who were from more disadvantaged backgrounds than ours. They clearly stated that in terms of opportunities and development, the differences between the younger children who had access to children’s centres and their older siblings were very noticeable within the same families, let alone on the same estates between different families. That evidence was very strong, and I could see it at first hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would say that that is the experience of Sure Start in one situation, but we need to be sure that all Sure Starts deliver high standards for all the children who attend.

I want to make two general points about Sure Start. First, there is the issue of localism, which has cropped up several times. The real need is to ensure that we shape our services for the needs that we find on the ground where we see the problems. It is therefore right that local authorities have more influence in allocating and shaping provision. This is the converse of the previous Government’s approach, which was always top down, telling everybody what it was important to do and ensuring they did it, but not taking into account people’s needs, especially local circumstances. That obsession with top-down control often means that people end up worrying too much about the structure and too little about those within it and the children needing to benefit from it.

Secondly, we are no longer ring-fencing funding. That is right, because it is important to have local accountability for the provision of services and to enable local authorities to make the decisions that they want to make. The way in which the Government are now funding Sure Start is the better way to ensure that these facilities can be more flexible and adaptable. I make the case for localism on those terms.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I would like to pull together the point that my hon. Friend has just made and the point about evaluation. Does he agree that if we are to have a more localist approach, national Government need to ensure that evaluation takes place so that we have the data to see whether local authorities are making a difference to the school-readiness of children when they turn up? If we spend all this money and it does not make any difference, as the Durham studies have shown in too many cases involving poorer children, then we are spending money to no positive result.

[Neil Carmichael]

My hon. Friend is right. We need to be sure that we deliver the outcomes that we want. If we are obsessed with process, structures and all the rest, and not with outcomes and delivery, we are letting down the very children we aspire to help.

The Education Committee went on a trip to Finland, where there were some interesting points to note, one of which was schools’ involvement in more than just teaching the children. Schools always had social care provision and, in effect, district nurse provision, and there was proper, regular consultation between those providers and the teachers if there was a problem. That is well worth thinking about. It is important to consider other ways of doing things than simply the prescribed way from central Government. As I have often said, it is sensible to look at other systems, not necessarily to copy them completely, because that cannot be done effectively—there are too many obstructions such as different cultures and priorities—but to pick up ideas that can be transferred. I urge people to keep an open mind about that kind of arrangement.

Before we got to Finland, we were in Germany. There, too, I learned something, which was that the Germans have a different approach to NEETs, and they did not seem to have nearly as great a problem as we have had. They were taking relatively proactive measures to encourage young people to become involved in society at an early stage and to give them signposted ways into further education and employment. That is something that we could pick up on. There is a lot more detail that we could discuss about those trips that would be useful to the debate, but I mention those two examples.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead was entirely right, and very moving, when he spoke about family structures where parents were sometimes unable to provide decent parenting for their children, and wondered whether he could have survived in certain circumstances. We must recognise that this is a very serious issue. We cannot, as a society, be happy when such comments can be made and readily accepted without question. We must concentrate on improving parenting—not in the case of all parents, obviously, but those with the biggest challenges and problems.

I met a lady in my constituency who is in charge of the Nationwide Community Learning Partnership, which focuses on providing strong and effective programmes for improving parenting. I urge the Minister to think very carefully about such programmes, which offer a way forward. That organisation is of a very high standard. It is based in the county of Gloucestershire but has functions across the country. I think that, allied to Sure Start activities, helping people in need of parenting skills is a way forward. I invite the Minister to meet the Nationwide Community Learning Partnership, because I think that it would bring something of value to the discussion.

We need to be more flexible and open-minded on this issue. We need to recognise that Sure Start has a strong role to play. It is sensible to have a localist and flexible approach to providing such support.

In this debate, it is worth remembering the role that the pupil premium will have in helping children. I do not think that it has yet been amplified, but I believe that it is an important way of getting financial support to the right place at the right time. The schools I have visited in my constituency that will receive a large amount of pupil premium recognise its value.

The Government’s decision to provide funding for two and three-year-olds is a big step in the right direction. As hon. Members have said, one can tell when children who need that support have received it and when they have not. To solve the problems of children in this category, it is logical that we must help them when it really matters, and it really matters at that young age.

This is an important debate. We have to be sure of the quality of the services that we provide. We need better evaluation and a wiser way of interpreting the data. We must capture the needs of local people and children in a much more intelligent way. To a large extent, that means trusting local authorities to do just that. It is right to have this debate at this time. There are a lot of challenges and we should not rest until the headline figures that I referred to at the beginning of my remarks come down much faster than they have done thus far.

Education Bill

Neil Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I am reminded of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Education Committee Chairman, who, towards the beginning of the debate, talked about Benjamin Disraeli and how important education was to him.

When Disraeli was talking about education, however, Bismarck was launching secondary education in Germany, and we did not get around to that until 1944. Education has always been a case of catch-up for us, and that is one reason why it is so important to focus on international comparisons. The first battle that we have to fight is the battle between ourselves and other nation states. It is an important battle and one for which we have plenty of weapons. One is having trust and confidence in our head teachers, another is having trust and confidence in our teachers and another is ensuring that our reform of the education system empowers schools to get on with their job.

The second battle that we have to fight is the battle for fairness, and this legislation helps in that regard, too, because, first, 120,000 two-year-olds will receive proper reading support, which is absolutely imperative, and secondly, we are investing £2.5 billion in the pupil premium. Those are signal efforts to ensure that we can win the battle for fairness. So there are two battles, and both are critical.

I shall comment on a few aspects of the Bill which have not been mentioned. First, on our proposals to reform Ofsted, we are right to ensure that it focuses on teaching, leadership and management, not on peripheral matters which are important, but not to the exclusion of what goes on in the classroom. So the first thing I say is, “Get it right over Ofsted.” That leads me on to intervention.

[Meg Munn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Carmichael]

No, I am not going to, because I only have a few minutes.

We have to intervene in failing schools. In my constituency we have one or two, but a failing school is not a good school and we should never, ever tolerate it. So we have to ensure that action is taken.

Secondly, I welcome our focus on 16 to 19-year-old education. We are empowering the Secretary of State to be in charge of that budget, and quite right too, because we cannot have people sitting in the same college classroom receiving funding from different sources and, often, different levels of funding. That is not satisfactory, and we should not tolerate it, because we have to address the skills shortage and tackle the fact that too many people do not receive sufficient training when they need it. That is bad for the first battle to which I referred, in terms of our contest with other nation states, and it is bad for the small and medium-sized businesses in our constituencies. Let us be clear about this: our focus on skills training is absolutely right.

On the baccalaureate, it is not right to say that children should not have proper education in the key subjects—they should. That is what we are saying in the Bill, and quite right too. I fully support that.

The responsibility for ensuring that the leadership and management of a school are properly focused will come down to governance, and the Bill needs to say more about that. We must remember two things about governance. First, we must focus on the skills of governors to ensure that they are willing and able to challenge the teachers and head teachers when appropriate. They must have the confidence to stand up and say, “Enough is enough”, because they are standing up for our children. Secondly, we should think less about the representative side of governance and more about what governors do and the responsibilities they have. I should like to draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State.

In summary, I support the Bill. Of course it can be improved, as can all pieces of legislation. However, the two battles that I mentioned are the battles we fight and the battles we must win.