School Funding Reform

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

That is absolutely correct. What I want to do is make sure that the schools in greatest need receive the funding. Resources are limited and it will be difficult to prioritise, but we must be fair.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Thursday I will meet school governors from Walthamstow. The Secretary of State has just, again, cruelly dashed their hopes that our fears about the lack of school places and the condition of our schools in Walthamstow will be acknowledged. Will he join me at the meeting on Thursday and explain for himself why he will give Waltham Forest the money for its legal fees but not the money to fix the leaky roofs and the asbestos problem that we have in our schools, or for the school places that we so desperately need?

[Michael Gove]

That was a passionate case well made, but I have to emphasise that I need to be fair to all local authorities. That means that we will look at the condition of schools in all local authorities, and the evidence will be sifted objectively. I am aware that Walthamstow, like many London boroughs and many areas in the south-east, is facing particular pressure on primary school places. Because Building Schools for the Future was primarily about secondary school places, we need to ensure that the absolute need for every child to secure a school place is at the front of everything we do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I note that the hon. Gentleman has promoted me from Marty McFly to Pontius Pilate in just 30 seconds. Far from washing my hands, however, I have been actively intervening to ensure that, across Government, we make certain that pensions for valued public sector workers such as teachers are protected, while at the same time being fair to all taxpayers and reflecting the reforms that Lord Hutton, in his excellent report, suggested we pursue.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What recent representations he has received on the benefits of year-round youth services.

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

I discuss youth services regularly with a wide range of stakeholders, particularly young people. The Government acknowledge the value of year-round services when they are of high quality, but too many are of variable quality, insufficiently targeted on those most in need, and not open to a range of providers. Through the early intervention grant we are encouraging local authorities to improve services by making better use of the voluntary sector, increasing the involvement of local businesses, and ensuring that disadvantaged young people receive early help.

[Stella Creasy]

On 4 May, the Minister told the Select Committee on Education that he was concerned about the “bang for your buck” in the provision of universal youth services. The Committee’s report on youth services shows that the national citizen service, as currently constructed, does not provide value for money. What action is the Minister taking to prevent himself from being hauled before the Public Accounts Committee for wasting valuable resources that should go to our young people?

[Tim Loughton]

I noticed that the term “value for money” tripped rather awkwardly from the hon. Lady’s lips. The Select Committee report was about services beyond the school day for young people aged between 13 and 25, yet the press release focused almost solely on the national citizens service, which is for 16-year-olds. We are running pilots this year. The purpose of pilots is to see how things work, and in this case to ensure we get value for money and the biggest bang for our buck so that as many of our 16-year-olds as possible will benefit from this wonderful scheme in years to come. I hope the hon. Lady will visit one of the schemes in her area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Prisk]

I will be delighted to do so. Not only have we got the moratorium exempting small businesses from future regulation, but we have cut by 70% down to 46 the 157 proposals, many of them legacies from the past Government, and only 11 of them will cost business anything at all. We are ending the gold-plating of e-regulations, and we are changing the approach so that we sunset regulation in the future. Each of those steps will make a difference, and I will make sure that we report back to the House each and every year.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Back in February, the House debated the problems caused by high-cost credit and agreed to consider a cap on the cost of credit. Following that, 15 MPs from across the House wrote to the Minister responsible asking for a meeting to discuss how we might take that decision forward. Five months later, during the recess, he responded, stating that he was too busy to meet us. As the number of people borrowing from these companies rises in all our constituencies every month, will the Secretary of State show some respect for the House and respond to this legitimate issue by agreeing to meet us?

Education Performance

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on what the pass rate among private schools was for the English baccalaureate? One of the problems with a retrospectively applied mechanism is that many schools were not doing the courses and subjects involved, so the figures that he mentioned are not really equivalent. Perhaps this is a debate and a point that he might want to make in two or three years’ time, when everyone has been forced to do them by this policy.

[Damian Hinds]

As the hon. Lady should know—her colleagues may help her—we are not talking about the national curriculum, but a measure of how many children take one particular subset of subjects. The measure is not to be compulsory. The fact that it was revealed that some private schools were not offering those subjects tells us other interesting things. We have not got time, sadly, to debate them all now, but I would love to on a separate occasion.

Conversations with colleagues from all parts of the House on the subject have been interesting. I am sure that there will be exceptions to this, but most colleagues to whom I talk, whether they went to a comprehensive, grammar or secondary modern school, all studied the English baccalaureate. We did not necessarily pass all those exams, but that was pretty much considered the obvious set of exams that kids would take. The fact that that happened in the past does not make it perfect or right, but it does raise the question of why that has changed. As I say, we are not talking about a perfect measure. In fact, I would suggest that any single measure of performance of any particular age group will promote gaming behaviour. A particular issue with the English baccalaureate—I fully accept this—is that not every child is ever going to be in contention, as it were, for making that benchmark. There needs to be a balanced basket of measures. Alongside the English baccalaureate, I would hope that we might see a technical baccalaureate, and perhaps others, too.

Ministers are going down that exact track. We had the opportunity to talk to the Minister about that in the Education Committee the other day. There are more, rather than fewer, measures coming through, but that memo does not seem to have arrived in a lot of staff rooms, where the assumption seems to be that the English baccalaureate will be the sole or primary measure. In fact, in that basket of measures—this was alluded to earlier—the most important measure or measures should be things that track not a snapshot of achievement, but progress over time. That is what school is all about: developing the individual and helping them to fulfil their potential. If we lead on measures of progress, we get rid of any incentive there might be to select only those children who will be, as it were, easiest.

Contextual value added is not that measure. I have now sat on the Education Committee for a year; I am still waiting for the first teacher, head teacher, union leader, educational psychologist, education professional or anyone else to mention contextual value added as a measure of the achievement of any school, local authority or anything else. That has not happened, because it is an impenetrable measure—it is impossible to figure out what it means. When I have asked people to explain, I have quickly wished that I had not.

The Government are working on a specific measure or measures of the progress of children at the most challenging end of the scale. In our recent Select Committee report, “The role and performance of Ofsted”, we recommended something in which I firmly believe: a metric system tracking the performance of all the different ability groups—by quintile, for example—and measuring the progress of those not only in the middle and bottom of the range, but in the gifted and talented category at the top. We recommended Ofsted as probably being in the best position to interpret the accompanying complex data and to convert them into the English language in a way that contextual value added struggles to do.

There is a real danger of drowning in a sea of measures—uncapped GCSE scores, five or more A* to C grades, five or more A* to C grades with mathematics, contextual value added, raw value added and the English baccalaureate—or, potentially, a technical baccalaureate, the new measure of progress among the most challenging and challenged students. Ultimately, we need one or two lead measures to hold schools to account so that parents know what the key things to look at are.

I am keen to hear the Minister’s comments, but I suggest that the five or more A* to C grades is not that measure for a couple of reasons: first, because of its tendency to focus on the average and on that borderline between C and D grades; and, secondly, because it is a cliff-edge binary measure, which therefore does not take into account enough of the richness going on in that cohort.

I suggest that the best lead way in which to measure school performance is a combination of some sort of average point score measure—perhaps the average point score towards the English baccalaureate subjects, or something else—and a progress measure, whether a simplified version of value added or something more like the progress by quintile that I was outlining.

I still managed to speak for more than the five or six minutes that I thought I was going to, for which I apologise profusely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but of course there is plenty of room outside the English baccalaureate to study RE, music and art and, indeed, for some pupils to take a vocational subject. We have deliberately kept the English baccalaureate small to enable that to happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) spoke of consistent application of school rules and pointed to how dramatically a school can improve its academic performance once behaviour is sorted out. He is absolutely right. He called for more flexibility in the movement of heads going back to teaching. The Government certainly intend to allow more flexibility in terms and conditions for our schools. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby was right to pay tribute to Teach First, and I welcome his support for its expansion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) said that the paucity of aspiration was a key characteristic of poorly performing schools. He is absolutely right. We must grapple with that in all our schools, to ensure that we do not sell children short, particularly those from homes where there is not much aspiration; we need to replicate that aspiration in school. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for synthetic phonics. I hope that young Master Field is already reading at the age of three and a half.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) is right to be concerned about the growing gap between the independent and state sectors. The OECD has commented on the fact that the gap in the UK is one of the widest among OECD countries. I assure her that we are committed to raising the standard of alternative provision, and to including the voluntary sector and other providers that have a proven record of helping children with challenging behavioural problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said during her contribution that more widely based GCSEs, such as the pilot GCSE in boxing that she cited, can be valued without necessarily having to claim that they are the equivalent of academic GCSEs. That is an important point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) provided an important analysis of the PISA figures from 2000 to 2009. We are determined to address the long tail of underachievement, another factor that was found in many PISA surveys.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) quoted Andreas Schleicher. However, as politicians tend to do, he failed to give the full quotation. It is true that he said that there has been

“very little change over the last 10 years.”

But he went on to say that we are an average performer and that

“improvement on the equality front from a social perspective somewhat declined; performance is average.”

He meant that in a pejorative sense, not as something to be happy with.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire was right to point to the weakness of the figure for five or more A to C grades, and the inevitable focus on the border between grades C and D. We are considering the matter, but measures that look at the performance of the lowest quintile will help to address the problem. A column in the performance tables will show what schools have achieved for pupils qualifying for the pupil premium. Schools will not then be able to say, “Well, this is our intake and this is why we are performing poorly” if we consider GCSE results only of those children who qualify for the pupil premium.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) asked about school places. We are doing a significant amount to tackle the problem. There has been an increase in the birth rate since 2001, which is now feeding through into an increase in primary school numbers, and there is £800 million of basic need capital funding to cover shortages. Capital funding is a priority, albeit that it rather short in the current circumstances.

The hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) cited Australia. We are introducing a scholarship fund—an education endowment fund—of £125 million, to be administered by the Sutton Trust. Teachers will be able to bid for funds to allow them to undertake further study in their academic field, or to improve their teaching skills. That important initiative is on similar lines to the one that she mentioned.

I shall now address the debate more generally. The challenges that we face in the 21st century and the opportunities that we now enjoy are more global in scope than ever before, as many hon. Members have pointed out. The days are long gone when we could afford to educate a minority of our children well, while hoping that the rest would be okay. As we heard, China and India are already turning out more engineers, computer scientists and university graduates than the whole of Europe and America combined.

The success of other nations in educating more of their young people to a higher level is part of their resolute determination to secure their future prosperity. It is no longer good enough to say that we as a nation are doing better than we did in the past. What matters now is not so much how we are doing compared to the past, but how we are doing compared to the rest and, in particular, how we are doing compared to the best of the rest.

We need to ask ourselves how our 16-year-olds are doing when compared with those in the US, Singapore, China and Scandinavia. Sadly, the answer is that we are not doing anywhere near well enough. Across the globe, other nations are outpacing us, accelerating reforms, creating more innovation and pulling ahead in international comparisons.

As has been pointed out, in recent years the UK has slipped down the international league tables. Indeed, when the PISA tables were first published, to the disbelief of the German education establishment they demonstrated that its education system was nowhere near being the global leader it had always thought. In Germany, it became known as “PISA-shock”. Most important, it stimulated a furious debate about how Germany could catch up, and that is the approach that we should be taking. We should not be saying, “Now that the figures are low, this academic or that will not believe them.” That was not being said in the years after 2000 by Labour Ministers or civil servants when the figures showed us being fourth, seventh and eighth in science, literacy and maths.

Similarly, when the United States was confronted with evidence showing that that 15-year-olds in the far east were comfortably outperforming their pupils in maths and science, it was described as a “Sputnik moment”. Most important, it again prompted radical reform of science education in the US. The good news is that the coalition Government are determined to ensure that the latest PISA study leads to similar action here. We are doing so by using examples of what works in the best-performing education nations.

As well as the OECD’s findings, another invaluable contribution was made by Sir Michael Barber and McKinsey. The seminal 2007 report, “How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top”, provided a blueprint for all nations serious about reforming their education systems of what they needed to do to catch up. The 2010 report, “How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better”, provided further invaluable insights for all nations aspiring to improve their education system.

[Stella Creasy]

I am pleased to hear the Minister talking about science being an important subject and something on which the Government wish to measure progress. Will the Minister update us on what assessment his Department has made of the implications of the lack of science labs many schools will suffer as a result of cancelling the Building Schools for the Future fund projects and the lack of investment in science, particularly in areas such as mine?

[Mr Gibb]

We are concerned about science, of course, and we are concerned about science labs, but the state of our science laboratories came about over the 13 years of Labour Government. Of course there are problems, but we cannot debate now the Building Schools for the Future programme and the capital and funding problems that are the consequence of economic mismanagement over the past 13 years, which we are trying to tackle.

In the remaining minute, I wish to make a final point. If we dismiss what the OECD and McKinsey tell us, and fly in the face of the evidence of what works, we will not genuinely tackle the problems. Our recently published schools White Paper was deliberately designed to bring together policies that have worked in other high-performing nations.

I would have liked to talk about the academies movement. We have increased the number of academies from 203 to 658, and we have 1,000 applications to convert to academy status. Evidence of what works around the world shows that only by extending greater autonomy to schools, trusting professionals to get on with their jobs, providing stronger accountability to local communities and raising teacher quality can nations become among the best performing in the world. That is our objective.

Education Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

It is important to base things on evidence. I went to a Church primary school and my two elder children go to that school. In an area such as Cornwall, which is not one of the most diverse culturally, I welcome the fact that because it is a Catholic school it is attended by Polish, Portuguese and Filipino children, so it has quite an inclusive and diverse mix in what is a fairly white or monocultural area. I say monocultural, because we could otherwise get into an English-Cornish debate. Certainly, in my area there are not the opportunities to engage with as diverse a population as in other parts of the country. However, I am straying a little far from the amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall conclude.

I hope that the Government will resist the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West, because they have a commitment not to expand selection and in my view his new clause would allow the expansion of selection.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 40. I speak also on behalf of several of my hon. Friends who believe the Bill should not pass without some extremely important debate on its implications for children with special educational needs, particularly in the light of the—I do not think that muscular is the right word, so I shall say pre-gym—Green Paper on SEN. I particularly want to discuss the amendments that would help us to ensure that there are some protections for such children.

The amendment is about not just entrance to school, but exit from school. Many of those working with children with special educational needs are gravely concerned that the changes introduced in the Bill will be disastrous for those young people as they are pushed out of the mainstream sector, lost to our systems of accountability and end up the worse for it. It is worth looking at the numbers of children involved before I move to what the amendment might offer and the questions that I would like the Minister to answer in his response.

We know that 6,500 pupils were permanently excluded last year, and that 300,000 children have faced fixed-term exclusions from secondary schools, a further 39,000 from primary schools and 15,000 from special schools. That is a huge number of children facing exclusion under the current system. Many of us have deep fears about the incentives in the new system. I take it that Ministers feel that they can trust professionals not to abuse the system, but Opposition Members consider it important to ensure that there are checks and balances; otherwise the number of exclusions will dramatically increase.

[Meg Munn]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in the Government’s interest to follow the proposals in the amendment? We want the system to work. I believe sincerely that Ministers are honourable gentlemen who want it to work. The amendment offers a way of checking that the policies and procedures that they are pursuing lead to better outcomes for a group of children about whom we are all concerned. Although I understand the Minister’s admirable desire to trust professionals, education is ultimately about children, and if we are not on the side of the most vulnerable children, we are not doing our job.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The amendment is about implementation. How do we make sure that as the new policies are introduced, there are not unintended consequences, or perhaps even intended consequences, that we will have to deal with further down the line?

The evidence shows clearly that a large percentage of the children who are excluded from schools have special educational needs—87% of children excluded from primary schools and 60% of children excluded from secondary schools have identified special educational needs. A significant number of those children have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism and mental health issues. Many do not receive the special educational needs provision that would help to keep them in mainstream schooling. For example, a number of children have to wait more than a year to access a mental health counsellor. Clearly, that impacts on schools’ ability to cope with those young people.

The amendment has been tabled today because of the concern that the Bill will create disincentives for schools to deal with those young people and instead encourage schools to exclude them and so pass them on to somebody else to deal with, rather than taking responsibility for their educational needs. All of us acknowledge that the way in which children with special educational needs are supported in the education system should improve. That is not an issue of contention between parties. The question is how we do that.

In Committee some of us expressed severe reservations about considering the Bill without the Green Paper on special educational needs being available to compare and contrast. The Green Paper was published while we were in Committee, and we are grateful that that was not at 4.55 pm on a Friday, but it raised more questions than it answered about how children with special educational needs will fare under this Government.

[Kevin Brennan]

Perhaps my hon. Friend remembers that I asked the Minister when the Green Paper would be published. He said that it was imminent, and it was published the next day. However, he said that the publication of the admissions code was imminent, and we still have not seen it.

[Stella Creasy]

I am always aware of what we might call the cleansing effect of shadow Ministers on the Departments of State when it comes to revealing information, statistics, Green Papers and, we hope, the admissions code. I hope Ministers will continue to listen to the pleas from the Opposition. We need the admissions code in order to understand what will happen. I fear that at this stage the irrigation will not be as successful as it could be.

I agree with the Green Paper when it refers to the difficulties that many parents experience in accessing support for children with special educational needs. It says that the system is inherently frustrating and confrontational. However, setting the Green Paper against the proposals in the Bill, we can see where some of the challenges may lie. We know that we are dealing with a group of young people who desperately need support to remain in education, and we know that that makes a massive difference to their life chances in the future. Between half and three quarters of children between the ages of four and 18 who are excluded from school have significant literacy and numeracy difficulties. It is incredibly likely that those problems will be compounded when they are excluded, so ensuring that exclusion is the last option and that those children are supported into appropriate provision is vital to turning that situation around.

The Minister has suggested that schools might intervene earlier, but one of our deep concerns is that the Bill’s proposals will create disincentives for schools to do so. The amendment has been tabled to encourage Ministers to take a proactive approach to dealing with the consequences of this legislation for that group of pupils and perhaps put on the record how they will do so.

I have already mentioned my concerns about how the proposals might link with the Green Paper, which mentions early intervention and partnerships a great deal. Members who were on the Bill Committee will be aware of my concern that other clauses in the Bill that unhook the relationships between local authorities and schools will make it much harder for those partnerships to be put together and for schools to build the kind of relationships that they need to be able to support young people.

The amendment also tries to draw on some of the work that is needed for understanding how the policy might affect school budgets. Although I hope that it would be an unintended consequence of the proposals, we should consider what might happen if schools are found to have been misusing those powers. The Minister finds it hard to contemplate any misuse of those powers, but were that to happen, it would obviously cause problems.

Ministers were at pains in Committee to say that schools would suffer a financial adjustment if schools adjudicators found that an exclusion had been conducted wrongly—those of us in the Opposition who like to call a spade a spade would call that a fine. The amendment would encourage the Government to monitor that. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am deeply concerned that there might be severe consequences both for schools in the administration of the financial adjustments, or fines, and for us and the public purse, in trying to compare what happens to those young people. The amendment would enable us to track that.

We know the different costs of provision. For example, it costs an additional £15,000 to send a child to a pupil referral unit or short-stay school, and an additional £50,000 to send them to a specialist residential unit. There are huge consequences for the public purse of failing to deal earlier with children who have emotional and behavioural difficulties and allowing a situation to get to the stage where schools exclude them and they go to pupil referral units or for specialist provision. Ensuring that the use of those powers and their financial consequences are monitored would be extremely beneficial to all concerned in trying to understand whether the policies have provided value for money.

The Government also need to address the real concern about the removal of the relationship between schools and local authorities, which have traditionally monitored what happens to those young people. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will address how we will ensure that those children go on to alternative provision. In Committee, he was very clear that every young person who was excluded would of course remain in some form of provision, but we have no monitoring process to ensure that that will happen. We have no way of knowing that those kinds of provision will be made, especially when the relationships between the local authorities and schools is broken. A child who behaves so badly that they are excluded from school clearly has difficulties that need to be supported.

The Minister claimed that the Bill will create a stronger incentive to intervene early to support children with behavioural difficulties, but again we are left with no information about how those processes might take place. We have no comfort of knowing what will happen next for those children who behave badly, will need that support and perhaps should be excluded from a school.

[Ian Mearns]

I am very taken with what my hon. Friend is saying and wonder how the Minister will give the reassurances she is seeking given that the Bill eradicates the duty on schools to co-operate on a local basis and look after their youngsters with behavioural problems. The current duty to co-operate means that there is at least a safety net for youngsters, but that will vanish under these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the key issues for me is that in Committee the Minister talked about schools triggering an assessment of behaviour, but there is no clarity about how that process might take place. I hope that he will address that point when he responds.

I have a great fear about asking head teachers to become educational psychologists, but that is the implication of putting that power in the hands of schools and making them responsible for trying to work out what provision is best for the children without the support to be able to deliver it. No one is suggesting that head teachers and teachers are not committed to their pupils, but in a system in which they will face only a small financial adjustment of £4,000, in contrast to the cost of supporting a child with emotional and behavioural difficulties and providing special educational needs, it is easy to see where the incentives to act might be.

All Opposition Members ask for is some comfort, assurance and accountability for the use of those new powers, so that we can ensure that young people are not left in the lurch, not left unable to access the appropriate educational systems that they need, not abandoned by schools that are desperate to meet other targets and not abandoned by the professionals from whom they need help because those relationships no longer exist.

The Bill makes putting in place support for children with special educational needs much less likely, not more likely. There might be some wonderful ambitions in the Green Paper, but I am deeply concerned that this Bill means that they will be harder to realise. All of us will be the worse for that, as we see young people in our communities struggle to get the educational opportunities that they need early in life, and are not able to progress later in life.

The new clause and its proposed report would shine a spotlight—a powerful phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) used in Committee, and on which I hope the Minister has reflected—on those young people, and on what is being done to help them to achieve in life. I hope that the Minister will do more than he did in Committee, when he simply said, “Well, we’ll continue to publish individual datasets,” and bridge the gap between what happens to the data that local authorities previously collected, the data on exclusions and the data on special educational needs. He should commit to bringing to the House those regular updates, so that we might all be confident that young people in our communities are being given the support that they need to achieve. We will all be better for that if he does.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I am really here to take part in the debate on the next group of amendments, but I want to refer to one issue in this group in my capacity as the advocate for access, because an access issue arises.

New clause 10, in the name of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Secretary of State, addresses the obligations in the Education Act 1996. The 1996 Act says:

“The Secretary of State shall promote the education of the people of England and Wales,”

and the new clause suggests that it be amended to say,

“and ensure fair access to opportunity for education and training.”

That is an important point, which I recognise and want to flag up. I will rehearse it in the next group of amendments, which I have looked at, have much sympathy with and have spoken to Ministers about, but I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to moving from the current definition of the Secretary of State’s duty to a wider one. If the Government are clear that we have to have better and fairer access to opportunity for education and training, they should recognise that it begins in schools, not in sixth-form and further education colleges. It starts earlier.

I have not engaged in the technical debate, and I guess that there is one concern about the wording of the new clause, but I hope that by the time the Bill reaches the Lords we will have been able to seek consensus and agreement. The lawyer in me anticipates that, if we introduce a duty to ensure fair access, we will probably precipitate people going to court, challenging a decision and looking for judicial review. After the Bill has been through its stages here and before the other House deals with it, however, we might consider whether the Secretary of State will accept a duty at least to promote fair access to opportunity for education and training, moving from the current duty to one that ensures that the fair access point is understood throughout the whole education sector in England, including in schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

The example that the hon. Lady gives applies to one individual, but an objection to admission arrangements applies to an entire school, and therefore to a wider range of people, which means that consultation is necessary before those changes are made. That is the difference between the two examples.[Official Report, 13 May 2011, Vol. 527, c. 11MC.]

There is something else wrong with Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment 13. It would give the 152 local authorities a power to direct, but those local authorities are themselves the admissions authorities for about 19,000 schools in England, and it cannot make sense to give them the power to direct themselves, which in essence is what the amendment would do. Nor is the amendment consistent with our general thrust to allow schools the flexibility to put matters right themselves. Adjudicator decisions carry the full weight of law, and any attempt to thwart them through undue delay risks further legal challenge and possible direction from either the Secretary of State or the courts. All admissions authorities, including academies and voluntary-aided schools, must comply with binding decisions, and we believe that exactly how they do so is best judged by the schools themselves. However, when they do so will be just as important in ensuring that we do not create chaos in our admissions system. I believe that we have struck the right balance between national parameters and local pragmatism, so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

I turn to amendment 40, in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). She and, through an intervention, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) explained that they were seeking to ensure that the impact of the changes made by the Bill to the exclusions process were clearly understood. I agree that it is important to understand what is happening in schools on such an important issue, and as I set out in Committee, extensive statistics have already been published on the number of permanent and fixed-period exclusions, including for each local authority and ethnic group, as too have national and local authority-level statistics on SEN exclusions, both statemented and non-statemented. In collecting information, however, it is important to eliminate the risk of revealing the identities of individual children, and in some instances, numbers are likely to be far too low to deliver the level of detail sought by the amendment. If there are fewer than five exclusions in a local authority area, the numbers are not published.

We collect information on the review panels, and will continue to do so for the new panels, including on how many cases are reviewed, the outcome of a panel’s decision and whether the pupil is reinstated by the school. I can confirm that we will also have details of when an adjustment of a school’s budget share is directed. However, I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Walthamstow to discuss the precise data that she seeks to see whether we can accommodate her request, bearing in mind the fact that we have to ensure that we do not inadvertently publish very small numbers, which could inadvertently reveal the identities of individual children.

[Stella Creasy]

I gladly take up the Minister’s offer of a meeting. But will he still put on the record a commitment to a qualitative review of what happens to young pupils with special educational needs in the next 18 months, to ensure that the exclusion powers are not used by schools to bypass their commitments? Will he also clarify the referral process? I asked him to clarify how young people will be referred for statementing. We need to ensure that schools do not think, “Either we could go through the difficult process of statementing, or we could just exclude the pupil.” Obviously the powers that the Bill gives head teachers will allow precisely that to happen. Ensuring that it does not happen to young people is a key concern for Labour Members.

[Mr Gibb]

We can talk about those qualitative issues when we discuss the quantitative ones in the meeting that I just offered. I am happy to do that.

On assessment, the hon. Lady referred to the special educational needs Green Paper, which states clearly in paragraph 3.55:

“We know that there is a group of children with SEN who are currently excluded on multiple occasions on a fixed-term basis, and there may be other excluded pupils whose SEN have not yet been identified.”

That paragraph also states:

“we will recommend in exclusion guidance that children are assessed through an effective multi-agency assessment for any underlying causal factors. We will suggest that schools trigger this assessment in instances in which a pupil displays poor behaviour that does not improve despite effective behaviour management by the school.”

I quoted that in Committee and I quote it again today, to show that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that those assessments take place.

I think people have heard enough of me—

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dan Rogerson]

We are in a period in which people are getting used to a coalition Government, and I am certainly not a Front Bencher here. I am speaking as a Back Bencher, and I am sure that you would be the first to jump on me if I claimed to be a Front Bencher, Mr Deputy Speaker. I and a number of other Liberal Democrats have a Back-Bench group in which we discuss many of these issues with other people inside and outside the party. We are also able to talk to the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who, as a Minister in the coalition Government, is at the heart of taking these decisions and leading policy forward, along with her other colleagues. My view on what is happening in Hull is that it now has a council that has taken over what was the worst council in the country under Labour and turned it around. It is in challenging financial times—I want to return to that subject later—but it has managed to ensure that all its children’s centres will remain open.

As I said earlier, the hub and spoke model, which is already operating in other parts of the country, can be successfully undertaken. The shadow Secretary of State also referred to a postcode lottery. That is one way of saying that locally elected councillors should be able to take decisions that affect their local areas and, having talked to the local community, use the money available in ways that the community believes will be most effective. That is my view of how local democracy should work. Instead of talking about a postcode lottery, we could talk about the young people in my constituency who had £300 less than the national average for their education under the Labour Government. Cornwall is recognised by the European Union as one of the most economically disadvantaged areas of the country. Those are the issues that we should be looking at, rather than at the way in which different councils take decisions about the money at their disposal.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to early years provision. As we have heard, they have involved Opposition Members in the debate, and I am delighted to see the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) in his place today. The Liberal Democrats have always placed a strong emphasis on early intervention, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who is no longer in her place, for the work that she has done over the years, inside and outside the party, and for chairing the all-party parliamentary group on Sure Start children’s centres. She makes a significant contribution to the debate.

The shadow Secretary of State attempted to say that the only thing that the Liberal Democrats were worried about was next week’s referendum. It is absolutely clear, however, that the coalition Government will continue, whatever the result of the referendum. I would point to the commitment to investing in child care and early years education for two-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds as something that my party has been arguing for. I also believe that the pupil premium, which the right hon. Gentleman has real problems with, will deliver real change and real investment for disadvantaged young people up and down the country. I would also point to the review by Dame Clare Tickell, and the aspiration to simplify and streamline the bureaucracy around the early years foundation key stage. That was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. I am sure that the Secretary of State and Conservative colleagues will want to emphasise their own credentials when it comes to tackling bureaucracy, but those measures were certainly in our party’s manifesto. I therefore have no problem with running through the Government’s programme and looking at all the Liberal Democrat priorities that are being delivered in it.

The key point that I want to make is that we are in difficult financial circumstances and, yes, the money going to local government has been restricted and efficiencies are having to be made. As other hon. Members have pointed out, a pot of fairy gold seems to exist in the minds of Opposition Members, along with the belief that, were they in charge, all the financial problems would be solved. However, the cuts programme that they set out when they were pretending to be responsible in government has now disappeared. They said that billions of pounds of cuts would be necessary, but they are now not being at all specific about where those cuts would have been made. It is tiresome that, time and again in these Opposition day debates, whatever the subject, all we hear from them is, “Of course we know that cuts have to be made, but we wouldn’t do it there or in that way.” They never tell us what their alternative would be.

It will become increasingly obvious as this Parliament progresses that that refrain just will not do. When that refrain is tied to a motion such as the one before us, which seeks to scaremonger before a local election about the closure of a service on which people rely, it is even more unfortunate. It is also unfortunate that the “killer statistics” that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was hoping to present have not emerged; the picture is different.

Sadly, some jobs will go, which is absolutely to be regretted. I look forward to continued investment in early years education and leadership programmes that might provide something for people wanting to move from one job to another and allow them to carry on using their skills and make a contribution. I also welcome the Government’s Green Paper on special educational needs, particularly the strong aspiration to tie in health spending on matters that perhaps previous were seen as solely the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education. There are lessons to be learned from Sure Start. In its early days, there were programmes to support breastfeeding, for example, which a primary care trust sometimes struggled to fund, given that supporting children’s centres was not part of the Department’s core area of responsibility. That was a controversial matter at the time.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s support for early intervention, but I only wish that he had been more enthusiastic in the Education Bill Committee in supporting my proposals for achievement-for-all partnerships. In view of his point about Sure Start, does he share my concern that local authorities such as mine in Waltham Forest are having to make terrible decisions because of the funding cuts? Fantastic projects such as the Hamara family project—provided by Barnado’s for work with children with special educational needs—and the outreach buses on the Attlee Terrace estate are having to be cut in order to keep the centres open. These services are going and we will not have the centres to maintain them.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady has managed to put on the record references to a number of projects in her constituency; as an assiduous local MP, it is absolutely her right to do so. It is for her local authority to consider and to reach a conclusion about what happens to these services. The local electorate will look at those decisions and no doubt respond accordingly—not this year in the hon. Lady’s area, but in other parts of the country. My point was about trying to get health spending brought more closely together with what the Department for Education does; further gains could be made from that approach, which is why I greatly welcome investment in health visitors, for example, during this Parliament. We will have extra professionals on the ground to deliver these key priorities in early intervention and support for people who, without it, might find it difficult to keep the family together. It is important to support young children in those crucial years.

Higher Education Policy

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

The concern that many of my constituents express is that they will have to pay back at least three times more than they would if they were a student now or had been recently.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

One difficulty is that we do not know the real rate of interest that will be charged. When we debated the Education Bill, Opposition Members proposed measures that would enable us to find out what those interest rates would be, but Government Members, including the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), voted against such a process, so we simply cannot tell how much the bills will be for our constituents.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that many of my constituents who are considering going to university are terrified at the prospect of paying back debts of £30,000 or £40,000. That is about not just how much they have to pay, but how long they have to pay for. I am sorry that the Minister would not take my intervention, but under a graduate tax system, surely those who earn more would pay more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Does my hon. Friend also think that there is considerable uncertainty for students such as Nancy Quilliam, from Walthamstow, who has deferred entry? She is being asked to pick a university by next Thursday, but she cannot find out how much she will be charged—she has no certainty about the rate of fees—so risks incurring a further £9,000 of debt. Is that not another level of uncertainty that the system has created for students across the country?

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our students or would-be students face huge uncertainty about the fees that they will incur. Perhaps if the Government had published the White Paper that they promised to publish even early this year, her constituents might have had just a little bit of certainty. Is not the truth that Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have failed to stop other parts of Government creating huge uncertainty for Britain’s universities, thereby creating incentives for fees to be higher rather than lower?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 17th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Indeed. In not only the agreement but our wider policy, we have advanced considerably on the position a year ago. We inherited a banking system that had collapsed, in part because of failures of regulation. We have introduced much more effective and higher levels of tax on the banks, because of the profits on their balance sheets. We have introduced greater transparency, which will add to legislation. Through the banking commission, we have set up a process of fundamental structural reform.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Government action to encourage lending, we see this week that, thanks to a lack of regulation, Dollar Financial intends to open another 800 money shops in this country this year alone. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether such legal loan sharking is the lending that he wants to encourage?

[Vince Cable]

There is a consultation process going on at the moment led by my colleague, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), and we shall respond to it shortly. Clearly, it is essential that we have lending in deprived communities, with social enterprise and credit unions, and we are working to expand those areas.

Building Schools for the Future

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair case. As I mentioned earlier, some local authorities and schools in the Building Schools for the Future scheme were badly in need of investment, and I, like all right hon. and hon. Members, am sorry that the money simply is not there to invest in every school that needs it. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) quite rightly makes clear, the school estates of many local authorities outside BSF were also in need of renovation.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Regrets will not solve the problems of many Walthamstow schools affected by the judgment—problems including asbestos, leaky roofs and a lack of space for the curriculum. It was for precisely those reasons that on 12 July I asked the Secretary of State to come to Walthamstow himself. Will he now, finally, in the light of the decision, make good on that and see for himself the issues that BSF was trying to deal with in Waltham Forest? Then, we might finally have schools that are fit for purpose in our borough—unlike the Secretary of State, who it appears is not fit for purpose, according to the judge.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her case. Waltham Forest, as an effective and efficient local authority, has already been in touch with my Department, and I am delighted to say that we will be in conversation with it to ensure that the right judgment is made in due course. But, with respect to the hon. Lady and all Opposition Members, although many schools are in desperate need of rebuilding, the question that must be asked is, “Why weren’t those schools rebuilt effectively in the last 13 years, and why did the Building Schools for the Future scheme operate in such a wasteful and inefficient fashion?”

Careers Advice (Schools)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a key point, which I was going to touch on a little later. Did the requirements on schools perhaps produce some distortion, pushing children down a university route that might not benefit them all? That is why I am asking for far more sophisticated careers advice, so that each child gets the career outlet that is best for them, and not necessarily one that produces extra positive statistics for the school concerned. It is always about the child and how that child moves forward.

What sort of advice are we talking about, and who will provide it? In his review of higher education, Lord Browne stated that careers guidance should be

“delivered by certified professionals who are well informed, benefit from continued training and professional development and whose status in schools is respected and valued.”

However, in times of austerity, with ever-decreasing schools budgets, we need to ensure that we are able to make such a commitment. We need high-quality guidance for all children that can help young people make the right choices.

Added to that, a survey of young people from workless families found that 70% struggled to find work, that 25% felt that their parents did not have the knowledge to help them find employment and that 49% said that they did not have the role models to look up to or respect. That implies the need to bring such role models into schools to meet young people. In fact, the Deloitte Education and Employers Taskforce found a “substantial” divide between what young people wanted from their careers advice experience in school and what they actually got, including levels of involvement with employers. The findings showed that 95% of young people agreed that they would like employers to be more involved in providing advice and guidance about careers and jobs.

We therefore need to look at the interface between schools, other organisations and the professional careers bodies. I concur with the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, Christine Blower, who said that the conclusion she drew from the Ofsted report on careers advice was that

“Not every teacher should be expert in careers advice, but… young people should know who to turn to when they need guidance on future learning or on employment. Careers education in secondary schools should not be an also ran. Schools should have the resources to employ staff who can give dedicated and knowledgeable advice.”

I would add that careers advice requires a co-ordinated interface of individuals and bodies working together, which requires standardisation as well as flexibility, aided by the creation of accredited professional organisations bringing real business examples into the schools.

My points for the Minister are these. We have to look at the new proposals, particularly the fact that schools will have a legal duty to secure independent and impartial careers advice for their students. Schools will be free to decide how best to support young people to make good career choices. It might be perceived that that could lead to a gulf in the provision of careers advice among schools, councils and areas. I would like to think that that will not happen, but I would like some clarification. Some children could be getting better advice than others, so we need to ensure that that does not happen. We need to ensure that what we have said about universal specialist training happens.

[Dr Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Like her, I feel strongly about the importance of careers advice. She makes a strong case for how to reform the careers advice system, but does she not accept the concern of some Opposition Members that our ability to provide the new careers service that she wants will be severely damaged by the fact that many careers professionals currently face redundancy? I understand that in Merseyside alone 130 places are due to be cut. In my borough of Waltham Forest, the careers service is at risk because of the cuts to local government. She might have great ambitions for an all-age careers service, but the people necessary to support it will simply not be there by September this year to facilitate it.

[Esther McVey]

What the hon. Lady has said is vital, which is why we are here today. We are saying that such a situation could be on the horizon, so we need to capture the people I mentioned. However, when Members on both sides of the House have said that Connexions is not working, failing and an expensive experiment, it shows that the system is wrong. It is not the people who are wrong but the system, so how do we get those people into the right system? That is what we are trying to do.

Moving on, we have to look at the transition stage. All Members are deeply concerned about that. We need to look at the age and the scope of career awareness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, we also need to look into a possible distortion from within schools to push people into career paths down which they should not go—to university, for example. My hon. Friend is a champion of apprentices, and we know that there will be 75,000 more of them during this Parliament. How will people find out about that? That is why I am asking for a professional body with sophisticated knowledge which uses all the outlets—whether face-to-face or through the internet. There should be every opportunity.