Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to stress that we need to ensure more work experience opportunities for all young people, which is why we have changed how children are funded when they enter post-16 education to make it easier to offer the appropriate work experience. I also agree that we need to ensure that careers advice for young people is suitably inspiring and to see whether the National Careers Service or other institutions can help. In particular, it is important to work with businesses to ensure that young people have the opportunity to see and hear from the role models who will ensure they make the right choices in the future.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, students who study only the English language GCSE will be excluded from studying the great works of English literature?

[Michael Gove]

No, they will not be excluded from studying anything.

[Tristram Hunt]

The Secretary of State is not aware of his own GCSE reforms. He has introduced the soft bigotry of low expectations into our education system. He might have enjoyed studying the works of Jane Austen and Wilfred Owen, but he is denying England’s pupils the same access to our national canon if they take only the English language GCSE. If it was all right for him, at Robert Gordon’s college, why is it not okay for kids in Harlow and Blackpool today? Will he now urgently review the changes to English GCSE, or will he continue to dumb down our syllabus?

[Michael Gove]

Tragically, when I was a student at Robert Gordon’s college in Aberdeen, I was not able to take English GCSE, because I was in Scotland and GCSEs were not on offer at that time. As a historian, the hon. Gentleman could perhaps do with studying geography rather more.

Under our new accountability system, which I urge the hon. Gentleman to study and which his colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), welcomed, English will not count unless students study both English language and literature, and the English baccalaureate, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) supports, will be conferred on students only if they study both English language and literature. He talks about Jane Austen. One of the tragedies about the current English GCSE is that fewer than 1% of students who sit it actually read a word of Jane Austen. Before he asks another question in the House, may I recommend to him one particular text of hers—“Pride and Prejudice”? A knowledge of both things would certainly help him to be a more effective Opposition spokesperson.

Qualified Teachers

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House endorses the view that in state funded schools teachers should be qualified or working towards qualified teacher status while they are teaching.

In moving this motion, the Opposition call on the Government to uphold the highest standards in our schools. We are delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister—if not his Schools Minister, as we never quite know on whose side he is talking—appears finally to have accepted the Labour party’s position on ensuring qualified teacher status within our schools. As if we needed any further proof of the importance of this point, events at the Secretary of State’s Al-Madinah free school in Derby—where the teaching was inadequate, the school dysfunctional and the care of those with special educational needs a disgrace—proved that right.

This afternoon I shall set out the importance of having a professionally qualified teacher work force; the role that this work force play in allowing children in our schools to reach their full potential; and to urge the Liberal Democrats to rediscover their progressive credentials. I hope to do so succinctly, Mr Speaker, so that many of my colleagues can contribute.

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

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

I shall give way first to a teacher.

[Andrew Percy]

Yes, and one with qualified teacher status—unlike, perhaps, some others.

May I press the shadow Secretary of State on that issue of qualified teacher status? I taught at a time when we had a Labour Government and, at that time, we saw a massive increase in the number of unqualified teachers, a massive increase in the number of instructors, and a massive increase in the number of teaching assistants taking classes when planning and preparation time was introduced. What has changed the hon. Gentleman’s mind?

[Tristram Hunt]

Today we are focusing on the future. Under future Labour Governments, we will have qualified teachers in our classrooms. I find it extraordinary that Government Members do not want the best-qualified, best-trained teacher work force in the world.

In 2010, when the British people lent the Prime Minister their trust and he used to talk about things like the big society, the Government believed in having a motivated, professional teacher cohort. At that time, the Prime Minister rightly said that

“the most important thing that will determine”

whether children succeed at school

“is not their background, or the curricula, or the type of school, or the amount of funding. It’s who the teacher is.”

Sadly, since then the Secretary of State has focused entirely on curricula, school structure and reducing funding, and has done little to support the skills and capacities of our teachers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

I should be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend the. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before my hon. Friend gives way to a Government Member, may I remind him that in the past a Labour Government went out of their way to secure talented teachers from a much broader background? They introduced all sorts of ways of getting into teaching that were innovative and good, and I saw real changes in our teaching force as a result. We did some very good things, and they did not lead to the employment of unqualified teachers..

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend has made the crucial point that Teach First was a Labour innovation. We believe in innovation, but we also believe in some basic standards in our schools.

The Secretary of State used to praise teaching standards in Finland, South Korea and Singapore, saying:

“In all those countries teaching is a high prestige profession.”

How would the Government ensure that it remained so?

“By making it difficult to become a teacher.”

But what has the Secretary of State done in office? He has done everything possible to make it as easy as possible to assume control of a classroom. He has undermined the profession, sought to remove teacher training from universities, and adopted a policy of wholesale deregulation. That has led to a 141% increase in the number of unqualified teachers in free schools and academies. The surprising truth is that under this Government, people need more qualifications to get a job in a burger bar than to teach in an English school. While I salute the efforts of restaurant chains to improve the skills of their work forces, I should like history teachers, as well as hamburger restaurant managers, to have some basic qualifications.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is, in my opinion at least, a fine historian. He will recall that when he was at school he was taught by a very fine teacher, Terry Morris, who was the head of the history department. Will he tell the House whether Mr Morris was a qualified teacher, or simply an inspiration?

[Tristram Hunt]

The great thing about qualified teachers is that they can be both qualified and an inspiration. [Interruption.] I know that the Conservative party is developing something of an obsession with me, so let me say that if Conservative Members want to invite me to a special session of the 1922 Committee to talk about my past and history, I shall be more than willing to take up their invitation.

Why does the Labour party believe in having qualified teachers in our classrooms? The Secretary of State’s 2010 White Paper put it best:

“The first and most important lesson is that no education system can be better than the quality of its teachers. The most successful countries…are those where teaching has the highest status as a profession’’.

In Finland, the world’s highest-performing education system, teacher education is led by universities, and all teachers are qualified to Master’s level. In Singapore, all teachers are fully trained and have annual training entitlements. The most effective way in which to improve our children’s education is to boost the quality, elevate the standing, and raise the standards of our teaching profession. We need to train teachers up, not talk them down.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has just alluded to the very point that I wanted to make. The Secretary of State thinks that it is okay for us to have unqualified teachers, but also lauds the Finnish system, under which the minimum retirement for a teacher is to be a qualified professional with a Master’s degree.

[Tristram Hunt]

That is exactly the difference between the parties. We believe in professionalisation rather than deregulation. We believe in going up the value chain rather than deskilling. The point is simple: good teachers change lives. They engender aspiration, curiosity, self-improvement and a hunger for knowledge. It is teaching that awakens the passion for learning that a prosperous society and a vibrant economy so desperately need. The Secretary of State should heed the words of Andreas Schleicher of the OECD, who has argued for teaching to be elevated

“to a profession of high-level knowledge workers, who work autonomously and contribute to the profession within a collaborative culture.”

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

I hope that the whole debate will affirm the importance of teachers, qualified teachers, and the teaching profession. The hon. Gentleman is new to his post and fairly new to Parliament, but can he confirm first that under Labour an Act was passed which allowed unqualified teachers to work in schools set up by Labour, and secondly that there are fewer unqualified teachers in our schools now than when Labour was in government?

[Tristram Hunt]

Last year, the Liberal Democrats had a chance in the other place to support qualified teacher status. We have now heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that they believe in it. The only answer that interests me now is whether Liberal Democrat Front Benchers will vote for their values this afternoon.

The use of the word “profession” is important here, because we take a different view from the Government. We believe that teaching is more than a craft. Personally, I am full of admiration for craftsmen and craftswomen—I represent Stoke-on-Trent, where, according to J.B. Priestley, the greatest craftsmen and craftswomen, the master potters, lived—but we think that teachers need to know about more than just classroom technique. Teachers need to know how children develop, how subject knowledge can be adapted for children of different ages and how pupils with special needs can be supported, and they need an understanding of the latest research on learning.

I applaud the Government’s focus on ensuring that teachers have good subject knowledge, but—as you well know, Mr Speaker—they also need the attributes that will secure discipline and authority in the classroom and produce a safe learning environment. Those are the qualities that qualified teacher status can help to provide, and they can ensure even higher standards and happier school days for young people. That is certainly the view of the chief inspector of schools. Last year, Sir Michael Wilshaw, the man who had been hand-picked by the Education Secretary to head Ofsted, told the Education Committee:

“I would expect all the teachers in my school to have qualified teacher status.”

We all know experts in their field whom we would not trust with the teaching of our children. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) is a not unoriginal scholar of the Plantagenets, but I am not sure that he could deliver a history course for six-year-olds. The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) has a background in aviation, but I would not necessarily trust him with year 7. A great mind might produce a great teacher, but a common standard of training is far more likely to ensure that that is the case most of the time—and that is why the motion is in favour of delivering a qualified teaching profession all the time.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend took part in the Teach First initiative this year. I did, and I hope that I was able to give something to the young people with whom I spent an hour. They certainly gave a great deal to me. However, what I learnt most from were the skills that the teacher displayed in the classroom, and the ability of that teacher to connect with all the children. Is that not why the debate is so important?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a brilliant point: that pedagogy, as well as subject knowledge, is absolutely essential. It seems bizarre that we simply do not want the best-skilled teachers possible.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

First, may I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I do not have an obsession with him? I speak as someone who also has a PGCE to my name on top of my degree, but please do not confuse being qualified and being able to teach pupils with bits of paper. I have seen plenty of excellent teachers without PGCEs and some pretty poor ones with, and I think the hon. Gentleman is getting the two rather mixed up.

[Tristram Hunt]

This is about reducing the risk in the teaching system. This is about making sure we go up the value chain in terms of qualifications and teacher capacity.

As it has been raised, let me deal with the issue of non-qualified teachers in the private sector. First, figures from the Independent Schools Council show that 90% of those teaching in such schools have a teaching qualification and over 70% have qualified teacher status. Secondly, if head teachers in the private sector wish to employ teachers without QTS, that is their decision. But a Labour Government will demand a minimum standard of QTS for those teaching within the state system. As Secretary of State for Education, I am not going to allow for the deregulatory free-for-all which produces the likes of Al-Madinah.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the quality of the teachers we are talking about here, who will be sacked after two years? There are fewer than there were when his party left office, we have a tightened-up the Ofsted regulation regime, and there is no place to hide on data and exam results, so I put it to him that a head teacher would employ a non-QTS teacher today only if they were above-average and were delivering a brilliant service to children in the classroom.

[Tristram Hunt]

When those teachers get into school, we want them to train up for QTS. This is simply about going up the improvement chain. It seems to me entirely uncontroversial.

Let me also stress that our plans do not affect the artists, the actor, the footballer, builder, business man or, dare I say it, historian—missing the more incisive quality of debate which a year 5 can provide—who comes into a class to inspire young people about their subjects. For those teachers holding that enormous responsibility for the learning outcomes of young people, however, we would expect, like Sir Michael Wilshaw, a minimum baseline qualification.

So let me return to the core of this motion: how do we deliver improvements in our schools system and close the attainment gap? The answer is great teaching. Part of that is strong leadership; part of that is the innovation that comes from Labour’s Teach First policy; part of that is autonomy; but it is also about further professional development: about stretching our teachers, about learning to improve at every turn.

Achieving QTS is not the whole answer. It does not in itself, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, guarantee excellence. As the Secretary of State well knows, passing a driving test does not mean that all new drivers will avoid accidents, but this is not a reason to remove the requirement to pass a test. Removing the expectation of QTS means we endanger the status of the teaching profession at a time when we need to raise the status of teaching if we are to succeed in what the Prime Minister calls the global race. The countries with the most successful education systems are going up the value chain, not deskilling. They are raising the status of teaching, not opening the door to our classrooms to anyone who just wants to have a go.

We have brought this motion to the House because the Labour party is passionate about education. From the earliest days of Robert Owen and the co-operative movement, from our history in the mechanics institutes and the mutual improvement societies, from the Workers Educational Association to the trade union movement, academic and vocational excellence is engrained in the Labour movement’s DNA. So too with the Liberals: stretching back to the Forster Education Act, or the role of education in that positive vision of freedom enunciated by T. H. Green and L. T. Hobhouse, or John Maynard Keynes’s ambition for post-war cultural enrichment, social mobility and progress has been part of the Liberal creed. While the Tory Party supported King and class, our parties are parties of the word—of a belief in the liberating potential of education—which is why it is so depressing to see a once-progressive party sign up to this narrow vision of education: of deregulation, of dumbing-down and a lack of ambition for our schools.

Great teachers broaden horizons, motivate students, and help young people achieve their potential. It is time for the Liberal Democrats to show the parents, pupils and teachers of this country whose side they are on and to vote for their values this afternoon. In the Labour party, we have made our choice: professionalism not deregulation; a qualified teacher in every classroom. I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Michael Gove]

In a second.

The difference between Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy, however, is not as big as the difference between those on the Labour Benches. In particular, I mean the difference between the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central on one side and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central on the other. We all know that the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished historian of the civil war, and he knows all about a body politic being racked by internal division. What a pity that it is his body politic that is being so racked.

Let us listen to the cavalier Tristram, talking to Conservative-supporting The Mail on Sunday. He said:

“What I am saying is if you want to do that”—

that is, set up a free school—

“when we are in government we will be on your side. There has been this perception that we would not be, and I want people to be absolutely clear that we are…putting rocket boosters on getting behind parents and social entrepreneurs…We are not going…back”—

no turning back—

“to the old days of the local authority running all the schools—they will not be in charge.”

Three cheers for the cavalier.

Then the puritan—the roundhead—Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central suddenly popped up a few hours later on the BBC talking about the free schools that he had been lauding just a few hours earlier. He said that

“you have…a system which allows…irregularities”

and

“allegations…because there’s no oversight there.”

He said that it was a “dangerous ideological experiment”, yet only a few hours before, it was an ideological experiment with which he had fallen in love. One of the flaws in this ideological experiment, he said—

[Tristram Hunt]

rose—

[Michael Gove]

In a second—[Hon. Members: “Give way.”] No, I think that the House is enjoying this section of my speech. I will conclude it in just a moment.

The hon. Gentleman said:

“We are not going to go back to the old days of the local authority…they will not be in charge”,

but then on Thursday he said that the problem with free schools was that local education authorities had no role in monitoring those schools. Within four days there has been a complete U-turn, a reversal, as the civil war in the Labour party between those who believe in excellence and those who believe in the unions is embodied in one man. In four days there has been one U-turn and no answers. I am very happy to give way now.

[Tristram Hunt]

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has finally given way. Let me be clear that the difference between our policy and that of the Government is that we believe in social enterprise and innovation but also believe in having qualified teachers in the classroom and systems of financial accountability and transparency, so that we do not end up with the chaos that we saw at Al-Madinah and Bradford. Let me go back to his earlier point, however. When did the division in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on qualified teacher status first emerge? Can he talk us through the history?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The shadow Secretary of State has come into post at exactly the same time as his party has lurched to the left, and he has inherited this policy. I put it to him, as someone who has taught in schools as a non-QTS teacher, who benefited from non-QTS teachers as a pupil and who has suggested in recent days that he might send his children to schools that have inspiring non-QTS teachers in place, that his heart really is not in this.

[Tristram Hunt]

There is a world of difference between an external speaker coming into a school to explain history, politics or geography and someone in charge of the learning outcomes of an entire class. I would have thought that the Chair of the Education Committee knew that.

[Mr Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman would not answer questions about the teacher who taught and inspired him, but he was more than just a visiting lecturer.

My children attend an independent school and have non-QTS teachers. I want to ensure that every school can access people who can inspire pupils within a system of accountability. If the shadow Secretary of State told me, “We’ve carried out an assessment and got the evidence, which shows that some head teachers are taking on unqualified teachers just to save money and sticking them in classrooms with low-ability children, which is letting them down”, I would be the first to congratulate him. I would say, “Yes, let’s look at the right policy response, but let’s not sack top teachers who happen to be non-QTS teachers if we can possibly help it.”

I would even accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument if he could show me, on any kind of evidence base, that widespread numbers of non-QTS teachers are letting down our kids. I put it to him, who has been in post for a matter of days, that there is no such evidence base. On the contrary, the evidence base shows that non-QTS teachers in state schools in some of our toughest neighbourhoods are inspirational. There are often teachers who have left the independent sector, where he went, where I went and where my children go, in order to try to make a contribution in state schools in challenging circumstances. Under the Opposition’s policy, if those people do not put themselves through the many hours required to pass QTS, they will be sacked. That is absolutely wrong. He should not deny the consequences of his policy: it will lead to the removal of outstanding teachers from state school classrooms. It will almost certainly see them turning up in independent schools, where they are needed least, rather than most. That is the central flaw in his argument, and I think that he sees it.

It is early days in the hon. Gentleman’s new post. I suggest that he has inherited a dreadful policy that is entirely against what he and I believe, which is that we should be transforming education for everyone in this country, and most of all for those from poorer homes who too often have been left behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

I am not going to give way any more because there is so little time.

The history of Labour in office and unqualified teachers shows that in the vast majority of cases, great non-QTS teachers went on to become qualified through the licensed or the classic routes. Government Members say that free schools and academies are now free to employ teachers who have a master’s degree or a doctorate, and is that not a good thing? I am not altogether sure about that. I have a master of science degree, but a working knowledge of maths and statistics does not make me a teacher. Without a bachelor of education degree I would not have the skills and knowledge to understand child development, the science of teaching and learning, how children learn, and classroom management and managing behaviour, or to identify the needs of children with special educational needs and how to meet them. I would not know about differentiation, delivering a programme of study across a range of abilities, or assessment—that is, knowing what a child can and cannot do, and what they need to do next. Important as those things are, I would also not have the credibility and trust of my professional colleagues, of parents, or, more importantly, of young people themselves. Pupils know very quickly who is qualified and who is not, and who is experienced and who is not, and that affects their behaviour and how they learn in the classroom.

The problem with this Government is that they think anybody can teach. I know from experience that as soon as we move away from the classroom it looks really easy, but it is not. Teachers are people who stand up in front of classrooms every day and deliver great lessons. I do not pretend to be a teacher in terms of that definition. Being qualified does not make a great teacher; it takes more than that. [Interruption.] I am glad that Government Members agree with me. As has been said, this is not necessarily about the qualification of teachers. Every teacher does not have to be qualified to deliver a great lesson, but surely good qualification is the basis of a state-run system. [Interruption.] Having anything else leaves our children open to—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?

[Tristram Hunt]

No, I am enthusiastically supporting my hon. Friend.

[Pat Glass]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I will make a little progress first because of time, but I might take an intervention later.

There are not many Liberal Democrat colleagues here, but I welcome those who have turned up. Being asked, as I understand they have been, not to support the Opposition motion—one hon. Gentleman said he was not going to support it—is not good for their health. It must drive them to distraction to be asked to perform such feats of intellectual and political contortion of believing one thing and voting for another just to save the blushes of the Tory Secretary of State for Education. He is not in his place for the winding-up speeches, despite taking half an hour of our time earlier on.

The Secretary of State is happy to trash, on a daily basis, the Liberal Democrats’ fundamental principles and beliefs on education policy, yet they have to turn up to bail him out. There can be no more tortured example of that than the Minister for Schools himself, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). [Interruption.] I welcome the compassion from Opposition Members. The week before last he came before this House and stoutly and enthusiastically defended the policy of allowing non-qualified teachers to teach in our taxpayer-funded schools. In fact, he spoke with such passion and conviction that I understand from press reports that some of his Conservative colleagues in the coalition actually believe he meant what he said—they took him at his word. He is shaking his head, but I read it in a newspaper.

Then, the Minister’s right hon. Friend, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, let it be known that he disagreed with his other right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister. I know they bear a striking resemblance to each other, but they must surely be two different people. When the Schools Minister heard what his leader had said, he had a slight problem. Did he, in fact, still agree with himself on whether teachers should be qualified? Last week in Westminster Hall and in the Education Committee, we got an answer of sorts: he had agreed with himself all along; when he came to the House he was not telling us what he believed, but what his Tory Secretary of State boss believed. Some months earlier, we were told, the Schools Minister had proposed a motion to the Liberal Democrat conference—[Interruption.]—I welcome the Secretary of State back to the debate, and I apologise for mentioning him in his absence—but when we checked this, it turned out he had not proposed a motion at all, although he claimed he was involved in its drafting.

I know that the Schools Minister is a very, very clever man. He has a first-class degree from the university of Cambridge.

[Tristram Hunt]

Double first.

[Kevin Brennan]

As my hon. Friend reminds me, and as the Schools Minister insisted on reminding us in Westminster Hall last week, he has a double first from the university of Cambridge. But what I had not realised until now was that having a double first meant he was so clever he could hold two completely opposite beliefs in the same brain at the same time. [Laughter.]

Al-Madinah Free School

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the failings of the Al-Madinah free school revealed in the Ofsted inspection report.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

I welcome this opportunity to make a statement on the Al-Madinah free school, and I apologise to the House for the absence of the Secretary of State, who is abroad. We have received the letter that the hon. Gentleman sent to the Secretary of State on 15 October, raising issues relating to that school, and Lord Nash and I will respond to it shortly.

The Al-Madinah free school serves children and young people between the ages of 4 and 16 in the Derby city community, and it has been open for just a year. After a steady start by the school we became aware of potential breaches of the conditions in its funding agreement late this summer, and at the end of July we began a wide-ranging investigation into the financial management and governance of the school. We investigated whether it was delivering on its commitment to be inclusive, and we investigated allegations about the imposition of a dress requirement on female members of staff. Our investigations did indeed find significant and numerous breaches of the conditions in the school’s funding agreement, and our concerns were such that we requested Ofsted to bring forward its planned inspection.

The Ofsted report is published this morning. It found that the school is dysfunctional, and inadequate across every category of inspection: achievement of pupils; quality of teaching; behaviour and safety of pupils; and leadership and management. We were already taking decisive action before we received the Ofsted report. Lord Nash wrote to the chair of the trust on 8 October, following the previous investigations, and set out all the requirements for the trust to take swift and decisive actions to deal with the serious concerns. We have been clear with the trust that failure to do so promptly will result in the school’s funding being terminated. We have also been clear that the trust must address all the breaches identified. We will not let any school, whether a free school, an academy, or a local authority school, languish in failure. The Ofsted report confirms that we are taking the right actions. We are not prepared to allow a school to fail its parents, its children and its community. We said we would take swift action in these cases, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Tristram Hunt]

Today’s Ofsted report exposes the fact that the Government’s free school programme has become a dangerous free for all, an out-of-control, ideological experiment that has closed a school, leaving 400 children losing an entire week of learning. It is a devastating blow to the Education Secretary’s flagship policy, and reveals that pupils have been failed on every possible measure. Parents will want to know why the Education Secretary has allowed that to happen.

Contrary to what the Minister said, in a pre-registration report in July 2012, Ofsted deemed the school to be failing to meet basic child protection standards, even before it was opened. Why did Ministers not act on those concerns before signing a funding agreement for the school? Why have Ministers allowed a school to be run by large numbers of unqualified staff? Why have Ministers sanctioned “dangerous levels” of safety and behaviour, and why have they allowed children with special educational needs to be left to struggle? In a city where every child needs to be supported and educated to the highest possible level, the Education Secretary has sacrificed learning for ideology. It is not just Al-Madinah school that is dysfunctional; it is the Education Secretary’s free schools policy.

[Mr Laws]

The support of the Labour party for free schools did not last long, did it? I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to come to the House. On Sunday he was going around television studios and saying that Labour was shifting its position on free schools. He said:

“We will keep those free schools going”.

Within the same set of Department for Education press cuttings in which he announced he was shifting his position in favour of free schools, we find a headline stating that Labour now plans to rein in free schools. It is complete and utter incoherence from the hon. Gentleman, and he should be ashamed.

Let me respond in detail to every single serious point the hon. Gentleman made—it will not take very long—and go back over what has happened in Al-Madinah school and the scrutiny to which it has been subjected. The school opened in September 2012. It had a pre-registration Ofsted report, as all such schools do—such a report is not sensational. In the report, Ofsted set down a number of requirements that it wanted met before the school opened. In advance of the school opening, the trust went through the requirements with the lead contact in the Department for Education. It produced certificates to show that it had done the safeguarding and first aid training, and a certificate—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State ought to listen to this. The school produced a certificate authorised by the director of planning and transportation at Derby city council saying that the building was fit for occupation. After that, the Department sent an adviser to the school two months after it opened, who saw the good progress that the school was making at that stage.

In July 2013, we became aware of concerns about equalities and management issues at the school and acted immediately on that. We established an Education Funding Agency financial investigation into the school and sent our advisers to it. We asked Ofsted to bring forward its inspection, which has now taken place. Prior to receiving that inspection, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Nash, wrote to the school setting out precisely the actions that it will take, and making it clear that its funding will not continue unless it addresses those things.

If the shadow Secretary of State is so supportive of free schools, why does he not have the responsibility to put the failure of the school into context? Seventy-five per cent. of the free schools that have opened have been rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. That is a higher proportion than the proportion of local authority schools. We did not hear that from the hon. Gentleman.

On complacency, which I believe is the allegation the hon. Gentleman makes, may I remind him of the record of the Labour Government whom he defends? At the end of their period in office, 8% of schools in this country —more than 1,500—were rated as inadequate, many had been so for years, with no action. By focusing on one school in which the Government are taking action, the hon. Gentleman is failing schools in this country, including ones that failed under the Labour Government, when little action was taken.

People listening to these exchanges and to the hon. Gentleman, and reflecting on what he said on Sunday and how he has stood on his head today, will see nothing other than total and utter opportunism and shambles from Labour’s education policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Education Secretary’s study will be complete when he recognises that it is not appropriate to name Members in the Chamber. I know he has been here only eight years. He will get there eventually.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Nearly 1 million young people are unemployed in this country and school leavers are desperate to make the right decisions about their futures, yet, as the Chair of the Education Committee has pointed out, the Government are overseeing the destruction of professional careers advice for 14 to 16-year-olds. Why does the Government’s National Careers Service make 17 times as many interventions for adults as it makes for young people? Does the Secretary of State really believe that his careers strategy is delivering for today’s schoolchildren?

Careers Advice in Schools

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

We have had an interesting, if petite, debate. All Members present share a belief in the value of careers guidance, but that might not be shared by the Government Whips Office.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) on securing this important debate. He spoke brilliantly and passionately about rebalancing the economy and how that might be undermined by skills shortages, with particular reference to the aerospace industry and the question of a gender divide and the number of young female engineers. I take on board, too, his point about the challenge of providing careers advice in schools. That is why the Opposition thought it was an error to take £200 million out of the previous career Connexions service, which did not serve to follow the policy through into schools.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) spoke brilliantly about patchy careers advice and the effect that can have. He rightly highlighted the critique provided by the Education Committee, which said it was regrettable that the careers advice function had been moved into schools. He spoke, too, of the axing of dedicated careers services. We have seen that right across the piece, which is why this debate is so important. The Government careers policy is directly opposed to everything the hon. Member for Burnley seeks to put in place to rebalance our economy. My hon. Friend also spoke very well about the mismatching of jobs to ambitions. We should also note the comments of the Government social mobility tsar, Alan Milburn, about young people not doing the right A-levels, and then seeking to go to university with very good grades only to find that they have been poorly advised as to what degree to pursue.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) drew on his career in business to argue strongly for a more business-focused careers guidance, and for getting business advocates into schools. Like us, he is hopeful that the destination measures will provide some degree of clarity. He contrasted the business GCSE with the drama GCSE, but that was a little unfair, I think, as one of the great business strengths of modern Britain is our drama industry—our cinematic and theatrical industries. He was right, however, to urge that business advocacy in schools.

The Labour party agrees with the Education Committee that independent careers advice and guidance has never been as important for young people as it is today. We also start from the point that this is a question both of social justice and of rebalancing the economy.

It could be argued that bringing careers guidance into schools has crippled potential pathways to technical and vocational education for many students. While the academic route of following GCSE, A-level and then maybe a degree is clearly understood by many teachers, providing more specific advice about vocational qualifications, traineeships and apprenticeships, and how to marry that with a level 3 qualification, takes real knowledge and understanding of the system, which those who are asked to advise in schools might not possess. If we want greater achievement in our technical and vocational sector, we need to get talent into those quarters. Moreover, it is simply not in the interests of schools to outline alternative routes, and for a Conservative-led Government usually so attuned to the threat of producer interest, the allocation of careers advice to schools has been an own goal. Very few schools have the bravery to explain to their pupils the full diversity of further education and vocational pathways while the loss of their pupils’ funding stream is at stake. We recently heard evidence from an excellent teacher from one of the Harris academies, who said, “We bring in outside external guidance and we tell them to tell our pupils that they cannot go to the college up the road. We have no interest in losing those funding streams.” What we then lose as a country is the capacity to go down vocational and technical routes that are more complicated to pursue.

We are troubled not only by the impartiality aspect, but by issues of funding, insufficient practical guidance, a poorly defined approach to how we share best practice, a capabilities deficit and an accountability regime that is nowhere near robust enough. We look forward to the Ofsted thematic review, which I understand has now been pushed back to September, clarifying some of these issues.

On funding, the Labour party acknowledges that in the current fiscal climate it is not appropriate to provide additional funding, but the Government should not present the withdrawal of the £200 million that used to fund careers advice as consequence-free. Schools have each faced a £25,000 stealth cut as a result of this money not being transferred along with the statutory duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested, we need to know what actions the Minister is taking to provide guidance and support, and to disseminate best practice. As I understand it, head teachers have to know the names and addresses of CORGI-registered boiler technicians for their schools, but they have no guidance about or lists of qualified careers advisers. Head teachers can fix the boiler but when it comes to their pupils’ careers they are not necessarily given the right amount of information.

Let me end by returning to the Government’s social mobility adviser, Mr Alan Milburn. He wrote:

“High-quality information, advice and guidance”—

on careers—

“is crucial in helping young people to develop ambitious but achievable plans, which are more likely to lead to positive outcomes.”

He dedicated his career to improving careers services, raising aspiration and increasing social mobility, yet only this weekend he criticised the Government’s “half-hearted” and incoherent approach in this area. He said:

“I don’t get the sense that this is sufficiently part of the DNA of what this government is about”.

I very much hope that the Minister can convince us otherwise, or else we are facing exactly the kind of skills shortage and unbalanced economy that the hon. Member for Burnley so wisely warned us of this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely agree that those working with apprentices need to have either the best qualifications or the best experience in the relevant sector, which is why we implemented the recommendations of Alison Wolf’s report. We have allowed lecturers in further education, who are qualified in that sector but were not previously able to work in schools, to work in schools. We will also implement the Richard review, which once more puts employers in control of assuring the quality of vocational qualifications, so that anyone who secures an apprenticeship can be confident that it will lead to a satisfying job.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

With youth unemployment at the 1 million mark, one would have thought that Ministers would do all they could to get young people into training and jobs, so why have the Government overseen a 12% reduction in young apprenticeships in the past six months alone, alongside a £165 million departmental underspend? Where is the determination to fix this crisis? Rather than writing eight-page letters and trying to become the pen pal of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), should the Secretary of State not be focusing on some policy work?

[Michael Gove]

Rather than writing eloquent questions and reading them out with the rounded vowels of a public school educated champion of vocational education, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman concentrate on what the Government have done. I also suggest that he refer back to the wonderful Westminster Hall debate, held with the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, in which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that under the previous Government vocational education was not good enough, that there were far too many low standard courses, and that the Wolf report and the Richard review have been the two best pieces of work on vocational and technical education undertaken in the past 25 years. If he looked back at what he said then, he would face a dilemma: does he eat the words he uttered in Westminster Hall, or does he acknowledge that the question he has just asked was nonsense from start to finish?

Vocational Education

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but this issue is not just about careers advice. As I have said, children in school also need to be encouraged to do vocational education, which at the moment they are not.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Now that careers guidance has been placed inside schools, does the hon. Gentleman believe that schools necessarily have an in-built producer interest to say to young people that their best interests are served by staying on at school because the money will follow the pupil, and that what we are seeing is exactly the fears about the lack of clear pathways into vocational education being realised?

[Robert Halfon]

Unless I misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, as I understand it the school leaving age has been extended to 18 anyway, which was something the last Government did. Given that, I think that if we change the culture in our country, schools will encourage their pupils to take vocational education over university. As I say, we need to change the culture and emphasise to pupils that the vocational qualifications that they will be encouraged to consider will be as prestigious as taking university degrees. On that basis, we should not forget that in this Parliament the Government are setting up 24 university technical colleges—in essence, pre-apprentice schools—and I am incredibly proud that Harlow is getting one, which will open next year. However, we must not settle; we should be aiming to set up at least a hundred such colleges.

We should also be encouraging employers to take on more apprentices. One major hurdle that employers face is the lack of basic literacy and numeracy skills among young people, and we must look at that issue. Recent figures show that 17% of 16 to 19- year-olds are functionally illiterate and that 22% of them are innumerate. It is essential that apprenticeships place a greater emphasis on these basic skills, so that young people are ready to join the work force.

As a country we must create the right climate to encourage businesses to hire apprentices. We have made good progress with this, creating the apprenticeship grant for employers, which gives employers who employ fewer than 1,000 people a grant worth £1,500. It is currently available to employers until 31 December 2013. We will know that the grant is successful if it boosts the uptake of apprenticeship programmes. A new charity called Access is encouraging young people, offering 10,000 youngsters work experience programmes. We need to look at and support such schemes.

Subsidising businesses to take on apprentices works. Essex county council has a groundbreaking apprentice scheme and its employability and skills unit saw apprenticeship starts increase by 87% in 2011, compared with a national average of 21%. The council provides a wage subsidy of up to 70% for businesses taking on new or additional apprentices. If possible, I would like that to be replicated across the country. I look forward to the successes in Essex, led by Councillor Ray Gooding.

I also welcome the idea of a skills tax credit, which would give employers a stronger incentive to hire an apprentice and would create a stronger relationship between the employer and the apprentice. That was recommended in the Richard review of apprenticeships last November. I urge the Government to consider it.

Parliament should lead the way, with clear apprenticeship career paths in Departments. The Minister knows, because I have spoken to him about this before, that I believe that all Departments should replicate the Department for Work and Pensions’ new model procurement contract, which encourages, but does not compel, their contractors to hire apprentices as at least 5% of the work force. That has resulted in the employment of nearly 2,000 extra apprentices who deliver goods and services to the DWP. It is revenue-neutral and should be extended across Whitehall.

As well as changes to incentivise employers to take on apprentices, there should be changes to encourage disadvantaged young people to participate in vocational education. There are currently 900,000 people aged 16 to 24 in England not in education, employment or training. This figure has increased by nearly 50% over the past 10 years and accounts for 14.5% of all young people in England.

We know that 90% of young people who complete their apprenticeship go on to further employment, but some obstacles actively discourage young people from vocational education, particularly if they are from disadvantaged backgrounds. For example, young people at further education colleges are not entitled to free school meals, even if they meet the criteria for them, whereas their peers at sixth form do receive them. The civil servants have said to Ministers that it is too expensive and that schools do not get direct funding for it, even though they are required to provide it by law. The Association of Colleges estimates the cost of extending the right to free meals to college students at around £38 million. I believe that this money can be found through efficiencies. If we are to support vocational education, we cannot say to students who attend FE colleges, which are primarily focused on vocational education, that they are not allowed to have a free school meal even if they qualify for one. That injustice cannot continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate. His involvement with and commitment to vocational education has been long and passionate, and I share that commitment.

Tomorrow is vocational qualification day. I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party group on further education, skills and lifelong learning. I therefore take this issue very seriously, and I have a profound commitment to it. There are many reasons why I passionately support vocational education, FE colleges and, indeed, the whole sector, but the most important is that the conversion rates from apprenticeships to jobs run at about 90%. At my local FE college, Sussex Downs, which is outstanding and has had a tremendous track record over the past few years under the leadership of its principal, Melanie Hunt, the apprenticeship conversion rate is an astonishing 92%.

A number of people who have left university with degrees and who are, sadly, still struggling to secure employment come to see me in my constituency, and I know that the same happens to other Members of Parliament. I sometimes have to resist the urge to say that if they had gone down the vocational route they would not have the student debt that so many people are, sadly, lumbered with nowadays and they would almost certainly be in employment.

On vocational education, the FE sector plays an absolutely pivotal role. There are several reasons for that. One is that the better FE and vocational colleges develop close relationships with local employers, local alternative training providers and the local DWP—the Jobcentre Plus. In Eastbourne, Sussex Downs college, where I will attend an apprenticeship event this evening before returning to Westminster tonight, is pursuing yet another initiative in a particular area of employment—in this case, retail. The college has spent a lot of time over the past year or two developing and deepening its relationships with different employer sectors and with Jobcentre Plus. A good FE sector wants to listen to employers; it talks to businesses and to the private and public sectors to try to understand their needs, so that it can train people in the vocational qualifications that fit the jobs—in other words, so that it can help people to be job ready.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has admirably championed apprenticeships since his election in 2010. I totally support—I have said this before, and I will say it again—his desire for a royal college for apprenticeships. That is a superb idea; it is exactly the kind of thing that would raise the status of apprenticeships. Perhaps we can discuss it afterwards to see how we can push it forward, because it would make a real difference.

On apprenticeship initiatives, I pay tribute to the Minister, the Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who is probably the most passionate advocate of FE and vocational education we have ever had as a Secretary of State. I spoke to him about the issue in the main Chamber only yesterday, and he reminded me—not that he needed to—of just how important he feels vocational education is in the FE sector. He also reminded me of how important it is that colleagues who feel strongly about this issue continue to lobby the Treasury, so that it does not remove too much money from the Department.

On apprenticeships in Eastbourne, I was one of the first MPs, along with the local FE sector, to work on the 100 apprenticeships in 100 days initiative. It was essential that I developed a close relationship with my local FE college, Sussex Downs. The work, which involved us and a number of other partners, was very successful, and we achieved 181 apprentices in 100 days. More importantly, it allowed me and the FE college to open a really strong dialogue with many local employers in the private and public sectors. The success of that has been astonishing. The latest figures from the Library show that Eastbourne has recruited more than 2,100 new apprentices since the general election—more than in the previous 10 years—which shows than when things are done properly the result is tremendous success.

I want to focus on something that came out of that: it brought home to me how deskilled schools have become about pushing apprenticeships. I work closely with local secondary school heads, and they were the first to admit that because for so long—particularly under the previous Government, but, to be fair, for at least 20 years—there was a drive almost to push people into degrees, teachers had become deskilled in talking about apprenticeships and did not know anything about them. The system in the Department for Education and the school sector provides no advantages in school league tables to push people towards becoming apprentices. There are, however, advantages to A-levels and sending students to university: doing so gets more money. If I were a proactive head who wanted to educate my students towards the tremendous range of apprenticeship opportunities—let us say that I quintupled the number of people becoming apprentices—I would not get a single extra penny from the Department for Education.

[Tristram Hunt]

How then does it help to bring careers guidance into schools, so that there is a producer interest telling young people, even with the rising participation age, that the best thing for them to do is stay on at school, rather than pursuing vocational and other options?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I note that the hon. Gentleman made a similar intervention earlier, and he has a strong point: I do not see how that can help. However, that is not to say that careers services should not be in schools; the question cannot be beyond the wit of man within the DFE, because I think the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills would be keen for the careers service to be extended into FE. I do not think the solution is to stop careers guidance going into schools. I think that it is to do with the regulations and expanding the remit of careers services and the roles or opportunities that they need to talk to students about. The hon. Gentleman made a fair point.

There is a difficulty, because the issue is not one for BIS. I have spoken frequently with the Secretary of State, and several times with my hon. Friend the Minister; and it is clear to me that BIS is, considering the austerity programme, investing more, has greater commitment and is determined to continue the extension and improvement of apprenticeships and investment in FE. I think that we have now come to the tipping point with the vocational sector and FE, and the relationship with the Labour party and the Association of Colleges; there is now a profound understanding that because of the circumstances this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to move apprenticeships and vocational education up the scale, as in Germany. I am not sure that the opportunity will come again. I urge the Minister to do whatever it takes—working in partnership or working assertively with the DFE—to persuade the Secretary of State for Education to sit down with him and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and work on a productive, positive way forward, in which the DFE takes on board its crucial role in pushing vocational education and recognising and appreciating that there is an opportunity to transform its status, as in countries such as Germany.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this hugely important debate, on today of all days—coronation day, when we pay tribute to our sovereign, Her Majesty the Queen. She worked in the family firm and learned her craft from a master monarch. She upskilled on the job, and now she is involved in her own training programme. Perhaps in future we may move vocational qualification day to coronation day, to give exactly the sort of royal imprimatur that the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) spoke so eloquently about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe was a long-serving principal of a sixth form college and is better placed than many of us to comment on the challenges that we face in creating an outstanding vocational education system. He set out the issues with authority and passion, and I pay tribute to his work at the Humber Skills Commission. Amazingly, he did all that while restricted by the anaconda of the omertà of the Whips Office, the perennial purdah that he suffers. Yet he still pursues his case with passion and authority. Furthermore, like me he represents an area that is on the front line of the Government’s austerity assault. One hopes that he has benefited from the recent changes in the climate change levy, but the truth is that for cities such as Stoke-on-Trent and places such as Scunthorpe, at the sharp end of the historic process of deindustrialisation, the profound brilliance of our local craftsmanship and artisanal skills has not insulated us from some challenging economic conditions. We can have brilliant craftsmanship while the situation for local skill levels is particularly challenging.

Now is not the time for a debate on the Government’s disastrous economic policies and the damage they have done to the demand side of the equation. We are gathered here today because we know that the supply side of the employment debate matters too: educational attainment and skills capacity are a vital component of rebalancing our economy to a more sustainable model. That much should be abundantly clear to all. Yet it should also be clear, as hon. Members of all parties have agreed, that we are nowhere near where we need to be on skills. Indeed, our weakness was illustrated in a recent global survey of over 1,300 chief executives by PricewaterhouseCoopers. That report revealed that UK business leaders are the most concerned in the whole of western Europe about the availability of key skills. Indeed, they rated it as the greatest threat to their businesses’ growth and three quarters of them said, rightly, that creating a highly skilled work force should be the highest priority for Government in the year ahead.

Sadly, however, there is still some complacency in Government, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) pointed out so brilliantly, is profoundly damaging to our international competitiveness, because we are, as the Government like to tell us, in a “global race”. How can we succeed in that race when we languish 21st out of all OECD countries in intermediate technical skills and while 31% of high-tech manufacturing firms have been forced to import labour from outside the UK because of a skills shortage? In this very Chamber, we recently had an excellent debate on engineering and the threat to parts of the national security supply chain because of the lack of UK-only trained engineers, particularly female engineers, as some hon. Members have suggested.

The Government, as the latest edition of The Economist eloquently puts it, are racing with their “shoelaces tied together”. That is why this debate is so important. It is absolutely clear to the Labour party that, if we are to build what we want to see—a one nation economy that can compete in a globalised economy while raising living standards right across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom—we simply must have the best skilled work force in the world. The cornerstone to delivering that must, now and in the future, be a relentless focus on driving up the standards of our vocational and technical education system.

I think it is fair to say that, as many hon. Members have noted, not least the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), successive Governments, including the last Labour Government, have not done enough to help the 50% of young people who do not want to pursue the academic route at 16 or 18. As he suggested, we are at a moment of agreement across the parties on the need to rebalance the debate, but I introduce a note of caution. We still want young working-class kids from Stoke-on-Trent, Scunthorpe, Eastbourne and Inverclyde to be able to go to university, and we should not be in the business of precluding those avenues. Although we can rebalance the debate, and although we all want to see growth in the respect given to vocational education and apprenticeships, we must not go down the avenue of suggesting that young working-class kids should not go to university.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree that what we are seeking is parity of both respect and esteem?

[Tristram Hunt]

I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. What we are interested in is a cast-iron commitment to academic and vocational parity, because although our focus in government on raising school standards and academic rigour, and on expanding our outstanding, world-beating higher education sector, left the education system in far better shape than we inherited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe said, we could have done more on vocational education. That is why the Labour party has placed vocational education not just at the heart of our education agenda but at the heart of our offer for the country in 2015, and it is why the leader of the Labour party made his call for focus on that forgotten 50% the heart of his recent party conference speech.

We disagree on the way the Government have pursued vocational education, however. Since they came to power, the Government have undermined careers guidance, which is a big issue for vocational routes. The recent report on that by the Select Committee on Education was absolutely damning. The Government have scrapped work experience and downgraded successful vocational qualifications such as the engineering diploma.

The Government have also made some bad mistakes on apprentices. When they came into power, they simply moved many of those on Train to Gain to apprenticeships. They were more interested in quantity than quality. We would like to think that there has been some rowing back on that recently, and we welcome the Richard review and all the hard work that the Minister is doing to try to enlighten the Secretary of State for Education on that, and we fully support him.

The Minister may now have persuaded his colleagues to hurry out their own version of a tech bacc, yet the difference between the Government’s technical baccalaureate and the Labour party’s original ur-version is that theirs is a performance measure whereas our ambition is for it to be a qualification that we want people to achieve. If some people are going to achieve it, other people are going to fail. If we want quality, it means some will succeed and some will not succeed. We want differentiation on the quality achieved.

As part of that, we need to raise the profile and status of vocational education to create a dual-track system that, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested, genuinely gives no preference to either route. On vocational standards, that means having a clear line of sight both to work and to advanced, further or higher education, which means creating flexible and permeable pathways as a matter of importance. After all, young people are rightly wary of narrowing their options, and the whole ethos of a baccalaureate is to have a sense of broadness. Many see the option of gaining a degree or a gold-standard vocational qualification as part of their natural progression, irrespective of the route they choose at 18.

Furthermore, creating a genuine dual-track system also relies heavily on a deep-seated, collaborative ethos between institutions in delivering education and training. The countries that have enjoyed success in raising standards, such as Austria, Finland and Germany, all benefit from a system that has not only great career guidance but clearly defined roles for key stakeholders, with a great amount of time divested to building and maintaining institutional relationships.

If there is another criticism of the Government’s education policy, it is whether we are seeing the right degree of collaboration between atomistic, competitive schools, which are raising standards in certain situations but are not necessarily providing the kind of collaborative ethos that a local skills economy might need. That is some way from the institutional culture that the Government seem intent on inculcating with their slightly high-handed approach to the expertise of teachers and professionals, the lack of business involvement in delivering training and their focus on competition as the only measure of improving performance. If we want a proper industrial strategy, as the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills keeps urging, we need smarter local and regional collaboration.

Indeed, we only have to look at the shambolic execution of the Government’s careers guidance policy for a textbook display of encouraging perverse institutional incentives. In a tough funding climate, it will be a brave and outstanding school that advises its pupils not to stay on. In a recent conference in Westminster, we saw a very good example of that: a leading academy school that is part of a leading chain said that it had brought in outside careers guidance, exactly as it should be doing, but that it told the person coming in to give the careers guidance that they were not allowed to advise pupils to go to the college up the road. With in-house careers guidance, there is a producer interest in keeping kids along an easily understandable gold-path academic route, as it were, of GCSEs, A-level and university, rather than thinking far more creatively, which requires trained professionals with knowledge of local situations.

Perhaps the biggest problem we face in delivering a vocational education system for the future is the perverse and pervasive disconnect between the education system and local labour markets. All too often, skills policy is isolated from industrial and economic policy. That is why Labour’s technical baccalaureate would directly involve businesses in accrediting the quality of courses, and it is also why our tech bacc, unlike the Government’s tech bacc, would have a work experience requirement. Businesses have told our taskforce, the Husbands review, that that is absolutely crucial, which is why we would ensure that all vocational teachers spend time every year with local businesses and industry to keep their skills and experience fresh.

Those three measures would bring to education and training institutions a clear and realistic understanding of local labour markets. Closing the gap between employers and educators is vital if we are to develop a dual-track approach.

Of course, raising educational standards in vocational training does not mean that we weaken our focus on core subjects and on improving rigour. In vocational or academic routes, there should be no false division between theoretical knowledge in practical subjects. There is an interesting discussion to be had on where the journey begins for opening up pathways at 14 or 16. What have we learnt from the university technical colleges on the 14-to-19 parameter, rather than up to 16? Was the Wolf report 100% correct in saying that people should continue with the same totality of focus up to 16?

Fundamental to the Labour party’s education policy is a clear commitment to teaching English and maths to 18, irrespective of route, because although many further education teachers do an outstanding job, often in challenging circumstances—we have heard about the differences in funding and free school meals—we need to raise teaching standards in FE colleges in English and maths. Of the 40% of pupils who do not get a level 2 qualification at 16, only 20% go on to acquire one at 19 through the FE system. That needs to change if we want to upskill our country. The Minister should once again take his cue from Labour’s policy review, which is open and available to him, and from our one nation skills commission’s interim report, and commit to requiring all FE teachers to have at least a level 2 qualification in English or maths.

There are other problems with our system of vocational education, training and skills. We have acute skills shortages in crucial sectors such as engineering, too many young people who lack employment skills, low levels of employer involvement and a lack of good-quality advice for navigating the transition to work. Labour supports the proposals on traineeships that the Government are beginning to carve out. There is also a dearth of high-quality apprenticeships and a damaging divide between vocational and academic pathways.

However, I remain deeply optimistic about our ability to deliver on creating the skilled work force that we need. If we have problems with the manner of delivery, it is heartening that we have an element of cross-party consensus on the issue. We have a vast supply of dedicated, skilled, quality teachers who are willing to work with us to raise standards. If we get the system right, we can reverse the long tale of poor skills in this country and deliver a work force that can compete with the world.

We agree with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills that there is no future in a zero-sum game of depressed wages and longer hours. That is the Conservative future outlined in the terrible book “Britannia Unchained”—I do not know whether the hon. Members for Harlow or for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) contributed a chapter—which depicted a grisly neo-liberal world in which the British are too lazy and too slow. I do not know whether that includes paternity leave; the Minister might be able to enlighten us later.

The solution to our competitive challenge is not a low-skill, low-wage economy or a divided education system—the only race that will win is the race to the bottom. Rather, we must and can compete on our own terms, which means using our competitive advantage in innovation to build a one nation economy based on high-level skills and dynamic, technologically sophisticated companies. That is what young people want, it is what businesses want and it is what the Labour party is committed to delivering. It starts with a dual-track education system and our rigorous technical baccalaureate.

[Robert Halfon]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. For the record, I did not contribute to the book mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Educating Engineers

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Miller]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his response to the Gracious Address. It was interesting that the leaders of both parties commented on the sterling work that he is doing on engineering. My challenge to both Front-Bench Members is to follow their leaders and deliver on the quality of the work that the hon. Gentleman is doing.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question specifically, we were concentrating on 14-to-19 education. In my view, another part of the work that is needed is for us to work on developing continual professional development in schools, including, very importantly, among primary schools, because the seeds are sown at a much younger age. My simple answer is that the issue was outside the scope of our report, but he raises a very important point that ties back into the earlier debate, a large part of which I was privileged to sit in on.

We were keen to find out why there is such a mismatch between the demand and supply of engineers, and how subject choices were made, which is obviously part of it. Let us start with the English baccalaureate. The EBacc performance measure was introduced in 2011, but retrospectively applied to 2010 figures. It recognised where students have achieved a GCSE grade C or above in English, maths, sciences, history, geography and languages. Looking at the impact of the EBacc on engineering education, we heard mixed views. Some welcomed the EBacc’s focus on maths and sciences, which are important precursors for engineering. Some evidence shows that the EBacc has correlated with a greater uptake of science GCSEs. Some 93% of GCSE students are due to take a double or triple science GCSE in summer 2014, which is the highest proportion for two decades.

However, the EBacc has a downside for engineering, too. Maths and science GCSEs are not the only route into engineering. Important subjects such as design and technology are not included in the EBacc, and I know that a lot of companies agree with me on that point. About a quarter of the students accepted on to engineering degree courses in the UK have an A-level in design and technology. Worryingly, a qualification awarding body told us that some schools had been

“switching large numbers of students away from Product Design, Engineering, Manufacturing and Applied Science GCSEs.”

In some cases, that has happened when students were already six months into those programmes.

Although we welcome the EBacc’s focus on the attainment of maths and science GCSEs, we were concerned that important subjects such as design and technology are being adversely affected as schools focus on the EBacc. We recommended that the Government consider how to reward schools and recognise performance in non-EBacc subjects when it reviews the school accountability system.

The TechBacc—the technical baccalaureate—is an interesting development. It was designed when we were conducting our inquiry. In April, the Government announced the TechBacc performance measure as an

“alternative to the A level study route for post-16 education.”

We set out some hopes for the curriculum. First, the TechBacc should offer a broad base of education to facilitate a wide range of further study and career options. Secondly, the Government must endeavour to ensure that the TechBacc does not suffer from the cultural misconception that plagues vocational education—namely that it is for the less bright students, which comes back to my point about that important continuum.

Thirdly, and possibly most controversially, we concluded that schools must be incentivised to focus on the TechBacc and, therefore, that the TechBacc should be equivalent to the EBacc in all respects. A list of courses that will count towards the TechBacc will be published later this year, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the TechBacc will be equivalent to the EBacc for those schools that offer it. Could she also comment on how many schools might offer the TechBacc?

While the diploma in engineering is yet to prove itself, it has been in place since 2008. The qualification, which is for 14 to 19-year-olds, is available at three levels: foundation, higher and advanced. It sits alongside the traditional educational pathways of GCSEs and A-levels, and it offers students classroom-based learning, combined with work-related practical experience. The engineering level 2 diploma is equivalent to seven GCSEs, with a core principal learning component equivalent to five GCSEs.

As a result of the publication of the Wolf review of vocational education in March 2011, a vocational qualification will count as equivalent to only one GCSE in the 2014 key stage 4 performance tables. That means the engineering diploma would be equivalent to one GCSE in performance tables, despite requiring curriculum time equivalent to several.

The Government caused great unhappiness among engineers in 2012, when the change to the GCSE equivalence of the engineering diploma was announced. Employers considered the diploma to be excellent at providing the next generation of skilled engineers. In paragraph 17 of their response, the Government do not agree with us on vocational skills, saying:

“The performance table reforms were made following a full, public consultation and were not made in haste.”

There is a contradiction in the evidence there, and I would like the Government to publish their evidence, because it certainly conflicts with the evidence we heard.

The engineering community started discussions with the Government over redeveloping the diploma in May 2012. Then, in November 2012, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the engineering diploma would be “reworked”. During our inquiry, the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), stated the reworked diploma “won’t be a diploma” but “four separate qualifications”. The Government expected the revamped qualifications to be available for students to sit as early as 2014.

Although we are pleased that the Government have been engaging with the engineering community to redesign the diploma, some of the damage already seems to have been done. The rapidly climbing numbers of students taking the diploma hit a peak and then started dropping. In one submission, the change was seen as

“a retrograde step, out-of-sync with government’s stated intentions to rebalance the economy towards manufacturing.”

We concluded that, in changing the engineering diploma, the Government potentially sent a poor message about the value of engineering education.

The engineering diploma is particularly popular with university technical colleges. UTCs integrate national curriculum requirements with technical and vocational elements. Recently, I was delighted, as part of my personal research for the report, to visit the JCB academy. Bamford is not seen as a natural friend of the Labour party, but, goodness me, he has done an amazing job in investing in that school. It is inspiring place; indeed, people can go into Arkwright’s original mill and see the school’s energy coming from the same mill races Arkwright used to run the mill, although the safety conditions have improved more than somewhat since those days. What an inspiring school; it helps its talented students to work in engineering by encouraging them to get inside problems and work on complex issues.

With his background, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who speaks for the Opposition, would be intrigued to see how Shakespeare, for example, was taught. “Romeo and Juliet” was being taught when I visited, and I expected a secondary modern, linear approach, with the play being taught from beginning to end, but the students were writing an essay about the causes of conflict between and within families. What a good way of understanding what is, after all, a very complicated storyline. That is the way the teaching is done. It is an inspiring school, and it made me want to go back to school.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Just to reassure my hon. Friend, I should say that I am visiting the JCB Rocester academy on 5 July, and I am looking forward to it enormously.

[Andrew Miller]

My hon. Friend will find some very talented students, inspiring teachers and fantastic equipment. It is worth examining whether we can develop that in other UTCs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend is right. Skills are a major factor when people are deciding where to invest. Something that I found surprising, or perhaps even shocking, was that when the CBI conducted a survey of companies, it found that 42%, across all sectors, reported a skills gap when recruiting. That skills gap is as true in my local context as it is nationally.

South Basildon and East Thurrock has a long and rich industrial heritage, and I shall, if I may, blow my constituency’s trumpet for a moment. For example, one in 10 of the world’s large tractors are built in Basildon, at Case New Holland, generating £7 billion of exports. The personal IED-blockers that our servicemen wear in Afghanistan are built, designed and programmed in Basildon by Selex. Gardner Aerospace is a medium-sized engineering firm, employing more than 200 staff in my constituency. It is a tier 1 supplier to Airbus—there is not an Airbus A380 that flies without a part made in Basildon—and it competes with firms in cheaper-cost-base countries such as India and China, and why is it able to compete? Because of its quality and because it delivers on time.

[Tristram Hunt]

Given the excellence of the Airbus-producing manufacturer in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has that impacted at all on his ideas about the virtue or otherwise of the European single market?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and to follow the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who has produced another compelling and interesting speech. I begin to think that he is a renaissance man, given his involvement also in the upcoming commemorations of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta in 2015.

The Opposition welcome the Science and Technology Committee’s report. It is an important intervention on a question vital to rebalancing our economy and improving our competitiveness and, as we have just heard, for reasons of national security. “How do we educate tomorrow’s engineers?” is our collective exam question. The Opposition also welcome the Government’s response to the report, now that it has finally arrived.

I follow the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), serving as a constituency Member of Parliament, in thinking of the excellent traditions of engineering that we have in Stoke-on-Trent. I am thinking particularly of Goodwin International, a company now in its 10th generation of family ownership, which produces precision steel engineering for nuclear power stations in China, as well as for bridges around the world. Olympus Engineering is another fine business in my constituency.

As the report and many colleagues have noted, the UK engineering sector comprises more than 500,000 companies, employing 5.4 million people and generating one fifth of our GDP and half our exports. In 2010, it generated a £1.15 trillion turnover. By any measure, that is a profound contribution to our economic well-being. We all want to move wealth across the country away from London and the south-east to ensure greater equity in our constituencies. The sector is a profound part of our economy.

Although I would be happy, indeed delighted, to wax lyrical about the wonders of Richard Arkwright, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Thomas Telford and Stoke-on-Trent’s own Reginald Mitchell, designer of the Spitfire, at the moment we should think of the future and the modern global race for competitiveness. We are not where we need to be on skills, as the recent global survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers outlined. That survey of more than 1,300 chief executive officers revealed that UK business leaders are more concerned about the availability of key skills than any of their western European counterparts, rating the issue as the greatest threat to their businesses’ growth. We have heard evidence of that in the debate. Three out of four chief executives said that creating and encouraging a skilled work force should be the Government’s highest priority for business in the year ahead.

Nowhere is the struggle for skills more obvious than in engineering. As the Committee report outlines, by 2020, we will need 820,000 science, engineering and technology professionals, 80% of whom will be required in engineering. One need only look at the Indian institutes of technology or what is going on in China to realise that the rest of the world is not going to wait around for us to catch up.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, with which I am sure we all agree. Does he therefore fully accept that we are competing on a global stage and that we are in a global race? We owe it to our young people to give them all the skills that they need to compete in that global race.

[Tristram Hunt]

I absolutely agree. The challenge is how to do so, and politics is the issue. We must push ourselves up the quality supply chain if we are to earn our money in the world. It is therefore depressing to read in the report that 31% of high-tech manufacturing firms had recruited people from outside the UK owing to a lack of suitably qualified people from within the UK. It is both a business and a national security question.

One area in which we simply must improve, as the Chair of the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire suggested, is redressing the gender balance and the under-representation of women across the engineering sector. New research by EngineeringUK reveals that many girls rule out careers in science and engineering by the time they are only 14 years old. The UK has the lowest number of women scientists and engineers of all EU countries, fewer than 9% of girls opt for physics at GCSE level and 25% of schoolgirls think that science careers are most suited to boys. I remember hearing powerful evidence from the chief executive of Brompton Bicycle about looking for a female design engineer; candidates simply did not come forward. He wanted a female engineer precisely for a different way of thinking and problem solving, and for the new capacities that she could bring into his company.

Of all OECD countries, we currently languish at 21st for intermediate technical skills. I thought that at this stage I would introduce some partisan rancour. One would think that the Government would be doing all that they could to promote engineering and science and to develop a rigorous approach to vocational education and technical skills. We could have had a modern skills settlement in the Gracious Speech. That would have been far more useful to British competitiveness than grandstanding on a European referendum.

Although I am happy, indeed delighted, to pay tribute to the Minister’s excellent work on promoting mathematics in schools and encouraging greater female take-up of mathematics, sadly, the Government have not fulfilled the other side of the equation. Instead, they have devalued apprenticeships, undermined careers guidance by abandoning the statutory duty to provide work experience and downgraded a successful qualification in the engineering diploma. From the Committee’s evidence, it seems difficult to substantiate the Government’s claim in their response that they considered the views of the engineering sector carefully when downgrading the diploma in the infamous paragraph 17.

Like the Chair of the Select Committee, I also look forward to seeing those responses, because the evidence is unequivocal. National Grid suggests that downgrading the diploma will make it a less attractive option to schools. Meanwhile, the Engineering Employers Federation stated that the downgrading of diplomas has not sent out the signal to employers and young people that the Government are serious about the status and value of vocational education. I could go on.

In light of that damning verdict from the sector’s leading employers’ federation, will the Minister enlighten us as to how exactly she considered carefully the engineering sector’s views on the process of the downgrade? The Opposition agree with the EEF’s verdict and support the Committee’s position that the downgrading of the diploma represents a poor message about how much the Government value engineering education. It is all very well for the Government to suggest that they are now consulting on a replacement, but it is difficult to find fault with the Committee’s simple argument that any new plans could have been developed before the decision to downgrade. Indeed, that is arguably representative of elements of the Government’s education agenda.

We all support a rigorous grounding in core subjects, and it would be impossible not to welcome, along with other hon. Members, the increasing number of pupils studying triple science and A-level mathematics, as the Government outlined in their response. The point about the EBacc, however, is not that such core subjects are not an important part of a well-rounded education for all—of course they are. The point is in the narrowness, both the incentive it provides to schools to narrow an academic offer and, more importantly, the numbers of students it affects. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, that can often lead to perverse outcomes.

A case in point is design and technology. Manufacturers and engineers have made it clear that they are troubled by its removal from key stage 4 as a compulsory subject.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

It is not a compulsory subject at key stage 4 at the moment.

[Tristram Hunt]

As I say, manufacturers and engineers would like as much take-up of it at key stage 4 as possible. It is undoubtedly an important subject for training and educating the next generation of engineers. There is a need, however, to look again at the content of the proposed curriculum. I am surprised by some comments made by Government Members about the content, because the CBI’s director for employment and skills has said:

“The proposed design and technology curriculum is out of step with the needs of a modern economy. It lacks academic and technical rigour, as well as clear links to the realities of the workplace… The proposals…risk reinforcing existing prejudices about applied subjects being second-rate.”

[Peter Luff]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, particularly as he is being gracious about my speech. That was what the CBI said, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the new draft of the D and T curriculum, on which I have worked closely with the Minister, is a great improvement on that. The whole sector, including the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Design and Technology Association and the CBI, will be well pleased with the draft that will now be part of the curriculum.

[Tristram Hunt]

I would love to stand corrected. If the CBI and other members of the engineering community are delighted with the new curriculum—

[Peter Luff]

Not delighted, but pleased.

[Tristram Hunt]

If they are less unhappy with the new curriculum, I look forward to reading their comments in due course.

What we need is the rigour not just of the past but of the future. Of course, the Government have belatedly announced their proposals for a technical baccalaureate, and that is a welcome change of tone. When the Labour party announced its plans for a TechBacc, the Government dismissed our proposed gold-standard vocational qualification as something that would

“leave millions of state school pupils unemployable.”

If that is not talking down vocational education, I do not know what is.

Labour’s technical baccalaureate would have a work experience requirement, and businesses told Labour’s skills task force that such a requirement is crucial. We would also place control over accrediting courses for the TechBacc qualification in the hands of business. Rolls-Royce or Jaguar Land Rover, for example, which, as has been mentioned, are going to transform the skills training economy in the west midlands with the i54 development, could be involved in designing the content of engineering education. That is in contrast to the Government’s vision for the TechBacc as an institutional performance measure—a wrap-up performance measure— rather than as a gold-standard qualification.

Mr Walker, sadly you were not here, but in the previous debate we discussed the Education Committee’s seventh report. I endorse the concerns expressed in this report, which echo those of that report, that the Government have removed the statutory duty for work experience. In the public consultation to Alison Wolf’s excellent report, 89% of respondents did not believe that the duty should be removed, and with employers routinely complaining, as we have heard this afternoon, about the lack of workplace knowledge and the arguably poor employability of many young people, the Government must consider whether scrapping work experience is a good idea.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

The hon. Gentleman is right on one level. Work experience, when done well, can provide a really good opportunity to get an insight into either a sector of our economy or the world of work. Too often, however, work experience for 14 to 16-year-olds is not rewarding at all and can put people off work. Schools often scratch around trying to find enough employers to provide what is, basically, a sitting service for two weeks at the end of year 10 and the start of year 11. It has to be valued and it has to be good, and sometimes that is not possible at 14 to 16. That is why I think that the emphasis on later, and quality, work experience is much more valuable.

[Tristram Hunt]

Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that bad work experience serves no purpose. The onus is clearly on the responsibility to deliver an effective work placement. Once careers guidance is downgraded—as we have discussed—our worry is whether the capacity to offer rewarding work experience and work placements will be there in schools. We will see how this rolls itself out, but with careers, work experience and work placements there is a genuine concern that the Government’s emphasis and attention are not where they could be, precisely at the time when so many young people face the real possibility of unemployment.

Some points in the Government’s response are welcome. Clearly, the new accountability proposals are a small step in the direction of correcting the narrow focus of the EBacc as the sole performance measure. The Opposition also welcome the progress made on university technical colleges, which play a small but vital role in delivering engineering excellence. We have heard about the work of Sir Anthony Bamford and JCB but, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) suggested, they are not the universal answer, and we must ensure that science and technology is delivered across mainstream schooling.

It is clear that although both sides of the House may share a similar ambition for a dynamic engineering sector at the heart of a rebalanced economy, the Opposition believe that we have a cast-iron commitment to creating the parity that is needed between academic and high quality vocational education routes, so as to educate the next generation of engineers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree. One organisation I have talked to is PFEG—the Personal Finance Education Group—which is very supportive of the financial education programme in schools that we have added to the national curriculum. It is keen to help communicate with primary school children about which careers are likely to be available in the future, and which will have the financial rewards to support them and their families when they grow up.

There would thus be an early understanding of the value of continuing to study some of the subjects in which it may take a while for the penny to drop—we have all had moments of struggling through sums and finally getting it—and children could be encouraged by being told, “This is what you can do. This is the kind of thing you could be.” The Under-Secretary of State for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) said that he wanted to be an astronaut, which is an aspirational career—I do not think you were in the Chamber, Mr Walker—but he settled for being an Under-Secretary, which I am sure we agree is an equivalent profession. Perhaps not.

We are making good progress on A-levels. The number of pupils taking A-level maths rose by 51% between 2005 and 2010. As the Committee commented, however, that is simply not enough, given that we are 200,000 mathematicians short at university and when many of those shortages are in engineering courses. We therefore need to do more to get students to do A-level maths and physics. Our stimulating physics network is particularly focused on getting girls to do physics at GCSE and A-level, which is part of our programme.

One reason why we have had such a low uptake in maths from 16 to 18, which is a key basis for engineering, is that we have not had the mid-level qualification that many other countries have. It has been all or nothing: children do the full A-level or nothing. We are creating a number of core maths qualifications, such as maths in education and industry, and we are working with Professor Tim Gowers of Cambridge university on a problem-solving qualification. We are also considering a probability and statistics qualification similar to the one offered in New Zealand, which succeeded in increasing take-up.

The core maths qualification will be part of the technical baccalaureate, and we hope that it will be part of academic programmes of study. I hope that addresses the Select Committee Chair’s aspiration to create more of a common core that all students take from 16 to 18. Clearly, students will also be able to take A-level maths or further maths, but let us make sure that they continue with the core study that is so important to whatever kind of career they go into later.

I was asked whether the technical baccalaureate is equivalent to the EBacc. No, it is not, because it is a 16-to-18 qualification, while the EBacc is a 14-to-16 qualification. The technical baccalaureate is a high-level vocational qualification that is aspirational—it includes level 3 maths—and it is also an applied qualification. It will be recorded in league tables alongside A-level, rather than at the 14-to-16 level. That is in line with Alison Wolf’s report on vocational education, which recommended that young people follow a general education curriculum until the end of key stage 4, with vocational specialist options postponed until after that stage, and explains why we have the EBacc, which is a core qualification and represents only 60% or 70% of the curriculum, so there is still space for students to study additional subjects. That is the expectation to 16, and the technical baccalaureate, the academic alternative or an apprenticeship follows from age 16 to 18.

[Tristram Hunt]

In terms of the direction of travel in UTCs and the emerging 14-to-19 space, with young people beginning to think about different paths at 14, what is the Government’s belief in the UTC model, in relation to the Wolf report, in respect of total academic qualifications to 16 relative to beginning different pathways from 14?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I said, we think that students should do a common core until 16, and even continue to do so until 18 on the critical subjects, which are maths and written communication, for example through an extended project qualification. The core is there, following the best traditions of countries such as Germany, which has upgraded its qualifications so that all students do a strong academic core until they are 16. That is the intention behind the new progress 8 accountability measure, which includes English, maths, three EBacc subjects and three additional subjects, so providing a common academic core for all students, plus three additional subjects.

Careers Guidance

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Westminster Hall

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton.

What brings us together in the Chamber today is a collective sense that we could probably have had better careers advice ourselves, and that we care passionately about young people’s careers advice in the future. That is why the Labour party welcomes the Select Committee report and, in particular, the devastating third paragraph of the summary, which announced that the “decision to transfer responsibility” was “regrettable”, going on to state that the Committee had

“concerns about the consistency, quality, independence and impartiality of careers guidance now being offered to young people.”

Labour acknowledges that careers guidance for young people was in need of reform, which is why the previous Labour Government were committed to a review of the IAG—information, advice and guidance—strategy in 2011, following our response to Alan Milburn’s report. The Committee has produced a typically thoughtful and comprehensive contribution to an important issue. Transferring the statutory duty for careers guidance to schools is a radical and untested departure in the history of careers guidance in the United Kingdom, deserving of close scrutiny. Furthermore, the report arrives at a moment of crisis. That young people in this country are more likely than the elderly to be unemployed is a shocking situation and the exact opposite of what is happening in, for example, Germany. Youth unemployment in this country remains around 1 million, so this is exactly not the time to undermine effective careers advice. The Labour party, however, will try to approach the debate in a bipartisan spirit. Young people are not well served by tit-for-tat exchanges or by apportioning blame. The truth is that youth unemployment and social mobility are deep-seated challenges. We look to work with the Select Committee and the Government where possible.

The previous Labour Government stated:

“High-quality information, advice and guidance is crucial in helping young people to develop ambitious but achievable plans, which are more likely to lead to positive outcomes.”

That has also been recognised by a wide range of professional bodies, from the CBI to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. It is pleasing that the Government recognise the Committee’s findings that good-quality, independent careers guidance is “essential” for all young people. However, we believe that the Government could be doing more to drive aspiration, boost our competitiveness and stop exactly the kind of waste pointed out by the Chair of the Select Committee, when he mentioned the young man seeking to forge a career in the fire brigade.

We are pleased that the Minister has belatedly persuaded his colleagues of the importance of a technical baccalaureate, although it remains disappointing that, unlike Labour policy, which it attempts to imitate, it does not include a commitment to a proper work experience placement or a course structure developed by business. One of the strongest criticisms made by the Committee report is the removal of a statutory duty to provide careers education and work-related learning. In the public consultation on the Wolf report, nearly 89% of respondents did not believe that the statutory duty should be removed. With employers routinely complaining —as the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) explained—about the lack of workplace knowledge and poor employability of young people, the Government must consider whether scrapping work experience is a good idea. It would not be so bad if different routes to employability, vocational education and apprenticeships were well advertised by the careers services under the new regime, but, as both Government and Opposition Members have explained, that is simply not the case.

I strongly urge the Government, therefore, to respond with greater clarity than they did to the Select Committee report on how they will ensure that young people are made aware of the full range of post-16 options available in their local area, as my hon. Friends have discussed, including apprenticeships. Pupils need an independent and impartial system of advice. The problem is an element of over-concentration by the Government on the 16.4% of state school pupils who achieved EBacc results. We all want as much academic achievement as possible in our schools; we all want that excellence and rigour, but we also need to be aware of different learning and career pathways. That is the difficult situation that the Minister faces. His colleagues do not seem to share his concern for rigorous vocational training.

Unfortunately, the sloppy approach to evidence appears to have seeped into the reforms as well. The international evidence for the statutory transfer of the careers service to schools is, at best, thin on the ground. The Select Committee is clear about that, and it cites the OECD, which has highlighted the limitations of the school-based model—“lack of impartiality, inconsistency” and, perhaps most damaging, “weak links” with the labour market—also emphasised by hon. Members. Labour is not dogmatic on the location of the statutory duty. Quality of delivery is what counts, not who holds the responsibility. We agree with the Committee’s findings that further upheaval and uncertainty, after everything schools have been through, might have a detrimental impact upon young people at a difficult time.

In the current fiscal climate, we also agree with the Committee that additional direct funding to schools is unlikely. Schools need to make careers guidance a priority within their budgets. The Chair of the Select Committee’s figures about five in six not providing the same level of allocation are terrifying. As the deputy Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), pointed out in her speech, that does not mean that the Government should present the withdrawal of £200 million of funding as consequence free. In his evidence, the Minister suggested that the Government have protected school spending, but schools are having to invest about £25,000 each for something that was previously allocated funding, and we can see from the report that levels of provision have simply fallen off a cliff.

All that comes at a difficult time. Teaching morale is at an all-time low and, for better or worse, the change comes when our education system faces enormous structural upheaval and fragmentation. The Government are asking schools to take on a commissioning role, but if we have learnt nothing else over the past 30 years of public policy, it is that commissioning services is not easy and requires a complex set of skills and capabilities. Extraordinary demands are being placed on our schools, and the simple question that the Minister must answer is whether his Government are doing enough to provide guidance and support and to disseminate best practice. The Committee report seems clear that the answer is no. In the words of Professor Tony Watts of Careers England, it is

“not delegation to schools; it is abdication.”

We need careers services with strong links to employers, good local labour market intelligence, impartial advice on different routes and a robust system of accountability. We should not stifle innovation with over-prescription and bureaucracy, but we must not abdicate responsibility to provide clear and rigorous standards to drive performance. Like the Chair of the Committee, what most concerns me about the report is the accountability dimension. The report merely reveals the widespread sector concern, echoed by the Government’s social mobility adviser, that the accountability measures for the new regime are nowhere near robust enough. There is now near unanimous support for an enhanced role for Ofsted, and I am pleased to note that Sir Michael Wilshaw told the Committee that there is a need to

“recalibrate the schools framework to focus more on careers advice.”

We have Ofsted’s thematic review in the summer and the National Careers Council report this month, but I remain concerned that they will not result in delivering the robust accountability that we need.

I started by saying that I would approach the debate in a non-partisan way, and I am pleased to put on record our support for the Government’s extension of the statutory duty to year 8s and to 16 to 18-year-olds in college. There is a case for going further.

I welcome the Minister’s enthusiasm for increasing employer participation in schools and the commitment to develop destination measures further, although I note the Education Secretary’s failings on that. Finally, I note the Committee’s interesting recommendations on the potential for a brokerage role for the National Careers Service, which has rightly been criticised for not doing enough for young people. The Labour party will look at that recommendation as part of its ongoing policy review, and the One Nation Skills Taskforce, chaired by Professor Chris Husband, which we should implement in about two years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tristram Hunt Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his excellent contribution to the Westminster Hall debate we had on this subject. I would also like to thank him for his views on the maths, science and computing curriculum. We are now working on ensuring that design and technology is more closely integrated with those curricula and that there is an inspiring technological education that crosses many different industry types and gives schools flexibility to teach design and technology in the best way for the next generation.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

The Opposition believe in academic excellence, but we also believe in a syllabus that reflects the demands of the 21st century. Does the Minister share my concern about comments from the CBI last week, which damned the new design and technology curriculum as

“out of step with the needs of a modern economy.”

It stated that the curriculum

“lacks academic and technical rigour”

and

“risks reinforcing existing prejudices about applied subjects being second-rate.”

When will we have a proper focus from the Government on a rigorous and relevant curriculum?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position on the Front Bench. It is sad that we did not get to hear his views on the history curriculum earlier in the debate, but we will no doubt hear them at a later stage.

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the future of British manufacturing and engineering. We are working with leading figures in the industry to make sure that we have a world-leading curriculum that is in line with what we have in computing, physics and mathematics. I would also point to the technical baccalaureate that we are introducing, which will, for the first time in this country, provide a rigorous, high-quality technical education that is truly aspirational and will encourage many more young people to study subjects such as engineering.