(Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Why does the Prime Minister think that his now former education
adviser, , described the
Government’s education plan as a “half-hearted approach” that
“risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils”
and that
“does not come close to meeting the scale”
of what is needed?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I want to thank for his work,
but above all I want to thank pupils, parents and teachers for
everything they have done throughout this pandemic. The struggle
has been enormous and, in addition to the extra £14 billion we
have committed—taking per pupil funding up to £4,000 in primary
schools and up to £5,150 in secondary schools—we are now putting
another £3 billion into educational catch-up with the biggest
tutoring programme anywhere in the world, and it is based on the
best evidence that we could find and that Sir Kevan could supply.
Let me get this right. In February, the Prime Minister appoints
an expert to come up with a catch-up plan for education—a highly
respected expert, who consults widely and comes up with a
plan—and the Treasury baulks at it and says, “We’ll only provide
10%.” Yes, one tenth of what is needed. The Prime Minister,
whatever he says, rolled over and children lose out. So much for
levelling up.
Let me help the Prime Minister with the numbers. The funding he
announced last week is about £50 per child per year. Even if you
add in previous announcements, in England it is only £310 per
child over four years. The US has a catch-up plan worth £1,600
per child, and in the Netherlands it is £2,500. So can the Prime
Minister explain why, when he was told by the expert he appointed
that only an ambitious, fully funded catch-up plan would do, he
came up with something that, in the words of the same expert, is
too small, too narrow and too slow?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman needs to catch up on
his mathematics because, in addition to the £14 billion I have
already mentioned, there was already another £1.5 billion of
catch-up funding. This is a £3 billion catch-up plan, just for
starters, and it includes the biggest programme of
tuition—one-to-one, one-to-two, one-to-three tutorials—anywhere
in the world.
We all know there are schools and classrooms in this country
where children are getting private tuition, thanks to the hard
work of their parents. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks
about levelling up. What we want to do is to get on the side of
all the kids who do not have access to that tuition and to
support them. That is what I mean by levelling up.
Who does the Prime Minister think he is kidding? He asked
to tell him
what was necessary to catch up. told him, and
he said no. Who does he think he is kidding? The Chancellor’s
decision—I assume it was the Chancellor’s decision; it always
is—to hold back the investment that is needed is a completely
false economy, as the long-term costs are likely to be at least
£100 billion, and probably more. Who will be hardest hit? Kids
from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If the Government do not change course, this will hold Britain
back for a generation. Here is the difference between us and
them: when Labour says education is our No. 1 priority, we mean
it. That is why we published a bold £15 billion plan for every
child to catch up on education, and we are putting it to a vote
this afternoon. If the Prime Minister is really serious about
this, he would back the motion. Will he do so?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I will tell you the difference between us and the
party opposite: we put in the tough measures that are needed to
give kids across the country a better education. When we rolled
out the academies programme, which has driven up standards, who
opposed it? They did. When we put in tough measures to ensure
discipline in schools, they opposed it. At the last election,
they even campaigned to get rid of Ofsted, which is so vital.
[Interruption.] They did. He stood on a manifesto to get rid of
Ofsted.
Will he now say that he supports not only our tuition programme
but our radical programme to support teachers with better
training? We are now putting in not only a starting salary for
teachers of £30,000, which we have introduced, but another £400
million to support better training for teachers. That is what we
are backing in our party. These are serious, costed reforms,
based on evidence, unlike anything he is producing.
[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Can we have just a little less shouting? I remind the
Prime Minister that this is Prime Minister’s questions, and it is
not about the agenda of the last general election.
[Interruption.] Ofsted was not the question. I am not interested
in what the Opposition put on the agenda; I am more interested in
you answering the question.
Mr Speaker, let me take this very slowly for the Prime Minister.
The Collins review, commissioned by the Government, was very
clear: if the Collins proposed action is not taken, the
attainment gap will rise by between 10% and 24%. That was on a
slide shown to the Prime Minister last week. He talks about the
various measures, so let us look at this more closely. Which part
of our plan—the plan being voted on this afternoon—does he
oppose? Is it breakfast clubs for every child? Does he oppose
that? Is it quality mental health support in every school? Does
he oppose that? Is it more tutoring for every child who needs it?
Does he oppose that? Or is it additional investment for children
who have suffered the most? Which part of our plan does the Prime
Minister object to? If he does not object to it and he agrees
with it, why does he not vote for it?
The Prime Minister
With great respect, Mr Speaker, I do think I am entitled to draw
attention to what the Labour party stood on at the last election.
They have not yet repudiated it; they did want to get rid of
Ofsted. But I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that
if he is now saying that he supports our tutoring programme—that
is what I understood from him just now—that is a good thing,
because hitherto what has happened is that the kids of well-off
parents, thanks to their hard work, have been able to rely on
private tutoring. What the Government are now doing is coming in
on the side of all the other kids who do not get access to that
tutoring—6 million children will have access to tuition thanks to
this programme. It is a fantastic thing; it is a revolution in
education for this country. If he is now saying that he supports
it, that is a good thing, although I have learnt in the course of
the last year that his support can sometimes be evanescent.
The Prime Minister pretends he is here for the other kids. The
report says that the attainment gap will go up by between 10% and
24% if the action is not taken, and he has just rejected it. How
can he be on the side of the other kids? Come off it! We have
been here before: free school meals—U-turn; exams fiasco—U-turn;
and now catch-up. The Prime Minister has been all over the place
when it comes to education, and he is on the wrong side of it
again.
