Education Settings: Wider Opening

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, there is indeed a high degree of confidence that the severity of the disease is lower in children than in adults. In the primary setting, we have been clear that we do not expect the younger cohorts to socially distance; the measures to enable children to come back state that they should be in groups of a maximum of 15, that they should not mix across groups and that there should be good hygiene in schools. As soon as the scientific evidence allows, we will be relieved to be able to welcome children back to their education.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]]

Has the Minister seen today’s report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing that the closure of schools is accentuating the socioeconomic divide? Does she recall that, four weeks ago, I asked her at Question Time to prepare for summer schools, in particular so that youngsters transferring from primary to secondary school in September are not absolutely disadvantaged? Some may have been out of school for six months and have had no education at all. Can some concentration be given to the easy entrance of those children to secondary education so that they do not lose out completely? We need summer schools and not just holiday activity clubs.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, the clubs that I have outlined offer educational provision as well, but the noble Baroness is right about the transition year. That is why we have recommended that schools bring back year 6 so that the transition into secondary school is managed for those children. However, we are aware that a number of reports indicate that more provision is available to children from more affluent backgrounds. I have outlined the remote devices and other support that we have given to schools to try to level up some of that gap.

Covid-19: Schools

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

I can assure noble Lords that all scientific information is being considered by SAGE. In particular, there is a sub-group in relation to children and its advice has obviously been essential in informing the decision. Of course, it is anticipated that the scientific evidence will allow us to reopen schools on 1 June in that phased manner, but it has been clear that if the scientific advice moves, or if the rate of transmission is not decreasing, that position could change. However, a reopening on 1 June is anticipated, and schools should plan for that.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the priority going forward must be those children, especially in deprived areas, who have received little or no education, whether at school or at home, over the last few weeks? Will she look in particular at ensuring the best possible experience for such children when they are leaving primary and transferring to secondary school in September? To this end, will the Government arrange, fund and consult on the provision of additional summer schools and extra classes to aid this transition, because those children who do not settle well into secondary school will lose out completely on their life chances?

[Baroness Berridge]

The noble Baroness is correct and that is why the transition year of year 6 is one of the priority years to bring children back into school. Of course, we are also looking at the moment to expand the 880 breakfast clubs that we have around the country, and £70 million is being spent on free school meals at the moment. She is right that we need to look at all options to help these children catch up on education. I am grateful for her suggestion and welcome suggestions from any other noble Lords. There will be many parents and teachers awake at night, worried about these disadvantaged children, and I can assure her that Ministers too are concerned about those children.

Educational Opportunities: Working Classes

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and on her speech today. Like her, I have been convinced for many years that if we are to really change the life chances of many people, we have to start with education, particularly early years education. Also like her, I am very proud of what the Blair Government did in establishing Sure Start. I recall seeing the direct input in my constituency, Dewsbury, and in my hometown, Bolton. I am proud of those local authorities which are still, despite all the cuts to their budgets, able to prioritise this area.

I have to admit that I did not believe that we would be standing here having to make the case for early years education, given all the evidence that has been there for so many years. Instead, I get alarmed when I talk to teachers and hear them report the lack of verbal skills and the difficult social and emotional problems that many four year-olds have. They are coming into school today just not ready or prepared for school at all. In my limited time I shall make just two points.

First, I shall mention a theme that has run through education policy in this country for a very long time, and one that I believe has reinforced the problem of underachievement of working-class children and young people. This theme is summed up by the word “meritocracy.” On the face of it, who can be opposed to a meritocracy? The idea is all very well if you have a perfect world, where everyone has the chance to progress, to shine, to reach their potential and to have choices about how they live their lives, but we do not live in that kind of world. We do not have, and we should recognise that we do not have, a level playing field. The fact that a few people manage to come through does not validate the whole system of education that we have at the moment. The disparities in life chances and outcomes are massive at present in a whole host of ways, including health, financial security, educational opportunities and work opportunities. The best, the most effective and, indeed, the only way to really counter the disadvantages of so many people is to have early intervention.

My second point, which my noble friend touched on, is that early intervention—and probably pre-birth preparation—can and does make a difference. That is why I believe that the lessons of Sure Start should be revisited. Sure Start directly helped thousands of children; it helped their parents as well. Partly it helped them to become better and more confident parents, but it also helped them to take more control of their own lives and to look for opportunities for themselves. In particular, young parents—who themselves may have had limited opportunities and may not have had a good educational experience—were helped to understand the importance of early years education. Many did not appreciate, or have the confidence to get involved with, their children’s education; they were encouraged to do that to understand its importance. I think everybody knows that once a parent is involved in a child’s education, the job of any educational institution—nursery, primary, or secondary—becomes easier, and the ease with which teachers can make progress is much improved.

My noble friend said that education is the most powerful lever for change. There is so much evidence that this is the case, and I urge the Government to revisit Sure Start to encourage and provide the proper delivery of real opportunities for many working-class children.

Trade Bill

Baroness Taylor of Bolton Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and point out, as have others, that this Bill is being brought forward in a totally different context from when it was debated and passed in the Commons last summer, and at Second Reading here in September. At that time, it was envisaged and presented by the Government as a minor technical measure which would complement an EU withdrawal deal and political declaration, and provide a 21-month transition to fill the gaps that are currently there and which prevent it being fully equipped to provide for an independent trade policy for a UK outside the EU. Those gaps remain and they are highly relevant given the Government’s unwillingness to rule out a no-deal exit on 29 March and the consequent need to operate an independent trade policy from that date.

For example, we do not even know—and more importantly, our businesses do not know—what tariff rates we would apply to imports from the EU and preferential trade partners of the EU on 30 March in the event of no deal. No satisfactory indication has been given of how parliamentary oversight of trade policy will operate in these circumstances. Currently, the situation is clear: the EU Commission can conduct exploratory talks with third countries but it can negotiate with them only when it has received a mandate from the Council; that is, the member states. That gives a measure of democratic control. What will we do to replace that? There is a complete absence of indication. It would be really poor if we went into a period like that without any parliamentary oversight at all; that is hardly a policy that could be called “taking back control” for this Parliament. Surely this gap needs to be filled before the Bill becomes law.

I believe it is being argued that this is unprecedented, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said. Perhaps it is, but we are dealing with an unprecedented situation, and unprecedented situations call for unprecedented solutions. Is the amendment unreasonable? I do not think so. It does not place any impediment at all on the completion of Committee, which should proceed precisely as planned. It gives the Government about a month to fill in those gaps in the Bill before Report begins. What is unreasonable about that? I hope the Government will accept the amendment, which I do not think stands in the way of this measure arriving on the statute book in time.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to follow the two previous speakers by talking about what happens, deal or no deal, but I will say a word about the difficulties facing the House on this Bill and on other legislation before us. My noble friend mentioned the Constitution Committee, which issued a report on the Trade Bill in October last year. We did so because we wanted to get ahead of the game by advising the House on our approach to that Bill, as we had done on the EU withdrawal Bill in a way that I think was constructive for the whole House and, ultimately, helpful to the Government because our constructive criticisms meant that the Bill was more fit for purpose when it left this House.

We did that early because we knew of the weight of legislation that would come before us. We have tried to get the Government to give us more information on what legislation we will face and asked to see some things in draft, which we would have been willing to see in confidence. The House will have to face other legislation. We are already seeing arguments about the number of SIs and the difficulty of giving them proper scrutiny in the time available. Time is running out. The Constitution Committee—and, I think, the House as a whole—wants to be helpful in making sure that any necessary legislation is actually fit for purpose and will do what is expected of it, but also so that we as parliamentarians can fulfil our role and responsibility to give proper scrutiny.

I ask the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House to reconsider their approach to giving information to the House about what our future work programme will be. It will be extremely difficult to consider as we should all the legislation that will be before us, whatever the outcome of discussions in another place. I have been a member of the usual channels, albeit in the other House. I know that there are indicative timetables on all occasions—maybe more than one in this instance. If the House is to function properly and fulfil all its obligations, it needs greater information to come through the usual channels about what our programme will be and what responsibilities we will face to get the necessary legislation fit for purpose, and to allow us to fulfil our responsibilities.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the House will have seen that there are a number of amendments in my name, as well as those of other colleagues, on the Marshalled List for this Bill. We are taking our role very seriously by approaching this Bill in a constructive manner and, where there are opportunities to try to strengthen its measures, to reflect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, the complex, deep and comprehensive trading relationships we have with countries and to take into consideration new standards of quality in provision, and ethics and values in trading. The amendment to the Motion should also be seen in that light.

The United Kingdom has trading arrangements with 104 countries by virtue of our membership of the EU. Thirty-five countries have arrangements in place, 47 partly in place and there are 22 agreements pending. A further five are being updated and there are ongoing negotiations with a further 21. All told, this represents 66% of all United Kingdom trade. That has brought down the average tariff for anyone who trades with United Kingdom to 2%. If there is no deal and no agreements are in place to secure the continuity of the trading relationship, under most favoured nation status under WTO rules trading with the United Kingdom would immediately become 5.7% more expensive. Tariffs would go up almost threefold. That would be a direct consequence of this Parliament not having the ability to scrutinise these arrangements.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others have said, the Bill will also set the parameters of future trading relationships, in particular our relationships with the least-developed nations around the world. The countries that trade with us that have most at stake are not necessarily those such as Japan or Korea, which have deep and comprehensive trading agreements —although we have heard nothing from the Government about whether they are even in a position to roll those over legally—but the least-developed nations, which rely almost entirely in some sectors on their trading with the United Kingdom and are now being left in limbo.

It was deeply insulting for Dr Fox to make his statement about countries not lifting the heavy burden to trade with us when we have asked them to do so. For us as a House to give due consideration to such an important measure, which has been slipped at the Government insistence time and again, it is necessary for us to say that the Government now need to bring clarity on how many agreements are ready to be brought forward. On the Government’s calendar, there are fewer than 30 sitting days. How on earth will we be able to afford proper, full scrutiny of nearly 100 international agreements, on which our economy is dependent?