Paediatric First Aid

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and, yes, I totally agree. As the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) also suggested, most parents—I am a parent myself, although my children are now grown up—would assume when they are taking their children to a nursery that has all the relevant certification and regulation that the staff there will be adequately trained, and I intend to emphasise that point later.

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

I used to chair the Children, Schools and Families Committee and I remember pushing Ofsted on this issue; I also represent Huddersfield where the National Day Nurseries Association is based. This case has been a wake-up call to everyone that paediatric care in an emergency is totally different from first aid and needs specific training. I hope that this positive intervention from parents who are grieving—they are being positive and doing something about this issue—is an example to all of us to make these changes quickly.

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Again, I could not agree more. I think that everybody, once they have focused on the issue, starts to appreciate that there is a significant difference between having a general qualification in first aid and having a qualification in paediatric first aid, which by the very nature of the fact that it involves dealing with small children—in this case, Millie was only nine months old—is rather more specialist. However, parents would naturally assume—I think we all would—that if they are placing their child in a nursery, the nursery would be covered.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that tribute must be paid to the Thompsons; after such a terribly tragic experience, they have made something positive through Millie’s Trust, which is creating a legacy in Millie’s memory. I will say more about that legacy later.

I will go back to the point I was making about the CCTV coverage. Millie’s parents have stated that it was obvious from that footage that when Millie was being taken out to the ambulance she was “like a rag doll” and they believe that at that point she should have been receiving CPR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sheerman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about regulation, but regulation will not do everything—it never will. What I discern in the tragic circumstances of Millie’s death is panic. I believe that people were running around and did not know what to do. I am sure that Millie’s parents, being so passionate, have already thought of this, but what we need are not Baker days, but Millie’s days, where every three months there is training for all the staff. That training will trickle down fast if the culture is changed, and then there will not be the panic that we saw.

[Mark Hunter]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He was one of the Members who referred to the rising number of children in nursery schools, which is why this debate is particularly pertinent and topical. More and more people are looking to avail themselves of the opportunity to place their children in nurseries. The Department for Education’s child care and early years providers survey in 2013, which was published in September, revealed that the number of registered places in full day care settings rose by 10% between 2011 and 2013. Due to the introduction of funded provision for disadvantaged two-years-olds, there was a whacking 72% increase between 2011 and 2013 in the number of two-year-olds attending sessional settings in the 30% most deprived areas. This debate is on a huge issue that potentially affects an awful lot of people.

As demand increases, supply rises to meet that demand. As new nursery places are provided, we have a duty to ensure that all children are safe and that all staff are well trained. None of us here will need reminding that children younger than one are extremely vulnerable and need constant care and attention. In the rush for nursery places and with the subsequent waiting lists, I firmly believe that parents are making an assumption that all nursery staff are adequately trained in how to provide the appropriate paediatric first aid, but we now know that that is sadly not always the case.

As an aside, hon. Members may be interested to know that I recently inquired about the provision of training here in Westminster, at Parliament’s nursery. The answer is that all relevant staff are trained in paediatric first aid. If it is good enough for the children of Members and House staff, it ought to be good enough for every child attending nursery anywhere in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hunter]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is quite right. As I progress through my speech, I will be discussing the experience in Ireland and elsewhere. The Irish Government are indeed making moves towards ensuring that such regulations are in place. That is credit to the Thompsons, who, at the request of the Irish Government, have had two or three meetings with officials over there to see how that might best be done.

Millie’s parents have taken it upon themselves to use the success of the charity, combined with the recommendations of Mr Pollard, to start an awareness campaign about the current legislation. I turn to what the Thompsons and their campaign seek to achieve. The first thing to say is that they do not stand alone. Thousands of people from my Cheadle constituency, from Stockport, from Greater Manchester and from all around the UK have rallied to their side to sign their e-petition, which now has more than 102,000 signatures. For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall read out the petition:

“Following the death of Millie Thompson and the coroner’s suggestion in December 2013 that ALL nursery nurses should be trained, Millie’s parents are now campaigning to have it made law that everyone working in a nursery MUST be trained in Paediatric First Aid.

Please support and sign this petition in memory of Millie and for the future safety of your children.”

The campaign’s objectives are simple and straightforward, and I do not think that anyone here would demur from the idea that such important issues need addressing now.

Regarding the awareness campaign, it has become extremely apparent to Millie’s Trust that the majority of people, including parents and child care workers, do not know about the current legislation—just as Millie’s parents did not know about it until this tragedy struck them. Most parents presume that when they put their child in the care of a nursery, they are in the safest possible place. In fact, if disaster strikes in a situation such as Millie’s, the reality is that many staff would not know how to help a child who was choking, struggling to breathe or needing CPR. Is that really protecting our children as they should be protected? Is that really what parents should expect when they leave a child in someone’s care, often when paying high costs for the privilege?

Health and safety is up to date in every other aspect in the UK, so why has the simplest safety for children been forgotten about? Why has the legislation been allowed to fall so far behind modern times? If legislation was not there to be changed, we would still be placing children in cars without child seats and we would not be wearing seatbelts. It is time that this legislation was brought into the 21st century.

In June, the Thompsons and I met the Minister then responsible for this area, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). We had a helpful meeting. The Minister listened to the Thompsons’ case and told us about the new requirements in the statutory framework that came into force in September. The Thompsons and I want the requirements to go further and we look forward to meeting the Minister who will reply today at the conclusion of the debate. I should report to hon. Members that the Minister has indicated his willingness so to do.

I am struggling to understand the reticence about moving to a requirement for all nursery staff to be trained in paediatric first aid. Under the Thompsons, Millie’s Trust has been a revelation, providing paediatric first aid training as cheaply as possible and making it available to people whatever their financial situation. The Thompsons do not want any other parent to go through the tragedy that befell them. I sincerely hope that I will not do them a disservice by saying that if they can set up a charity and begin providing the necessary training to thousands so rapidly, why can the Government not do the same, or at least make it a legal requirement?

In England, there is no mandatory requirement for anyone on a child care course to achieve a qualification in a paediatric first aid course, whether a national vocational qualification or an award from the Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education. In the National Nursery Examination Board course that child carers took during the 1990s, first aid was a requirement. When the course became an NVQ or a CACHE award, that requirement was taken out. Will the Minister address that concern as well? At the meeting with the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Thompsons asked him who made the decision to remove the first aid part of the course and why—a fairly simple and straightforward question. The Minister could not give an answer off the top of his head, and Mr and Mrs Thompson were told that his Department would research the matter and contact them with the findings. It saddens me to report that some six months later they are still waiting for an answer to that simple and straightforward question.

We are not asking the Government to fund the courses for nursery establishments. The majority of nurseries are private and are run as a business, for profit. We simply want the regulations changed to make it clear that, as a business, nurseries have to build paediatric first aid training for their staff into their annual business costs.

I want to touch briefly on precedents elsewhere. For example, in Australia the legislation includes regulation 136(3):

“The approved provider of a family day care service must ensure that each family day care educator and family day care educator assistant engaged by or registered with the service—

(a) holds a current approved first aid qualification; and

(b) has undertaken current approved anaphylaxis management training; and

(c) has undertaken current approved emergency asthma management training.”

Each family day care educator and educator assistant must hold all three qualifications.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does that cover childminders?

[Mark Hunter]

The hon. Gentleman asks his question from a sedentary position, but I believe so.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am sorry. A lot of children in this country are with childminders in small groups.

[Mark Hunter]

I am sure that we can check that out afterwards. I am happy to get back to the hon. Gentleman on that.

In Minnesota, in the United States, in June 2010 at a child care centre a young girl called Hannah Kozita, aged only four, passed away after choking on a grape. Within a year, the state had seen fit to pass what is commonly referred to as Hannah’s law. One year after that tragedy, therefore, that particular state had introduced a new law including a new requirement from May 2011 for all teachers and assistant teachers in child care centres to have CPR training, including, specifically, CPR for children and infants. The law also required at least one trained staff member to be present whenever a child was on a school trip, and for training to be completed within 90 days of the law being passed. What is good enough for Minnesota, ought to be good enough for us in the UK.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale) referred earlier to circumstances in Ireland. The Thompsons have been warmly received in the Republic of Ireland. They have made a number of visits there, at the request of the Irish Government, to talk about what ought to be done. Earlier this month, Millie’s Trust was invited to Ireland by Denis Naughten, TD, the Member for the Roscommon, South Leitrim constituency, following an earlier visit to Ireland in April. During their most recent visit, the Thompsons received vital support from Senator Jillian van Turnhout, who is also a successful children’s rights activist.

Mr and Mrs Thompson presented to TDs and Senators in Leinster house in Dublin to make them aware of the state of existing legislation. The Thompsons met with an extremely positive reaction. The TDs and Senators even received a mini-training session, which they all accepted was valuable knowledge, despite the small amount of time available. Following the presentation, a meeting was set up with Ireland’s Minister for Children, Dr James Reilly. I am pleased to report that the outcome of that meeting was also extremely positive. Dr Reilly was surprised to hear how Millie had received only “a few back slaps”. He went on to offer his own experience of watching a valuable member of his staff freezing when having to deal with working with a child in an injection scenario, even though she was extremely competent when dealing with adults. That goes back to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about the understandable reaction of some to panic in such distressing circumstances.

Dr Reilly’s Department has since been in touch with Denis Naughten, TD, to ask Millie’s Trust to provide research information on legislation in other countries to see how it was worded when the law was updated. That Department has no problem with encompassing what Millie’s Trust is seeking to have done. That is extremely positive support as a consequence of the awareness that Millie’s Trust has created not only in the UK, but further afield.

In conclusion, I will revisit one or two key aspects of what I have said. The passing of Millie Thompson in a local nursery school was a tragic accident. The circumstances, choking, can happen to any infant at any mealtime in any child care provider or nursery school within the UK, or even at home. We can do nothing about such instances, but we can ensure that those responsible for responding are as well trained as possible.

The requirement for only one member of staff to be trained in paediatric first aid is simply not sufficient; it does not allow for illness, for large numbers of children or for the trained member of staff panicking when faced with a genuine emergency. My contention and that of the Thompsons and everyone behind Millie’s Trust is that the majority of parents assume that most pre-school staff will have paediatric first aid training. The best response to that mistake is to ensure that all staff are adequately trained.

The number of children in nursery schools is going up. We must ensure that they are all safe, not only the ones who go to the most diligent child care providers. More than 100,000 people have signed the Thompsons’ e-petition calling for the Government to introduce universal paediatric first aid training. Parents throughout the country want to see that change implemented. In Australia, in the state of Minnesota and, as looks increasingly likely, in the Republic of Ireland, the requirement for nursery staff to have paediatric first aid training is being implemented easily and straightforwardly. The UK must follow suit.

The last line of the Thompsons’ e-petition reads:

“Please support and sign this petition in memory of Millie and for the future safety of your children.”

That last part sums up our hope for the campaign in the future. It is not about concerns to do with new red tape, additional bureaucracy or even cost; it is about the future safety of all UK children, and it is about doing our utmost to ensure that a tragedy such as Millie’s death is never, I hope, repeated.

Preparing Young People for Work

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not sure I agree with the entirety of my hon. Friend’s question, but I agreed with his final point: we must ensure that all our schools are good or outstanding local schools and are encouraging our young people to consider studying science and maths for longer. As we have seen, it makes a difference to young people’s earnings. The best way to improve social mobility is for all our schools to be good or outstanding, and, since 2010, 1 million more pupils are in good or outstanding schools.

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

The Secretary of State wants people to be positive, and I want to be positive, about this initiative. She will know that I co-chair the Skills Commission, which reported last week on the relevant skills for the changing nature of work. I hope she had a chance to look at the report. If we are to be positive, we have to start with a partnership, but over the past four and a half years, she and the Government have destroyed the old fabric of careers advice in our schools. That has to be rebuilt. I have nothing against the new company, but I would like to know more about it: is it third sector, a company limited by guarantee, a private company? Whatever it is, all of us who care about the future of our young people want it to succeed. We will work with her, but only on the realistic basis of what we need into the 21st century.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right. I have previously said from this Dispatch Box that the estimates are that we need 83,000 more engineers every year for the next 10 years, and I have also said that they cannot all be male. That is why campaigns such as Your Life and other things such as tomorrow’s engineers week, which the Government are already supporting, are extremely important. I continue to look at all the best ways that businesses, schools and educators can work together to make sure that our young people are prepared for life in modern Britain.

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

The Secretary of State is aware that the earlier we can start loving numeracy, the better—it is so important. She was not there, but only last week one of her junior Ministers was with me, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and Johnny Ball to launch the early years numeracy strategy that came out of our all-party group. Will the Secretary of State put a bit of muscle behind that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laws]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very strong case he made for this school at the end of last week. As a consequence, this morning we approved popular growth funding of almost £300,000 for the school. It is particularly important to award such funding where the change in pupil numbers is due to popular growth changes, and I will look more widely at the points he raises.

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

What sort of spell has the Secretary of State cast on her Front-Bench team? I have never seen a bunch of numpties with such a lack of vision and passion. I went to five schools in my constituency on Friday. They are crying out for new teachers. They cannot recruit. What will she do about that?

[Nicky Morgan]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to look for a team with lack of vision, he ought to look to his party’s Front-Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

Coastal towns are an important part of our tourism economy, and I am pleased to say that the Government have recently announced £10 million of funding for tourism in the north of England. I hope that the resort of Fylde will get involved with the fund, which will bring even more tourists to our fantastic northern coastal towns.

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

We do not have any coastline in Huddersfield, but we do have more—[Interruption.] Hang on, guys! We have more listed buildings than most towns, including York and Cambridge. There are 1,500 in the centre of Huddersfield and another 1,500 in greater Huddersfield. We know the value of tourism, and we know that it depends on the cultural life of our communities. However, that cultural life is being swept away by Government cuts, with a cruel Treasury cutting, cutting, cutting. Many of our great exhibitions and festivals are being cut to the bone. What is the Minister going to do about that?

[Mrs Grant]

Our tourism strategy has led to record visitor numbers and record spends and brought £127 billion to the UK economy, so I am not going to take any finger wagging from the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I will wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend, not least because I was born in Lancashire and it is my home county, so I know more than most, perhaps, about everything that Lancashire has to offer by way of attractions, sites and heritage. Lancashire day is a fantastic day to showcase that.

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

T2. The Secretary of State knows a lot about social investment tax relief. I worked happily with him on many aspects of crowdfunding, and he knows that crowdfunding provides an amazing opportunity for people to get together to start cultural and artistic events and raise the money for that. Will he have a quiet word with his old boss, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about increasing the cap on social investment tax relief before the autumn statement?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what is in the autumn statement, but he raises an important point. I remember the discussions we had about crowdfunding, and he is right about the importance that it has for businesses and for cultural activities. I have discussed that on many occasions with colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady is quite right to say that there is cross-party agreement that this issue needs to be tackled. The 2010 equality strategy set out very clearly that we would pursue the voluntary approach and then assess how it was working and come to a conclusion about what needed to happen next. The hon. Lady will be aware that my party published proposals—I am delighted that her party has subsequently agreed with them—to implement section 78 of the Equality Act 2010. I am sure that the issue will be very much discussed in the approaching election and that all parties will want to set out very clearly how they propose to tackle the pay gap.

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

3. What discussions she has had with charities and pressure groups on a charter for women or a women’s bill of rights.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Nicky Morgan)]

I regularly engage with women’s organisations at one-to-one meetings, round tables and consultation events, and through social media. The Government are currently carrying out an online survey on women’s views of progress on improving women’s lives and on where there is most need for work still to be done. As part of that engagement, I regularly discuss the UN convention on women, which is sometimes known as the international Bill of Rights for women.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister knows that it has been a long, hard struggle to get equal rights for women and we are not there yet. There are significant elements in our communities who do not believe in equal rights for women. I want the Minister to introduce a charter that gives every female child in this country information on what their rights to equality are. I want that to be clear to every little child, wherever in this country they are brought up, whatever their family background and whichever school they attend. Does the Minister agree with that?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, although we have made great strides towards equality, there is still much more to do. He will know that, as Secretary of State for Education, I have recently spoken of the broad and balanced curriculum, British values—which include, obviously, mutual respect and tolerance—and education on girls’ rights. I have not heard anybody apart from the hon. Gentleman call for a Bill of Rights. To be honest, I prefer to look at what works on the ground and make sure that there are lessons and strong female role models in all communities and all schools right across the country. Of course, however, the idea is interesting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. I thought he might have been in Rochester today, waiting to defect. On his question, I certainly do believe in merit; I do not believe in quotas. I know that he has written 19 letters to Mr Trevor Phillips on the subject of race and political correctness, which leads me to believe that he might have a problem with the concept of racial equality.

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

11. What steps he is taking to ensure that the UK’s system of skills training is relevant to the changing structure of work.

[The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)]

The important thing is to put employers in control of the training system, as far as possible. We are doing that by putting employers in control of designing apprenticeship standards and of the funding that goes towards apprenticeships, and by ensuring that all vocational and technical qualifications have business recognition if they are to be approved for state funding.

[Mr Sheerman]

I have a little secret, which is that I had a hand in the all-party Higher Education Commission’s report, which was soundly rejected even though it was based on good evidence. I also had a hand in “Still in Tune? The Skills System and the Changing Structures of Work”, which was published today. It is a good, cross-party report which points out that it is not just the employers but the people who receive the training who have the real stake in that education, because it will last them the rest of their lives.

[Nick Boles]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The people who receive the training are the customers; they are the people on whose behalf we are making the investment, and it is crucial to take their opinions into account. However, that does not dilute the crucial importance of employers being the judge of whether training is worth anything or not.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

It is worth reflecting on the debate yesterday. The Minister for Business and Enterprise, who is not in his place and was not in his place for most of the debate yesterday, said that we would take part 4, which deals with pubs, first yesterday because that was most important. By definition, it seems that the Government do not see the national minimum wage and zero-hours contracts as being important. The programme motion has restricted this debate and that on the important topic of insolvency to just two hours, which shows the Government’s view on these matters.

We have tabled the amendments in the same spirit as we did in Committee, to try to make the Bill a much better Bill than it was when it started its passage through the House. We hear from our constituents throughout the country concerns about pay and insecurity in the workplace. Part 11 is an opportunity missed by the Government to deal with the problems of national minimum wage enforcement and exploitative zero-hours contracts. They need to show that they are on the side of ordinary people who have had their wages cut by more than £1,600 per year since 2010, but again the Government have missed the opportunity to do so.

Fifteen years have passed since the introduction of the minimum wage and the Opposition will keeping saying, time and again, that it is one of the Labour Government’s proudest achievements, despite the significant opposition—I was going to say from the Government Benches, but there does not seem to be anybody on the Government Benches, so it would be unfair to level that charge at the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who supported the national minimum wage. This is another example of the pitfalls of writing one’s speech before one sees who turns up to the Chamber. I apologise for aiming my comments at the hon. Lady. The lack of support from her colleagues on the Conservative Benches this afternoon highlights the seriousness with which they take the issue of national minimum wage enforcement and zero-hours contracts. In the run-up to the May election, their constituents will reflect on the fact that they decided not to participate in today’s serious debate on amendments to part 11.

The introduction of the national minimum wage gave 1 million workers a significant pay rise, and now nearly 2 million workers benefit directly from the minimum wage. For women especially, who are most often susceptible to poor pay, the national minimum wage has had a significant impact for the better on their salaries, their pay and their working lives. It has not affected job retention, despite cries from the Government Benches—although there is no one there today—that it would cost 1 million jobs when it was introduced back in 1998.

However, the problem is that the minimum wage has become the maximum wage for far too many, and has fallen in real terms since 2010. That is why the Labour party is pledging to increase the national minimum wage to a minimum of £8 per hour and significantly to promote the living wage in partnership with employers. Amendment 8 would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to Parliament on three crucial aspects of the national minimum wage—first, its enforcement; secondly, the level of the financial payment for underpayment; and thirdly and crucially, the relationship between the national minimum wage and how it reflects pay in the wider labour market, particularly in interaction with the living wage. I shall deal with each of those aspects.

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

My hon. Friend makes some very good points, but does he not think that we restrict ourselves in our brave attempts to get a good standard of living for everyone in this country, and that the national minimum wage should be a national minimum wage plus? The plus should be a guarantee of skills training and much else that supports the minimum wage. I came into politics to provide the good life for the people in my constituency and the people of this country. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend. Pay is a only a small element in the workplace, and skills, education and progression are key. As I said, the national minimum wage should be the very bottom, not the top, of people’s aspiration for pay in the workplace. My hon. Friend raises some important points for his constituents and those throughout the country.

I am delighted that the Minister for Business and Enterprise has now joined us. Without proper enforcement, the regulations will be rendered ineffective. Under this Government, enforcement of the national minimum wage has been poor. That is why we are asking the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the effectiveness of enforcement overall.

The figures speak for themselves. Reports published earlier this year show that the number of national minimum wage compliance investigations has more than halved since 2010. The response to a parliamentary question tabled earlier this year revealed that the number of investigations had fallen from over 3,500 in 2010 to just under 1,700 by the end of 2013. In addition, the number of cases resulting from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs risk profiling or targeting enforcement action had fallen from 1,500 in 2010 to a mere 431 by the end of 2013.

On top of that, the naming and shaming policy, which the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, announced four times—I am sure she is expecting me to say this—up until recently had been announced more times than it had been used. To be fair, I appreciate that there have been more instances of naming and shaming recently, but it shows why an annual report is necessary to ensure that the regulations are working, the deterrents are robust and all avenues are being explored to prevent exploitation of the national minimum wage.

The Opposition have also been clear that local authorities should be given the power to enforce the national minimum wage alongside HMRC. We know that joint working between HMRC and other enforcement agencies, such as local authorities, is sometimes weak, which limits opportunities to maximise resources across different Government bodies. Local authorities, by their nature, have good knowledge of local employers and already conduct significant enforcement activity through their responsibilities for licensing, planning, health and safety and environmental health inspections. In carrying out those duties, councils sometimes come across cases where they suspect national minimum wage violations, but they have no power to investigate them directly and can merely refer them to HMRC’s enforcement helpline.

Local authorities are perfectly placed to enforce the national minimum wage, given their knowledge on the ground. That move is supported by the report “Settle for Nothing Less: Enhancing National Minimum Wage Compliance and Enforcement”, published last year by the Centre for London, which recommended partially devolving enforcement to local authority level to sit alongside and complement the current central function. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has considered having local authorities take an active role in national minimum wage enforcement.

[Mr Sheerman]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but will he also mention local enterprise partnerships, which are becoming more mature and powerful at bringing a focus to matters? I have noticed recently that their links to small businesses, in particular, are better than those of some local authorities I know.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many agencies dealing directly with businesses, particularly small businesses, that could play a role in national minimum wage enforcement. Poor pay and enforcement should be a job for all of us, whether LEPs, local authorities, the national minimum wage enforcement section, Members of Parliament or whistleblowers. We need a drive towards ensuring that anyone who decides to flout the rules on the national minimum wage knows that there is an organisation out there that can report them and take action against them.

Amendment 8 would also require the Secretary of State to report on the level of financial penalty. Although an increase in the maximum fine to £20,000 per employee is welcome, we are disappointed that the Government did not follow Labour’s lead in Committee by increasing it to £50,000. By setting the penalty at £50,000, Ministers would send a clear message to rogue businesses that they run a real financial risk by not paying the minimum wage. It would also put the fine on a par with other fines, such as those for fly-tipping.

As the Minister might be aware, her colleague and party president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), at the start of the year echoed Labour’s calls for a higher financial penalty, stating:

“A £50,000 fine for fly-tipping versus a £20,000 fine for exploiting a human being is just ludicrous. It tells you all you need to know how we, as a society, have our priorities wrong.”

I suggest that it is not society that has its priorities wrong in that regard, but the Government.

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. We see in the informal economy forced self-employment, bogus self-employment and people not being paid the national minimum wage. It is a big issue in relation to migrant workers and agency workers. It is a huge issue across not only the formal economy, but the informal economy. It is something we must stamp down on, because it undermines people’s wages and the ability to be paid properly. The crucial point is that it is also uncompetitive for business, because the businesses that do the right thing, pay proper wages and abide by all the legislation are undercut by those that do not, and we have to deal with that. These measures are both pro-business and pro-employee.

Finally, amendment 8 is also crucial to ensuring that the Government consider wider improvements in pay in our labour market—namely, the promotion of the living wage. Under this Government, the number of people paid less than the living wage has risen from 3.4 million to just under 5 million in just four years. That not only impacts on low-paid workers, their families and communities, but piles up costs for the country as more people in work have to rely on the social security system, with tax credits topping up their poverty pay.

Labour councils have led the way in paying their workers a living wage, even within tight budget constraints, and getting more workers in the private sector paid a living wage by using their procurement powers and encouraging the creation of local living wage zones. My local council, City of Edinburgh council, has been paying the living wage for some time now. Other organisations in the private sector are now seeing that paying the living wage is something they should be doing. I must declare an interest as a member of the board of Heart of Midlothian football club, which a few weeks ago took the historic decision to become the first football club in Scotland to pay the living wage to not only all its staff, but all its subcontractors.

[Mr Sheerman]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I commiserate with him about last night’s football result? On a serious point, I do not know what his local university is, but the university of Huddersfield, which is the biggest employer in my constituency, pays the living wage. If universities up and down the country could lead the way, that would have a powerful effect, especially if they pressed that on their supply chains.

[Ian Murray]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about what happens in his constituency. Public bodies could really take the lead in promoting the living wage. However, his initial comment about last night’s result means that I will have to demote him from being my hon. Friend to being the hon. Gentleman, but I will not hold it against him for too long.

The Labour party has a proper plan to encourage businesses to pay their employees the living wage. If this Government will not do this, the next Labour Government will launch a national campaign to agree “make work pay” contracts with British businesses, working in partnership with businesses to share in the benefits of the living wage and ensure that people are paid properly for a decent day’s work. The living wage is about bringing employers, employees, campaigners and communities together to build a stronger, fairer economy from the bottom up. The living wage improves the living standards of employees and benefits employers, too. They have found that paying the living wage can make good business sense, generating savings by boosting productivity and increasing staff morale.

I hope that the Government are minded to support amendment 8. It would be a step towards improving the enforcement of the national minimum wage and then improving pay for all working people. If Ministers do not, it will be up to Labour, the party that created the national minimum wage, to strengthen it for all the low-paid. Amendment 8 is about having a report from the Secretary of State to bring forward some of these issues and highlight them through Parliament so that we can ensure that the national minimum wage is being enforced properly, that the level of financial fines is appropriate and that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to promote additional wages through the living wage.

Amendments 9 and 10 to clause 145 relate to zero-hours contracts. The explosion in the use of zero-hours contracts is a trend that should concern Members right across the House. Although a small number of people find that type of contract suitable, too many are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers who exploit it. For many employees, zero-hours contracts present huge drawbacks in comparison with permanent, regular work. The increasing problem of underemployment and zero-hours contracts is highlighted by the recent reports from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stating that income tax take has been flat over the past year despite the Government predicting a substantial increase. Do the Government not worry that they are creating the kind of economy where unemployment drops but there is no additional income tax take to the Treasury? We must use the opportunity of this Bill to prevent exploitative zero-hours contracts and do something about underemployment. It is not just me who is saying this. The Exchequer Secretary told the Bill Committee’s evidence session that it was the Treasury’s goal to have people on better contracts as it is better for tax receipts. I could not agree more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is probably a picture of the right hon. Gentleman on the wall of the school—as there is, in my experience, in most restaurants around the United Kingdom.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

As this is the first topical questions session since the summer results, let me congratulate all students who achieved GCSE and A-level results this summer, as well as their hard-working teachers and their families who supported them. I would particularly like to pay tribute to those achieving phonics results—we saw 102,000 more six-year-olds achieving the reading standards this year—and also to congratulate the winners and the nominees at the excellent national teaching awards, which I attended last night.

[Mr Sheerman]

Sixth-form colleges in our country used to be the jewels in the crown of our educational system. Seventy-eight per cent. of them are now cutting back in special subjects in the broader curriculum, and in many of the tutorials and special things they could do for their students. Sixth-form colleges have had three major cuts in funding; they are anticipating a fourth. Why is the Secretary of State punishing our sixth-form colleges in this way?

[Nicky Morgan]

We certainly are not punishing sixth-form colleges, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the economic situation this Government inherited has led to some very difficult decisions. We have no plans to reduce the 16-to-19 funding rate in the academic year 2015-16, but we cannot confirm the base rate of funding until we know how many places we are going to have to fund. We will not have confirmation of student numbers until the end of January, which is why we have not yet confirmed the national funding rate for 16 to 19-year-olds.

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The whole point is that the American system is completely different from ours, so it would be unwise for me or anyone else in this House to lecture President Obama on when he should go. Actually, the United States does have a system whereby a President can be removed through impeachment, and President Nixon took that route.

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

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think his comment about the former Prime Minister Tony Blair was a little unfair. I cannot see that particular relationship with the United States, but does the hon. Gentleman see such a relationship in respect of the search to import other constitutional effects? I have never liked the idea of referendums, for example. Does he agree with me on that? In addition, of course, the idea of a recall is very much derived from the American experience.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I take back that cheap shot against Tony Blair—it was perhaps unnecessary—and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Over the centuries, we have established a pretty good system. I think we are the only country in Europe never to have been a police state or had a police state imposed on it. We should be pretty proud of our slow constitutional growth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I have been very grateful for the opportunity to work so constructively with the hon. Gentleman on the future of the National Media museum in Bradford, and I was delighted when I heard the news about the council’s funding support. We continue to support a lot of national museums outside London. The Science museum is a particularly good example, particularly given its work with the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, where it has made a real difference.

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

In my experience the Minister is quite a nice bloke, but he does not get it. If he was the Member for Huddersfield and a Yorkshire MP, he would see the decimation of the arts and culture coming to our region, which were so successful during the Tour de France. Tourism, the arts and culture are intimately interlinked. We see Opera North, the Festival of Light in Huddersfield and so many other iconic events in danger because of Government cuts.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T5. Does the Minister agree that we should be very concerned about the early sexualisation of children through exposure to pornography? May I share with him the thoughts of my constituent, who, on getting a new free service for their television, found that their children had access to free pornographic sites? What can we do to protect children from that kind of exposure?

[Mr Vaizey]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have worked with internet service providers to supply free filters that can be fitted to consumers’ internet connections. They are working to put together a £25 million a year campaign called Internet Matters, but we should certainly examine the point that he raises as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention the “Going it Alone” report by Demos on the implications of the growth of self-employment. The Government recognise the importance of developing the skills of female entrepreneurs, something the Women’s Business Council has also highlighted to us. She will understand that it is not my role to write taxation policy, but I will be happy to discuss it further with Treasury colleagues.

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

Has the Minister noticed that, possibly because men have not yet colonised it, so many superb women are coming through in crowdfunding and crowdsourcing, and will she congratulate them and encourage more women to use crowdfunding to set up their own businesses?

[Nicky Morgan]

In fact, I have noticed. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and would like to congratulate all the women who are setting up businesses in this country and obtaining funding, whether via crowdfunding or any other sources. It is worth pointing out that in 2012 20% of our small and medium-sized entrepreneurs were either run by women or by a team that was over 50% female, which is an increase from 14% in 2008.

Achievement Gap in Reading

Barry Sheerman Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the achievement gap in reading between poorer children and their better-off peers.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this issue for debate today and I hope that we have the opportunity to explore the important issues of child poverty, inter-generational poverty and social mobility.

In January, I, along with many other parliamentarians, attended a reception hosted by Save the Children called “Change the Story”. We learnt about its partnership with a charity called Beanstalk to deliver the reading programme Born to Read. I am a parliamentary champion for Save the Children and I was fascinated to learn about its involvement in a major reading programme that aims to reach 23,000 children by the end of 2018.

At the reception, we heard from Lauren Child, author of the “Charlie and Lola” books, who said what a marvellous ambition it was to get everybody reading. She stressed how important it is for children to enjoy reading for the opportunity it presents to delve into other worlds and expand their imagination. The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), also spoke, focusing on social mobility and how important it is for disadvantaged children to learn to read well. I want to explore both those important perspectives.

In the UK today, one in every four children leaves primary school without being able to read well, meaning 130,000 children each year start secondary school already behind, with consequences for their later life chances. Of those children, a disproportionately large number are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Of children on free school meals—on the definition as we knew it before this week’s move to free school meals for all infants—the proportion leaving primary school who do not read well rises drastically to a shocking 40%.

Inevitably, not being able to read well affects a child’s life across a range of outcomes and limits chances of success. Not reading well not only shuts children out of further learning but means they are less likely to read outside of school and therefore will miss out on all the benefits associated with the joy of reading. For children from poorer backgrounds, there is a profound impact on the likelihood of their ever catching up.

This is not a new problem. Despite persistent efforts from successive Governments, the number of children reaching secondary school age without a firm grasp of this crucial skill is still far too high. Progress has been made, there are examples of excellent schemes and major initiatives have been introduced, but there is undoubtedly much more to do. There is overwhelming evidence that not being able to read well has implications not only for an individual child’s well-being and success, but also for our society and economic prosperity. Children who have fallen behind at 11 are less likely to secure good qualifications by the time they finish their education, thus impacting on their ability to get a high-paying job or gain career advancement. For children from disadvantaged backgrounds, this means it is less likely that they will have the means to pull themselves out of disadvantage and break intergenerational cycles of poverty.

Low literacy has been associated with both truancy and exclusion. Those with poor reading and communication skills are more at risk of offending and it is well documented that a high proportion of the prison population have difficulties in reading.

Beyond the individual human costs, the economic costs of this wasted talent means lower prosperity for the country as a whole. If the UK had in recent decades closed the achievement gap at 11, this would have led to a more skilled work force and higher economic growth: according to a recent report by Save the Children, GDP in 2013 would have been around £20 billion or 1% higher; by 2030, it would be around £30 billion or 1.8% higher.

The achievement gap between the poorest children and their better-off peers is consistent with achievement in reading. Children born into poorer families are significantly more likely to have fallen behind in reading by the age of 11. Some 40% of poor children are not reading well compared with 25% of their better-off peers. Within that, some disadvantaged groups are faring less well at age 11 than others. Boys, and particularly low-income, white boys, are the most likely group to be falling behind when it comes to reading. We need to make sure that all children have a fair start in life.

Early years are, of course, crucial. The foundations for early language and literacy are laid in the early years, before children start formal school. I would like to give credit to Bookstart, which is fantastic for issuing books at such an early stage. A child from a disadvantaged background is likely to have a more limited vocabulary than other children before even starting pre-school. The implementation of the Bercow report did lead to many important changes, including support for early language development, but I would like to see a further review on progress made on this aspect.

I welcome the expansion of nursery places to two-year-olds and the introduction of an early-years premium from April 2015. This specifically aims to close the gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers by providing funding to early-years providers to help them raise the quality of their provision. In time I would like to see this at a higher level. Going to a high quality pre-school plus an effective primary school has an enormous effect, balancing out differences by family background, so we must focus on quality as well as quantity of provision and on well-trained professionals.

I strongly believe that early education has to be right for the individual child and based on a clear understanding of child development. Trying to “hothouse” young children can be counter-productive and put them off learning for life, especially if they see themselves as failing simply because they are not as mature as their peers. Personally, I see much to support in the Save Childhood Movement’s “too much, too soon” campaign, which believes that children in England are starting formal learning too early, that the value of their creative and expressive play is being undermined, and that learning dispositions and later academic achievement may be affected. I believe that such views should not be dismissed lightly and we should be making sure we have the right balance in our early years programmes to enhance long-term learning.

As well as improving outcomes at 11, we have to lay the foundations for effective secondary school learning. Nevertheless, I certainly support the view that there should be a greater focus on early language development in the pre-school years.

I am concerned about summer-borns, some of whom are simply not ready to start formal school at barely four years of age. I welcome the movement that the Department for Education has made on this issue with new guidance, but I know there are parents still battling schools and local authorities simply to exercise parental choice. I have had parents contact me from across the country whose children could not cope with formal school at such an early stage; imagine feeling a failure at just four years of age.

Of course, some children will be developmentally ready to read at an earlier stage than others. I believe all children should be viewed as individuals whatever their backgrounds, and supported in their learning in an appropriate way to achieve their full potential. There is a positively reinforcing cycle between reading enjoyment and reading skill. We learn to read, then read to learn. The enjoyment of reading is associated not only with better reading skills but with better skills in other areas, such as maths. Research for the National Literacy Trust suggests a positive relationship between reading frequency, reading enjoyment and attainment.

I know that the Minister was keen to introduce phonics as the main reading scheme in schools, and there is widespread support for that as a technical approach. It is also important, however, that teachers should be able to use their professionalism to develop each child’s reading. Alongside phonics, we must have programmes to support reading for enjoyment. I asked an oral question on such programmes recently, and the summer reading challenge was given as the answer. It is a great scheme, and I am sure that this year’s Mythical Maze gave many children a great deal of pleasure, but we must ensure that we have schemes that reach all children. I wonder how many children have never, or only rarely, visited a public library.

There is a wide range of organisations that work to promote reading skills and reading for pleasure for children, young people and adults, but more needs to be done by all, including voluntary organisations, business, families and Government, to promote the joy of reading. Good schools make an enormous difference, especially to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. It is undeniable that poverty can make it harder for children to do well, but a good school can be transformational.

There now needs to be increased support for schools and teachers to do even more to help the poorest children. Policies such as the pupil premium are making a real difference, as was demonstrated in the July 2014 Ofsted report, “The pupil premium: an update”. The Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), has made it clear that schools should not rely on their brightest pupils to score well in inspections and league tables. He has said that they must focus relentlessly on closing the achievement gap by making full use of the pupil premium.

The role of parents and carers in supporting their child’s reading in the home is crucial, but many parents, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, do not understand how best to support their child in developing early literacy and reading habits. Poor families generally have fewer books in the home, and parents with weak literacy skills often lack the confidence to read stories with their children. We must ensure that parents and carers are able to do the best for their children. This means not only ensuring that the right tools and information are available but acting to reduce the poverty that makes it harder for parents to support their children’s learning in the home. I have seen the pupil premium used to support family learning schemes, and I have been impressed to see parents and children learning together.

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

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way—I find it difficult not to refer to her as my right hon. Friend. Does she agree that there should be a role for Ofsted in assessing the efficacy of the pupil premium? Does she think that the chief inspector should take on that role?

[Annette Brooke]

I believe that Ofsted took on that role in its recent report. It has proved important to have those Ofsted inspections because, although it is right in principle to tell head teachers to spend the money in the way they think best, concerns were expressed in the first year that the pupil premium was being sidelined into other schemes rather than being used to support the learning of disadvantaged children. It is therefore important to have a separate section in the Ofsted report on how the pupil premium is being used, and the latest report shows that that is becoming effective. We have seen examples of governors getting really involved in tracking the use of the money and the outcomes for the children. We need that kind of whole-school involvement to ensure that we are properly tracking the progress of disadvantaged children.

The United Kingdom remains a highly unequal country. The poorer outcomes in key skills such as reading and spoken language that are experienced by children at the lower end of the income distribution scale contribute to unequal opportunities to do well in life. If we were to make progress in tackling this educational inequality, we would help to level the playing field so that every child had the opportunity to succeed. That matters for all of us. There is already some fantastic work going on in and out of schools across the country. This Government launched their social mobility strategy in 2011 with the aim of ensuring that everyone has a fair opportunity to fulfil their potential regardless of the circumstances of their birth. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission was established at the same time, but its reports continue to show how much more there is to do.

On Monday, a new report will be launched by a wide coalition of organisations, including Save the Children, Beanstalk, the National Association of Head Teachers, Bookstart, Teach First and many others. It is called, “Read on, get on: how reading can help children escape poverty.” I understand that it has many calls for actions and pledges from all political parties. Please read the report.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my slightly late arrival. When the annunciator screen suddenly changes, it is quite a trek to get here on time from the fifth floor of Portcullis House. I also apologise to the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who brilliantly achieved getting this debate.

I do not want to repeat what other people have said, so I shall rattle through some of my pet theories. Four of us in the Chamber served together on the Children, Schools and Families Committee; we know each other well. This terrible gap in achievement starts very young, and too often we are not honest with parents about what happens in the antenatal and perinatal period. Fetal alcohol syndrome is well known: a pattern of mental and physical deficiencies caused by drinking while pregnant, it is seen physically in stunted growth, small head circumference, skin folds at the corner of the eye, small eye openings, short nose and thin upper lip, and mentally in damage to the central nervous system and brain that can lead to the loss of fine motor skills, hearing loss and poor hand-eye co-ordination. Smoking and drug taking during pregnancy also have an effect. That is relevant to the achievement gap because all the evidence shows that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to have parents who drank or smoked during pregnancy. We need better education and support for parents of all backgrounds, and we have to be absolutely blunt with our constituents—be honest about what damage is done before a child is even born.

As has already been said, early years stimulation is important. Many of us learned at the knee of Professor Kathy Sylva, of Jesus college, Oxford. She guided me around primary schools, which I knew little about. She taught me how to read a primary school and a classroom. She took us to Denmark and showed us how having highly motivated, well-paid and well-trained people in early years is absolutely brilliant, and when people are low paid, not trained and lacking in the relevant skills, they do not make the difference to children’s lives that they should do. Good, well-trained, well-paid staff—it is not rocket science. People say it is expensive, but if they can do it in Denmark, why can we not do it here?

I will finish on something that still bugs me from my days as Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee—something on which the present Chair of the Education Committee and I disagreed in those days. I am very worried that we do not know where a number of children in our country are or what stimulation and schooling they are getting. I am really worried about home schooling. In my constituency and others, I find a lax attitude to home schooling, and the ease with which people can say a child is being home schooled is dangerous territory. When it was confined to a small number of middle-class families who thought their child might be bullied at school and needed that home support, it was perhaps something we could tolerate, but I always thought that we ought to know where every child is in this country—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Sheerman]

I will not, because I have only six minutes. I always thought that we ought to know where every child is in this country, how it is being supported, how it is being stimulated and how it is being treated. I am increasingly concerned about the large number of children now being home schooled. Their number is growing rapidly.

I am also worried that people from a strong faith background are choosing to use home schooling. I see it going on in my own community and know it is going on in other communities. I have a lot of evidence that the home school is not genuinely in the home, and the children are ending up in scruffy little back rooms being taught in a way that I do not approve of. I believe that we should know what children are being taught and how they are being taught.

[Mr Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Sheerman]

I will, very briefly.

[Mr Stuart]

I think the hon. Gentleman will get an extra minute if he is lucky. May I say to him that I do not believe he does have an evidence base of any sort for these slurs against home-educating families up and down the country? Why do we not seek a point of agreement that what we should do is try to establish a better evidence base about what is happening in home schooling? If we did that, we could talk on the basis of evidence, rather than slur and anecdote.

[Mr Sheerman]

When the hon. Gentleman and I were on the Select Committee looking at this subject we disagreed, and we will continue to do so. The increasing evidence of the larger number of home schooled children is a worry in any society. This week, we had a statement on what was happening to children in one town. I believe we have a duty as parliamentarians to know where every child is, what the curriculum is and what the qualifications are of the people looking after them.

I do not want to make this too party political, but one of the things that we know worked with disadvantaged children was good Sure Start programmes and good children’s centres that were available to support those who did not have much of a home environment—who did not even have the English language at home, where the television was on in a foreign language—and went to school ill prepared to start learning. Those children’s centres were based on evidence and research by people such as Kathy Sylva and Naomi Eisenstadt. Where they are well staffed and well resourced, they make a magnificent difference to the lives of children in the very deprived communities we are talking about. My research shows that about a third have closed down since 2010, and many are under-resourced and do not have the facilities they used to have.

Any Government elected at the next election have to go back to the concept of children’s centres and Sure Start. They were not perfect and can be improved—everything can be improved—but I want to see little children in those children’s centres, run by highly qualified, highly motivated, well-paid people. When I first became Chairman of the Select Committee, I used to go to schools before the introduction of the minimum wage, and people said, “It’s terrible. The minimum wage will ruin early years care because we are only paying £1 an hour.” I believe that with the minimum wage, the transformation of early years education is halfway there, and we want to go the rest of the distance.