Personal, Social, Health and Financial Education

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley]

That is an important point, and I will come on to it. The PSHE Association has argued for the following key education themes to be included: health, relationships, careers and the world of work and personal finance. The consultation on the Government’s review finished on 30 November 2011. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect to see a revised programme of study for PSHE? On 9 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) received an answer to a question on drugs education telling her:

“Revised draft programmes of study…will be sent out for consultation in due course and consultation responses received will be taken into account before final programmes of study are published later this year.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 341W.]

May we have more clarity on dates for those revised draft programmes?

I would like to focus mainly on relationship education, which is a key issue in my constituency and for Salford as a local authority, because teenage pregnancy rates are a continuing concern for us. The latest published statistics show that the teenage conception rate in Salford is 57 conceptions per 1,000 young women. That is higher than the north-west region, which has a conception rate of 40 per 1,000, and considerably higher than England and Wales, which have a rate of 35 per 1,000. The latest figure for Salford is the highest in Greater Manchester and, depressingly, it is more than three points higher than the previous year’s figure. That is a clear issue for Salford, because it goes against the national trend. In Salford, the teenage conception rate has declined by only 3% since 1998, while in the north-west the rate reduced by 11% and in England and Wales the reduction was almost 16%. What that means in human terms, which is the most important thing, is that since 1998, between 215 and 250 young women under 18 in Salford have become pregnant in any one year, and 130 to 185 babies are born to mothers in that young age group in any year.

When action to reduce teenage pregnancy rates in Salford seemed to have stalled in 2007, the council’s children’s services scrutiny committee commissioned an inquiry into the extent and effectiveness of relationship education in our schools and colleges. The inquiry report commented:

“Teenage pregnancy is a serious social problem. Having children at a young age can damage young women’s health and well-being and severely limit their education and career prospects. While individual young people can be competent parents, all the evidence shows that children born to teenagers are much more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes in later life.”

The inquiry sent a survey questionnaire to all schools and colleges in Salford. It found that where the teaching of PSHE was not seen as a priority, the delivery of relationship education was not as effective.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay for the whole debate, but I am very pleased that it is taking place. Does my hon. Friend agree that an important factor to consider is the quality of teacher training? One reason why teaching may not be good in schools, or why the subject may not be given priority, is that teachers do not feel confident about talking about relationships, including, of course, same-sex relationships.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and that is my next point. The Salford inquiry found that schools were patchy in the take-up of their role in relationship education. In responses to the survey, schools cited “more training for staff” as a key improvement area, but the inquiry found that some schools, even in areas that were hotspots for teenage conception, were unable or unwilling to release teachers for the continuing professional development PSHE course. Another important point is that very few school governors had taken up the responsibility to oversee the delivery of relationship education in their school, and very few had taken on the available training. My hon. Friend is quite right.

The inquiry concluded that direction from Government was needed to make relationship education

“a consistent and compulsory part of the national curriculum.”

The inquiry in Salford was a valuable piece of work, but the situation in relationship education has sadly not improved since. The proposed clauses in Labour’s Children and Families Bill that would have made PSHE, including one year of relationship education, compulsory were lost in the legislation “wash-up” process before the 2010 general election, because Conservative Front Benchers and the usual channels were unable to agree to those provisions.

Funding sources that we used to fund work on teenage pregnancy have not been replaced. The 2007 inquiry report makes quite sad reading, because it envisaged the council being able to continue funding teenage pregnancy projects once grant funding ceased, with schools in teenage conception hotspots also providing matched funding. However, Salford city council has been the subject of budget cuts amounting to £90 million over three years since 2010, so extra funding for teenage pregnancy projects seems a forlorn hope.

That matters because we know that nationally the infant mortality rate for babies born to teenage mothers is 60% higher than for babies born to older mothers; children of teenage mothers are generally at increased risk of poverty, low educational attainment, poor housing and poor health, and they have lower rates of economic activity in their adult lives; and teenage mothers are less likely to finish their education and more likely to bring up their children alone and in poverty. We also know—this is why we are so concerned—that rates of teenage pregnancy are highest among deprived communities, so the negative consequences of teenage pregnancy are disproportionately concentrated among those who are already disadvantaged. Those are all powerful reasons for action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I am pleased that the Secretary of State agreed to meet that small group of Conservative Members of Parliament and that there was a least one female Member of Parliament present, because the rest were all white men. There has been no mention of any other groups being invited in to meet a Minister. I thought the PSHE Association, the Churches, End Violence Against Women or the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children might have been invited in to meet the Secretary of State, but no. A group of experts on violence against women and girls has been trying for some time to get a meeting with the Department to discuss the issue. Would the Minister agree to meet them to hear what they have to say on the role of PSHE in combating domestic violence?

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. One thing that I think that she will agree is most concerning is the alarmingly large number of young boys and young girls who think that it is acceptable for a boy to hit a girl or to force her to have sex when she says she does not want to.

[Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point very well.

Although Ministers have met none of the groups I thought they might have, extensive evaluations might have been going on of the education programmes available on PSHE. I therefore asked the Secretary of State another question:

“what lifeskills educational programmes (a) he and (b) his Department has evaluated.”

In response, the Minister said:

“This Department is in the process of assessing the strength of the evaluation of Botvin Life Skills Training Programme. Once completed, the assessment will be added to the Department’s open-access database of evaluations of programmes aimed at improving outcomes for young people.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 585W.]

There was therefore a little glimmer of hope, but there was no mention of one of the most successful, biggest and best-informed education programmes developed in the UK, the Good Behaviour Game. I therefore asked another question:

“what representations his Department has received on the effectiveness of the Good Behaviour Game as a lifeskills programme; and if he will commission a review of the effectiveness of the programme within the English curriculum.”

It is worth noting that, at first, the Department thought the Good Behaviour Game was about discipline and not that it was a life-skills programme. It worried me that it did not seem to know the difference. In response, the Minister said:

“The Department has not received any representations in respect of the effectiveness of the Good Behaviour Game as a lifeskills programme. The Government has no plans to commission a review of the effectiveness of this programme.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 81W.]

The Department is obviously not spending a great deal of time looking at or evaluating educational life-skills programmes, so perhaps it is focusing on the individual components of PSHE. I therefore thought I would ask some questions about relationship education. I asked the Secretary of State

“what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of relationship education”—

this goes to the point that was just raised—

“in…combating violence against women and girls and…changing attitudes towards domestic violence; what evidence on these issues has been presented to his Department in the last five years; what plans he has to review any such evidence; and if he will make a statement.”

This answer was a little better. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), said:

“There is some evidence, such as Taylor et al 2010, showing that schools-based programmes can improve awareness, attitudes and knowledge of gender violence and harassment prevention. Relationship education can be provided by schools as part of…PSHE…It is for schools to determine what they teach on these issues”.—[Official Report, 17 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 586W.]

The Minister went on to say that the Department was part of a cross-Government committee that looks at violence against women and girls and that it was “responsible for some actions”—he was not very specific—to deal with the issue. It therefore seems rather depressing that the Department accepts that relationship education can be effective in combating violence against women, but it seems to have no plans as to how that should be promoted.

What is the Department saying about alcohol? I asked the Secretary of State

“what assessment he has made of the role of alcohol education within the curriculum; what representations his Department has received on the nature and effectiveness of alcohol education; whether he plans to review such evidence; and what steps he intends to take to improve the quality and prevalence of alcohol education in schools.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 527W.]

The answer, which is quite shocking, is that the Department

“has not conducted a specific assessment of alcohol education within the curriculum.”

The answer continues:

“From April 2013 a new two-year contract will be in place to deliver information and advice to practitioners, including teachers, in the field of drug and alcohol education. It will build on the best of national and international practice”—

I do not know how the Department will do that, because it does not seem to evaluate anything—

“and ensure commissioners and practitioners understand the evidence-base and use programmes known to be effective.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 528W.]

Will the Minister tell us how that will happen and how it will fit with the drugs education forum? Its role was to bring together good practice from agencies, and it did that for the modest sum of £69,000, which was cut by the Government when they came into power and then hastily reinstated when they realised what a good job it did.

I turn to the PSHE review and drugs education—perhaps things will be better in relation to drugs. Again, I asked the Secretary of State what

“assessment he has made of the role of drugs education within the curriculum; what representations his Department has received on the nature and effectiveness of drugs education; whether he plans to review such evidence”.

The Minister replied:

“Pupils are currently taught about the negative physiological effects of drugs as part of the statutory National Curriculum Programmes of Study for science, and may also receive wider drugs education as part of non-statutory Personal, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 341W.]

It is disappointing that the Government do not seem to understand the importance of comprehensive drugs education in our schools. Drugs has cross-departmental reach, and I thought, perhaps naively, that much work was going on at that level. From another parliamentary question, however, I discovered that Education Ministers have attended the inter-ministerial group on drugs only four times out of 12. I also obtained the agendas for those meetings and, shockingly, drugs education has never been on the group’s agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I would have thought that as a former apprentice the hon. Gentleman would welcome the 500,000 apprenticeship starts over the last year. I entirely agree, however, that we must do more to support quality in apprenticeships, for instance by ensuring that they last for a minimum of one year, and I hope that he will work with me to deliver that.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the recent national apprenticeship scheme pilots achieved a small increase in the take-up of apprenticeships by black and ethnic minority young people, but those pilots have now come to an end. Will he consider using the employer apprenticeship grant to continue to promote diversity and further increase participation by BME young people?

Matthew Hancock: Apprenticeships are a route for all. I welcome the idea of a bid into the second round of the employer ownership pilot from the sorts of groups the hon. Lady talks about. I look forward to such a bid and will consider it along with all the others.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

I have already outlined various circumstances in which there is a range of questions with many sub-sections. We are saying that it is helpful for business and employees to discuss these issues and to be able to provide information. However, this provision is placing requirements and fears on businesses, and the disproportionate costs that they are facing in complying with it represents a total cost to business of nearly £1.5 million a year. That is a significant cost that we should not take lightly.

Individuals can seek information from an employer about an alleged breach of the 2010 Act without relying on this provision; they can request that information verbally or in writing. Of course, it is in businesses’ interests to respond to reasonable requests of this kind, because the courts would still be free to draw inferences from any employer or service provider’s refusal to answer questions or from answers that seem evasive.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister would accept that in many businesses there is an imbalance of power between an individual employee, who might be in a non-unionised workplace—a small business—and the employer, who, after all, is paying that employee. The employee may therefore be reluctant to upset their employer, and the statutory questionnaire procedure at least means that the employee can look to a formal external process to try to elicit information.

What assessment, if any, has the Minister made of the costs and savings in court time? Notably, many of the 83% of respondents in favour of the existing procedure were members of the judiciary, presumably because it makes for a simpler court process when cases do go to tribunal.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Some of the previous Government’s reforms were introduced, ostensibly, to try to reduce the number of cases coming to tribunal, but they have not that effect at all. We have seen a mushrooming in the number of cases at tribunal, which has resulted in a huge backlog. That is no good for employers or for employees, as the stress of waiting for a tribunal preys heavily on people’s minds. The other measures in the Bill are taking firm and important steps to encourage conciliation at an earlier stage to try to reduce the number of tribunals, and to consult on ways in which we can have a rapid resolution so that fewer cases come to tribunal. Those things will do what she suggests is helpful; we all agree that we want to reduce the number of tribunals, but those are the right ways in which to address the concerns, rather than having lengthy and cumbersome questionnaires for businesses. We have therefore concluded that this obtaining information procedure is disproportionate, and our amendment would repeal it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

We have heard from various Opposition Members that the EHRC was functioning fantastically.

There are many ways in which the EHRC could improve. We are making a variety of changes to it, but we remain committed to this organisation and to improving it. Just this morning, we had the pre-appointment scrutiny hearing for the new chair, Baroness Onora O’Neill, which is a positive step. I am optimistic about how the organisation will move forward and improve its governance, which is badly needed.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is right that improvements were needed in the governance and management of the EHRC. Opposition Members have not disputed that. However, to confuse that with changing its legislatively provided remit is simply not being clear, as that is a very different point of principle. Nobody is saying that the organisation could not be run better. What Opposition Members are querying is the need to cut away the ground from under its feet by changing its very purpose.

[Jo Swinson]

I appreciate that Opposition Members are exercised about this issue, but it is not something that the organisation itself is exercised about, as is evidenced by the quotations from the general counsel in the Committee hearing.

A range of organisations responded to the consultation and gave their views on the change in the general duty. The Association of Chief Police Officers said that the general duty is

“broad in nature, open to wide interpretation and is more in the nature of a vision statement”.

The CBI said that it is

“too vague and creates unrealistic expectations”.

The Gender Identity Research and Education Society said:

“There is no essential specific legal function”.

I particularly like the way in which we managed to unite two organisations that are not usually in agreement—Stonewall and the Evangelical Alliance. The Evangelical Alliance said:

“It’s impossible to achieve and could lead to all kinds of unsatisfactory political interpretations”.

Stonewall said:

“We are not clear that the Commission has made a sufficient case for the retention of Section 3.”

I accept that many Opposition Members think that this change means that the sky is falling in, but the EHRC and its stakeholders do not concur with that viewpoint.

We are reducing the frequency with which the commission is required to publish reports.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I shall speak to amendment 56. Far be it for me to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), but I think the amendment is in my name. I say that only to give notice formally that I intend to move the amendment and divide the House on it. It is in my name only because of my speed of pace in getting to the Vote Office—that is all.

This is not one of those parliamentary knockabout debates, but a fundamentally important one. I have been a Member since 1997 and I have noted that in every debate on equalities during that period, what emerged was a near consensus about the approach towards, and the commitment to, the legislative framework. When we debated the Equality Act 2006, near consensus was achieved in this House about the legislative framework that was being put in place. I thought that that was one of those occasions on which the House rose to its full height, and it was held in esteem for reaching that consensus.

To be frank, there is an element of tragedy to what is happening. We are going dramatically backwards here. The Minister listed a range of reforms that the Government had introduced, most of which I believe the Opposition supported. I welcome them, but the difference between those reforms and the one we are considering is that there was consensus about most of them, both in this House and outside it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has said, a vast range of organisations have expressed concern. I received a briefing from the Equality and Diversity Forum—I hope that other Members have received it, too—which basically urged the Government to think again and provided a detailed brief, setting out point by point its arguments for opposing the Government’s proposals. Some of these organisations deserve listening to. They include Age UK, the British Institute of Human Rights, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Citizens Advice, Disability Rights UK, the Discrimination Law Association, End Violence Against Women—the list just goes on and on—the Fawcett Society, Friends, Families and Travellers, Justice, the Law Centres Federation, Mind, the National AIDS Trust, Race on the Agenda, the Refugee Council, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Runnymede Trust, Scope, the TUC and the Women’s Resource Centre—and there are many more. As my hon. Friend said, tomorrow there will be a further letter from organisations that supported this House for almost a generation as we devised the legislation and the legislative foundation of our equalities law. This Government are now breaking that consensus.

To be frank, there were concerns that there would be a Conservative party attack on equalities after the election. We were hoping that that would not be the case. I argued that many of the legislative debates we had had over the last generation would be put to bed and would not be reopened. Many feared such an attack, but most of us hoped when the coalition was born that the Lib Dems would head it off. I know that there are those who have tried to do so. We have heard today of letters coming in from different Lib Dem groups, urging the Government to think again. Unfortunately, they have failed. As a result of that failure to convince the Government to think again, we are faced with the most significant step backwards on equalities that we have seen in the last 20 years.

[Kate Green]

I share my hon. Friend’s distress and sorrow at what is happening under this Government. Is it not also the case that when the Equality Act went through the previous Parliament, it was Liberal Democrat Members, including the Minister’s own predecessor, who were particularly at pains to push our Government, a Labour Government, to go further? Is this not an appalling and distressing reversal of position?

[John McDonnell]

To be fair—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Exactly. Amazingly, the questionnaire process has been operating effectively since 1975, and in the consultation, 83% opposed this proposal. Most people just want to get on with the practicalities of conciliation, not resort to law because of its expense and risk, and the questionnaires enable us to do that. The Discrimination Law Association offered example after example of the questionnaire’s effectiveness, but they seem to have been completely dismissed by the Government.

New clause 12 relates to third-party harassment which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham eloquently addressed. I do not think that scrapping the duty set out in the legislation will in any way clarify matters. In fact, I think that it will cause more confusion. At least when cases are brought up with employers, even informally, representatives can point to the legislation and the duty and it is then clear what the employers have to do. Example after example has been pointed out, but I will give one that was raised with us some years ago. Black firefighters arriving at a scene were being discriminated against and targeted, so their employers had to put in place additional protections. Another example was of discrimination taking place in jobcentres. With regard to the consultation, if the Government were listening to people they would hear that 71% are opposed to these proposals.

Reference has been made to other cuts that have been made to the commission. The Minister raised the issue of the helpline, which has now been transferred to the Government Equalities Office. It only takes referrals from other organisations and does not advertise its services, so I think that the Government are effectively hoping that it will simply wither on the vine and there will no longer be a service for people.

I am also concerned—the Minister has not mentioned this—that a new framework document is now being discussed with the commission that, I think, threatens to limit its future freedom of operation. There is to be a further budget review, as I have said. If the Government are planning to abolish the commission, I would rather they came clean about it and were up front, rather than killing it off by stealth, by cuts and by undermining its legal powers. That would be more honest.

It is not the case that equalities are no longer relevant; discrimination is taking place in our society. We extol the virtues of British society but the reality is that, as everywhere else, discrimination takes place daily and has to be confronted, and we need an effective organisation to do that. If we want an effective organisation, it has to have legal powers that are set out clearly in law. This legislation will undermine those powers and make them less clear than ever before.

I think that this flies in the face of everything this House has worked for over the past generation and the joint work that has been done across parties to promote equality and give effective powers to a body and underpin them in legislation. That is now being thrown to the wind, and for what? I think that it is the result of a combination of ideology and the desire to make savings that, frankly, I do not think will be realised. The proposals will most probably cost more than they actually save. I urge the Government to think again. I urge the Liberal Democrat partners in the coalition to return to their first principles and to what they said a number of years ago. If the Government do not amend the Bill, I hope that the other House will take a role in this and stand up for equality in our society once again.

[Kate Green]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and to endorse his comments. We are genuinely shocked, disturbed and surprised that the Government, and particularly the Minister, have brought forward the amendments to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s remit and by some of the specific changes proposed to employment legislation.

As my hon. Friend has just said, despite progress—progress that we can be proud of across this House and in society at large—in addressing inequality and injustice in this society, despite the fact that much good work has been done in our communities to boost and strengthen community harmony, despite the many efforts that have been made to create better educational opportunities for young people from all backgrounds, and despite many examples of progress for women, disabled people, black and ethnic minority people, lesbians and gay and transgender people, despite all that progress, we are still a fundamentally very unequal society.

We are a society where there is still a gender pay gap of 20%; where young black men are still disproportionately more likely not to be in employment, and even when they achieve good degrees still find that they end up with fewer employment chances and lower earnings; where disability hate crime is reported to be on the rise; and where great offence and hurt can still be caused within our communities, as we have seen only recently with the “Innocence of Muslims” film. It is really important that we do not take progress on equality for granted, because there is a very long way to go.

[Stephen Pound]

Many people of my generation thought that the days of overt racism in football died when bananas stopped being thrown at people like Clyde Best, but when we see such incidents as recently occurred at the Chelsea-QPR game, we realise that a fetid, bubbling sewer of racism still runs through the veins of our society. Does my hon. Friend agree that there has never been a time when it has been more important to have a strong, well-funded, supportive, proactive commission than now, because old Adam is not dead and the old evil has not gone way?

[Kate Green]

That is absolutely right. One of the great dangers of the Government’s proposals is that they assume that the problem is sorted and we can take our eye off the ball when that is clearly not the case.

It is important to think about the language we use and the provisions we make in legislation, because that sets a context, an ambition and a sense of priority for the country and for the institutions within it. Equally, beginning to weaken that language and remove provisions sends the message that this is not all that important and other things are more important.

I am particularly concerned that these changes are being made in the context of an enterprise Bill, as though equality were in some way inimical to enterprise, when in fact it lies at the heart of successful enterprise. The most socially and economically successful societies are also the most equal societies. It is wrong to seek to weaken our commitment to equality in an enterprise Bill, of all places.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend raises the very important issue of the “Innocence of Muslims” film and the inter-faith concerns that have been caused. Does she agree that a strong equalities body is vital for promoting a sense of good will, cohesion and understanding between communities that will not be there without the mechanisms in society to help to deliver that?

[Kate Green]

It is absolutely right that we need a strong institutional infrastructure to promote and encourage greater equality, respect for human rights and good relations between different sectors in society, particularly as regards the interests of marginalised and more vulnerable groups.

[Julian Smith]

Does the hon. Lady not welcome the equal pay audits in the Bill, the Government’s same-sex marriage proposals, and the many equality proposals that they are taking forward? Are those proposals not more important than this body, which has, in a number of reviews, been given quite a lot of criticism?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman confuses the operation of the body with its remit. We are not saying that nothing can be done to improve the operation of the EHRC, but that is a different matter from its remit and the context that the Bill is important in setting. While the Government have made one or two grudging steps forward in relation to improving equalities, the proposal on equal pay audits is a watering down of our commitment to have such audits across the board for larger businesses, not only when they have been unsuccessful at tribunal, and the proposals on equal marriage now appear to have been kicked into the long grass. I am glad to see the Minister shaking her head and look forward to the legislation coming forward very shortly. Yet again, the Government have chosen not to go as far as Labour Members were calling for, by wanting to limit equal marriage to civil marriage. There seems to be no good reason not to take that further and for religious institutions that would like to offer a religious ceremony to be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman picked on one or two instances of progress set against a backdrop of failure to take the most progressive action, and in many instances an unwinding of progress on progressive action. It is unlikely that this Government can claim to have done much strenuously to promote equality—in reality, the opposite is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Does my hon. Friend share my grave concern that the removal of the general duty under clause 51—now clause 52—was described by the Business Secretary as

“a bit of legislative tidying up”?—[Official Report, 11 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 75.]

Does she agree that it is far from just “tidying up” and that it is in fact a watering down of a duty that is vital for our social well-being?

[Kate Green]

It is shocking that the Secretary of State regards this simply as legislative tidying up, because it goes to the heart of our vision for equality and human rights. I am also concerned that it has been suggested—indeed, the Minister alluded remarks—that other bits of the legislation are going to be good enough and we are not going to lose anything really. For example, the Government have mentioned the possibility of relying on the public sector equality duty, but that, too, is being reviewed by this Government.

What we have had with the red tape challenge, with this Bill and now with the consultation on the public sector equality duty is the piecemeal dismantling of our equalities infrastructure. It is utterly disgraceful that the Government have set about it in this way. They have made proposals today on the statutory questionnaire and on third-party harassment. The consultation on those has just closed and there has been no formal response from the Government; we have simply seen proposals brought forward in this legislation. The Secretary of State assured me personally on Second Reading that he had no plans to bring forward such measures, yet here they are today appearing in the Bill so I am very concerned that the Minister’s assurances that the equalities context is safe in the Government’s hands and that other aspects of legislation will continue to protect it are simply not worth the paper they are written on, given the Government’s track record on this matter over the past few months.

I now wish to examine the good relations duty, a really important duty that has been in place since the time of the Commission for Racial Equality and some of the shocking racial discrimination that we saw in earlier decades. That all culminated in the Macpherson report following Stephen Lawrence’s murder. That was a time that brought home a real shock to our society about how we had failed to address discrimination and inequality in our country. As I say, we have made progress in the intervening decades in our treatment of, and the opportunities afforded to, some minority groups in our society, but victimisation, discrimination, hate crime and disrespect to minorities continue today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington highlighted some of the groups that, even today, experience that discrimination: disabled people; people with mental health difficulties; and Gypsies and Travellers. There is still racism and there is still religious hatred. There are still women who are experiencing and are victims of violence, or who are at risk of it. All those groups continue to suffer from derogatory language, discriminatory behaviour, prejudice and public hostility. It is quite wrong to think that we do not need to continue to protect in legislation a positive duty to promote and improve good relations, particularly to protect the interests of minority and disadvantaged groups.

The situation is not helped when some of this hostility is whipped up by Ministers’ own language; it is not helped by language that implies that people on disability benefits are benefit scroungers or that Gypsies and Travellers are all involved in illegal encampments, arriving one Friday night, parking up with their tents and disappearing by Monday. There is too much condemnation based on anecdote, which fuels this culture of hostility. It is really important that we have a strong commission that is able positively and proactively to tackle that and promote good relations between different groups.

[Julian Smith]

Could the hon. Lady give some tangible examples of how the general duty actually helped the groups of people she has mentioned?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman should realise that we are talking about the good relations duty, not the general duty, which is a duty to promote equality and reduce discrimination. However, we have heard some examples this afternoon of how it has been used. It was used, for example, to create the Let’s Kick Racism Out of Football campaign, and it has been used recently to underpin what I think all Members would recognise as an important report published by the EHRC last year, “Hidden in plain sight”, which addressed the issue of disability hate crime. I am not saying that there is no more work to be done; I am saying that the removal of the good relations duty does not inspire confidence that the commission will have its eye on the ball of doing more work. It is important that we do not lose sight of the progress that we still need to make.

[Mr Umunna]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a commission not only to act as an anti-discrimination vehicle that identifies discrimination and deals with it when it happens, but proactively to prevent such things from coming up in the first place. The section 3 duty makes it clear that the organisation has those twin purposes.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right. Opposition Members are wary of the commission being reduced to a mere regulator between two parties, rather than seen as an agent of social change. There is a real opportunity for a highly regarded, well-resourced public body, with the right remit, to shape and influence public attitudes. The Government’s proposals will put that work and ambition at risk.

[Julian Smith]

Does the hon. Lady really think that a body can make such changes? Is this not about leadership in all our public sector organisations and private companies? Does she really think that a body, however much resource it has, can achieve those changes?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need leadership in all walks of society—of course we do. We need to see it in our businesses, schools, public services and communities. I am sure he is not saying that there is no need whatever for the state to sign up, positively and proactively, to endorse and create an institutional mechanism and infrastructure to help achieve that. But if that is what he is saying, he is very much at odds with best international practice and the relevant directives of the United Nations and the European Union. As I have said, in a country where there is still gross inequality, it would take a great leap of faith to say that we can afford to dismantle the equalities infrastructure; surely what we should be doing is building it up.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the great advances that have undoubtedly been made in race equality, disability rights and so on do not mean that there is not unfinished work to be completed. There is an awful lot of progress still to be made and that is a case for a stronger commission, not the rolling back of provisions.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right. It is regrettable that we are having a debate about watering down the commission’s remit. There is no evidence of public support for that and there is not even much evidence of business support for it. Opposition Members believe that it sends the wrong the signal at a time when we still need to make so much progress.

[Stephen Pound]

On that point, this Bill is called the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, and in a spirit of generosity and open-heartedness I have been trying to identify the coalition Government’s motivation. I can only assume that they believe that industry is like a group of greyhounds, straining at the slips and longing to burst forward in a great explosion of entrepreneurial activity, that are somehow being held back by these fetters of legislation. If that is the case, I ask my hon. Friend why she believes that the most successful economy in Europe—that in Germany—has no call to abandon the protective mechanisms that make society a better place and that underline the old saying that this country would not be a good place for any of us to live in until it is a good place for all of us to live in?

[Kate Green]

I cannot begin to say why the Government want to weaken the equalities infrastructure. I cannot work out whether it is because of ideology; whether they genuinely believe that there is a business case for it, although they have not managed to demonstrate that clearly this afternoon; or whether there are pressures on them to be seen to be passing legislation in this field because there is not much else for the House to do. I regret that the fact that the Government have put this particular structure into this position, because that says something very profound about what is valuable and important in our society. I am very disappointed that the Government and this Minister are bringing these provisions forward this afternoon.

[Jack Dromey]

In the Bill, the Government pray in aid enterprise to deny equality. Does my hon. Friend agree with the automotive and engineering personnel managers whom I met in Birmingham, who said that the work of the commission had been invaluable in getting the best out of their work force and that they wanted to get the best out of the work force of the city? As one of them said, enterprise and equality are not opposites; they are partners.

[Kate Green]

Absolutely. That is also true in the public sector. In my constituency, a major public sector institution is even now working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to marry up its human resources practices and its service delivery. That demonstrates exactly the kind of strong institutional body that we want and that we ought to be protecting and promoting today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the concerns that Opposition Members have about the framework agreement that covers the operation of the commission, its relationship with Government and, crucially, its independence. There are worries that the combination of the changes to the framework agreement and the fact that it will report only every five years, as opposed to every three years, as now, will seriously weaken its independence and the balance between the independent commission and the Government Equalities Office, which I think is still within the Home Office, although I am happy to be corrected by the Minister if it has moved.

[Jo Swinson]

indicated assent.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is indicating that it has moved. We are concerned that the balance of power and influence in determining strategy has shifted from an independent commission to an internal Government body. In the context of the international A-grade status, that is a cause of concern.

[Mr Umunna]

That is exactly what Neil Crowther, the former director of human rights and director of disability rights at the commission to whom I referred earlier, has said. He stated that as a result of what the Government are doing,

“where now the EHRC is empowered to determine measures of Britain’s progress towards equality and human rights and the outcomes towards which it will focus its resources, in future government will do so.”

[Kate Green]

Exactly; I think that all Members will be concerned about that.

Mr John Wadham, who has been much quoted in this debate in support of the Government’s position—although that support was not the position that the EHRC took in its first public submission on these matters—has identified the concern over the independence of the commission. He suggested that if the measures proposed by the Government were to come in, he would like to see a compensating measure that would see the commission report to Parliament. Of that compensating measure, today there is no sign.

I will move on to two of the Government new clauses that relate to employment rights. The first relates to third-party harassment, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friends. The Minister said that the relevant provisions in the Equality Act 2010 were not necessary because employees have other forms of redress. However, the fact that there is a specific legislative provision to cover third-party harassment highlights the possibility for employees to have redress. They might be unaware that their employer has such a liability and obligation to them. In smaller and un-unionised workplaces, it is particularly difficult for employees to understand that they may be entitled to redress.

It is also important for employers to recognise the good practice of many exemplary employers in focusing on their responsibility for their staff’s welfare. I was struck, as were some of my hon. Friends, by some of the employers who strongly endorsed the provisions of the 2010 Act and said that they were an important tool in protecting and reinforcing the rights of their employees. They were concerned that other employers might not follow the same good practice and they regretted the change.

[Luciana Berger]

Does my hon. Friend share the concerns echoed by the TUC that the removal of third-party harassment provisions will lead to life getting much harder for thousands of people who work in care homes, as well as health workers and teachers—the three groups specifically highlighted by the TUC?

[Kate Green]

One concern is that the workers affected are likely to be low-paid—often women—or people with low levels of qualifications, and they will lose out most by the removal of third-party harassment provisions. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—I draw attention to my membership of that union and its support for my constituency party—is aware of cases in which shop staff have been victims of harassment, sometimes by customers or perhaps outside the store if customers have been asked to leave for disruptive behaviour. Those staff have used third-party harassment provisions to work with employers and ensure that steps are taken to protect shop workers, particularly late at night when few staff may be on site. The Opposition are worried that the provision has worked well to protect more vulnerable workers, and we regret that the Government now seek its removal.

The statutory questionnaire procedure has been in place since the sex discrimination legislation of the 1970s, and Labour Members are at a complete loss to understand the Minister’s objections. Far from being costly and burdensome to business, we see the procedure as helpful and something that businesses can use to focus on the essentials of a problem, and make clear to employees—and potentially to their representatives—whether there is a case to answer. As colleagues with trade union backgrounds have pointed out, in many cases, the advice received by the employee following the completion of a statutory questionnaire is that there is no case. Where there is a case, however, or structural discrimination in the workplace, surely we want to offer employees who are the victims the best possible means of uncovering and dealing with it, and maintain the strongest possible regulatory framework to enable information to be elicited, analysed, and used by employees when discrimination has occurred.

The Minister suggested that the statutory questionnaire procedure was burdensome for business. As colleagues have pointed out, however, over a three-year period only 2% of businesses—0.7% a year—completed the questionnaire. To the best of my knowledge, no micro-businesses—none of the smallest businesses for which the Minister may argue that the measure could be more burdensome—have ever completed a statutory questionnaire. If they have, it was not in the written evidence received during the Government consultation. I therefore suggest that the burden on business that the Minister seeks to portray, and the cost to business of around £1 million—as I think we were told—is pretty negligible in the context of other costs borne by businesses for the protection of workers in the workplace.

[Julian Smith]

The hon. Lady knows full well that the smallest businesses in our country do not really get a look-in at the written evidence sessions. They do not have time to participate, and therefore they are not represented. To pretend otherwise would not be correct.

[Kate Green]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The problem, however, is that we did not get any evidence from micro-businesses, although perhaps for the best of reasons. I accept it may be difficult for those businesses to find the time and resources to make submissions to formal Government processes, but equally, no evidence has been presented that many micro-businesses have a problem and have used the statutory questionnaire procedure. The legislation comes from speculation rather than information and evidence, and that is much to be regretted.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Does her case not underline the real point that these regulations—and the legislation—is working, and that the framework in place means that the statutory questionnaire procedure has not been used in the numbers suggested and is not the burden that it is made out to be by the Government?

[Kate Green]

That is absolutely right. It is also important to recognise that in an employer-employee relationship, there is an imbalance of power, even in many of the smallest businesses. One thing that the statutory questionnaire procedure helps to do is redress that power imbalance—that has been specifically noted in European directives as one of the purposes of such procedures. It is a regret that Ministers have decided that that protection for employees should be removed.

The statutory questionnaire procedure promotes efficiency in the workplace—cases can be abandoned or issues clarified early—but the fact that the judiciary has come out in the Government’s consultation largely in favour of it suggests that it also leads to efficiencies in the courtroom and the tribunal, because the issues will have been well analysed and distilled. Given the many pressures being brought to bear on employment tribunals, I would have thought that the Government would want to give serious consideration to the cost-effectiveness of the statutory questionnaire procedure in respect of tribunals.

These highly regrettable measures have been thrown into the legislation at the eleventh hour. It appears that they are more a sop to the prejudices of a small number of business organisations rather than a recognition of any business hostility to legislative provisions that have existed for many years.

Finally, I should mention what is happening to the general landscape of places where people can go for redress and advice. My hon. Friends have mentioned the ending of the commission’s grants programme to the voluntary sector; changes to its helpline provision; and the ending of its ability to offer conciliation services in non-employment matters. As the Minister well knows, that is happening against a backdrop of swingeing cuts to legal aid funding and to local authority funding for advice organisations. Those who have suffered discrimination or injustice now have real difficulty even to get to the means of presenting and taking their case. I would understand it if the Minister argued that that is not exactly the EHRC’s core function if it were not for the fact that all other provision of such advice and information is being dismantled. It is extremely difficulty for the Minister to argue that there is no need for the EHRC to provide such a service when the same service is being removed from every possible place where people in need might look for it.

The Opposition are distressed and saddened by the proposals in the Government’s new clauses and amendments. We are concerned that they speak either to Government Members’ intrinsic hostility to the concept of equalities and the landscape to protect them, or to a casual dismantling of provisions that work extremely well. We are concerned that the signal sent to wider society is a negative one—the suggestion is either that equality is a job done, which it plainly is not, or that it is no longer important, even though there is agreement across the House that it is very important.

I hope the Minister takes the opportunity to think again this afternoon about some of the Government’s proposals, but I can absolutely assure her that if that does not happen, the subject will be a matter of live debate in the House of Lords. Their lordships take a great interest in equality and social justice and will be very concerned about provisions that appear to weaken the institutional infrastructure to protect and promote equality. I look forward to many more robust arguments. I hope that, in the end, the provisions will be seen as damaging and that they will be withdrawn, so that we will be able to move forward as an exemplar country in our commitment to equality and our determination to make continuing progress.

[Jo Swinson]

Although this debate has not been as consensual as the previous one on insolvency measures, I recognise none the less that Members have raised genuine concerns, on which I hope to reassure them.

Various Members referred to the Second Reading debate and, in particular, the question that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) posed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said that there were no proposals, at that point, to bring forward the measures in the amendments today. Of course, in June, when Second Reading was undertaken, a consultation was under way, so we did not have firm proposals at that point. My right hon. Friend said, though, that there was nothing to stop people proposing amendments, and since then, of course, the consultation has ended. In answer to the hon. Lady’s specific question about the consultation, I can say that the Government published their response on 10 October. She is right that the Government Equalities Office has moved, following the reshuffle, and is now housed in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, where the Minister for Women and Equalities is also Secretary of State.

I can provide a range of clarifications. The shadow Secretary of State asked about the scope of equal pay audits, in particular, and whether they would apply only to private organisations. I can confirm that they will also apply to public sector organisations, so it will be the case for all employers, although we must bear in mind the moratorium on additional burdens on micro-businesses until 2014. It is certainly not our intention, however, to limit its scope to the private sector.

The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made a helpful intervention pointing out the unfortunate increase in disability hate crime. It was helpful because it reminded us of the issue. I share his concern, and he should not be under the impression that such concern is limited to the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The change made in 2007 was made for the specific reason that has been mentioned, and that was what was replicated in 2010, but in any event, I reiterate what I said earlier about the fact that significant protections remain. This is not to say that by removing the three strikes test there is no remaining protection for people, so that employers do not have to have regard to ensuring that their employees are not harassed at work; rather, employers retain a common-law duty of care to their employees, and they will still need to ensure that they do not fall foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Let me turn to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am glad that we are not assuming, on both sides of the House, that the position was perfect under the last Government, and I welcome the comments that various Opposition Members have made to that effect. It is worth bearing in mind that we had significant concerns, as did many of the stakeholder organisations, about the EHRC’s ability to fulfil its core duties. On human rights, for instance, Liberty said:

“We have…watched the turbulent”

history

“of the EHRC with some disappointment…The EHRC has a vital statutory duty”

to defend human rights, and

“notwithstanding considerable staffing and other resources, this is a duty which it is yet to fulfil.”

The Equality and Diversity Forum expressed concern that the human rights inquiry was

“the only visible work EHRC has done that is explicitly concerned with fulfilling its duty to promote respect for human rights.”

The Public and Commercial Services Union listed human rights debates from which it said the commission was absent due to a

“failure to communicate its role effectively”.

In addition, concerns were expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so there was indeed a problem with the basic statutory duties that are the core functions of the EHRC not being properly undertaken previously. That is why our amendments seek to focus the duty and make it crystal clear that that is the priority.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady has mentioned a number of organisations and their concerns about how the commission was fulfilling or failing to fulfil some of its core responsibilities, but does she not accept that not one of the organisations she has named—neither Liberty, the Equality and Diversity Forum nor the PCS—has called for a reduction in the commission’s remit? What they have called for is improvements in governance and management, some of which, I accept, we are now seeing.

[Jo Swinson]

It is certainly the case that there is wide agreement that improved governance and management are necessary. Much of that has been happening, which is definitely to be welcomed. However, this comes back to whether we should have a legal duty—something that is tightly drawn and focused—or something that is more akin to a mission statement or vision statement. The purpose of a legal duty is about something being manageable and achievable, and although the duty that the shadow Secretary of State read out described what we would all want to achieve, it would be ambitious for a Government, with all the resources available to them, to say that they would achieve them, let alone for a solitary organisation to try to achieve such a wide range of ends, albeit good ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson]

The shadow Secretary of State does not surprise me greatly when he says that he is not convinced by our arguments today. This was never going to be the most consensual of debates. He is now asking me to look into a crystal ball, but I am clearly not going to make any predictions for the future. I will, however, say that the EHRC is a vital body that is hugely important to our equalities protection. We are conducting a zero-based review to ensure that it can undertake its functions in a more focused way, and that is what we will continue to do.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned the potential risk to the A-rated status of the EHRC as a human rights body. We are in discussions with the international co-ordinating committee on this, and we want to address any concerns that it might have. We are determined to ensure that we have an A-rated and highly respected human rights body. The hon. Lady also asked about the framework document and suggested that it could undermine the independence of the institution. In fact, it has been agreed on between the commission and the Government, and it sets out specifically that the commission must be

“free to exercise its statutory functions free from ministerial interference or undue influence.”

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the Minister, and I note that assurance, but does not the framework document imply that the function of the EHRC is to deliver the Government’s equality strategy? That does not exactly speak to its independence.

[Jo Swinson]

As I have said, the framework document is absolutely independent. The commission should be

“under as few constraints as reasonably possible in determining its activities, timetables and priorities”,

and it should not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, or enjoy any status, immunity and privilege of the Crown. Those words are very clear.

I agree with the hon. Lady that there is much more to do on equality. This is in no way “job done”. She outlined the scandal of the remaining pay gap, which we are committed to addressing. I would point out, however, that we were left with a 20% pay gap in 2010 after 13 years of a Labour Government. So before the Opposition get too holier than thou, they should show a little humility. It was not “job done” after they had been in government. We need to work together to ensure that equalities are driven forward, and that these situations are improved. In addition, on the issues the hon. Lady raised around racial inequality, social mobility and the sort of action we are taking through the pupil premium will certainly help. I welcome her support for equal marriage, and I would note again that the previous Labour Government did not do anything about it for 13 years.

We are deliberately making sure that the EHRC is improved in respect of its management. We have made significant progress at the EHRC: we have a permanent chief executive appointed, and as I said, the pre-appointment scrutiny hearing took place this morning for the preferred candidate for its chair. Ministers will, of course, properly consider the report before formally deciding whether to appoint Baroness O’Neill. We have had two clean sets of accounts laid before Parliament—

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The programme must be demand-led and business-led. When a sector is struggling, as the construction sector currently is, that affects the demand for training; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the sector is well organised, with a levy system and a skills training board. We certainly want to see a substantial number of additional trained specialists in the construction sector, so that we do not have to rely on people coming from overseas to do the work, as we often have in the past.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Although the number of members of ethic minorities who are taking up apprenticeships is improving, there are still patterns of occupational segregation, and ethnic minorities are less likely to be represented in the industry sectors with the best long-term career prospects. What specific steps are the Government taking to ensure that members of ethnic minorities have the chance to take up the best possible apprenticeships?

[Vince Cable]

I have not had that case made to me before. Certainly if there is some element of discrimination, that is unacceptable. I guess there might be a correlation with other patterns in the labour force, but I will undertake to see whether there is any evidence of there being a real problem that we need to address.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I understand that this is an issue my hon. Friend feels particularly strongly about. The Government agree that the school funding system needs reform. We have already announced changes for 2013-14 that will make the local funding system simpler and more transparent. We will introduce a fair national funding formula during the next spending period. I understand that that is rather longer than he is hoping for, but it is important that we make any changes at a pace that schools can manage.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

How will the Minister ensure that spending via the pupil premium reaches the most disadvantaged pupils in schools and actually makes a difference to their outcomes?

[Sarah Teather]

From this September, schools are required to publish what money they receive through the pupil premium and what they do with it, and to do so online so that councillors, governors and parents can scrutinise what is happening with that money. Similarly, Ofsted is focusing much more on the efforts schools are making with disadvantaged students. Of course, we are publishing key stage 2 and 4 results for students eligible for the pupil premium separately. This is all part of a picture of increasing transparency. Of the schools I have visited, many are already using it for innovative and interesting projects. I encourage the hon. Lady to ensure that all the schools in her constituency have all the children who should be on free school meals claiming them to ensure that they actually get the money they are owed.

Further Education Loans

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tristram Hunt]

In Stoke-on-Trent and, I imagine, in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, we have seen a fall in the number of those who are seeking to go on to higher education in local universities as a result of the increase in tuition fees to £9,000. Will we see the self-same fall among those who are seeking to go on to further education? That is exactly the wrong strategy to pursue in such cities, which, above all, need to upgrade their skills.

I also welcome Government recognition that there is a capital issue in FE with the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths, although it is not clear how that will prevent the cost differential between those more expensive courses and the cheaper humanity courses in a sustainable way. Again, we need more details.

Another difference between the higher and further education sectors does not stack up well for the proposals—the relative homogeneity of higher education courses in terms of length, the academic calendar, qualifications offered and the application process, compared with courses in further education, which can often vary in length, begin at different points and have much less obvious timings. To be generous, the Student Loans Company does not have an outstanding record of delivery even when administering the far simpler world of higher education loans. In the Minister’s response, will he outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the Student Loans Company can cope with that added pressure? We will certainly see the consequences in our constituency surgeries if the change goes wrong.

My greatest concern with the proposals, however, surrounds their financing. It is my understanding that the Government have estimated that only 40% of all level 3 qualification loans will get fully repaid. As my right hon. Friend implied, under the current policy, the Skills Funding Agency funds 50% of the cost of further education courses. There is a powerful case for not decreasing state support for further education on social mobility grounds—perhaps even more so than for higher education—but the Government have been clear that deficit reduction is part of their motivation. If only 40% of the loans are repaid, how would that represent a better deal for the taxpayer?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that there will be an in-built inefficiency if the numbers of students fall so substantially that the fixed costs of colleges are no longer adequately covered by student fees?

[Tristram Hunt]

That is precisely the kind of area that we will need to look at when considering how the loans play out. What we saw in the higher education loans system was all sorts of additions to the initial policy, as the Government sought to unpick the consequences. In the way that things have been managed, we simply do not have the data to appreciate what will happen.

We can be positive about many elements of the Government plans, but we need to thrash out the questions of the consequences: value for money for the taxpayers; whether the Government have a philosophical objection to public investment in skills, although we know how important they are; and some of the detailed practicalities surrounding last week’s announcement, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested. It would have been helpful to have had the discussion in the House, with more colleagues with FE colleges in their constituencies present to explore such major public policy changes.

BME Communities (Educational Attainment)

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree that it is extremely important that every young person and child should understand the implications of the pathways that they choose at GCSE. It is important that they understand that certain choices may lead to closing off opportunities at a later stage. I do not, however, support the crude mechanism of the E-bac, because I do not think that it is the way forward for qualifications at 16, and it will not necessarily mean that people will opt for those subjects that it is in their interests to take. There should be a clear understanding of the implications of choices made at 16. We should retain high expectations for young people in their GCSEs, particularly in English and maths, but also allow them the opportunity to make informed choices about the subjects that they want to take.

I want to address a number of points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She is right to emphasise that this is not a new issue. Indeed, she has been making that point for the 25 years she has been a Member of this House, which she entered in 1987. It is only right that we pay tribute to her efforts on the subject, including her practical efforts in relation to the initiative that she mentioned in her speech.

My hon. Friend and I debated the issue when I was a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families in 2008 and I can confirm that she is passionate about the subject and has a lot to say. As I recall, she took 26 of the 30 minutes that we had to debate the issue and I did my best to respond in the remaining time available. She was quite right, however, because she had a lot to say on the subject. She was right to emphasise its importance and to take me to task, as a Minister, on the subject, as she had previous Labour Ministers and as I am sure she will continue to do to coalition Ministers. It is important to hold our feet to the fire and make sure that our attention is maintained. That applies not just to those of us on the Opposition Benches, but, more importantly, given that the Minister is in government, to those who hold the levers of policy in the Department for Education. My hon. Friend was also right to mention the need for detailed data, which I will return to in a moment.

When we debated this topic in 2008, my hon. Friend made a number of points that caught my attention, one of which was that research by the former Department of Education and Skills confirmed:

“Black Caribbean pupils are significantly more likely to be permanently excluded—3 times more likely than White pupils.”

However, as my hon. Friend has said today, and as she said in 2008:

“In relation to base-line entry tests, black pupils outperform their white peers at the start of school”.

We need to understand what is going on.

My hon. Friend went on to emphasise the importance of teacher training, pointing out that only 35% of newly qualified teachers

“rated their course as good for preparing them to teach black children, as opposed to 60 per cent. who rated their course as good preparation for teaching children of all abilities.” —[Official Report, 1 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 223, 224WH.]

That is still a significant issue that we all need to consider and that the Minister must not lose sight of in his reform of teacher training.

My hon. Friend talked about exclusion, which absolutely needs to be tackled. When we were in government, we started to look at that subject in more detail and in greater depth than Ministers had at the start of the Labour Government in 1997, when my hon. Friend had a meeting with Education Ministers. In 2007, the Department published a priority review entitled “Getting it, getting it right” on the exclusion of black pupils. It discussed the iconic status of the issue of exclusion in black communities. Black Caribbean parents in particular believed that the school system would not meet the needs of their children unless something was done about the disproportionate level of exclusion of pupils from that particular background. It was extremely important that that report was undertaken at that time, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister about what the Government are doing now to follow up on that issue in relation to the exclusion of black and minority ethnic pupils. It was a priority of the previous Government to try to do something about that, even though they accepted that it was a complex and difficult issue. We undertook a number of initiatives that were specifically designed to tackle the issue of exclusion.

Another matter that was raised in the debate was the expectations of teachers. As long ago as 2003, the London Development Agency undertook major research that showed, among other things, that many teachers had lower expectations of black pupils and that black pupils felt that they received less positive input and, in some cases, even discrimination from teachers in the course of their school lives. Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, schools have a duty to ensure that they deal with this issue. A significant amount of literature for schools has been published by the Department and, in the past, by the Commission for Racial Equality on the subject. One report found that a significant minority of schools were failing to implement their duties under the race relations legislation. Given that we now have a more fragmented system of education in which a number of schools are no longer run as community schools in a local authority system but have become academies, independent of any local accountability, how will the Department ensure that such schools fulfil their obligations under race relations legislation in relation to black pupils?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am sorry to have missed part of the debate, but I am pleased that it is taking place this morning. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a particular concern now given that the Government intend to repeal the good relations duty on the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is of course the institutional framework by which this kind of mechanism can be applied?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes. My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of expertise on this subject. We are all concerned that a lot of very good work on equality could be undone—perhaps not in a deliberate sense—by Ministers who desire to follow their own path and ensure that they distinguish themselves from the previous Government in their approach to education and schools. They could be undoing very good work and taking a significant step backwards in relation to the education system and the topic that we are debating today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth talked about the impact of exclusion on people’s lives and about the fact that the Department itself had calculated that there would be a significant loss of earnings for pupils who were excluded in the course of their lifetime. At the time of that study, I think the reduction in lifetime earnings as a result of exclusion was calculated at £36,000. Worse than that, 80% of the juveniles in prison had been excluded from school at one time or another. That statistic made me sit up at the time, and should make the Minister focus on the issue. If 80% of juveniles in prison have been excluded from school, that must tell us something about exclusion and whether it is effective in trying to change the sort of behavioural problems that probably led to exclusion in the first place. If that exclusion has a racial component, we should be significantly concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that proposal. We need more of these schemes so that more young people are encouraged to enter universities. I am concerned that too few schools are entering our young people for the best universities and persuading them to apply to those universities—that must be an objective of all us.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Black and ethnic minority students are attending higher education institutions in increasing numbers, and that is obviously very welcome, but too often they attend the less prestigious institutions and achieve less good degrees. What specific steps is the Minister taking to improve the opportunities for BME students to do well at university?

[Mr Gibb]

It is about raising aspiration right across the board. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: too few young people from ethnic minorities are applying to our top universities, and that is an unacceptable state of affairs. We need to raise standards, particularly in the inner-city schools that BME students disproportionately attend. Getting better standards of education, aspiration and higher expectations in those schools is a key part of our education reform programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the likely effects of changes in tax credit eligibility on the supply of early years and out-of-school child care.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

Eligibility for tax credits will change with the reduction of the earnings threshold and the increase of the minimum working hours for couples to 24 hours per week. These changes do not affect eligibility for the child care element of working tax credit. The Department does not consider that the impact of these changes on the supply of child care will be significant.

[Kate Green]

In my constituency, about 1,500 families have lost child tax credit and 465 families face the loss of working tax credit if they cannot find more hours. Parents coming to my surgery have told me that they may have to give up work and therefore their child care places as a result. What will the Government do to monitor the impact of these changes on the child care markets, particularly in areas of high unemployment?

[Sarah Teather]

As I have said, the change in hours should not have an impact on the child care element, because the hours remain the same in terms of the eligibility for the child care element of the tax credit. All local authorities have a duty to ensure that sufficient pre-school and after-school child care is available in their areas. However, we are monitoring this situation very closely and looking at capacity in disadvantaged areas, as we are rolling out a significant increase in the amount of early years education available for two-year-olds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend raises a very important and worrying subject. We need to do more work on it and use local safeguarding children boards to help us join up all the responsible agencies. It is another example of where we need genuine cross-departmental and cross-governmental co-operation and joint planning, and the Department for Education and the Home Office in particular are at the heart of ensuring that we address this really horrific problem.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Minister has mentioned the Government’s strategy on ending violence against women and girls. What steps is he taking to ensure that children, and especially boys, are educated about the absolute unacceptability of domestic violence as part of the personal, social, health and economic education curriculum?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady makes a very important practical point. One of my roles on the inter-ministerial group is to see what input the Department for Education can have in ensuring that children are aware from an appropriate young age of the problems of domestic violence and are taught respectful relationships as part of sex and relationships education and PSHE. There are things that we can do at home, in schools and with the agencies that are there to help prevent domestic violence, intervene and apprehend people who are responsible for that horrendous crime.