Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jane Hunt. Not here.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

T3. With the omicron variant spreading rapidly it is more important than ever that we do whatever it takes to minimise transmission but, at £96 a week, our statutory sick pay is among the lowest in Europe and the TUC found last week that 647,000 workers in hospitality, retail, arts and entertainment do not even qualify. The result is either destitution or desperate workers taking risks. Will the Secretary of State commit to extending statutory sick pay to all workers and increasing it to the real living wage?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently say that Members should be addressing the Chair and looking this way?

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

T3. More than 7,000 people in Salford are on the housing waiting list, which is forcing many to rent privately, but the under-35 rule means that younger vulnerable constituents claiming universal credit receive only enough to cover a single room in a shared house, with people they do not know. One of my constituents fled domestic abuse and they do not meet the narrow criteria for exemption until 2023. Will the Secretary of State commit today to urgently expand exemptions from the shared accommodation rate?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 22nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I was getting rather optimistic that the hon. Lady would say that she believed it was safe for children for go back to school, but she missed out on the opportunity. The difference between our scheme and the hon. Lady’s is that ours will deliver results and make a difference. Our scheme is for £1 billion extra to go to schools and for £350 million to be targeted at children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. It will close the gap in terms of attainment much more effectively than any of the Labour party’s proposals. It would be nice if the hon. Lady welcomed such proposals.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say that it is the Opposition who ask the questions, not the other way round?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State did not listen to my question—indeed, he does not listen very often at all.

Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders said:

“It remains frustrating that we haven’t had the opportunity to discuss any of this with the government ahead of this announcement and that we once again find ourselves having to guess the detail.”

There were no details on resource for early years, 16 to 19, summer provision or emotional and mental health support; there were no plans to source additional school space, to streamline GCSEs and A-levels or to roll out blended learning; and there was no promise to extend free laptops to all children who do not have them, rather than just the groups who have been identified by the Government.

All of this uncertainty could have been avoided if the Secretary of State had chosen to listen to the sector. Will he confirm that he will now formally convene a taskforce of trade unions, education and childcare leaders and staff, local authorities, parents’ organisations and health experts to address these issues urgently?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It would be easier if we could try to make questions shorter. There are other shadow Ministers to come and we have lots of other Members; I do not want them to miss out, because they blame me.

Covid-19: School Reopening

Debate between Rebecca Long Bailey and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Rebecca Long Bailey, who is asked to speak for no more than two minutes.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

We all desperately want schools to reopen for the sake of children’s education and wellbeing, but the Secretary of State must appreciate that the guidance provided so far does not yet give the clear assurances over safety that are needed. Anxious shielding families, worried grandparents, teaching staff in fear—sadly, this sums up the theme of the past 48 hours. I hope that, to allay these concerns, he can address the following issues today.

Will the Secretary of State consider changing the focus of the plan so that, instead of asking schools to scramble to implement an unrealistic plan by a specific date, we ask them to plan to meet certain conditions that, when met, would signal that it was safe to open—a subtle but important distinction? Does he acknowledge that, due to the availability of staff and space, splitting classes while simultaneously providing remote learning is incredibly difficult, and will he work with schools to develop a realistic plan for social distancing? Has he modelled the impact of reopening schools on the infection rates, and will he publish that? Will he acknowledge that for younger year groups, social distancing will be virtually impossible and that the current guidance, sadly, gives the impression that those pupils and staff should just accept being exposed? With this in mind, will he rethink the position on PPE?

Finally, most schools break up for summer in mid-July; if the ambition is to get pupils back for a month, that means the whole school would need to be back less than two weeks after the priority years, so how does the Secretary of State expect schools to implement social distancing for the whole school when many heads say this is just impossible? If they do not, then what is the point of schools planning strict health and safety measures for two weeks only to abandon them? The Secretary of State repeatedly states that schools will open only when it is safe, and he referred to the scientific advice, which requires a return in a controlled manner; I do not see much of a controlled manner at the moment, so please will the Secretary of State work with the sector to get this right?