Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coffey
Review: child maintenance enforcement(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review considering whether the overall wellbeing of children is being harmed by the non-commencement of section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 (transfer of arrears) and the uncommenced sections of both the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 and the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023.(2) If the review considers that the overall wellbeing of children is being harmed by the non-commencement of those provisions, the Secretary of State must, within two months of the publication of the review, make a statement setting out the Government’s position on the commencement of those provisions.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I start by saying that it is great to see my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott in the Chamber on the Front Bench. She and I worked together when we were in the Department for Work and Pensions, and I have to say that she was an exceptional Minister for the Child Maintenance Service. What motivated us all was improving the welfare and well-being of children.
I start my intervention by flagging that, frankly, I had quite a lot of arguments or disagreements—I do not think you are allowed to argue in the Lords—with the clerks about the scope of this amendment. The clerks consistently reiterated that trying to do something to make it easier for children to get child maintenance was not connected to the well-being of children because nobody could guarantee that the child maintenance payment would go to the child. I pointed out that, for example, Healthy Start does not go directly to the child; the money still goes to the parent, and the parent can buy a certain amount of food, which you hope will go to the child. I am flagging this now because the intention was to bring a particular amendment about commencing certain legislation, and I will talk to that now.
One of the important things is a recognition—it has been referred to already in previous groups—of the impact of poverty on children. Something like nearly double the proportion of families with a single parent are in poverty—I think that is relative poverty—compared to two-parent families. From my perspective and the research that we did, and from looking into this with my noble friend, we felt that aspects of the cost of living were simply not being addressed and that we needed to get a lot more parents to start paying for the upkeep of their child.
One thing that has been a success overall is that, for just over a decade, 1 million children have been accounted for in arrangements made through the Child Maintenance Service. The split is roughly that 60% of those are in what is called Direct Pay and about 40% are in what is called Collect and Pay.
Direct Pay is where a calculation is made by the Child Maintenance Service and one parent is supposed to pay that to the parent who has the child mainly in their care. For whatever it is worth, there is an annual recalculation, but the department does not monitor precisely what happens there. As regards Collect and Pay, I note the Government’s intention today. I will not get into the merits of the decision announced today by the Government about Collect and Pay; I am happy to leave that for another time.
We have a situation in which there are approximately 390,000 children there. In the quarter to December 2024—the most recent statistics that are available—43.6%, basically 44% of children, did not get a single penny. That is 170,000 children. It is fair to say that they got some contribution: about 45.6% got paid 90% or more, but 22% received anywhere between, basically, zero and 90%.
I am also conscious that the Select Committee on which I serve is doing an inquiry into child maintenance, so I do not intend to delay the consideration of the Committee, because I am sure we will come back to child maintenance in more detail at another time. One key thing that may not be realised is that in these arrangements where the interlocutor is the Government—whether through arranging the Direct Pay calculations or Collect and Pay, where money is taken from one parent and passed to another—we should think about some of the issues that that has caused. I welcome what the Government have done, or will do at a certain point, in changing the benefit deductions so that child maintenance now comes at the very top, but the two issues that I am referring to were sufficiently concerning when I was in government.
That is why we supported what were basically handout Bills, which passed through this House. One related to domestic abuse and the other to moving to something where you could have an administrative liability order. After commissioning Dr Samantha Callan, who has also given evidence to the Select Committee, we brought about a Bill that came through this House. I cannot quite remember whether it was shepherded through by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, or the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, but one did one and one did the other.
I was a bit concerned by the answers given by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about why, in particular, the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act had not been commenced. She started to get into a variety of complications about how complicated it is not only to identify but to justify with evidence whether somebody is a victim of domestic abuse, which concerned me. I appreciate that today the Government have decided to scrap Direct Pay and move everybody on to Collect and Pay, so that will uncover any situation where there is domestic abuse, but I am not sure how long that is going to take, so we still have a real problem. I would love to see it commenced.
On the other aspects and the liability order, this is why we put in place, or helped to facilitate, the child support Act. That was done to make enforcement quicker. Let us be candid. Approximately £700 million is owed to parents. There are a variety of ways in which that can happen. However, one of the ways particularly seems to affect self-employed parents who are due to pay. Without entirely repeating the legislation, the intention of the Act was to speed up the process of getting a liability order. At the moment it takes nearly six months to go to a magistrate, having exhausted multiple other avenues. The outcome of this was supposed to be to reduce that to a maximum of six weeks. I am really concerned that this Act has not been commenced. There are a variety of reasons, I am sure, including something to do with Scotland. However, we should get on with it. A variety of things have been said today about children’s well-being, on phones and other issues that have already been addressed on aspects of poverty strategy. This is a real action that could unlock a lot of money for young children, and I believe that we need to get on with it.
More broadly, I am conscious of the fact that only the Government can do a lot of this administrative liability. That is not just because they are the only ones who can do this sort of order; it is actually in law. If you have an arrangement through the Child Maintenance Service, you cannot then go to the small claims court yourself and say, “This person owes me money”. Everything has to be done through the hands of the Child Maintenance Service. This was one of the devices to try to speed that up.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, managed to persuade those in a position to be persuaded that this amendment should have the opportunity to be discussed this evening. There is something refreshing about the idea of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, rightly pursuing people who owe money for their children and who have that responsibility. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Sherlock and the current Secretary of State will be equally relentless in making sure that families are paying for the children for whom they have responsibility, and that is quite right.
I know from what the noble Baroness said that the intention of this amendment is to probe and push on the progress being made with each of the pieces of legislation that she talked about. I hope to provide some reassurance on that.
First, the powers within Section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act enable debt owed to parents or the Secretary of State to be transferred to other parties, including debt collection agencies. This power was introduced as an option to deal with the £3.8 billion debt burden that had accrued under the former Child Support Agency. A proportion of that debt was owed directly to the Secretary of State, and I am assured that the issue of Child Support Agency debt has now been resolved. The Child Maintenance Service has strong and effective enforcement powers, including imposing prison sentences for non-payment.
On the specific point about debt collection agencies, there is no evidence that using debt collection agencies would actually secure more child maintenance than current enforcement powers. In fact, a previous trial absolutely demonstrated that, so there is no evidence that commencing this power would have a positive impact on children’s well-being.
Secondly, the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 introduced powers that, once commenced, would enable an administrative liability order to be made against a parent with outstanding child maintenance arrears. As the noble Baroness says, this introduces savings in court costs and time. I am pleased to confirm that progress is being made to implement the necessary legislation to bring this power into force as soon as possible. The Government are working with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service and the Scottish Government to establish a process for implementing ALOs, and plan to introduce regulations to Parliament by the end of this year.
The Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 recognised that direct pay may not always be appropriate for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The Act intended to provide them greater protection when using the Child Maintenance Service, by allowing them to move to the collect and pay service but only where there is evidence of domestic abuse. The Government recognise that removing opportunities to use the Child Maintenance Service to inflict economic abuse will benefit the well-being of children. However, many victims and survivors would be unable to provide that necessary evidence as required by the Act. For those who could, there are risks that providing evidence of their experience of abuse and reliving events could lead to further trauma.
That is why the Government today published our response to the consultation, Child Maintenance: Improving the Collection and Transfer of Payments. It sets out plans for reforms to introduce a service that protects all parents from financial abuse and, importantly, includes no requirement for victims and survivors to provide evidence of their circumstances. These reforms, therefore, go further than the provisions contained in the 2023 Act to protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse. They will have a positive impact on children and their well-being, as more child maintenance liabilities will be enforced, leading to more money going to children, which I know is the objective of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in moving this amendment.
I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment, although she has already identified that she has other ways to put pressure on the Government to ensure progress, and I have no doubt that she will continue to do so.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
In consideration of what the Minister has said, of which I am conscious of certain aspects, I am pleased, in particular, to hear that the Child Support (Enforcement) Act should come into effect by the end of the year. I will take up some of the other matters to which she referred directly with the responsible Minister. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an enormously important point from a position of considerable experience. The intention is that this club happens before school and provides childcare and food, but I take her point about children in particular need of food who find it particularly difficult to access it at that time. I will certainly take that away and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and Minister Morgan, who are responsible for this and, I am sure, will want to think carefully about it as part of the early adopter scheme.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in the Statement, the Secretary of State asserted that there are areas underserved with childcare places yet overwhelmed with demand. I am very conscious that it is a statutory duty of local councils to provide sufficient childcare places, so I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me and place in the Library evidence that they are underserved. When I was in government and took this up with the Department for Education, I was assured that there was no evidence of childcare being underserved. Going further, I respectfully say to the Minister that the increase in employer national insurance will have a massive effect on childcare provision. I would be grateful if she could address whether any impact assessment has been done on that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The last Government, rightly, had an objective of ensuring a considerable expansion of the availability of childcare entitlements. For example, there was an objective to increase the free entitlement, from this September, from 15 hours to 30 hours for all children from nine months to two years to match the entitlement delivered for three and four year-olds, which was ramped up last September. The problem was that, while there was a pledge, there was no plan to ensure that that provision was available in all parts of the country. That is why this Government have worked enormously hard, alongside local authorities, to make sure that that plan is in place and backed up by sufficient investment—£8 billion will be spent on childcare entitlements, which is a £2 billion increase in funding for entitlements compared to last year. It is also why we announced the £75 million expansion grant to support providers for children using the new entitlements, delivered through local authorities. On the national insurance contributions point, we will also make available £25 million for public sector providers of childcare via local authorities.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We could have a broader debate about why it has been necessary for this Government to introduce an increase in national insurance contributions, but let us not do that today—everybody knows why, given the legacy that we had. I talked about support for the expansion of childcare and the additional £75 million that is being provided as part of the expansion grant. That will be available to private sector and other childcare providers, to support them in developing the necessary childcare.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister would place in the Library information about the local authorities that the Department for Education believes are underserved with childcare places. I asked the question earlier; I would appreciate it if that letter could be placed in the Library.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will undertake to come back to the noble Baroness about that. The point I was making is that we are talking not only about the current situation, in which quite a few parents would suggest that they have not been able to access childcare provision at a cost they can afford. I do not think the noble Baroness is suggesting that every parent who wants to access childcare is able to do so. That is why I gave some credit to the previous Government for recognising that, along with the significance of childcare provision, and making the pledge to increase the free entitlements. The problem was that they did not put alongside that pledge a plan and investment. It has taken this Government to turn a promise into a reality.
Apprenticeship Levy
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing it and on the valid points that he made. I have not yet found time to read his New Conservatives’ paper, but I have a bit more time on my hands now, so I will make sure it becomes part of my reading material.
It is also a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). He knows the work that we have put in. Indeed, some of the new courses have been put on in colleges in his constituency, which serve constituents of mine, and in Ipswich. Together, it is all about providing a pathway for people to access high-skilled, good-quality jobs with good salaries. That is why I commend the apprenticeship levy. I am conscious that there is a different apprenticeship system in the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but his belief in apprenticeships is really important.
Last but not least of the Members who will be speaking today—I do not know quite so much about the hon. Gentleman just to my right, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden)—is the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who used to wear a ladder badge when he was in the Department before. He also tried to change the symbol of our party to the ladder to represent that aspiration. I must admit that, as an Environment Minister at the time, I was happy we kept the tree, but I think both symbols are good. We grow from seeds—as we know, a little acorn makes a grand oak. That is an important part of what we seek to achieve in supporting apprenticeships.
It is fair to say that the apprenticeship levy is an integral component of modern workforce development. In an era marked by technological advancements and shifting economic landscapes, a skilled and adaptable workforce has never been more critical. The apprenticeship levy, introduced just six years ago in the UK, stands as a testament to a proactive approach to addressing this need.
One of the most compelling aspects of the apprenticeship levy is its role in redefining the traditional route to career progression. By offering an alternative pathway to acquiring skills and qualifications, it presents an attractive option both for employers and for individuals seeking to expand their knowledge base. Apprenticeships provide hands-on training and allow people to earn while they learn, thereby bridging the gap between education and employment.
It should also be recognised that the levy is designed to be a tool that allows employers to be inclusive and diverse in the workforce they recruit. Such recruitment fosters an environment of equal opportunity, which not only benefits individuals seeking to enter the workforce, but enriches companies by bringing in a fresh perspective and innovative ideas that we may not get from people who have just gone down the traditional road.
I must admit that there are many good intentions behind the apprenticeship levy, and it has achieved so much. However—dare I say it, having now left Government —as plenty of Ministers and civil servants will know, in my time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in particular I was seeking to make reforms and have that debate in Government. Some progress was made, but I believe a lot more could still be done.
I believe without question that improving the system to make it more agile and adaptable to employers’ needs is critical to addressing the productivity challenge that we face. To give a simple example, as I have already had parts of these discussions with the Minister, I have seen consistently that we need to substantially increase the take-up of level 4 and 5 apprenticeships, which I believe is a good bridge going on from T-levels. Not everybody will necessarily be able to make it to degree-level apprenticeships, nor should they have to in order to recognise that they will still be getting a substantial salary. Meanwhile, they will fill key skill gaps between levels 3 and 6, which many industries are crying out for. We all know that part of the challenge is a combination of the provider and how employers can access some of that funding and structure accordingly.
Let me turn to some of the constraints. I appreciate that every policy gets criticised from a variety of angles, but the lack of flexibility has been a consistent complaint from many employers. I think the national health service had to be given an extra £120 million to boost the take-up of nurse apprenticeships. That was because the apprenticeship levy would not be allowed—is still not allowed, as far as I am aware—to cover back staff for that one day a week that people are off. I do appreciate that there have been some good changes recently. It is about not just the 20%, but the six hours, which, if someone is working full time, can still be less than 20% in terms of out-of-job training.
Employers really do need to be listened to. I recall a visit that I made to Severn Trent as part of kickstart; I went with Boris Johnson. The chief executive, the excellent Liv Garfield, was pleading to see changes, because she believed that she would be able to produce at least 50% more apprenticeships that would help, whereas all the other costs associated with helping people to fulfil that apprenticeship route had been deemed prohibitive.
I am also very conscious that there is a substantial surplus that goes back to the Treasury. I recognise that that money is usually used for other sorts of skills, or indeed to help to access the route for smaller employers, but I think that there is still a gap there. This is not about trying to be easy on big businesses; if anything, we should be challenging them to make more use of the levy through their supply chains, which, again, is a flexibility that was introduced a few years ago. Nevertheless, I believe that it tends to be larger organisations that have the HR in place to address that. Alternatively, more of the levy needs to be used for those sorts of auxiliary services to facilitate this, as opposed to the small employer, who might be taking on one or two people and already has, dare I say it, enough to do.
I encourage the Minister—again, a little bit with my DWP hat on—to consider what has happened to the number of intermediate apprenticeships. I am very conscious that the number of higher apprenticeships has gone up, not just at levels 4 and 5 but at level 6, the degree apprenticeships, and indeed level 7. However, I ask the Minister to really interrogate what is happening, particularly with level 7 qualifications. I have heard stories, although I have not actually got the proof to back it up, that the police superintendents’ course had become a level 7 apprenticeship so that police forces could use their levy. That is not really what it is designed for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney spoke about how apprenticeships should really be for new jobs and so on. I do not agree; I think that there should be an opportunity to change career within a company, or indeed to progress. One thing I hope has happened, given that there are far fewer intermediate apprenticeships, is that those people who have completed level 2 have gone on to advanced and higher apprenticeships. I hope that that has happened, but I am concerned that that might not be the case. I encourage the Minister to get the analysis for that.
Yes, the number of starts has fallen. Some of that will be linked to the costs of the different levels of courses that people are taking up; doing a level 5 or 6 will inevitably require substantially more funding than a level 2. Nevertheless, it is worth looking in detail at the analysis of whether we are really getting the transformation that this apprenticeship levy is meant to have.
My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for Stoke-on-Trent North have spoken about drop-out rates. It really is a worry that so many people are dropping out, although there may be very good reasons for that. I think a significant reason is that they go and get a job elsewhere, either because they have finished what they needed to do or because they want more money—let us be candid about that. Employers who do not offer just the bare minimum wage are much more enlightened, because they are more likely to keep their apprentices if they pay them a regular rate or at least something closer to it. On retention, there are too many complaints along the lines of “Oh, well—they finished it and they have gone elsewhere for more pay.” However, I appreciate that it is about more than that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have a good answer.
I agree with the suggested reforms involving a shorter course to accelerate the transition where appropriate. We cannot get away from the issues that have been raised. When I went to visit Andy Street, we went to one of the HGV academies. Basically, Eddie Stobart said that it would guarantee a job to anybody who passes the sorts of course that are available through an apprenticeship; I think this one was a CPC. No more interviews—they just had to pass the course and get the job. There was a big take-up. I know that the Mayor would be keen for more options for providing that sort of apprenticeship or other aspects of professional qualification for skills that are highly in demand and are in short supply.
I encourage the Minister to see about the range of courses that are available. I think I am right in saying that the HGV course is available as an apprenticeship, but that the course to drive the smaller size of vans, which still require an additional driving qualification, is not. That is despite my best efforts to persuade the Department for Transport to take a Brexit bonus. Somebody who got their driving licence before ’97, as I did, can drive a C1 and a D1 without any further qualifications, whereas nowadays it costs about £2,500 or £3,000 to qualify. I appreciate that that is a slightly different debate.
Coming back on topic, I encourage the Minister to think about the really good flexibility that we have seen in the freelance industry and in the media sector. That is really welcome, and we could see what more could be done on aspects of the supply chain.
I turn to agriculture. I represent a rural constituency. The Minister and I have had a separate discussion about the provision available through T-levels for certain sectors. I commend Suffolk New College, which has established Suffolk Rural College to try to keep the pipeline of agricultural workers open. There are definitely challenges around the funding levels given for different elements.
I know that the Department has been generous in giving capital grants. If we want to train people to be welders, there need to be colleges that have that sort of equipment readily available. Let us think about the rural college that needs to keep a herd of 30 cattle going in order to provide the equipment for people to work with.
We need diversity. Let us not just think about IT, admin and, dare I say it, traditional manufacturing. Let us think about wider elements, access to the levy and new routes that can help that to happen. The reasons why those courses is no longer being provided or offered really need to be investigated.
I know that the Minister is passionate about the issue. With the kickstart scheme that I worked on and helped to design, I feel that there was definitely a lot more flexibility. It was able to use Government grants in order to provide for people to have that ladder. Frankly, kickstart was a lifeline. I ask him to think about things we have done that worked surprisingly well, and to bear it in mind that although I fully support the fact that we are trying to get quality apprenticeships, we must make it easier for people to start and finish. This could be a further supply-side reform that would really help to unlock the growth that we need. I know that business would welcome it if he looked at these issues again.
The apprenticeship levy was critical in providing a pathway for individuals to realise their potential and for businesses to thrive in that ever-evolving landscape. The regulation and the design of the scheme needs to evolve to keep at pace. This is a commitment. It is not just a financial levy; it is a recognised commitment to invest in the future and in people of all ages. The Minister will know that the number of older people taking up apprenticeships has increased significantly. A future in which skills, talent and opportunity intersect to create a stronger and more resilient workforce is what UK plc needs.
Free School Meals
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
We
“are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
I think that feeling has come through in many of the speeches tonight made by right hon. and hon. Members. It came through even where there was anger about some of the different policy approaches that could be taken. I think the House is absolutely united in wanting to do the best for vulnerable children.
Social justice has been at the absolute heart of every decision that the Government have taken to help the people of this country get through this pandemic together. Whether it is about trying to do our best to save lives and livelihoods, about devising the shielding scheme where we provided 4.2 million food boxes to people, or about making sure that schools were kept open by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the most vulnerable children in society, those are the approaches that we have taken in trying to make sure that we can get through this pandemic together.
It is a truism that when the Labour party has left government, unemployment has always been higher than when it went into office. That is not the same for Conservative Governments. The Conservative approach is that the best way out of poverty is through work. What we have also done in the time that we have been in office since 2010 is to make a shift away from the cliff edges that happened under the tax credit system, where people made rational decisions that they would be better off not working than working. We have turned that on its head so that people will be better off in work unless they cannot work.
I am very conscious that in every constituency it is highly likely that we will see unemployment rising in a very difficult and challenging way, particularly for the sectors that we know about such as hospitality and similar, and where we have put much greater national restrictions. Right here, right now, this Conservative Government are standing behind the people and businesses of this country to help them when they need it most. In terms of our schools, I have already pointed out that we had extra support throughout the year, including through holiday activities. In terms of supporting employees, we have had the furlough scheme, which will take us through to the end of October, through half-term. It has cost, and is costing, taxpayers £53 billion to provide that support for families right across the country. There will be a new job support scheme with enhanced measures for those parts of the country where stricter and more radical public health changes need to be made, in order to help to tackle this virus. Amid all that, I am very proud of the people that work in my Department for the support that they have given to vulnerable people across the country, making sure that we have got money to people when they needed it in terms of the welfare state.
In particular, it is important to stress that £9.3 billion is not a small amount of money compared to what was injected into the welfare system when we had the last financial crisis. It is giving families an extra £20 a week, and that takes those families right through to Easter next year. It is important that we try to make sure that we have that targeted support, which is why, in addition to the councils that received £500 million extra earlier in the year, an extra £63 million was specifically given to councils, because our social workers know the families in their areas who are at risk and can get that extra help to them. Of course, with the Barnett formula, all the devolved nations have had extra funding as well.
We are in a situation where the Government have firmly stood behind the most vulnerable children and people in the country, and I am very proud of our Government for doing that.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
There are 3,829 children in Coventry South who receive free school meals. Talking to their parents, I know how valuable that provision is—how they depend on it, and how their kids would starve without it. So I ask the Minister and MPs on the Government Benches: “If you vote against the motion, if you let kids go to sleep hungry at night, how do you not feel any sense of shame?”
Dr Coffey
Some of the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends made important speeches. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) spoke in praise of the holiday activities and food in the summer. We share her view on that; it is one of the schemes that we funded. The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was absolutely right in her passionate conviction that we are here to do what we can to help children in society; and that is what we have been doing—not least by improving children’s educational attainment, to enable them to have a genuine future career.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who have experience as teachers, said that a major part of our approach should be to improve the chances of families. That is why the Government are working together—we are working with my hon. Friends in other Departments—not only on identifying what we can do to help the most challenged families in society, but on tackling the cost of living. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced the extension of the energy price cap, and we shall continue to do more. Nearly a million pensioners are getting £140 off their energy bills later this year without lifting a finger; that is what we are doing to help people.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who was praised by her near neighbour the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, spoke about the benefits of a hot meal in the middle of a school day that helps children learn. Yes, we agree. We have provided that, and extended it to the youngest children automatically. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) is right that we must continue to focus on those children who are in protection plans, and those families who are suffering drug abuse and family breakdown, and we need to keep a focus on making sure that we support the child in the whole.
We are actually in quite a different situation from where we were earlier in the year, when we were in a national lockdown, with a very strong “stay at home” message, and people’s lives were highly restricted. The virus was new; it was scary. We were—and still are—continuing to learn how to handle the situation, but together as a Government we have tried to ensure that we continue to put the vulnerable first. We are in a different situation now. We are not in the same measures of lockdown. More people have come off the furlough scheme and are now back in work—they can work from home or go to work. Schools are open. The NHS is treating many more people, not just the people with coronavirus. So we need to encourage life to continue as it is. That is why we have put those enhanced measures into tier 2 and tier 3. I congratulate the leaders of the councils who have decided to take that offer of support from the Government, to ensure that they can help the people who they represent.
It is really important that we continue to come together as a House to recognise the support that has gone in. That is why we tabled the amendment to today’s motion, recognising that we have undertaken significant ways to help the most vulnerable children in society. I am very keen to ensure that we keep that focus on the most important of our generations for the future, so that people do not fall through the cracks. That is why I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Ministers across Government, including the Prime Minister, say regularly that there will be nobody left behind, and that we will do our best to strive every day to save the lives and livelihoods of people in this country.
We really must consider, genuinely, what should be uniting us today. I am very conscious that Labour Members may think that theirs is the only way to approach this issue. I say gently to them: recognise the support that has been given to the families that you represent; recognise the £9.3 billion in welfare alone, never mind the furlough income that has been there, and is continuing to help people. So, right here, right now, let the House come together, support the amendment and show a united message to the people of this country that we shall support, and continue to support, the most vulnerable people in our country.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Voter Engagement
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Allen
I am happy to pay tribute to Bite the Ballot. I very much hope that it will reach that target, which, for a voluntary organisation, would be absolutely immense.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has reservations about the way in which the Electoral Commission has participated in raising the number of people on the electoral register. We feel that it should be much more ambitious in getting people on the register. We say that in our report, and we are not being churlish in doing so; it is an open comment that we have made directly to the Electoral Commission. At the heart of the matter is the fact that 7.5 million people are not registered to vote. That means that in your constituency of Shipley, Mr Davies, there are probably 10,000 electors who are not on the electoral register. I am talking not about the ones who are registered but do not vote—we will come to them in a moment—but about people who are not connected with our democracy at all. That is frightening, and I have to say that given the demography of my constituency, I would be absolutely amazed if the number of people who are not even on the register there was not half as much again. Those people have turned away from politics not because of any recent issues, but because they do not feel that it can do anything for them or that it is relevant to them. It is incumbent on all of us, whatever our political persuasion, to ensure that that disengagement is halted and reversed. Why? Because it threatens our democracy.
Some will say, “The more people you register, the more you help Labour”. But do you know what? If we do not have people participating in our democracy, the institution itself could be threatened. That is my big worry. I shall not repeat my remarks from yesterday, because my speeches from yesterday and today could be read together, but I alluded to the fact that political parties and party leaders have historically been so focused on winning the key 70 to 90 marginal seats that we are not doing what we should to keep our constituencies in good health on a nationwide basis.
Mr Allen
That is a fundamental point. Regardless of anyone’s political persuasion, our democracy lives and dies by the participation of the people and the trust that people have in the system. If we do not maintain and cherish it, it can be diminished, not least because of what I called yesterday the corrosive drip-feed of cynicism from the media in all its aspects—and sometimes, my goodness, we have deserved the cynicism. It is incumbent on all of us to be a bit more optimistic, a bit more dynamic, and a bit more vital in refurbishing our democracy. If the current trend continues, I am afraid that our democracy itself could be threatened.
I will now gladly give way to the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—she might explain why the Minister is not with us this afternoon.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
First, I apologise on behalf of the Minister. For whatever reason, he has it in his diary that this debate starts at 2 o’clock—given that we changed the sitting hours of the House a couple of years ago, I am sure that he will make his own apology to the hon. Gentleman. I also want to make sure that all hon. Members realise that the civil servants will be taking notes, so that the Minister is fully up to speed with all the issues covered in the first part of this debate. He assures me that he is on his way.
May I come back to the point about turnout? The largest turnout in recent years was during the 1992 election. Then the turnout started to decline, but it rose again for the last election. I genuinely believe that the British public realise when there is something at stake, and turnout does increase. Even in my constituency, which some would consider to be safe—I never do, because I do not think any Member of Parliament should be complacent about their constituents’ views—the turnout was over 71%. I am therefore not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that just because the so-called marginal seats get a lot of political attention, the turnout there will be higher.
Mr Allen
I am not trying to diminish the hon. Lady’s helpful and valuable contribution, but part of the reason for turnout figures is that if large numbers of people are not registered, the group from which turnout is drawn is smaller. None of us wants to be in the situation at the ridiculous extreme where we have 100% turnout of one person.
Birmingham Schools
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. He is right that the concept of jihad in Islam is a complex one and that it is possible to talk about it as a form of internal struggle. However, in the reported comments of Sheikh Shady al-Suleiman, it is clear that he is not using jihad in that context. My hon. Friend raises broader questions about how we deal with supplementary schools and Sunday schools in madrassahs. We will consult on how to deal with those.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I understand that my right hon. Friend has already introduced standards that allow the teaching of extremist views to be barred. Will he also advertise whistleblower lines more widely, so that teachers and parents can contact the Department for Education directly?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to ensure that whistleblowers and others who have concerns can contact Ofsted in particular, so that inspection can be swift and effective.
Free Schools (Funding)
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Gove
I take funding for 16 to 18-year-olds seriously. That is why I am delighted that the London Academy of Excellence in east London, which was visited and indeed praised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, has helped to ensure that children in a part of east London who did not always have access to a high-quality academic education now enjoy it. Of course, my door is always open to the Association of Colleges and others to ensure that the great work that sixth-form colleges and that sixth-formers throughout the country do remains supported properly.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of Churchill free school in Haverhill, which makes provision for children with autism. I hope that the application in Ipswich will be similarly successful. He will be aware of the school in Saxmundham that was requested by parents and opened by the Seckford Foundation, because unfortunately the alternative was a school that was rated “inadequate”. Is it not right that free schools give parents and children a real educational opportunity at a time they desperately need it?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Free schools are providing parents with choice, not just in mainstream education but in ensuring high-quality provision for children with special educational needs. I am delighted that the Seckford Foundation is one of a number of charitable organisations seeking to augment the public money that comes to the taxpayer to improve our educational system.
Catholic Schools (Admissions)
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) on securing it and—more amazingly—my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on starting the debate with such aplomb. I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has left the Chamber; frankly, I did not understand what he was going on about and would have enjoyed a debate with him.
One concern for people and particularly for Catholics who send their children to Catholic school is that when topics such as this are debated in Parliament, the debate seems to become an assault on the values of those parents and on the fact that they choose to send their children to a school that selects by faith. They are often attacked by various campaigning organisations for trying to be separatist and for not wanting to be part of a wider society. Frankly, such attacks are so ridiculous as to be untrue.
Although it is not quite an interest, I should declare that I only ever attended Catholic schools, so I have that narrow vision, as it were. My parents taught principally in Catholic schools, although they taught in other types of state school as well.
I am glad to see the Minister in his place today. I hope that he is not overly influenced by Liberal Youth—a Liberal Democrat group of students and young people in education that has joined the British Humanist Association in a coalition against faith schools—particularly on the admissions code. I am pleased that he was part of a Government that resisted amendments trying to remove any selection based on faith during the passage of the Academies Act 2010 in the early days of this Parliament. It was important that we took that step at the time. I share the views already put forward by hon. Members on the impact of the 50% cap on admissions to free schools.
I know that this debate is going out to the world, but let us talk openly: was the issue that small minority faiths would set up particular kinds of schools and the Government were concerned that that would lead to extremism of one kind or another being taught in our schools and being paid for by the taxpayer? If that was the case, it was an overreaction. As we know, the setting up of a free school is subject to stringent tests, which apply to some elements of the curriculum. Although certain things are not banned for academies or free schools, those schools still have to satisfy the Department for Education and Ofsted that they are providing a suitable education that covers a broad spectrum—albeit that the minutiae of the curriculum are not mandated in the same way as for other state-maintained schools.
We need to set the right tone. We must allow new schools to develop where they are needed. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has already referred to the extended process in Richmond, which led to considerable opposition both politically and from other groups that deliberately tried to stop the school being set up.
Dr Coffey
I have been reflecting while away from the Chamber. I did not mean to give the impression that I thought the hon. Member for Huddersfield did not know what he was talking about; I just did not understand what he was referring to. I normally enjoy debates with him, and I wish he was here so that we could have further discussion and dialogue.
To return to the meat of the discussion—the reason for the 50% cap—I could understand if the Government’s intention was to prevent the establishment of pockets of extremist teaching in schools. However, there are other ways to achieve that. Indeed, the current inspections by Ofsted, the Department for Education and Birmingham city council show that there are other ways to proceed when concerns are raised about the possibility of manipulation. I am not convinced that the hurdle of a 50% cap is necessary to stop such alleged activity.
On whether people are excluded, I do not like the attitude that claims that Catholic schools try to cream off the top, or that people are deliberately excluded because they are poor. That is very far from my experience of the Church and of my time as a governor of Bishop Challoner Catholic secondary school in Basingstoke. I have been a governor of other schools as well. It costs absolutely nothing to be a Catholic. If anyone has the desire, ignited by a sense of mission and the faith of the Church, that is all that is required. It is irrelevant in our Church whether someone earns as much as another person. Long may that continue. People do not have to worry about whether their name is on the wall on a plaque, for having given something, or whether their family has their own pew, paid for in times past. That is all irrelevant. People try to smear the whole idea of faith schools, using data that consist of such red herrings, rather than entering into serious debate.
A comparison can be made with membership of a political party. We can go anywhere in the country, and we know we will find our local Conservative association, Labour club or Liberal Democrat association, which we can hook up to, and where we can be with like-minded people. We may not agree with the other members on everything, but we can come together in the cause of a common interest. The same can be true of any Church or religion.
I have only just learned, from reading The Independent during the debate, that my old school, St Mary’s college, Crosby, is trying to become a free school, but the archdiocese of Liverpool is blocking that on the grounds that more than two thirds of children who go there are Catholic. I agree with the archdiocese that it would be extraordinary to allow a school designated as Catholic to turn away pupils because they are Catholic, as a result of the arbitrary 50% cap. It is important to remove those arbitrary measures. Distinguished former pupils of the school are Cardinal Vincent Nichols and Roger McGough. I could add the noble Lord Birt and myself, but that would be boasting and probably a sin.
It is completely false to try to compare Roman Catholic schools with Church of England schools. The Church of England is the established Church in England, and anyone may attend a Church of England school—such schools have been set up in almost every parish—just as anyone may be buried in a Church of England churchyard. Under our constitution, anyone may have access to the rights of the Church of England. The Government had to go to extraordinary lengths with the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to legislate specifically for the Church of England on the grounds that anyone may marry in a Church of England church if they have not previously been married. The analogies are completely false.
What can we do about it? I would like a change of Government policy, but I would also encourage Catholic schools and priests, and the Catholic Education Service, to keep the pressure up. I remember that when there was a proposal to change schools’ admission codes to prioritise siblings over children of the Catholic faith, I and other governors, particularly parent and faith governors, fought against that on the grounds that when people move to a new area, it is not unreasonable for them to want to join the school attached to their Church and where they make new friendships. I would encourage Catholic schools to consider that rather than automatically going down the usual local education authority model of prioritising siblings.
I think it was Pope St Pius X who, when asked to prioritise among a church, school or seminary, always went for a school, recognising that passing on the faith and giving children a good education so that they go on to become pillars of society was an important role of the Church. St Ignatius of Loyola famously said:
“Give me the boy at seven and I will show you the man.”
Many religious orders were established solely to teach children. It is right that we continue to keep up the concept of faith schools; it is right that dioceses tend to pay for schools, the land and so on; and it is right that we in the House continue to uphold the right of parents to send their children to the school of their choice, which is often motivated by faith.
Schools Funding
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on continuing to lead the campaign and securing today’s debate. He has already made an eloquent contribution, and the point about salary increase and increase in pension contribution, or superannuation, has been well made.
I am here to fly the flag for Suffolk, as many other hon. Members have flown the flag for their own constituencies. I am sure that the Minister will do the same for Norfolk in her contribution. I welcome the extra money that we have received, but I echo and endorse the points made by many hon. Members about the real disparity that continues to be a feature of education funding. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) that more money is not necessarily the only way to make improvements in educational attainment, but I am sure that it will help and I hope that the increase of £105, or 2.5%, will go some way to address the situation in Suffolk.
As has been mentioned, Suffolk is a rurally sparse county that struggles with attainment. The county council, working with the Royal Society of Arts and the schools themselves, have embarked on something called “Raising the Bar.” It is a strategy to raise attainment that will take some time, but there will hopefully be some good results quickly en route. We have paired up with Hackney, a great council that has seen significant improvement in educational attainment. I have some sympathy with my head teachers when they point out that we will be moving to funding of £5,251 on average per pupil, but Hackney currently receives £9,268, which is an additional £4,017 or 76% per child. There is a lot more money to provide additional teachers and facilities to tackle some of the issues that Hackney deals with well, including through some of the specialist units that have been developed to help with difficult children. There is a huge difference.
I want to make a point about the pupil premium, of which the coalition is rightly proud. I point out to the Minister and hon. Members present that my part of Suffolk has a low unemployment rate of less than 2%. People who do not have a job are rare—there are about 800 in total—but that does not mean that average or median wages are particularly high. In fact, they are lower than in Liverpool, where I attended school. In Liverpool Wavertree, the median wage is £510; in Suffolk Coastal it is £490; and in Ipswich, it is £460. The pupil premium is adding to a significant funding gap between different parts of the country.
Kate Green
Although the Government have made a welcome commitment to extend free school meals to all children at key stage 1, does the hon. Lady share my concern that, because parents will presumably no longer have to apply for free school meals, it might become more difficult to identify all the students who should attract the pupil premium? That might further exacerbate their position.
Dr Coffey
Some local authorities already do that. I think it is for the Government and the Department to learn from where it already happens successfully, so I am not going to go down that route. I will explain my point by making another comparison with Hackney. About half of the children there are eligible for the pupil premium, and at £1,300 for a primary pupil and £935 for a secondary pupil, that is very welcome. However, that is almost double the budget available to head teachers in Suffolk.
The extra funding that has been announced is a welcome step, but it is only a sticking plaster, and we recognise that. It is going to take quite a lot of bravery to get to the point where there is not such a disparity of thousands of pounds per pupil that turns into hundreds of thousands of pounds in our large secondary schools. We must get to grips with that. I encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to keep the campaign going, and I am sure that all Members will be working on our education Ministers and shadow Ministers in order to ensure that appropriate provision is made in the manifestos for the 2015 election.
School Funding
Baroness Coffey Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laws
I have mentioned many of the authorities represented by Opposition Members that will gain from the proposals, including Blackpool and many other parts of the country. Of the 153 authorities, 62 will gain. I do not believe that Hull is one of the authorities considered to be underfunded. The hon. Lady can check the precise figures in the papers that are in the Vote Office.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I really welcome the announcement. It is a significant step towards a fairer funding formula, which children in our counties were denied by the previous Government. Labour continues politically to use the education budget for its own areas. I am keen to hear what the announcement will mean for children in Suffolk, if the Minister has that information available.
