Fathers in the Family

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of fathers in the family unit.

I am delighted to be leading this debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Main.

One of my proudest moments, not only as a father, but as a parliamentarian, was taking my young daughter and son through the voting Lobby with me on Friday to see the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) pass its final stages in the Commons. I hope that by ratifying the Istanbul convention on gender-based violence we are taking another step to eradicate domestic violence and violence against women and girls.

It is thanks to Nick Thorpe of Fathers Network Scotland and Frank Young from the Centre for Social Justice that I applied for this debate. I was involved in a very small way in helping to promote Scotland’s Year of the Dad in 2016, but at a relatively recent meeting with Nick, I agreed to do what I could to help promote reflection on last year and to encourage something similar elsewhere in the UK.

Dad, father, stand-in dad, daddy, step-dad, foster father, adoptive dad, daddies who have to be mummies too—there are so many ways to describe the male role in the family, but its meaning is slowly starting to change. In 2016, Scotland celebrated the Year of the Dad to help promote the contribution fathers or those in a fatherly role make to child development, families and society, and to provide greater understanding of the benefits reaped from organisations acknowledging the family roles of men.

The Year of the Dad was established by Fathers Network Scotland and supported by the Scottish Government because we are at a tipping point in our cultural evolution. The project’s review paper states:

“The old stereotypes of dad as breadwinner and mum as carer no longer serve us in an age of increasing diversity and gender equality at home, work and throughout society.”

Some 95 events reached nearly 15,000 people, more than half a million people were reached through media coverage, and there were tens of thousands of visits to the website, where more than 40 resource documents for families, services and employers were available. Some 5,800 individuals and 1,300 organisations signed up to the campaign in 2016, highlighting the positive message about fatherhood and the importance of dads in child development and parenting.

It should be obvious that recognising the role fathers play or should play does not in any way diminish the role mothers play—quite the opposite. I am clear, and the research shows, that society as a whole benefits from the positive involvement of fathers. As I see it, the increased wellbeing, confidence and educational attainment of children is the biggest benefit. So getting it right for fathers is about getting it right for every child.

The Scottish Government were clear that supporting the Year of the Dad was a central part of their gender equality policy. Male parental leave is key to narrowing the pay gap that disgracefully still exists for women. Clearly, it is all about having choices and giving parents the ability to choose what is best for them, but from a public policy perspective, we need to change societal norms to give parents a better opportunity to choose what is right for them. The current vicious circle of expensive childcare, low pay and societal pressures on women and men keeps many women in the primary caregiver role instead of allowing them to return to the workplace if that is what they want to do.

Last week, after patiently waiting almost a year for the UK Government to respond to its recommendations on tackling the gender pay gap, the Women and Equalities Committee set out its three priorities for the Government, including a more effective policy on shared parental leave. Unless the UK Government recognise the value of men and women sharing care responsibilities equally, and encourage men to take parental leave, we will not see any changes to current behaviour. Recent research from PwC found that, on current trends, it would take another 24 years to close the gender pay gap between men and women, which is clearly unacceptable.

If a woman faces discrimination when she returns to the workplace after having a child, such as not receiving a promotion in line with her male counterparts or being dismissed for requesting flexible working hours, that does not incentivise men to do more at home to care for their children. Of course, some men do not need incentives—they want to be at home more—but workplace norms make that request awkward to make. Why should a man be at home when his wife could be there? Research from Plymouth University from earlier this year stated that dads face a “fatherhood forfeit” when applying for part-time employment in the workplace—dads who want to work reduced hours or on a flexible basis are perceived as suspicious or deviant and questions are raised about their commitment.

The SNP Scottish Government are working hard to promote and reward flexible working and childcare in Scotland, using our devolved powers. They have supported the “Happy to talk flexible working” job advert strapline, which I added to my own recent job adverts. Working in partnership with Family Friendly Working Scotland, they have supported the top employers for working families awards. This year’s award ceremony is taking place next week, and I look forward to attending.

The Scottish Government are also committed to almost doubling free early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours a year by 2020. The UK Government need to ensure that advice and support is available to fathers so that they are aware of their rights to paternity and parental leave.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. I wonder whether he has seen the helpful Barnardo’s briefing, which points out that without appropriate support, young and vulnerable fathers in particular can end up feeling isolated and marginalised by services and agencies. It goes on to recommend that local authorities should have an identified lead professional responsible for co-ordinating work.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask that interventions are brief, otherwise I shall overrule them.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Andrew Smith Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). Whatever we disagree about, I very much respect the fact that he has in the past pointed out the damage done to the higher education system by ill-thought-out commitments and policies on immigration. I hear his note of caution about the regulation of new providers. I will say a bit more about that in a minute.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) said in his excellent speech—others have mentioned this—the Bill comes at a time when universities and research institutes are reeling from the Brexit vote. The drafting of the Bill and the associated consultation clearly took place in the context of an expected remain result. The uncertainties about replacing EU research funding and the position of EU students now confronting the sector would be good enough reasons, in themselves, for putting this legislation on hold to give this House and the Government the opportunity to ensure that the framework for higher education and research is fit for purpose in a post-Brexit world.

There are other concerns about the Bill. While I do not have a problem, in principle, with facilitating new providers and more choice in the sector, there are strong grounds, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster hinted, for proceeding more carefully than the Government propose, because it is likely that limited Government finance will be further stretched when funding per student is already under enormous pressure, and there is a risk that failure by new providers will be bad for students and damage the reputation of UK higher education more widely. Let us remember that UK universities and research are currently a huge national asset—an area of competitive strategic advantage that will be even more important, economically and culturally, as we strive to make a success of life outside the EU.

Further, specific, concerns have been drawn to my attention by Oxford University. Clause 23, which provides for the assessment of standards as well as quality, is an extension of regulatory power that infringes institutional autonomy. The Government need to tell us what its purpose is and how it will be used. Clause 43 empowers the office for students to revoke by Order the Acts of Parliament or royal charters that have established our universities. The ability to dismantle so much with so little by way of parliamentary scrutiny cannot be right, and much stronger scrutiny and protection is needed.

[Liam Byrne]

Is it not incumbent on the Minister to give a categorical assurance to the House that where rights and entitlements proscribed in royal charter are deleted, they will be reinstated by the Government?

[Mr Smith]

Yes, indeed. As I have said, there must be full scrutiny by this House. These are Acts of Parliament that are being overturned by an Order—it is absolutely extraordinary.

There are further worries on the structure of research funding. It took the Secretary of State an awfully long time to get on to research. While the Government’s stated intention is to keep the dual funding principle, all research funding is to be the responsibility of the proposed UK research and innovation body, and there is no explicit provision for ring-fenced funding for anything other than specific pieces of work. It is therefore not clear in practice how dual funding is to be delivered. The call in the Bill for a “balanced funding principle” to which the Secretary of State must have regard is vague. I put it to the Government that it is crucial to future UK research capacity that the Bill strengthen the commitment to dual support.

I am also concerned that the Bill does not mention the higher education innovation fund. The Bill artificially divides teaching and research, when in practice the two often go together, especially at the highest levels, including in the work of museums and the well-founded laboratory principle. There really needs to be proper recognition of that in the Bill.

Similarly, there is a huge omission in there not being any requirement for UK Research and Innovation to provide for postgraduate research education and training, which is crucial for graduates moving into the high-tech sector. That was previously regarded, and rightly so, as being so important that the research councils had it written into their royal charters, so why is it not in this Bill? It certainly should be.

I am also alarmed that under clause 84, research councils could be abolished or merged by order. That could affect whole areas of research, so surely it is sufficiently serious that Parliament should have proper oversight.

There is much that is wrong with this Bill, and it is spectacularly ill timed. The Government should take it away, consult and think again.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I welcome the Bill, particularly its focus on enabling students to make an informed choice about their university options. I have been concerned for some time that too many students regard an immediate, traditional campus-based undergraduate degree as their only option. In saying that, in no way do I wish to diminish the importance of such degrees. For many, that is absolutely the right option and there should be no restriction on numbers—if it is right for somebody, they should do it—but it should be a positive choice and not regarded as a default option.

I want students at school to be able to look at all the options open to them and choose what works best for them, whether that is a traditional degree, a degree apprenticeship, a part-time degree or even deferring their degree to a later point in their career. I welcome the proposals to establish new, high-quality providers to offer different products and increase the range of options for students.

We must also not forget to place the Bill’s provisions in the context of upskilling the workforce and lifelong learning. I am very proud to have in my constituency the Open University. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), was a lecturer there for some time. In its nearly 50 years of existence—I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman was there from the outset—it has given opportunities to some 2 million people to upskill and reskill.

The excellent briefing note distributed by the Open University encapsulates the point that I want to make:

“It is essential that these far-reaching proposals are not developed solely through the policy lens of an 18 year old student entering higher education for the first time. Re-skilling and upskilling the adult workforce are essential for future prosperity. Economic success in the coming years depends on embedding a lifelong learning culture which rest on 3 co-equal pillars: flexible lifetime learning opportunities, apprenticeships and full time study.”

I very much agree with that.

I welcome the measures that the Government have already taken to assist part-time students, including the decision to introduce maintenance loans in 2018-19, which will work alongside the tuition fee loans introduced in 2012-13. They have also changed the equal and lower qualification restriction that was imposed in 2008. That will allow new students to apply for tuition fee loans for a second, part-time honours degree in engineering, technology and computer sciences this year, and for a wider range of part-time honours degrees in science, technology, engineering and maths in 2017-18. That will be very much welcomed by the Open University.

To reinforce the support for the part-time higher education sector, I want two suggestions to be considered in Committee. The first is an express commitment to part-time higher education and adult education in the proposed general duties of the office for students; and the second is confirmation that a broad range of different types of English higher education providers will be recognised in the make-up of the office for students board. I hope that those constructive amendments, which the Open University has suggested, will be considered favourably in Committee.

While I am on the topic of the OU, I have two other small asks from it that I would like to put on record. The first is a simple request for clarification. The Open University is the only UK-wide university that has a footprint in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in England. Clause 75 defines the meaning of English higher education provider, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that definition will apply to the Open University as well as to other English-based universities. The second ask relates to the Open University’s status as a centre of research excellence. The Open University wishes to ensure that the new UKRI body, which is set out in the Bill, will not concentrate research into fewer institutions and geographical locations; and that early career researchers, women and minority groups will be offered opportunities and routes to support their research ambitions.

I turn to the opportunities for creating new high-quality higher education institutions. There is huge potential for new entrants into the market, and I agree with the comments of the principal of Pearson College, Roxanne Stockwell, who said:

“It is clear that the dominance of the one-size-fits-all model of university education is over…Students are calling out for pioneering institutions offering alternative education models and an increased focus on skills that will prepare them for the careers of the future”.

I will use Milton Keynes, which I represent, to illustrate that potential. Members may not be aware of this, but in January next year Milton Keynes turns 50. It has reached its planned size, in terms of both population and physical footprint. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), who heard me make these comments in Westminster Hall last week, but they merit a wider audience.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

The hon. Gentleman need not worry; his comments bear repetition.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful for that endorsement. Having reached its planned size, Milton Keynes is actively debating what comes next. There is a live debate about our future size and shape—what the Milton Keynes of 2050 should look like—and our place in the important Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor, which the former Chancellor announced in the Budget that the National Infrastructure Commission would explore for growth potential.

Milton Keynes has the Open University, as I have mentioned. Nearby, we have excellent universities such as Cranfield and Buckingham, and we have a healthy further education and higher education partnership in University Centre Milton Keynes. Despite those things, it has long been an aspiration for Milton Keynes to have a campus-based university of its own to help to generate economic growth and provide all the other social and cultural benefits that university towns and cities enjoy, but I question whether the answer is a traditional campus-based university. Given the increasing consumer sophistication of students, should we not try to create something new that benefits the innovative tradition of Milton Keynes?

In that context, I was absolutely delighted that the recently established Milton Keynes Futures 2050 commission—chaired by Sir Peter Gregson, the vice chancellor of Cranfield—proposed as one of its central recommendations a Milton Keynes institute of technology, or MKIT. Its mission would be to promote research, teaching and practice that provide solutions to the challenges faced by fast-growing cities. It would offer portfolio learning, living lab research and partnerships with a wide range of global educational institutions and employers. MKIT could be the institution that fills the growing skills gap that we face in the new intelligent mobility market. We urgently need to train more people in skills in this sector.

I am also proud to have the Transport Systems Catapult in Milton Keynes. Working with Departments, it has published research showing that there will be a gap of hundreds of thousands of people with those skills in a market that will be worth £900 billion by 2025. If we want to have a share of that global market, we really need to focus skills in this area. That is just one example of the many opportunities that exist, and the Bill provides huge opportunities for innovation.

There is a critical link between the expansion of higher education and the prospects for local economies and people’s life challenges. I strongly believe that the Bill strengthens that link, and I very much look forward to supporting it tonight.

Child Sexual Exploitation (Oxfordshire)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the serious case review into child sexual exploitation in Oxfordshire.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) for his question. No child should have to suffer what the victims of child sexual exploitation in Oxfordshire have suffered. The serious case review published today by Oxfordshire’s local safeguarding children board is an indictment of the failure of front-line workers to protect extremely vulnerable young people over a number of years. Reading the details of what happened to them has been truly sickening.

The serious case review makes it clear that numerous opportunities to intervene to protect those girls were missed, as police and social workers failed to look beyond what they saw as troubled teenagers to the frightened child within. I welcome the publication of the serious case review. It is only by publishing such in-depth accounts of what happened, and what went wrong and why, that children’s social care systems locally and nationally can address the failings that have betrayed some of our most vulnerable children. That is why this Government have insisted that serious case reviews be published, and in full.

The children’s Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), has also written today, with Ministers from the Home Office and the Department of Health, to the Oxfordshire safeguarding children board requesting a further assessment of the progress being made, and we will send an expert in child sexual exploitation to support the board this month.

Sadly, Oxfordshire was not alone in failing to address the dangers of child sexual exploitation. We now know from Professor Alexis Jay’s and Louise Casey’s  reports into Rotherham and the report by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) in Manchester that child sexual exploitation has been a scourge in many communities around the country. This Government have been determined to do everything within their power to tackle child sexual exploitation, and that is why we are today publishing an action plan setting out the action we have already taken to strengthen our approach to safeguarding children from sexual exploitation, along with the further steps that we think are necessary to address the culture of denial; improve joint working; stop offenders; support victims; and strengthen accountability and leadership.

We are setting up a national centre of expertise into tackling child sexual exploitation, to support local areas around the country, and there will be a new whistleblowing portal so that anyone can report their concerns. We have also prioritised child sexual exploitation as a national threat, so that police forces will now be under a duty to collaborate across force boundaries, and we will consult on extending the criminal offence of wilful neglect to children’s social care, education professionals and elected members.

This afternoon, I will be joining the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and other Secretaries of State in Downing street to discuss with local and police leaders how we will collectively take forward the actions set out in today’s plan. The experiences of the children set out in this serious case review should never have happened. We are determined to do everything in our power to stamp out this horrific abuse and to bring the perpetrators to justice.

[Mr Smith]

I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Does she agree that the victims, the 370 other children identified as at risk, their families and the public, who are horrified that these sickening crimes were allowed to continue for so many years, are owed answers to crucial questions which the serious case review could not address? How was it that there was a culture in the county council and the police whereby such serious incidents were not escalated to senior officers? How was it that a professional tolerance of under-age sexual activity developed, as the report says, to the extent that it contributed to the failure to stop the abuse?

Who takes responsibility for the catastrophic failings? The chief constable and the council chief executive have apologised, but they did not know what was happening. The chief constable is moving on; the former directors of social services and of children and families have left; the former leader of the council retired; the lead member for children’s services was reshuffled; and the chief executive of Oxfordshire council saw her position made redundant at the end of January, only for the council leader last week to admit that they had made a hash of it and so the situation has to be reviewed.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the highly commendable work done by the council, the police and other agencies to improve protection and prosecution since Operation Bullfinch cannot distract from the horrors of what went wrong? We saw failure to act on clear evidence of organised sexual exploitation; failure to provide protection to children; failure to draw serious issues to the attention of senior management; failure to heed the concerns of junior staff; chaotic arrangements for child protection; unminuted meetings; and a professional disregard for the illegality of young girls being forced to have sex with older men.

Should there not be wider, independent scrutiny of the internal management reviews which underpinned this serious case review? Do the public interest and redress for victims not dictate that those responsible for these failings should be fully held to account? Will the Government set up an independent inquiry into what went wrong and who made the mistakes that enabled this depraved exploitation of vulnerable girls to go on for so long, so that the lessons are learned from these awful crimes and from the failure of public bodies to provide the protection that it was their duty to provide to children who were suffering such unspeakable abuse?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for his questions, and I fully respect the emotion and passion with which he and other Members will be discussing these matters—these very serious matters, as he has set out. He talks about failures and he is right to do so. He is also absolutely right to say that at the heart of this are the young people who have been utterly let down by the system and whose lives have been blighted. It is important that we think about all the victims and their families, and I am pleased to confirm that part of today’s summit and the announcements thereof is a £7 million fund to support those who have been victims. Clearly, however, there is much more that we all need to do.

The right hon. Gentleman asks how the culture arose and why things were not escalated. He also mentions the so-called professional tolerance of these crimes and asked who takes responsibility. On accountability, he set out the position of various people working within Oxfordshire, some of whom are still in their positions and some of whom have moved on. It is not for me to apportion blame—that is a matter for Oxfordshire county council, the police and the health agencies locally—and the purpose of this serious case review is to understand what went wrong and why, and to ensure that we learn the lessons for the future. He is absolutely right to highlight another point, which Maggie Blyth, the independent reviewer, talked about this morning when she said that although

“there was no disregard of clear warnings at top level and no denial by those in charge, their lack of understanding of what was happening on the front line caused unacceptable delays. This allowed offenders to get away with their crimes. The review describes a culture in Oxfordshire where the value of escalation to the top was not understood.”

The review also contains some heart-rending comments from the victims. One that particularly stands out was:

“If a perpetrator can spot the vulnerable children, why can’t professionals?”

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that many more questions will need to be answered.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about future reviews and inquiries, and the letter signed today by Ministers from my Department, the Home Office and the Department of Health makes it clear that we are proposing that the local safeguarding children board leads a specific piece of work on the impact of the multi-agency approach to tackling child sexual exploitation in Oxfordshire. We have appointed Sophie Humphreys to work alongside Oxfordshire county council to gather the evidence on the effect of its reforms to front-line practice.

The right hon. Gentleman correctly highlights the fact that the council has taken action since these allegations all first came to light. As has been recognised by the serious case review, there has been tremendous investment in services to support children at risk of sexual exploitation, including the establishment of the specialist Kingfisher team, a multi-agency front-line service for victims of child sexual exploitation; the training of thousands of front-line staff in raising awareness; and an increase in the number of front-line staff as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the fact that lives have been blighted by these crimes. Questions need to be answered, some of which will be addressed this afternoon in the Prime Minister’s summit in Downing street.

The right hon. Gentleman says that lessons need to be learned, which is a phrase that is often used in these sorts of cases. But that is not enough. We want action. It was very clear that those who came across this information, not just in Oxfordshire but in other authorities, did not act on it—and that is unacceptable.

Improving School Leadership

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Teaching school status is an important part of improving the quality of teaching and the experience that teachers get before they go off into their own schools. That reform has been important, and it is an excellent innovation.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I agree with everything he has said so far, which is good. Able leaders, as he rightly says, are important—I congratulate those in my constituency—and they need the best possible teams. Does he agree that there is a strong case for the most challenged schools serving some of our most disadvantaged areas to be able to pay teachers more than schools in other areas so that they attract the best to do the toughest job?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is about the team. Successful schools tend to have a good head teacher with a good team around them, which is often down to the head teacher’s inspirational leadership. I agree that, where a school faces particular challenges, it is not a bad idea for it to be able to be flexible in the pay and conditions that it offers staff.

Speed is paramount, which is why the achievements at Woodlands school are so important. Students mostly get only one chance of an education, and for every day, week or month that they are not receiving a good education, we are doing them an incredible disservice, potentially damaging their future prospects and hampering their chances of reaching their full potential. We should celebrate the fact that Karen Kerridge has set the school back on the right path in less than a year, and we should thank her.

I would like to celebrate all the schools that are doing well in my constituency, but I am conscious of time and I want to hear what the Minister has to say. I am fortunate to have some great leaders who are helping to ensure that education in my constituency is improving, but unfortunately that is not the case everywhere. Unfortunately, there are too many schools that may not have the right leader with all the right skills and talents to deliver the kind of education that our children need, and often that is not the leader’s fault.

More than ever before, we have to deliver a world-class education, and we need able leaders to do that. It is a tough, difficult job that is not suitable for everyone. The job is different from any other in our education system. As the system is currently designed, however, if someone wants career progression, the obvious path is to head towards taking up a management role and, ultimately, their own headship.

But, as I said, being an inspirational, dynamic and consistent head teacher is like no other role in our education system. Head teachers have to manage complex and large budgets, perhaps a large staff body, premises and a range of other challenges. They are running medium-sized businesses, and they have to be able to deal with that fairly, consistently and in an orderly and professional manner, and many, many do. Despite all the training available and all the mentoring that can be given, we occasionally find that the wrong person has found themselves in an unsuitable job.

I suspect it is a bit like being an MP. Whatever a person imagines the job to be, it is not until they are actually in the hot seat that they fully understand everything it involves and know whether they are personally suited to it. However, an MP can step down at an election and pursue a different path without it being the end of their working life, but head teachers who feel they are in the wrong role have nowhere to go, which can cause problems both for them and for the school.

There are three options when that happens, none of which is a satisfactory solution. First, if the governors recognise that the wrong person is in the job they can initiate capability proceedings, which is a painful, devastating and destabilising experience for all involved, including the staff and students. It may force out of the profession an otherwise excellent teacher, which is a loss both for them and for the wider education system. Nobody gets to be a head teacher without being a good teacher and an asset to the system, and it would be a shame to lose all their talents simply because they lack some of the talents required to do a specific job.

Secondly, there is the “do nothing” option: the school coasts along, slowly declining, because the issue is put on the “too difficult to tackle” pile. Supporters of the school increasingly have to defend the declining performance and prop up the senior management team until finally a devastating Ofsted report is published that presents incontrovertible evidence that the school is not performing as it should. Suddenly, the head teacher is vilified and forced to leave the school and probably the profession, possibly to retire. Again, the damage done can be incalculable for the school, which may have failed students for years; for the head teacher, who has left a profession they probably love; and for the community they served, which feels let down.

Finally, there is the “hope and pray” approach: the governors hope the individual will move on or retire while they try to support those around the head until things get better. Unfortunately, that rarely happens, so one of the other options is usually adopted.

The problem with all those approaches is that even if the ultimate outcome is good, it can take years to deliver. However, there is no time to waste when delivering education. We need a system that supports great teachers, and encourages and nurtures fantastic leaders, but is fleet of foot enough to act rapidly if somebody finds themselves in a role they are not suited for and does not result in their having to leave the profession.

I turn to the role of the governors and the governing body. Having been a governor, I know how dedicated, selfless and hard-working they are. The role is becoming ever more demanding and requires a high degree of professionalism to be carried out well. Governors are the unsung heroes of our education system, and I want to thank them personally for what they do and apologise if they feel my earlier remarks were critical of them. The problem is that, as schools’ independence increases, the role of the governing body grows in importance, and it falls to the governors to hold the head and the school to account more than ever before.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent point. I was just coming to that issue. He is entirely right that speed is important, but that means that governors have to make some difficult decisions.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that schools serving the most disadvantaged communities often find it hard to get the governors they need for the accountability process? One of the best things businesses can do to help our education system is to encourage more members of staff to become governors in such schools.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. He admirably covered a point that I included in my speech. MPs have a role to play in that process. We should write to the larger organisations in our constituencies to remind them that they and the wider community benefit when they allow their staff to lead schools and play a part in the local community. That excellent point cannot be repeated too often.

For governors who lead schools that have greater independence, it is becoming harder to be all friends together. They may duck away from making tough or unpleasant decisions if they are too close to the senior management team and the head. I am not criticising governors, but I want to ensure they are equipped with the tools they need to play their important role of ensuring the leadership of our schools is the best it can be.

The Government have done much to improve our education system, for which I am grateful. I therefore hope the Minister considers my remarks to be a useful addition to the debate that will help us ensure our schools have the best possible leaders. People who find themselves in the wrong role should have constructive options open to them that do not result in their leaving the profession. We must equip our governors with the right tools to help that change happen. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

British Values: Teaching

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Denham]

I will come precisely to that point in due course. I hope that hon. Members in the Chamber will bear with me. I have been through the history, because it is important to understand that we have debated some of these things before. If we do not understand what went wrong in the past, we will not get it right in future. The key point I am trying to make is that unless we support schools and teachers to do such work, none of the regulations or the speeches we make will make any difference to anybody. As Sir Keith Ajegbo’s review of diversity and citizenship reported, such work is not possible without support for teachers and the teaching methods that they need. He made this crucial point:

“In order for young people to explore how we live together in the UK today and to debate the values we share, it is important they consider issues that have shaped the development of UK society – and to understand them through the lens of history.”

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important, timely and interesting debate. Following the earlier intervention, I put it to him—I do not say this tritely—that there is a problem in all this, because the right not to share some British values or some part of those values can, in itself, be argued to be a British value. The very act of trying to define this too narrowly can accentuate, rather than lessen, a sense of difference.

[Mr Denham]

How we handle difference is undoubtedly one of the British characteristics that students need to understand. I will talk about doing it in the right way and doing it in the wrong way in a moment.

Having said that teachers need support, the second point that I need to draw from history is that values mean little without an understanding of the history that has shaped them. Students need to be able to debate and explore values rather than simply being taught them. The Prime Minister spoke recently about Magna Carta. To get from Magna Carta to where we are today, we have to go through quite a period of burning bishops, cutting the heads off kings, fighting civil wars, invading other countries, being invaded and calling it a Glorious Revolution, trade union campaigns, women’s suffrage and all the rest of it. We can make no sense of our British values without understanding the history of how we came to be where we are.

Let me set out my concerns about what the Government are proposing. Hon. Members will have gathered that I agree with and support the idea of promoting British values. First, the Government have spent much of the past four years undoing the good work that was going on in schools. Secondly, they are expending far more energy on constructing a legal basis for intervening in schools than they are on helping teachers to promote British values. There are simpler ways of dealing with the sorts of problems we have seen in Birmingham. Thirdly, the legal definition of British values leaves too many contentious questions unresolved and carries too many risks. Fourthly, all attention has been focused deliberately on one community—the Muslim community—and not enough on addressing all those who will share in shaping Britain’s future. Fifthly, the Government have neglected the fact that we have multiple identities. I am English every bit as much as I am British. British values, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), has said, are seen through the prism of many other identities. Finally, there is too little practical support for schools, as I have said.

For four years, the Government have actively undermined good work in schools. Citizenship education has been weakened and Ofsted’s legal duty to inspect school promotion of community cohesion was ended in 2011. The Government promoted schools with greater autonomy to set their own curriculum and determine their own intake. The Government have funded free schools such as the Al-Madinah school in Derby, and they should not be surprised if their rhetoric encouraged the idea that schools could be narrowly tied to one part of the community or one set of parents. Faced with the consequences, the Government are now scrambling for new powers to intervene.

In current law and in the Government’s proposals, British values are set down as democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect, and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs. No one will argue much with those. However, twice recently the Prime Minister has given different lists. He has spoken, for example, of accepting personal and social responsibility and of respect for British institutions, but in neither case did he say what he meant. Those are not in the Government’s proposals, and such sloppiness does not bode well for the future. British values cannot mean whatever the Prime Minister of the day, or a Secretary of State, means them to be. British values are crucial, but they are not unchanging. The Britain I was born into was commonly racist and deeply homophobic. Much has changed today.

None of the values listed explicitly challenges racism, sexism or homophobia. We have to dig into the draft regulations to read that British values are to be interpreted as meaning the Equality Act 2010. I wonder how many commentators, or indeed Government Members, realise that the Act is now the legal baseline for British values. I welcome the Act, but even I would hardly describe it as a timeless British value. What that tells us is the importance of students understanding where such statements of values come from and what they mean today. Students have to know the history, the arguments, the campaigns and the political disputes that have led to changing attitudes. It is better to see the Act as a snapshot of where our national debate had reached in 2010. Not everyone will support the Act’s values, which is the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).

This Parliament has sanctioned gay marriage, despite the opposition of England’s established Church. Upholding the law means respecting gay marriage, but where does that leave the millions of people, of many faiths, who believe that gay marriage is wrong? To me, a key part of Britishness is the principled and practical compromises we reach to handle such differences. Those compromises are complex, subtle, ever-changing and democratic. Those of us who have met concerned constituents will agree that, in the best sense of the word, Britishness does not lend itself to law, but I will make this point: once the Government’s regulations are challenged, as they will be when they are used as the basis to intervene in schools, it will be the courts that define what British values mean. Instead of being dynamic and constantly evolving, judges will say what British values are. Given how many Government Members are exercised by what judges have done with the European convention on human rights, I am surprised that the Government want to give judges the power to decide what it is to be British.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate my fellow Hampshire MP, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), on securing the debate and on his interesting and challenging speech, in which he made a number of important points. It is also a pleasure, of course, to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry).

I welcome the debate on this issue, both here today and more generally, and I welcome the consultation that the Government have launched. The debate would be useful and important even without what we have learned through the Trojan horse revelations. Clearly, there are some shared British values, but in a time when young people can be exposed to all sorts of influences, particularly as a result of technological change, it is important to restate—or, in some cases, just state—what those values are.

We have a more diverse society than we have ever had, and I think all of us here welcome the richness that that has brought. However, we also need to think about the word “multicultural”, which means different things to different people. We need to think about its positive connotations, but also about its drawbacks.

On the great seal of the United States is inscribed “E pluribus unum”, a compelling phrase. However, the United States has had a lot more time to think about what it means and to put it into practice. We, in our country, need to address what can be—indeed, what we love being—“pluribus” and what we need to be “unum”, and how wide that list should be.

We tend to be quite reticent about discussing Britishness. We are patriotic, but we tend to be reserved about expressing that. In America, people occasionally have debates about the pledge of allegiance to the flag, but our schools often do not have the flag to pledge allegiance to. Today’s debate turns on three important questions. First, what is in the core set of British values? Secondly, how should we express them? Thirdly, should we teach them, and, if so, how should we teach people about not just their existence, but their primacy in British life?

There are at least four—possibly more—different expressions of Britishness, which should not be conflated, although they sometimes are. The first relates to true core values: things such as tolerance, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, respect for the law, and a belief in the democratic ideal and the equality of citizens. Just because those are British values, that does not, of course, mean they must be uniquely British values; we share them with a number of other countries. It is also true that how they are manifested is not immutable. The values stay constant, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, how they are expressed and what they imply changes over time.

Secondly, there are the principles that underpin our society and its operation. I will come back to this, but it includes things such as representative liberal democracy and an organic constitution, and the role of independent institutions, a free media and the rule of law. Those are fundamental, but they are not necessarily that widely understood; indeed, aspects of them are not even always entirely welcome—for example, the way in which liberal democracy, as opposed to pure majority democracy, can work.

Thirdly, there are things that are clear majority views, which are sometimes talked about as British values, such as a belief in our national health service and in public service broadcasting through the BBC. However, those are beliefs, not core values, and people’s views on them can change. I would suggest that just thinking that the Belgian health care system is worth looking at does not make someone un-British.

Fourthly, there are all manner of traits and characteristics, such as a sense of humour; a distrust of power; respect, but not undue respect, for others; and a love of a rich and permeable cultural base in music, film and food. We cannot promote those things in school, and nor should we try to, but they are still an important part of being us and of our shared destination.

What, then, should we do in schools? The first and most important thing to say is that it is a journey, rather than a destination. We can all easily agree about the negative side: we can agree about keeping extremists out of schools and about girls not being disadvantaged in their learning in class. We can also agree that public funds clearly should not be used on school trips available only to members of one faith.

What we do on the positive side, however, to promote British values is a lot harder. I have found no better description than that in the academy model funding agreement, which talks about

“respect for the basis on which law is made…support for participation in the democratic processes...equality of opportunity…liberties for all within the law…and tolerance of different faiths and…beliefs.”

I welcome what the Government propose to do to strengthen what is called the “spiritual, moral, social and cultural” standard and actively to promote such values. However, there remains the big question of how. At the sharp end, I certainly welcome what the Government are doing on no-notice inspections, removing school leaders who fail to protect their pupils and strengthening the rules on barring teachers who have knowingly brought extremism into school.

More generally, turning to the idea of positive promotion, there is a need for a big national conversation. That will not happen overnight. There is a debate to be had about the extent to which such things can be taught rather than caught. Personally, I am a bit of a sceptic about the idea that someone can stand at the front of a class and say, “Today we are doing British values.” Those are things that permeate in other ways.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I am very short of time—very quickly.

[Mr Smith]

In implementation, is it not crucial for children and young people to be helped to develop their critical ability to question what they are taught, wherever it comes from?

[Damian Hinds]

The right hon. Gentleman is right, and one should not underestimate the importance of space in class for discussion, as well as more formal debates in schools, and other things of that kind.

There is much more that I want to say, but I will just talk about history in the curriculum. What I say will echo, a little, what the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said. We should tell the great British story and face up to the parts of it that we are not so proud of, but I would like more appreciation of the development of the institutions in and of our democratic system. Those are not British values per se, but they reflect and reinforce them. I am less bothered about young people learning about the mechanics of voting or which competencies are reserved for the devolved Administrations versus the UK Parliament, but I am bothered about a greater, broader understanding of the nature of representative liberal democracy and its superiority not only to autocracy—which is pretty obvious to everyone—but to the tyranny of the majority. With it go the freedom of the media and independent institutions, the protection of minorities and the rule of law. Those things need not be dealt with as an add-on; they can be understood through history taught in a rigorous academic way.

I have two concerns: the first is that we should not conflate the issue with a general debate about secularism. The “Trojan horse” schools were not faith schools. Faith schools in general get above-average results and are popular with teachers. Having attended one, I can confirm that its ethos and what we did there did not inhibit my inquiring mind or stop me appreciating and valuing the differences in others; if anything, it enhanced those things. Faith schools can also be incredibly diverse. There is a Catholic primary school a mile from here and 95% of its pupils are of one faith, but they speak, between them, 32 different mother tongues. More than nine tenths of them have English as an additional language. It is fine to have a debate about faith schools, but it is a different debate from today’s.

There is a second concern on which I would like reassurance from the Minister, and that is the inherent danger in having someone—anyone—in charge of defining British values, not just now but 10 years from now. I call this the Semmelweis question. If anyone present does not know who Semmelweis was, it is because we are all over 40. Our children all know, because he is taught in every school in the country. I will not go into it now, but he was an Austrian who found out that hand washing would stop infections from spreading in hospitals. Someone decided that that would be taught in every school in the country; but it is not on the national curriculum. Whoever that person is, they have an awful lot of power. We need adequate ways to make sure that it is not the courts or politicians who are left to deal with such matters.

I welcome the debate and the swift action of the Secretary of State, but we must also allow an approach to evolve, and be alive to the dangers.

Manufacturing and SMEs

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[John Stevenson]

I completely agree. Companies can help each other, particularly within the supply chain, but today’s debate is primarily about the Government’s role in helping to support businesses, both large and small.

The Government can help smaller enterprises that are seeking to expand and start-ups that need very basic advice on how to get going, and they must recognise that businesses of all sizes have their own individual roles to play. The Government have stated that they want to rebalance the economy—a laudable aim that is clearly supported across the House. Arguably, the Government want to go further and see growth in the country within an economy that is far more structurally balanced between the various sectors and which has a larger manufacturing sector, in particular.

Not only the economy but the country needs to be rebalanced. The country needs to move away from an over-reliance on a dominant financial services sector that is so overwhelmingly run from and centred on London. London has been, and is, a huge success, but there is a danger that it adversely affects the rest of the country. London dominates politics, the media, finance and business. It is almost overpowering, which can cause policy makers to forget or overlook the many other important contributors to our future prosperity.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this enormously important debate, which is of concern to us all. Does he agree that, as part of the culture shift that he rightly says is necessary, more needs to be done in schools and colleges and through the curriculum to encourage able young people—sometimes those of a more practical, rather than academic, bent—to have high self-esteem, to set their targets high and to realise that there are good jobs out there for people who make things?

[John Stevenson]

I do not disagree. The improvement in the view of apprenticeships is helping enormously, because people now view apprenticeships as a serious career choice, rather than people always going off to university.

We need to move to a more balanced economy so that we become a balanced country in which manufacturing has a central role. In my own county of Cumbria and constituency of Carlisle, we still have a very strong manufacturing base. There is defence, power, engineering and food, and in Carlisle itself 20% of the local economy is still based on manufacturing.

In my constituency, we have large players such as Pirelli, Nestlé and McVitie’s, and there are also smaller players that are significant locally such as Carr’s Milling Industries, Clark Door and Mallinson Fabrications. For both local and national reasons, I am delighted that the role of manufacturing is back on the Government’s agenda. A huge amount of credit must be given to the Government and to Parliament for achieving that change.

We all acknowledge that there has been a steep decline in manufacturing over many years, which has created a number of problems. Obviously, there is the balance of payments issue, because we are simply not paying our way in the world. The decline has also created a skills problem. Many skills have gone overseas, with some potentially lost for ever. We have an ageing work force in some sectors, with the food and drink sector being an obvious example of where many thousands of people need to be recruited over the next few years just to stand still.

The decline in manufacturing has created a problem for the long-term success of our economy. Thankfully, there is growing recognition that we, as a nation, need to produce goods, as well as to provide services. Growth in our economy can only be helped by the expansion of industrial production—the rise of the makers once more. Such a revival would immediately help to correct our trade imbalance, and more tax would be paid, so the Government could start to balance their books.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on securing this important debate. I am pleased that there have been so many contributors to a well-informed and consensual debate.

It is clear that manufacturing matters to this country and to the House. Indeed, manufacturing is essential to any advanced economy that wishes to maintain or enhance its living standards. An effective manufacturing policy, based on innovation, is the means by which productivity and wage rates will grow. It is equally clear from listening to hon. Members’ contributions that in every corner of the country we have dynamic, enterprising manufacturers—Mallinson Fabrications in Carlisle or Burgon and Ball in Hillsborough, among others—keen to expand, export into new markets, invent new products or processes and employ more people. An effective and proactive industrial policy will ensure that Government can work with industry for the long-term and tap into that huge potential.

We warmly welcome recent increased output in manufacturing and order books, and the Opposition will encourage any sign of recovery. There is a long way to go however: manufacturing output remains 10% below pre-crisis levels and is still performing below the wider economy, which is 3% off its peak. Despite the positive news, manufacturing is still expected to contract by 0.5% this year. Despite the good news, we are not seeing the much-vaunted march of the makers that the Chancellor promised. Will the Minister comment on that and on today’s news that the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness report shows that we have slipped down the competitiveness rankings from fourth to seventh and down the infrastructure rankings from fourth to 28th? It is a long-term concern for the productivity and innovation of our manufacturing base, so will he comment?

Every Member who spoke mentioned access to finance. It remains the most significant barrier to manufacturing businesses’ growth. Every initiative the Government have attempted to put in place, from Project Merlin to funding for lending and from the national loan guarantee scheme to the enterprise finance guarantee, has failed in its objective. Net lending to businesses has contracted in 21 of the past 24 months. Commenting on the funding for lending figures, Dr Adam Marshall, director of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said that

“the credit environment is not where it could or should be, and many dynamic, new businesses are still struggling to find the funds they need to fulfil their growth potential….A fully functioning Business Bank is essential to plug this gap, but it must be delivered with greater urgency and scale than is currently being proposed by the government.”

Will the Minister comment? Businesses are not confident that the Government’s business bank will help them. A recent survey by Bibby Financial Services showed that only 6% of small and medium-sized businesses believed that the business bank would benefit their firm. David Petrie, head of corporate finance at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a proud member, stated:

“The proposals put forward don’t appear to address the needs that businesses have and the finance gaps that exist. It is shaping up to be a missed opportunity to make a real difference, especially to micro and smaller businesses.”

Will the Minister outline how he will ensure that the British business bank works for manufacturers to ensure that long-term capital is put in place to allow manufacturing firms to innovate and grow?

I think that every hon. Member also mentioned procurement, which can be an effective lever for Government to enhance skills, attract apprentices, improve and incentivise innovation and ensure that we have a resilient manufacturing base. What are the Government doing to ensure that smaller and medium-sized businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector, benefit from Government contracts?

[Mr Andrew Smith]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Will he also ask the Minister whether he saw the report in The Daily Telegraph that quoted research by Opinion Leader? It said:

“Despite efforts to cut red tape and promote competition, only 6pc of small and medium-sized enterprises…believe it has become easier to win public sector contracts”

in the past two years,

“and 26pc say it has become more difficult”.

Should the Government not explain why they think that is?

[Mr Iain Wright]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The article goes on to say that the Government have a target of awarding 25% of public contracts to small and medium-sized businesses, but the figure for 2012-13 is only 10.5%. We are a long way from the target. Is the Minister confident that he will hit the target and ensure that small and medium-sized businesses in the manufacturing supply chain have a chance of winning Government work?

Business investment is the means by which we can enhance and strengthen manufacturing growth, as the hon. Gentleman for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) mentioned in his thoughtful, well-informed speech. Since 2010, Britain has experienced the biggest fall in investment as a share of national income of any G8 country, other than Italy. We have seen a 0.8 % drop in the level of capital investment. Our competitors, such as Canada, France, Japan, Russia and the United States, are improving their business rates. Most other nations do better than us; according to The Economist, we are ranked 159 out of 173 countries for investment as a share of GDP. We are on a par with Mali.

The situation is not improving. According to last week’s figures from the Office for National Statistics, general investment for quarter 2 of 2013 fell by 4.8% from a year ago and investment in machinery and equipment, which is probably most related to manufacturing, fell across the same period by 3.4%. To improve our competitiveness, our business investment performance must improve. Will the Minister acknowledge that the levels of business investment are unsatisfactory? They are getting worse on his Government’s watch and are inconsistent with the House’s and the country’s aspirations to being an innovative and competitive high-value manufacturing nation. What will he do to ensure an environment of better business investment?

Supply chain resilience is key. Over the past 30 years, with de-industrialisation, we have seen the hollowing out of the UK manufacturing supply chain, and that is hindering the potential of manufacturing and growth. In an excellent speech this afternoon, the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), made that point in relation to aluminium foundings—I think I have that right. He pointed out that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders stated that the lack of an adequate supply base is forcing some vehicle manufacturers, such as Jaguar Land Rover, but also Nissan and others, to limit their activities in the UK to final assembly operations, relying on foreign R and D and component development and manufacture. The Automotive Council concluded that at least 80% of components in vehicle assembly could be sourced from UK suppliers, but at present only about 36% are. There is enormous scope and potential for manufacturing here, and I hope that we can work together in the House to support it.

In that vein, I applaud what the Government were trying to do with the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative: trying to improve the global competitiveness of UK advanced manufacturing supply chains, by supporting innovative projects where the UK is well placed to take a global lead. It is an important initiative, and I want to see it succeed for the good of the British manufacturing base. Will the Minister let the House know how much of each funding round—I think we are up to the fourth round—has been not just allocated but provided to the relevant firm, how much of each round has been spent, and how many jobs have been created or safeguarded?

In the short time I have available, I want to finish on skills. Several hon. Members have mentioned that manufacturing firms are finding it difficult to recruit appropriate skills, and a recent CBI/Pearson survey found that two fifths of employers who required employees with skills in STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—found it difficult to recruit. The hon. Member for Carlisle placed the issue in the context of demographic changes—more and more workers will be retiring shortly. How are the Government dealing with that urgent issue? Does the Minister believe that recent changes, such as the downgrading of the engineering diploma and the dismantling of impartial information, advice and guidance, provide a co-ordinated, cross-Government approach to business and industrial needs? He straddles the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Education, so what is he doing to ensure that we have a co-ordinated approach to providing the skills that manufacturing needs?

It has been clear, in what has been an excellent debate, that manufacturing matters to this country as a means of improving our competitiveness and raising living standards. We all want manufacturing to succeed and a Government who support it, and I hope that the Minister can address the concerns raised.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

As everyone has said, this has been a stimulating debate, and I will take away from it several specific points. I will address the points as well as I can in the time available, but I start by saying that I do so in the context of someone who began their career in a small business, albeit a software business rather than a manufacturing one. I understand the difficulty of engaging with the Government—they are a large organisation—and the importance of putting in place an improved environment in which small businesses can succeed in a way that is appropriate to their size and to the amount of time that the people running them have. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) asked whether the return of growth would mean that the Government would stop pushing on measures for growth, and all I will say is that he certainly will not get that from me, or my Department.

The context for the debate is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) set out, the sharp decline over many years of manufacturing in the UK, from about 23% to barely more than 10% of the economy, but it is on the rise again. Having the debate this week is good timing because we have the welcome news that data show the sharpest rise in manufacturing orders since 1994.

The current level of manufacturing output is of course below the level it was at before what the Governor of the Bank of England has called the great recession, of 2008-09, and there is a huge amount to do to recover that ground and go forward, but I think we can all agree that there is a new spirit and vision for the growth of high-tech, high-end manufacturing. Other countries, not least the United States, where energy costs have fallen sharply, partly due to new sources of unconventional gas, are bringing manufacturing back onshore, especially at the high-value end. That is a positive context for the debate.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) talked about the i54 development and the Jaguar Land Rover project, which I happened to drive past last week—there is a massive amount of building and earthwork going on. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), met Jaguar Land Rover only yesterday to discuss ensuring that we can keep the project moving forward. The links between the different local authorities have been an impressive part of its development.

In the context of the new growth we are seeing in manufacturing, I would be delighted to visit Gloucester and proselytise about manufacturing. I very much look forward to my visit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), who has rightly been congratulated on securing the debate, talked about the definitions involved in the Government approach’s to small businesses. It is important to ensure that we have as simple as is reasonable an approach across Government, and that each intervention is targeted at the right size and sector of business. Broadly defined, SMEs can run from a single-person business up to one employing 250 people. Those are hugely different types of business and we need to ensure that we segment properly.

The links between central and local government are important. Local enterprise partnerships play an increasingly vital role in bringing together local businesses and local authorities and providing a link to central Government, and we should push that forward further.

I want broadly to set out how we view the Government’s role, and to respond to some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). It is true that Britain fell down the league of competitiveness, not least on infrastructure, but now, finally, we have a national infrastructure plan, on which we are beginning to deliver. The earthwork along the M54 is not alone; across the country there is infrastructure development, not least for Crossrail, which is the largest construction project in the whole of Europe. It is vital that we turn the situation around and that is what we are doing.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool also mentioned finance. It is true that the funding for lending scheme, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West said, has been helpful, and in April we announced that we were extending it to SME lending. I note that lending to small businesses rose by £262 million in July, which is positive news. On skills, the increase in engineering apprenticeships, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) mentioned, is vital and is something into which I personally have put huge effort. We have apprenticeship training agencies in the UK, but there is the potential for more because they can ensure that we draw together the needs of different companies to guarantee that training is co-ordinated and bureaucracy taken away from small businesses. We are also considering more radical changes to how we fund apprenticeships, to make them easier for small businesses to access, one option being to introduce funding through the tax system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) brought her own experience to the debate. The question of simplifying procurement bureaucracy is absolutely vital, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool made a point about procurement almost with the zeal of a convert. The target of awarding 25% of public contracts to SMEs is important and the fact that, according to his figures, only 10% of them go to SMEs at the moment just shows what work there is to do. I am glad that the Labour party is coming to the table on that.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister comment on the survey that I mentioned, which showed that, according to the perception of small businesses, things have got worse in the past three years rather than better?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is certainly taking time to turn the situation around, but there is no doubt that there is the enthusiasm to do so. Some Departments have already hit the 25% target, including the Ministry of Justice, so there is progress, and there appears to be cross-party support for it.

I will finish by saying that everyone who participated in the debate mentioned the scope and potential for the future of manufacturing in general and in small businesses, and we in the Government passionately support that. There is plenty more to do on tax and deregulation, the expansion of the R and D tax credit, the all-important funding and finance for growth and all the other issues we have talked about, but momentum is starting to build and we will not let up.

Young People (Employment and Training)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sheerman]

Thank you, Sir Roger. Some of us were told emphatically by a normally well informed source that there would be two votes, one after the other. We were obviously misinformed. I will get back to the question that I finished on, if I can catch my breath.

What choices does a 14-year-old have to make about their education, training and future plans? One piece of research, which I will come back to in a moment, suggests that the countries that do rather better than the United Kingdom are those with well formulated dual education systems. What does that mean? It is not rocket science; it means that there is not just one trajectory. In our country, it is far too often the belief that there is only one path that anyone cares about.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and it may give him a little time to catch his breath. I am very grateful to him for introducing this enormously important debate, especially with all the expertise that he brings to the subject. Does he agree that, especially with the increasingly free-for-all institutional arrangements that we have with our schools, whereas there is at least some common framework of expectation for academic achievement—five GCSEs at grades A to C and all the rest of it—there seems to be nothing equivalent on the vocational level? Does he further agree that that is particularly damaging for those youngsters whose self-esteem is perpetually knocked back by academic underachievement and that therefore urgent attention needs to be given to good vocational options?

[Mr Sheerman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was talking about that rather obscure way of describing it—a well formulated dual education system. It is right to say that, too often, our education system is predicated on the expectation that children will go to school, go through the primary and junior years, go into secondary education at 11, take their GCSEs at 16 and be successful, and go through to the sixth form and get the qualifications to go into higher education. That does not apply to the majority of young people in our country yet. The majority of our young people do not actually do that, yet if people listened to most of the chattering classes, they would expect that that was the case.

The rest of the young people in our country have a much less certain future, only because we—all parties and all Governments—have tinkered with and changed the alternative. We have not changed the route through to higher education that dramatically, although there has been some change in nuance and there are some changes going through now. However, the fact is that we have been frantically trying to find ways in which to engage young people in meaningful further education, whether that be in colleges, by which I mean FE colleges, or whether it be through young people going into apprenticeships, going directly into employment—employment with training or, sadly, without training—or, of course, going into the hands of private trainers. There has been a range of opportunities.

The private training sector is very underestimated. I know the private training world very well. Unlike most parts of the education system, there are brilliant private sector educators and trainers, and there are some average ones and some not quite so good, but the market in private training is such that if someone does not perform, they are more likely to go out of business or see their business shrink quite dramatically than if they are running a college. That is the truth of the matter.

There is a cold wind coming through the education system and particularly in relation to the area that we are talking about today—the employability of young people and their getting the right skills for employability. That suggests that increasingly we must have greater transparency in the outcomes of the alternatives and accountability for what is delivered, whether it is the private sector through the Work programme, Jobcentre Plus and anything that it contributes, or what colleges do.

We all have to be very conscious of the last annual report of the chief inspector of schools. I was surprised that there was such a critical evaluation of the quality of FE in our country, which I felt, as a former Chairman of the Select Committee, was a slumbering giant. I was recently on the Skills Commission, looking at specialism in further education. Where further education is good, it is really good. We need only look at Newham and Hackney. We need only look at the brilliant experience in Cornwall. A fantastic-quality education is being delivered off six sites. People there know absolutely what the labour market is like and are engaging absolutely with small and medium-sized enterprises, not just the easy big ones, and delivering relevant skills training.

Life-saving Skills in Schools

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and other hon. Members on bringing this issue before the House, and commend all the newspaper and petitioning activity that led to that. It is not every motion before the House of which we can say it will save thousands of lives and cost very little, but that is precisely what this motion will do if the Government follow through on it, as the hon. Lady has been advocating. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said about making it mandatory and with her demolition of all the arguments against it.

In the brief time allowed, I want to refer to a programme that originated 15 years ago at the John Radcliffe hospital in my constituency, which has been extended to nine other centres in the UK and emulated overseas in Hong Kong and Belarus. The injury minimisation programme for schools was, like most of the best ideas, very simple and obvious once someone was clever enough to think of it. The idea is that if we educate children in accident prevention and what to do when there is an accident, and at an age when they are old enough to understand and apply the lessons but before they become especially sensitive about their bodies, that will cut accidents and save lives. The programme works by combining work in the classroom with a visit to hospital to learn emergency life skills. Approximately 5,000 10 and 11-year-olds in Oxfordshire take part each year. Children enjoy it, teachers value it, and, most importantly, it works.

I congratulate all who work on the programme—its administrators and volunteers, as well as the medical staff and teachers. I have met children on the course, and it is uplifting to see their enthusiasm for the knowledge and practical skills that they have learned, and how proud they are to go home and tell their parents that they know how to save their life. I have one feedback message from a youngster who went on the programme:

“I have shown my mum how to do the recovery position! She was very impressed! I told her about CPR and I now know that if someone has collapsed then I could save their life. Hope you enjoy my feedback. Please carry on teaching children to save people’s lives.”

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the practice were adopted and made mandatory, it could improve social cohesion? Young people could have the skills to save the lives of people from the older generation, and that would change perceptions in society.

[Mr Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is vital to understand what children are capable of, and that we do not underestimate the live-saving skills they can learn. There is hard evidence for that. In a scientific abstract to the international conference on emergency medicine in June, the journal Academic Emergency Medicine reported on a study assessing whether children can defibrillate. The study was done properly and rigorously, with control groups and so on, and chi-squared analysis of the conclusion. In concluded:

“This study demonstrates that children aged 11-years-old can use a defibrillator effectively and safely, and retain this knowledge over several weeks”—

and that active training, unsurprisingly, is the most effective way of teaching it to them.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

There is perhaps even more important feedback in the case histories that the St John Ambulance has circulated to all hon. Members, where children of that age have been shown to save lives, either of their peers or of their parents in some circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Smith]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I have similar evidence from IMPS. What is more, and as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot argued, such initiatives are very cost-effective. The IMPS estimate is that it costs approximately £16 a head to enable children to take part. I would like to raise a couple of points about funding.

In Oxfordshire, 50% of the cost of IMPS has been met by the PCT, there has been some support from the county council, and the rest of the cost has been met by fundraising initiatives. Of course, classroom time and teacher involvement is met from the base education budget, which is right because there are wider commensurate educational benefits relating to the self-esteem of children who take part. Funding for some of the other centres is under acute pressure. Sadly, the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster IMPS closed because of shortage of funds—absolutely tragic when one thinks of the benefits.

There is also a general issue about future funding with the establishment of the NHS Commissioning Board. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether funding for this sort of initiative will be the responsibility of the Commissioning Board as the main successor to the PCT, whether it will fall to the county council with its public health responsibilities, or whether the responsibility will be shared. Whichever it is, it is essential that IMPS and similar initiatives are enabled to continue and thrive to form the basis of what we hope will be part of the mandatory curriculum provision for which we are arguing. At the end of the day, there can be nothing more important than helping children save lives, both their own and those of others.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have had an interesting debate, and I know that many people feel very strongly about the provision of emergency life-saving skills in schools. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and her colleagues, who have come together to put the subject on the agenda today. I have learned a great deal today about ELS, about staying alive and about the singing skills of some Members. The next time I tune in to “Saturday Night Fever”, I shall no doubt think about resuscitation.

We have heard some affecting stories about the impact of ELS and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation training on Members and their families. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to hear them, and to have the subject brought to life. I agree that the ability to save a life is one of the most important skills a young person can learn. I also recognise the excellent work being done by organisations such as the Red Cross, with its “Life. Live it” campaign and resources, and St John Ambulance with its classroom-focused “Teach the Difference” resources and schools first aid competition. In addition, the British Heart Foundation’s Heartstart campaign has already trained 2.6 million people, including many young people in our schools. I met representatives of that organisation earlier this week.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

While the Minister is talking about those initiatives, will she respond to the question I posed in my speech about whether the funding that currently comes from primary care trusts for initiatives such as the injury minimisation programme for schools—IMPS—in my constituency will in future be the responsibility of the commissioning groups or of the county council? If she does not know, will she undertake to write to me with the answer?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I was just about to mention the right hon. Gentleman and IMPS. I will certainly take up the matter with the Department of Health in order to understand that specific point.

Schools are free to take up all the programmes I have just mentioned and to make use of those reputable organisations in order to bring the subject to life and teach it in a high-quality way in schools. I am keen to see a higher take-up of the subject; I think it is a good thing. I want to see it done in such a way that quality will be on offer. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) asked how we could achieve what we want in Britain’s schools. Should it be done through compulsion or through winning hearts and minds? I favour the approach of winning hearts and minds and of improving practice in schools, rather than ordering something to be done compulsorily and not necessarily getting the quality we need.

When the national curriculum was first devised in the 1980s, it was seen as a slim guide to core knowledge, with schools having the freedom to teach in the way they saw fit. However, even its first draft was far larger than its originators intended. A lot of that came about through people wanting particular subjects to be included, often for laudable reasons. I am now working on the drafts for the new national curriculum at primary and secondary level, and it is our intention that it should be slimmed to reflect a framework for essential knowledge. It has been rather content-heavy in the past, which has restricted what schools teach and how they are able to teach it.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has given me many helpful suggestions over the past few weeks. Even though I have not been in the job long, I have had quite a few meetings with him at which he has suggested various topics that he considers to be part of that core knowledge, all of which we are considering. It is our aim, however, to reduce unnecessary prescription throughout the education system.

Higher and Further Education

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Willetts]

I did not recognise what the hon. Lady said about fees of £7,500. I have explained to the House many times the basis of the calculations. We introduced the policy to bring more diversity into the system. There are local further education colleges across the country that, for the first time, will be able to offer higher education, financed out of our core and margin policy, which is to be welcomed.

We have therefore increased choice and flexibility. We have also transformed the amount of information that is available for prospective students, which we believe will drive up standards in universities as prospective students think about what contact hours they will have, what the class sizes will be, how universities score on the national students survey and, crucially, how universities score on employment outcomes for graduates.

Indeed, this morning, I joined Which? at a London comprehensive for the launch of its excellent new website, which offers far more information to prospective students than ever before. It was a great moment. It was also a pleasure to be joined by the president of the National Union of Students. The NUS is working with Which? to provide better consumer information for prospective students.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

If the information that the Minister is giving out is so good, why are withdrawals from the application process up by 16%? Does that not show that the more information people get about the costs that the Government have imposed, the more they are put off?

[Mr Willetts]

No. I think that we have succeeded in getting across to prospective students the important message that they do not have to pay up front to go to university. I hope that all Members from all parts of the House, regardless of their views on the fees, will agree that we should all communicate the message that no student pays up front and that they pay back only as graduates. I pay tribute to the enormous efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clappison]

I will later, if I have time. I think I have used up my extra minutes already, although I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very interested in this subject.

Although I disagree with OFFA in principle, I pay tribute to its outgoing head, Sir Martin Harris, who is a man of great academic distinction. That brings me to the question of his successor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) touched on, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee expressed concerns that led it to withhold approval for his appointment. I share these concerns and, as a parliamentarian, take little pleasure in seeing a Select Committee’s view being completely ignored, but I wish Professor Ebdon well, will take a close interest in his work and will endeavour to help in any way I can. His recent interview with The Daily Telegraph, however, has attracted much comment. [Interruption.] I can see the Minister in a leaping position, as though he wants to leap into the debate. I will certainly give way, if he wishes intervene.

Financial Education

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that young people today grow up in an increasingly complex financial world requiring them to make difficult decisions for the future, often without the necessary level of financial literacy; believes that financial education will help address the national problem of irresponsible borrowing and personal insolvency and that teaching people about budgeting and personal finance will help equip the workforce with the necessary skills to succeed in business and drive forward economic growth; further believes that the country has a duty to equip its young people properly through education to make informed financial decisions; and calls on the Government to consider the provision of financial education as part of the current curriculum review.

First, I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this excellent opportunity to raise the profile of our ongoing campaign calling for greater provision of financial education and to make it compulsory in the national curriculum. I also extend my thanks to Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, whose e-petition secured the magic trigger of 100,000 signatories. It is only the fourth to have done so.

A number of people have asked me why this subject caught the public’s imagination. A couple of recent studies perhaps explain that. It was found that 94% of people agree that financial education is important; that 69% of parents feel that their children will get into debt; that fewer than a quarter of parents feel confident in educating their own children in money matters; and that 72% of parents do not believe that enough has been done to educate young children.

I am personally passionate about this subject because I believe society is changing. Here are some examples. This year was the first in which debit card usage exceeded cash usage. Only a few generations ago, people were paid weekly in cash. They often ran out of money, so were effectively forced to try to manage money in a controlled manner. Nowadays it is easy for the money to come in and flow out very quickly. We are seeing a greater prevalence of direct debits and standing orders, so if people get themselves into financial difficulty—the majority because of an unforeseen change of circumstances, such as the loss of a job, a bereavement or a family breakdown—they think that they will apply the financial brakes and not go out that weekend for a meal or to the cinema and that they will not spend any money, but the direct debits and standing orders are still flowing out of the account. People quickly become overwhelmed.

We are seeing ever more complicated marketing messages from different sectors, which are often misleading.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on tabling this motion, which I strongly support. Does he agree that one of the big problems is that a lot of people, faced with the marketing to which he refers, simply do not understand the rate of interest they are being charged? That underlines the importance of basic mathematics in the curriculum alongside the financial education that he is rightly advocating.