Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Cunningham

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

UK Chemical Industry: Regulatory Divergence

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Cunningham

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regulatory divergence in the UK chemical industry.

If we buy a car, house, cleaning products, food or clothes or visit the swimming pool or cinema, chemicals are involved in making the products we use. Chemicals are ubiquitous in our lives, and the chemical industry is a vital part of our national economic wellbeing. Chemicals are vital to the jobs of thousands of workers. Contract Chemicals is an SME in Knowsley that manufactures chemicals, and Blends is another that sells products made from chemicals. Both employ some of my constituents, whose livelihoods could be at risk if the Government do not get the chemical regulatory regime right. In the Liverpool city region, Jaguar Land Rover, Ford and Vauxhall employ thousands of workers in car production in which chemicals are vital components. Without a robust system of regulation, safety and quality will be compromised and our chemicals market will be open to the dumping of cheap chemicals from markets that do not have our high standards.

The consequences of poor regulation are spelled out in “Dark Waters”, which will be released on Friday in the UK. The film depicts what can happen to tens of thousands of people and to wildlife without adequate safeguards. In our addressing the climate crisis and moving to net zero, the chemical industry has a vital role to play in ending the use of fossil fuels, recycling plastics and finding sustainable alternatives, including for the types of forever chemicals depicted in the film.

The chemical industry employs 102,000 well-paid people in the UK, with 24,000 in the north-west alone. The industry is worth £31.4 billion in exports and £34.6 billion in imports, and its products feature in their thousands in the production of goods across the entire economy. Some 57% of those exports are into the EU. The importance of the industry around the country is also spelled out by the productivity of the sector compared with the rest of the economy. In the north-east, it is three times more productive; in the north-west, four and a half times more productive; and nationally, it is twice as productive. We cannot afford to undermine such a key part of our economy.

Chemicals are the subject of REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—the strict European-wide regulations that make sure the chemicals used here are the safest in the world and help to produce the highest quality products.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend rightly says that REACH regulations are central to chemical production not only in this country but across Europe. Does he share my concern, and that of companies in my constituency, that without the same REACH regulations in Britain as in Europe, the movement of chemicals between countries will be inhibited?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know he has a good relationship with the chemical industry in the north-east and has spoken many times on this subject and in support of people who work in the industry. I will come on to make the point that he touches on in more detail.

REACH regulations protect human health and the environment. In chemical regulation, the high standards for chemicals used in our manufacturing also sustain the reputation that encourages people around the world to buy British. Before the current Prime Minister took over, the Government indicated a willingness to negotiate associate membership of REACH, and that is still the preferred option for the industry. The system delivers assurance to the industry and its downstream operations, including our entire manufacturing sector, all of which uses chemicals at some stage of production.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been told that estimated costs of between £50,000 and £100,000 per chemical are likely if a UK REACH system is introduced in the way the Government appear to be proposing. I will cover that in more detail as well.

The Government have made clear their opposition to regulatory alignment in general, and given that UK REACH is the default option, they appear to not want to make an exception for the chemical industry. The British Coatings Federation speaks of the practical and real problems that businesses will face with such a system. For example, REACH will continue to apply in Northern Ireland at the end of the transition period, even if a separate UK-based regime applies in the rest of the UK. It is not yet clear how that would work in practice. There is obvious concern that EU and UK REACH will, in theory, apply at the same time in Northern Ireland and will contradict each other.

Let me quantify my hon. Friend’s point. BASF employs 5,000 people in the UK. It estimates that it will have to find up to £70 million to re-register all existing lines. Its alternative is not to offer many of its smaller volume products in the UK, but many are critical to manufacturing. In the car industry, an average of 1,300 different chemicals are used in the production of each vehicle. If many of those products are not available in the UK, car manufacturers will have to import them; it will fall to car companies to register the chemicals and to develop the skills and facilities for storage. This would apply to all chemicals where usage volume was more than 1 tonne per year. Registration costs of £50,000 to £100,000 per chemical are likely to apply, as the Government have confirmed. At that cost, chemical companies would find it uneconomic to continue the production or import of many chemicals. Meanwhile, car producers would find it much harder to compete with EU-located production facilities in the manufacture of vehicles destined for the EU market.

The chemical industry exports 57% of UK-manufactured chemicals to the EU27. A UK manufacturer will have to register its products to comply with UK REACH, as they are made here, and also EU REACH if they are exported into the EU. If our regulations diverge, as the Prime Minister appears to favour, and as may be required as the price of a trade deal with the United States, manufacturers would need not only to demonstrate compliance with both sets of regulations but have two production lines—one to comply with UK regulations, the other for the EU’s. The alternative is to move production to the EU for the EU-compliant product, meaning a loss of exports and jobs from the UK.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kate Green]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned the real concern about animal testing, which we can minimise currently because we are members of EU REACH, so testing does not need to be repeated in the UK. The industry has raised that as a real concern, which I will return to.

[Alex Cunningham]

Both my hon. Friends are right to raise the issue of cost. One company in my constituency is already up against it trying to making any profit at all because the regime is changing for carbon credits. The current proposals mean it will soon no longer receive the relief it currently does. That company is a supplier to other chemical companies within my constituency and elsewhere, so if it falls over and that product is no longer available, there will be a knock-on effect on many jobs across the area. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is another reason that we cannot have the divergence that the Prime Minister seems to favour?

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend has explained well that the problem goes across the economy because chemicals are crucial to every manufacturing process.

I was talking about the problem of having to comply with two different sets of regulations and the impact the industry predicts, including a loss of exports and jobs in the UK. Products cross borders multiple times during manufacturing. The integrated nature of supply chains in manufacturing is a big reason why it would be difficult to manufacture in the UK for the EU market in the event of different chemical regulations.

Despite the Government’s presumption in favour of regulatory divergence in general, the Minister may want to say that the Government do not intend to change the regulations that are introduced with a UK REACH. I am interested to hear her comments on that point. The suspicion that divergence is likely has been reinforced by part 8 of the Environment Bill, which gives the Secretary of State the powers to diverge. If the Government do not intend to change the regulations, why have that in the Bill? In his speech on Second Reading this afternoon, the Secretary of State did not mention the section of the Bill that deals with regulation of the chemical industry, which is disappointing because the industry is so vital to the wider economy. Likewise it is disappointing to the industry and those who rely on it that there is no news about a sector deal for the chemical industry.

[Alex Cunningham]

Perhaps that was not mentioned because the Government have seen sense and realised that they cannot have these tremendous changes. This is about not just day one—when we might say, “We will have the same regulations on day one”—but the future regulations, because every day something changes in the REACH regime, which means one part of a process may no longer be compliant in Europe and Britain at the same time. Therefore, we need to ensure we have common regulation across the piece.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend has explained well why the industry is worried about this: sooner or later divergence leads to the problems that he and I have outlined.

Some 54.8% of cars produced in the UK are exported to the EU, so preferential access to the European market and avoiding regulatory divergence on chemicals is therefore extremely important. The automotive industry uses 13,000 chemical substances, only 1,181 of which are exclusively registered by UK companies. Many of the remaining 98,000 chemicals registered by the European REACH system could need to be re-registered in the UK. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the cost to the automotive industry alone could be up to £1.3 billion. The Government have not denied those figures in their own analysis. The car industry is deeply concerned about the impact on its competitiveness and on the future of volume car manufacturing in the UK if we move away from a single European regulatory system.

UK REACH will either require access to the chemical testing data, as my hon. Friends mentioned, held by the European Chemicals Agency, or have to repeat and duplicate testing, hence the cost of registration for each substance, which I quoted earlier. Consortia of European companies own most of the data, and UK companies pay a fee for access to the data, which is held by the ECHA. Selling access to the data is a commercial decision not governed by EU data sharing rules.

The Health and Safety Executive, which is due to become the UK chemicals agency—perhaps the Minister can clarify when that will happen—will need to build its own database if it cannot access the ECHA database. According to the plans for UK REACH set out in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, basic data about the market and each substance will need to be submitted within 120 days of the end of transition, while full information appropriate to the registrant’s tonnage band will need to be submitted within two years. It took 10 years to build the ECHA database. How can that be replicated in two years, given that many companies will have to carry out testing from scratch and many importers are not specialists in the chemical industry?

Concerns have also been raised about the capacity of the HSE and the legal framework it will follow. It could either repeat the work of ECHA or rely on the work ECHA has carried out. The former would be hugely expensive, time consuming and dependent on a level of scientific expertise that may not be available. The latter could leave it open to challenge on the grounds that it should not be reliant on EU evidence and should have made its own assessment of risk. Either approach is potentially problematic.

An additional concern of the industry is that, as some registration of chemicals in REACH has relied on animal testing, a UK REACH would mean the introduction of animal testing—a point my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston made earlier. Steve Elliot, the chief executive of the Chemical Industries Association, said

“The EU remains our biggest customer and supplier, so securing a tariff-free, frictionless free trade agreement is essential. Most crucially creating a parallel UK regulatory regime for chemicals, whilst still needing to meet the legal requirements of our biggest market place under EU REACH will, in our view, bring no commercial or environmental benefit and could put businesses and jobs at risk right across the country, including seeing a whole new programme of animal testing, something that none of us wants to happen.”

In a written answer on 4 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), said that UK REACH will maintain the “aims and principles” of EU REACH. In the light of the industry’s importance, is that not an argument for staying part of the current system and avoiding the problems of implementing a separate version? In a recent British Coatings Federation members survey, 90% of members expressed their fear of having a duplicate set of chemical regulations through a UK REACH and all the extra bureaucracy and costs that would bring. The BCF said:

“We need government to understand the complexity of the integrated chemicals supply chain and come up with an appropriate free trade deal to prevent—or at least minimise—substantially added costs or disruption to our members.”

I place on record my thanks to the Chemical Industries Association, the British Coatings Federation, the Chemical Business Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the ADS group, the CHEM Trust, BASF and multiple trade unions, as well as the specialists of the House of Commons Library. They have all helped with this complex, technically demanding subject. They have all helped confirm just how serious the issue is for our economy and for safety, too. I hope the Minister and her colleagues are listening to their advice.

Steve Elliott of the CIA said:

“The isolationist approach doesn’t work for us. I can’t think of a member company who isn’t exporting at least 50/60 per cent of its production.”

We have to remember that most of that exporting is into the EU. ADS gave me the example of potassium dichromate, which is a crucial chemical coating that protects aircraft structures from corroding. The example makes Mr Elliott’s case: there is no viable alternative to the use of that chemical in aircraft structures. It is produced in the UK and marketed in the EU. It is registered with REACH, so if the UK is removed from REACH, the registration would become non-existent and it would not be possible to import or sell it in the EU, to manufacture the mixture or to apply it to aerospace components. That would cause huge commercial damage to the aerospace industry in the UK and in the EU.

That story is repeated many times for UK-manufactured chemicals, so what is the plan for products like potassium dichromate and for aircraft manufacturing? What is the plan for the regions that rely on the chemical industry for their productivity? What is the plan for all other industries that rely on chemicals in their processes? What is the plan for multiple cross-border manufacturing supply chains? What is the plan for exports and imports, for safety, for data analysis, for testing and scientific expertise, including animal testing, for the creation of an alternative database, or for access to the existing ECHA database? What is the plan for capacity and expertise in the HSE? What is the plan for a sector deal? Tell us, Minister, what is the plan?

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Cunningham

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Yesterday I listened intently to both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, hoping against hope that we would see a Budget for the poor as well as the rich—a Budget that would be not just for private businesses but for local services, and not just for London and the south-east but for the north-east of England.

First, I heard the Prime Minister boast about a very welcome drop in unemployment in the UK, but he did not have a word for the 3,000 more people out of work in the north-east of England than 12 months ago. The Chancellor, apart from mentioning his pet project to impose an extra tier of politicians on an unwilling electorate to deliver devolution of power without devolution of real resources, failed to announce anything that would provide the north-east with the investment in infrastructure—or anything else, for that matter—that would help to create the jobs we need to employ the people this Government have clearly forgotten.

Today’s theme is about education and equality. It is time the Chancellor recognised that there is tremendous inequality between the regions, and that it has been created as a direct result of his policies and those he shared with the Liberal Democrats. Others have already detailed the colossal failures of the Government in missing self-imposed targets, but still the Chancellor maintains that all will be well because he can always squeeze those who have been squeezed before. Sadly, this means that women and less well-off folk are again in his sights.

The Chancellor’s warm words about acting now to protect future generations, about shrinking inequalities and about us all being “in this together” were designed to create an image of fairness and social justice, but they do not paint an accurate picture. They do not, for instance, detail how 81% of the Chancellor’s cuts, totalling £82 billion in tax increases and cuts in social security, have fallen on women. Nor do they mention the fact that the Government’s policies are projected to be even more regressive than those of the coalition that went before, hitting women and lone parents disproportionately hard.

In fact, contrary to what the Chancellor would have us believe, women in Britain are now facing the greatest threat to their financial security and livelihoods for a generation. Never before has a Chancellor upset so many middle-aged women at a stroke of his red pen; the pensions issue for women born in the 1950s is just one area of their income he has attacked. An awful lot of people will remember this, should he ever realise his ambition to lead the Conservative party. He might do that, but his blindness to the anger and upset felt by women on all manner of issues will probably mean that he will not fulfil his second ambition: to win a general election.

I spoke last week to my constituent, Amey-Rose McGrogan, who manages a small but successful independent business in Stockton North. The business is about to celebrate its second birthday. As of this coming Monday, the non-domestic business rates for which the business is liable are set to rise from £157 a month to £581. The business is facing tremendous increases in costs all round. The measures announced yesterday will help a little, but they are perhaps going to be a bit late. As the North East Chamber of Commerce has highlighted, this is just another example of a Government paying lip service to stability and failing to provide businesses with sufficient detail to plan for the future.

The Chancellor is not really doing anything to help our overall economy. He is not using any of the money available to central Government to fund this planned benefit to small businesses. Instead, he is stealing it from the local authorities, which are planning their budgets based on his previous proposals for the localisation of business rates, only to find out that he has cut their income yet again. That simply places further constraints on their ability to deliver the vital services that local people need, and I have no doubt that that will create untold difficulties for local authorities as they strive to cope with cut after cut and change after change.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government are giving to small businesses with one hand and taking away from local government with the other. Does he agree that these measures will take money out of the local economy that those same small businesses were relying on for part of their success, and that the overall package is far less impressive and attractive than the Chancellor has made it out to be?

[Alex Cunningham]

Indeed; I certainly agree with that.

The Minister needs to tell us what assessment has been made of the impact on local economies and on local authority funding of this policy change. In my constituency, Stockton Borough Council has faced funding cuts of £52 million in the last six years, and that is set to continue with a further reduction of £21 million over the next four years. The concessions to businesses are great, but local authorities should not be suffering as a result. Instead of empowering local councils, the Chancellor is undermining their effectiveness. Authorities such as Stockton with low tax bases will lose out as the vast wealth realised by rich councils in the south will no longer be redistributed to provide vital services across the country.

Unemployment is another particularly pertinent issue. When the Chancellor spoke in the House yesterday, he chirped merrily about a labour market delivering the highest employment in our history and unemployment having fallen again. What he did not say, however, was that that is not the case across the whole country. In Stockton North, for example, unemployment has actually increased, adding to the pressures that have been created by a spate of business closures and by Government failures to do more to protect our vital steel industry and related supply chains. As recently as Friday, 40 highly skilled workers at a specialist steel foundry in Stillington in my constituency were told that their jobs would go in May. What did the Budget offer such firms? Simply nothing. This Government stood in the way of EU tariffs on steel produced in the far east and now prefers to use foreign-made steel, rather than home-produced materials, to build Navy ships.

Speaking of materials, despite the hint from the Business Secretary during departmental questions on Tuesday that we would soon hear whether the materials catapult proposed by the Materials Processing Institute would be created, we heard nothing. It is all very unfair. We need fairness for the north-east of England.

Youth Service Provision

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Cunningham

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is frightful, and as I develop my speech this afternoon, I will refer to some of the consequences of losing youth services altogether.

The Government have established a maze of inefficient and underperforming nationally controlled programmes that duplicate services locally. There are around 40 national schemes and services delivered by 10 different Departments and agencies, leaving councils little, if any, influence to co-ordinate, target and scrutinise the shifting market of publicly funded provision and hindering their ability to plan where best to invest their own support.

Over the summer, I visited one of the schemes, the National Citizen Service, and met some lovely young people. I was impressed by the efforts and intentions, but the fact remains that these schemes have failed to fill the gap that cuts to youth services have created. To make matters worse, the NCS costs £1,200 per head for a six-week volunteering programme, whereas a similar scheme in Germany is able to fund a whole year’s work-based volunteering for the same cost.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend, I have met the people running the NCS, and I think the work that they do is very good. However, would he agree that one of the big problems with the NCS is that it does not happen week in, week out, all year round? What we really need are youth service workers working with young people every day of the year, because that is where the real difference is and where the real impact is made.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is correct. I will not take anything away from the NCS; I think it is a tremendous and very effective programme. The young people whom I spoke to were really enjoying it and they told me that they were learning tremendous things, but as my hon. Friend said, it does not address year-round provision. It is six weeks, then there is a cliff edge and the provision ends.

The loss of specialist staff and locally tailored services should worry us all in that context. Young people want and need to be able to socialise in a safe and secure environment, but they also need specific professional support in many areas of their life, yet the Government measures forced on local authorities will leave many young people with nowhere to go but street corners. What my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned is probably an example of that. It does not just risk encouraging antisocial behaviour; more importantly, it will leave young people in very vulnerable situations and potentially victims of who knows what as they spend their time on the streets.

[Alex Cunningham]

Most certainly, because a lot of these programmes are aimed specifically at young people from deprived backgrounds who may not have access to the theme parks and holiday experiences that are enjoyed by other young people. It is all the more important that the service provision is there—and that they can eat there. When I went to the NCS in Stockton, they were doing some cooking. I did not care for the famous Parmo pork, with cheese spread over the top, and the pizzas that they made, but they were actually doing something. People said, “It is not very healthy food,” but at least they were eating, and we need to make sure that young people can eat along the way as well.

In many poorer communities, youth clubs and similar facilities are the only service available to young people and provide opportunities to learn new skills and channel their energies productively, but youth centres are so much more than simply a hangout place for young people. Yes, that is one element of the function they serve, and a very welcome one, but well-managed youth centres serve a dual purpose that will now be missed.

That open-access provision is a gateway to early intervention, reaching out to vulnerable youngsters who might otherwise be missed by other services or whose needs might escalate before they are picked up by targeted services. These open-access services are often more appropriate than targeted interventions when it comes to improving outcomes for young people. However, the large numbers of young people at risk of falling through the cracks in provision will not become evident for perhaps five or 10 years, by which time it will be too late.

Stockton-on-Tees borough council, which is responsible for youth services within my constituency, has seen the number of youth centres halved to just 12. That said, through much hard work, I understand that they have succeeded in attracting greater numbers of young people and on a more frequent basis. I take my hat off to them; that is very positive. However, in outlying areas, where provision for young people is generally poorest, the loss of somewhere to go that is close to home is a real problem for communities.

Across the country, the remaining youth provision is provided by youth workers who are thinly spread, overworked and, consequently, less able to fulfil their roles effectively. There is an obvious detriment to the services that they provide and to the young people with whom they work. Although local authorities are limiting the extent of cuts in youth service spending as best they can, that has largely been achieved by reducing the numbers of professional youth workers with the important JNC—Joint Negotiating Committee for Youth and Community Workers—qualification and the skills that come with that.

Again, the context is crucial. In the same two-year period that has seen the number of youth centres dwindle, 2,000 valuable skilled youth workers have been lost from the system. The Unison report highlighted the fact that, as a result, 41,000 youth service places for young people have disappeared, meaning that 35,000 hours of outreach have vanished from youth service provision. That loss is particularly concerning because by building relationships of trust and support with young people, specialist youth workers can actively engage with their communities and help young people to make their own informed decisions about their lives and develop confidence and resilience. In short, youth workers play a central role in supporting young people, yet their years of hard work are being dispensed with and the successes that they have worked hard to achieve are being jeopardised by scything Government cutbacks.

As if that was not bad enough, it has emerged that, as has often been the case under this Government, the impact of the cuts has been felt particularly hard in some of our most deprived communities. In such areas, youth services play an even more significant role: helping young people into work, avoiding and preventing substance abuse and tackling problems of antisocial behaviour and gang violence, as well as boosting community cohesion. However, the effects of austerity have been concentrated in those very communities. The education maintenance allowance has been removed, while support from the access to learning fund and the student opportunity fund has been cut. Housing benefit for the under-25s has been cut, tuition fees have trebled, making higher education more expensive than ever before, and careers services have been slashed. Those cuts are severely short-sighted and will add up to even greater problems as we move forward.

Let us take, for example, the careers service. At a sitting of the Select Committee on Education last week, Lorna Fitzjohn, Ofsted’s national director for further education and skills, reminded MPs that their assessment of the quality of careers advice in schools was that it was less than good in four out of five. It is no wonder: the Government dumped the careers service on schools—I acknowledge that they have the National Careers Service—but did not provide them with the funding that went with the responsibility. They were relying on the national service to offer additional guidance, but few young people have even heard of it.

There are some examples of very good practice, but in most cases, it is left to ill-equipped teachers to cobble something together and, if they have the right contacts, encourage a few employers to come in and chat to the young people. Association of Colleges research indicates that less than half of all colleges have reported that schools in their area are delivering the requirement to provide independent careers advice and guidance. Largely gone are the professional people who had the breadth of knowledge of different opportunities that provided the young with options best suited to their needs.

The Unison survey found that the majority of schools had reduced their careers advice and had no place for careers experts. Research by the university of Derby found that out of 144 local authorities, only 15 would maintain a substantial careers service. Ofsted’s promised review of careers guidance—that particular area of youth services—in 2015-16 cannot come soon enough.

In the current economic climate, which has seen unprecedented levels of youth unemployment and witnessed 1 million young people being out of work, education or training, there can be no doubt about the need for qualified youth workers, who are able to guide our young people into making the right choices for their lives and provide the support necessary for them to enter the work force. We cannot ignore the fact that young people are far more likely to be unemployed than those in older age groups, who are more likely to have experience on their side.

I am fortunate that Stockton borough council is very much a forward-thinking local authority. Its Youth Direction service is therefore geared to provide to young people across the borough a range of resources, including careers advice, business support and an array of targeted youth support projects, but it is the innovation that comes with that proactive provision that is particularly impressive. Working alongside the council’s antisocial behaviour team to carry out joint patrols in Billingham, the Youth Direction service is assisting with the targeting of identified hot spot areas and is actively contributing to reduced instances of antisocial behaviour according to police statistics.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend uses reducing antisocial behaviour as one of the very good examples of how youth work really does help as an intervention. Youth workers in my area—or former youth workers, to be more accurate, given that they are not employed any more—make the point to me that they are very often the one person in a young person’s life who is trusted and who gives them some kind of contact with authorities through which to address issues, whether it is antisocial behaviour, routes into employment or dealing with life in general. That one person makes all the difference to a young person’s life. They make a fantastic difference between success and failure later on as well.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sure that that is very much the case, but it is not just about being the one person who may be trusted. I understand that youth workers are trusted more than teachers. Many young people look to a teacher for that sort of daily support and that level of guidance. I also see youth workers as almost being between the young person and the establishment, because they can be a champion for the young person in their community and with the other agencies. The point my hon. Friend raises is very important.

In Stockton, we are also going to have a patrol co-ordinator. The post, which will be advertised on Friday, will build on the work already being undertaken in Stockton and Billingham and will be the first ever joint antisocial behaviour and youth worker post in the country, so at least we are recruiting some youth workers, albeit only the odd one here and there.

Although a report from the National Audit Office concluded that, overall, councils have managed reductions well, 50% are none the less now at financial risk, while cuts to local government funding and services are jeopardising the Government’s professed ambitions for young people. Such an outcome not only is objectionable, but threatens to run counter to the duty on local authorities to secure access to a local offer. Introduced by the last Labour Government, that duty required all local authorities

“so far as reasonably practicable”

to provide all qualifying young people with access to

“sufficient educational leisure-time activities which are for the improvement of their well-being”.

In March 2012, the coalition confirmed that it would retain the duty and published streamlined guidance to accompany it, but that new guidance does not make clear the Government’s expectations for what a “good” or “sufficient” offer should look like. Instead, the guidance notes that local authorities are responsible for securing, so far as reasonably practicable,

“equality of access for all young people to the positive, preventative and early help they need to improve their well-being.”

Local authorities, however, face an enormous challenge in providing youth services while adapting to the sizeable budget constraints applied from Westminster. The large reduction in overall grant from central Government to local authorities and the cuts to early intervention grants mean that the sector faces a number of challenges. Despite research prepared for the Cabinet Office indicating that cuts to youth services in London were a factor in the riots experienced in the capital and other large cities in August 2011, the Government have refused to protect youth service budgets. Indeed, that report clearly states:

“Where young people described their normal lives as boring and talked about ‘nothing happening around here’, the riots were seen as an exciting event, a day like no other.”

On top of that, numerous young people are quoted as identifying boredom as a key driver of their involvement. With the riots taking place during the school holidays and with many youngsters having literally nothing better to do by way of structured activities, many resorted to joining in. If that point needed driving home, the report also notes that being otherwise occupied, whether through education, work, an apprenticeship or some other activity, was identified as a significant “tug” factor against “nudges” such as boredom.

Despite that alarming connection, statistics from the Local Government Association show that at least eight out of 10 heads of young people’s services said that they had faced more budget cuts since 2012. At the same time, two thirds of voluntary and community organisations providing youth services reported that they, too, had seen their income reduced in the previous 12 months. Although Churches and other voluntary groups have attempted to step into the breach that has been left by Government cuts, many simply do not have the resources to do so sustainably. Perhaps we need to go back to the expression “so far as reasonably practicable”. At least local authorities would be able to say that it is not reasonably practicable to deliver those services because the resources to enable them to do so no longer exist.

Before I ask the Minister some questions, I want to return to my home area. The Stockton youth assembly, known locally as the SYA, has been established to ensure that young people are consulted and their voices heard, and to help the council to work directly with young people to shape local services. The assembly provides a voice for young people aged 11 to 19, or up to 25 if they have a learning difficulty or a disability, and is made up of representatives from a wide range of existing youth voice forums. It holds a formal meeting every other month with an action-packed agenda. In between the formal meetings, the group have opportunities to engage in team building, positive activities and development sessions, which are provided by Youth Direction’s targeted youth support.

I remember well, when I was the chair of the Stockton Children’s Trust board, those same young people putting politicians, council, health, police and other professionals through their paces. They asked difficult questions, tried to force us to justify some of the changes that we were making at the time and encouraged us to do different things. That is the best of practice by a council that has been nominated countless times for council of the year and has, of course, won that award as well. From what I hear from around the country, not every local authority has been able to adapt to that extent to serve their young people—the example from Trafford comes to mind—and it is young people who pay the price for that.

I ask the Minister to carry out his own assessment of the impact of his Government’s cuts to youth services, and to pledge to become a champion for our young people and fight the Treasury for the resources that are required to start healing our youth services. Will he work with the Local Government Association to understand better the pressures it faces in delivering, in many cases, the most basic services for our young people? Will he help to fulfil his role of champion—the one that I have just given him—by better understanding young people’s need for the right advice and services from professional people? Will he further fulfil that role by working across Government to influence, among others, the Education Secretary to sort out the careers service? Equally importantly, will he help to ensure that the whole of Government works for our young people?

This is a well-worn cliché, but I will use it anyway. The young people of today are our future. They are the taxpayers of tomorrow and the people who will look after us. We need to give them more, and we need to give them a better start to help them to prepare for that responsibility.

Teaching Assistants

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Cunningham

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing a debate that is of great importance to this country’s children.

Children benefit immensely from the hundreds of thousands of fantastic support staff in our schools, who do amazing work every single day of the academic year to support qualified teachers and the children in their care. We should value and support all public sector professionals, something which has been overlooked, particularly over the past four yours, because we have some superb teachers and teaching assistants. By any measure, we have the best generation of teachers that we have ever had, which the Government have admitted, and it is about time that the culture of criticism and attack on the professional work force in our schools and across the public sector came to an end. As MPs, who are responsible for public services in this country, it is about time that those who deliver public services, who are expected to deliver such services and to ensure that our children get the best possible education, get the support and encouragement that they deserve and need to do a good job.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am interested in my hon. Friend’s reference to the Government recognising that we probably have best generation of teachers, which is tremendous. Many of them trained over the past 10 to 15 years. Does he agree that Members of Parliament have a responsibility to lead our communities in appreciating the teachers’ expertise and valuing them highly? Communities do not necessarily value teachers in the way that we might expect and hope for.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is all about culture. If the people at the top show leadership by saying that teachers should be supported and encouraged, and by making it clear what we think of the people running our public services and those responsible for our children’s education, the rest of the country is likely to follow suit.

This debate, however, is about teaching assistants and the support that they provide to qualified teachers, whom I mention because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) stated, we now have a Government who say that teachers do not have to be qualified. It is worrying that that is now the situation in more than half of secondary schools. The role of teaching assistants is directly linked to that point and I will return to that later in my remarks.

The support that teaching assistants are able to offer, where we see good practice, provides support for teachers, whether helping in small groups or one-to-one situations, working with teachers to plan activities, or doing administrative tasks, or a combination of those, and many other activities.

School Sport

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Cunningham

Thursday 5th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. As with my earlier contribution on school governors, I hope to offer further insight into the Committee’s thoughts—this time on school sports in the post-2012 environment—while expressing some of my own thoughts along the way.

Nobody doubts the importance of physical activity, and of having opportunities to participate in sport from a young age. Nowhere is that more appropriate than in our schools, where children are a captive audience and can learn of the full range of benefits that involvement can bring. I do not need to go into detail, because every Member present knows that sport can nurture the very best personal attributes; develop strong skills that cut across social, educational and physical frontiers; and inspire advancement away from the sporting arena.

Needless to say, the Committee’s report rightly recognised the importance of school sport as a central piece in that bigger picture. We were in broad agreement that the correct target for future Government investment is primary school level, as funding would allow positive messages and benefits to reach children at an early age and to stimulate the formation of positive attitudes that will shape future behaviours and, hopefully, last a lifetime.

That builds on the need for the Government to develop a long-term strategy for school sport, matched by sufficient funding to promote that vision. The primary sport premium, which is doubtless a step in the right direction, is not sufficient in itself. Similarly, while the Committee welcomed the Government’s announcement that 120 primary school specialists are to be trained, I share the concern that such a programme will struggle to improve sport provision across the 17,000 primary schools in England. With each specialist responsible for an average of 142 schools, I have difficulty imagining that any tangible benefits will be felt from investment on such a small scale.

At the same time, I am concerned that the positive outcomes of sport in schools are being jeopardised by the focus poured on to competitive sport, which risks turning young people away from physical activity altogether and undermines the purpose of encouraging a programme of school sports. The Chairman outlined that in considerable detail.

Like many of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee, I do not think that competitive sport should be done away with in schools. People, and children in particular, are competitive by nature. However, there is certainly a time and a place for competition, and I feel strongly that competitive sport should not automatically be favoured over non-competitive activities, as seems to be the current default position.

Inclusion and participation must be paramount, and they can be achieved in the simplest ways. It was great to visit the schools in east London, and to see some of the things happening there, including the multiple games taking place in the playground. However, one thing really tickled me. We were standing by a door, when all of a sudden, 20 or 30 children ran out of it and ran all the way round the playing field and straight back into their classroom. The head teacher told us that the school was using that physical activity as a way of stimulating the children. They might have got past the stage where they were learning anything in the classroom, so they needed to use a bit of energy and to express themselves in a different way. The head teacher told us that that small amount of physical activity ensured that the children were ready to learn as soon as they were back at their desks, which was tremendous. If such small activities can have a major benefit, a proper school sports programme can, too.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am afraid that I could not resist the temptation to say that my hon. Friend raises that point only because he was jealous at not having the opportunity to join in. Is he aware of the scientific research—I do not think we considered it in our inquiry—that points to the link between physical activity, brain development and learning in the classroom? The head teacher was making the point, based on her experience, that physical activity clearly works, but the scientific evidence is there to back that up.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I do not know about the issue in as much detail as he does, but that is certainly a contributory factor. I assure him that I was not that jealous, because having played squash into my mid-40s, I now have a knee that says, “You shouldn’t run round the school playground.”

If the price of competition is inclusion, we should perhaps rethink whether a new balance is needed in the national curriculum between competitive sport and other activities, perhaps taking additional measures to encourage and promote more competitive sport as an extra-curricular option. With that idea in mind, I welcome the school games, not only as a legacy of the London 2012 games, but as an additional channel to enable young people to participate competitively, should they wish to. It is important, however, to ensure that funding is secured for long-term sustainability, and to allow participation to grow beyond the 60% of schools currently taking part.

Continuing the theme of participation and inclusion, the Committee’s report examines in detail school sport partnerships and the impact that cuts to funding have had on sport provision in schools. We heard from Linda Cairns, a school sport co-ordinator at George Abbot school in Guildford, that the funding cuts have resulted in the system tailing off, and that there are only a handful of school sport co-ordinators left. That was backed up by evidence from the NASUWT showing that 48% of local authorities recorded a decline in the number of partnerships, while a further 28% had no functioning partnership in their area. When I questioned her further, Linda said that the upshot was a hole in local sport provision, and that communities and local authorities lacked

“somebody who can link primaries to secondaries and all schools to clubs and community sport”.

Without those important ties, the glue that held together a highly successful and internationally recognised model for school sport has all but disappeared.

I am in no doubt that that is a tragedy for school sport and for the future well-being and development of young people. I know from personal experience in the borough of Stockton that the partnerships work. They encourage greater uptake and promote wider sporting opportunities, and such participation leads to positive outcomes. More than that, however, the partnerships created a true link between secondary and primary schools. I saw young people working with much younger children, which gave them someone to look up to and even admire. When we visited east London, we saw older students acting as mentors to the young. I was extremely encouraged to see their relationship. The younger ones hung on every word that the older pupils said. In another school, we saw the Football Association in action, and the young people were captivated by their tutors.

It does not matter where Select Committees go on their visits—it can be Holland, Denmark, Singapore or Timbuktu—but we are always taken to see the best. We get to see the things that work well, and the best practice. Of course, we know that that expertise or high quality is not to be found in most places. However, although we did not see some of the poorer provision in the country, we took evidence about the impact of the partnerships’ demise, and that may have redressed the balance to an extent. Many witnesses lamented the loss, because the partnerships were successful. Several witnesses strongly put forward a view that was supported by Ofsted, which reported that the impact of partnerships in maximising participation and increasing regular competition

“was clearly evident in the vast majority of schools visited”.

The evidence that stands out in my mind came from triple-jump gold medallist Jonathan Edwards, who told the Committee that dismantling partnerships

“wasn’t well thought through and left many people feeling incredulous”.

There was also universal agreement that SSPs were an efficient way to ensure that all young people had wider opportunities to take part in school sport, and to enable expertise to be developed in school. I acknowledge that school sport partnerships were expensive, but they worked and achieved tremendous success.

The Government claim to have removed the requirement on schools to belong to partnerships, but not their ability to do so. That is technically true, but in reality, without funding, partnerships cannot continue. I hope that the Government will remain true to their word, and that they will closely monitor their approach. Successive Governments have tinkered with school sport and have not got stuck in to create a long-term approach. I hope that after analysis and evaluation the present Government will recognise the sustainable and lasting benefits brought by partnerships, and will correct their mistake by reinstating the funding. School sport partnerships are a true investment in the future, in every sense. The long-term benefits far outweigh the short-term costs, and the need for funding cuts is not reason enough to forgo the positive outcomes of happy, healthier and engaged young people.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Cunningham

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is vital for our children and young people that the Bill delivers the change that they want and need, with the necessary resources, safeguards, directions and clear lines of accountability. Failure to deliver on those factors will mean that the Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on. Worse, it could lead to deterioration in service provision and huge variations in the quality of service offered to children and young people in different parts of the country.

I do not doubt that Ministers have every good intention with the Bill, but good intentions are not enough to satisfy the needs of our community. Government cuts have caused a lack of specialist services and professionals since 2010. It is for Ministers to explain how the reforms will work in that context. The Education Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill’s SEN provisions, but the sector still has concerns that funding cuts in different areas will undermine the positive impact that elements of the Bill could provide to those who need support.

The SEN clauses have created deep-seated cause for concern in the sector, possibly because of the lack of detail in the Bill. They include measures that will shift us from statements to health and social care plans. The key difference between the outgoing system and the new one is that the new plans will extend beyond the mandatory school age, which I welcome. However, the system of education health and care plans does not include a greater degree of legal entitlements than the system it replaces.

Parents with children who have SEN are rightly concerned that current problems will not be solved without a single point of accountability for parents seeking redress. That must be put right. For example, Ambitious about Autism proposes changing the Bill to include a duty that requires local authorities to conduct a review of support available to young people aged 19 to 25 when they fall out of education. That would give them the best possible chance of re-engaging in learning and accessing future employment.

I am pleased that the Government have responded to the Education Committee’s suggestion for an extension of such entitlements to apprentices and, in specific circumstances, to young people who are not in education, employment or training. However, the Government have not taken that promising first step to its logical and desirable conclusion. We should support each and every young person with an EHC plan up to the age of 25, including those in supported employment. Under the current provisions, young people at university will cease to be eligible for EHC plans as soon as they begin their courses. Surely the Government do not want to abandon such young people when they are facing the biggest change in their lives. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that. Is that a simple oversight that will be corrected? Campaign groups such as Every Disabled Child Matters and the Special Educational Consortium have observed that disabled children without learning difficulties will not have access to the new plan.

Scope says that the Bill represents an important opportunity to alleviate some of the strain on families with disabled children. I agree with Scope’s objective of amending the Bill to include a guarantee of better support for disabled children and their families in their local area. The Bill requires local authorities to publish information on the services they expect to be available in their areas to children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities—both with and without education, health and care plans. However, the Bill does not say what they must provide. Why are the Government reluctant to provide a national framework of minimum standards for local offers? A greater degree of guidance from the Government would improve accountability and set higher standards for local councils to fulfil their obligations under the new system.

We need assurances from the Government that the new SEN system does not evolve from an informal postcode lottery to a formal one. The National Union of Teachers has concerns that, although local authorities retain a welcome role in SEN provision, the gradual shift away from local oversight of schools will undermine the ability of local authorities to carry out their SEN functions. What is the role of academies in that context?

I am pleased that the Government—I seem to be very pleased with them tonight—accepted the Education Committee’s suggestion during pre-legislative scrutiny that the new code of practice should be laid before Parliament, but the Bill requires that it is laid under the negative resolution procedure. It is not clear why the code will not be subject to the positive resolution given the importance of its contents. I am also concerned that the Secretary of State will meddle with the service by changing regulations.

People in the sector have shared concerns about the scrapping of school action and school action plus— the current graduated response approach to meeting the educational needs of children at school. As other hon. Members have said, around 17% of school-age pupils are on one of those programmes, and concern remains on whether their replacement with a single SEN stage will deliver what young people need.

The Minister should consider the case for expanding the definition of “vulnerable children” to include children living in custody and separated children who are seeking asylum or who have been trafficked, as recommended by the Children’s Society. It is right that action is taken to find more and better adoptive homes for children, but I hope that speeding the process up can be done without compromising the quality of child placement. Speed should never come at the expense of getting that right. No hon. Member wants an increase in the number of failed adoptions. I would be interested to hear more on the safeguards, to which the Minister has referred, for ensuring that speed does not come at the expense of getting it right.

I do not agree with the Minister and the Government that the bedroom tax is not a problem in the context of the Bill. It most certainly is a problem, particularly for foster parents, who rely on having that room available. How many places will be lost for foster children if the bedroom tax is implemented?

[Bill Esterson]

I am glad my hon. Friend mentions the impact of the bedroom tax on foster carers. Has he considered the impact on prospective adopters? A prospective adoptive family must have bedrooms available for children moving in with them. Any prospective adoptive parent who lives in social housing will be in the same position as adoptive foster carers in social housing.

[Alex Cunningham]

My fellow member of the Education Committee makes a strong point. The Minister must address the impact on the rooms of potential adoptive and foster families.

The changes to how child care works are proposed against the backdrop of the rising cost of living, depleted public services such as Sure Start, and benefit changes that penalise hard-working families. The Government have announced grand plans, but Ministers must know that they cannot deliver with less money—although perhaps they will tell us that the Chancellor will reverse the cuts and invest to help rather than hinder our families.

The Bill is a mixed bag. Some measures are welcome, such as some of the changes on flexible leave and on the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Sadly, it does not live up to its initial promise to end the battle for support for children with special educational needs. I look forward to the Government working in Committee to fulfil that promise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Alex Cunningham

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

3. What plans he has for the Building Schools for the Future programme.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with local authorities on plans for the Building Schools for the Future programme.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

My Department is currently reviewing the Building Schools for the Future programme to ensure that we can build schools more effectively and more cost-efficiently in the future.