Trade Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Maria Caulfield

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend has always grounded his remarks in reality. Let us remember that Conservative Ministers and Members have always wanted to present trade negotiations as a Christmas sale, where one just turns up and gets a shedload of lovely bargains. They have not, as yet, been open and honest with the British people about the trade-offs that trade negotiations inevitably bring, on which—I suspect this afternoon—more anon.

I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that we are likely to hear the Minister, in his wind-up speech, chastising us again for our lack of belief in the calibre of the Secretary of State himself and the Department to complete these UK-specific trade agreements. If the Committee remembers when the last Trade Bill was discussed, so confident were the previous ministerial team that this power was actually not quite as necessary as first appeared, they agreed to reduce the sunset period from five years to three years. One can only assume that the Cabinet Secretary got back on the phone after the current Prime Minister was selected and said, “I’m really sorry to bring you bad news, but one of the chief acolytes of the little-lamented George Osborne is back in your Department—”

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. While this is very entertaining, I am quite conscious that we are still not even past considering clause 2. We must get through the whole of the rest of the Bill this afternoon—there are 12 more clauses. May I ask your advice, Mrs Cummins, on how we can get through that when speeches are not necessarily referring to the Bill itself?

[The Chair]

I hear that point of order, and I am sure that Mr Thomas also heard it. I encourage him to perhaps drift closer towards the subject of the amendment.

School Funding

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Maria Caulfield

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

Absolutely. Ministers are listening to this, and it is an ongoing debate and process. The figures published late last year are an indication of the progress that we are making. The facts have been checked by independent sources such as Full Fact, which has said that it is “correct” to say that school spending is at record levels. The shadow Secretary of State quoted the IFS. I will repeat what the IFS said, which is that the extra £1.3 billion for schools means that school spending will not fall but will stay the same per pupil. And that is the key point. There are not actually school cuts; there are pressures and costs, but the funding is increasing.

I have some questions for the Minister from primary schools in Lewes. First, will the Minister confirm that the pupil premium will be ongoing for the long term? Schools have found that extremely helpful. The second question is a request for a long-term funding settlement, not a year-on-year one, as it would make long-term planning easier for schools. Thirdly, schools would like us to use the census data starting from January, not October, because they are sometimes carrying pupils for the length of the school year, but are not actually being paid for them. Those are three requests from primary schools in Lewes, in a serious debate about school funding.

[Gareth Thomas]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Caulfield]

I will not for the moment.

How have the unions reacted to this debate? Do they welcome this school funding? Do they welcome the Government redressing the balance between urban and rural areas? No. The National Union of Teachers has been quite open about making this a political campaign. In fact, it spent £326,000 campaigning on this issue during the general election last year—more than the Green party and UKIP. The union uses this issue as a political football for election purposes. That is a shocking state of affairs.

The NUT sent letters to parents, frightening them about school funding cuts that were not actually coming, and put banners in schools telling parents how much their children would be losing, when that was not true at all. It spread lies and fear. It is under investigation by the Electoral Commission for submitting incomplete spending returns. Given the funding announcements after the election, hon. Members might think that there would be a consensus to support the Government and welcome the funding increase. But no—the joint general secretary urged members at a recent conference in Brighton to ramp up their efforts ahead of the local elections as school funding is a top concern for voters. This is the true reason that we are having this debate. The NUT said about the issue of school funding that

“if voters changed their mind because of that—then we are pleased…We make no apology. We will do it again.”

That is the whole purpose of today’s debate. It is about next Thursday; it is not about schools funding or the future of our children.

Just look at the example of Labour authorities up and down the country, including Brighton and Hove, right next door to me, where some of my constituents send their children to school. The council there has been having issues taking in more children. Brighton’s The Argus newspaper investigated this case in an exposé by their lead reporter, Joel Adams. The council told parents that it had no money and could not accommodate children, and that this was all down to Government cuts. The Argus found, however, that the Government had actually given Brighton and Hove City Council £15 million to deal with the problem and build new classrooms, and that the Labour council had refused to spend it. It preferred to send out letters scaremongering parents and to put up banners on railings than to spend the £15 million that it was given by this Conservative Government. That is the truth.

Some of the schools in my constituency that sent letters to parents have now had an 8% increase in funding. When I challenged them on this, they said that there is pressure from the unions to get the message out. It is absolutely disgraceful. Opposition Members should be ashamed of themselves for raising this fear and scaremongering. But the truth is out today, because we heard it from the shadow Secretary of State; we all know that this is about the elections next Thursday.

I will close my speech with another irony. The whole point of this debate was to challenge parties about what they put in their manifesto and how they will find the money. Well, what did the Labour party put in its manifesto? Abolishing tuition fees. But once the election was over, that was suddenly just an aspiration and the abacus was put into storage for the next general election.

Housing and Planning Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Gareth Thomas and Maria Caulfield

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Thomas]

Q 130 Specifically, would a section 106 requirement on big sites to offer apprenticeships be a helpful requirement for the SME sector? It clearly would not affect SMEs building on smaller sites, but they could benefit from construction apprentices coming through.

Brian Berry: The real solution is a cultural one, so that young people recognise that a career in construction is positive. We have to overcome some of the stereotype thinking. A survey by the Construction Industry Training Board revealed that 35% of careers advisers were advising young children not to go into construction because of the mud and boots image. If that continues, it will be no wonder that the best are not coming into the building industry. Our role is to change the image of the industry. The main challenge is to get more young people and more apprenticeships.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Q 131 To follow on from the unanimous verdict that permission in principle would really help to kick off house building, I know from talking to developers and builders in my area that planning is a real stumbling block. With the technical details consent, are you concerned that we are just pushing blockages and delay further down the pipeline? Are you worried that you will get permission in principle but that there will still be a blockage further down the line?

Andrew Whitaker: No, we do not see that as a problem at all. As I said in my earlier response, we see this as bringing valuable focus to local authorities, who may say, “Yes, there is nothing wrong with the principle of development. We have identified this site and always knew that it was going to come forward for development. Let’s bring it forward as quickly as we possibly can.” A lot of what the Bill is trying to do is exactly that. It is trying to draw local authorities’ attention to the fact that they can facilitate more sites coming through the planning system to facilitate greater delivery of housing to alleviate the housing crisis that we find ourselves in. If we are to deliver more houses, it is important that the Bill does that and that local authorities refocus what they are doing.

Brian Berry: I would echo what Mr Whitaker said.

Ian Fletcher: I would echo that, but I would just add that one of the remaining challenges when you get to the technical stages is resource at a local level, which is variable across local authorities in terms of support in the planning process.