Daniel Pelka

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Let me say, Mr Speaker, how graced we are by your again being in the Chair for our debate.

This is a very important debate. I hope that one or two other Members who have an interest, apart from the Minister, to whom I spoke two weeks ago, will find it beneficial. I labelled it “The Lessons of Daniel Pelka in Coventry”, which happens to be my own constituency. It is a horrid shock to MPs who have never had anything like this happen in their constituency before but have to get to grips with it as part of the job. As so much is taking place at the moment around the discussion groups, this debate is a unique opportunity for us, as a small group in the House, to see what might be done and what might be improved. One thing is for sure: there has been report after report, study after study, and still we get these dreadful incidents from time to time, all too frequently.

Some people say to me, “It will always happen—don’t worry about it. It’s bound to happen and you can’t stop it.” I find that repugnant. I cannot believe that Daniel Pelka, whose home was visited 27 times following domestic violence incidents, who turned up at school getting thinner and thinner, who was showing bruises and was clearly being maltreated in every other respect, needed to die. I cannot accept it; it seems ludicrous to me. We have to find a much better way of dealing with the situation in an improved way, step by step; I am not saying that it can all be put right at once. I want to put forward four points for consideration, if not action.

I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who is a great expert in this area, and has done a tremendous amount and mounted campaign after campaign on it, for suggesting that my focus in terms of the Coventry report—she had read before I did, typically—should be on the fact that nobody spoke to the child. The poor child was going to school starving, being beaten up, and in the end clubbed and killed, and nobody tried to speak to him. One of the answers given is that he was Polish. Well, there are Polish-speaking people we could draw on, as we saw the other night in Wembley—although they are not exactly the experts that we would want for that.

The first thing we have to do is to make it very clear that in any one of these cases where there is a failure to speak to the child, consequences should follow. Nobody wants witch hunts or people being sacked, but they clearly cannot follow the basic instructions for getting into a dialogue with the child, who admittedly may be too young.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I am delighted to do so.

[Ann Coffey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. We all want to see life made better for some of our most abused children. A few weeks ago I visited an organisation called Triangle in Brighton, which is strongly committed to helping children who have been harmed and abused to communicate their experiences, and I saw the extraordinary work that it does using drawings. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that that kind of expertise is made available throughout the United Kingdom so that we can better help children to communicate their experiences and intervene in their lives before they are abused and killed?

[Mr Robinson]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it might have been plagiarism—I hope that is not an inappropriate word—but that was another idea I was going to take from her. We should have not one huge centre but various centres in which creative means of communicating with difficult children are imaginatively developed and explored. The day before Daniel Pelka died, a teacher was found in another school in Coventry—there are loads of them—to talk to him. She happened to be Polish and was able to speak the language, but that is not good enough. It is pathetic that things got to that stage.

I agree with my hon. Friend, so let us make that our No.1 point: children must be talked to and we should develop a whole area of useful specialisations, as opposed to a load of paper that gets churned out continually. Children could tell us what their parents look like by using diagrams. We might start to learn something and it could tell quite a story.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need to talk to the child. The situation was even worse in this case, because I gather that they relied on another child in the family to communicate with him, which obviously is not appropriate.

There is a big issue of social workers being fobbed off at the door. When social workers are dealing with communities that are not naturally fluent in English, we need to make sure that they have people alongside them who can communicate in the relevant language so that they are not fobbed off by communication difficulties, let alone by all the problems involved in crossing the threshold and finding out exactly what is going on. This is a real problem for some of the incoming communities, particularly those from eastern Europe.

[Mr Robinson]

Yes, that is a problem. Let us think creatively and commonsensically about how we can deal with it. It will not be enough to train a whole load of interpreters to become experts in Polish, arts and crafts and other languages and grammars. We need the same sort of practical thinking as inventive mothers who work part time and know how to do things with their kids.

I do not want to be unkind to the Minister, because he inherited the situation and was gracious and courteous enough to agree to meet me on the afternoon the case review was published, but at that meeting he said, “I think we’re going to make a big difference now,” and produced a 74-page document full of all sorts of jargon. The Minister should not worry, because I will say something else to qualify my comments in a moment. The document was statutory guidance, which is an oxymoron—it is either statutory or it is guidance; it cannot be both. The Minister said, “Well, Geoffrey, if you think that’s feeble, it was 700 pages when I got it.” Think of all the time, effort, pen-pushing and talking that is going on, and yet we cannot find a means of getting through to a young kid because he speaks a different language. It does not make any sense at all.

Secondly—I owe a good deal to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport for this point, too—the lines of responsibility have to be much clearer. Who is responsible? I thank the well meaning and extremely professional National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and half a dozen other agencies, as well as probably a dozen people from other constituencies who have been, or fear they will be, affected by this issue, for their response to tonight’s debate. The first recommendation in the NSPCC’s briefing paper is:

“Front-line agencies must see and listen to the child”.

That is sensible and we all agree with it, but it then states in a green box:

“All notifications of domestic abuse should be sent to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH)”.

What sort of line of communication is that? What it amounts to is a mishmash. We see that more and more.

It is not that the agencies are not talking to each other. They probably are not as good at communicating with each other as they should be and improvement is necessary, but the problem is that we do not know who is responsible. The NSPCC says that a lead is needed. It is not a lead that is needed, but somebody who is responsible for the case and who knows that he is responsible for it. I am sorry, I should have said “he or she”, because the only person who had the guts to put a foot in the door and leave it there was a female youth community officer, who did a fantastic job and found out that the abuse was going on.

MASH just about sums up what is wrong. What we need is clearer lines of communication.

[Tim Loughton]

I am loth to intervene again in case the hon. Gentleman does not get on to his other points, but I must say that the MASH is the way to go. It allows all the different agencies to communicate with each other better because they sit next to each other in the same room. In a relatively short period of time, all the relevant people can come together and swap information. Importantly, somebody then picks up the ball and acts on what has been said. That is the responsible person to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly refers. It is happening more effectively in MASHs than it has done before. That is why most London authorities and most other authorities in the country are going that way. It is the way to go.

[Mr Robinson]

I am delighted to hear that and I wish the hon. Gentleman well with it. I hope that it works. However, a MASH can work only if at the end of all the talking—I accept that that has to happen, because there is no other way of getting everybody to know what they need to know—there is a clear line of responsibility. Somebody has to write the minutes, somebody has to say what will be done and there must be a clearly identifiable responsible person or group of people who are charged with carrying it through. Otherwise, it will not happen.

The MASH is a committee and committees do not do anything. It serves the useful purpose of bringing people together so that they can talk and exchange the information that they need to know about. What is missing from the system is a clear way of saying at the end of the meeting what the conclusions and recommendations are. Those must be very short. A person or group of people—a lead, or whatever you want to call them—must then be responsible for carrying out those recommendations.

That was certainly what was missing in Coventry. There was meeting after meeting. Everybody was grouped together and the information was being exchanged. However, when the dreadful news broke, I asked who was actually responsible. The reply was that we were all responsible. If we are all responsible, no one is. We must not be afraid of allocating responsibilities and ensuring that they are carried out. If they are not, retraining is always a good option. People do not have to be sacked. We are not like that on this side of the House. However, people in the country cannot accept that the head of the department, Colin Green, resigned a few days or weeks before the report came out and was appointed to exactly the same position elsewhere. That was wrong. What sort of confidence does that provide?

That point reminds me of another Adjournment debate that I secured about a distinguished surgeon at Walsgrave who was almost sacked because he had reported somebody else. It turned out that the chief executive of the hospital was not up to the job—there were a whole series of these cases—and all six neighbouring MPs served by that hospital called for his resignation. He was sacked—well, that was what it was called, but within six months he was back in charge at Birmingham Heartlands hospital. It is unbelievable what such a network of controls can do.

My next point will, I am sure, again be contentious for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and others who are a bit on the side of the establishment, because it concerns the compositions of serious case reviews. Each area has its own chairman—that is all it has, actually—and lay members. When it comes to the inquiry, the chairman or chairwoman brings in a rapporteur, a writer of the report, and both she and he know each other—I am not suggesting that is wrong; it could sometimes be very helpful—and have written many of these reports in the past, either together or separately. Already in my book that does not seem quite right. It is not independent, and the essence of the serious case review is that it must be seen to be independent.

My last point—I have left plenty of time for the Minister—concerns Ann Lucas, whom I begged to carry out an independent report. “Why should I be the only one to put Coventry through that when nobody else has ever done it?”—she did not say that, but that was what I felt she felt. That would have meant a completely new board, fresh blood, with people who did not know the situation in Coventry or the chair of the Coventry group, and who had a completely dispassionate view.

I do not think anybody would agree any longer with the police investigating the police. Why should the civil servants who had administered the case in question be those who were the team supporting the independent chair—she was independent—and the so-called appointed independent rapporteur, or reporter? He wrote the report and one could see he is a professional. Every perfect piece of civil service-ese was in it; it could not be faulted. However, out of that comes nothing so far, and so Ann Lucas wrote to me and asked whether I would relay this message to the House tonight. She is an outstanding council leader who has been in the job about six months. She was distraught to find that she had inherited this case, and she went along with a traditional conventional review. She said that

“we need a national debate around safeguarding issues—

that is obvious—

“with the setting up of a Commons Select Committee to take evidence from all concerned. From politicians, from front-line workers, from all agencies, social workers, the police, health agencies—including GPs, hospitals, health visitors and schools. And very importantly, from experts working with Domestic Violence”,

in which she is an expert.

I do not know whether that is a runner, but I am clear that I do not see it ever working—I have not left the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham time to add his comprehensive view. We need a more forensic direct attack. For example, there were four or five points at which Daniel Pelka could have been saved. That is clear. We need a mechanism so that when such a point is reached—I guess the people doing it did not know—or anything like that, the man at the top should be informed. We need a mechanism to intervene and bring things to a head, and in a way it is about management. I hope those points will have helped the Minister in his reply.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on securing this important, timely and serious debate. The tragic case of Daniel Pelka is a stark reminder to us that we can and must do more to ensure the safety and well-being of our children. It was helpful to meet the hon. Gentleman recently to discuss the findings of the serious case review in Coventry and its implications. I welcome the opportunity to set out the steps that are being taken to ensure that we fully understand what went wrong and why, and ensure that any individual and collective failures are identified and addressed.

National accountability for child protection rests squarely with the Department for Education, working closely with other Departments. However, all of us have a part to play in keeping our children safe. In March 2013, we published revised statutory guidance—“Working Together to Safeguard Children”. I was pleased the hon. Gentleman mentioned the scything of the original document from 700 pages to just over 70, which was quite a feat in anybody’s language. The guidance clearly states that anyone concerned about a child’s welfare should bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities.

It is also clear that the focus of our attention must be on the needs of individual children rather than on the interests of adults. The serious case review by the Coventry safeguarding children board showed that, although many professionals were concerned about Daniel, they did not speak to him or focus efficiently on either his experiences or his needs. Our statutory guidance is clear that, if someone is concerned about the safety of a child, they should refer them to the local authority children’s social care and ensure that they take into account the wishes and feelings of the child. That is abundantly clear and should happen in every case but, too often, Daniel was not at the heart of the assessment process. His needs were completely overshadowed by the perceived needs of his mother and her welfare.

I was pleased that the SCR was published swiftly and without redaction—my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has argued for that practice for a long time. It is important that reports are published in full so that the lessons are transparent and can be learned. The report highlights a number of basic practice failures, across a range of agencies, to share information, keep accurate records, use those records appropriately, and carry out robust assessments of Daniel’s needs adequately. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there were numerous opportunities to intervene and examples of concerned professionals who wanted to do the right thing, but no decisive intervention was made.

The purpose of any serious case review is not only to provide a retrospective description of what happened in the case; nor is it simply to apportion blame to individuals. An SCR should provide a sound analysis of why the incident happened and identify the issues on which agencies need to act individually and collectively to improve services for children. The SCR in Daniel’s case begins that process, but I believe that Coventry needs to deepen the analysis to address why failings occurred.

[Mr Robinson]

I intervene on the Minister to pay him a compliment. There were five or six occasions when intervention should have happened, and he has asked in his letter why it did not. There is not a word on that in the SCR, so I hope he gets some satisfactory answers.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Without that type of analysis, we cannot be confident that the lessons have been learned. We need to be able to distinguish between errors of practice and errors of judgment, and identify where there are systemic weaknesses. That is why I have asked for that further work.

As he knows, on 16 September, I wrote to Amy Weir, the independent chair of the Coventry safeguarding children board—I should emphasise her independence and the fact that the writer of the serious case review is appointed independently from the local authority—to set out my concerns about the serious case review. I was clear that, unless we get to the bottom of why things happened, we will be unable to put the right solutions in place. I have asked her to provide a time scale for carrying out a deeper analysis of that appalling case; why basic information was not recorded properly both between and within agencies; why information needed to protect Daniel was not shared between the relevant agencies; why four separate assessments by children’s social care fail to identify the risk to Daniel; and what oversight there was of those decisions. I have also requested details of the actions that have already been taken to respond to the report’s findings, including the support and training put in place for professionals involved in the case and more widely

I met Ms Weir yesterday and she was able to provide me with an update on the work that is taking place in response to the report’s recommendations. I was very clear with her, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I will continue to pay close attention to the evidence emerging from Coventry. The lessons identified by the deeper analysis will be made publicly available, which should give to the people of Coventry the confidence that the right actions have been taken in response to Daniel’s death and ensure that everyone with a role in safeguarding children has the opportunity to reflect on their own practice.

We will also consider whether the lessons from the analysis have national implications, something touched on by the hon. Gentleman. The Government remain focused on driving through our programme of reform of the child protection system, building on recommendations from a wide range of reports and inquiries, including the Munro review, the Education Committee report and Lord Carlile’s report into the Edlington case. I remind the hon. Gentleman, in response to the point he made towards the end of his contribution, that there has been a recent inquiry by the Select Committee into child protection, which is being reopened to consider what progress has been made, and he might want to make his views known to it. The lessons from Daniel Pelka’s tragic death, and those of Keanu Williams and Hamzah Khan, will add to that body of evidence. The Government are requiring the publication of serious case reviews for the very reason that it enables national lessons to be learned. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is helping to collate the analysis at a single point, so that social workers and other front-line practitioners can understand how they can benefit from it.

We want a child protection system where all children at risk of abuse or neglect are identified early, have timely and proportionate assessments of their individual needs, and receive the right services at the right time. That is why we are fundamentally reforming the system to put the needs of individual children at its heart. We want a system that fits the needs of children and not the other way around. We have strengthened the framework underpinning child protection by publishing the revised “Working Together to Safeguard Children” statutory guidance. It is clear that the needs of individual children, whatever their age, are paramount. That puts the needs of children back at the heart of assessment processes by removing the requirement to have separate initial and core assessments.

Good practice is out there. We have had a discussion about the merits of multi-agency safeguarding hubs. I have had the opportunity to visit some myself, and they are doing fantastic work in their co-location with different agencies. They are sitting in the same room talking to each other, rather than communicating via computer or at a greater distance. That helps to bring about joint responsibility. It is not a panacea, but it is one way of working more closely together to provide a better service.

We want social workers who are able to confidently identify, assess, decide and act on individual cases where children are at risk of abuse or neglect. We want social workers who have a commitment to self-improvement and are not afraid to challenge one another. We want managers who provide appropriate and timely support and supervision to their staff. That is why we are seeking a step change in the quality of the contribution that those entering the profession can make. The Frontline programme is providing an innovative route into the profession for top graduates, and the Step Up to Social Work programme is doing the same thing for high-calibre career changers. We are introducing reforms to support better local and national leadership, which in turn should help to create a more confident profession. The newly appointed first ever chief social worker for children and families, Isabelle Trowler, will provide leadership for the profession and help to drive improvement in front-line practice.

We want to see stronger leadership, accountability and learning in the system, and less variability in local authority safeguarding performance. From next month, Ofsted will be using a reformed inspection framework that will bring child protection services for looked-after children and care leavers, and local authority fostering and adoption services, into a single inspection. We are setting up an innovative arrangement in Doncaster to run social care services independently from the council. It is this kind of innovative approach that is needed to bring about a fundamental shift in the quality of our child protection services.

I am enormously grateful for the support and concern that the hon. Gentleman has given to this issue today. He knows as well as I the challenge we still face to prevent such tragedies. I take the deaths of Daniel Pelka, Keanu Williams and Hamzah Khan as stark reminders of the work we still have to do. As I said at the time of the publication of the serious case review, this is as important as anything the Government do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is a good example of the way outstanding schools can use the freedoms of academy status to innovate and improve their standards further. Too many primary schools in the country are not reaching the level of good and outstanding—we heard from the chief inspector that 2 million children are still being educated in schools that are neither good nor outstanding. Academy status is a potential way to improve the leadership and governance of those schools.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that Coventry primary schools are rated lowest in the country in the latest Ofsted report, and there is widespread dismay in Coventry about that. Although no one is convinced that sponsored academies are the whole or a necessary part of the answer, at the request of the Coventry council member responsible for education, I have written to the Secretary of State suggesting that resources in the Department for Education might help to rectify the situation. I am looking forward to an early reply. When might I get it?

[Mr Laws]

The hon. Gentleman can expect a very early reply, and I am delighted that he and other hon. Members are taking seriously the conclusions of Sir Michael Wilshaw who has drawn attention to the massive disparity across the country in the proportion of schools that achieve good and outstanding status. There are boroughs in inner London, for example, where almost 100% of schools achieve good or outstanding status, right down to those local authorities where barely 40% of schools achieve that. Either I or one of my departmental colleagues would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue further.

Industrial Policy and Manufacturing

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and my parliamentary near neighbour the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on securing the debate. It was a good initiative of the all-party group on manufacturing to secure this debate about a year after we had the last one. This is a year in which we can see ever more clearly just how important manufacturing is to the country, but also how far we still have to go because of the relatively little progress we have made.

I do not want to interject any party political emphasis into anything I say. Indeed, I think that, on the whole, the debate has been remarkably clear of that. That shows one of the great advantages of having Backbench Business Committee debates. Although it is delightful to see the Minister and the shadow Minister in their places to respond to the debate—we can take advantage of that—I do not think it was ever intended that they would engage with each other in Dispatch Box altercations. On these occasions, Back Benchers can speak for their constituencies and for the whole country without the sort of pressures that inevitably arise on party political occasions.

Having said that, as far as the industrial strategy goes, I very much take to heart what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said in his brilliant tour d’horizon of post-war economic history, highlighting the great advantages that Germany has had. I do not think, however, that we should look wistfully or enviously at Germany’s position, as a period of prolonged devaluation or low-value exchange rate will not be available to us. Looking to the future, it might be less important to us than it was for Germany over long periods and still is within Europe. The one good thing is that we are outside the euro, but I do not think that long-term depreciation of sterling will ever be allowed, even with a floating exchange rate such as the one we have now.

From my experience both inside and outside the House, the basis for an industrial strategy comes back to the Government not only in respect of the provision of finance, but—and this is of equal importance—in respect of the intelligent and unobtrusive use of Government purchasing. Those two things go together. What the country desperately needs—this is agreed throughout the House—is a major infrastructure programme. However, it is proving extraordinarily difficult to get one under way. One of the two or three questions that I want to ask the Minister—I am sure that he will have time to deal with all of them—is this: what is the real stumbling block? Is it a lack of confidence outside, or is it a lack of Government confidence in the projects?

There is a lot of talk about a lack of confidence in the market at present—many Members have referred to it—and there is no doubt that it exists; but, as I have said many times, although the House is yet to be as seized of it as I am, the Government are showing a lack of confidence in British manufacturing, from the Treasury down through various other Departments. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), they are afraid to invest real money on a long-term basis. Unless we can get over this fear of failure, invest in the long term, and stick with projects despite the difficulties, we shall not succeed.

In that respect, the Government’s role is vital. An industrial strategy comes down to this. Government finance for infrastructure is desperately needed now, for economic and other reasons. What is holding it up? The process is stuck: the Minister knows that, and the Government know it. It would be helpful if the House could be told what we can do, or what anyone can do, to get these projects under way.

Some aspects of the second issue that I want to raise were dealt with by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who, as is recognised in the House and widely outside it, speaks with great authority about high-technology industries. Several sectors are involved, and I want to ask the Minister about one in particular. The Government took a bold initiative in becoming a partner and stakeholder in the joint strike fighter project. What I want to know is whether we are being given access to the software technology that is so vital to the process of landing on and taking off from British aircraft carriers.

I understand that the problem lies with Congress rather than with the President or the White House as such. I do not think that it is to do with the political side of things. However, I understand that there is still some reluctance in Congress. It seems that, having taken a risk and invested, I believe, $2 billion many years ago when that was real money, we are now being denied key access to points of software interface between landing and taking off involving aircraft carriers that are different from those that the Americans had. Can the Minister assure us categorically that the problems have now been solved and that we are being given access to what we vitally need?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Although the joint strike fighter aircraft was not part of my portfolio in the Ministry of Defence, I believe that Lockheed Martin’s argument was that it was still struggling with the technology itself. However, the hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It is imperative for the United Kingdom to be insistent in this regard. The United States is our closest ally. It has looked to us for political support, which we have given, and it needs to return that support.

[Mr Robinson]

I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. There are always problems with those crucial software interfaces, but this was not really that sort of problem. It was made clear by members of Congress, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, that they were unhappy about releasing the key elements that we needed, for various spurious, specious reasons. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the problem has been resolved.

As I said, public purchasing is vital, and I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on it. We are looking for a new approach from the Government. I hope that it will not amount to an overtly “Buy British” campaign; indeed, I cannot conceive of its doing so, because that is not in the nature of the civil service. It would be counter-productive, and in any case it would not be allowed. As I said earlier, we must be intelligent and unobtrusive, which implies that we must have confidence in British companies.

One Department to which that applies particularly is the Department for Transport. There seems to be a tremendous anti-British bias within that Department, which was especially noticeable in regard to the Bombardier project. The Department said that the decision must be based strictly on price, fundability and the strength of the company. However, there are other factors, to which the Government’s new public purchasing policy should refer and which are allowed under the treaty of Rome. May we please have some indication of when we will see the policy, and some assurance that it will allow us at least as wide a margin of appreciation in assessing such projects as is taken by the French and, for that matter, the Germans? The Germans have a simple policy—German is best. So they buy German and they do not have to do any more. The French pretty much have a policy that says, “Buy French”, but nobody ever says it. We cannot find examples of that being said, even in writing, but the policy does exist. Will the Minister let us know when we will see the new public purchasing policy and what we might expect to see in it?

On the banks, what are the Government really doing to provide finance for small companies, a matter to which several hon. Members have referred? We know that the money is there, but the cost involved is huge and no real solution has yet been found by government. Why do we not do something with the Royal Bank of Scotland? We could turn it into a bank for industry and give a long time for its sale and the repayment of the money. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions when he winds up.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Yes. Apprenticeships increasingly cover the service sector as well as the traditional manufacturing and construction sectors, and the digital sector is an important part of that. It depends on high technology and high skill levels, and as a result is absolutely crucial.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

May I put it to the Secretary of State—as I did on the last occasion when I questioned him on this issue—that while the overall numbers are very good, there are certain problems in individual sectors such as the construction industry? If we do not ensure that the number of apprenticeships in that important sector is much greater than it is now, we shall find when the national infrastructure plan takes off, as it must eventually—indeed, with the new team behind it, it will no doubt do so in the very near future—that we do not have the apprenticeships and the manpower skills in the industry that would enable us to benefit from it.

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The programme must be demand-led and business-led. When a sector is struggling, as the construction sector currently is, that affects the demand for training; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the sector is well organised, with a levy system and a skills training board. We certainly want to see a substantial number of additional trained specialists in the construction sector, so that we do not have to rely on people coming from overseas to do the work, as we often have in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

As the hon. Lady says, there is a very particular issue with communication problems and ensuring that we identify them early. That is part of the reason I am working closely with colleagues at the Department of Health to implement significant numbers of new health visitors and to ensure that we commission services better. The education health and care plan, which will integrate services, will, I hope, make a real difference to children in that position.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of my ongoing correspondence with him about Woodlands school in my constituency, which is held up not by pit props but by equally unsightly and unacceptable scaffolding. It seems that the school will be denied any access to the priority school building programme by an anomalous set of circumstances. It does not need extra places, yet the state of the buildings means that it obviously needs priority status and access to funds, but it has been denied that as more than 30% of the buildings are listed. What can the school do? We are due an answer. May we have it soon?

[Michael Gove]

When we had to close the Building Schools for the Future programme, it was inevitable that a significant number of schools in urgent need of repair would be just the wrong side of where the line was drawn. I know that in Coventry a number of schools are in desperate need of refurbishment. The priority school building programme is designed to ensure that as many schools as possible qualify and we will not be able to make an announcement until next month because we want to be absolutely sure that marginal cases such as this school, as it appears from the information the hon. Gentleman has shared with us, are fairly treated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Our estimate is that roughly a third of all regional growth fund money is going to SMEs, and there are several routes through which it goes. First, there are packets of SME loans, one of which was in Liverpool, while another is in Plymouth. Indeed, I saw that one a couple of weeks ago, and it is going extraordinarily well. There are specifically tailored schemes—for example, the RBS-HSBC scheme linked to asset finance—and programme bids, as in Manchester, all of which are targeted at SMEs.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that in the last round an SME in Coventry was turned down for a major investment from the regional growth fund. Despite the fact that the council and, more importantly, the local enterprise partnership were in full support, the company was turned down—I am not particularly grumbling about the decision, disappointed though we were, of course—on the grounds that the ownership was wrong. Will the Minister put in place better criteria for sifting schemes locally and regionally? The company wasted an awful lot of time and money in preparing its bid.

[Vince Cable]

I would certainly be happy to look into the background of that particular case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have an impartial process. Applications come to Ministers and then go through Sir Ian Wrigglesworth and Lord Heseltine, who sift and assess them properly. There is a new round for the regional growth fund, and if the project that the hon. Gentleman mentions can be reworked, we would certainly be very happy to look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

All I would say is this, “Come on in. The water’s lovely.” In Bedford and Bedfordshire, schools that have converted to academy status have already seen their standards increase, and their head teachers have been able to ensure that money is spent on the pupils’ priorities, not the bureaucracies’ priorities. I am looking forward to working with my hon. Friend and all Bedfordshire MPs to ensure that more schools convert to academy status and, in so doing, raise standards for all children.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

On academies and capital expenditure, the Secretary of State will recall that I was recently in touch with him, yet again, about Woodlands school in Coventry, which, having narrowly missed out on Building Schools for the Future, has turned into an academy in its desperation for some support from the Government and now finds that it is still not eligible for any further capital expenditure. Will he look at that and do something about it?

[Michael Gove]

The Priority School building programme exists specifically to help schools like Woodlands. At the moment, we are inviting bids from schools across the country and assessing those bids against each other. In due course, there will be an announcement about additional capital support for the schools in the worst condition.

Education Capital Programmes (Coventry)

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting it and the officers who preside here today. It is a timely debate for Coventry. It follows an earlier debate, in which we tried to explain the particular difficulties faced by Coventry. I am pleased to see the Minister here today; I know that he is well aware of the situation in Coventry. It was dreadfully compounded by the fact that, for whatever reason—it was not entirely the council’s fault, although it was partly responsible—the city failed to get a single school under Building Schools for the Future. BSF said that much needed to be done, even in the secondary sector. As a result, the overall programme, including that for primary schools, has to be increased if we are to overcome the terrible disadvantage that we incurred.

That was all the sadder because we were on the verge of signing those contracts. If they had been signed, we would be going ahead with three schools, two in my constituency and one in my hon. Friend’s constituency, behind which we could bring on the other schools. As it is, rebuilding in Coventry has come to a virtual halt, leaving schools such as Woodlands in my constituency suffering as a consequence. The central block of the school, which is rather inappropriately known as the Gibraltar block—it is anything but firm or solid—is propped up by scaffolding. Last week, we had to close the block because even the scaffolding had begun to collapse under the wear and tear of the past five years. That really is not good enough. That primary school has produced no fewer than three members of last two Lions rugby football teams. It has a great sporting tradition. That scaffolding around the main block is a great deterrent to a very fine school in a very good part of Coventry.

That problem may be resolved as the school has now chosen to become an academy, and I hope that that will loosen up funds and speed up the repair work. I recognise that that will take money from where it needed elsewhere in the city. It is a pre-emptive strike, but what was it supposed to do? On reflection, it is rather sad that the only way in which it can overcome the sudden chopping by this Government of a rebuilding programme and get something in advance of everyone else is to become an academy. That sole reason has been the driving force behind its decision to become an academy.

Ahead of or along with the James report, may we please have a clear programme for Coventry’s schools, especially its primary schools? That would be very welcome. At the moment, we are in no-man’s land; we cannot go forward and we cannot go back and the situation is deteriorating. I have mentioned two schools in the primary sector in this marvellous debate, but we could talk about all of the schools in the city. We do not have to be parochial about it.

Two schools need to be demolished. The estimated cost to rebuild them is £20 million, so we are looking at £10 million a school under the new regime. I am the first to admit that the old regime was too cumbersome and took too long. I fought with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), who was Secretary of State at the time, over the matter. I said to him, “Look, this is taking too long. We must get on with this.” None the less, I knew that the work would get done. I did not think that it would come to a grinding halt. It was just taking longer than it should. What the present Government have done is to bring the work to a grinding halt.

We also need two new primary schools. Fortunately, this is a happy period for us in that birth rates are up and migration is in favour of Coventry. Something in the region of 200 places will be needed by 2015. Again, where will we find that money? Time is also a factor. Even under the accelerated programme, of which I am all in favour, it takes engineers and architects three to four years to plan a project. If it is to be done to cost and on time, a good deal of planning is needed. When will we have the certainty that we can go ahead with such a project? When will we have adequate funds to meet the needs of the children who are coming into school? They do not want to go into over-crowded and unsatisfactory buildings.

As a minimum, we require £54 million for our building programme, which will take us through to 2015. Will the Minister tell us when we will be able to access such funds? I would also like the local council to be a lot more active. It has not been the most dynamic council in securing money for such purposes. Nevertheless, it is finding it extremely difficult to deal with the delays. I know that the present Secretary of State wanted to avoid them, but that is what we face.

Remarkably, Coventry council initially took the view that if it did not criticise the Government for cancelling BSF, and behaved responsibly and showed that it understood the difficulties of the Government, it would do better financially. Of course it has not; if anything it has done worse than expected. The leader of the council, John Mutton, now says:

“The antics of this government are appalling. Here we are in June and we still do not have a clue what we are going to have by way of a budget this year.”

Councillor Kelly, who is in charge of the education brief, makes similar remarks about the uncertainty over the Government’s intentions.

The position of Grange Farm school in Allesley is particularly concerning. It is in need of immediate improvement. Children can be scarred for life. Their impressions in primary school are vital. Will the Minister specifically respond to that concern?

In conclusion, the Coventry building programme has been cut to the bone and is full of uncertainty. The number of children is rising and we need new schools. Woodlands school in my constituency needs to be extensively refurbished. Perhaps funds could be released for it alone. It has had scaffolding around it for five years. One year into this present Government and little progress has been made in Coventry.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) on securing this debate. Like the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), he is no stranger to education provision in the Coventry area. He has assiduously raised the difficulties faced by schools in his area through questions and a number of debates in the House, and he and his colleagues met the Secretary of State last July.

I fully understand the difficulties in Coventry both in providing sufficient primary pupil places and in ensuring that repairs and desperately needed capital improvements are carried out in schools such as Richard Lee primary, which is again in the news because of maintenance problems. That school is in not the hon. Gentleman’s constituency but that of the right hon. Member for Coventry North East, who secured a debate on the subject on 15 March this year.

The Government are fully aware of the pressures that many local authorities face in the light of the very tight spending review capital settlement for the Department, but we must not forget why we find ourselves in this difficult position and why we have had to make difficult decisions. Because of the size of the budget deficit and the increasing caution of the capital markets to fund sovereign debt, our top priority in the medium term has to be to reduce the country’s budget deficit, which means that we need to prioritise a diminished level of capital funding for school projects, on the basis of need, primary places and deprivation.

In the context of what we are currently spending on debt interest payments alone, the action that we are taking is essential. Those interest payments could have been used to rebuild or refurbish 10 schools every single day of the year, but despite the difficulties we have been able to secure capital spending of £15.9 billion over the four years of the spending review period. We know only too well that there are schools in desperate need of refurbishment that have missed out on previous Governments’ capital programmes, and we fully appreciate that some people will feel that they have been treated unfairly, particularly if they fall just on the wrong side of the dividing line that had to be drawn. Despite the austerity of the capital programme, we will continue to spend significant capital on the school estate, at an average of almost £4 billion a year.

I know that schools and local authorities will experience difficulty in adjusting to these lower levels of funding. Nevertheless, they are historically high levels and, taking a wider perspective, they are still higher on average that those experienced in the 1997-98 and 2004-05 periods. Even when funding is tight, it is essential that buildings and equipment are properly maintained, to ensure that health and safety standards are met and to prevent an ever-increasing backlog of decaying buildings that will be difficult and more expensive to address in the long term.

By stopping the wasteful and bureaucratic Building Schools for the Future project, which the hon. Member for Coventry North West referred to as cumbersome and taking too long, we have been able to allocate £1.3 billion for capital maintenance for schools, with more than £1 billion being allocated to local authorities to prioritise their local maintenance needs. We have also been able to allocate £195 million directly to schools for their own capital repairs. It is clear that rising birth rates mean increased demand and pressure on primary places, with more parents unhappy with the lack of choice open to them. The education system has rationed places in good schools for too long, which is why our reforms are designed to allow more children to go to the best schools and to drive up standards in the weakest performers.

We are encouraging scores of new free schools to be set up, run by groups of teachers or educational charities, in places where parents want them, particularly in areas that have been failed educationally for generations.

[Mr Robinson]

I tried to intervene on the Minister when he mentioned BSF, but unfortunately I did not manage to catch his eye. I directly criticised BSF myself to the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood. One thing that happens whenever a big programme of that kind gets into the hands of civil servants and others who want to control it to the nth degree is criticism, which is fair enough. However, nobody recommended bringing BSF to a screeching halt, which has been to the great detriment of Coventry. We have two schools at the moment where there are problems. We have Woodlands school, where the scaffolding itself is falling down and there is a danger that it will bring the whole building down with it. We also have Richard Lee school. The Minister must have seen reports on that school. There are gaping holes in that school that people might fall through. These are urgent matters. What will he do about them?

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a good point, which I am about to come on to. We have allocated £800 million of basic need funding for 2011-12, which is actually twice the previous annual level of funding, to support the provision of increased places, particularly in primary schools, as a result of the increasing birth rate. In addition, we expect similar levels of funding to be allocated from 2012-13 until 2014-15, which will address some of the concerns that he has raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

We took a decision about how we allocate scarce resources to schools and local authorities. It was our judgment that, because of the cut in the capital budget, it is better to allocate the bulk of the capital to local authorities for them to decide where the greatest need exists in their area, rather than to allocate more of that money down to the school level, because there are many schools that do not have the same need as Richard Lee school. It is better to divert that money to the local authority, which can allocate it to those schools, such as Richard Lee school, that are in greatest need.

I will now turn directly to the difficulties encountered by the Richard Lee primary school.

[Mr Robinson]

This issue is not about the devolution of the budget, which is entirely up to the Government. The point is that £9,000 will not go anywhere, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East has said.

[Mr Gibb]

I understand that, but £13 million, which is the amount of capital allocated to Coventry, is a very significant sum. It is not as high as we would like it to be, or indeed as high as it has been in recent years, but it is high historically compared with spending in other Parliaments in recent times. We face a difficult budget deficit, and we want to ensure that any capital available is spent where the greatest need exists. That applies to schools such as Richard Lee primary school in Coventry. That case is a classic example of how we are trying to target the funding at the schools that need it most.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is right that there is a problem of discouraged demand. We have just launched a major survey to drill down a little further into the complex facts of bank lending and to find out how serious the problem of discouraged demand actually is. However, this is not just a question of monitoring the situation. A key element of the Merlin agreement is that senior executives in the banks will have their remuneration linked to their performance on small business lending. I am currently insisting that they provide more information about how those incentives work.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State must realise that the Merlin agreement is a busted flush and that no good is coming from it. The continuing failure of the banking sector to meet the minimum targets, meaning that there continues to be no new net lending, is really not acceptable. As the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) has just said, the terms and conditions for the loans that are being made are often very penal. Can the Secretary of State get into that? There is no point in monitoring it; we want him to examine what is going on and to come forward with concrete proposals to improve the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Robinson Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend presents a very passionate and well-informed case on behalf of his constituents on this occasion, as he does in every case. The truth is, sadly, that the situation we inherited meant that money did not go to the schools that were most dilapidated but to those schools that were favoured for political reasons by the last Government. For that reason, we shall ensure that any system of capital allocation in the future focuses explicitly on need.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will recall the correspondence and meetings that we have had about two schools in Coventry—President Kennedy and Woodlands—neither of which benefited politically in the way he suggests. Is there anything he can tell us today, or if not, could he write to me about those two well-deserving cases about which he and his Department are now so well briefed?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) for making the case for their schools. We know that there are schools in Coventry that are, frankly, in a terrible state and deserve support, and one reason I know that is that I have seen the evidence with my own eyes. What I do not have, I am afraid, is a detailed survey of the state of school buildings across the country, because such an exercise was abandoned by the last Government after 2005. For that reason, I am afraid, the Department for Education does not have adequate data about the state of our school estate. I am afraid it is the Ministers who were responsible for education under the last Government who are responsible for that terrible omission.