Youth Service

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Julie Hilling]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, I absolutely agree. It is a bit of a fallacy to think that volunteering is not already taking place, as 500,000 people already volunteer to work with young people. They are effective in volunteering activities only if they are supported in their work financially and by professionally qualified and trained staff. Those staff can assist them in developing their work and can ensure that their work is of good educational value to young people.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I want to be clear about this. All of us accept that the debt situation is difficult at the moment. The hon. Lady referred to some 70% coming from local authorities to pay for such services. Is she saying that she would maintain the grants for this type of work on an ongoing basis?

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. Yes, absolutely. I am not simply saying that we should maintain the funding; I am saying that we should increase it. I will give some statistics at the end of my speech that will show how positive intervention and positive activities with young people saves the state a great deal of money. Such funding is an investment and, as I said, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will provide some statistics later to show how when a small amount of money—it is a small amount—is put into services for young people, it saves the state thousands of pounds on much deeper interventional work.

Funding and Schools Reform

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend has made a very important point. I have invited the Secretary of State to set out how he will ensure that no school sees a huge loss of funding to the pupil premium, with that then causing a problem in terms of service continuation.

As I said, I ask the Liberal Democrats to examine their consciences, and I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was thinking about it. If they do not, for goodness’ sake they should speak up and show that they have some influence in the Government. They should speak up for the kids in the school that I went to this morning. We need to hear their voice to ensure that the pupil premium is what we were told it would be. At the moment, it is nothing more than a con.

The real trouble is that we do not have a new and additional pupil premium at all. The danger for the Liberal Democrats is that this issue goes to the very heart of the politics of the coalition. In the post-election talks with Labour, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) told my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) that he had secured from the Conservatives a pupil premium additional to a schools budget protected in real terms. Let there be no debate about that—that was what the Liberal Democrats said they had secured.

The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent Central, told the House many times that that would indeed be delivered. Well after the coalition talks, on 7 June, she told us that it would involve

“substantial extra money from outside the education budget.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 15.]

That was meant to be the Liberal Democrats’ big win, and it was paraded as the consolation prize on the day of the tuition fees announcement. The painful truth for them is that they have failed to deliver it. They have been chewed up and spat out by the Tories. We are now looking at a pupil premium that will take money off her constituency in Brent, where more than 20% of kids are on free school meals, and give it to the Secretary of State’s constituency in Surrey, where less than 10% of children receive them. That Liberal Democrat fig leaf of credibility for staying in the coalition has been snatched away.

Because the education budget is not rising—it is falling in real terms—the pupil premium is simply a relabelling of existing funding. There will be more losers than winners. The IFS estimates that 60% of primary school children and 80% of secondary school children will be in schools whose real budgets are cut. On the day when the budgets for those schools land, the “Schools protected” spin will be wearing very thin indeed.

The problem with this ministerial team is that they simply have not got a grip on the detail. They simply do not know what the changes will mean for schools. However, the situation is still worse than that. They are also obsessed with costly, untested structural reform. That lethal combination of incompetence and ideology is toxic for our schools. The Government’s preoccupation with structures risks a loss of focus on standards. Under Labour, school standards rose year on year, with some of the highest ever results at every stage and the best ever results this year in GCSEs and A-levels. In 1997, half of all schools fell below the basic benchmark of 30% of students getting five good GCSEs graded A to C. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members speaking up, but those were our schools and our children in our constituencies that were being failed. Many children were leaving school without any hope of a better life—that was the reality.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Is it not accepted that in science, for instance, the UK has gone from fourth to 14th position? In literacy we have gone from seventh to 17th, and in mathematics from eighth to 24th. That has to mean we have less, not more.

[Andy Burnham]

I must say, the hon. Gentleman’s literacy was very impressive there when he read the Whips’ handout. He almost read it word for word, and he did not have any help.

The hon. Gentleman cannot deny the figures that I have just read out, which show a transformation in our secondary schools. Half of schools were not achieving the basic benchmark in 1997, but today it is fewer than one in 12. Just think how many thousands of kids have hope of a better life because of that transformation in our schools, particularly in our most deprived communities.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I will be brief as well. Many would have liked to speak in this debate, but time is short. I pay tribute to today’s maiden speeches, particularly that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Together, the two of us represent 2,500 square miles—it would cover several countries. He has walked across his, I have attempted to ride across mine, and I can assure hon. Members that I prefer my form of transport. Anyway, he is making great steps and it is great to have him as my neighbour. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), who is also my neighbour—we cover so much of the north! She and I have worked for many years in special educational needs, and she spoke eloquently and with great force about the issues.

I look at things from a different angle, having represented local authorities and individual applicants for some 15 to 20 years in special educational needs tribunals and SENDISTs—special educational needs and disability tribunals. I have seen all manner of proposals put forward. In particular, I have represented the Hillingdon association of secondary heads, which is known by the acronym HASH, which is appropriate for all the 1960s head teachers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat Glass]

No doubt the Minister will confirm this for me, but I understand that the YPLA is the rump of what was the Learning and Skills Council. If that is the case, does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns about that? I am not aware that the Learning and Skills Council has the level of SEN expertise needed to deliver on some of the things that we are discussing.

[Guy Opperman]

I hesitate to say that I agree absolutely, but I have great sympathy with the hon. Lady’s argument, because the local education authority will have all the educational psychologists and other areas of expertise that are required in these processes. I would question whether the alternative provision exists; indeed, I would go further than that. Everyone who has done a SENDIST case, running it through the myriad reports, will know the tremendous difficulty that exists in obtaining the right level of reports and presentation to push the thing forward. I would suggest that if people have to go to the Secretary of State, things will take much longer and be much more complicated. I return to the point that this is not me rebelling; I am just saying that the assertions of the founder of all these kinds of reforms—Lord Baker of Dorking—was clear at the outset of this process that we should keep it very simple and put the matter to the LEA, because it will be best capable of dealing with it.

I accept what the Minister said when clarifying the point approximately 15 minutes ago. He said that there is always a duty to ensure that the needs are met. That is entirely true, but anybody who does SENDIST work will know that there is a parallel duty to perform with the financial resources available. The complication is that there are genuine concerns that the financial resources will not necessarily be available in the processes that are being proposed. That particularly applies where there are special educational needs in more rural areas such as mine, where we have 1,200 square miles to cover, catchment areas the size of the M25 and an ability to provide for those needs, along with the necessary rural transport. However, I have not heard sufficient clarification that those rural transport needs will be accommodated as part of the Bill.

Briefly, let me finish by saying that I do not support the amendment, but I hope that we will receive a great deal of further explanation.

[Mr Hayes]

We have had a long and interesting debate on this subject, have we not, Mr Evans? It has been a good-natured debate too, with high-quality contributions by hon. Members from across the Committee, who have drawn on their extensive experience and expertise. I defer to those hon. Members who have that professional expertise—expertise that they have been able to articulate today in a way that has shown the House and this Committee at its best, as was made clear in his generous contribution by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who I can confirm is a stallion, by the way. [Hon. Members: “How do you know?”] Because I have known him for a very long time, and I know that his reputation precedes him.

On the subject of my friends on the Opposition Benches, I count the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) as a friend, and I have not yet had the chance to congratulate his daughter, Hattie, on her eighth birthday yesterday. I shall do so now, because I want to get it into Hansard. In addition, I want to mention that he has a number of other children and I hope that they enjoy “Toy Story 3” when they go to see it on Sunday. Moving on! Time is short.

The amendment would have the effect that, before making any payments under an academy agreement, the Secretary of State would have to assess the impact on local authority-funded SEN services of a new academy or an academy conversion before deciding funding levels for such academies. I had thought that I would have to speak for longer on this subject in order to cover it in considerable detail. I have before me the Balfour Act and the Education Act 1944, along with every other significant education Act at my disposal. It is a sad fact that I will not be able to draw on them, but in the few remarks that I will make, I shall try to answer the salient questions posed by hon. Members.

The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said that there was no definition of special educational needs. They are, however, defined in some detail in section 312 of the Education Act 1996. I will not go into those details now, but the Bill will not change them at all; that definition will remain in place and it is important.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) spoke about autism, and—I say this from the heart—gave a rather moving account of his experience of parents dealing with the challenges of special educational needs. Academies will be under the same obligations as other schools in respect of special educational needs. As I said to him earlier, academies are already providing evidence that they are looking at these matters with appropriate diligence. The Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham College academy has an autism unit, for example, of which other schools are taking advantage. However, I heard what the hon. Gentleman said today, and we will ensure in our study of special educational needs in the Green Paper that autism receives the particular attention it deserves. I have worked closely with the Lincolnshire Autistic Society, and I know of the good work done by that society and others. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House by raising that matter today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) asked two specific questions. Yes, although we intend to convert special schools into academies, we understand that that will need to be done on a considered and measured basis. We need to do work on the issue of funding in particular, and we will do so before the conversions take place. She also asked about the role of the health service in respect of children and young people with SEN. Primary care trusts contribute to the costs of individual placements as well as supporting pupils. Their responsibility is to the whole population, however, so that funding should be unaffected. The costs of non-maintained special schools remain with the local authority, and none of that budget will be transferred to the academies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, asked a number of questions. I have dealt with the question of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities. I can confirm that, as he suggested, the YPLA will be instrumental in ensuring that those responsibilities are carried out. A number of hon. Members asked how a parent could complain if an academy did not meet a child’s special educational needs. That was a theme that emerged implicitly throughout the debate.

Let me make it clear. An academy must have a clear complaints process, and a parent who wished to complain would have to be dealt with in line with that process. If that complaint were not satisfied, the YPLA would enforce the obligations in the funding agreement. If that does not prove satisfactory, a complaint about the YPLA can be directed to the Secretary of State, who will enforce those obligations in the courts if necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made a number of points about parents who, he said, would not have the wherewithal required. He said that these things were all very well in theory. I spoke earlier about redistributing advantage in society. I am very conscious of the need for us to get the statementing process right, given how often it disadvantages parents in that position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), the Minister of State, Department for Education—with whom I have worked hand in glove in the House for many years—will be looking closely at the whole issue of statementing. We understand some of the concern that has been expressed. It is crucial for parents of the kind described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham to be dealt with appropriately, fairly and reasonably, rather than being bemused and bewildered by a process that is bureaucratic and insensitive to their circumstances.

The amendment raises issues similar to those that were raised in another place. As Members have pointed out, the main issue is the fear that an increasing number of academy conversions will render local education authorities unable to maintain the level of centrally funded services that they currently offer. That fear is not without grounds, and I entirely agree that we must consider it. I am also convinced, however, that we will have time in which to do so. The number of schools that will convert in September will not be large enough to have a significant impact on local authority services.

I see the hon. Member for Gedling egging me on, stallion-like, but I have a number of other things to say which I hope will satisfy him.

Of course some local authorities already have a majority of secondary schools as academies. Those academies were approved by the last Government, who funded academies in the same way as the current Government intend to fund them. However, we also intend to review funding from 2011 onwards. We will be working closely with local authorities and other partners, and I can confirm that we will give specific consideration to the funding of SEN services. That consideration will be in addition to the Green Paper that I mentioned earlier. The work will take place over the autumn, and as my noble Friend Lord Hill, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, said yesterday, we have instructed officials to ensure that the Special Educational Consortium is involved in the work.

We are committed to ensuring that children with special needs in both the maintained and the academy sectors receive the services that they require and, indeed, deserve. My commitment to children with special educational needs stretches a long way back. As a member of the Government, I will do nothing that would act to their detriment, and we as a Government will do nothing in respect of the academies programme that would disadvantage them or the people who care for them in any way. I am pleased to be able to put that on the record.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Surely it is a matter for both natural justice and judicial review? I am sure that the Minister has taken very good advice, but if he does not open the process up and give people the opportunity to make representations on it, he will lay himself open to many more problems in the future.

[Mr Gibb]

I will ponder the points that both my hon. Friends have made and I will write to them shortly to set out our position with greater clarity.

In the letter to lead Members sent on 26 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government see strong local authorities as central to our plans to improve education. We want to see a smooth transition to the new school system and want a genuine dialogue with local government—and other partners—to that end. There are important questions about the role of local authorities in school improvement, how to ensure that local provision meets the needs of all children in an area, including the most vulnerable, and how we help schools to understand the opportunities, freedoms and responsibilities of the new system.

Over the next weeks and months, we want a further dialogue with local government on those and related matters, and we do not think it would be right to pre-empt those discussions by accepting the amendment, which would clearly place a bureaucratic burden on local authorities ahead of a wider discussion about their continuing role. As I have already explained, additional schools are required to consult locally on their proposals, and the Secretary of State has a duty to consider the wider impact of any school on its local area, so a requirement for him to take account of an annual report provided by the local authority would, in our view, be unnecessary.

On new clause 5, we share the commitment of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) to promoting fair and proper processes when establishing all new schools, including free schools, which is why we have put in place a rigorous approval process and are requiring that groups comply with every aspect of it before being allowed to open a new school. As part of the process to establish a free school, groups will have to demonstrate that there is genuine, robust demand for places at the school they are proposing, both at the proposal stage and in completing their business case and plan. To meet this requirement, we expect groups to provide evidence of this demand, perhaps through a petition or a declaration from interested parties, but in every case demonstrating clear evidence of unmet local need, not just expressions of support.

The new clause would prevent organisations or groups from offering financial inducements to parents and pupils to encourage them to attend or support new free schools. It is, of course, right that we would not wish to see any organisation trying to manipulate public opinion or to give financial incentives to any person to obtain their support. However, it shows a marked lack of trust in parents, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, to suggest that they would send their child to any school on the back of a financial incentive. They will obviously want to send their child to the best school possible.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

No, I want to continue with my point, and I have already given way to the hon. Lady.

Every strategy dictated to teachers what they should do. That took away decision making from the teaching profession and teachers’ ability to lead the class in the way they saw fit. The curriculum became increasingly prescriptive, with bodies such as the QCDA and Ofqual devising examinations that were more modulised and standardised. Instead of encouraging every child to learn and develop a love of a subject and educating each child’s mind, teachers were encouraged to teach to the test. Labour Members proclaim results as improvements, but much of that was to do with the fact that, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) said, teachers were rewarded on results.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Members have gone—[Hon. Members: “They’ve gone.”] Indeed, they have gone—there are but five left. Does my hon. Friend agree that they have gone from being anti-Tory in 1997 to a Blairite conversion, which they now disdain, to all talking Balls?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, the Opposition seem confused. One Labour Member has argued for more academic qualifications while others have said that the qualifications that the Labour Government introduced were fantastic. They cannot agree. They have not come up with a consistent approach to our proposed legislation. The principle of autonomy has been heavily road tested and proved successful in the small minority of schools in which it has been implemented. The previous Government should have set up more academies, but instead, they competed in all the centralising tendencies, on which the previous Education Secretary was particularly keen.

The teaching unions have also been involved in centralising the system. In 2003, there were agreements between the teaching unions and the Government about how teachers operate in the classroom, how their lessons are covered, and what preparation and assessment work they do. There are such practices in no other job. There has been a vast increase in teaching assistants and cover supervisors. That is not to say that I am against those people, but decisions should be up to head teachers and not governed by a weight of paperwork from Whitehall.

There was glimmer of light—several hon. Members on these Benches have referred to the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair—with the academies programme. Yet the academies were a trickle rather than a flood. We had only 200 schools out of a total of 3,000 that could have become academies. In 2007, when the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) took over as Secretary of State for Education, rather than openly oppose the academies programme, he made it increasingly difficult for schools to become academies and restricted the arrangements for, for example, the curriculum. Those arrangements were made much tighter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I have spent a large portion of my time as a special educational needs barrister representing local authorities throughout the country. I also represented, with great interest, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) in his previous incarnation as Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.

I want to speak on behalf of the people of Northumberland, which is one of the most rural parts of the country. It has the biggest catchment area in England—Haydon Bridge high school has a catchment area roughly the size of the area inside the M25. The school looks on the proposals with interest, but needs some reassurances that matters that affect rural schools, particularly transport, will be addressed.

Northumberland broadly welcomes the Bill. I met all four head teachers in the local area on Friday and discussed the proposals with them. They required assurances, some of which were tackled today. I am sure that more will be addressed later this evening and during the rest of the week. I also note that, in the debate in the House of Lords, which went on for seven days, considerable analysis and change took place as part of the Bill’s development. It has not been set in stone, without any change—it has developed.

The Bill follows on from Lord Baker’s work in the Education Reform Act 1988, through the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and the 2005 White Paper under the Labour Government. To address much of the problem with today’s debate, we must go back to Tony Blair’s words in 2005. I have sat here for some five hours, listening to the debate, which has been fascinating, and I remind hon. Members of Tony Blair’s comments:

“We need to make it easier for every school to acquire the drive and essential freedoms of Academies…We want every school to be able quickly and easily to become a self-governing independent state school… All schools”—

I emphasise “all”—

“will be able to have Academy style freedoms…No one will be able to veto parents starting new schools or new providers coming in, simply on the basis that there are local surplus places. The role of the LEA will change fundamentally.”

The position in 2005, subject to some slight delay in the past few years, has now moved on. In 2010, we are effectively taking forward the developments that started in the 1980s.

[Mr Buckland]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate and discussion in the other place yielded fruit in the form of important provisions for children with special educational needs, particularly the guarantee that the funding formula will be no different for children in maintained schools from that for children in academies?

[Guy Opperman]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point that the SEN argument developed as time moved on from the starkness of the conversation that took place in the House of Lords on 7 June, 23 June and 26 June. The development in the Bill’s special educational needs provisions will improve the situation in academies in respect of children’s individual capabilities.

Without question, the Bill takes things forward. There is great scope and need for this change, and I urge the House to consider it favourably.

Oral Answers to Questions

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

The current review of the foundation stage is independent, and we have asked Dame Clare Tickell—who I am sure would command respect right across the House—to conduct it.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

13. What recent representations he has received on funding for schools in Hexham constituency; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)]

We have received just one representation on the subject of school funding from a school in Hexham. We will bring forward our proposals for school funding in due course.

[Guy Opperman]

Schools in the Hexham constituency in rural Northumberland all complain of a funding shortfall that was dramatic under the previous Government. What assurances will the Minister give me and the teachers in that particular school that this imbalance will be changed?

[Tim Loughton]

I am only too well aware of many of the discrepancies in the system that prevailed for far too many years under the previous Government. I am aware that Hexham middle school in my hon. Friend’s constituency has raised concerns about problems in tackling rural deprivation and sparsity of population that have not been dealt with in the past. That is one area that we will be looking at, and the pupil premium will be a priority in ensuring that we recognise deprivation and have effective measures to deal with it.

Free Schools Policy

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely can. The legislation will be permissive, which is why it is so important that we rely on the enthusiasm and idealism of teachers to push it forward.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I used to be an education barrister, and my last case, in March 2010, was on behalf of the then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. It was probably his last ever success.

Does the Secretary of State see a place for rural schools in Northumberland receiving proper funding in future, as they have been underfunded for so very long?

[Michael Gove]

The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood was lucky to have had such an effective brief to act on his behalf.

I appreciate that in Northumberland, as my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) have pointed out, there are real problems with the state of the fabric of school buildings. One problem that we had with the Building Schools for the Future programme in the past was that far too often money did not reach the front line with sufficient speed. Local authorities had to spend an average of £7 million each before a single brick was laid or builder contracted. That degree of waste and bureaucracy was scandalous, and we will end it.

Industry (Government Support)

Guy Opperman Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on their excellent contributions, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today, particularly during the debate on industry.

I worked in a traditionally heavy industry—the coal industry—which, although it is now struggling for its very survival, is very strategic in terms of security of indigenous energy supplies for electricity generation in the UK. Coal still produces, on average, 33% of the electricity generated in the UK and at peak times it is not unusual for the coal that we burn to produce up to 50% of the nation’s electricity requirement. Sadly, as a nation we are now a net importer of energy, importing up to 40 million tonnes of coal and burning approximately 60 million tonnes per annum. Clean-coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage techniques, need to be implemented without further delay if we are serious about saving the planet from its own demise.

The Houses of Parliament have many traditional and historic protocols, one of which allows me to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Denis Murphy, who represented the people of Wansbeck for more than 13 years. He was a hard-working Member of the House, who at all times worked with passion, diligence and dedication for the constituents of Wansbeck. On behalf of those constituents, I should like to place on the record my heartfelt thanks to Denis and take the opportunity to wish him and his family the very best for the future. I am proud to follow in the footsteps of Denis Murphy, Jack Thompson and other Wansbeck MPs such as the much-revered Northumberland Miners Association leader Thomas Burt, who became the first ever coal mining MP in 1874. When he retired in 1918 he was the Father of the House, following a long and distinguished career that lasted for more than 44 years.

I have worked in the coal mining industry, having been a coalface worker from an early age before graduating to that fine old school of moderacy, the National Union of Mineworkers, of which I was the elected national president up until the general election in May. I can think of no finer people to represent than those in my constituency and the miners of the UK, and I can think of no finer privilege than representing them in this House—a challenge that I greatly relish.

Wansbeck has been heavily dependent on the coal mining industry, with more than 70,000 miners being employed at one time. It was once the epicentre of the great northern coalfield, which proudly contributed to the industrial revolution from the 18th century onwards. Many people paid the ultimate sacrifice as a result. Many women were widowed and too many children were orphaned. However, as safety and health regulation was strengthened, with the implementation of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, employee safety in the industry became the envy of the entire world.

At this juncture I must stress that if recent reports are correct and the Government are looking to repeal and dilute hard-fought-for workplace safety and health legislation, which will accurately be portrayed by the general public as an attack on hard-working, decent people, I and my colleagues will campaign vigorously and oppose any such draconian measures. My experience shows clearly that the weakening of any such legislation results in the amplification of the strength of the employer at the expense of protection for the employee, increasing the current imbalance in fairness at work that many people experience. Health and Safety Executive statistics do not lie. In 2008-09, 180 people were killed at work and 132,000 had injuries reported under RIDDOR––the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995—and there were a further 246,000 reportable injuries.

There are many challenges ahead for the people in my constituency. The heady days of the coal industry have passed, but the benefits and experience that shaped our area are still evident—the dignity, the honesty, the sincerity, the good grit and determination of both young and old shine through, even in what might be described as the dark and difficult times of the not-too-distant past.

We shall make the best of our opportunities. Like other areas, we demand high standards in public services. We want schools that we are proud of and hospitals that we can rely on. We want safe streets, free from crime, and employment for all ages, with acceptable wages, terms and conditions. Above all, we want a community built on a spirit of social justice that is both equitable and fair.

Only this week, a report published by the National Cancer Intelligence Network stated that lives could be saved if people from poorer backgrounds were as healthy as the rich. People in my area are not only more likely to suffer from late diagnosis of cancer but also from inequalities in the treatment offered. That is not acceptable. This is 2010, not the early 1800s. We will not tolerate such behaviour from those in power, and nor should we be expected to do so.

There are many wonderful areas in Wansbeck, ranging from Bedlington to Ashington, Cambois and Morpeth, but there are also many problems. Sadly, Morpeth and its residents were victims of horrendous flooding in September 2008, when there was a month’s rainfall in 12 hours and more than 1,000 properties were affected. I am working with the Environment Agency to ensure that the proposed flood alleviation scheme is delivered in full and at the earliest possible date.

There are many fine projects in Wansbeck. The centre of the constituency is Ashington, followed by Bedlington and Newbiggin. For our area to progress and to emerge successfully from the days of heavy dependence on the coal industry we must attract new business and maintain our existing major employers, such as Rio Tinto Alcan. Our area is also heavily dependent on public sector jobs, and the Government must recognise that any attack on the public sector will have a catastrophic affect on constituencies such as mine. Opportunities for young people in employment and education must remain a top priority, while we allay the fears of the elderly and infirm and reassure them that their future is to be cherished, free from fear.

Finally, I thank Members again for their forbearance over the last few minutes. I look forward to many lively but constructive debates in this historic Chamber and hope to emulate the many great speakers from both sides in the mother of all Parliaments.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) may have been here for 40 years, but he should surely not be in the Clerk’s chair, unless perhaps he is looking for another job.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm, but it is up to me to decide whether it is appropriate for a Member to sit next to the Clerk. I hope the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind for future reference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a delight to wind up this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we have already heard, your interest in manufacturing and in representing your constituents has been a feature of the House for many years.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to debate the importance of Government support for industry. Some of the least endearing aspects—among many—of the Tory-Lib Dem Government are their willingness to misrepresent the policies of the previous Government, to be less than candid about their own past policy positions, and to adopt language that threatens the developing partnership for growth in UK industry which was the legacy of the Labour Government.

First, I pay tribute to the quality of the debate today and, in particular, the maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) gave us a very good joke about “Earnest”. It is always good to have a doctor in the House—we had Dr Howard Stoate until the election—and we know where to come if there are any difficulties in the Tea Room. The north-east had a very loud voice in the Chamber today, in maiden speeches and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) told us about his constituency and of the excellent Newbiggin by the sea, with which I am very familiar. From my home county, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) told us about the beauty of her constituency, which is unparalleled in Britain and should be visited by all hon. Members.

We heard also from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who appears to be a natural in the House. With the Grimethorpe colliery band in his constituency, he is well qualified to be the chair of the all-party brass band group, and he can put me down as a member. I welcome him to the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) spoke movingly about his predecessor, Ashok Kumar, whom we all miss. He was valued not only in the House, but—as I know from ministerial visits to the north-east—was greatly valued by the community there. He will be sadly missed. I am sure that his successor will establish himself quickly in the House and make many contributions.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who let us know that the Reebok stadium is in her constituency. Bolton Wanderers are in the premiership, and that is where my hon. Friend will be with her contributions in the future.

For the past two years, the UK has faced, first, a world banking crisis and, second, a world economic crisis. As anyone willing to approach matters with an open mind must see, this crisis has affected all the world’s major economies, including the United States, Germany, France and Japan, as well as developing economies such as China and India. Against this backcloth, the previous UK Government had a choice either to pursue deflationary policies espoused by the Conservative party or to pursue policies designed to maintain employment and protect growth espoused by every other major economy.

For those of us who witnessed first hand the consequences of Tory Government policy in the 1980s and 1990s, when UK unemployment reached 3.5 million on two separate occasions, the choice was clear, and I am proud that the Labour Government acted to maintain employment and protect the fundamentals of our productive economy. That is why Opposition Members speak so passionately about the involvement of, for example, regional development agencies, and about their communities, which were devastated by the consequences of laissez-faire Tory economic policy in the 1980s and 1990s.

One of the features of this debate, which the Minister for Universities and Science did not attend, was the fact that Conservative Members are out of the Thatcherite school. That was clear when they spoke. What we did not hear, however, were Liberal Democrat voices—the only Liberal Democrat to make a substantial contribution in the debate was the Secretary of State. He does not have any support from his Back Benches; no speeches were made by the Liberal Democrats. Were I he and looking for their support, I would look well behind me.

As Gregg and Wadsworth have pointed out in the National Institute Economic Review, as a result of Labour action and intervention in the economy in the world recession, employment rates did not shrink at the same rate as in previous recessions, despite the reduction in productive capacity. This was due to the Government pursuing a Keynesian reflationary policy and the contribution of employers and trade unions, working together to agree reduced wages and hours. As a result, more people stayed in work and their homes, and Britain moved out of recession.

The Labour Government played a key role by creating the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which I note has been retained in the same form by the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government, and which acted to support manufacturing. Its new industry, new jobs strategy—an active industrial strategy—set the framework for its developing relationship with industry. I, for one, will always be grateful to those senior representatives of companies and trade unions who worked with me and gave their time freely in bodies such as the manufacturing advisory group, and I would like to use this opportunity to thank them for their commitment. If there is one piece of advice I would give to my successor—I am delighted he has finally been able to join us—it would be not to jettison this well of good advice, and I would welcome his assurance that he will continue to work with that group.

Partly as a result of the Labour Government’s close contacts with industry and trade unions, we introduced a car scrappage scheme. It is striking that we are hearing a different argument from the Conservative party. In 2008 and 2009, the then Opposition were saying that the Labour Government were spending too little, too slowly on supporting the economy—for example, I received criticism from the BIS Committee that the automotive assistance programme was not paying out fast enough—but today we are hearing from Conservative Members that the programme was a flagrant waste of money.

Building on the relationship that we established in our work on the car scrappage scheme, the Labour Government established the UK Automotive Council, which I am happy to see has been retained by the Tory-Liberal Dem Government, to build on past inward investment into UK industry and to make the UK a centre for low-carbon manufacturing. As a consequence, and working with Government, investors such as General Motors, Toyota, Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan all made commitments to the UK that would secure jobs in manufacturing. Very important work is being done by the UK Automotive Council relating to the development of the UK manufacturing supply chain, and it is important that continues.

The UK’s aerospace industry is the second largest manufacturer in the world, with companies such as Airbus, AgustaWestland and GKN looking to work with the Government by establishing a national composites centre in Bristol. There is a complete failure among Conservative Members to understand the importance and strength of the UK manufacturing industry.

We have a great deal to be proud of in this country, and it is quite disgraceful that the Government parties seem to talk down UK manufacturing so much. I invite them to go up to the Tyne—we have heard a lot from the north-east this afternoon—and see the Clipper site on the north bank, which is manufacturing a new generation of wind turbines, showing the Labour Government’s commitment to a low-carbon future.

If the Tory-Lib Dem Government’s rhetoric about a low-carbon economy is to mean anything, the Secretary of State must act to end the marginalisation of his Department in the Government, stop the Treasury running the show and fight for UK industry. One of the white flags of surrender that he put up today was the fact that he is going to scrap the RDAs—I think that that is where we ended up, after his tortuous exposition of coalition policy. The RDAs are extremely important. The north-east of England has a great champion in One NorthEast, which has brought investment from companies such as Nissan to the UK, when it could have gone elsewhere in Europe. Portugal fought hard for that money; One NorthEast and the Labour Government achieved it.

We must retain the competitive advantage that was built on Labour’s huge investment in science and our universities, but that cannot be done if the Government will not support UK industry, because there are European competitor countries that will support theirs, as I always witnessed at European Council meetings. Any reduction in the UK’s budget deficit must be built on three pillars: reductions in spending, tax changes and, equally importantly, economic growth. The Work Foundation’s recent paper makes some important points, not least that

“any successful deficit reduction strategy must include a strategy for encouraging growth and jobs”.

To date, the Secretary of State appears to have no understanding of that central truth, which was pointed out again by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor over the weekend.

To hear the Prime Minister and the Chancellor trashing inward investment by major globalised manufacturers is quite astonishing. Do the Tory-Lib Dem Government not want Airbus, General Motors, Ford and Clipper to invest in the UK? The idea, peddled by the parties on the Government Benches, that detailed agreements with inward investors, which were worked out over many months, were not a good deal for Britain is simply not true. That accusation should be withdrawn immediately. Will the parties on the Government Benches tell us which of those partnership agreements was not good value? We are still waiting to hear that—I am prepared to wait longer, if they would like to intervene and tell us. If they cannot do that, they should stop demoralising British manufacturers and British industry.

[Guy Opperman]

I come from a family of manufacturers. I also come from the north-east, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that tens of thousands of jobs in the north-east were lost under the previous Government. Does he actually believe that the increase in national insurance—a tax on employers—was a good thing, or was it a bad thing? Would it make us more competitive?

[Ian Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman should not lecture me about manufacturing in the north-east. My father worked for 40 years in manufacturing in the north-east, and I witnessed what the hon. Gentleman’s party did to those industries in the north-east in the 1980s and ’90s. That is why my hon. Friends are so passionate about protecting UK manufacturing and why the Conservatives will never understand why they are viewed with such distaste by the north-east of England, by manufacturing industries and by the people in manufacturing areas across the UK.

I am sad indeed that BIS has been marginalised within Government, moving from its pivotal role under my noble friend Lord Mandelson to the margins under the new Secretary of State. That must be draining for those who committed so much time to putting UK manufacturing at the heart of the UK’s recovery this year—the trade unionists, the industrialists and the small businesses, all anxious to build demand and jobs in UK manufacturing. Perhaps that is not surprising, when the Tory-Lib Dem coalition agreement said so little about manufacturing.

The reduction of £800 million in the Department’s budget is a threat to the lessening of the budget deficit, for it threatens to reduce the building of the economic infrastructure that is so necessary to sustain manufacturing. What the Department must do is fight its corner for British industry and British jobs. An active industrial strategy is an essential part of the way forward to reduce the budget deficit as the UK moves out of recession. If the Department allows itself to be neutered by the Treasury, the progress in building a manufacturing base will be lost. The cost will be high-quality jobs, innovation and a viable industrial base. That cost will be too high, and that must not be allowed to happen.