Family Visas: Income Requirement

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I agree, and I will say a bit more about that later.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. Does she agree that the right to family life, which is rightly enshrined in article 8 of the European convention on human rights, is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals are afforded? Central to this debate is systemic inequality, such as the fact that women are still paid less than men due to entrenched structural pay disparities, and that young people who are in the early stages of their careers often earn less as they build their futures.

Systemic inequality also affects those from lower-income regions such as West Yorkshire and Bradford, which I represent. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Centre for Cities released a report this morning saying that those who live in places such as West Yorkshire, including my constituency, earn £20,000 less. Does she agree that the current system being considered by the Migration Advisory Committee should be scrapped, and that a fair requirement would be one in line with the national living wage?

[Irene Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; much of what he has raised is in my opening speech.

Since the petition was launched, and following the general election last summer, the Government announced that the threshold would be held at £29,000 until the Migration Advisory Committee completes a new review, which is expected to be in June 2025. However, when an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures, it gets a Government response, as this one did in January 2024. The then Government outlined their arguments as to why the minimum income requirement should be increased to £38,700, stating that the policy was part of a larger package intended to curb immigration and net migration. They added that the minimum income requirement was set with the intention that family migrants

“could be supported at a reasonable level…and to help ensure they can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.”

However, in early 2023, the House of Lords published a report called “All families matter: An inquiry into family migration”. It stated that

“applicants and sponsors can feel like second-class citizens and are reluctant or unable to take full part in British society before reaching settlement.”

It summarised:

“Current migration policies are at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life.”

It further stated that the family migration rules are “complex and inconsistent”, they fail “both families and society”, and they “should be simplified”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Irene Campbell]

I am trying to interpret the question. I am not sure whether I agree—I would need to fully consider it—so I will carry on.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Lady continues to make an excellent case and she is right to focus on the extortionate fees. She mentioned the current figure of over £10,000, which ordinary working families struggle to pay or simply cannot pay. She also referred to Reunite Families UK, which does excellent work and has said that 23% of families have to wait longer than seven years to be reunited. Does she agree that that continuing injustice needs to be addressed? Those are not just stats, but real people.

[Irene Campbell]

I agree, and this debate is an excellent opportunity for that.

It is also important to highlight that, while applications under the work routes can be processed in just 15 working days, family visas can take anywhere from eight weeks to 12 months. Often, families report requiring specialist legal advice to navigate the system successfully and to try to avoid those long waiting periods, which obviously has a financial impact as well, although I do not have any costs for that. Delaying arrival does not decrease net migration, but it does increase the personal and financial strain on families. It could be construed that the policy effectively views a relationship ending and a family splitting up as a positive outcome, because then at least net migration figures do not rise.

A Reunite Families UK survey also found that the rules have a profound effect on children, with 92% of respondents saying that their child’s mental health had been affected. The separation that many families are forced into exacerbates such problems, putting even more pressure on the single parent. Parents report that younger children often cannot understand why the family have been separated, while older children who do understand the system become anxious for their missing parent. It could be said that those children are growing up in a society that implicitly tells them that their family are not welcome here.

Compared with those of other countries, this family visa policy appears to be unusually strict. The Migrant Integration Policy Index, which measures immigration policies in 52 countries, including all EU member states and OECD countries, ranks the UK second to bottom for family reunification policies. Many countries with strong immigration policies do not have such a high minimum income requirement for family visas. For example, Australia has no earnings threshold for family visas, and Spain and the Netherlands require yearly income to equal annual social security payments. That highlights that our current system is not the only option.

In overall numbers, the percentage of family visas in proportion to other entry visas has remained low and stable at around 5%, as the Migration Observatory’s research found last year. Additionally, the Home Office’s December 2023 policy paper, “Legal migration statement: estimated immigration impacts”, was unable to predict the exact percentage of family visas that would be affected by the change, stating only that it

“may have an impact on the number of family migrants deterred in the low tens of thousands.”

The Government have stated that there will be no further changes until the new Migration Advisory Committee review is complete, which is expected to be in June. I hope that I have outlined the complexities in this area and highlighted that other options could be considered for the family visa that would allow the Government to control net migration while still allowing the average British citizen to marry and live with the person they love. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members and the Government response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her excellent speech. She, along with other Members present, has raised many important points. I also thank Reunite Families UK and the families we have with us today. This issue is of great importance to my constituents, and I previously worked in this area when I was a lawyer.

I will start by asking: why the £29,000 figure? That question has come up many times from my constituents. The previous Government suggested that the new threshold would prevent families from becoming a burden to the taxpayer. They did not define what a burden was, although presumably it has something to do with access to public funds. However, those who come to the UK on a spouse visa do not have access to public funds and must pay the immigration health surcharge, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned. Assuming the previous Government were referring to recourse to public funds, a couple with no children with an income of around £22,000 and eligible for £500 of housing costs would not be entitled to universal credit, so why the £29,000 figure?

In response to a petition, the previous Home Secretary made it clear that their intention was to bring the minimum income requirement in line with the minimum salary threshold for a skilled worker, with no reason or rationale for why that threshold was chosen. Leaving aside the fact that the UK financial requirement is among the highest in the world, as Members have said, 50% of UK employees earn less than that threshold. Most jobs at entry level in many industries start at the minimum wage. The minimum wage at 35 hours a week is roughly £20,000 a year, and that should be the benchmark for the minimum income requirement. It is not clear why low-income workers are being denied family reunification. As colleagues have said, are they not allowed to fall in love? Is that purely for higher earners and the wealthy? The fact that half of UK employees would be excluded by the rules demonstrates that the policy is discriminatory and disregards the fundamental human right to family reunification.

I have been given consent to share a story, but the name of the individual has been changed to give her anonymity. Sarah worked full time in the hospitality sector, and had done so for the last eight years. She raised her children, aged nine and 11, as a single mother, and she relied on her mother to help with pick-up and drop off at school. Sarah’s salary was £21,000. She went on holiday with her children and fell in love with a man while she was there. She could not uproot her children from school, and it was not viable to leave all of her family in the UK. While her income was already above minimum wage, it was not enough, so she considered different options. She did not have enough savings— she would have required £33,000—so she needed to get another part-time job, which would mean an extra 13 hours a week at minimum wage.

Sarah started to look for evening and weekend work, with the agreement that her mother would look after her children. She needed the two jobs, and she was happy to sacrifice her time with her children to ensure that she met the requirements. She got the job, but sadly her mother passed away, so she was left stranded with no childcare and no means of earning the extra income.

Let us be clear that the real reason for introducing the minimum income requirement for spouse visas was the hostile environment policy. Over the past few years, successive representatives from the Tory Government have engaged in rhetoric and developed policies laced with xenophobic, populist appeal. Phrases such as “taking back control” and “hostile environment” have created an atmosphere of resentment towards migrants. Those phrases have been used to scapegoat migrants, painting them as a threat to national identity and economic stability.

There is also an intersectional element, as the policy discriminates in terms of wealth, location, age, gender and ethnicity. It affects women more than men, and it definitely affects younger people more. In 2017, the Supreme Court recognised that sponsors who were female or from certain ethnic minority groups are disproportionately affected by the minimum income requirement.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, we are only talking about 5% of the migration figures, but I want to stress how important it is that we get this right, as it affects people’s lives. People cannot and do not control who they fall in love with, and our policies must reflect that. Our policies should be fair, non-discriminatory and based on a proper rationale.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Lady is an expert and she makes a powerful case. A point that has not been raised is about the further complications caused by delays and bureaucracy at the Home Office. In an example from the hundreds of cases I deal with, somebody provided his wage slips, but there was a discrepancy of pennies between the money that went into his bank account and his wage slip, so the case was refused. I know that the Minister is rightly interested in this area, and I hope that she will be able to address that point. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) agree that we need to address the bureaucracy, delay and complications at the Home Office?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I agree with the hon. Member that many cases have been delayed as a result of incompetence and staff not being trained properly. The constant churn in the Home Office has meant that people are just treated as numbers and not as real human beings who have families who need to be reunited.

People cannot control who they do or do not fall in love with. Our polices should be fair, and currently they are not. They should not be discriminatory. They should be based on a proper rationale, not plucked out of thin air. Colleagues have made excellent points about bringing the income threshold in line with minimum wage—that should be the lowest benchmark—so that regardless of their income, people should meet the threshold.

I said earlier that 50% of employees do not meet the income requirement. We should do everything we can to ensure that everyone who is in work and paid the minimum wage is able to meet the requirements.

Safety of School Buildings

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

My suggestion and the advice I would offer to the hon. Gentleman is to ask the Minister exactly what the state of school funding has been like over the last 13 years. His Government have been in power now for longer than the last Labour Government. He ought to take some responsibility for the state of schools in our country, not to blame others and not to deflect.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is, in her usual fashion, making an excellent speech. Does she agree with me that one of the reasons Government Members will not release the data is that they know that over the last decade 50% of the capital budget has been cut through their ideological austerity agenda?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I think we probably all have reasons to reflect on why the Government will not be upfront about that. There are many reasons why that might be the case, but we have the Minister with us today. He can tell us why he said previously that he would publish this and why he has now changed his mind. I look forward to hearing him set out that case during the debate.

The lack of ambition is there for our children in their earliest years. The vision of childcare is little wider than a way of keeping parents economically active. There is nothing on the start we should give our children—the best start they deserve—or on the power of early intervention to change lives for the better and the difference that early years education makes in building a brighter future and a better Britain. There is nothing to close the attainment gaps that were already opening up and widening as our children arrived at school long before the pandemic even hit. And the answer to the childcare workforce challenge is as bleak as it is simple: to spread existing staff more thinly, to pile demand on to a system that they know fails providers, parents, families and, above all, our children.

The lack of ambition is there for our schools, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

I have had many conversations with the Minister over the years, and I respect him. Frankly, many of us in the Chamber today do not know whether the schools in our constituencies are safe, because the Government will not release the data. That is the central question we want addressing. The Minister in the other place wrote this week to tell me that three schools in my constituency will benefit from the condition improvement fund. Should I take it that those schools are currently unsafe for pupils?

[Nick Gibb]

No. The hon. Gentleman can take it that those three schools are receiving significant sums of capital funding to put right problems on their estate. Our surveys enabled us to identify those problems and to allocate significant sums of capital funding—£15 billion since 2015—fairly and appropriately.

Making Britain the Best Place to Grow Up and Grow Old

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Over the last few days of this debate we have heard some harrowing stories from constituencies around the country of poverty, deprivation and destitution—of people living hand to mouth in some of the worst possible scenarios. However, the Secretary of State who opened the debate today seems to have missed a lot of that, because the picture according to the Secretary of State is that this is a place where people get more than enough opportunities, where young people have never had it so good, where every school is funded exactly as it should be, and where the health service is operating as it should. I have absolutely no idea what parallel universe the Secretary of State is living in.

It is fine to talk about opportunities, but what about the obstacles people face before they get to those opportunities, the biggest of which is poverty? Let us be clear about this: poverty did not arise a few months ago with the cost of living crisis. Poverty has been worsening over the past 12 years because of an ideological austerity agenda by the Conservative Government that has devastated our communities. This is the reality of where we are.

At a time when people are facing some of the worst challenges ever, we see Conservative Members, even a Minister, going on national television saying that people should budget better and work more hours, as if that is the reason they are poor. When is the last time that Members met anybody who chose to be poor? When is the last time that we heard a child who was born in poverty say, “You know what? Actually, I am glad that I was born in that household.”

I urge the Secretary of State to come to Bradford. Our young people are full of aspiration and full of ambition, but, tragically, the media does not give Bradford an easy ride. Frankly, I am fed up with the media’s unfair image of Bradford and of our young people. We are a vibrant city, with a young population. What we lack is the opportunity.

Earlier today, the Secretary of State stood at that Dispatch Box and told me, my constituents and the people in my district that, somehow, we do have that opportunity. The reality is that he could have used his time differently in this Queen’s Speech debate. Conservative Members know that. Those who represent constituencies with poverty and deprivation will know inside themselves that this Queen’s Speech is a missed opportunity. It does nothing to provide opportunity to young people in Bradford. It does nothing to address the health inequalities. A person living in the inner cities of Bradford is likely to live 10 years fewer than if they lived in an affluent city suburb. That is the reality. When it comes to educational attainment, a person from Bradford is likely to achieve a lot less than if they lived in a rich leafy suburb. That is the unfairness. Those are the barriers that we are talking about.

If the Secretary of State for Education, who spoke earlier today, and the Health Minister, who will close the debate, want to address these inequalities, they have missed that opportunity. They should listen to our suggestion. We need an emergency budget to address the destitution that is rife in our country. Poverty is a political choice, and the people of this country will remember the choice that the Government have made.

Budget Resolutions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

In recent weeks, the Chancellor has been promising us a Budget that would look to the future, a Budget that would reshape our economy and a Budget that would level up our left-behind communities. Working people across the country hoped for action that would tackle the growing cost of living that they face each day, but what we got last Wednesday was a Budget without the vision and imagination to tackle the challenges that we face in society. We got a Budget that is stuck in the past, unable to confront the realities of the future, and a Budget that perpetuates an economy that serves the richest, while trampling over the poorest, which proves that, under this Government, levelling up is just a slogan and words, not real action.

Bradford is one of the most deprived areas and it is in the most desperate need of levelling up. All it really got from this Budget was a new sports and enterprise centre on Squire Lane, which is a project that was brought forward, developed and signed off by me years ago when I was deputy leader of the council. It was signed off and brought about to tackle the rampant health inequalities in our city, but it was starved of funds and never built because of a decade of Government austerity.

While this Government today tell us that, in Bradford, they are levelling up and giving us much-needed money for the new sports and enterprise centre, which, of course, is very welcome, the reality remains that, if they had not made the ideological austerity cuts over the last decade that devastated councils such as Bradford, we would have been able to fund this ourselves a decade ago. So I am not going to take Conservative Members telling me that they have done a huge favour on Bradford, levelled up and tackled poverty and the real issues that we face in the district.

In the time that this Government have taken to provide funds for that centre, the inequalities—particularly health inequalities—faced by those in Bradford have only grown. The life expectancy of someone living in Bradford is almost 10 years lower than in other parts of the country. Let us take a moment to look at that. If a person lives in certain parts of the Bradford district, they are likely to live 10 years less than if they lived in a leafy suburb away from Bradford. I ask Conservative Members: what does this Budget do to address health inequalities in Bradford? What does the Budget do to address the fact that up to 40% of children in my constituency will again today be denied a hot meal? What does this Budget do to address the fact that working families in my constituency will continue to use food banks? Those are the questions. It is easy to get caught up in statistics, but the reality remains that this Budget will do nothing to address those real issues in my constituency, which means that we now have to go even further and present new initiatives to tackle the widening inequalities in our society.

Ultimately, this Budget came nowhere close to what people in Bradford need. Throughout the Chancellor’s 100-page Red Book, there was no commitment to reverse the cruel cut to universal credit that will take £1,000 a year out of the pockets of some of the poorest in Bradford. There was no plan to tackle the rapid decline of Bradford’s high street by reforming and replacing an outdated business rates system that penalises small, family-run businesses to satisfy the greed of large multinationals. There was no pledge to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, which will run from Manchester to Leeds, through a station in Bradford city centre that would draw investment into our region and act as a firm symbol of levelling up.

Even the end of a public sector pay freeze to tackle the cost of living crisis failed to acknowledge that it was this Government and their decade-long pay restraint that created a cost of living crisis for those working in the public sector in Bradford. Although investment in education and healthcare is welcome, it will fail to make up for a decade of austerity, cuts and underinvestment that has created so much pain and misery for so many across the district.

As is so often the case under this Government, the cost of the Budget’s failures will fall on the shoulders not of the Chancellor or his constituents, but of my constituents in Bradford and other places like my constituency. It is in the pockets of people in Bradford that the cost of living is being felt the most. It is my constituents—on wages lower than the national average and employed on insecure contracts—who will be hit hardest by rising food prices, spiralling energy bills, and soaring rents and mortgages, only to be hit again by tax rises that mean that households will be paying £3,000 more in tax in the next five years than when this Prime Minister took office.

Time does not permit me to go on, and I want to be fair to colleagues. The fact is that the only people levelled up by this Budget are the millionaire bankers sipping champagne on their short-haul flights. The clear conclusion is that, just as we have seen every year under this Tory Government, this is a Budget by the rich for the rich.

Timpson Review of School Exclusion

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of different agencies—different parts of the public, private and voluntary sectors—working together on this, and that includes youth work. Some very good programmes are run in different parts of the country, and generally speaking people find that partnership working pays off.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I share concerns raised by Members about exclusions and illegal off-rolling, but schools make use of other tools and practices to remove children—particularly SEN children—from classes, such as isolation booths. Those booths are barbaric, leaving children in what is essentially solitary confinement for the school day. I have even heard stories of children being placed in these booths due to poverty-related incidents, such as wearing the wrong shoes for the day. That is quite simply unacceptable. What is the Secretary of State doing to address the serious issue of isolation booths?

[Damian Hinds]

It is right that schools set their behaviour policies, but of course those have to be reasonable, and that is what we expect throughout the system. We have guidance on these things, and as part of the response to this report I have committed to update the guidance on a range of matters relating to exclusions and behaviour, including that one. That is not to say that the use of isolation as a punishment and a deterrent is wrong in all cases. When people use that term, it does not mean the same thing in all schools, and what the hon. Gentleman describes is not necessarily what we find in other places.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend is right that analysis has demonstrated that the FE sector would be affected. Obviously, FE colleges are most directly funded by Government grants, in contrast with higher education providers, which are autonomous bodies that are ultimately responsible for ensuring their financial viability.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

11. What progress he has made on implementing the northern powerhouse schools strategy.

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

As recommended in the northern powerhouse schools strategy, we are implementing a range of measures in the north to improve teaching and leadership capacity, to recruit and retain more teachers and to close the disadvantage gap. In 2018, 80% of children were in good or outstanding schools in the north, compared with 67% in 2010.

[Imran Hussain]

Many of the projects that the Minister has referred to today and previously have a national reach and are not solely catering for the north, which betrays the very purpose of the northern powerhouse schools strategy. Will he commit to creating a northern schools improvement board, drawing together local authorities and schools commissioners, and to extend funding beyond 2020, to deliver the regional strategy that we in Bradford need and were promised?

[Nick Gibb]

We are absolutely committed to the northern powerhouse strategy. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in Middlesbrough on Thursday to announce more plans for Opportunity North East. The northern powerhouse strategy involves a range of policies. For example, we are rolling out a three-year programme of tailored support for some of the schools facing the most significant recruitment and retention problems; around 100 schools in the north will benefit from that. Five opportunity areas in the north will receive a share of £72 million to improve social mobility. In the Bradford opportunity area, we are targeting up to £1.5 million of school improvement support, improving literacy through £600,000 of investment in Bradford primary schools, including nine schools in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Relationships and Sex Education

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for leading this important debate today.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and applaud the powerful contribution she made. She set out clearly and articulately very sensitive and difficult issues. Like her, I have a Muslim background, and the way in which she set out the issues is really worth applauding, and I am grateful to her. The only downside is that she made many of the points that I wanted to make in my speech. However, I am conscious that there are others yet to speak, so I will shorten my speech accordingly and not repeat too much of what my hon. Friend said.

Like my hon. Friend, in recent weeks I have been contacted by many of my constituents who have expressed concerns about the proposals, and I want to put their concerns on the record today. They are absolutely clear, as am I, that the need to teach our children respect for others and tolerance, as well as how to be safe, particularly in the modern era with all the safeguarding challenges that technology and social media now bring, must remain a key consideration. However, their concerns are understandable because, as has been mentioned by hon. Members from across the Chamber, the policy has been poorly communicated to parents and schools.

Despite running for several months, the consultation process was not made known to many parents, and even schools were unaware it was running. Only now, with the implementation of the policy rapidly approaching, have parents and schools been made aware of its existence. They are deeply upset that they did not have a chance to get involved in and contribute to the consultation.

As we have heard from today’s speakers, everybody agrees that this is a sensitive issue. Much better engagement with parents is warranted, and that needs to be handled carefully, with a proper, meaningful consultation, carried out in a well informed manner. Sadly, that did not happen, and parents have concerns that they feel have been left unanswered.

Parents have also expressed concerns to me regarding the age-appropriateness of what will be taught in schools. They tell me that they are apprehensive that the content, which we do not know the details of, will not be suitable for primary school children.

[Helen Jones]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Imran Hussain]

Not at the moment, because we are on the clock and I have a number of points that I want to get on the record. I may give way later.

Throughout the existing education system, the age-appropriateness of the curriculum is woven in alongside the maturity, understanding and preparedness of the children in question. To some degree, that question of preparedness and maturity is why primary school children do not sit GCSEs or A-levels. That is just one example; hon. Members have given a number of others that demonstrate that point. Age-appropriateness and preparedness must be central, yet right now there is no indication or absolute guarantee that content will be age-appropriate and suitable for primary school children.

[Helen Jones]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Imran Hussain]

I will not.

Parents are also concerned about the faith-appropriateness of the content that will be taught. Importantly, parents of all faith backgrounds are high- lighting those concerns. It is not an issue for a single faith community, but one for the religious community as a collective. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood made some pertinent points about certain sections of faith communities feeling polarised and perhaps isolated in some contexts. Let us be clear: faith is, and should be, a protected characteristic that must be respected and considered whenever policy changes are made in any walk of life, including education.

I cannot emphasise enough the value of the involvement and inclusion of parents in any education policy—another point that many Members have touched on. If children are to be successful in life and to do well at school, they need not only good schools, but involved parents. We cannot leave out parents or neglect them. Parents are the final custodians of their children, making decisions on their behalf until they can responsibly make their own. That is backed up by article 14 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which states:

“Governments must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide their child as they grow up.”

Ultimately, any education policy must have parental oversight and include parents, complementing the work that they do at home, with their involvement and consent. I urge the Minister, after hearing the concerns of parents in my constituency and in those of other hon. Members, to consider carefully all the concerns that I have raised on their behalf, and to ensure that the involvement and consent of parents in the education of children is upheld and maintained as vital and fundamental.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

At the heart of our priorities since May 2010 has been raising standards for all children while also narrowing the gap, and I welcome the narrowing gap that we have seen in both primary and secondary schools. Is there more to do? Yes, there is, and that is at the heart of our opportunity areas programme, which—as the hon. Gentleman will know—identifies the pockets of under-achievement that may exist even in otherwise more affluent regions, and seeks to establish what area-specific conditions are required.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

9. What steps he has taken to implement the recommendations set out in “Northern Powerhouse Schools Strategy: An independent review” by Sir Nick Weller, published in November 2016.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)]

As recommended by Sir Nick Weller, we have implemented a range of measures in the north to improve teaching and leadership capacity, recruit and retain teachers, and close the disadvantage gap. In 2017, nearly 400,000 more children were in good or outstanding schools in the north than in 2010.

[Imran Hussain]

When the strategy was announced, £80 million of funding was attached to it, but just months later that was rowed back to £70 million. Now, according to the vice-chair of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, nothing at all has been spent. Can the Minister tell me how much has been spent so far, and how much of that has been spent on recruiting teachers in Bradford in particular?

[Damian Hinds]

We continue to spend on a range of programmes in the north, and some of the results are reflected in the figures I have just given. Bradford is of course one of the opportunity areas to which I referred, and £1.5 million has been provided to fund school improvements there. We are seeking to support the work of Bradford for Teaching, and Academy Ambassadors is working to further strengthen multi-academy trusts across the north. Altogether, more than £767 million of additional pupil premium funding was allocated to schools in the north, which over-indexed on pupil premium funding in comparison with the rest of the country.

SATs Results

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I made it quite clear in my opening remarks that the Opposition recognise the need for testing, but it is the chaotic way in which the Secretary of State has brought in the new key stage 2 SATs that is damaging and that potentially makes people feel a failure. Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I am sure he recognises that the 11-plus and 12-plus caused uncertainty and that feeling of failure. I remember how I felt when I was branded a failure, and these things do not help our young people today.

The Government seem hellbent on bringing back the 11-plus through the back door. They can deny that, but the evidence is right in front of us: children are being selected on the basis of muddle-headed tests into two separate groups—winners and losers, successes and failures—and their primary schools are being branded in exactly the same way. It is the 11-plus by any other name.

The tests do not give a rounded picture of the work of individual pupils or their schools. I could not put things any better than Mrs Jane Grecic, the headteacher of Lansbury Bridge School in St Helen’s, who wrote to one of her 11-year-old pupils, Ben, about his SATs results. Ben is autistic, and Mrs Grecic congratulated him on his fabulous progress, writing:

“these tests only measure a little bit of you and your abilities…Ben…is made up of many other skills and talents that we at Lansbury Bridge see and measure in other ways…These tests do not measure…Your artistic talents…Your ability to work in a team…Your growing independence…Your kindness…Your ability to express your opinion…Your abilities in sport…Your ability to make and keep friends…Your ability to discuss and evaluate your own progress…Your design and building talents…Your musical ability”.

This fine headteacher concludes:

“we are so pleased that all of these different talents and abilities make you the special person you are and these are all of the things we measure to reassure us that you are always making progress and continuing to develop as a lovely bright young man. Well done Ben, we are very proud of you.”

I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating young Ben on his development at the tender age of 11 and, indeed, his headteacher, on showing in very real, human terms how these test results should in no way make a child feel they are not developing well.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a persuasive case. Does she agree that we should be encouraging children and giving them confidence, particularly in areas such as mine, where there are high levels of deprivation, and where children are told by many people that they cannot achieve or go far in life? These things add to that, and we should be encouraging our children and giving them confidence, not discouraging them.

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have to heed the concerns of the professionals. It is a real tragedy when we set children up to fail. The Government need to work with the profession to make sure this year’s mistakes are not repeated and to build a system that works better for children, parents and schools. These results do not reflect the dedication of teachers and the many extra hours they have worked to ensure that all children can fulfil their potential, despite the turmoil caused by the Secretary of State’s chaotic and confusing reforms.

School Penalty Fines and Authorised Absence

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

I will come to that later, but I make the point now that, of course, we are not talking about a free-for-all where parents can just take their children out whenever they like. I am arguing that we should give the discretion back to headteachers, with a degree of flexibility, so that they can decide what is right for each child in each unique set of circumstances and in each family situation, and, taking all matters into consideration, decide what is best for that child, rather than have a blanket ban.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very persuasive case and is concentrating in particular on the family holiday entitlement, but can I bring him to another area? What about when parents have to take children out in exceptional circumstances? There is an absolute lack of clarity about what constitutes exceptional circumstances and there is no consistency. Does he agree that there need to be national guidelines to determine what exceptional circumstances are?

[Steve Double]

I suspect the Minister will say that guidelines have been provided, but in my experience, most headteachers say that, even when they follow the guidelines and exercise their discretion in saying what exceptional circumstances apply, they get criticised for exercising it when there is an Ofsted inspection. There seems to be a lack of consistency, which is why I argue for putting the discretion back in the hands of headteachers. Give them the freedom—they know the pupils and the families, so let them decide what is best for their pupils.

The Government have made great claims about the importance of the family and the value of a strong stable family to a child’s life and, indeed, to the wider community. I wholeheartedly support that, but it is sad that the family test was not in place when the rule was introduced in 2013. If it were, what would the outcome have been? I take the view that the family test would severely challenge the policy because of its impact on families’ lives. We live in a time when we are getting busier and busier. Time together as families is more precious than ever, so holidays together play an even more important part in the life of many families. It is clear to most people that time away is time to strengthen family relationships and time for parents to focus on their children. The value of that is immeasurable.

The simple fact is that, for many families, the choice is either a holiday during term time or no family holiday at all. For some people, that is due to their work situation—it is just not possible for many parents to take time off during school holidays. That is particularly true in my constituency, where people work in the tourist industry, but it is also true for many public sector workers in the NHS, the police and other sectors. For other families, it is simply a case of economics. A holiday during the peak season can be two or three times the price of a holiday during term time. For many families, it is just not affordable to take a holiday in the peak season. The Family Holiday Association reports that about 7 million families in the UK are simply unable to afford a week’s holiday.

It is easy for MPs, Government Ministers and education officers, who earn more than five times the salary of the average person in my constituency and, indeed, people in many other parts of the country, to say that people should only take a holiday out of term time. As someone suggested to me recently, the problem does not affect those in private education, as private schools have longer school holidays anyway. I am sorry to say that the situation simply shows that we do not understand the reality of life for many families. It is not a case of just looking for a cheap holiday. For many families, it is the only holiday they can afford, so it is a matter of a term-time holiday or no holiday.

We are discriminating against those on low incomes by saying that if they cannot afford the high prices charged during the school holidays, they do not deserve a family holiday. The policy is making the situation worse. By focusing all demand on the few weeks of school holidays, the rules of supply and demand mean that the prices go up during those weeks, and the drop in demand during term times means that the prices go down in those weeks. The differential between a term-time week and a school holiday week is widening. The message from the Government to our children is quite simple—that time in the classroom is more important than time away with their parents. Quite frankly, that is wrong.

My second point is that the policy denies the value of a holiday to a child’s development and education. Education does not take place only in the classroom. Although no one would deny the importance of children learning maths, English and the other core subjects, we should also accept that there are other equally important aspects of any child’s education. Education should be about preparing our children for life, work, being a good citizen and playing their part in the world. It is not just about passing exams. The opportunity to travel—to other countries or to other parts of this country—can and does play a valuable part in any child’s upbringing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I thank the Minister for his views. I shall simply say this: at the moment, we are in a mess. Teachers, headteachers, schools and parents do not know where they stand. I take his point, which is perfectly reasonable. I do not agree that I am exaggerating the situation, though, because I have been on the receiving end—as I am sure other hon. Members have—of hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls from parents and headteachers who are deeply worried about the position in which they now find themselves. That is not an exaggeration.

[Imran Hussain]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when a family go to Pakistan to visit family members and there is an unexpected death in the family in Pakistan, that is an exceptional circumstance? That family were fined on their return. If that is not an exceptional circumstance, what is?

[Peter Heaton-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The Minister said that this debate boils down to the definition of “exceptional circumstances”; under any definition, what the hon. Gentleman has just described would be exceptional.

It is absolutely right that the Government have a duty to ensure that parents send their children to school and that children have a full academic record, but my fear is that the 2013 guidelines put us in a field of unintended consequences. They are having a serious effect on many families in my constituency and further afield whose only crime is to want to take a holiday when they can, or to take their children away based on some other perfectly reasonable grounds or exceptional circumstances. The guidance is well intended, but I fear that, in the lack of flexibility that is being applied to its interpretation in some quarters, it is having unintended consequences. Otherwise innocent parents, who simply want the best for their children and are the right people to know what is best for them, are being criminalised. I hope I can work with the Minister, co-operatively, to put things right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Turner]

I agree with both those points and I hope that I make them myself.

It has been said that before 2013 some headteachers felt pressurised into authorising family holidays. I have been a Member of this House for 15 years and I have never had a headteacher say that to me, but it does sound as though it happens occasionally. I believe, however, that the introduction of the holiday fines by statutory instrument in 2013 was like using a cannon to try to kill a fly. The fines are inappropriate and unworkable, and have widespread damaging consequences.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the inconsistency that we have between districts. On his point about the fines, Bradford is joint second regarding the number of fines administered and it has high levels of deprivation. Does he agree that the amount of the fine—for the average family with three children it is £360, which then doubles to £720—is so grave that in some low-income families it has a negative impact, ultimately, on the children themselves?

[Mr Turner]

That is something that headteachers should be aware of. Either Bradford is dictating to headteachers that they must do certain things, or it is the Department for Education’s decisions being interpreted in that way. The headteachers do have the authority, and they can say no.

I have great respect for the Minister for Schools. He has achieved some great things during his time in post, but I urge him to consider the outcome of this battle between David and Goliath and, even now, find another way forward, such as scrapping the school fines introduced in 2013 and trusting headteachers to do their job. If he will not do that, can he please tell us today what he will do if the Supreme Court agrees with the magistrates and the High Court and upholds their view—and mine—that an unauthorised family holiday does not necessarily allow the state to criminalise parents who otherwise ensure a child’s regular school attendance?

Finally, I would like to say that my constituent, Mr Platt, wished to be here for the debate but his daughter is taking part in her school sports day. As a responsible parent, who recognises that a wide range of experiences contributes to a good education, he has put attending the sports day ahead of being here today. He sends his apologies.