Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

We are committed to arts education. The proportion of those who are taking at least one GCSE in an arts subject has remained broadly stable over the past 10 years. We are also committed to very significant funding for arts and music projects, with £620 million over the past three years, including £79 million for the 119 music education hubs and £148 million for the music and dance scheme. We are very committed to the arts and to drama in our schools.[Official Report, 7 September 2021, Vol. 700, c. 2MC.]

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State kindly speak to the Secretary of State for the Home Department about getting visas for the 12 at-risk Afghan scholars—some still in hiding, some in Pakistan—who have been awarded sponsored places by high-quality British universities and who need the visas to take them up?

[Gavin Williamson]

I will most certainly undertake to do that. We have seen the education community in the United Kingdom coming together to support those who want to resettle from Afghanistan to this country; we also want to look at the opportunities for those brilliant, amazing people from Afghanistan and the part that they can play in our education system in the UK.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although I was stuck getting here, I have listened to a number of speeches. It is entirely normal for me to disagree with speakers and to find what they say objectionable, but I have to say that I heard a couple of speeches—not by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) but by other Members who spoke before her—that I felt were verging on hate speech themselves and were objectionable to a number of minority groups in this country. I felt that the quality of some of this debate was demeaning to this House.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Sobel]

I will give way, although I might not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

[Dr Lewis]

Indeed, and that surely is the point. What really worries people on the Conservative Benches is that what starts off with the justified condemnation of hate speech ends up by saying that people speaking in a free Parliament are verging on hate speech themselves. Can the hon. Gentleman not see the slippery slope of the argument he is putting forward?

[Alex Sobel]

I will make an argument about the slippery slope. I think there are Government Members, and maybe even some Opposition Members, who feel that supporting the Bill will settle some old scores, make a dog whistle to people who want to hear it and give a nod and a wink to a certain sort of constituent.

As somebody of Jewish descent whose family members came from the war generation in eastern Europe, I feel strongly that the slippery slope we are going down is one that Government Members may not be able to control. I am not saying that they are like this themselves, but other forces in society will take advantage of and utilise this type of legislation in a way that the Government will cease to have control over. It will create a runaway train effect. I do not want that to happen in this country; people like me and others in this Chamber would find it a difficult country to live in.

We just need to look at what happened yesterday to three of our brave England footballers after they missed a penalty—something that happens to every footballer during their career—and the horrendous racism that they experienced. I will come back to the subject, but I was deeply uncomfortable at some of the previous contributions to the debate and I felt that I had to raise that.

During my time at the University of Leeds—I was both a student and staff member there—the two most notorious new faces of the British far right made our campus the site of their race war. Their story tells me all I need to know about why this Bill should never reach the statute book. During my year on the executive of the Leeds University union, supporters of Claire Fox, now Baroness Fox, of Living Marxism, established a free speech society to remove the students’ “no platform for racists and fascists” policy in the name of libertarianism—maybe the reason why many Government Members support the Bill.

Two unknown first-years joined the society and when the adherents of Baroness Fox graduated, those two took over the society and stepped up their activities on campus. Many known racists and fascists were seen in their company on campus. It was difficult to administer the policy and legal framework that now exists and to vet those whom the free speech society were platforming in rooms they were trying to book out.

The two people involved were Chris Beverley and Mark Collett—now two of the most notorious fascists that this country has seen. Mark Collett was tried alongside Nick Griffin in 2006; I will come back to that. They were both in a number of notorious documentaries produced in the 2000s; I suggest that Members who do not know of them should watch “Young, Nazi and Proud” to understand more about these two characters.

The issue came to a head in Collett’s and Beverley’s attempt to overturn the “no platform for racists and fascists” policy at the general meeting of the students union. It happened to be held in the refectory that had hosted “The Who” in their seminal “Live at Leeds” concert. There were easily over 300 people there. Many, many Jewish students, as well as the campus rabbi and I, spoke against the attempt to remove the policy. Collett and Beverley were the only ones to speak in favour—and in a highly inflammatory way. Their attempt was overwhelmingly defeated.

It had been clear for some time to all on campus who Collett and Beverley really were, but the mask slipped for everybody everywhere that day. If the policy had passed, Collett and Beverley would have invited figures such as Nick Griffin and David Irving, this country’s leading holocaust denier, on to campus under the auspices of free speech. The free speech society soon ran into trouble and at the following AGM the students union fully understood the issue of these two fascists but gave them a room, fearful of legal action. The meeting did not go ahead and the society, which was acting as a front for fascism by that point, was disbanded. That was due not to any policy of the students union, but to protests by students themselves.

Just five years later, at about the same time as Mark Collett was on trial with Nick Griffin at Leeds Crown court for race hate crimes, at Leeds University in February 2006, a contributor to the university newspaper Leeds Student gave an interview to Dr Frank Ellis, in which the academic expressed support for the bell curve theory that said that there were racial differences in average intelligence. The Leeds Student also published an article by Ellis, “Time to face the truth about Multiculturalism”, in which he described the Parekh report as

“a very nasty anti-white tract”.

He then went on to be interviewed in the media, and the students union put out a statement calling for his dismissal. Leeds University condemned Ellis’s views as “abhorrent”. I had left the university by then, but I went to meetings there and objected, as a member of the alumni committee, to his continued employment. Ellis was subsequently suspended by the vice-chancellor pending disciplinary proceedings, which never concluded because he retired early.

My point is that if this law had been in place, the student union and the university would never have taken any action against these radical, far-right fascists, whose only intent is erasure of diversity on the planet: the erasure of people like me, Charlotte—I am sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols)—and others in this Chamber. That is why people need to be really careful about how they use free speech. Free speech is something that we all defend—we all talk about pluralism—but it can also be a cover for something much deeper and much more unpleasant, with the consequences that we all know and speak strongly against in this Chamber every year. Yesterday we marked Srebrenica Memorial Day. This Government need to be very careful on the dark road that they are taking us down.

Education: Return in January

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I will certainly happily provide the latest information on the distribution of laptops in the hon. Member’s constituency. The reason we announced the uplift to the distribution of 1 million laptops is that we recognise that the challenges of the pandemic require more digital provision. That is why we took the move to increase it from 500,000 to 1 million.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

This feels slightly like my own first day back at school, though rather near the bottom of this particular class.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of his mass testing programme for schools derives from the danger that infected children may be spreaders without symptoms?

[Gavin Williamson]

If my right hon. Friend is a new boy back in school, I think the Chief Whip is the headmaster, so he will probably be keeping a close eye on my right hon. Friend. However, it is good to see him back with the Conservative Whip, as I very much felt it was a great privilege to work so closely with him when he was Chairman of the Defence Committee and I was in a previous role.

My right hon. Friend is right that, actually, many children who have coronavirus do not exhibit symptoms of having coronavirus. This is why the move to mass testing in secondary schools is so important. It gives us the opportunity to identify so many more children who have the virus and just do not know it. That means that so many more households can be informed that they also need to be tested as they may also have the virus. This is an important step in defeating this virus and taking the battle to covid to ensure that we defeat it and are triumphant in doing so.

Self-defence Training in Schools

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered self-defence training in schools

I will start by talking about allied matters to do with the tragic murder in May last year of my constituent Ellie Gould, and by giving some background to the case. The primary purpose of the debate is to call for greater teaching on self-defence in schools, but the reason why Ellie Gould’s friends and relations are calling for that is worthy of explanation.

On 3 May last year 17-year-old Thomas Griffiths brutally stabbed and murdered his ex-girlfriend in a frenzied and horrific attack in Calne, in my constituency. Nothing could be worse for Ellie’s parents, Matt and Carole, than to lose their dear daughter, nor for a wide group of schoolfriends from Hardenhuish School in Chippenham than to lose their dear friend. That it happened in that particularly brutal way is absolutely heartbreaking, and I am sure the whole House will join me in offering Ellie’s family and friends our heartfelt sympathy on their loss.

Despite the terrible tragedy of Ellie’s death, the family are determined to try to find ways of making something positive come out of it. They have been active in seeking routes by which they can achieve that, to try to help in some small way to prevent a similarly awful thing from happening again in the future.

The family firmly believe that the sentence passed on Thomas Griffiths should have been a strong deterrent to others. They were deeply disappointed by the 12 and half years handed down, which they and I view as being woefully inadequate. They sought to persuade the Attorney General to appeal against its leniency, and the Home Secretary at the time was most generous with her time, meeting the Goulds and sympathising with their call for tougher sentencing. She said it was clear that the punishment must fit the crime. In this case it most certainly does not.

Most recently, the Lord Chancellor met the Goulds to discuss the case, especially the question of sentencing, but despite that the Attorney General refused to accept that the sentence was too lenient, largely because at the time of the murder Griffiths was only 17, albeit nearly 18. Had he been 18, he would almost certainly have gone to prison for 25 years. Because he was a month short of that age, he was given only 12 and a half years. The Goulds argue—and the Lord Chancellor recently rather agreed—that there must be some way of bringing in a sliding scale of sentencing, so if someone is just under the age of 18, the courts can take account of that and provide a heavier sentence than they would give to a juvenile. I hope that in memory of the tragic death of Ellie Gould the Lord Chancellor will consider that matter further—I believe he is doing so—and that the Wessex area Crown prosecutor will agree to a meeting that we have requested for the family in the near future.

We have been active with the Home Secretary and the Victims’ Commissioner about several aspects of the way in which the case was handled. The Goulds have nothing but the highest praise for Wiltshire police, who handled the case with great sensitivity throughout. We are concerned about the parole terms for so-called young offenders and the possibility that Griffiths will be released before the end of his inadequate 12 and a half year sentence, simply because he was under 18 at the time of the crime. That entirely flies in the face of the judge’s remarks at the trial that he would serve the full 12 and half years. We are concerned that the final three years will be served in an open prison. We also spotted a flaw in the parole terms for the release of murderers, noting that there is nothing to prevent them from changing their name by deed poll while they are in prison. While Thomas Griffiths will not be welcome in Calne or anywhere nearby, if he were to turn up with the name John Smith it would be much harder to track him or to know he was there.

You have been kind, Mr Hollobone, to allow me set out these matters, as they are largely for the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, rather than for the Minister. None the less, I hope that setting out the case has re-emphasised the reason for having this debate about education matters.

Ellie Gould’s close school friends, Ellie Welling, Harriet Adams and Tilda Offen, have been active in finding ways to commemorate Ellie’s sad death in a positive way. They feel that Ellie, like other such victims, was ill-equipped to spot when a relationship has turned toxic, as occurred between Griffiths and Ellie herself. They feel that we could improve the understanding of relationships that go sour by improving the personal, citizenship, social and health education syllabus, so people can understand relationships as well as the broader issues considered in that subject. Without alarming them too much, students ought to be made aware that relationships can go wrong and that it can result in violence. They should be taught how to watch out for signs of a relationship going sour and be ready for any violence that might occur as a result.

We welcomed the letter from the Minister for School Standards in September, in which he told us that relationships education will be made compulsory in all secondary schools from later this year—perhaps the Minister will expand on that in her remarks—and that that education would

“be designed to equip pupils for adult life and to be able to manage risk in a variety of situations… The Statutory Guidance explains how these new subjects will help address the underlying causes of crime, such as respect and building positive relationships, as well as appropriate ways of resolving conflict.”

That is exactly what we want—PCSHE education that equips young people for all the turbulence of modern life, where relationships can turn sour with terrible consequences. We hope that our little bit of lobbying on this subject may have helped the Department to move the Minister in the right direction. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reassurances about that later.

The tireless trio of Ellie’s friends, supported by a wider friendship group in and around Hardenhuish School, Clane and Chippenham, have secondly come up with what seems to me to be an eminently sensible proposal, which if implemented in part or in full would be a further worthwhile memorial to Ellie Gould. They argue, and I agree, that young people are ill-equipped to deal with personal attacks of all sorts. Sadly they are becoming more common, whether they are low-level attacks in the playground, sexual approaches of one kind or another, physical attacks, bodily harm and even murder. Young people come across those types of attack all the time and sadly they are ill-equipped to deal with them.

For that reason Ellie Welling and her friends have developed a busy campaign to try to persuade the authorities, the Minister, the Department and schools that there should be compulsory teaching of self-defence in schools. They believe that if schools have to teach swimming or road safety, for example, then surely the basics of self-defence should be a prerequisite. If we turn out young students with a basic understanding of how to defend themselves on the street after they leave school, we will have made Britain a better place and society a great deal safer. We are not talking about advanced or complicated mechanisms for self-defence, but the basics with which a young person might fend off potential attackers.

Ellie Welling and her friends have been successful in getting significant media coverage for their campaign, which has resulted in a huge correspondence from around the nation, with all sorts of people and schools agreeing with them that they would like to do more about teaching self-defence. They have learned from countless letters that personal attacks are among the highest concerns of young people today, particularly when they get ready for university. They want the basic skills to be able to deal with these kinds of attacks.

I recently had an unnerving experience when Ellie’s friends arranged a one-day pilot course in a gym near Chippenham to demonstrate the self-defence techniques that might be taught. I am concerned to admit that, together with my stick, I was made to be one of the attackers. I lasted about 15 seconds before I was on the floor. They were very effective in dealing even with a big chap like me.

The training is basic. If an assailant grabs someone, they have to get him or her off, shout, make as much noise as possible, and get out of it. People have to shout and escape, but to escape they have to get rid of the assailant. The assailant might grab their arm, for example, or come from behind and put them in a neck-lock, or approach with a knife and threaten them—there are a variety of attacks. Young people need to understand the basics of how to get away from someone who is assaulting their person.

Such training is basic and pretty obvious, but terribly important. The fact that it is basic and obvious is the point of this debate. We are not asking for something very complicated or that will cost the state an enormous amount of money. Basic self-defence teaching can be done during physical training in the ordinary course of events in the school year. We do not want large amounts of money spent or complicated self-defence mechanisms taught. We want the basics. We simply want young people to leave school with an understanding of how they can conduct themselves in a dangerous world.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am very interested in the case that my hon. Friend makes. Does he see any role in this scenario for the simple personal alarms with which Members of the House have been recently equipped? They are easy to operate and make a tremendous noise, which could well stave off an attacker.

[James Gray]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting suggestion. No doubt that could form part of it. It would of course involve spending money, but what we propose would be largely free of charge to the state and would merely involve a slight change in the curriculum. However, my right hon. Friend is right to think of a personal alarm, which is often a useful to thing to have and perhaps might form part of how we take the agenda forward, so I am most grateful to him for his suggestion.

Incidentally, Mr Hollobone, it is a pleasure to sit under someone who shares the same birthday— 7 November, should anyone want to know.

[Dr Lewis]

And largely the same views.

[James Gray]

It would be wrong if I impugned the Chair on any kind of view on any matter. He is here merely to keep order.

We argue for self-defence training because we believe a little basic training in schools might be sufficient to deter or prevent a range of lower level personal attacks. All we are talking about is five minutes a week in a PT class: low-level training, perhaps provided by outside professionals in the same way as music or sports teachers often come into school on a weekly basis and provide a basic level of training.

Inspired by Ellie’s friends, I raised the matter with the Minister for School Standards by letter, and he responded on 3 February, saying perfectly reasonably:

“It is a matter for schools to decide whether to provide self-defence lessons for their pupils. Schools are free to organise and deliver a diverse and challenging PE curriculum that suits the needs of all their pupils. Schools are best placed to decide what is appropriate for their pupils and how to provide it.”

Now, far be it from me to argue with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), who is a very old friend and a distinguished expert, but I feel that his answer was rather weak. If we believe that some degree of self-defence is a good thing for our students as they leave school and go out into the wider world, it is surely possible for the Minister, the Government, the community and society to encourage schools up and down the land to take up the idea without prescribing to schools and without laying it down in the curriculum. We are simply talking about individual headteachers and chairs of governors taking it up. We are not talking about prescribing it in the curriculum. We merely suggest that if we believe self-defence is a good thing, for heaven’s sake let us find a way of making sure schools provide it.

I do not want the Department for Education to dictate what is taught in school. I believe in freedom for schools to decide, but the overwhelming response that we received following recent publicity on this matter should lead the Department to at least be relatively enthusiastic about providing basic self-defence tuition for our young people.

I welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to her response. We ask her to acknowledge the benefit that would be derived from universal or widespread teaching of basic self-defence techniques in schools across England. If she were to encourage it, help to enable it, and increase discussion of it, even without prescription from on high, schools would explore ways of providing such tuition. All we want is a ministerial acknowledgement of the need for self-defence, a general acceptance that it could be done without a great increase in resources, and a much wider realisation of the good that it would do. I hope that the Minister and the House will agree with me that if we knew that the cohort of young people leaving our schools today had had some level of training in self-defence, alongside the range of measures that the Government are putting in place with regard to knife crime, it would make our streets and towns and cities safer places.

If the Minister could give us some encouragement that she generally favours increased self-defence tuition in schools, she would by that alone be making a little gesture in memory of Ellie Gould’s tragic death.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) on securing the debate. Protecting children and young people from harm, including from violence and other forms of abuse, is always this Government’s priority, so I thank him for raising the issue. I know that he has written to the Minister of State for School Standards to draw attention to the issue of self-defence classes in schools and has himself attended a class at Hardenhuish School.

I also want to give recognition and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) who, as a Wiltshire MP, has taken the case very seriously. The school is in her constituency and I know that she has written to the Minister of State on the issue. I thank her and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire for their work on it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) for their comments this afternoon.

I want to express my deepest condolences to Ellie Gould’s parents, Matt and Carole, on the loss of their daughter, and also to Ellie’s many friends at Hardenhuish School in Chippenham. I am sure that everyone in this House shares my revulsion at the needless events of 3 May last year in which Ellie so tragically lost her life. I pay tribute to the work of Ellie’s friends for their campaign, to the staff of Hardenhuish School for the work they have done to support pupils, and to Wiltshire police for their swift work in investigating the case and bringing the perpetrator to justice. I hear the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire raised about the sentence. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old, and we believe that it is right for the court to start with a minimum term of 12 years for someone who is under 18 when they commit a murder. However, 12 years is the starting point and the court can increase the minimum term according to aggravating factors.

I listened carefully to the points that my hon. Friend and others made this afternoon. He asked for more teaching of basic self-defence in schools, or, indeed, for it to be compulsory. However, there are a number of additional things that schools can do that could be helpful.

There can never be an excuse for murder, and the murder of a child or young person is particularly abhorrent. We must all do everything we can to protect our young people. While we sadly cannot prevent all such cases, we can take and have been taking action to minimise the likelihood of their occurring. It is important that children and young people learn that violence is not the way to solve problems, and how to recognise the warning signs of a potentially violent situation, or of an abusive or violent relationship.

First and most importantly, schools can help to build the knowledge and skills that children need in order to have healthy relationships with their peers and others. They can do so through the effective teaching of relationships, sex and health education. Good-quality teaching of relationships, sex and health education will be an important way to equip pupils with the knowledge to prevent, identify and address harmful behaviours from themselves and others. That is a vital part of self-defence, as it helps to reduce the risk of relationships’ becoming violent or abusive.

From September this year, relationships education will become compulsory for all primary school pupils, and relationships and sex education will be compulsory for secondary school pupils. Health education will also be compulsory for pupils in state-funded schools. The compulsory new subjects will help to develop an ethos of respect for others and provide young people with the knowledge to make informed decisions, to assess risk and to try to avoid those dangerous situations. Through age-appropriate relationships education in primary school, pupils will be taught the concept of respect for oneself and respect for others, and to understand the differences between appropriate and inappropriate or unsafe physical contact—the first steps to teaching consent.

As well as physical safety, online safety is also important, as the hon. Member for Croydon North mentioned. We know that by the end of primary school, many children are already using the internet, and we must ensure that those principles of safety are extended to online safety and appropriate behaviour in a way that is relevant to pupils’ lives. Relationships education will also help young people and children to understand how information and data are shared and used in all contexts—including, for example, the sharing of intimate pictures and the fact that, once sent, there is little or no control over how they may be used in the future.

The ability to form strong and healthy relationships with others depends on the nurturing of behaviours and positive personal attributes. The development of mutually respectful relationships in all contexts is an important aspect of a child’s development. Relationships education also creates an opportunity to teach pupils about positive emotional and mental wellbeing, including how friendships can support it. Equally, if a relationship is making them feel unhappy or unsafe, pupils should know how to report concerns and how to seek advice from others if they need it, especially when they suspect or know that something is wrong.

In primary schools, age-appropriate relationships education will involve teaching pupils about what healthy relationships are and their importance, as well as how to develop mutually respectful relationships in all contexts. By the end of primary school, pupils will understand the importance of being treated with respect and showing respect. They will understand different forms of bullying and how to get help; they will have learned about the concept of privacy and its implications for children and adults. They will also know that it is not always right to keep a secret, if it relates to keeping themselves or others safe.

By secondary school, that will broaden to become age-appropriate relationships and sex education. The curriculum will include teaching about intimate relationships, sex, sexual health and sexuality, set firmly within the context of relationships. It will also cover contraception, sexually transmitted infections, developing intimate relationships and, crucially, how to resist pressure to have sex.

Pupils will learn what a positive, healthy relationship looks like, about consent, tools to help them when a relationship ends, and how and when consent could be withdrawn, in a way that will help to keep them safe. They will also learn how to seek help if they are made to feel unsafe or threatened. The ability to recognise a risk, to assess that risk and respond to it in a way that keeps us safe is an essential life skill, and acquiring the knowledge and critical thinking skills that enable pupils to make informed decisions about relationships, sex and personal safety will be part of that curriculum.

Behaviour in schools is also important for safety. Schools must create positive environments, where pupils feel safe, are respectful of one another and are free from low-level disruption that stops them learning. All schools are required by law to have a behaviour policy that outlines measures to encourage positive behaviour and prevent bullying, which should be communicated to pupils, staff and parents.

Our respectful school communities tool helps schools to identify the various elements that will make up a positive whole-school approach. While there are schools across the country where behaviour is good, we know that some schools are looking for support in this area. That is why the Department is investing £10 million in the behaviour hubs programme.

Promoting mental health is also a priority because, in the normal course of events, people with good mental health will be much less likely to behave violently or to physically attack others. Schools can play a vital part in helping their pupils to have good mental health. The Government are prioritising transforming mental health services for children and young people, establishing new mental health support teams that work in or near schools and colleges to introduce or develop their approach to mental health and to deliver interventions for pupils and students with mild to moderate mental health needs.

We are incentivising all schools and colleges to identify and train a senior mental health lead. The new mental health support teams are in addition to the support already provided by schools and colleges, or by children and young people’s mental health services funded by the NHS or local authorities. Support teams will be made up of newly-trained education mental health practitioners.

Peer-on-peer abuse can also be a concern. Teachers and other school staff have a key role to play if they become aware that one young person is sexually abusing or harassing another. We have published statutory safeguarding guidance, “Keeping Children Safe in Education”, and detailed departmental advice on sexual violence and sexual harassment between children, to support schools and colleges in understanding what peer-on-peer abuse, especially child-on-child sexual violence and sexual harassment, looks like, how to prevent it, how to respond to it and how to support victims. Last month, we also launched a consultation to seek views about proposed changes to the Keeping Children Safe in Education principle, setting out the legal duties that schools and colleges must comply with, together what schools and colleges should do to keep children safe.

The rise in serious violence, which many hon. Members have raised this afternoon, is a significant concern to the Government. Children and young people are increasingly at risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator of serious violence. The number of homicide victims aged 16 to 24 increased by nearly a quarter between March 2015 and March 2019. We know that the reasons for involvement in serious violence are extremely complex. That is why the Department for Education is working with the Prime Minister’s crime and justice taskforce to tackle this serious issue.

Engagement in education is a strong protective factor for children who might otherwise be vulnerable to involvement in crime, and it is therefore vital that schools and colleges enable all children to achieve, to belong and to remain in education, working in partnership with children’s social services and other agencies. Schools, alternative provision and colleges around the country are working with the police and health officials through violence reduction units in their areas to run interventions to tackle serious youth violence. I visited an alternative provision this morning in London, in Tower Hamlets, and I was deeply impressed by its work to support some of the most vulnerable young people. There are some really good examples of that across the country, and I would like to see more.

On the specifics of self-defence classes in schools, schools can already arrange self-defence classes for pupils, and many do. These arrangements should be appropriate for the pupils concerned and of good quality. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire rightly pointed out that what is appropriate for one school might not be appropriate for another. Schools must be able to choose activities and resources that are appropriate for their pupils, whether they are small rural schools or large, urban secondary schools, special schools or alternative provision schools. However, they should be able to recognise the individuals and organisations that can help to provide those classes.

My hon. Friend made the point that if the life-saving skills of swimming and road safety are required to be taught in schools, so self-defence should be. I understand his point, but the balance of risk is a bit different. We teach children to be safe on and around roads because every day they need to be able to cross roads or cycle in safety. Swimming and water safety is a requirement in physical education curricula of key stages 1 and 2 because it is important that, when children enter water, whether deliberately or accidentally, they have those basic survival skills. Those circumstances are quite different from a premeditated, deliberate and unexpected attack.

[Dr Lewis]

I have used the intervening period since my speech to check on the price of rape and other attack alarms. From a well-known online megastore, one can get a pack of three of these extremely effective protective devices for less than £9. Does the Minister agree that, as a matter of routine, particularly where people are concerned about attacks in public places, such a modest investment is well worth making?

[Vicky Ford]

We should look at all ways in which to keep young people safe. I note that it is possible to get such an alarm as an app on one’s phone. I will certainly look at his point.

I make clear that I have absolutely no objection to schools providing self-defence instruction if they think it is appropriate. I encourage headteachers to consider this provision, and to offer it if it is right for their students. However, factors that need to be taken into account include the age and maturity of the pupils. It is incredibly important that they understand that they are being taught techniques that should only be used in an emergency, as a last resort, to free themselves from an attacker. Often, actually avoiding the attack is crucial.

It is vital that the instruction itself is conducted in a safe way, that the instructor holds appropriate qualifications from a sport’s national governing body and that the instruction is not given in PE lessons, which I do not think is the right place for this within the curriculum. However, where instruction in self-defence is provided, it must be taught by suitably qualified instructors, and schools should be able to recognise those individuals and organisations that can help. For example, the Association for Physical Education has provided safety guidance, “Safe Practice: In Physical Education, School Sport and Physical Activity”, to help protect teachers and pupils from potential risks, including in contact sports. Schools should also be able to recognise reputable individuals and organisations by checking that they have good safeguarding arrangements, qualified coaches and are compliant with sector guidance. There is guidance from the Association for Physical Education and Sport England, for example.

Reputable martial arts instructors are expected by their Sport England-recognised governing bodies to have adequate policies and procedures in place, including, but not limited to, appropriate coaching, first aid and safeguarding qualifications, and to have appropriate Disclosure and Barring Service checks in place. Given the inherent risk of personal injury in martial arts, they should also be appropriately insured. Sport England also produced a version of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s child protection in sport unit’s “Standards for safeguarding and protecting children in sport”, relating specifically to a safeguarding code in martial arts. At least 300 individual providers and organisations have already signed up to this and meet the requirements of the code. However, not all martial arts have a recognised national governing body, and so not all of them conform to the standards required of a Sport England-recognised national governing body.

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire for all he has done to raise the profile of this issue. Ellie’s death was a tragedy, and a real reminder to us all of the dangers of violent relationships. It is vital that we all recognise that most important in relationships, sex and health education is the part on relationships, helping our children and young people to develop healthy relationships, to behave with mutual respect and to act, and have the tools to act, in that difficult situation when a relationship ends.

We will never know for certain whether a self-defence class would have saved Ellie. However, I know that, where self-defence is taught, it must be done safely and well. While we do not want to add it to the compulsory requirements on schools, we will work with the Association for Physical Education, Sport England and the sector to make sure that new, clear guidance is available to schools considering giving that self-defence instruction to pupils on how to make that provision safe and effective. We will look to develop that guidance this year, to sit alongside other work we are doing on supporting schools to offer a wider range of development activities to all their pupils.

Political Neutrality in Schools

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Fysh]

I will come on to some of those issues, but the hon. Lady makes some valid points.

One of the big challenges facing us generally is why children are more likely than ever before to suffer from stress or have mental health problems. That is partly due to better diagnosis, which is a positive step, but there has undoubtedly been a rise in the number of young people with high anxiety. The role of social media and mobile phones in that is for another time, but being exposed to aggressive tribal politics and told that the country is being run by a very bad man certainly is not going to help.

This area becomes more complex when we consider that we want our young people to be interested in and engaged with politics. At a time when anything can be researched at the click of a button and the number of sources on any given subject is rising exponentially, it is more important than ever that children are taught the skills to make reasoned assessments and form balanced opinions. I am sure many of today’s politicians were inspired at school by certain teachers to choose the path of politics. The more people who choose to get involved and run for office, the better.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am surprised that it is necessary for my hon. Friend to raise this issue. In May 1986 a group of peers, led by Baroness Cox, successfully amended what was then the Education Bill to ensure that politically contentious material, if raised and discussed in schools, must be handled in a balanced way. In June 1986 the Government accepted that. My understanding is that that ban on political indoctrination has been carried forward in subsequent legislation, so I am surprised that this is even an issue today.

[Mr Fysh]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will address some of those issues in his response to the debate.

Teachers often bring the same positive attributes to elected office that make them effective in the classroom. Many become councillors or Members of Parliament, and our democratic institutions are richer for having them, along with the skills and insights into education that they contribute. Whether they should remain in education while they do so, however, is a valid question.

There may be no straightforward formula for how to inspire and inform without exerting undue influence, or for where being passionate about an issue undermines reason and constructive debate. Measures intended to ensure political neutrality may lead to schools being less stimulating. An important lesson for young people is to be tolerant and understanding of the views of others. It is also the case that some of our educational institutions, particularly universities, have a reputation for a particular political slant. I am not necessarily against that, but we must look at the age of the pupils and the extent to which they are able to critically assess the information put in front of them.

I do not wish to stray too far beyond the topic of the debate, but I am also concerned that some young people are encouraged into activism on environmental issues in a way that may not be entirely healthy. They may be better served by learning to assess rigorously how they know what they know, to delve deeply into the factual and statistical bases for various claims and to judge between them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to debate yet again under your careful and, if I may say so, unbiased stewardship, Mr Gray. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) for raising this important issue and the excellent way in which he opened the debate. He is right to warn about the coarsening of political debate in the country, which concerns many of us in this House. He is also right that young people should be encouraged to be passionate but not coercive in political debate and how they engage in it.

One of the most important principles that we want to uphold in education is political neutrality, in relation to both the knowledge taught through the school curriculum and the professional conduct of teachers in how they support pupils in and out of the classroom. Political education is an important part of a broad and balanced education that prepares young people for adult life, and we want young people to be informed and engaged citizens. To ensure that they receive such an education in an unbiased way, all state-funded schools must meet duties regarding impartiality and balanced treatment of political issues in the classroom.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) correctly said, that is provided for in legislation. Section 406 of the Education Act 1996 requires teachers to provide a balanced political view in relation to the direct teaching of pupils by forbidding

“the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject”.

Teachers may express their personal views, which can sometimes be useful in prompting debate and discussion within the classroom, but in doing so they must have regard to the teacher standards governing professional competence and conduct to ensure that they show tolerance of and respect for the rights and views of others.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the 1986 amendment was carried forward in subsequent legislation. Does he agree that, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) said, it is perfectly normal for politicians to go and talk about politics in their local schools? However, when I put forward a view—I speak for myself and I hope for her and most other hon. Members—I always emphasise that there are other politicians who would put forward a contrary view. That is perfectly allowed, is it not, by the legislation?

[Nick Gibb]

My right hon. Friend is right, and I try to do the same thing. One piece of advice in the legislation is that, when teachers teach about political issues, they do not express their views in a way that would exploit pupils’ vulnerability or undermine fundamental British values. When I speak to young people, I always bear that in mind and point out that although I am a passionate supporter of the free market, which I think creates and helps spread wealth in the most effective way across society, there are others who believe that a planned economy and more regulation is a fairer and better way of running an economy. I try to make those points before saying that my personal view is the former. I am delighted to hear that he takes a similar approach.

Section 407 of the 1996 Act requires that where political issues are brought to the attention of pupils, they are offered

“a balanced presentation of opposing views.”

Balanced in that context means fair and dispassionate. The law does not require teaching staff to adopt a position of neutrality between views that accord with the great majority of scientific opinion and those that do not. Therefore, if a particular theory represents mainstream opinion, there is nothing to prevent a school indicating a strong preference for that theory while making minimal but dispassionate reference to the minority view. However, many of the issues to which my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend refer are not in that category but those where large sections of society take opposing views.

My hon. Friend raised the reporting of Stormzy’s visit to a primary school. Schools remain responsible for what is taught and we expect them to have in place robust safeguarding policies that should set out clear protocols ensuring that visiting speakers are suitably supervised. The school should have a clear understanding of why the speaker was chosen and make guests aware of the school’s expectations, such as: abiding by its equality commitments; there must be no statements that might cause offence to others or otherwise undermine tolerance of other faiths or beliefs; and there must be no extremist material.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more to equip children to question and evaluate the information they are presented with, whether that is in newspapers, on television or online. Apart from how teachers present political or any sensitive or controversial subject, the content of the curriculum they teach is vital. Schools have a role to play in teaching children to be savvy consumers of media and information. The best way to do that is by providing them with the fundamental knowledge they need to be able to make informed decisions and critical judgments. That is why we reformed the curriculum to provide the core knowledge that children need to understand the world.

Daniel Willingham, the American academic, author of “Why Don’t Students Like School?”—I highly recommend that book to anyone interested in the education debate—and proponent of the use of scientific knowledge in the classroom, says that processes of thinking are intertwined with the content of thought—that is, domain or subject knowledge. Therefore, if a student is reminded to look at an issue from multiple perspectives often enough, he or she will learn that they ought to do so, but if they do not know much about an issue, they cannot think about it from multiple perspectives. We can teach students maxims about how they ought to think, but without background knowledge and practice they will probably not be able to implement the advice they have been asked to memorise. Therefore, just as it makes no sense to try to teach students factual content without giving them opportunities to practise using it, it also makes no sense to try to teach critical thinking devoid of factual content.

The national curriculum we inherited in 2010 had been stripped of too much knowledge, with a heavier focus on the skills of learning. The Government therefore embarked on significant reforms to the national curriculum with the aim of restoring the importance of subject knowledge in all its complexity and fascination. In 2014 the new, more ambitious and knowledge-rich national curriculum came into force in England, and from 2015 we introduced more rigorous GCSEs. That is the most efficacious approach to helping young people to be more discerning and challenging of the views expressed online and in wider society.

The reformed national curriculum sets out a core body of knowledge that should form part of a school’s curriculum, giving schools the autonomy to decide how to teach it to maximise pupil understanding and address their misconceptions. The 12 national curriculum programmes of study not only avoid political bias by focusing on core subject knowledge, but enable teachers to consider how pupils can better evaluate and challenge fake news or misleading information, which can often be presented to them in social media as facts.

My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend referred to guidance. We issued amended guidance in summer 2018 to remind schools of their responsibilities. The online staffing and employment advice for all schools was updated to say:

“All staff have a responsibility to ensure that they act appropriately in terms of their behaviour, the views they express (in particular political views) and the use of school resources at all times, and should not use school resources for party political purposes.”

I hope that provides my hon. Friend with some reassurance that we take these issues extremely seriously.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

The circumstances of 1986, which led to the legislation, were that some people were advocating the introduction of anti-imperialist studies in schools, and peace studies—anti-nuclear propaganda—was also being spread. It was those paradigm cases that led Parliament to legislate, and I am grateful to the Minister for his clear utterance that such legislation still holds good today.

[Nick Gibb]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That legislation is still in force. Being from the same era as him, I too recall the debates that took place at that time.

The Government have actively supported teachers in developing their school curriculums beyond the national curriculum. Most relevant to this debate is the Government’s educate against hate website, which hosts resources for schools to support the promotion of democracy, including those on media literacy. Between September and November 2019, the website was visited over 80,000 times.

Schools do many other things across the curriculum to ensure that pupils are equipped to question and challenge what they read, watch and listen to. An online piece written by the headteacher of Passmores Academy in Harlow on the topic of fake news comments on how vital it is to teach young people to check their own facts. The head of English at that school organised activities including students learning the truth behind the scaling of maps in geography, how propaganda has been used throughout history, diet myths, the manipulation of statistics, and the role of computer-generated imagery in the creation of fake news. Additionally, media bias was debated, leading to extended pieces of writing being produced on the subject.

Online safety is an important component of the new relationships, sex and health education. From September 2020 it will be mandatory for schools to teach those subjects. They are about empowering pupils with the knowledge that will support their current and future relationships and health, enabling them to become active and positive members of society. Pupils will be taught about online relationships, the implications of sharing private or personal data online, harmful content and contact, cyber-bullying and where to get help and support.

In Ofsted’s new inspection framework, the personal development judgment focuses on the development of pupils’ character, their confidence, resilience, independence and knowledge. It includes matters such as pupils’ ability to recognise and respond to online and offline risks to their wellbeing.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil for securing this debate. He has raised important concerns, shared by other hon. Members, as we have heard. I hope that he is reassured that there is legislation and support for schools in place, to mitigate the threat of political bias in our school system and to help young people be resilient to the concept of fake news.

Relationships and Sex Education

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady really enjoyed teaching these lessons. That is not true, of course, for every single teacher. Some can find it quite difficult, which makes the provision of good training and materials even more important. There are lots of third party organisations that produce high quality materials. We want to make sure that schools are easily able to access them, but I can give her the commitment that we will make sure that good training is in place.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am afraid that the Secretary of State did not quite answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I agree with most of this, but I remember Edward Timpson categorically saying that parents would have the right to withdraw their children if they wanted to. The Secretary of State has made a very strong case for the three terms before the age of 16 exception, but he keeps adding the words, “unless there are exceptional circumstances”. Why have those words been added? In what circumstances would a headteacher overrule a parent? Is not the likely effect of this going to be that in some cases, instead of children getting necessary sex education in schools, more parents are going to keep their children out of school?

[Damian Hinds]

We do not want parents to keep their children out of school. I hope I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the intention is to say that the long-standing right to withdraw children from sex education does not apply to relationships education or the subject of human reproduction in the science curriculum, but that there is that right to request when it comes to sex education. The request is put to the headteacher, and the guidance that we issue to headteachers clearly says that the headteacher should comply with that request up to three terms before the child reaches the age of 16. Why three terms before the age of 16? Because 16 is the age of consent, so the child should be able—if they wish—to have some sex education for at least a term before they reach that age.

Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]

Julian Lewis Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clear indication of the Church of England’s support for the step that we are taking. Having engaged with the Church and with representatives of other faiths throughout the process, I am aware of that support. The religious faith that brings many people into the education system will be respected as it has been in the past: that is reflected in the Bill, and will be reflected in the regulations and statutory guidance that will follow.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Timpson]

I will give way briefly, but then I want to try to make some progress.

[Dr Lewis]

New clause 15 draws a distinction between relationships education provided for primary school children and relationships and sex education provided for secondary school children. Can the Minister confirm that that does not mean that sex education will be smuggled into primary schools under the label “relationships education”?

[Edward Timpson]

A clear distinction is drawn by the very name of each of those subjects. The new clause makes plain that sex education will not be a statutory part of primary school teaching. Of course, if primary schools choose to teach sex education in an age-appropriate way, as they can now, they will be able to do so, but the right to withdraw from that will still apply, as it does in secondary schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I decided to withdraw new clause 5, which had the support of 46 Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and many others, because we feel very strongly that new clauses 15 and 16 do exactly what we wanted, which is to make statutory lessons available for all children in all schools. I applaud my hon. Friend the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, for everything that he has done to make that happen. He has demonstrated what can be achieved when there is a collaborative view in this House.

Three Select Committees have called for statutory lessons in this area, and that is a good way forward. Millions of children will benefit as a result of what my hon. Friend the Minister has announced today. High- quality relationship and sex education can play an important part in preventing child sexual abuse and exploitation. It teaches children from an early age about fundamental issues such as consent, healthy relationships and how to have respect for themselves and their peer group. It is important that we put such lessons in place and that we do so right now. This call could not be more timely, especially in the light of today’s BBC’s report about Facebook’s failure to remove illegal images of children from its social media platform. The whole House will deplore the fact that Facebook is failing in its duties.

Today’s amendments to this Bill will be an important first step in safeguarding our children, but the work cannot stop there. I urge the Minister to work with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that there is a statutory code in place for social media. We do not want to have a situation in which internationally known corporations such as Facebook can host illegal child abuse images, including those that explicitly focus on men with a sexual interest in children.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am sure that almost all of us agree that sex education in secondary schools is a good thing, particularly as parents will still be guaranteed the right to withdraw their children. What one is concerned about is that parents will not have the right to withdraw their children from relationship education in primary school. What is there to prevent sex education aspects from being smuggled in under that label?

[Mrs Miller]

I urge my right hon. Friend to talk to some of the teachers in his constituency who are already touching on issues of sex education in primary schools, because it is possible to do that in an age-appropriate manner. There is nothing in this Bill that would concern parents about further sex education being taught in primary schools—quite the contrary. According to research, three quarters of all parents, if not a little more than that, welcome these measures. Perhaps it is because they understand the safeguarding issues that can be very well covered by relationship education, even at an early age. I am talking about issues around consent in particular. I hope that my right hon. Friend can support these measures, because they are important not only for the future development of our children, but for keeping them safe and for giving them the ability to call out for help if and when they need it.

A-level Archaeology

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I apologise for arriving late to the debate. The Minister is showing that of course he is not a Visigoth, or a Goth of any sort. If any Minister can be relied on to protect an important subject, albeit a minority one, it is he. Therefore, and in the light of concerns expressed by people such as the staff, parents and students of Brockenhurst College in my constituency, where archaeology is taught extremely well, will he do his very best to redouble his efforts to persuade another board to take up that important subject?

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s kind comments. I suspect that his school, Brockenhurst, must therefore be a major contributor to the 26 A-level archaeology entries of 2016, and I congratulate it on its wide-ranging curriculum. I assure him that I left no stone unturned in my encouragement of other exam boards to adopt the subject, as with the languages with small cohorts—we were successful in persuading Pearson to take up those subjects, too.

It remains open for any board to produce a specification or an offer to take forward archaeology. We published the content because we want the subject to continue. We remain open to any exam boards wanting to set an archaeology A-level.

The changes we have made to the national curriculum will help to provide students with a greater understanding of the subjects that they study, feeding their enthusiasm for further study. In history, students are now required to have greater chronological understanding through the study of a wider range of historical periods, including more than one ancient civilisation. Enrichment activities, such as battlefield tours of the western front, in which 1,400 schools have participated to date, have enabled students to gain a deeper understanding of, and develop an interest in, significant historical periods.

Many universities will expect students to arrive already having had work or volunteering experience in museums or heritage sites, or having had practical experience in the field, where possible. Organisations such as the Council for British Archaeology, which runs almost 70 Young Archaeologists’ Club branches all over the UK, and industry magazines such as Current Archaeology offer a wealth of volunteering opportunities around the country.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that the Government are fully committed—

New Grammar Schools

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Oh, not him!

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am not an expert on the theory of secondary education, but having attended a grammar school with a largely working-class contingent in the 1960s, I know something about the practice, from which we all benefited. Will the Secretary of State explain why it is acceptable to nurture and promote sporting excellence but not academic excellence?

[Justine Greening]

My right hon. Friend raises a good point about the broader issue of selection. All children are different, so playing to their talents and natural interests is important. Parents should have more choice and diversity in the school system so that they are able to find not just a good school, but a good school that will be particularly good for their child.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

There are what I have rather politely and generously, in my view, referred to as unintended consequences of the cap, and I noted with some distaste the Secretary of State’s use of a pejorative term such as “public sector fat cats” to justify the existence of the proposed cap. It is clear that the cap could impact, as the hon. Gentleman says, on those on moderate and even lower pay with long service, and it could impact on pension “strain” payments for workers, rather than on those on the highest salaries with much shorter service.

The Cabinet Office has confirmed that some civil servants earning less than £25,000 a year could be affected by the cap because they have long service. Surely this was not the intention. Again, the Opposition will explore some of the consequences. We have even heard that essential restructuring in some public services is being held up by the unintended consequences of this crude measure.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am conscious of the fact that I was not present for the Minister’s opening speech so I may have missed something, but I am aware of concerns raised not only by the Prospect union but by one of my constituents about the fact that as someone who has always earned less than £28,000 a year, he may, as a result of early retirement, be unintentionally caught by this provision. I hope we will get some assurance from the Government Front Bench either that that will not happen, or that an amendment will be accepted to make sure it does not happen.

[Ms Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman raises precisely the kind of case that has no doubt been raised with other hon. Members in all parts of the House. The only thing he missed was his own Secretary of State calling everyone who worked in the public sector, presumably including his constituent who would be affected by this cap, a fat cat. We will wish to give the provision particular scrutiny in Committee.

I turn to a subject which is not currently on the face of the Bill, but on which the Secretary of State has chosen to make announcements today. It is important that the Government publish their Sunday trading consultation response, along with all submissions. I was rather hoping that it might turn up while we were speaking today so that we could look at it before we vote on Second Reading. The Government must publish it in full and immediately, and tell us what form amendments to the Bill or new clauses relating to the deregulation of Sunday trading will take.

We all await all the details, but it is deplorable that at this late stage in the Bill’s passage through Parliament— after the Bill has gone through the House of Lords—the Government have seen fit to introduce these changes.