Energy Supply

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I shall be extremely brief, Mr Amess. I congratulate the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), on taking on his new responsibility. I also want to express my appreciation of his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who made himself remarkably accessible and reached out to hon. Members like me who have constituencies with significant energy-producing resources and establishments.

I want to mention two such establishments today. One is the largest oil refinery in the country, at Fawley, and the other—also at Fawley—is the power station, whose future is under extreme threat: it is doubtful almost to the point of extinction. Fawley power station is a reserve station. It was set up in the shadow of the great oil refinery next door. Its future is doubtful because of European legislation. Unless an alternative power generation role is found for the site, compatible with European legislation in the future, it will cease to make even a reserve contribution. I will flag up today the point that I used to make to the Minister’s predecessor: sometimes emergencies happen to a country—situations of extreme peril—when restrictions must be set aside.

I still feel that it is worth the Government’s examining the possibility of keeping the Fawley power station in a reserved condition. If an extreme situation of national danger arose where we needed emergency extra supplies of electricity, inevitably it would involve a temporary setting aside of such things as European and environmental restrictions on what could be allowed in power generation. There could be a strategic role for Fawley power station in an emergency—something that I hope the Minister will consider.

Finally, in the time available, may I say that we are greatly concerned—by “we” I mean local oil refinery people and, nationally, the UK Petroleum Industry Association—that oil refining in this country does not compete on a level playing field with oil refining abroad? Unless the Government adopt a somewhat reduced, laissez-faire attitude—they keep saying that they believe in an open and competitive market—the sadly diminished number of oil refineries in the UK could go below a critical mass, to the strategic disadvantage and, indeed, endangerment of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

For 13 years, Ministers under Labour did fail the test. They failed to ensure that our examinations were modernised and reformed so as to be among the world’s best. This is a test that we are determined to meet. It is a great pity that the Labour party is not joining us in making sure that our state education system is one of the world’s best.

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

Would it assist my right hon. Friend in his admirable wish to reintroduce rigour to GCSEs if pupils who sat them were told the actual marks given, and not just the grades, which are subject to inflation?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The greater the transparency in the grade setting and marking process, the better. That is one of the reasons Ofqual exists as an independent regulator, and one of the reasons it should continue to do that job, not Ministers.

Secondary Education (GCSEs)

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and to rebut allegations of fatalism thrown at me by the Secretary of State. I hope I am no more of a fatalist than he is. I have observed in many of our debates that able politicians, on both sides of the House, are brilliant at describing and critiquing the inheritance from the Labour party and at painting a picture of the kind of country we would like to be, but our job in this House is to address the third aspect and examine the route map to get from position A—not very good—to position B, or nirvana and where we want to be. Too often in our education debates in this Chamber, we spend an awful lot of time on aspects one and two, and not a lot on the third aspect.

Following the Secretary of State’s speech, I am a little clearer about what his plans are. I think he has said—I hope he will intervene on me if I am incorrect—that the Daily Mail was mistaken, and that there is not going to be a return to a two-tier system. He did not, for whatever reason, try to spell this out, but it sounded as if he was talking about a more rigorous GCSE. It is progress that the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), acknowledges that there was grade inflation during his party’s time in office, and the Secretary of State makes powerful points about equivalences. The Government have certainly had my support in tackling that and in tightening up in various ways, such as by removing entirely the vocational qualifications that Alison Wolf identified as offering no real labour value to people.

So what is the vision? If we were just talking about a more rigorous GCSE with a removal of the perverse incentives to dumb down over time—it has now been acknowledged that that was the case, even by Labour—I think there would almost be cross-House consensus. There is a recognition by Labour that it did not get everything right, even if Labour Members cannot quite bring themselves to say that yet; it is fair enough for the Secretary of State to tease the shadow Secretary of State for his failure to do so. It seems that the Labour party is beginning to recognise that a lot of the Secretary of State’s moves towards rigour have been correct. However, if we are to have a beefed-up GCSE, and if we are not moving towards a system that is more two-tier than what we have now, I would like to see more detail. I know that a consultation paper is coming, but it seems disappointing that we did not get more detail from the Secretary of State today.

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

rose—

[Mr Stuart]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Dr Lewis]

I am very grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee for giving me the opportunity to ask the question that I was hoping to ask of the Secretary of State. Given that both sides now seem to accept that there has been a problem of grade inflation, could we pay a little bit of attention to the marks that underlie the grades? One of the problems that I felt many years ago with the introduction of grades for O-levels, rather than marks, was that it did not matter if somebody got 70%, 80% or 90%: anybody who reached a certain level—70%, I think—still got the same top grade. This was the beginning of an inflationary process. Would not the stating of actual marks—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Thank you. That is quite enough. That is a very long intervention in a very short debate.

Lidice Massacre

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello)on securing this debate, on doing the House a huge service by reminding us of the true horror of what happened in Lidice in 1942 and on illuminating for us the links with Stoke-on-Trent and the huge sum of money raised from miners to rebuild the village. We heard about the 3,000 miners who attended the public meeting called by one of the hon. Gentleman’s predecessors, Sir Barnett Stross. It is good to be reminded of these important parts of our history and European history, and he has done that at an appropriate time, with last Friday being Holocaust memorial day.

Holocaust memorial day gives us the opportunity to remember the victims of this most evil of periods in the world’s history, along with subsequent victims of genocide—as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, such evil does not go away—and atrocities during the war, such as the terrible massacre at Lidice. It also gives us time to reflect on the lessons of the past: genocide does not occur overnight; it is a gradual process and begins when the differences between us are used as a reason to exclude or marginalise, leading to prejudice and hate. We need to learn the lessons of the holocaust, so that future generations do not repeat the mistakes of the past. That is why it is important that young people are taught about the holocaust—to ensure that prejudice and discrimination are not allowed to take root in our society.

The Government firmly support holocaust education, which is why we have allocated £1.8 million this year to promote young people’s understanding of this period of history. About £1.5 million of this funding is for the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project, in which I understand the hon. Gentleman has participated. I add my tribute to his for the work of the trust.

The Lessons from Auschwitz project gives the opportunity for two sixth formers in every school in the country to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau to learn the lessons of the holocaust, but the course is more than just a one-day visit to the former concentration camp, as students take part in seminars and hear first hand from a holocaust survivor. They not only deepen their knowledge of the holocaust, but learn what can happen when prejudice and racism gain a foothold in society. So far, more than 8,000 students and more than 2,000 teachers have taken part in the project in England. Crucially, when those students return to school, they are expected to pass on what they have learned to their peers at school and to their communities.

Effective teacher training is also fundamental to teaching about the holocaust. The Government recognise this, which is why as part of our £1.8 million for holocaust education funding we have allocated £250,000 for the Institute of Education’s holocaust education development programme. This programme helps to ensure that teachers are equipped with the training and resources they need to deliver effective holocaust education. The Lidice massacre is included in the teaching materials for this programme.

To date, some 550 teachers have benefited from this professional development programme, with two full days of workshops and online activities. A further 2,000 teachers have benefited from other forms of professional development on the holocaust, while a pilot group of 36 teachers has completed the country’s first taught master’s module in holocaust education. The level of teaching expertise in England’s schools on the holocaust is now higher than ever before—a welcome fact.

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the second world war and the holocaust are compulsory parts of the history curriculum at key stage 3. Schools can teach pupils about the Lidice massacre as part of their history curriculum, but they are free to design their own curriculums that will best meet the needs of their pupils. I hope we can all agree about the fundamental need for a greater emphasis on knowledge and content in the current national school curriculum, which was our reason for launching a review of the curriculum.

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

I thank the Minister for giving me an opportunity not only to express my admiration for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for raising this subject, but to mention that I was at school myself when I read a remarkable book called “Seven Men at Daybreak” by Alan Burgess. It told the story of the seven Czech and Slovak parachutists who assassinated Heydrich, and, at the end, what happened to Lidice afterwards. I do not know what the copyright position is now, given that the book was written so long ago, but I think that, in the context of the educational project that both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have in mind, a reprint of that book would probably have as profound an effect on the schoolchildren of the 21st century as it had on me some 40 or 50 years ago.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his own personal history, and that book, to the attention of the House. I shall look into what he has said.

The new national curriculum will be based on a body of essential knowledge that children should be expected to acquire in key subjects during their school careers. It will embody, for all children, their cultural and scientific inheritance, will enhance their understanding of the world around them, and will expose them to the best that has been thought and written.

Our commitment to the importance of history is clear from its inclusion in the English baccalaureate. The national curriculum review will consider the extent to which history should be compulsory, and at which key stages. We are considering the recommendations of the expert panel, and will also listen to the views of others before making final decisions. If we conclude that history should remain a national curriculum subject, we will expect the programme of study to continue to include teaching about the second world war and the holocaust. Every young person needs to understand it, along with the lessons that it teaches and how it shaped the modern world.

It is of concern that some subjects, such as history, have been less popular choices at GCSE in recent years. For example, in 1995 more than 223,000 students, representing nearly 40% of pupils in schools, were taking history GCSE. By 2010 the figure had dropped by over 25,000, and only 31% of pupils—just under a third—are now taking the subject. The Government want to encourage more children to take up history beyond the age of 14. We introduced the English baccalaureate—which recognises the work of pupils who achieve a GCSE grade between A* and C GCSE in history or geography, as well as maths, English, science and a language—to encourage a more widespread take-up of a core of subjects that provide a sound basis for academic progress. The baccalaureate has already had a significant impact on the take-up of history. According to an independent survey of nearly 700 schools, 39% of pupils sitting GCSEs in 2013 will be taking history. That represents a rise of eight percentage points, and a return to the 1995 level. If more children study history for longer, that can only be a good thing, as it will give them a good grasp of the narrative of history.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

That is not our policy. Teachers in academies are generally paid more. What we are doing is reviewing the performance management regulations to make it easier for head teachers to tackle underperformance in our schools and to bring the employment regulations in schools in line with employment practices in other professions and industries.

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

Does the Minister feel, as I do, that the quality of teaching is adversely affected by the recently reported high number of false complaints made by children against teachers? If so, what sort of protection can the Government give innocent teachers who are put in that situation?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue. For a teacher to have an accusation made against them by a pupil, which ultimately turns out to be false, can have a devastating impact on not only their career but their private life. We are therefore determined to do all we can to protect teachers, to enable them to maintain discipline and improve behaviour in our schools. That is why the Education Bill, which is currently going through another place, has a provision giving school teachers anonymity in the reporting of such accusations in the press.

Financial Support (Students)

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gibb]

The economy would have suffered as a result.

EMA costs £560 million a year. As we heard, it has been in existence for about six years; it was rolled out nationally in 2004, following a pilot. It was successful in raising participation rates among 16-year-olds from 87% in 2004 to 96% this year. As a consequence, attitudes among 16-year-olds to staying on in education have changed. When the National Foundation for Educational Research questioned recipients of EMA, it found that 90% would have stayed on in education regardless of whether they received EMA.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he accept that the two strands of the allowance are becoming intermixed? There is the role of the allowance in persuading people to stay on, and there is the role of the allowance in enabling people to stay on who might otherwise not be able to afford to do so.

A briefing from the Conservative Councillors’ Association points out that the staying-on age will be raised, but that will not happen until 2015. What worries people such as the principal of Brockenhurst college in my constituency is that the EMA will stop in September 2011. In the limited time that remains, I hope that my hon. Friend will focus on the transition arrangements, which are of great concern to us all.

[Katy Clark (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that interventions should be short.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

Nothing has actually changed in the relationship between local authorities, academies and free schools with regard to special educational needs. Schools will continue to get the funding that they need, and local authorities will continue to have a very important co-ordinating role. We will work very closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that these proposals are implemented in a way that ensures that schools get the funding they need.

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

The copy of the coalition agreement, which enjoys pride of place on my bedside table, does indeed say exactly what the Minister said in her reply about ending the bias towards inclusion and preventing the unnecessary closure of special schools. Will she explain to the House in a little more detail how the Government propose to fulfil those praiseworthy pledges?