Schools: Free Lunches and Milk

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to undertake a full impact assessment of the Free School Lunches and Milk, and School and Early Years Finance (Amendments Relating to Universal Credit) (England) Regulations 2018; and what further action they intend to take regarding those Regulations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government listened carefully to the views that arose in the debate last week. I can confirm that our changes will help those on the lowest incomes. The Government have published an equalities impact statement, which was updated following our public consultation. We are committed to ensuring that at least 50,000 more children will benefit from free school meals by 2022, compared to the previous system, and that no child will lose out during the transition to universal credit. We have also reviewed the threshold following the rollout of universal credit to ensure that those who need support are benefiting.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, last week your Lordships’ House voted in favour of a regret Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam, calling for a delay in the implementation of regulations which, by the Government’s own admission, will result in more than 100,000 children receiving free school meals under the existing benefits system losing that right under universal credit. In passing, I should say that the vote was carried by 52% to 48%—a margin that may be familiar and one that the Government have consistently told us is decisive and must be respected. But the Government showed your Lordships’ House no respect, because, as the Minister said, guidance was issued two days later.

Ministers have been unable to explain why there has been no full impact assessment on such a controversial issue, not just the equalities impact assessment that the Minister mentioned. It is surely inconceivable that the Department for Education would not have undertaken an internal impact assessment on such a controversial issue. Will the Minister confirm to noble Lords that the outcome of that assessment was so damaging to the Government’s plans that it was suppressed, and will they now either publish it or undertake a proper, public, full impact assessment?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I want to reassure the noble Lord that we take very seriously the concerns raised about this important policy issue. As I mentioned, we published an updated equalities impact statement on 7 February. The majority of respondents agreed that there would be no adverse impact on the protected characteristics. The reason, really, is because we are improving the system, basing eligibility on income rather than the number of hours worked. All the existing recipients of free school meals whose parents move to universal credit will be protected for the full rollout period.

Free School Lunches and Milk, and School and Early Years Finance (Amendments Relating to Universal Credit) (England) Regulations 2018

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. His words about his experiences and circumstances as a child were very moving. However, change is often difficult to deliver. As George Bernard Shaw said, progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.

The introduction of universal credit transforms the benefits system by making work pay. At the same time, public resources can be targeted at the families most in need, and that must include setting a threshold for free school meals.

I was particularly struck by the contribution to the debate in the Commons by my honourable friend the vice-chairman of the Conservative party Maria Caulfield. She too talked about her experiences of being brought up in a working-class background where there was no hope and no ambition for working-class kids other than a future life on benefits. Universal credit, I am sure noble Lords will agree, will help such families and such individuals. I will not repeat the arguments made and the reply to the Labour smears of last week; suffice it to say that as a result of the changes we are told—facts—that 50,000 extra children will get free school meals by 2022. I have called them facts; we cannot call them facts because only in 2022 will we know the real facts on any of the projections, but those will be as a result of changes brought about by the Government. As Maria went on to say last week, what some Labour Members did was to spread fear in a political, point-scoring way and use working-class families, shamefully, as a political football. That was clear. It was clear if you read what was in the press.

I was absolutely sure that it must be right that free school meals are intended for the most disadvantaged families on low incomes. Thus, targeting taxpayers’ money at those most in need is the right thing to do. I support the Government’s position, which is good for all, and I remind those who will not accept change of the words of the late Harold Wilson:

“He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery”.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bassam for opening this debate so effectively and, like other noble Lords, I was certainly moved by his personal story. These regulations have brought widespread resistance from opposition parties and Cross-Benchers, as evidenced in this debate, as well as from the children’s welfare and education sectors in recent weeks and months. Apart from the effects of the regulations, anger has increased with the realisation that, inexplicably for such an important matter, no impact assessment was carried out by the Government. Can the Minister explain why?

I agree with the wording of the regret Motion regarding a six-month delay while that impact assessment is carried out; if it was not seen as necessary at the start, when the Government first devised these regulations, it certainly is now, because of the issues that have been raised in debates in the other place last week and in your Lordships’ House this evening. When they were debated in the other place last week, when the Opposition prayed against them, the Government lost the argument that day but fended off the Motion to Annul with the help of the Democratic Unionist Party—hardly surprising, since the Prime Minister had enlisted their support, I would say cynically, by producing a rabbit from a hat by announcing that the regulations will not apply in Northern Ireland. The Government have no such cover in your Lordships’ House.

As noble Lords have said, not receiving free school meals would cost a family around £430 a year for each child. Labour policy is that the children of all families in receipt of universal credit should receive free school meals, and of course that comes at a cost. However, not providing free school meals to the children of families stuck in poverty despite one or both parents being in work also comes at a cost, a cost of a different kind, because a key issue from the education point of view is that free school meals often act as a passport to other support, such as help with school clothing, trips, music lessons or discounted access to leisure facilities. This means that entitlement to free school meals can be worth significantly more to struggling families than the direct value of the meal itself.

The Government say they want to target the families that need free school meals most, and that is understandable and perfectly acceptable, but what about the families that may need it slightly less, but nevertheless genuinely need the benefits of free school meals? The Minister may not appreciate this fact, nor indeed some of his colleagues, but for too many children in poverty, free school meals are the difference between getting a hot meal during the day and going without. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Lister said, teachers know only too well that an undernourished child is in no fit state to be taught effectively. The Government should adopt the policy of the Opposition and support all children living in poverty by continuing with the transitional arrangements.

The government position is that it would cost too much: by most estimates around £3 billion a year. But if free school meals were decoupled from universal credit, as other noble Lords have suggested, and as has already happened with infant school meals, which are universally free, then the cost would be substantially reduced, probably to around £500 million a year. That is not an insignificant amount of money, I am not suggesting it is, but is the Minister going to get to his feet and tell your Lordships’ House that his Government cannot afford that relatively modest amount to ensure that children from poor in-work families—I repeat that these are in-work families—are provided with a nourishing meal each school day? If so, then the Prime Minister’s claim to be supporting the “just about managing” will be demonstrably empty rhetoric. If their aim is to target the families that need free school meals most, the Minister has to answer the point made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, as to how children should be treated during school holidays: in many cases they suffer considerably without any access to free school meals in that period.

National Curriculum: Litter

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord’s first question, if we can change attitudes we will not need to spend large sums of taxpayers’ money cleaning up the litter left by careless people. In relation to PSHE, the review closed on 12 February and we had a record number of responses. We will be replying to that as soon as possible. It is also worth noting that an additional requirement that we have of schools is for the social, moral, spiritual and cultural development of children. This is a high-level duty that sits outside PSHE. It is written into legislation and also into the academy funding agreement, and it includes issues such as respect for the environment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I am wary of criticising the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, given his service in the SAS, but I suspect that there are many parents and not a few children today who, having heard him, are quite relieved that there are mercifully few chimneys left in this country. I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that it is extremely rare for the broad and balanced year 6 curriculum not to include civic responsibility, so it is not a problem. There are many great teachers in state schools in this country, not least Andria Zafirakou, who was named as the winner of the Global Teacher Prize just a few days ago. That is a tremendous credit to her work at Alperton Community School in north London. I suspect that most teachers in this country would welcome a robust statement from the Minister that teachers should be allowed to get on and teach. Will he give that assurance?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is very important that teachers are allowed to teach. The core of our reforms over the last seven or eight years has been the granting of autonomy to schools and the freeing up of the key stage 3 curriculum to give space for the teaching of things that are not directly linked to exams. I come back to my general theme: much of education is about producing a spiritual sense and a sense of belonging in society—so I agree that we should not be mandating additional individual activities.

Children: Missed Education

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, we try to represent a broad coalition in education. I am proud that we live in one of the most tolerant and inclusive countries in the world—as I said in an article in the Times today—and we have to meet the concerns of all people. The humanists have to be reasonable, as do any of the other religious groups, and my job is to ensure that we reach a compromise for all concerned and that children are safe.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

The Minister referred to home education in his Answer to my noble friend Lady Massey, although that is not mentioned in the Question. He avoided the Question on the collection of data, which is important. The Government do not collect data on the number of children whose parents claim they are being educated at home or elsewhere. The same is true of national statistics on unregistered schools, which are an increasing problem. No one knows how many children are being educated in unregistered schools, although Ofsted estimates it is as many as 6,000. Surely the time is now right for the Government to place a legal obligation on parents to register children not attending school, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Soley in his Bill which is going through your Lordships’ House. Will the Minister signify his support for that?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, as I made clear at Second Reading, we are aware of these concerns and have been motivated by the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Soley. We shall watch its progress in Committee with interest. I am not able at this stage to give a unilateral commitment on registration, but I am sympathetic to the arguments made by the noble Lord opposite. We have to be aware of the nuancing around this. For example, if we insist on registration, what do we do about the parents who refuse to register? If that does not solve the problem, they remain missing. What do we do with parents like the one who said in the newspapers the other day that she would go to prison rather than co-operate in any way? This is an open area for discussion, and I have an open mind.

Schools: Music

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I believe that when that was raised in the media recently, the school in question removed the charge, and I am not aware of any other examples of that happening. Certainly, if the noble Lord is aware, I would be pleased to hear from him and I will investigate it.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennedy once played the bassoon in the London schools orchestra. The chances of a young person from his school in Peckham doing so this year are considerably less because of the cuts to funding in many state schools for arts and creative subjects. Despite what the Minister said, I concur with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—in 2017 the number of pupils taking GCSE music is down to an all-time low of 5.5%, which is a very serious situation.

I have told the Minister before that Labour will introduce an arts pupil premium to ensure that every child in a primary school in England has the chance to learn a musical instrument, go to the theatre, or take part in dance and drama. The funding necessary for this cannot be escaped by the Government. Will the Minister say why the facilities in state schools are still so much worse than they are in many private schools—a situation which would be reversed by Labour’s arts pupil premium—or are the Conservative Government quite content for the study of music to be the preserve of the wealthy?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, spending on music and cultural education programmes has been stable for the last four years—it declined in 2013-14 and 2014-15, but we increased it. The noble Lord asked me a Question about EBacc in November, and I gave the response then that we probably have different priorities. I believe EBacc has been an enormous tool for improving social mobility in children from less advantaged backgrounds. We are seeing a dramatic increase in the number of children who are studying EBacc subjects such as science, geography, history and modern foreign languages. The reason we were so keen on this is that it provides an opportunity for these children to have a shot at a good university. We know good universities have facilitating subjects, which tend to be the EBacc subjects. Overall, the commitment to music remains and 120 music hubs are supporting some 14,000 ensembles across the country.

Children: School Attendance

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, we are aware of the recent report from Hackney, which refers to between 1,000 and 1,500 Haredi boys attending out-of-school settings in the borough. The report made it clear that they are yeshivas offering religious teaching in settings that do not meet the criteria to register as independent schools, but they are operating as out-of-school settings. We are conscious of this, but we have to be careful because out-of-school settings can include things like Sunday schools and even sports clubs. We have been working with some of these religious groups to encourage them to offer a broader form of education, and recently we managed to persuade the Haredi schools in Manchester to adjust their curriculum to offer a broader education. We will continue to do that.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is symptomatic of the Government’s complacency on this issue that the current document, Elective Home Education: Guidelines for Local Authorities, contains a ministerial foreword signed by Mr Jim Knight, the Minister of State, and Mr Andrew Adonis, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I have no idea what became of them, but that was 11 years ago and it has never been updated so I am very pleased that the Minister has announced today that he plans to update that document. The fact is that the Government have no idea how many children are out of school at the moment. They do not collect the figures, as we have heard, and local authorities are not obliged to do so either. How can anyone safeguard a child if they do not know about them? Does the Minister accept that a register of home-educated children, which is a provision in my noble friend Lord Soley’s Bill, is now an urgent necessity? Will he urge the new Secretary of State to make that one of his first priorities?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I think I can reassure the House that quite a lot of activity has occurred in the last four or five years. For example, we updated the statutory guidance, Children Missing Education, in September 2016 and Keeping Children Safe in Education, and introduced the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which particularly required any child leaving a school and going into home education to register with the local authority. We have tackled the out-of-school settings through the recruitment of Prevent education officers and, as I mentioned earlier, Ofsted has been given increasing powers. Lastly, as I referred to in an earlier answer, the legal advice we are receiving at the moment clarifies a lot of the powers available to local authorities, and we will seek to make them aware of those powers. We are keeping an open mind on the Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, but I am certainly working with him collaboratively on this.

Apprenticeships: Disabled Students

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, care leavers are among the most vulnerable groups of young people in the country, with 40% not in education, employment or training by early adulthood. Part of the reason, notwithstanding what the Minister said about support for care leavers, is the inadequacy of proper support to enable them to take up training opportunities. Care leavers can get a bursary if they attend university—but not if they undertake an apprenticeship. Will the Minister acknowledge the need for an apprenticeships bursary to provide additional support for care leavers and at the same time give a government commitment to parity between higher education on the one hand and further education and apprenticeships on the other?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, through the SEND reforms we have introduced since 2014 we have made available more than £220 million to help. This includes a package of £20 million for councils, £9 million to establish local supported internship forums and £4.5 million for parent carer forums. In the Children and Families Act 2014 we included the FE sector in a single SEND system. We put four duties on to the sector: to have regard to the SEND code of practice; to use best endeavours to meet special educational needs; to co-operate with the local authority; and to admit a young person if the college is named by the local authority.

Children: Mental Health Assessments

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. At the moment we have the Boarding School Partnerships, an initiative which works with a number of local authorities and boarding schools to increase the number of referrals for children who might be defined as on the edge of care. My own home county, Norfolk, is one of the largest users of this scheme. It is doing a longitudinal study, which we hope will be released next year, to show the impact of these children being prevented from going into care by going to a boarding school. If, as I hope, this shows very strong improvements in these children’s lives, we will be showcasing it to other local authorities to encourage more of them to do it.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it would be grossly unfair, particularly during this season of good will, to hold the Minister responsible for the sins—or at least the prevarication—of his predecessor, the general election notwithstanding. As has been mentioned, the expert working group on improving mental health support for young people in care reported last month. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the Government will show rather more urgency in response to that report than they have in testing new approaches to mental health assessments for looked-after children. These children are five times more likely to develop a mental disorder than children living at home with their families, but only one-third of those diagnosed accessed children and adolescent mental health services—known as CAMHS. Will the Minister ask the DfE to ensure that areas where CAMHS access is low will be prioritised when selecting the local authorities and clinical commissioning groups for those pilot studies?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I reassure the noble Lord that we will be looking at all the recommendations of the expert working group, some of which included the points that he made. These include things such as establishing a virtual mental health lead, based on the success of the virtual school head process, and improving the strengths and difficulties questionnaires, which we discovered are not always being carried out as well as they should be. In the debate on 23 November last year, the noble Baroness made a point about the importance of assessing mental health at the same time as a young person’s general health assessment is carried out, so reducing stigmatisation. I hope this offers some reassurance to the noble Lord. It is quite right that he holds us to account, even in the Christmas period.

Education and Society

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Friday 8th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the most reverend Primate on leading and introducing so eloquently this debate on a subject of great importance. I welcome the fact that so many noble Lords have recognised that by participating. The most reverend Primate mentioned Joshua Watson in his opening remarks. I am tempted to wonder whether he is a forebear of mine. The most reverend Primate told us that he is the man who founded the National Society in 1811. He also told us that the Luddites were founded that year. I rather suspect my forebears might have been more involved there, but I do not know.

The most reverend Primate spoke of the importance of educating the whole person—a concept reflected in the Church of England’s vision for education. That vision reflects the importance of preparing children for all aspects of life by investing in their general well-being. As many noble Lords have said, not enough has been done to promote well-being from an early age, which will make it difficult for young people to become resilient, with improved academic attainment leading to the skills needed by employers and the economy at large, while enabling young people to make a positive contribution to society. Today’s young people will need to be prepared to have several careers, because they face a much longer and more varied working life than their parents and grandparents.

Earlier this year, the Church of England set out its vision for an education system in which “no passports are required” and where, at Church schools,

“the doors are wide open to the communities they serve”—

in other words, as I read it, integration, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and my noble friend Lord Judd. Such a vision is certainly one to which we on these Benches subscribe. It is encouraging to note that the Church has also stated its intention to open only inclusive schools in future. It would be most welcome if other Churches and religious bodies responsible for running state schools were to do the same. For that reason, I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Murphy on the faith schools cap. Labour’s policy is that the cap has been in place since only 2011 and it has not yet had sufficient time to facilitate greater integration, which is its raison d’être.

Last month the Education Policy Institute published a report entitled Educating for our Economic Future, which urged the Government to put the future economy first as they reform the schools and post-16 education landscape. The report concluded that without substantial increases in productivity, wages and housing supply there will be serious risks to social mobility for the young. Opportunities will be created for those able to adjust their career paths and take advantage of high-skilled jobs, but there are risks that many will be trapped in low-level jobs with low pay and minimal employment rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, also drew attention to computer education, including coding. Around half of adults in England have either basic or no ICT skills. That is higher than the OECD average. Younger people fare better but, as the EPI report warns, proficiency with social media should not be mistaken for digital literacy and work-based digital skills.

The Government should develop a fresh and comprehensive strategy for lifelong learning, from early years, through school to further and higher education. If that sounds rather similar to the cradle-to-grave national education service advocated by Labour, then of course that is purely coincidental. Lifelong learning is about not just employability, but quality of life. In addition to increasing employment opportunities and reducing inequality, recent research by the Government Office for Science, no less, noted that lifelong learning has wider social and health benefits. These include improved mental and physical health, increased social cohesion and integration, greater community involvement and improved democratic participation, all components of a flourishing society.

In allowing learning and earning, part-time higher education is a catalyst for widening employability, but, during the past decade, nearly 400,000 part-time adult students have been lost from higher education, and the threefold increase in tuition fees over that period is a major contributory factor. Where have those people gone? And what skills and career opportunities have they foregone?

A prosperous learning and earning higher education sector is needed more than ever, not only because it increases productivity and regional skills but because it promotes social mobility. The Government should facilitate an accessible and affordable system for adults that encourages such lifelong learning and tackles shortages in the basic skills that our economy will need in the future.

As my noble friend Lord McConnell and the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, said, the further education sector is very much the poor relation of higher education. During the past decade, further education colleges have been hit harder in terms of funding than any other sector of education. That issue must be confronted by the Department for Education if colleges are fully to play their part in the expansion of apprenticeships.

Apprenticeships have a vital role at the heart of the response to skills shortages, not least for small firms. The apprenticeship levy and the expansion of the Institute for Apprenticeships to encompass technical education are both positive moves, but there is a danger that, with the Government seemingly obsessed with a target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020, quantity will triumph over quality, with not enough apprenticeships above level 2. There are worrying signs, including last week’s announcement—as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Haskel—that there has been a 59% drop in the number of apprenticeships in the last three months of the academic year compared with the same time a year ago. My noble friend Lord Adonis offered a thought-provoking, indeed provocative, six-point plan to deal with some of these issues. He included in that the role of the public sector in supporting apprenticeships, which is certainly worth considering.

If success is to be achieved in the development of relevant skills and the future shape of our economy, it must have social mobility at its heart. A major component of encouraging young people is to offer them varied and appropriate careers advice at school. I very much welcomed the announcement by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, in last week’s debate on lifelong learning that the Government are to publish a careers strategy early next year with an emphasis on social mobility. Good careers guidance is important for social mobility, as it helps open pupils’ minds to opportunities they may not previously have considered. I believe that no school should be able to earn an “outstanding” grade from Ofsted if the careers advice offered to its pupils is not in itself outstanding. That might concentrate the minds of some head teachers for whom, too often, the overwhelming concern is to channel as many of their pupils as possible to university. Poor careers advice and lack of work experience mean that, even with the same GCSE results, one-third more of poorer children drop out of post-16 education than their better-off classmates. That is not a statistic that any Government should regard as tolerable.

It is widely recognised that the key factor in increasing social mobility is investment in early years provision—referred to by various noble Lords and just a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. That must have an emphasis on learning through play rather than just childcare, as advocated forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. The early years of a child’s life have a lasting impact, but there are stark social class differences in how ready children are when they begin school. For a Government genuinely concerned about promoting social mobility, that is where the priority would lie. It is why Sure Start centres were launched by Labour in government two decades ago with a particular remit to provide early help to infants from disadvantaged backgrounds before they started school. They were hugely successful, but a succession of government cuts, direct or indirect, since 2010 has seen many closures of Sure Start centres—a fact referred to by the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Closures of Sure Start centres continue at the rate of one per week.

It seems that the Government are not willing to commit the necessary resources to early years funding, so disadvantaged children continue to fall behind, losing ground to their contemporaries from better-off families which may never be recovered.

Last year the Government closed the Child Poverty Unit, a body that involved cross-departmental initiatives—precisely what is necessary to bring about the joined-up government necessary to make an impact on reducing child poverty. Small wonder that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported this week that almost 400,000 more children were living in poverty last year compared with 2012-13. No wonder, either, that the outgoing chair of the Social Mobility Commission, which had the words “and Child Poverty” removed from its title by the Government last year, gave as one of his reasons for leaving his post that the Government no longer prioritise tackling child poverty. This week the former integration tsar, Louise Casey, referred to by the most reverend Primate, accused the Prime Minister of having done “absolutely nothing” about community cohesion a year after she presented the review that the Government had asked her to undertake. These are not the actions of a Government seriously interested in promoting social mobility.

This debate, of course, does not take place in a vacuum. I suspect that the Minister will tell us that, despite the fears expressed by many noble Lords, in fact there is little cause for concern because of the action that the Government are taking or will shortly initiate. In fact, the Government have but a single major item on their agenda at present, and that will continue until at least 2019. It is quite unacceptable that the shape of our future, post the European Union, is being allowed to suffocate initiatives that this Government should be pursuing with vigour. This debate has highlighted the issues that are essential if the skills that the workforce of the future will require are to be developed. The Government must refocus on this vital area of policy. If they do not, then the next one certainly will.

Social Mobility Commission

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. However, those words and the catalogue of claimed achievements are in stark contrast to what the outgoing chair of the Social Mobility Commission said yesterday, and indeed what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report said today. I am not making a partisan statement, because of course one of those resigning from the commission was the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, a former Conservative Secretary of State for Education. Reinforcing that is today’s editorial in the Times newspaper—not a source I normally quote, and usually a friend of Conservative Governments—which said of Theresa May that the resignations were,

“an embarrassing failure of both politics and policy … No wonder her social mobility commissioners have quit”.

When the commission was established in 2012, it was as the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission and had nine members. Two years ago, the Government indicated that they regarded child poverty as having been ended, because they dropped that part of the commission’s title. They also took away its remit to advise Ministers. Meanwhile, the number of commissioners had dwindled to four.

How can the Government claim to have social mobility as an aim when, at this year’s general election, their manifesto contained a proposal to increase the number of grammar schools—the effect of which would have been the very antithesis of social mobility? Can the Minister tell noble Lords why the Government did not adopt a single recommendation of the Social Mobility Commission? Do the Government remain committed to the commission and, if so, why?