European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Meg Hillier and Barry Sheerman

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend’s good contribution included an interesting point about intergenerational accountability. It is our generation that is making decisions on behalf of the nation about the future—about climate change, whether to go to war and so forth—and our decisions will substantially affect the next generation. Is it right for that generation to be denied a vote?

[Mr Sheerman]

Is my hon. Friend aware that this country has been castigated for allowing young people—as young as 15 or 16—to join the armed forces? Does she not realise that it is the protection of children and childhood that so many of us value, and that that is why we do not want to bring the age of becoming an adult down to 16?

[Meg Hillier]

Yet 16-year-olds pay tax and can get married, and 17-year-olds can drive. Young people can join the Labour party at 15—[Interruption.] I am advised that they can join the Conservatives at 14, so perhaps we should have a discussion with the leader of our party about that. My own children make decisions and get support when they seek advice, and they are keen to be actively engaged, even when they are under the age of 16. I believe that we take more and more decisions in which young people should be involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sheerman]

It is shrinking childhood.

[Meg Hillier]

I hear what my hon. Friend suggests, but we could equally look at it as aligning adulthood with the age of marriage and, indeed, military service. People can join the military at 16, but they will not be on the front line until they are 18.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Meg Hillier and Barry Sheerman

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I suppose that one could describe this as the education, education, education moment for the new Government. They have not called it that, but this is their flagship piece of legislation. The dramatic difference is that in 1997 the new Labour Administration went straight for a policy that would help the most underprivileged children in our society. The academy programme that emerged later was targeted at the children in most need, at the poorest towns and cities and at schools that were underperforming badly.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating? In Hackney, six new city academies have been built or are being built, and 84% of pupils have gained five A to Cs in the one that has so far had results. Surely, that proves that the previous Government’s policy was a good one.

[Mr Sheerman]

I am trying to be even-handed, but I take my hon. Friend’s point. Over 13 years, the Labour Government built more new schools and more new colleges and renewed more educational facilities than any Government in the history of our country. That building programme is indisputable, whatever one thinks about BSF and whether if Labour had been returned, we would have had to tamp it down or ease it in over a much longer period. However, we can discuss that at another time.

The difference between what we did in 1997 and what is proposed in the Bill did not come out in the speech made by the Secretary of State. Why go for outstanding schools? What is the magic of the outstanding school? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the work of the Children, Schools and Families Committee, saying that we wanted to free things up. Yes, we produced three strong reports that recommended giving schools more control over the curriculum, taking away some of the testing and assessment and reducing the six levels of school accountability. We said all those things, but we did so in the spirit of their being particularly important for all schools, not just the outstanding ones.

I believe that the new Administration, like the previous one, want to do the best for every child in our country. We only have one chance for education and both sides of the House—all three parties—want at heart to identify the talent and potential of our children and push them as far as they can go. It is important that we start from that basis, because when we look, as I have done, having spent nearly 10 years as Chair of the Select Committee, over the past 20 or 30 years—a period that the Committee used to call “From Baker to Balls” or “From Butler to Balls”—we can see that there are many more continuities in education policy than we might think if we heard only rousing speeches from Front-Bench speakers on either side.

There is a great danger in the Bill. Every Government need to be able to deliver their policies, and I have never known a policy be delivered by a demoralised work force. One of the secrets of our success over the last 13 years was that gradually, with difficulty, we got the teachers on side, partly by paying them better than ever before, rewarding them and respecting them more. That was the secret of our success and I hope the new Government will continue it.

Another tremendous partnership is needed to deliver policy—with the people who work in local government. It is easy to say that they have only back-office functions or unnecessary core functions, and that somebody else could do things better. Over the years, I have visited schools and local authorities around the country and I found that the one thing most school leaders and most people in schools want is a good, supportive local authority that knows the system, supports schools, knows what the difficulties are and tries to do everything it can to make the education system a success across the piece. I am worried that the Bill will be atomising—there will be a direct relationship between a big central Department and schools, with no intermediary. The people who were the intermediaries—local government—have high skills and it would be sad if the Government wasted them.