Home Education

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on securing the debate.

Every parent has a right to choose whether they send their child to school or home educate them, and that right should be respected. Although I recognise the need for change and reform, it is also important that local authorities have clear guidance on how to work with home-schooling families in a manner that supports the needs of children as well as the rights of parents to home school their children. Many constituents have come to see me about how local authorities have overreached and gone into people’s homes in a manner that is, as my constituents put it, akin to a police-style investigation. I have been told of one occasion on which inspectors came into a home, went around recording with a video recorder, and livestreamed it to somebody else back in the office. This is clearly invasive and conflicts with people’s rights to a private and family life.

It is because of such actions that so many people who are home educating their families are worried about the introduction of legislation and the infringement of their rights. Sometimes legislation can be well intended, but without the correct guidance, checks and balances, it can have unintended outcomes and consequences. That is why we need further developed guidance, training and support to be provided alongside statutory safeguards for children. It is easy to have opinions on home educating —there are some that I share when it comes to child safety and safeguarding—but the guidance for such legislative changes has to be formed with and informed by the support of those who have real experience: home-educating parents themselves.

My request to the Government is for them to work with stakeholders and the families of home-educated children to ensure that the safety of children is considered, and that they have their rights protected and can carry out their choices. What are the Government doing to ensure that, as outlined by the hon. Member for Don Valley, there is a one-size approach, as well as a legislative framework and guidance, so that when people do checks of the register, they have statutory guidance to follow to ensure they do not overstep the mark? If I was educating my child, I would not like somebody to walk into my home with a video recorder or livestream me—that would not be okay. What are the Government putting in place to police that kind of behaviour by local authorities that are not behaving in the right way? Who has that responsibility? Will there be separate units or people in each local authority who are designated to carry out those specific roles? Are we looking at parents through a security lens or a social-worker lens? What approach are we taking to ensure that children are safeguarded?

Some of my constituents who came to me have two older children who are now at university, and they have others who are going through the education system. I was shocked, surprised and had a huge learning experience when those parents told me about the benefits that their children had: they could stagger their GCSEs and work to the strengths of their children. I get all that; it makes reasonable sense. What safeguards are the Government putting in place to ensure that parents have a right to privacy and to raise and educate their children as they see fit?

We have talked about the issue of relationships and sex education, and many of my constituents share those concerns. Many communities across the UK share concerns about their children being exposed to things that are not necessarily in line with their freedom of religion, or who want to safeguard their children from being exposed to images that they feel their children are too young to see. Where do we draw the line on all of this and how do we support the children? Those are the questions I would like the Minister to look at.

Making Britain the Best Place to Grow Up and Grow Old

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I would really like every one of my constituents in Bradford West to be able to say that Britain is the best place to grow up and grow old, but unfortunately, given the failures of the Government, I cannot say that for every single one of my constituents. Actions speak louder than words, and this Prime Minister committed to levelling up “every part of the UK”. That remains an idea and a slogan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said.

Last week, it was seven years since the people of Bradford West put their trust and faith in me to be their voice in this Chamber. I said then that the north was being neglected, and I say it again today. At the time, I shared the fact that it was my privilege to be representing a great northern city which is the youngest city in Europe, the birthplace of the Brontë sisters, has a world-renowned literature festival and so much more. Seven years later, after enduring austerity, an unforgiving pandemic and now a cost of living crisis, this great city is applying to be the city of culture and continues to move forward, but that is in spite of the Government’s failure to level up Bradford and their other broken promises.

I am very grateful for the £20 million that my constituency has secured for a health and wellbeing centre which is long overdue, but unfortunately that is a drop in the ocean when compared to the £30-billion-worth of potential growth and 27,000 jobs that have been robbed from Bradford by the Government’s failure to deliver on Northern Powerhouse Rail.

The Government have made Bradford a priority area for education, but in reality, this is also too little, too late. During the pandemic, I repeatedly warned the Government that disadvantaged pupils in Bradford were 18 months behind their wealthier peers and that the gap was widening. It is shocking that the Government have made Bradford a priority area for education while they plan to defund BTEC qualifications, despite the Department for Education’s equalities impact assessment concluding that the move will embed inequality into our education system.

Over the last 12 years, the city of Bradford and my constituents have been robbed of investment and opportunities to grow. The Government have only supplemented that loss by providing Bradford with handout investments that are not enough to truly level up.

Children across the UK and in my constituency deserve the best start in life and deserve access to education, training and job opportunities throughout their lives. Only today, however, the Government’s safeguarding Minister has suggested that people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis should take on more hours of work or move to better paid jobs. That is shocking and another reminder that “levelling up” is just a slogan. If the Government were truly committed to levelling up, they would give each and every person in my constituency the right support and investment to thrive and not just to survive. At the moment, some are not even surviving as they have to choose between who gets fed and whether the heating can go on.

Another example of opportunity and investment bypassing Bradford is the King’s Cross-style regeneration projects, in which the Government promised to transform 20 cities and towns across the country as part of their levelling-up agenda. It comes as no surprise to me that Bradford has not so far been named as one of the 20 cities. I ask the Minister whether Bradford will be overlooked again.

The Prime Minister alone has mentioned “levelling up” 97 times since 2019 in this Chamber, and other Ministers mention it too. Unsurprisingly, he has not yet delivered on levelling up even once. I have said this before, and I will say it again: the litmus test for levelling up is Bradford. If the Government fail Bradford, they have failed to deliver on their levelling-up strategy—all of it. Without equality, equity and fairness, Britain will not be the best place to grow up and grow old. It is not going to work for people in Bradford West if there is not equality and fairness and if this Government do not put their money where their mouth is. Actions speak louder than words and my constituents will be judging everything this Government do.

Investing in Children and Young People

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I start by referring to the Daily Mail, which ran an absurd story—a wholly inaccurate story—about places such as Bradford, which is my city, being a no-go area. It was based on a recently published book. Today, I want to set the record straight: Bradford is a young, energetic and diverse city where around 85 languages are spoken. Bradford is also the youngest city in Europe. Recent research shows that, on the list of the 20 most entrepreneurial UK cities, Bradford comes second.

In 2020, 4,786 new businesses were created in the district, and that continues, but, just like any other city, we have our challenges. The past 15 months have been extremely difficult on all fronts. It breaks my heart to say that this Government have treated our children as an afterthought. Throughout the pandemic, and even now, they are neglecting them when it comes to the education recovery fund, which simply does not go far enough.

Sir Kevan Collins’s resignation was a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ catch-up plan, which is failing to deliver for our children. The Government threw out his ideas and expertise as soon as it became about the need to stump up the cash. We know that early-years education needs further investment, but the Government choose not to do anything about it. Over the last decade, the Government have slashed further education funding by a third and the adult education budget by half. Colleges have been allocated funds only to hold small group tutoring for the most disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-old students with no one-to-one support.

The Government recently admitted that there had been an underspend of £2.1 billion in the apprenticeship levy fund since May 2019. Labour proposes a wage subsidy incentive to create 85,000 new apprenticeships from last year’s underspend. The Government must now look at our plans for giving our next generation their first step on the ladder.

Recent data shows that 32,260 people in Bradford claim unemployment benefit. Of those claimants, 6,880 are aged between 18 and 24. Young people are desperate for jobs. Meanwhile, the kickstart scheme has created jobs for only 3% of unemployed young people nearly a year after it was announced. The Government must work with us to deliver our jobs promise, which guarantees jobs, training or education and placements for all young people who are out of work for over six months.

Youth clubs are the beating heart of our communities, working day in, day out to empower and advocate for young people, but youth services are on the brink of collapse due to Government cuts of 73% since 2010. The Government must now deliver their manifesto commitment to give £500 million to youth services.

Despite this extremely difficult period and lack of funding, Bradford Council has worked extremely hard to support children and young people through a range of services. That can carry on only with the right resources and funding. For example, if we look at exclusion from school, we see that fewer than 10 children were excluded in 2018-19 in the whole of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but in England, several hundred children were excluded.

Poverty plays a big part in children’s learning. There is no poverty of aspiration in Bradford West or in the whole of my city, but there is poverty, and it is growing. I really want to showcase Bradford. I invite the Minister to Bradford to see at first hand what the city has to offer. I ask her to commit that the Government will ensure that cities such as Bradford are not neglected and left behind. I appreciate and value the opportunities fund and the increase in it, but that is not enough for the youngest city in the whole of Europe and I would welcome the Minister’s response to my invitation so that I can demonstrate what I mean. I invite her to meet young people, the teachers who have done what they have done during the pandemic and the people who have shortcomings in child and adolescent mental health services, and to put real investment where we need it.

If we want generation covid to thrive for the future of our country, the Government have some serious commitments to make, and I would welcome an intervention for Bradford from the Minister.

Child Food Poverty

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]]

I was appalled to hear some of the earlier speakers suggest that this is not a political issue. I want to thank Marcus Rashford and the 1.1 million people who have signed the petition. When it needs 1.1 million people to sign a petition to call for a debate, it absolutely is political. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world. Despite this, UNICEF—an organisation that is responsible for humanitarian aid to children worldwide—launched an emergency response to the UK. There would have been no need for that if this issue was not political. There would have been no need for 1.1 million people to have signed the petition.

In the year 2020, Bradford Metropolitan Food Bank gave out 20,000 emergency food parcels, including to constituents in my constituency of Bradford West. That represents a 67% increase. The injustice of child food poverty cannot be permanently addressed by emergency food parcels and generous donations from local businesses such as those in Bradford West and across the country. The Government must commit to eradicating child food poverty, and should not go ahead with their plans to scrap the £20 universal credit uplift. I have said it before, and I will say it again: it is clear that a cut to the £20 increase risks plunging children and families into food poverty and further destitution. It is just not good enough. The Child Poverty Action Group has stated that lifting the two-child limit and the benefit cap would lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and an increase to child benefit would substantially reduce poverty.

The Government cannot allow children to bear the burden of the pandemic while people are losing their jobs. People need food security. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) talked about the dignity of parents. If the Government want to give real dignity, they should reverse the austerity, give people what they are entitled to, build back, and level up properly so that people such as those in my constituency do not continue to suffer because of the Government’s failures.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I am grateful for the self-discipline that Members have exercised in this very important debate, but we have run over slightly to get every Back-Bencher in. Front-Benchers, could you take one minute off your maximum allowance? I call Patrick Gibson. [Interruption.] Sorry—Patricia. I read what is in front of me. I apologise.

Early Years Settings: Covid-19

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again today, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this timely and important debate. I also concur with the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on the stopping of Westminster Hall debates. That is a huge concern; I do hope we are allowed to scrutinise the Government, especially during the pandemic.

On 4 January, the Government finally announced a national lockdown and asked secondary and primary schools to remain closed, while simultaneously asking early years setting to open. The new variant of covid-19 has been estimated to be up to 70% more transmissible than the previously circulating form of covid-19, and it is spreading far more quickly.

We know, and the science tells us, that children can spread the virus to their parents, families and communities. We also know that it is almost impossible to socially distance when working with young children in early years settings. To quote the science: Anthony Costello, SAGE member, Professor of International Child Health, director of the UCL Institute for Global Health, and a former WHO director, said in The Mirror on 9 January:

“We are in a national crisis with a pandemic out of control. We should have no nurseries open.”

Chris Whitty on Radio 4 on 11 January encouraged parents not to send their children to nursery if they do not need to.

The Government have left early years settings to conduct their own risk assessments, without providing them with the safety blanket of regular testing. The Government failed to prioritise regular and mass testing for staff and practitioners in early years settings and, even today, they still remain open without that support. Further to that, the early years sector has had to face the challenges arising from covid-19 and the associated costs with no increase in funding. I have been contacted by many early years settings in Bradford West, including the Midland Road nursery and Lilycroft nursery school, who are facing immense financial pressure and need the Government to act now.

In 2020, maintained nursery schools, along with the rest of the early years sector, were noticeably excluded from the Government’s £1 billion catch-up funding, despite the fact that early intervention is widely accepted as one of the most effective strategies to address gaps in learning. Last year, maintained nursery schools were also barred from applying to the coronavirus fund, which was intended to assist with extra costs incurred by schools during covid-19. I was informed by an early years practitioner in my constituency that the school she represents had already spent £20,000 from very tight budgets to cover the unplanned costs in staffing and resources directly resulting from the pandemic.

The current lockdown is likely to change the number of children attending early years settings, with a number of parents making the tough decision to keep children at home. That is likely to spell ruin for the sector, as the Government have decided to change the funding entitlement on current occupancy of early years settings rather than pre-covid occupancy levels. The early years sector should not be worrying about extra costs arising from covid-19 and a funding model that is not fit for purpose, given the risks to the safety of staff and overstretched budgets. The Government must urgently review funding for early years as a priority and provide additional funding to the sector.

It appears that the current restrictions and the changing nature of the virus mean that additional funding and a review of the current funding model for the early years sector is urgently needed. Indeed, statistics from the DFE show that the percentage of maintained nursery schools in deficit increased from 3.5% in 2009-10 to 17.7% in 2018-19. The time for the Government to act is now. Will the Minister commit to rethinking the funding model for the early years sector? Will she commit to providing additional funding to cover the cost of covid-19? Finally, will the Government prioritise testing for staff and practitioners to ensure that working environments are safe and that children and families are protected? It is not good enough that early years settings have been asked to remain open and survive without a lifeline.

Free School Meals

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is not often that I find myself really struggling to follow an hon. Member, but I am struggling to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). Let me tell him, and his Government. He is not taking lectures from the Labour Benches. But we have experience of poverty. Tell that to the 5,500 children in my constituency who are eligible for free school meals. Tell that to the Marcus Rashfords of this world who grew up in poverty. Tell me, who grew up in poverty. Tell Labour Members who have experienced it at first hand.

[Jonathan Gullis]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I will not take any lectures, and nor will I take any interventions, when it comes to children in poverty, from the Conservative Benches.

Yesterday, I spoke to the Trussell Trust and the truth is that we expect a 9% increase in children and families starting to use food banks, just because of the £20 cut to universal credit. In addition—wow; it is not often that I get this angry in the House—more than 16,000 of my constituents are on universal credit, yet Members on the Conservative Benches are happy to cut another £20 from that. Only 31% of people in my constituency are taking up the furlough scheme, and many of them will be thrown into poverty when that comes to an end. That figure of 16,000—the number of families affected—will go up day by day, as the virus hits us and people have to make a choice between putting food on their table and going to work, and having to isolate for 14 days. That is what real poverty is. I can speak from experience, having experienced poverty, so I will take no lectures from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North.

This is about morality. This is not a debate about whether it is food bank vouchers or free school meals; this is a debate about poverty. Which bit of that do Members of the House not get? This is about children who will not have a meal, or the sufficient nutrients to go to school or to go about their daily lives and be able to learn. That should be their God-given right. That is what every child in the country should have. We are a rich nation. If people live from food banks, what is the measure of our country? We have kids and families on food banks.

Let me thank all those in my constituency who volunteer at food banks, and who continuously try to plug the gap that 10 years of austerity and the failures of Members on the Conservative Benches and this Government, have left for people in my constituency and up and down the country. Shame on this Government! Shame on the people who are going to walk through that Lobby today and vote this motion down. I know exactly where my moral compass is, and it is on the right side of history.

Free School Meals: Summer Holidays

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

On days like this, I despair of this Government and their complete lack of understanding, care and emotion towards the very real issues in our country. [Interruption.] It is not a laughing matter for children to be raised in poverty and not have food. It is not something to laugh at. I am happy to explain what it is like to the Government Members who think it is funny.

What it is like to live in poverty is to be palmed off, like I was as a child, to social services, to go away for a week at a time. I went to Scarborough. The only memories I have of that time are that I went birdwatching and it was awfully cold staying in a dormitory. Only this afternoon, I rang my sister to ask, “Do you remember when we used to go to Scarborough because Mum used to send us there for summer holidays?” That is what poverty is—memories that you do not want to recall as an adult, even in my mid-40s. These are not memories that my constituents’ children should have to recall in generations to come.

I despair because today it has taken the experiences of a 22-year-old black man using his social media to get this Government to do the right thing. Our Prime Minister keeps saying, “I am going to take back control.” Who actually took control of this debate today? It was not us in this House. We should have been leading on this issue and doing the right thing before it needed a massive campaign by Marcus Rashford. I absolutely appreciate and thank him for taking that leadership, and others for supporting him, and our those on our Front Bench, who lobbied early this week and talked about the issue previously, but the Government should not have had to be dragged here kicking and screaming.

The Government should not need an international debate—just like today on child poverty—on racism for them to realise that they have failed to provide race equality in the UK, even according to their own recommendations. The Government should not need the entire country to scream in their face to act on a lockdown for us to be protected from covid-19. When it comes to saving millions, they are happy to do so for Tory donors. The figure quoted in the press as the saving made by approving a Tory donor’s Westferry development is £30 million to £40 million, yet we cannot find £120 million for our children. [Interruption.] I will make some progress. When it comes to defending the indefensible with a No. 10 adviser, this Government seem to find their mojo. They do not heed the campaigns that the country is screaming for.

[Paul Bristow]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I will not be giving way; I will make some progress.

Bradford West has one of the highest rates of child poverty. It is in the top 10 according to the charity End Child Poverty. Its findings show that 50.9% of children in my constituency live in poverty after housing costs. The Government’s own statistics show that almost 40,000 children across the Bradford district are living in poverty. Those children are not mere statistics. Each one of them is a Marcus Rashford, except the cycle of deprivation will mean they may never get out of poverty.

Marcus Rashford epitomises what happens in spite of, not because of, poverty. One of the reasons he felt the campaign was needed was that poverty was his experience. One of the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) tweets about it and talks about it is that he also experienced life as a child of a single parent on free school meals, just like I did and just like my siblings did. Will the new yardstick in this place to get the Government to do the right thing be a campaign by a footballer or by somebody who has a social media following? Is that what the yardstick is going to be? That would be a crying shame.

Yes, the Government can say that they are running pilot schemes in constituencies such as mine—

[Patricia Gibson]

I am thankful that the hon. Lady has shared her experience today with the Chamber. I intervene as someone who grew up benefiting from free school meals. Does she share my real disappointment that a year after the Children’s Future Food inquiry, which was about childhood hunger across the UK, the UK Government still have not formally responded to its report?

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We need to continually raise those points in the House. The Government can say that they are running a pilot scheme in constituencies such as mine, rolled out by the Department for Education, but such schemes simply do not go far enough.

The fight against child poverty and desperation needs much more intervention. In 2018, the programme reached 2,000 children in Bradford. Although I welcome it reaching every single one of those 2,000 children, what about the other 38,000? Businesses, charities and grassroots organisations in my constituency have been working tirelessly on that, but I am sorry—funding the NHS, protecting our streets and feeding hungry children are not the responsibilities of our charities; they are the responsibilities of democratic Governments of the first world. They are our responsibility. Perhaps those in government do not know how it feels to live in poverty, but they sure know how to make U-turns. For once I can say that I am glad about the U-turn the Government have made today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

My right hon. Friend is right. We know that we have to give headteachers the tools to ensure that we have safe, calm environments in our schools. No headteacher excludes without giving the matter very careful consideration, with permanent exclusions used only as a very last resort. What is key is that exclusion from school must not mean exclusion from education, so timely access to high-quality alternative provision plays a critical role in improving excluded children’s outcomes. Our objective is to improve the quality and capacity of alternative provision.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the potential merits of Bradford University establishing a medical school.

[The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)]

The Secretary of State for Education, who is in fact an esteemed alumnus of Bradford University, has not discussed the potential merits of the university establishing a medical school with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The Government provide grant funding for eligible higher education providers to contribute towards the cost of delivering medical degrees.

[Naz Shah]

The truth is that the last Conservative Government did not engage with any university in the whole of Yorkshire when they were planning their medical schools. Perhaps now, given that the Tory buzzword is “levelling up”, the Minister might level up Bradford University and Yorkshire, and work with and agree to meet the university, which is very ready to train up medics, given that post-Brexit Britain will have a skills shortage.

[Michelle Donelan]

The University of Bradford did contribute a bid in 2017. That process subsequently produced five brand new medical schools, which have increased our capacity by 1,500 medical places. Unfortunately, the University of Bradford’s application was unsuccessful, but it is not true to say that the Department did not engage with the university, and I am more than happy to visit it.

Relationships and Sex Education

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I concur with the comments made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) about the passionate speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and the points that she raised.

I enter this debate as a representative of thousands of constituents who have been in contact with me, either directly or indirectly. Strong opinions—varying, contrasting opinions—have been expressed, all drawing equally on our tradition of respect for human rights. In grappling with the subject of this debate, I want to respect and have sensitivity for that divergence and be clear about the need to protect the vulnerable from harm while ensuring that the state fulfils its duty and individual citizens are given their freedom. The connection between the collective and the individual has been discussed many times in this House. It is my firm belief that the empowered individual is the bedrock of a collective that upholds the rights of the vulnerable and protects them from those who are more powerful. Otherwise, minorities will be abused in the name of the freedom of the majority.

On occasions throughout history, coercive religious states have mandated that their worldview should be indoctrinated through all the structures of their societies, disregarding the rights of minorities or of anyone who wishes to pursue non-religious worldviews. It was in that context that philosophers, ideologues and revolutionaries from the Scottish coffee houses to the streets of Europe dedicated their words and their lives, sacrificing everything to build on the renaissance and give birth to modern liberal democracies such as the one we stand in today. Although liberal democracies such as ours often challenged authoritarian regimes that neglected minority rights, it took centuries for modern systems to include the rights and freedoms of working-class people, women, black and minority ethnic communities, and—more recently—people from LGBTQ communities. In all those regards, we have serious ground to make up if we are to have fairness and justice for all, but it is fair to say that we have come on leaps and bounds from where we once were.

When arguments are made in favour of mandatory relationships and sex education in schools to provide LGBTQ communities with further equality or protection from bullying, I can categorically understand and appreciate those arguments. When the argument is about protecting young children from sexual predators, or the dire need to protect our young children from the adverse effects of social media in particular, it is a no-brainer. We need to address all those issues in a way that is congruent with our need to respect the rights and freedoms of all components of our society.

Although there was clearly some debate about cultural and religious elements when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed, that Act did not apply to religious institutions: it merely aimed to provide everyone in our democracy with equal rights. The Act provided the right of marriage to those who were previously denied it; those with religious beliefs were unaffected by that change and were allowed to maintain their religious rights. We would not claim, nor should we claim, that by protecting the right to religious belief in that Act we were denying the rights of anyone else. This measure, however, is mandatory for everyone, without the right of exemption on the basis of belief. Many of my constituents, especially parents, have expressed concerns. They are not seeking a false right to be bigoted or to promote or incite bigotry, but they are concerned that the legislation engages with deeply personal matters that go beyond our purview as state legislators.

My call today is simple: the fundamental principle of a true liberal democracy is to ensure that a society can exist in which all people’s rights are intact. In that spirit, I ask that the concerns of my constituents, and many of the signatories of the petition that led to today’s debate, not be completely ignored. I have seen many of the draft guidelines published by the Government, and I welcome much of what is in them, as they signal a collaboration between parents and schools on the syllabuses that will be taught. Nevertheless, for many people, the guidelines are still built along unclear lines, and with the legislation not having been put into practice, parents across my constituency have significant concerns. Some of those parents have indicated that the legislation coerces them into giving up their parental rights, and that although they may not have a right to opt their children out of lessons taught in schools, they do have a right to take their children out of school and teach their principles through home schooling. I do not want that to happen, as it will be hugely detrimental to society as a whole.

Minorities and majorities change according to time and place, but we must stay true to our principles and not allow any minority to be ignored. I therefore call on the Minister to reach out to concerned parents, and I invite him to my constituency of Bradford West to consult further with parents there. Many organisations have suggested that the consultation period went silently by, and that not enough time was given for the parents to fully understand the issues involved. Those organisations also want to be part of further discussions to gain reassurance about many things, including clarity about how faith and cultural factors will be considered. It is in line with our fundamental principles that people should not be ignored, nor should they feel coerced. Let us win hearts and minds through debate and discussions. Even if getting this right means delaying the process, it would be a positive step forward. It is better that we win with freedom than lose with the perception of a denial of rights.

School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2018

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 General Committees

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extraordinarily valid point. We know from our postbags that a rising number of parents cannot get special educational needs and disability provision for their children because schools are having to cut that and less specialist services back at local authority level. Local authorities have been cut—they have lost around 30% to 40% of their budgets—which has had a direct impact on the services that schools can buy in.

The number of local authority maintained secondary schools in deficit has nearly trebled, which means that more than a quarter of all such schools are now in deficit. In 2016-17, the proportion of primary schools in deficit increased significantly, to 7.1%. The average primary school deficit also notably increased, from £72,000 in 2010-11 to £107,000 in 2016-17.

Perhaps the most worrying finding was that a large proportion of local authority maintained schools are now spending more than their income, and 40% of those secondaries have had balances in decline for at least two years in a row. Similar figures are found for local authority maintained primaries; in 2016-17 more than 60% were spending more than their income. A quarter had had a falling balance for two years or more.

The Education Policy Institute report points to the inevitable outcome of the growing budget pressures. Staff account for the majority of spending by schools, at around two thirds. It is therefore likely that schools will find it difficult to achieve the scale of savings necessary without cutting back on staff. What is the Government response? Only last week we found that the new Education Secretary had been forced into an embarrassing U-turn after he claimed wrongly that school spending is going up. That is the message they would like to put out. The constant delay of the fair funding formula led to constant Conservative press releases about fixing funding in our schools, but that has been far from the case.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that in places such as Bradford West, where we have an excellent cluster of maintained nurseries, we are still not sure where the funding is coming from? If it is coming, will it be to meet the existing deficit—from special needs, early years and so on—or will it be new money?

[Mike Kane]

The biggest impact we can have as civil society and government on the social mobility and educational attainment of our young people is in the early years, but our Sure Start centres have been decimated over the past few years, with no guarantee—absolutely none—of what their future will be. My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.

The Secretary of State originally said:

“We know that real-terms funding per pupil is increasing across the system, and with the national funding formula, each school will see at least a small cash increase.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 536.]

Last week, however, he had to respond to the House on that. What had Sir David Norgrove, head of the UK Statistics Authority, pointed out? He had said that funding was being frozen in real terms until 2020, not increased. The Secretary of State therefore had to write to correct the record.

I have a few questions for the Minister. One of the major issues is whether he will confirm that the regulations allow for a 1.5% cut in funding per pupil in cash terms. Our evidence suggests that they do, so that is a fair funding formula that allows for a 1.5% cut in funding in cash terms. Will he confirm that the Government will not increase overall pupil funding? As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, the additional £1.3 billion announced after the election last year keeps funding basically flat in real terms over the next two-year period. Will he confirm that? Will he also confirm that funding has fallen in real terms since 2015? For example, the National Audit Office reports an accumulated £2.7 billion cut from school budgets since 2015, despite the regulations before us.

The national funding formula consultation has been delayed and delayed, and pushed back and pushed back after the election. Looking at the regulations, the formula has been a colossal waste of time, effort and money, and has come with that delay. The Government have come to a conclusion that only tinkers with the edges of the funding crisis in our schools. For now, I will leave it there.

[Sarah Champion]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Owen.

I want to put some real figures into our debate. We keep hearing about “real terms” funding and savings, so let us put some real figures in there. Rotherham has 88 primary schools and 14 secondary schools, and there have been real cuts to their funding in the past couple of years. In 2015-16, income was £4,150 per primary school child and £5,876 per secondary school child. However, by 2017-18, funding had dropped to £3,954 for that same primary school child and to £5,587 per secondary school pupil. Looking forward to 2019-20, under this funding formula, schools will receive £3,965 per primary school child and £5,518 per secondary school child. Collectively, the primary schools in Rotherham are losing £4,404,897, and the secondary schools are losing just over £5 million. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said there had been a real-terms increase. I am sorry, but funding has fallen in real terms since 2015.

[Naz Shah]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those cuts are landing in places with the most deprivation, such as her constituency and mine?

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We were hoping for a funding formula that recognised the different pressures in different areas. A blanket funding formula does not recognise the real issues we have in the north of England in particular.

The IFS states that overall, school funding will have fallen by 4.6% in real terms between 2015 and 2019. We do not know the real impact of the next round of cuts, but perhaps the Committee can make an informed assessment by looking at what happened in the previous two years. Between 2014-15 and 2016-17, class sizes rose by 54% in primary schools and by 50% in secondary schools. In the same period, the ratio of pupils to teachers rose by 61% in primary schools and by 71% in secondary schools. The ratio of pupils to teaching assistants rose by 58% in primary schools and by 79% in secondary schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

I am coming to the hon. Lady’s question. Given that schools in Hornsey and Wood Green are being funded at significantly more than the national average, and given that the vast majority of schools are not doing the things she talks about, there is no reason for schools in her constituency to take that action.

Across the country, schools with similar pupil characteristics have received markedly different levels of funding. That is why our promise to reform this unfair, opaque and outdated school and high needs funding system and introduce a national funding formula has been so important, and I am particularly pleased that this Government were able to deliver on that.

This reform represents the biggest improvement in the school funding system for more than a decade. From April 2018, the introduction of the national funding formula will put the funding system firmly on track to deliver resources on a consistent and transparent basis, based on the individual circumstances of every school in the country. Following extensive consultation, in which we carefully considered more than 25,000 individual responses to our proposals, last September we were able to publish full details of the school and high needs national funding formulae and the impact they will have on every local authority.

Those proposals were underpinned by an additional £1.3 billion for schools and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20, over and above the funding confirmed at the 2015 spending review. School funding is at a record high because of the choices we have made to prioritise school funding, even as we faced difficult decisions elsewhere to restore our country’s finances.

[Naz Shah]

I visited the launch of the Bradford for Teaching initiative, trying to get teachers in. The truth is that when I talk to teachers, and those amazing people who want to teach, I hear that the funding formula does not allow the schools to get the best teachers in. It is not just about the children; the impact on the level of teaching in places such as Bradford West really needs to be looked at. These solutions are just not good enough.

[Nick Gibb]

There are two points. First, we have only been able to deliver these high levels of spending on schools, rising from £41 billion this year to £42.4 billion next year and £43.5 billion the year after, because the way in which we have managed the economy means we can afford to do so. A Labour Government, particularly a Labour Government under the current leadership—any future Government led by the party opposite—would bankrupt our economy and there would be no chance of any of these increases in funding coming into our public services. We have to have a strong economy first of all. Secondly, responding to the hon. Lady’s point, schools in Bradford West, as she should know, would attract 1.3% more funding if the national funding formula were implemented in full, based on the 2017-18 data. That is equivalent to £1.4 million more funding for those schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

I would be delighted to go to Rotherham again. I was the candidate there in 1994 in a by-election. I thoroughly enjoyed my stay, and I was delighted narrowly to beat Screaming Lord Sutch. The hon. Lady raises an important point, and the £2.9 million extra funding is equivalent to about £214 per pupil in Rotherham. I would be delighted to come and see some schools in Rotherham soon.

[Naz Shah]

Given that the Minister is in the mood to travel to Yorkshire, perhaps he could come to West Yorkshire and visit my constituency of Bradford West. We have had this discussion previously, but the real-term cuts to SEN, and the immense pressures on local authorities to deliver on education have had a real impact in my community. I would appreciate the Minister coming a few miles up the road to West Yorkshire so that I can introduce him to headteachers of schools in my constituency.

[Nick Gibb]

I would be delighted. The hon. Lady and I have discussed education in her area, and I know how passionate she is about improving academic standards in schools in her constituency. I would, of course, be delighted to visit some schools in her constituency with her in the very near future.

Under these regulations, the national funding formula will allocate the schools, high needs and central school services blocks of the dedicated schools grant fairly to local authorities. The school and early years financial regulations govern how local authorities can distribute that funding between schools and early years providers, and they apply for the coming financial year. Regulations that have recently been made will replace those for 2017-18.

In 2018-19 and 2019-20, local authorities will continue to set their own local funding formulae for schools, which will determine individual schools’ budgets in their areas. Those formulae are set following consultation with local schools. It remains the Government’s clear intention to move, in time, to a system in which each school’s individual budget is set directly by the national funding formula without local variation. That will ultimately ensure that similar schools will receive similar funding, regardless of where they are situated.

However, by continuing to allow a small but important element of flexibility for local authorities over the next couple of years, the regulations will be able to help to smooth the transition to the national funding formula at a local level. They set the rules within which local authorities must operate as they set their local formulae. The changes we have made to the regulations for 2018-19, compared with 2017-18, enable local authorities to mirror the national funding formula for schools in their local formulae. Unless we make these regulatory changes, they would not be allowed to do that. Many local councils have decided that they should replicate the national funding formula in their local formulae. We support that decision, which is a strong vote of confidence in the principles behind our national funding formula.

The regulations need to be made each year, and for the most part, the 2018 regulations simply ensure that the rules set in the 2017 regulations will continue in place. The changes we have made are intended to enable local authorities to mirror the national funding formula.

The changes on school funding are, first, the introduction of an optional minimum per-pupil funding level—the £4,600 I mentioned—which local authorities can now use as a factor in their local funding formulae to ensure that every school receives a minimum amount of funding for each pupil. Unless we pass the regulations, local authorities would not have the discretion to do that.

I do not understand why the Opposition prayed against the regulations. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the -1.5% minimum funding guarantee. That is the current position. Currently, if a local authority wants a minimum funding guarantee to smooth the effect of any changes to the local formula, to ensure that no school can lose more than -1.5% per pupil when a local formula changes, it can introduce that minimum funding guarantee. We have changed that in the regulations to give local authorities more flexibility, so that, instead of the option of -1.5%, they can now also vary the amount, up to +0.5%, which is the minimum funding guarantee in the national funding formula.

By praying against the regulations, the hon. Gentleman is entrenching in the rules for the local funding formula a minimum funding guarantee of -1.5% and preventing local authorities from having a +0.5% minimum funding guarantee, which we have introduced into the national funding formula. Secondly, the regulations on indicators of deprivation have also changed. Local authorities can choose to use a combination of the free school meals, Ever 6 free school meals and income deprivation affecting children index—IDACI—formulae. Thirdly, there are also some technical changes regarding looked-after children and the scaling factor used to set funding for pupils with low prior attainment.

The hon. Member for Rotherham also raised issues about significant growth in pupil numbers in constituencies. She cited regulation 13, which is designed to tackle precisely the problem she refers to. Regulation 13(4) states:

“Where (a) there is or may be an increase to the published admission number at the school; or (b) the school is subject to a prescribed alteration that may lead to an increase in the number of pupils at the school, the authority may, instead of ascertaining pupil numbers on 5th October 2017, include an estimate of pupil numbers.”

That will help schools to ensure that they have the proper funding as a consequence of a growth in their numbers.

The change to the high needs regulations removes an adjustment that was previously made to schools’ five to 16-year-old pupil numbers to reflect the number of places that the local authority has reserved for children with special educational needs. From 2018-19, five to 16 year-old pupils in such places will attract funding to their school through the local formula on the same basis as all other pupils at the school. Local authorities will have additional funding of £6,000 for each place from the high needs budget.

We introduced a new early years funding formula in April 2017; therefore, the regulations for 2018-19 are largely unchanged from 2017-18. The changes we have made in these regulations implement previously announced policy or are amendments intended to bring greater clarity to existing policies. For example, when we introduced our new funding formula, we announced that from 1 April this year, local authorities must pass on 95% of the national funding formula funding allocation to providers. That is up from 93% in the previous year, and it is an important change in these regulations.

How funding is used in practice is just as important as its fair distribution. We are committed to helping schools to improve pupil outcomes and promote social mobility by getting the best value from all their resources. School efficiency must start with, and be led by, schools and school leaders, but the Department provides practical support, deals and tools that will help all schools improve their efficiency. We will continue our commitment to securing national deals that procure better value goods and services in areas that all schools purchase. Schools can already save an average of 10% on their energy bills and around 40% on printers, photocopiers and scanners. Those deals have already saved schools over £46 million.

Across school spending as a whole, we are improving the transparency and usability of data, so that parents and governors can more easily see how funding is being spent and understand not just educational standards, but financial effectiveness. We will continue to expand our package of support for schools so they can ensure every pound is achieving the best outcome for pupils.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised the question of teacher numbers. We have record numbers of teachers in our schools: we have 457,000, up 15,500 since 2010. Last year we achieved 89% of our secondary target for graduate recruitment and 100% of our primary target. Returners are rising, from 13,000 in 2011 to 14,200 in 2016. We have tax-free bursaries of up to £26,000 for priority subjects. People often talk about retention; 70% of teachers are still in teaching after five years and 60% are still in teaching after 10 years, but the important point is that that figure has remained broadly constant for the last 20 years.

Class sizes have not shifted very much: they are about 27.1 in primary and 20.5 in secondary schools, on average.