Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Robert Courts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

The total activity done by GPs was about 7% up in October compared with the previous year. We are actively looking at the way that capital works and the contributions of section 106 and the local integrated care board, to ensure that, as well as having those 2,300 extra doctors and 21,000 extra staff, GPs also have good facilities to work in.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Access to dentistry is an acute issue for West Oxfordshire. Can Ministers explain what they are doing to help rural areas such as mine, and can we meet to discuss it further?

[Neil O’Brien]

I have mentioned the fact that the number of NHS dentists was up 2% to 2.3% last year, as well as the extra £50 million and the reforms we have made to the contract, but we will go further. We want to address those areas, and particularly rural areas, where more provision is urgently needed.

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Robert Courts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Courts]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent point. He is absolutely right. I spoke a moment ago about the pressure on young people of having to look their best and having to comply with fashion in the absence of school uniform. Of course, that pressure does not just impact on them; it also impacts on the parents who would have to bear the cost. If there is pressure—which one of us does not want to do the best for our children; everybody has that feeling—there will be a cost on parents in providing the latest pair of shoes or any other item in the absence of school uniform. He is absolutely right to make the point that in the absence of school uniform the costs on parents could, in fact, be worse.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just that the cost in total is higher? There is also more social stigma on poorer pupils in a non-uniform environment. When we had a non-uniform day at school, I distinctly remember that, instead of us all being the same, there was suddenly great competition—and very expensive competition at that.

[Robert Courts]

Absolutely. That is another excellent point. Younger people have an absence of social tact when it comes to pointing out such differences. Schools can be quite brutal places in the sense that the filter that is there in later adult life is absent. Pupils can feel very much that they are the odd ones out if they come from a family who cannot afford the latest fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

That is also an excellent point. My hon. Friend touches on the philosophical point that I will come to in just a moment, if I may. I will make a little progress first though.

We all want to avoid the feeling where someone wants to go to an excellent school in their area but cannot because of cost; or perhaps that is the only school, but it comes with a cost burden they do not want. I think the hon. Member for Putney alluded to that point. That is clearly something we would all want to avoid. How we do that is the philosophical point. I generally take the view that the man in Whitehall does not know better than local areas, that over-centralisation generally comes up with the wrong result and that the individual knows better what is right for them and their family than a centralised machine. Therefore, it is quite uncomfortable, on first principles, that the Government should propose to involve themselves in this level of regulation.

[Neil O'Brien]

My concern is not so much the gentleman in Whitehall as the gentleman in the courts, because what we are discussing is the creation of statutory guidance, with the prospect of disputes over school uniform policies being referred to the courts. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we want to reduce costs, we must draw up this guidance in such a way that minimises the use of this new statutory guidance as a political weapon to cause trouble for academy schools, for example?

[Robert Courts]

I could not agree more—my hon. Friend is absolutely right—but that point does not so much go to the principle of the Bill as to what goes into the guidance when it is drafted. That is a matter for the consultation, which we should all want to look at in great detail. A lot of the concerns raised about the Bill allude to what is to be in that guidance and the consultation process, which I understand will happen in due course.

Philosophically, I would prefer national government not to involve itself in this level of detail. That is fairly standard Conservative thought; I suspect that most of my hon. Friends would agree. So what are we trying to do with this Bill? Ultimately, Conservatism is about pragmatism and seeking the result we would all wish to achieve, rather than being obsessed with or trammelled by dogma. In some circumstances, therefore, I think it appropriate that the Government step in and Parliament legislate, and that is what the Government are ultimately trying to do here.

The Department has already produced the guidance; the only question here is what someone can do if that guidance is not followed. As I understand it, the Bill seeks to provide that, in extremis—where a school is not listening—there is an appeal to the Secretary of State, who could then intervene to work with the school to address those concerns. The Government are not proposing to impose a certain school uniform type, or to abolish it, or to be the recourse in the first instance for any complaint. As I understand it, in all circumstances, that would remain with the school and the school governors.

This brings me to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer)—I apologise to him for not having addressed his point earlier. I am interested in freedom, personal choice and localisation and localised decision making, and it seems to me that the Bill does not contravene those fundamental principles. If schools locally decide they do not want a generic uniform, they could make that decision. Equally, if they decide that across a particular town or region it would be in the interests of their pupils to do that, they could adopt that principle and make that choice. I am happy with that in these circumstances.

[Neil O'Brien]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we move from non-statutory guidance to statutory guidance, actually, there is a strong argument for somewhat looser guidance and more carve-outs? For example, achieving non-single supplier status is much more difficult in remote rural areas than in the middle of London. In some sense, the guidance, if it is to be statutory guidance, needs to be looser, if we are to avoid lots of appeals to the Secretary of State and excessive clampdowns on our hard-won school freedoms.

[Robert Courts]

Yes. That is another superb point. I hope this is a useful debate for the Minister in thrashing out in advance some of the points we will need to consider in the consultation. One of the great successes of this Government and their predecessor Governments over the last 10 years has been the creation of freedom and choice for schools, which has led to the outstanding educational results we have had, and I would not want any of that to be reversed. I am very aware of that.

I would like more competition in the provision of school uniforms. Generally—again, this is fairly uncontroversial Conservative thought—I believe that more competition will generally lead to a better product and lower prices, and I would like that to be the case here. That said, I am aware of my hon. Friend’s point that that might be hard to achieve in rural areas, and I certainly would not wish schools to be penalised for transgressing a rule that it has no choice but to contravene.

As a general principle, I would like the Government to stay out of people’s professional affairs and lives wherever possible. I would like outstanding teachers to do the job of teaching and to concentrate on their passionate desire to make people’s lives better, without worrying about being taken to court or excessive regulation coming from Whitehall. I am, therefore, very aware that there is an important balance to be struck here, but that is a question for the consultation and the statutory guidance that will come after that.

My final point is about quality as opposed to sheer cost. Some excellent points have been made about quality items that could be handed down through the generations. We have heard great examples of that on both sides of the House. Sheer unit cost ought not to be the overriding point, if quality is being lost in the process.

Overall, however, while at first glance some aspects of the Bill seem counterintuitive for this Government, it is a judicious use of small-scale intervention to do our best for something that matters to us all—the welfare of families in our constituencies and the children and students who go to our schools—and therefore I support it.

Balancing the Public Finances

Debate between Neil O'Brien and Robert Courts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan—it is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so. I will keep my remarks very brief because I know a lot of hon. Members want to speak, and I will try not to repeat things that others have said already. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on securing the debate, which is of enormous significance as we consider the Government’s progress since 2010 and where we go as we look forward to a strong economy for the future.

When the Government came to power in 2010, they immediately set about putting right and reducing the massive deficit they inherited from the Labour Government. The deficit has been brought down by three quarters after starting as the highest since records began. At that stage, one pound in every four spent by the Government was borrowed. That deficit has been brought down from 10% of GDP to 3%.

That matters a great deal, for two reasons, the first of which is that anything borrowed has to be paid back. It is a fallacy simply to think that there is a pot of money that can be borrowed and spent, but that there is never a day of reckoning. If the deficit is not dealt with by this Government or this generation, it will have to be dealt with by the generations that follow. It is not responsible—it is not something I wish to be a part of—to hand down to my children and to the children who follow us a debt that we were unwilling to consider repaying.

Secondly, there comes a point when the borrowing rate increases and becomes unsustainable. Owing to the cuts to the deficit that the Government have made, they now pay 1% on their 10-year gilts. That compares favourably with Italy, which pays 2%, or Portugal, which pays 2.9%. That has avoided tens of billions of pounds of extra debt payment.

Borrowing is not free. In the year 2014-15, about £34 billion was spent on servicing debt interest, which is about 4.6% of all Government spending. Depending on how it is managed, that is bigger than the transport budget and approximately equivalent to the defence budget. No one should be under any illusion that, in borrowing such amounts, our spending on debt interest is equivalent to that of a major Government Department of State.

[Neil O'Brien]

You are absolutely right—my hon. Friend is right—to point out that we are paying that much in debt interest payments. You will know that more than a quarter of our debt is held overseas, so by my calculations we are spending something like £10 billion a year to other countries for them to spend on their schools and hospitals. My constituents in Harborough will be shocked that we are spending that much to support public services overseas.