Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 34.
Matthew Hancock
Government new clause 14 relates to civil liability for breaches of health and safety duties. It fulfils our commitment in the Budget to introduce measures to reduce the burden of health and safety, following the recommendations made in the independent Löfstedt report. Professor Löfstedt considered the impact that the perception of a compensation culture has had in driving over-compliance with health and safety at work regulations. The fear of being sued drives businesses to exceed what is required by the criminal law, diverting them from focusing on sensible preventive health and safety management and resulting in unnecessary costs and burdens.
Professor Löfstedt identified the unfairness that can arise when health and safety at work regulations impose a strict duty on employers that makes them liable to pay compensation to employees injured or made ill by their work, despite all reasonable steps having been taken to protect them from harm. Employers can, for example, be held liable for damages when an injury is caused by equipment failure, even when a rigorous examination would not have revealed the defect. The new clause is designed to address that and other unfair consequences of the existing health and safety system.
We all have different reasons for coming into politics. When I was growing up, I had one of the experiences that brought me to this place, concerning the over-burdensome intervention of health and safety officers. I worked in a family computer software company when an over-long health and safety investigation took place, which took up huge amounts time for the officers and senior management. The only result at the end of it was the recommendation that some bleach in a cupboard must be labelled correctly. After a sign was put up saying, “There is bleach in the cupboard. Please do not drink it,” the company was passed under the health and safety regulations.
These changes will ensure that there is a reasonableness defence in the consideration of some health and safety cases.
Matthew Hancock
If businesses behave unreasonably and are negligent, they will be caught by the system. That proves the point about why we have to strike a good balance between a health and safety system that everybody supports and under which employers—and others—have to behave reasonably and take reasonable precautions, and a system in which the test of having acted reasonably is not a defence in civil law. That is the change being made; it will help to free up business, and I commend the new clause to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Minister [Interruption.] I meant the shadow Minister.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
If only, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is my first opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on his promotion. It is a pleasure to see him at the Dispatch Box, as he has been many times in his guise as Disraeli, Churchill, or perhaps Sir Robert Peel, and it is good to see him in his current incarnation.
In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned that the new clause seeks to deal with perception. We should not, however, be legislating on the basis of perception, and as he spoke I became increasingly concerned that this is yet another example of an insensitive, out-of-touch Government who somehow deem all regulation as inherently bad, and health and safety legislation as all-encompassing, bureaucratic and often unnecessary.
Ian Lavery
With regard to mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases, at any one time we have roughly 9 million children in school, which is a huge concern. There are also about 800,000 to 900,000 teachers in schools where there is asbestos. Should we not be looking immediately for the full withdrawal of asbestos from schools? It has been done in other countries, by the way, Northern Ireland being one. Should we not be looking for a phased removal and, in the meantime, managing asbestos properly in schools to prevent people from dying? The problem is that such diseases have a latency period of between 30 and 40 years, so people do not report them. They do not develop diseases until 30 or 40 years later, and even then they are not sure where they have come from.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who I know was making an important point, but I should just remind the House that this is not a general debate on health and safety; rather, we are talking about new clause 14.
Jim Sheridan
I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who is secretary to the all-party health and safety group. He is absolutely right about asbestos and schools. He has done an extensive job of work on that and the point he makes is absolutely right.
On the overall question of accidents or fatalities in the workplace, may I remind the Minister of the extensive amount of money that it will cost the NHS to treat people who have been injured at work through no fault of their own? It is a false economy to have unscrupulous employers putting their workers in danger and then for the NHS—that is, the taxpayer—to have to pick up the bill. That is completely wrong.
On the perception of employers, I worked for a number of years for an excellent and progressive employer, Thales, in the defence industry. It looked after its employees and had a health and safety director, and people reacted accordingly. If we treat people sensibly, we get a sensible response.
I recently asked my local chamber of commerce what problems it had in creating jobs and moving the economy forward, and what barriers were caused by the current health and safety situation. It told me clearly that it did not have a problem with health and safety legislation in the workplace, and that it wanted the Government to concentrate more on restarting the economy, creating jobs, getting money back into the economy and employing people. It said that the Government should focus on that, not on going back to the old Conservative days of saying that the trade unions are the enemy within and should be dealt with accordingly.
The Minister mentioned a bottle of bleach in a cupboard, but there are occasions when children are in offices or other places where there are bottles of bleach lying about, perhaps because of a lack of child care facilities. If those bottles are not clearly identified, there is every possibility that a child could lift one up and drink from it. I would not like to think of any child suffering as a result of that. The new clause is a complete diversion from where the country has been going. There is no appetite in the country for this type of waste of parliamentary time.
Higher and Further Education
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. James Clappison will be the last hon. Member to have a seven-minute limit. After him, I will reduce the limit to six minutes.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I wanted to speak in the debate because I feel very strongly about this issue. I have listened to several debates on tuition fees and was a member of the relevant Bill Committee in 2010, so I have heard the Government’s arguments a number of times and have heard them again today. I did not accept them then and do not accept them now.
I remember being lobbied by some young people from my constituency at the time of the vote on tuition fees in 2010 and being joined by one brave Tory MP. I must say that there were not many Lib Dems around at the time, but some Tories came out and argued their case. That MP said he had concerns that people who had not had the advantage of a university education were being asked to pay for the education of others who would not only get a good education but benefit financially from better earnings. He felt that that was not fair and I accept that argument, but I recall one young person coming back quickly and, taking that argument to its natural conclusion, asking why we ask well people to pay for the NHS and the sick and why we ask single people without children or childless couples to pay for the education of other people’s children—an argument I think we all recognise. As a community, we all contribute to the education of other people’s children because ultimately we all benefit from a better educated and skilled work force that makes this country richer. For me, it is simple: I believe that paying taxes to educate our young people is not a waste of money but an investment for the future not just of the young people themselves but of all of us who benefit from an educated, knowledge-rich, competitive society that leads to an entrepreneurial economy.
We do not have a lot of time, but in the time I have I want to talk a little about what is happening in further education now. I sat this morning in the Education Committee, as did colleagues on the Government Benches, listening to evidence on the GCSE English language fiasco this year. I thought I understood what had happened. I thought that there was some leniency in marking in January, so that there had to be some bringing into line of the marking in June. But that was not what happened. I was pretty stunned by what I heard.
It appears that under Ofqual’s policy of comparable standards, whereby whatever the cohort got at key stage 2 they have to get at key stage 4, irrespective of better teaching or improvements in learning—
Pat Glass
Okay.
As a result, young people who should have been enrolling on level 3 courses in FE are now enrolling on level 2 courses, and many more are simply disappearing from the system. This will have an impact on our number of people not in education, employment or training. It is not just that there was some rigorous marking in June; there has been clawback, as the pupils in June are compensating for over-lenient marking in January. I think it goes against the principle of natural justice that one group of young people is doubly punished for what happened with others.
The young people I am talking about are C-D borderline pupils. There are not many such pupils in grammar schools or independent schools. These are kids from comprehensive schools from less well-off homes. These are the kids from whom the Government have already taken the education maintenance allowance. They are the kids who can least afford to have a kick in the teeth like this. It simply illustrates the fact that the Government’s education policy from higher education to further education and right through to the key stages in schools is chaotic; it is damaging our children and ultimately it will damage our economy.
Tristram Hunt
I will not take any more interventions because I want to allow colleagues to speak.
When the cost of providing a world-class education is already so high, why on earth would the Government have as their priority the slashing of 80% from the teaching budget? That miscalculation led to the nonsensical core and margin proposals, which, in effect, incentivise students to take up cheaper courses, with poorer students often taking up poorer courses. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) suggested, that will mean local people going to local universities which do not always supply the kind of education that they want but to which they are driven by price structures.
What is more, we know that this policy is really going to bite in the middle-ranking universities just below the Russell group which are charging £9,000 a year. We have already heard about the difficulties that Southampton university is facing. These universities are complaining about the implications of the policy. They are also complaining about what is happening in university entrance departments as regards the AAB marks. The last-minute upgrades are playing havoc with course planning. Perhaps the Government’s strategy is for a little bit of creative destruction in the public services; perhaps they want a few universities to go bust. If the Minister can be honest about his policy, we would like to hear that from the Dispatch Box.
In the past, Ministers have poured scorn on those of us who warned that such fees would deter students. Well, now the numbers are in. History applications are down by 7%, design applications are down by 16%, and non-European language applications are down by 21%. I am interested to hear how this Government, who hope we will export to the BRIC economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China and make our way in the world, can think that non-European language applications being down by 21% is in any way a good economic strategy for this country.
Staffordshire university in my constituency has experienced a drop of 12%, while nearby Keele university is taking over 1,000 fewer students this year. Overall, the number of students accepted on to higher education courses last year fell by over 30,000. With student numbers falling by far less in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, one does not need a degree, even from the university of Winchester, to work out what is deterring them. We heard about a fall of 14% in applications from Northern Ireland to institutions in Great Britain. That is the reality of what is happening as a result of this policy.
On the question of having different fees in different nations of the United Kingdom, I cannot think of a more sure-fire way to break up the Union than differentials of the kind that we are seeing. This is not the Government’s particular problem, but by increasing the cap to £9,000 they are, as used to be said, accelerating the contradiction.
It is clear that the Opposition policy is correct. It is right that we should use corporation tax to lower tuition fees, and it is right that we should ask those who earn £65,000-plus to make a larger contribution.
While we are discussing higher education, let me say something, briefly, about the controversy at London Metropolitan university. To be frank, I am amazed that the Minister and the Business, Innovation and Skills team have allowed the Home Office cack-handedly to undermine one of our most successful global industries. The actions of the UK Border Agency have reverberated around the world and our competitors in America, Australia and Canada are delighted at what has happened. I recently returned from a trip to New Delhi, where the Indian authorities cannot understand why we are seeking to shoot one of our most successful industries in the foot. What London Metropolitan university has done wrong needs to be addressed, but that will not be achieved by punishing those who are studying.
Our competitors around the world recognise that investing in higher education and lifelong learning and widening the skills base are the route to a more prosperous future, but, as colleagues have pointed out, we are one of the only countries in the OECD that is not currently increasing spending on higher education. Instead we are making an 80% cut to teaching budgets. It seems perverse that countries such as Mexico, Russia and India, above all, are succeeding when we are choosing to undermine one of our most successful global industries. The Government have got this totally wrong.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit for speeches is five minutes and I advise Members that any interventions will eat into the time left for the last contributor.
Secondary Education (GCSEs)
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the self-restraint he has shown. I am now reducing the time limit to five minutes.
Children's Subjective Well-Being
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady cannot make an intervention from the Front Bench, but if she moves to the Bench behind, she can.
Apprenticeships
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Rotheram
I agree with my hon. Friend. We tried to push the Government on that. The old rule of thumb used to be that for every £1 million-worth of procurement an apprentice was taken on. The Minister should seriously look again at that, because it is a way of stimulating demand for apprenticeships.
The point made earlier about 10-week programmes makes a mockery of the brand and looks like statistical gerrymandering to all those responsible for delivering quality apprenticeships. They are not what people out there believe to be apprenticeships; they are training programmes. They are very welcome in the vocational field, but they are not apprenticeships. While the Government take credit for all that they have done and for the current level of apprenticeships, many Members seem to forget that some current apprentices in traditional occupations started their apprenticeships under the Labour Government. For example, my beloved son is an apprentice electrician, which is a four-year programme. Perhaps I am being cynical, but the Government seem to be systematically rebranding work experience programmes as apprenticeships, and I genuinely hope that that is not the case.
The reason for my scepticism probably has something to do with a recent incident in my constituency of Liverpool, Walton. I keep questioning why the Government, who claim to be so dedicated to reducing unemployment and increasing apprenticeship numbers, allowed the National Construction Academy in Aintree to close its doors on their watch. Not only will the decision deny up to 80 young people each year the chance of accessing training via the centre, but Walton is unfortunately home to the sixth highest level of unemployment in the country.
The Minister will know that I have the greatest admiration for his undeniable appreciation of vocational routes into employment, but surely he must understand the relationship between public sector spending and private sector growth. Despite the coalition’s at times relentless desire to drive a wedge between the public and private sectors, the two are heavily interlinked and mutually co-reliant, as can be seen in the construction sector, for instance. As I have said on a number of occasions since becoming a Member of Parliament, the symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors means that cutting one makes the other bleed. Needless to say, the construction sector is haemorrhaging badly at the moment and needs an urgent transfusion. The construction industry has a long history of taking on apprentices, but such programmes have now been savaged, with capital investment slashed—
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
In the current economic climate for young people, this debate is very welcome. I speak with experience of apprenticeships, having spent the first four years of my working life as an apprentice and having had the good fortune to go on to discover a second career as a modern apprentice. That is why I have been engaging regularly with companies in Inverclyde, trying to encourage them to start thinking about increasing the number of apprenticeships or about starting an apprenticeship scheme.
Inverclyde is not as bad as some constituencies with youth unemployment, but that does not reflect what is happening in Scotland overall, nor in the UK as a whole. Youth unemployment has never been higher, and the statistics are frightening. Youth unemployment has risen to 1.027 million, the highest since records began in 1992, beating the previous record set only a month ago.
The young continue to bear the brunt of the lack of jobs in the UK, and many are thinking about emigration as a way out. Too many young lives are being wasted on the dole queue; long-term unemployed young people are the most vulnerable, with many trapped in a vicious cycle of joblessness, anxiety and depression. We desperately need to get our young people into training and apprenticeships. They need every chance to improve their skills to get them into good jobs.
The other week, I visited a project in my constituency in which young people are applying themselves to the renovation of community facilities and to learning new skills in the traditional trades of electrician, plumber and joiner. Those young people are determined to succeed; they are not sitting back on benefits. They ask only for the opportunity to learn the skills that they hope will get them employed as apprentices.
The Government need to do more to help our young people. They have dropped Labour’s guarantee of an apprenticeship place to young people who want one and they have failed to expand apprenticeship places for school and college leavers. The Government should be doing everything that they can to support opportunities, helping young people to improve their skills and get good jobs. Instead, they are leaving Britain’s youth on the dole queue, instead of taking constructive measures today. We need a highly skilled, highly educated work force to meet the challenges of tomorrow and compete with the advanced nations of the world. We need value added skills to compete with the economies of Brazil, India, China and other emerging nations in the world.
Apprenticeships are a valuable way of giving young people skills and training in jobs. They offer an on-the-job learning opportunity; they enable young people not only to learn about their chosen trade or profession, but to learn it on the spot and talk to colleagues who are already skilled and experienced in their particular area.
Apprenticeships can offer so much, and there is no reason why they should not be expanded to cover a wide variety of jobs and professions. We need to get Britain’s companies on board. The Government are cutting apprenticeships back when they are needed more than ever. It is so short sighted; the Government need to make more apprenticeship places available. Labour has a plan for our young people, even if Government Members do not. Any company wanting to provide goods or services to the public should be required to have an apprenticeship scheme before they can win a contract. My council in Inverclyde already does that, and to great benefit.
Labour’s jobs-for-contracts scheme would increase the number of apprenticeships by thousands and give immediate help to many of the 1 million unemployed under-25s. This simple idea—creating apprenticeship places through public procurement—would provide immediate help to alleviate youth unemployment. The Government spend £220 billion a year on goods and services from the private sector; from construction to business support services, the Government are the top single contractor in the UK. That means that they have a unique tool at their disposal to get young people into work. The Government should reverse their decision to abandon apprenticeships in Government procurement and instead do everything that they can to create new apprenticeships.
When Labour was in government, it rescued apprenticeships, increasing their status and nearly quadrupling the number of places from 75,000 in 1997 to 280,000 in the last year we were in government. Labour plans to repeat the bank bonus tax and use the funds to provide jobs and apprenticeships for young people, as well as for a temporary reversal of the VAT rise, would help kick-start our economy and provide the growth and jobs that we so urgently need.
Public money should always be used to maximise social and economic benefit. In 2009, the Labour Government drew up the Office of Government Commerce guidance, “Promoting skills through public procurement”. This Government have scrapped that, denying high-level apprenticeships in key industries for young people. Labour’s plans on apprenticeships would work for young people and get them into work. Getting our young people into apprenticeships is the best way to put Inverclyde, Scotland and the UK on the right course for the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To accommodate more Members, the time limit on speeches is being reduced to five minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Ten Members wish to speak and there are 40 minutes remaining. My maths suggests it is four minutes each. I would be grateful if Members would stick to that limit, which we will put on the clock.
New Schools
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Gove
I absolutely will. Of course, it is for the best of reasons that 14,000 service personnel are returning from Germany; thanks to the inspirational leadership of Baroness Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, we won the cold war and are able now to welcome back the servicemen of the British Army on the Rhine.
We need to make sure that those who have worn the Queen’s uniform enjoy the best possible education. The service premium and the additional changes that we are making to the admissions code are part of that. Of course, we have to work with the Ministry of Defence to do so, and I will be delighted to work—for many years to come, I hope—with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is doing such a great job in championing service families and defending the armed forces covenant.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
To finish on a factual note, how many free school applications have been rejected or declined and what percentage is that of the total?
Public Disorder
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
After witnessing the terrible scenes in my city on Tuesday night, as a Manchester MP I am grateful to have the opportunity to take part in this debate, particularly given the number of people who wanted to speak. We need to be clear that the scenes that we have witnessed around the country are nothing other than disgraceful criminal activity, carried out by mindless idiots and career criminals who take pleasure in causing trouble and who thought that this was a golden opportunity to rob and steal and not get caught.
I was pleased that on television both the shadow Justice Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition avoided endorsing comments from a small number of people who have tried to use this violence as a means of attacking Government policy and scoring cheap political points at a time when everyone should have been condemning the violence and criminal behaviour rather than giving anyone the chance to try to justify their own criminal behaviour.
Following the scenes in London, Liverpool and Birmingham on television on Monday evening, there was understandable concern in Manchester that such behaviour would spread to our streets on Tuesday. I spent the early evening on Tuesday out in the constituency to gauge the mood and watch out for any signs of trouble. In south Manchester, we were very fortunate that we did not experience the violence that we saw in the city centre or in Salford. Incidents of disorder and criminal activity were limited, but I was shocked to hear some of the comments being made by young people on the streets. One group of young people were talking about how they intended to go into Manchester and have a great laugh looting and attacking the police. One young woman, who cannot have been above 16 or 17, was shouting into her mobile phone, for everyone on the street to hear, how annoyed she was that she was not able to go and steal herself a new television because she was pregnant. This mentality shows the sorts of challenges we face to change the attitudes of a minority of people in this country.
A small minority of people have sought to try to explain away this poor behaviour on bad education, unemployment and a lack of things to do for young people, but that simply does not wash. Among the people already brought before the courts are a teaching assistant, a chef, a graphic designer, a university student and an 11-year-old child. It is not simply the disadvantaged and disaffected. Only a tiny minority of people have caused the trouble. The vast majority of people, regardless of their education, employment status or level of boredom, had absolutely no interest in being out on the streets causing trouble in Manchester or any other town or city across the country.
Yesterday, along with a number of Greater Manchester MPs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), I attended a meeting with the police. It came as no surprise to me when the chief constable told us that the vast majority of those people who have already been arrested were already known to the police. The recent unrest has been seen by some as a golden opportunity to carry out their usual criminal activity, as they assume that they will not be caught. We need to get across the message that they will be caught, charged and convicted. I know that the police are working flat out to identify people involved in the riots, and I pay tribute to them and to the fire service for the job it has done under very difficult circumstances. Two people found guilty of offences have already been sent to prison. Swift justice will send out a clear signal to these criminals that they are not above the law.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the response of the people in Manchester to the devastating scenes in the city. I was out on the streets yesterday morning helping with the clean-up operation. Work had gone on throughout—
Munro Report
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. This was always going to be a short debate for Back Benchers, but it has been made somewhat shorter, so I am introducing a six-minute limit to ensure that as many Back Benchers as possible get in.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this excellent review.
Strikingly, we knew as far back as 2009 that some social workers spent more than 80% of their time in front of paperwork, rather than out on the front line, face to face with children and families. Cameron’s quotation:
“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted,”
published in 1963, has never been more apt than it is to our over-bureaucratic and compliance-ridden system. The focus on early intervention, also highlighted in the Allen, Field and Dame Clare Tickell reviews, shows the long-term benefits to the enrichment of families on the whole, as well as the massivly reduced burden in the cost to the state, and it can only highlight the need to turn that huge supertanker in a different direction.
It is time that we put social workers on the professional platform that they deserve. We need to develop a system in which child protection truly is a multi-agency business involving not only social workers but schools, police and health workers all finally working together—a system that removes constraints on local innovation and professional judgment. But let us not be under any illusions about the time that it will take to change mindsets and to implement the changes needed. The system has been so burdened for far too long.
I will home in on the role of the lead member for children’s services in local authorities, a position that Professor Munro says should not be undermined. Having spent three years as lead member for children’s services on Calderdale council, I believe that the lead member role needs to be looked at and enhanced through further guidance. I know only too well how brilliant a lead member is and how brilliant they are considered when they are out there batting for that extra £1 million in the budget, but the moment they start asking tricky or challenging questions they can almost see and feel the shutters closing down around them.
One good thing that the previous Government did introduce, just over two years ago, was the lead member’s membership of the local safeguarding children’s board, albeit on a limited basis as a participant observer. With that privilege, I could at least challenge partner agencies, and had it been introduced earlier I might have been able to use it as a tool to deep-dive issues even further.
Generally, however, partner agencies were not the only problem, because they chose to work traditionally in silos; it was also down to our directorate. The problem started at the top in Calderdale, which, like most authorities in the UK, has an educationist as its director of children’s services. Educationists also take up most head of service roles. Educationists and social workers generally lack the professional knowledge and understanding of each other’s roles, and without question there is professional snobbery between the two.
Just imagine, then, how it was for a lead member with only 30 years’ retail and people management experience going into that lion’s den. As one head of service once said to me, “With all due respect, you are only a shopkeeper.” A tongue-in-cheek comment, I know, but the battle line was drawn.
The lead member is also generally part time and often from a totally different sector. They are the only councillor with legal responsibilities, but when things do not go as well as they should, as was the case for me in Calderdale, gaining access to information can be hugely cumbersome. The information is often non-existent, and frankly the lead member can hear those shutters going down around them.
Interestingly, Professor Munro mentions Klein’s view on intuition, and with my managerial experience and intuition it became evident to me early on that we had a head of service who was not fit for purpose, an information service that was wholly inadequate, a children’s service base budget that was under-resourced to the tune of £1.5 million, a work force with low morale and a high proportion of agency staff, core and initial assessments woefully behind on time scales, two serious case reviews in the pipeline and a children’s trust in name only—and all that was just the headline stuff. When I challenged those responsible for the day-to-day running of CYP services, there were always reasoned responses and excuses, but that is often exactly what they were—excuses. It took three heads of service, three serious case reviews and more than two years before the appointment of a new director of children’s services, who agreed to an independent review by PricewaterhouseCoopers, before we managed to get a truthful picture of how bad things were in Calderdale regarding safeguarding.
Professor Munro mentions the role of the lead member staying the same. I would like the Government to consider four key points, if I can get them in very quickly. First, the lead member, who is currently a participant observer, should be a full-time member of the local safeguarding children board. Secondly, I would like the Minister to consider the fact that there is no mandatory training for the lead member role. Training of sorts is available, but it is difficult to accommodate if they have a full-time job. Thirdly, will the Minister consider guidance on making the lead member role a four-year term for the sake of continuity? Calderdale is now on its fourth in three years.
Finally, may I ask the Minister to look at the leadership—
Education Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman says that the English baccalaureate is too prescriptive, but moments earlier he said several times that there is a free-for-all. Which is it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The debate may be straying into rather more general matters than the new clauses and amendments before us.
Andy Burnham
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I have said before, the Secretary of State is in danger of collapsing under the weight of his own contradictions, and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) has just made that point.
Let me return to the admissions code, which we have not seen. I hope the Minister will give the House an apology this afternoon for failing to produce it. We hear that it will be slimmed down, and that it will allow founders of free schools to leapfrog local families to the front of the queue for places—the so-called Toby Young clause. The Opposition can accept a simpler admissions code, but we will not accept a weaker admissions code.
The Government’s failure to produce the code leaves us asking one question: what are they trying to hide? That is a relevant question given that today we have further evidence, from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), of the true Tory instincts on education. His new clause 2 would allow independent schools that cross over to the state sector to continue selective admissions policies, as he confirmed to me, which means that formerly independent fee-paying schools would be fully funded by the taxpayer, but would remain exclusive schools selecting students on the basis of ability. I notice that 35 or more of his colleagues felt free to put their names to this outrageous expansion of selection, presumably because they are being encouraged by his own Whips and Front Benchers.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Education Maintenance Allowance—
‘(1) EA 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 518, after subsection (2), insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations in relation to the payment of an Education Maintenance Allowance to any eligible applicant who is over compulsory school age but aged 18 or under and who attends a full-time further education course in England in a school sixth form or at a Further Education college or at a sixth form college, or who is on a Foundation Education programme or who is on a ‘Programme-Led Apprenticeship’.
(4) Payments under subsection (3) shall be subject to the eligible recipient attending every learning session in connection with an eligible education course unless the recognised educational institution has authorised every absence.
(5) The minimum payments under subsection (3) shall be determined by the Secretary of State, to take effect on 1 September of every year.
(6) Regulations may provide for the eligibility criteria or administration of the Education Maintenance Allowance.”.’.
New clause 9—Requirement to achieve specified standard: suppliers of careers guidance—
‘(1) EA 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 29 (additional functions of governing body), after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) The governing body and head teacher of a maintained school shall comply with any standards prescribed by the Secretary of State in securing that all relevant registered pupils at the school are provided with independent careers guidance under section 42A (Provision of careers guidance in schools in England) of the Education Act 1997 including the opportunity for pupils to meet at the premises of the school the person providing independent careers guidance.”.’.
New clause 11—Enrichment activities for 16 to 18 year olds—
‘(1) EA 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 85A insert—
“85B Enrichment activities for 16 to 18 year olds
(1) A pupil aged 16 to 18 is also entitled to guidance, tutorials and enrichment activities which may include—
(a) learning aims that lead to external qualifications or external certificates of attainment not approved by the Secretary of State;
(b) careers guidance;
(c) sports;
(d) music, dance and drama;
(e) industry-related programmes, including vendor-certificated courses such as those offered by IT companies;
(f) health education;
(g) use of learning resource centres;
(h) activities that support learners to access a progression opportunity and/or employment;
(i) counselling.
(2) The Secretary of State shall take into account the entitlements in subsection (1) when determining funding for pupils aged 16 to 18.”.’.
Amendment 27, in clause 26, page 27, line 21, at end add—
‘(7) The Secretary of State must produce a transition plan to highlight how he will assist schools, colleges and local authorities in the transition from the current system of careers guidance to the new all-age careers service.’.
Amendment 28, page 27, line 21, at end add—
‘(7) Before the commencement of this section, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on arrangements for the funding of careers guidance between the end of ring-fenced Connexions funding and the establishment of the All Age Careers Service.’.
Amendment 19, in clause 27, page 27, line 36, at end insert—
‘(d) an Academy School.’.
Amendment 29, page 28, line 3, at end insert ‘by qualified careers professionals’.
Amendment 18, page 28, line 5, at end insert—
‘(ba) involves at least one guidance session that is delivered in person by a qualified careers professional, and’.
Government amendments 36 and 37.
Amendment 17, in clause 76, page 57, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2A) Section 68 will come into force on 1 September 2013.’.
Nic Dakin
I want to cover three areas. The first relates to education maintenance allowance and the direction of the Government’s programme. One of my former students, Emma Donaldson, reminded me recently of the Prime Minister’s words just before the general election. He could not have been clearer when he said:
“We have looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them”.
Well, that didn’t last very long, did it? Emma wrote:
“The Tories claim that the younger generation should not pay for the mistakes of the past generation, but with these slashes in allowances and the raising of tuition fees we are being asked to do exactly that.”
We can add the disappearance of the future jobs fund to that list, and it is easy to understand why young people feel badly let down by this Government.
The EMA is about far more than just boosting participation. It is also about attendance, achievement, motivation and welfare support. Giving evidence to the Select Committee, David Linnell, the principal of Cornwall college, warned:
“If EMAs are reduced, and if the money is severely reduced, we will see two things. We will see a reduction in those students who come, stay and actually succeed.”
He was talking about students not only coming to the college, but staying and succeeding.
New clause 5 relates to one of the conditions for young people gaining an award of the EMA, which is the motivational aspect of the award. I welcome the fact that the Government were taken kicking and screaming to listen to young people and their families, and that they improved the offer of money available. Even so, the amount available for young people in the new scheme has dropped from £560 million to £190 million, and recipients will receive significantly less in normal circumstances. Furthermore, 68% of colleges recently surveyed believe that recruitment to colleges will be severely affected as a result of these changes.
My concern is about not only recruitment, but ensuring that, once recruited, the students are retained and that the motivational aspect of the EMA is retained in the new award, so that it can have an impact on motivation and achievement as well as on welfare support. The current consultation seems to look both ways, talking about national benchmarks as well as saying that all those matters can be decided locally. It is therefore unclear to what extent there will be a postcode lottery and to what extent the motivational aspects will be retained through certain conditions. It is clear that the most important condition relates to attendance, because it is easy to measure and maintain.
Those are my comments on my first topic, so let me move on to new clause 11, which deals with my second topic—the provision of enrichment activities for post-16 students and the appropriate funding of the same. The cut in entitlement funding from 114 guided learning hours to 30 guided learning hours, which was made earlier this year for the coming year, has resulted in significant detriment to the funding of post-16 learning—it is essentially a 75% cut in entitlement, which translates into a 12% cut in overall funding.
The new clause refers to the range of activities that benefited from that enrichment funding. It is ironic that on the day after the Government got into a muddle over the ill-thought-out idea to sell places at university, they should go out of their way to undermine the funding arrangements for post-16 and the development of the broader person that is necessary to allow young people from the state sector to compete on equal terms with those from other sectors. I hope that the Government will look carefully at those proposals on funding post-16 education.
In April this year, the National Union of Teachers and the Employer Contact Unit conducted a snapshot survey on the impact of cuts on further education and sixth-form colleges. It found that the overwhelming majority of colleges—96%—had been told that their budgets would be significantly cut for 2011-12. Of those, more than nine out of 10 said that the cuts would have a negative impact on teaching and learning in their colleges. That survey highlights the immediate effect of the cuts to enrichment funding on young people now. That is a matter of huge concern—to me and many others—and it needs to be looked at. The new clause provides an opportunity for Ministers to do so.
I have had conversations with Ministers and taken delegations to see them about what is happening on the front line of education, so I know that they have been surprised by the impact of the changes to enrichment funding. Those Ministers are sensible and serious people who will think about how best to make an adjustment as we go forward, so that the education system can continue to be robust and successful.
My final point concerns quality careers guidance, which is covered by amendments 27, 28, 19, 29 and 18. The amendments are designed to ensure that the Bill’s suggestions are improved, so that we have high-quality, face-to-face careers guidance and do not let it wither away. Life is already much harder and more competitive for Emma, whom I quoted earlier, and her generation. University is expensive and to get a job after studying many young people are expected to work for free to get their foot on the ladder, which is not a good thing. Young people might need well-connected parents to arrange an opportunity, but the young people whom I represent do not always have those advantages.
By this Government’s actions, the careers service, the EMA, the future jobs fund and tuition fees—the ladders of support to help young people get on in life—are being systematically kicked away. Good quality personalised careers advice is essential to help young people make the best choices for their future. It is too important to be left to a postcode lottery.
The concept of a postcode lottery is a theme running through my three main points. If we are not careful, we will have a postcode lottery on the education maintenance allowance; we will have a postcode lottery on enrichment activities; and we will have a postcode lottery on careers advice. That is not what we owe to this country’s young people. That is why our amendments are designed to secure proper conditionality around the EMA, a commitment to enrichment activities along with the proper funding necessary to put them back in place, and a commitment to secure a high standard of guidance in every school and college.
Higher Education Policy
Nigel Evans Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. This is a popular debate, and an eight-minute limit has been put on Back-Bench speeches, with the usual two-minute injury time allowance for interventions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. In order to get greater participation, the time limit is now being reduced to six minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The wind-ups are going to commence at 6.40 pm so we have only 20 minutes left. I still have 11 people on my list, so can we please show great time restraint in speeches and interventions?