Free Childcare and Nursery Providers

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered free childcare provision and nursery providers.

It is a privilege—[Interruption.]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt. Would Members leave the Chamber quietly, please?

[Julian Sturdy]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Bone, and to have secured this debate.

As was made clear in the Queen’s Speech, the Government are introducing measures to help working people by increasing the provision of free childcare. The announcement was welcomed by many people up and down the country and in my constituency, and it provides us with a great opportunity to launch a full review of childcare funding.

I secured a debate in this Chamber on nursery funding back in 2013, in which I explained that one of the main reasons for the continuing rise in childcare costs is the fact that nursery providers have to cross-subsidise the free entitlement funding provided by the Government. I stated that although the Government are the biggest procurer of nursery places, they are the worst culprits when it comes to paying for the places they procure. I am sorry to say that little has changed since then. For years, free provision has been subsidised by providers and parents due to a lack of adequate funding.

Doubling provision should benefit parents in my constituency and across the country. However, there is a danger that not implementing the change properly will lead to a more expensive system and more expensive childcare from the outset. The free hours could ultimately harm the very people the policy is supposed to help.

The Government have promised to include in the Childcare Bill a proposal to double free provision for three and four-year-olds in England. The current allowance is 570 hours of free early education or childcare a year, which works out at 15 hours a week for 38 weeks. It is thought that up to 600,000 families could benefit from the doubling of the provision and save as much as £5,000 a year. The change is due to come into force in September 2017, although there will be pilots in September 2016.

I have two children of my own, so I am fully aware of how expensive childcare can be. The cost of childcare is one of the biggest barriers that the UK’s 2 million single parents face to finding and staying in work. I therefore want to make it clear that I welcome and support the policy. At the same time, however, I want to offer a word of caution about the policy’s implementation and the impact it could have on nursery providers.

Since the announcement in the Queen’s Speech, I have been approached by several owners of nurseries in my constituency, who have all been keen to get clarity about exactly what the policy will mean for their businesses. Among them were the owners of Station House children’s day nursery in Dunnington and of Polly Anna’s nursery in Haxby. Both providers see the benefits of such a policy, but they agree that providers will be able to offer the increased number of hours only if the funding covers the cost of provision. In many areas, it does not.

Over the past few years, I have had the privilege of visiting a number of nurseries in my constituency—Little Green Rascals near Elvington, Sunshine day nursery in Huntington, Tiddlywinks in Osbaldwick, Quackers in Copmanthorpe and Polly Anna’s nursery in Haxby, to name but a few. Having met the owners of those nurseries and kept in contact with them over various funding issues, it is clear to me that they do a tremendous job. Nurseries carry out an essential service for parents and families, not just in my constituency but across the country. However, that essential service is increasingly under threat as a direct result of the funding issues.

As we all know, parents in the UK receive help with their childcare through free early education. In England, central Government allocate money to local authorities through the early years block of the dedicated school grant, with an estimated total spend of £2.2 million a year. However, there is a great disparity across the country in how much is spent on childcare by individual local authorities. Therein lies the problem. The National Audit Office found that free entitlement varied from £2.78 to £5.18 an hour, and that the national average was £3.95. My constituency receives only £3.38 an hour from City of York Council. The sad truth is that funding for the 15 hours a week of free provision falls well short of the cost. To be precise, the shortfall is about £800 a child, which results in nurseries running at a loss for those 15 hours. They therefore have to subsidise that loss through the price of childcare outside the free entitlement hours.

Following my previous debate, which centred on those issues, I secured a meeting with the former Minister to raise my concerns face to face, alongside a group of local nursery providers from York. The Government have been aware of the problem for some time. The Minister has been proactive in his discussions with nursery providers, and has met providers from my constituency. Some positive news is starting to come out, including the announcement that the Minister will oversee a funding review of the entitlement, which is due to start in the next few weeks.

I warmly welcome the Minister’s commitment to raising the hourly funding rates paid to providers for places. However, the review is being undertaken at a time when costs to nursery providers are set to increase further, with pension auto-enrolment responsibilities coming in for many small and medium-sized nurseries. The pressure increases when the payment for funded hours is delayed. More than 40% of local authorities are paying more than a month after the start of term, although, as we all know, the law requires them to pay within 30 days.

I am acutely aware that the burden of business rates and VAT is continuing to push up the cost of childcare, which constrains the ability of nurseries to offer more places. The average annual business rate paid by nurseries is almost £16,000, which is why I welcomed the intervention of the Department for Communities and Local Government. In January, it wrote to all English local authorities to ask them to consider granting business rate relief to childcare providers. Local authorities have had that power since the Localism Act 2011 came into force, and the Government will fund 50% of any discretionary relief schemes that councils introduce.

Following the DCLG’s announcement, I wrote to my local authority, City of York Council, to ask it to consider granting business rate relief to childcare providers in the area. Sadly, it refused. Interestingly, when the chief executive addressed the National Day Nurseries Association conference earlier this month, she reported that she had written to every local authority in England on the issue, but had been told that none would be implementing business rate relief for nurseries, which I find extremely disappointing.

Although there are political differences over childcare policy, there is broad support for the current approach of both supply-side and demand-side subsidies. However, compared with many other developed countries, the public funding of childcare in the UK is complicated to say the least. It is complex and expensive to administer for Governments and complex for providers and parents. I therefore believe that the policy to double free provision for three and four-year-olds provides a perfect opportunity to launch a full review of childcare funding and set in place the changes that will ensure simplicity, progressive levels of support, quality—that is absolutely key in this field—and accessibility.

Take-up of the current 15 hours of free provision for three to four-year-olds is at 96%, but it is much lower for two-year-olds. That is because some providers have opted out because they believe that the hourly funding rate is not financially sustainable. Many nurseries operate complex cross-subsidy mechanisms, and they rely on working parents of three and four-year-old children to purchase extra hours on top of their existing 15 hours of free provision. As I have made clear throughout the debate, I have sympathy with providers regarding underfunding. I hope that the upcoming funding review led by the Minister will bring meaningful reform.

Only quality provision helps narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. The owner of Polly Anna’s nursery in Haxby in my constituency told me that when he opened his nursery in the early 1990s, only doctors and accountants could use it; it was unusual for women to go back to work. Now we have flexible working, and free childcare has opened up day care to a range of families. Doubling free provision will only add to that trend, but it can be successful only if it goes hand in hand with a full review of childcare funding.

Money is allocated to local authorities through the dedicated schools grant. For three and four-year-olds, the rate per pupil is largely determined by historical precedent; it is not based on the characteristics and needs of the children. Early years funding should be brought more closely in line with schools funding, whereby money is allocated on the basis of a larger number of criteria, which include pupil numbers, deprivation and attainment to name a few. That would ensure that funding matched children’s needs and the cost to providers of providing early education. In addition, we could consider a national formula with two rates—one for London and one for the rest of England—similar to the funding formula for two-year-olds, which is fairer and more transparent. Local authorities receive a flat hourly rate per child of £4.85, supplemented by an area cost adjustment in places where wages are higher. That would be a much clearer funding system and would help to streamline the number of complex formulas in place.

Overall, although childcare represents a significant outlay to parents, it is important to remember that by its very nature it will always be expensive. It is not fair to suggest that high childcare costs are simply the result of providers charging high fees to hard-pressed parents. The reality is more complex. Childcare should never be provided on the cheap, and we must ensure that measures to make it more affordable do not compromise its quality. For me, that is crucial. Although successive Governments have increased help with childcare costs, parents in Britain still spend a higher proportion of their income on childcare than parents in most other developed countries. On top of that, some childcare providers struggle to break even. All that is indicative of a childcare system that is not working.

I view the proposals to double free childcare provision as an opportunity to fix these long-standing problems once and for all. We have a chance to make a real change to help not only nursery providers but parents who use such facilities, and I hope the Government will grasp it with both hands. I am encouraged by what I have heard from the Minister in our previous conversations on the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I think she is the third shadow childcare Minister I have faced in the nine months that I have been in post. She asked how the number of hours would be spread over the year. I would advise her not to pre-empt the consultation that we will carry out with parents and providers to find the most flexible way of implementing the scheme so that it works for them.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

It is a great honour for me and all the Ministers on the Front Bench this afternoon to have been asked to continue as Ministers in the Department for Education and to implement our manifesto commitment to build a Britain that gives every child the best start in life. It is right to pay tribute to our coalition colleague, the former right hon. Member for Yeovil, David Laws. We did not always agree, but I hope that the House will appreciate the impact of his hard work and his dedication to raising standards in England’s schools.

In this Parliament, we will continue with our plan for education, which has led to higher standards, to discipline being restored, to expectations being raised and to 1 million more children attending good or outstanding schools. Our mission is to provide world-class education and care that allows every child and young person to reach his or her potential.

[Mr Bone]

On Friday, I had an urgent meeting with Victoria Bishop, the principal of Sir Christopher Hatton Academy, which has just been given outstanding status by Ofsted. It wants to become a teaching academy—[Interruption.] This is particularly pleasing as the intake is from a multi-ethnic, multicultural part of my constituency. Would it be possible for the Secretary of State to meet Mrs Bishop as soon as possible?

Consumer Rights Bill (Carry-Over Extension)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. It seems to me that he is arguing for a business of the House committee, which I would of course support him in.

[Mr Spellar]

Most certainly not. I am arguing for an effective Government, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting observation, because he is really saying that the driver behind his business of the House committee is the failure of his own Government. He has to consider whether that is a failure arising from the particular circumstances and structure of this unholy coalition, or whether it is down to the deficiencies of the individuals concerned. I think it is probably both, but even within this alliance, which I know he is deeply unhappy with and would like to see ended—it was Government Members who voted for the five-year fixed-term parliaments, which has ossified this Parliament—if there were people there who had some grip on the situation, matters would be improved. Either way, it is clear that the Prime Minister and his fairly undistinguished staff at No. 10 have not got a grip on the situation. Within the House, of course, under all Governments, including much better run Governments, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip have played key roles, so let us deal with them in turn, starting with the Leader of the House.

I say without any sense of irony that the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) was a very good Foreign Secretary. I did not always agree with all his policy, but he was an effective Foreign Secretary who advanced a number of important and noble causes. I pay tribute to him for the redirection and reorientation of the Foreign Office towards using our embassies more to ensure that they sold British goods and services and represented British interests. I am pleased to say, too—I pay tribute again—that he made sure that embassy staff drove British-made cars.

The Leader of the House is also an entertaining speaker. On a day when he is not bored, he is an extremely effective speaker and very fine writer, too. I suspect he will use those talents in the future, and I think it will be a loss both to this House and to the Conservative party when he stands down voluntarily—unlike the Minister, who will be standing down involuntarily—at the next general election.

However, notwithstanding all those qualities, I do not believe that organisation and boring detail are top of the right hon. Gentleman’s agenda, so I do not think that the Leader of the House—in this as in a number of other facets of this zombie Parliament—has got a grip on the pace of the programme of the Government’s legislation.

The Chief Whip is in a slightly different position, along with the deputy Chief Whip, although I see a lack of organisation in what they do. We have seen many examples of them rushing around during votes when they clearly do not have a clue what is going on. They have not been speaking truth unto power, either, when it comes to what can or cannot be done within this House, so they bear some degree of responsibility for what has happened.

We are having to spend some time this evening examining these issues not just because of one Bill. Rather, it is because of a systemic problem in the Government that is, frankly, not helping Parliament, not helping proper debate, not helping the progress of legislation and not helping the bringing forward of measures to deal with the problems facing this country. Thus, I am pleased to say, we now have a useful opportunity to examine all that, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will be able to deal with it in more detail in his contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. After passing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 for five-year Parliaments, it should have been easier for the Government to programme their business motions through this House. At the time of the last general election, the Prime Minister talked freely about reducing the cost of politics, but since then he has absolutely stuffed the other place with new peers and peeresses. He is obviously trying to ensure that the Conservatives maintain their in-built advantage in the other place.

It is clear that the whipping system in the other place is not working very well, which is laughable. Either Members who have just been ennobled are not turning up or other Members are rebellious, because they are clearly not voting along Government lines on every issue. The amendment on ticket-touting, for example, was tabled by a Conservative peer.

A five-year Parliament ought to ensure that programmes are completed, but motions such as this mean that Bills are stuck in the other place and we must wait for them to come back. That applies to some important Bills, such as the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, which would create an armed forces ombudsman and must be keenly awaited by members of our armed forces. It has been argued that there has not been enough time during the current legislative Session, but we should bear in mind the number of Opposition days and Thursdays devoted to business tabled by the Backbench Business Committee. I mean no disrespect to any of those debates, but space could have been made for debates on important Bills.

Moreover, during the current Parliament an unprecedented number of Committee stages have been dealt with on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee Rooms upstairs. That has used up days that could have been devoted to more lengthy consideration of Bills.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making one of his interesting speeches, but surely he is not suggesting that Committee stages of constitutional measures that have been dealt with on the Floor of the House should have been dealt with upstairs.

[Mr Jones]

No, I am not. I cannot think of an example at the moment, but a number of Committee stages that would previously have been dealt with upstairs have been dealt with on the Floor of the House. That leads us to ask whether the Government are simply trying to fill up time on the Floor of the House—and I think that that is exactly what they have been doing.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an important Bill, and it will clearly be given a great deal more scrutiny and attention in the other place than it will be given here. Given the current logjam in the other place, we shall have a very thin February and March as we wait for Bills to return to us. There is also the broader issue of the reputation of the House of Commons. I do not think that headlines about, for instance, zombie Parliaments or MPs coming to the House on only two days a week do our reputation any good. We cannot expect the public to understand the minutiae of parliamentary timetabling, especially given the incompetent way in which the Government are handling it.

[Mr Jones]

That is an interesting point. I do remember seeing press reports about the letter sent to Conservative Back Benchers. If I thought that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House were well organised enough, I would say that there was obviously a plot, but I do not think that there was. I think that they have found themselves with time on their hands, and Conservative Back Benchers have been told not to come here on Mondays or Thursdays.

[Mr Bone]

May I state categorically that I have never received such a letter from the Chief Whip?

[Mr Spellar]

He does not include the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Bone]

He would prefer me to stay away much more often.

[Mr Jones]

That does not surprise me, given the hon. Gentleman’s record. I should not have thought that he was one of those whom the Chief Whip would hold close to his bosom in terms of communication. I imagine that if there was room for only one more person in a lifeboat, the Chief Whip would not get into it if the hon. Gentleman was there.

The point is that we have ended up with a slack programme, and the progress of Bills, including this Bill, depends on how sedately or otherwise the other place deals with them. Certain important Bills, such as this and the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill, could be delayed until the wash-up, and could then fall. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, provisions in this Bill that are actually welcome could end up being dealt with in the usual meat-grinder sessions at the end when it is decided what can and cannot be agreed. I do not think that that would be satisfactory from the point of view of those who have worked hard to ensure that the Bill is passed, or when it comes to ensuring that it is scrutinised in a proper and just fashion. I note that there are other carry-over motions on the Order Paper, and I suspect there will be others, because it is within the Government’s remit to introduce them. As I said, under paragraph (13) of the Standing Order that has been invoked, paragraph (14) comes into effect, which states:

“A motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown to extend for a specified period proceedings on a Bill which would otherwise lapse under paragraph (13), and any such motion

(a) may contain provisions amending or supplementing a programme order in respect of the Bill;

(b) may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption”.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) that this is not about the Government having a procedural or a timetabling Committee of the House for Bills. A competent Government should be able to put forward a legislative programme for a Session that ensures not only that they get their Bills through, but that it is done in a timely fashion and the Bills get proper scrutiny in this place. Clearly, now that they have discovered paragraph (13), it is going to be used far more to extend consideration of Bills.

The time period goes up to 30 March and it will be interesting to see what timetable there will be and whether or not, and when, we will get this Bill back from the other place. On the transparency issue around ticket touting, for example, Lord Moynihan was clear on the radio this morning that he would listen to what this House said, but there is a good chance that the Bill will be voted on again in the other place and come back to us.

The issue is whether the Conservative Whips Office in the House of Lords can get all these new peers whom the Prime Minister has added out of their sleepy slumber and ensure that they attend and vote in support of the Government. Their record so far is not very good. There is even a question as to whether they can be relied on to vote the right way, because there are Cross Benchers and Conservative peers who support the cause of greater transparency for the consumer which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has championed for many years. If the Bill comes back, we will get into a ping-pong session, and given that we are now getting a logjam of Bills, what real in-depth discussion will we have of any amendments that are brought back?

That brings us back to my central point about the role of this House as opposed to that of the other place. I could be unfair on the Government and think that all along, with the coalition in place, their plan and the Prime Minister’s plan was to rush everything through this House as quickly as possible, so that it gets to the other place where, because he has appointed so many new Conservative peers, he now has an in-built majority to steamroller through whatever he wants.

We have seen some examples of that. The coalition love-days of the rose garden at No. 10 in 2010 have now clearly gone sour. The coalition was described then as a shotgun marriage, and it has clearly not lasted the course. I know of occasions when internal tensions in the coalition have led to legislation being dropped—the latest example being the issues around surveillance on the internet, where there appears to be a clear divide between the position of the Liberal Democrats and that of the Conservative part of the coalition. It is important that we get legislation through in time, and we cannot second-guess the internal politics of the coalition. Let us remember the rights of this House. There has been a lot of talk about broken politics, and the—

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Sorry, three years and 10 months. So if we stick with this Act, in the next century we could lose six general elections—that is six occasions on which the people are given a real choice. In short, the greater flexibility that the power of Dissolution allows is to the advantage of our parliamentary democracy. The great advantage of our constitutional tradition is that it bends rather than breaks, but fixed-term Parliaments remove that flexibility, with consequences that cannot be foreseen.

Professor Robert Hazell of University College London’s constitution unit, has said that

“Anthony Eden’s decision to call a premature election in April 1955 can be justified on a mandate basis: he had only taken over as PM nine days earlier after the resignation of Winston Churchill. Fixed terms will remove or at least limit the government’s capacity”

to renew their mandate. We all know that the decision of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), not to have a general election as soon as he was elected—or, rather, appointed—as Labour Prime Minister was a serious mistake and his Government never recovered from it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

That points exactly to the other argument on this issue. Had the former Prime Minister gone to the country on that date, he probably would have won a general election. The Government have an enormous power in being able to choose an election date, and is that not the other side of the coin?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is the other side of the coin, which is why the Liberal party, which always delights in its own rationality, came up with this idea of fixed-term Parliaments. It is strange that the Liberal party, which is so apparently rational in all respects, is so unpopular with the people—I never quite understand that. It is precisely the sort of point that comes from political scientists and leads to dangerous constitutional innovations that are not thought through and are, in the end, profoundly undemocratic. The old system was better, more democratic and more in tune with what the public want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Gentleman is known for being a rather floppy and flexible individual, and perhaps I am renowned for being inflexible in the multitude of compromises I have attempted to make over my political career to secure at least some small reforms in our democracy.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, as usual. He is right to say that this is a restriction on the power of the Executive, but I think that he is slightly wrong to say that in this Parliament power has not become more centralised. I think his book was called “The First President” or “President Blair” or something along those lines. Surely he thinks that guillotining and the Whips Offices are doing much more to give power to the Executive than a fixed-term Parliament.

[Mr Allen]

I am not saying that it is the fixed term that has helped create a lively Parliament; it is Members of Parliament who have done that, by carving out a niche and exploiting the difficulties of coalition Government, and more credit to them for doing so. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, who is foremost among those pushing back the envelope—I congratulate him on that—that what the Executive giveth, the Executive can take away. Were we to return to a one-party Government, of whichever party, I guarantee that they would seek to roll back some of the gains that he and just about every colleague in the Chamber today have played a part in securing, bringing greater responsibility to Parliament. I warn colleagues here today that the tide will go out very rapidly indeed. We now have, for the first time in parliamentary history, Select Committee Chairs elected by secret ballot and by the whole House, as in my case, and that could easily become a thing of the past. In a one-party Government, the Prime Minister would instruct people to clamp down on dissent and nonconformity.

Similarly, colleagues elected to Select Committees by secret ballot and by party, such as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), could be under threat. Difficult and awkward customers of the sort I revel in dealing with in my Committee, many of whom are in the Chamber today, will be the first casualties. I say that not because I am trying to scare them, but because I used to be in the Whips Office and had to take Members out of Select Committees and try to get compliant Chairs elected. Sadly, I have been there, done that—I am the gamekeeper turned poacher, and possibly turned gamekeeper again.

The idea that we have cracked it and that we now have a Parliament that in a one-party Government will be as frisky as this one is misleading. We have to protect the small gains we have made in recent years and build upon them, rather than regressing to the good old days when we used to allow Prime Ministers the unprecedented power in a democracy of deciding the date of an election.

Birmingham Schools

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that I have made it very clear that the interests of schoolchildren and their families must be at the heart of this. That is what our education system is all about. It is about preparing our young people for modern Britain and the modern world. The tragedy is that that has not happened to some of our children in Birmingham.

I also think that I have been very clear about failings at various levels and in various organisations. I will certainly be working with Birmingham city council, in particular through the new commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is issuing a written ministerial statement on wider working and wider lessons for the council at about this time. It has been discussed with Sir Albert Bore, and I believe that it is welcomed by him and his team.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the excellent new Secretary of State for coming to the House and updating us. She referred in her statement to fundamental British values. Is there a definition of those somewhere in Government documents that we can look at?

[Nicky Morgan]

There certainly is. Fundamental British values are defined as

“democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.

I have taken that definition from the Ofsted inspection handbook, but I suspect that it is in many other publications as well, and so it should be.

British Values: Teaching

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

The sitting is resumed and we start with a very interesting debate on the teaching of British values.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, particularly as you have rightly said that this is a very interesting debate. I hope that everyone will still feel that it is an interesting debate when I have finished speaking.

I am grateful for the chance to have this debate on teaching British values. I have been engaged in this issue for a long time and certainly at least since I became a Home Office Minister in 2001, but obviously I asked for today’s debate following the Government’s recent announcement that all schools will be required to promote British values. In the wake of that announcement and the issues in Birmingham that seem to have provoked it, media coverage has tended to be polarised between supporters of the Government’s proposition and those who treat the whole idea of promoting British values with some derision or concern. I wanted this debate because I do not fit easily into either of those camps. I believe that nation building—the conscious attempt to create a strong cohesive society with a strong national story and shared values—is now a national imperative. It follows, for me, that schools should be in the business of nation building. I do not agree with those who have argued quite recently that talking about Britishness is really rather un-British. That includes, in fact, the Secretary of State for Education.

However, I have real concerns that the Government’s approach is ill judged and may be counter-productive. It is of concern that within days the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were taking diametrically opposed positions on this issue in the media. That rather suggests that both were more concerned about forthcoming elections than about the promotion of British values, but this issue is too important for the Government to handle it in such an unco-ordinated and disorganised way. I will end my remarks by making a few proposals for an approach that is more rounded and more constructive, but still designed to promote British values.

This is a critical moment. Three years ago in Munich, the Prime Minister ended support for what he called “state multiculturalism”. He did not just say that multiculturalism was dead; he put nothing in its place, even though Britain at that time was continuing to experience rapid social and economic change with large-scale if unplanned immigration.

From the 1960s, Governments had done their best to make an increasingly diverse society work, tackling racism and discrimination, unfairness in public services and disadvantage in education. From 2011, for the first time in more than 50 years, we have had no clear state policy and no clear Government philosophy about how we are all to live together successfully. Of course today’s problems do not start or end with this Government, but this was an unfortunate time to leave the field of play—to abandon attempts to set out how a strong and cohesive society could be built. There was a desultory little document on integration from the Department for Communities and Local Government—it was little more than a list of local examples of good practice—and that was it.

For all the strong bonds between people of different backgrounds that exist, not for decades has this country felt so ill at ease with itself and so uncertain about where it is going, so a new initiative to promote British values is significant. It may, in my view, be poorly designed, but rather than dismissing it, we should welcome any sign of renewed interest in how our country works in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denham]

I would agree. I made it clear that I am not here to defend the practices that were uncovered in Birmingham schools. I was actually going on to make the point explicitly in my speech; if I lose concentration, I will probably end up reading it out anyway.

Here we go—on the next page. As I have said, knowing the difference between religious conservatism and extremism does not mean that we do not tackle unacceptable problems in schools. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) got there before I did. She is absolutely right. As I made clear when I was talking about the need to intervene if things go wrong and schools become exclusive, I accept that point.

However, by conflating conservative theology with political radicalism and extremism, the Government have not helped to take the debate forward. It has undoubtedly fuelled fears and concerns in the wider non-Muslim community and alienated the majority of Muslims, who do not support what was going on in the Birmingham schools. It has made that necessary discussion about how we educate young Muslims in our British society probably more difficult. I do not think that the Government have got the issues right, because it comes across as though the challenge is to get one particularly disloyal community into line, when the real challenge is bringing together people from many different communities into a cohesive society with a strong national identity. That is a big enough challenge.

I want to end with five, I hope, constructive and practical proposals. First, I would like to see the Government fill the gap left by their opposition to multiculturalism by endorsing the idea of nation building. It should be public policy to create a strong, cohesive society with a strong national story and shared values.

Secondly, I would like to see the Government shift the emphasis of their approach from constructing legal powers to intervene, based on legal notions of British values, to providing teachers and schools with the powers and resources they need to do that job well.

Thirdly, the Government should set out a simple test for all publicly funded schools—faith, community, academy or free—that they should be required to maintain an environment that is genuinely open and welcoming to all students of all backgrounds. That, rather than the tortuous test of promoting British values, should be the basis for inspection and intervention.

Fourthly, citizenship and the promotion of strong national values should be restored to their proper place in the curriculum and made part, once again, of Ofsted’s normal inspection regime. As part of that, the Government should take a fresh look at how we ensure that students in mono-cultural or mono-faith schools enjoy wider opportunities to meet, work, study and socialise with those from other schools and other backgrounds.

Finally, the Government should recognise the importance, not just of teaching national values, but of involving young people in debating, exploring and shaping them. Just as British values commonly understood are different today from when I was born, so they will be different in 60 years. It is today’s young people who will, together, decide whether our country works or not.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It might be helpful for hon. Members present to know that I intend to have the shadow Minister on his feet no later than 3.40 pm.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Mr Bone, I am not sure how long each of us has—about five or six minutes?

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Yes.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Well then, the full version of my speech will be found on my website, www.tonybaldry.co.uk. This is the abridged version.

We are grateful to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) for introducing this debate. I do not think we agree with his analysis.

The inscription on the second world war memorial in my school reads: “Whatever hope is yours, Was my life also”. Later this year, we commemorate the centenary of the start of the great war. A good starting point for defining British values would seem to be exactly what our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers considered to be the values they were fighting for in those wars.

I think the first value, which I am sure we have learned over the centuries, is that of tolerance—the need to tolerate others and the need, in particular, for religious tolerance. That is perhaps not surprising, because there was a terrible legacy of religious intolerance in this country during the Reformation and the counter-Reformation, which led to our recognising that we needed to get along with and tolerate each other. Unlike some other countries in Europe, in Britain we have generally never had hang-ups about religious emblems, such as crucifixes, being displayed in schools or public buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

Mr Bone, I hope that you, like me, have found this to be an enlightening, well thought through and extremely reasonable debate. It has been positive, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing it. I will try to address his five points and some of the points raised by other Members, but we need to set the debate in context. The question of the values that tie us together as a country is a crucial point that has been raised and relevant through the ages. This debate is not on a new subject, but one that has been raised throughout history.

It is best to start on the point about universal values and the question of what British values are. As has frequently been stated, the Government have set out that British values are

“democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we could all unite behind those values, and I certainly hope that we can, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) rightly pointed out, we are complacent if we say that that is easy or natural. British values are not universal around the world, and we should be proud that they are very widely, if not universally, accepted here at home. Those universal values flower in Britain because of the protection of our strong democratic state, defended through liberty—with blood, in times gone by—by our forefathers and the forefathers of those from many different backgrounds.

To seek to defend those values, and the British polity that protects them, is a valuable task. In that, I thought that many of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen were astute, but it was a sad irony that in arguing that we should come together in many of these things, he sought to find points of division where none exist. The argument for a conscious focus on nation building is one that we support. He argued not for a legal basis in that space, but for providing teachers with the powers and resources to enable them to deliver. While it is crucial to ensure that we defend British values by specifying what is not acceptable, that inevitably ends up with a legal basis for intervention. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) pointed out in describing the paradox of tolerance, if we are to ensure that we promote British values—including ensuring that we take action against extremist ideologies that are anathema to them—there need to be legal elements. There is, however, much, much more to the issue. For example, the broadening of the history curriculum is one part of a response to a need to strengthen the underpinning of British values that has been under way over the past few years.

On the promotion of citizenship and British values in the curriculum, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen made an odd critique about citizenship and Ofsted. Of course Ofsted inspects on the teaching of spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. That is a core part of its framework, and the argument that it did not inspect for that is, frankly, wrong. His point on involving young people in debate is important. Having listened to his speech very closely, I argue that there is much more that unites than divides us.

There is another crucial point, which everyone in the debate has touched on: British values are not simple and British identities are often multiple. I did not even know that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East had a Jewish background. Being Jewish and British is a widely held identity, much like being Scottish and British, English and British or Welsh and British. Once we get to Ireland it is slightly more complicated, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, rather than Great Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) set out, however, identities expand to being Indian and British and many other different backgrounds. Nevertheless, the reticence with which some express British values, and the argument that it is rather British to be reticent about expressing British values, which I recognise, should not prevent us from setting out expectations on shared values. British values are a core set of beliefs that support and ensure freedom, liberty and tolerance and underpin the way we want our society to function.

The debate rightly touched on the issues in Birmingham schools. We are clear that we need to learn lessons from what happened there. I will deal with a couple of technical details before going on to the broader point. In 2008, when concerns were expressed, the schools were maintained schools. Much progress has been made in maintained schools. They must promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils so that they can participate in wider society, and they must promote community cohesion. The strategy for creating the conditions for integration recognises the critical role that local organisations, including schools, can play in bringing communities together. Existing advice on teacher misconduct confirms that misconduct includes:

“Actions or behaviours that undermine fundamental British values, democracy and law, promote…extremism, or demonstrate deliberate intolerance and/or lack of respect of the rights, faith and beliefs of others”.

Maintained schools are also required under the citizenship curriculum to teach pupils about subjects including democracy and human rights.

Those requirements are only part of the wider answer to the question on British values, of which the teaching of history is also part. Here I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), because he, in his eloquent articulation of British values, warned against those who would try to divide us and pointed to the special role of Dover and its white cliffs in the British story. We should pay heed to his words. Having said that, we will take further action, in addition to the action taken since 2010, to strengthen guidance to schools to set out more clearly our expectations. That follows the publication of the Government’s Prevent strategy, which focuses not only on tackling directly violent extremism, but extremism more broadly. That is necessary to tackle the roots of violent extremism, and the Secretary of State has set out that we will consult on further action.

On Monday, we launched a consultation on strengthening the wording of the independent school standards, which apply to independent schools, academies and free schools, to require schools actively to promote principles that encourage fundamental British values. That builds on the change made last year to include a requirement to encourage pupils to respect fundamental British values. In addition, we will also require teaching

“on the strengths, advantages and disadvantages of democracy and how democracy works in Britain, in contrast to other forms of government in other countries”.

The guidance also describes the outcomes that independent schools, including academies and free schools, will be expected to demonstrate. That shows that the accountability of academies and free schools is stronger than that of maintained schools, not least because of inspection by the Education Funding Agency as well as by Ofsted.

Finally, I want to pick up on one point made by the shadow Minister. He said that there was no accountability whatsoever in academies. I would say that—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid that time has beaten us. I would like to thank all hon. and right hon. Members for co-operating to get everyone in, and for an interesting debate.

Points of Order

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given notice to the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford). Yesterday the hon. Gentleman made a point of order about a meeting that took place in my constituency that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government attended. He did not have the courtesy to inform me in advance of his intention. He complained that the meeting held at Rushden Lakes in my constituency had pre-empted the Department’s proper announcement re the planning application. He implied that Wellingborough councillor Tom Pursglove—the excellent Conservative parliamentary candidate for Corby—and I knew in advance of the planning decision and planned the event days in advance. The truth of the matter is that neither I nor Tom Pursglove knew in advance of the official announcement. It is also untrue that the Secretary of State’s visit was a ministerial visit; it was in fact a Conservative party event that he attended without any officials. It is also simply untrue that this event had been planned in advance. Could you advise me, Sir, as to whether there is any requirement for hon. Members to notify other hon. Members about party events that are happening wholly within their constituencies?

[Mr Speaker]

Let me begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which, with characteristic courtesy, he gave me notice. Yesterday’s point of order and my response did not address the issue of notification of visits to other Members’ constituencies. The conventions on that matter are clear. Any Member intending to visit another Member’s constituency on official business should give notice of their plans to the constituency Member. What I would like to say at this stage to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, is that I think that the House has probably heard enough about this matter. I say that in no pejorative spirit but in a factual sense, especially as there is an Adjournment debate on it this evening. Of that fact, of course, the hon. Gentleman is himself keenly aware, for the debate is his. We will leave it there for the time being.

Birmingham Schools

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a very fair point about faith schools that want to teach conservative religious values. How do the Government distinguish between such schools and schools in which extremism is happening?

[Michael Gove]

Clear requirements apply to all voluntarily aided faith schools. They are, of course, allowed to make provision for appropriate worship and for freedom of conscience, but they must also offer a broad and balanced curriculum, as has always been the case. They must also respect British values, and, as a result of the proposals on which I intend to consult from today, they will always be required to promote those values actively in the future as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Vince Cable]

Anybody who looks at yesterday’s employment figures will realise that we are in a very positive trend on employment—far in excess of what was predicted. Specifically in relation to the north-east, the hon. Gentleman will know that the main mechanism the Government use to support jobs and companies is the regional growth fund, and I think that the north-east has received more regional growth fund support than almost any other part of the country.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that as businesses expand and get more sales, they generate more cash, so we would not necessarily expect net lending to go up?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

I am disappointed that this figure is being bandied around yet again. It does not cost women more than £1,000 to go to a tribunal. It costs only £250 to start a claim, and most cases are finalised well before a hearing. For those who end up going to a hearing, fee remission applies in many cases, and if the women win their case, costs are often awarded against their former employers. It does not cost what the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is scaremongering by Labour Members, and I am concerned that this will put women off taking cases against their employers when they have been unfairly discriminated against.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On the Secretary of State’s undoubtedly enjoyable trip to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley), will he break his journey in Wellingborough so that I can show him the success of local businesses? More importantly, this would not cost the taxpayer a penny because both Wellingborough council and East Northamptonshire council have free car parking, which encourages local business. If possible, I look forward to seeing him soon.

[Vince Cable]

I should be delighted to go to Wellingborough. Indeed, I should like to make the visit a political one as well, and, on behalf of my Department, to express my appreciation of someone who has given so much support to the coalition. [Laughter.]

PISA Results

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

A head teacher recently told me, “The Secretary of State is a dreadful person, and absolutely hopeless, but his policies are absolutely right and I’m implementing them with gusto.” Is it better to be right rather than liked?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is both right and liked universally across the House. If I agree with him, I hope that I am right, but I can never aspire to be as liked or as popular as he is.