Free School Meals: Summer Holidays

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the Government’s decision to provide schools with their expected funding to cover benefits-related free school meals including the national voucher scheme over the Easter and May half-term holidays; notes the decision of the Welsh Government to guarantee each eligible child the equivalent of £19.50 a week up until the end of August to cover their meals over the summer holidays; and calls on the Government to continue to directly fund provision of free school meals, including the free school meal voucher scheme for eligible children over the summer holidays to stop children going hungry during this crisis.

It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on such an important motion—Labour’s call on the Government to provide free school meals over the summer holidays, so that all children can have a holiday without hunger. This is an issue that has gained significant traction over the past few days, with a chorus of charities, legal campaigners, Sustain and Good Law Project, Members across the House, good people tweeting all over the country and, of course, Manchester United star, Marcus Rashford. I am not only proud to be a Man United fan—that one of our own in Greater Manchester never forgot where he came from and used his profile to help those without a voice—but I am proud that he and those who have joined him have shown the very best that our country can be. I am delighted to say that the Government seem to have heard the cries and they appear to have done a U-turn on their decision to end the free school meal voucher scheme over the summer holidays.

I do have questions for the Secretary of State to address—not least, we need confirmation that the guarantee that free school meals vouchers will be provided over the summer holidays is concrete. However, as he will appreciate, this small win will be bittersweet overall if we do not now set about tackling the root cause of why many children are forced to rely on free school meals in the first place—poverty. Marcus, in his heartfelt letter, asked one important question yesterday:

“Can we not all agree that no child should be going to bed hungry?”

If we could all agree on that principle, there would be no debate to be had today.

I know that there are Members on the Government Benches—and, of course, on the Opposition Benches —who agree. They will tell stories of the horrific hardship that families in their constituencies have had to suffer daily. They will illustrate that to succeed in life, a child must have a bedrock of security, love and a full belly. They will transcend party lines to unify together in support of our children, showing the very best side of Parliament today.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of this debate and of working across the House. I am sorry that this topic has become such a political football because it is one that unites the House, but surely the question is not whether to support the most vulnerable children in our society, but how we do that. Will she acknowledge that the Government are working hard with councils, with schools, with businesses and, crucially, with civil society to put in place a system of support and activity through this summer to ensure that children get the support they need?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I await with bated breath the details of the Secretary of State’s summer scheme—I have some ideas to suggest to him for how it might be rolled out. Indeed, there is a wider suite of support that our children will need throughout the pandemic and as we exit lockdown. Tackling poverty is just one element.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am, if the Government always intended to do this, that they sent out the Transport Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary to embarrass themselves defending the indefensible?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

All I will say is that I am happy we have reached the point we have today, although it should not have taken a public campaign from a well-known national hero to push the Government into making this decision. That said, they have made that decision and we take these small wins where we can find them.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is really good news that the Government, as we understand it, are changing their position on the provision of free school meal vouchers over the summer, but does she agree that, to date, the system has been far from perfect? The contractor that has taken on this job has failed, for example, to provide children with vouchers for supermarkets in the villages or towns where they live. Does that not need to be fixed before the summer?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The Secretary of State will be well aware of the issues with the Edenred voucher scheme —the fact that many families have arrived at supermarkets and been turned away, that many schools have had to step in when vouchers have not been readily available and fund school meals themselves, and that in many cases they have not received assurances from the Government that they will be recompensed for that monetary expenditure. Perhaps he can provide those assurances today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

So far, the Welsh Government and Assembly have agreed to do it, the Scottish Parliament has agreed to do it, the Northern Ireland Assembly has within the last three or four hours agreed to do it, and at long last the Government here have agreed to do it. Society is measured by its attitude to those who are less well off. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this forward and look forward to the Government’s participation and making this a success.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments.

These children are not just statistics. The vast majority are children in working families, where parents are working around the clock to cover bills but where there is never enough. They are the children of parents who perhaps cannot work, through no fault of their own, for reasons such as chronic ill health. They may be the children of communities that have suffered from generations of unemployment and who feel their hopes and dreams are unachievable, no matter how hard they try, because the jobs simply are not there.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it is quite distasteful that the Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this point. I note she said earlier that it is ultimately about not just holiday hunger but the ingrained childhood poverty we see all around us. She talked about other measures being needed. Does she agree that one thing the Government might consider is replicating in England the Scottish child payment, whereby lower income families are given extra help and additional funds to pull them up so there is less need in the household?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. We take these small wins where we find them, but this campaign has demonstrated how the Government can be encouraged to change their position when we bring together our communities and key figures in sport, entertainment and so on, around an issue that our communities are passionate about. Let us move on as a House, tackle the root cause and move on together, united, to make lives better for these children.

Marcus was right in his letter yesterday. He spoke emotionally about his own story. He stated:

“My story to get here is all-too-familiar for families in England: my mum worked full-time, earning minimum wage to make sure we always had a good evening meal on the table. But it was not enough. The system was not built for families like mine to succeed, regardless of how hard my mum worked.”

He is right. The shameful reality is that for so many people in Britain today, no matter how hard they try, they cannot make ends meet. Opportunities are too few, wages are too low and bills are too high. Before the pandemic, more than 4 million children in the UK were living in poverty—that is nine out of every class of 30— and that is expected to rise to 5.2 million by 2022. Child poverty is a pandemic of its own in this country and one that has got far worse, unfortunately, over the last few years. Child poverty reduced by 800,000 under the last Labour Government, but the TUC found that, in 2019, that progress had been completely reversed, with the number of children growing up in in-work poverty alone having risen by 800,000 since 2010. Some 47% of children living in lone-parent families are in poverty, 45% of children from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are in poverty and 72% of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

The Food Foundation has found that food insecurity has increased by almost 250% since lockdown began, affecting 5 million adults and 2.5 million children. While the free school meals U-turn is welcome, it is not enough. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need the Government to raise their game fast to protect the millions of people who are now going to face even more hardship?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and I completely agree. While today’s U-turn is welcome, it is merely a sticking plaster.

Work is often not a route out of poverty any more. Living in poverty does not mean people do not work or work hard, as some would have us believe. Shamefully, children go hungry every year, but this summer will be especially difficult for many families, as job losses and reduced incomes hit household budgets. Research from the Food Foundation shows that more than 200,000 children have had to skip meals because their family could not access the food they need during lockdown. The Institute for Public Policy Research has found that 200,000 more children are among those expected to be below the pre-virus poverty line at the end of the year.

It is very likely that, since the latest data became available, more than the 1.3 million children already eligible for free school meals will become eligible, with 2.1 million people claiming unemployment-related benefits in April alone, an increase of over 850,000 on the previous month. Indeed, in its coronavirus reference scenario, the Office for Budget Responsibility has predicted that the unemployment rate may rise to 10%.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that no Government in history have created more jobs than this Government over the last five years, yet every single Labour Government have left power with higher unemployment than when they got into power? Should she not be grateful for the fact that we have a Conservative Government that will actually create more jobs than any Labour Government have ever managed to achieve?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his comment, but I think he must have been asleep when I outlined the scale of child poverty, particularly the point I made about many children living in working households. A job might be a job, but it is not good enough if that job does not provide enough for people to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. That is what many families are going through across the country at the moment, so let us up our game on this.

Not only is it simply wrong for children to be going to bed hungry, but it is likely to heighten the already substantial gap in attainment between the poorest and their peers. “Newsnight” reported last week that the poorest children usually end up five weeks behind where they were at the end of term because of the usual six-week summer break. With potentially six months away from school, I dread to think what the impact of this period will be on the education of the most disadvantaged children this year, without urgent help.

The Government are said to be planning a big catch-up programme for the summer holidays, which will of course be welcome and I wait to see the detail. However, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State agreed today to ensure that, as part of this, he will develop a national plan for education, where local authorities are funded to make a summer holiday local offer to children and young people; where schools are provided with additional resources, such as an enhanced pupil premium to help disadvantaged children; and where public buildings such as libraries and sports centres are used to expand the space available to schools to ensure safe social distancing.

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so generous in giving way. She makes a really important point. Of course, if there are 30 kids in a class, to do this carefully and safely may mean having to split it three ways. Does she agree with me that it is right that the Government fund not only the additional space that will be needed, but the additional teaching assistants we need to make sure that those children are properly looked after and taught?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Indeed. The hon. Member makes an important point. Certainly, I would like the Government to look at sourcing these additional teachers, and encouraging qualified teachers who have left the profession to return to support pupils is certainly one such avenue.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

As a qualified teacher before entering this House, I would be more than delighted to return to the frontline and help in any way I can. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) made a point about schools looking to expand. Rather than spend more money on portakabins and using other buildings, would it not be better—given that the science shows that children are more likely to be hit by lightning than tragically pass away from covid-19—to get all children back into the classroom in September in their school buildings, where we know they are safest?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The Secretary of State has his first volunteer to provide targeted tuition for pupils come September. I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman in the classroom once again. I am sure that Members across the House agree that safety has to be the No. 1 priority, and I know that that view is shared by the Secretary of State. We have to work across the House, and the Government really need to start pushing the boundaries and creating a taskforce, with experts, teaching unions and school leaders, to look at how we can safely get children back into school. That will be the best place for them—emotionally and academically—but it is not a trade-off between safety and being back in school. We need to achieve both.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

What we do not need from the Government is another rabbit-out-of-the-hat announcement. My hon. Friend has just set out the sorts of things that we need in place if we are going to reopen schools in September, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) just suggested. That would require the Government to set out a plan now and to start to engage with teachers’ unions, teachers themselves, heads of schools, local authorities and parents to create confidence that it is safe to send children back to school. That is what is lacking from the Government; they need to engage more widely if we are going to create the confidence that children can return safely.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is about assuring parents, teachers, school staff, pupils and wider communities about safety, and ensuring that we get children back into school in a very safe way. To do that, we have to have a consensus, which is why I have repeatedly called for the creation of a taskforce to bring together all those in the education sector to come up with the safety principles that need to be put in place in schools to ensure their safe reopening, and to produce a national plan for education so that pupils receive the emotional and academic support that they deserve.

Let me turn to additional support measures. I would like the Secretary of State to look at future GCSEs and A-levels, and to have discussions with Ofqual about changes to account for the work that has been lost during this period in order to provide a fair assessment of young people’s attainment. We also need provisions in the event that there is a second spike resulting in pupils being sent back home and being unable to take exams in the usual way.

[Jonathan Gullis]

As the hon. Lady will be fully aware, one of the biggest challenges is that although we have a curriculum, schools teach that curriculum in many different orders. How has she factored that into her suggestion for a potential change in the examination process?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman may have missed my first sentence on that point; I think that the Government need to have discussions with Ofqual to look at how changes can be managed properly. He is right that different schools take different modules at different times, and different exam boards have exams set out in different ways, but the challenge is not insurmountable. These discussions need to start now, not at the last minute. We have already lost too much time.

I would also like the Secretary of State to look at blended learning. We do not know how long this pandemic will last and we need to provide for adequate home and school learning. I want him to work with the sector to look at the support that pupils will need both in school and at home, and at how much face-to-face contact can be provided remotely and in person.

On digital provision, we know that free laptops have been promised to year 10s and selected children, but I want to see a guarantee that every single child can access their work online. Will the Secretary of State confirm today that—at the very least—he will start with a commitment to providing devices to all children eligible for free school meals if they do not have access to a digital device?

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend may know, only yesterday I presented to the House on a cross-party basis my Internet Access (Children Eligible for Free School Meals) Bill, which asks the Government to look at the means to provide internet access and devices for the 1.3 million children in England entitled to free school meals. Would she urge the Secretary of State to support that Bill?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comment. I certainly would urge the Secretary of State to consider the points that have been made. I thank her for all the work that she has done on this vital issue. It is a sensible proposal and hopefully one that the Secretary of State will respond on today.

It is important not to forget that even children who have not been through very difficult circumstances throughout this pandemic will still have been profoundly affected emotionally. That is why we need to have a national plan for children’s wellbeing to provide emotional and mental health support when children eventually do return to the classroom. These are the building blocks of a national academic and emotional programme for children. Failing to provide the most basic support for children will undermine this effort. The fact is that no child can learn if they are hungry. That is why it is so important that this year, especially, the Government have stepped in to ensure that all children have a holiday without hunger and that they are funding free school meals over that period.

But now that there is a consensus emerging on the damage that child poverty does to the outcome of our children’s lives, I ask Members to truly address these issues. The two-child cap on child benefit and the five-week delay to the first payment of universal credit are cruelly blighting the lives of children and their families. Will Members now pressure the Government to address decimated school and local authority budgets and the closure of Sure Start centres? Will Members’ concerns on these issues be heightened now? Last month, a survey by the National Education Union told harrowing tales of children without coats and with ill-fitting, ripped shoes; children who were tired and thin; children with mental health issues unable to get help; children with bed bug infestations and rats in their homes. It is no surprise that these children often find it more difficult to learn, and no surprise that during lockdown they are likely to have fallen further behind than their peers. It is no surprise that over 1 million of these children do not even have access to a digital device.

Humanity has won a small battle today, but we have not won the war against poverty. I say to every Member here: remember why you are here; remember who put you in this place and why. We are ultimately 650 individual people elected by our communities to protect and improve their lives. We are the voice of the voiceless. That is the moral compass that should guide every one of our days in this place. This summer, when you wander through parks and streets in the place that you call home, with every child that passes you by, innocently unaware of the vast power that you hold over their life, you will wonder, are they hungry, are they suffering—did I speak for them when they had no voice?

We have the power to change those children’s lives—to speak up like Marcus Rashford did. We have seen the true power that campaigns can bring in encouraging the Government to change their position. We now have to build a consensus across this House that this country will not tolerate child poverty and that we will encourage the Government to bring forward a raft of economic and social policies with one aim—to eradicate child poverty.

Children and Young Persons

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 445), dated 21 April 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April 2020, be annulled.

I thank the Minister for making time for this debate this afternoon in response to the prayer motion we have laid against these regulations. The Labour party has been clear that we do not support these regulations, and we will be voting accordingly.

These regulations make significant changes to the statutory protections for children in the care system, who are some of the most vulnerable and at-risk children in the country. Coming into force on 24 April and due to expire on 25 September, the regulations relax to a significant degree the safeguarding responsibilities of local authorities in relation to children going into and in the care system. The changes are wide-ranging, and I will not go into all of them today, but I will outline some of the provisions contained in the regulations that have caused the most concern.

First, social workers had been required to visit privately fostered children or those in care within one week when they go into care and every six weeks for the year after that. This requirement has been changed to

“as soon as is reasonably practical”,

even for a phone or video call. The requirements to review plans for children in care to set timescales have also been relaxed, denying children the opportunity to raise concerns and the problems they are having.

Secondly, independent panels, which approve foster carers and adoption placements, have become optional, and local authorities can now approve anyone who meets the requirements as a temporary foster carer, rather than only those who were connected to a child, with consequences for the future outcomes of that child. In addition, approval is no longer needed by a nominated officer to place children into care outside their local areas. Together with the change to allow placement with temporary carers who may not be connected to the child, this could mean that children are moved away from their home or anyone they know.

Thirdly, there now only have to be “reasonable endeavours” made to visit children’s homes, instead of monthly visits, and Ofsted inspections no longer need to take place twice a year.

Fourthly, controls on the periods of time children can be placed in emergency or short placements has been extended beyond any reasonable definition of short. Children can be placed with emergency foster carers for 24 weeks, rather than the usual six days, and children can be placed in short break placements for up to 75 days, rather than 17 days.

Finally, as the Children’s Commissioner has highlighted, children’s homes can now enforce the deprivation of liberty of children if they are showing symptoms of coronavirus, in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020.

I am sure the whole House agrees that these are not small changes. It is easy to see how a whole generation of looked-after children could be adversely affected during the six months the relaxed duties are in place—if, indeed, the Government do reverse them later this year. It is important to recognise the group of children we are talking about in this debate. As of 31 March 2019, just over 78,000 children were in the care of local authorities, up 4% on the previous year. On top of this, many more are classified as in need or at risk, and may flow in and out of the care system; about 100,000 children flow through the care system each year. Looked-after children have, almost by definition, faced great trauma in their lives. They may have started life in child poverty, in abusive households, in households that suffer from substance abuse or domestic violence, or with parents who suffer from mental illness. They could have been at risk of female genital mutilation, gang violence, child sexual exploitation, or radicalisation; or they could have been an unaccompanied child seeking asylum.

The outcomes for these children are much worse than for their peers. A report by the Social Market Foundation highlighted the fact that of children in or leaving care only 14% achieved five A*-C GCSEs in 2015, compared with 55% nationally, and they are five times more likely to face exclusion than their peers. In 2015-16, an estimated 39% of children in secure training centres had been in care, despite children in care accounting for about 1% of all children; and almost 25% of the adult prison population have previously been in care. Similarly, looked-after children are four times more likely to have a mental health condition, and 40% of care leavers aged between 19 and 21 are not in employment or education.

I am setting out these issues for the House because any disruption to the care of these children could have a significant impact on the rest of their lives. It is clear that these children are incredibly vulnerable, and in the context of the pandemic they need more support, not less. Our opposition to the regulations is echoed by the Children’s Commissioner, a chorus of children’s charities and MPs from across the House; and Article 39 has applied to the High Court for judicial review of the changes. A specific campaign group, Scrap SI 445, has been established, such is the strength of feeling against the regulations.

The following are just a few examples of the opposition that has been voiced. The Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, said of the regulations:

“I think they should be revoked now—I don’t think they are necessary or justified… There is a potential for children in care not to be given the protection they need and for them to be put at greater risk… For some, that means they are at greater risk of grooming or exploitation, especially older children in semi-independent accommodation.”

She went on to say:

“The focus was not on the best interests of children, it was on the system and the providers of it… all of this should be based on the best interests of children, especially those that the state has such a high level of responsibility over.”

The National Youth Advocacy Service has said that reduced contact by professionals increases safeguarding risks, with the Department for Education reporting that only one in 20 students identified as vulnerable continued to attend school during the lockdown. Many children and young people at risk of harm have been living without the safety net that school would usually provide, as well as having less contact with social workers and other safeguarding professionals.

The British Association for Social Workers said:

“Looked after children and young people are among the most vulnerable in society. Hard won rights in law are not simply bureaucratic processes but exist to protect children and young people and promote their well-being.”

It added:

“Some of the changes in the Regulations seem suspiciously close to the ‘freedoms’ that were in the original draft of the Children and Social Work Bill”—

in 2016-17—

“clauses that were subsequently thrown out by a coalition of Parliamentarians, after a vigorous campaign by civil society groups and service users.”

Finally, Become, the charity for children in care and care leavers, listed its objections thus:

“There was no justification or evidence for removing these particular safeguards…The emergency amendments were introduced just one day before they came into force without appropriate consultation or parliamentary scrutiny…The emergency amendments lack clear guidance or parameters about how and when they should be used…Current guidance does not provide sufficient detail on how the use and impact of the new powers will be centrally collated and monitored by government or Ofsted.”

There is clearly consensus across the board that these regulations are not necessary. They are disproportionate to the need expressed by local authorities; will significantly increase the risk that these children and young people are already exposed to; are likely to be detrimental to children’s outcomes; were introduced with no scrutiny and minimal consultation; and have no guarantee that they will be revoked in September. As such, the Labour party opposes these regulations and urges the Government to revoke them with immediate effect.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Education Settings: Wider Opening

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I join him in thanking parents and all those working in education and childcare at this difficult time.

For weeks, headteachers, education unions, school staff and many parents have warned that the plan to open whole primary schools before the summer was simply impractical while implementing social distancing safely, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to roll back from that today. However, I must state my dismay at the way this has been handled. If the Government had brought together everyone involved in implementing these plans from the outset and really taken on board what they had to say, they would not be in the situation of having to roll back at all. But what is done is done, and now it is imperative that the Government look ahead to what the education system needs over the coming months and years.

Children and young people’s education and wellbeing will have been impacted cruelly by such a prolonged period away from school and their friends, and the situation at home may have been extremely stressful. Indeed, the Children’s Commissioner has said to me today,

“The risk I am most concerned about is that of a generation of children losing over six months of formal education, socialising with friends and structured routine. I’m also concerned about a deepening education disadvantage gap that could leave millions of children without education they need to progress in life.

The Government need to face-up to the scale of damage this is doing to children and scale-up their response. The starting point for this needs to be rapid action to support summer schemes for this summer’’.

Like the commissioner, I believe a crisis in education and children’s attainment and wellbeing could come at us incredibly quickly if we do not step in and mitigate it now.

There needs to be a national plan for education, so will the Secretary of State commit today to bringing together children’s organisations, trade unions, parents associations, health and psychological experts, Ofqual, school leaders and headteachers to develop that plan? Of course, he will say that he has met these groups. However, politely listening to concerns and not acting on most of them is very different from the creation of a formal taskforce where these groups play a key role in setting the principles of a national plan.

In the immediate term, will the Secretary of State consider issuing guidance that all children of compulsory school age should have a one-on-one meeting with a teacher from their school and parents, if appropriate, before the summer holidays start? Alongside that support, will he commit to increasing the resources available for summer schemes to help re-engage children socially and emotionally? On academic support, the Government must support blended learning with more resources and targeted tuition; significantly increase support for disadvantaged children, including considering a greatly enhanced pupil premium; and roll out devices and free access to the internet for all pupils who need them. For those in years 10 and 12 who are worried sick about their exams next year, the Government must work with Ofqual to redesign GCSE and A-level qualifications to reflect the impact that time away from school has had.

Longer term, the plan must cover all possible scenarios, including the possibility of a second wave, not least as Public Health England confirmed on Friday that the R rate was over 1 in some regions. Indeed, the Government have set out that keeping that rate below 1 is critical in stopping the spread of the virus. But the Government do not appear to have issued any direction to schools in those regions. So what is the Secretary of State’s safety advice? Should schools pause plans for wider reopening? Do they need to take additional measures, or is it acceptable to simply carry on bringing in additional pupils with an R rate above 1? Today, the Secretary of State infers the latter—that local action does not need to be taken. So I ask him to publish the scientific modelling to support such an assertion and reassure schools in these regions.

Finally, the Government have confirmed that the free school meal voucher scheme will not continue over the summer holidays. With 200,000 more children expected to be living below the poverty line by the end of the year as job losses hit family incomes, this is a deeply callous move by the Government. Will the Secretary of State change his mind today and commit to funding free school meals over the summer holidays?

[Gavin Williamson]

I would hope that the hon. Lady and I are completely united in our concern to make sure that a generation of children do not miss out. We recognise and understand the truly extraordinary times in which we are living, and in which we are asking children to learn, teachers to teach and all those who support them to work. We also recognise that we need to be bringing schools back and pupils back into the classroom. Had it been left to the hon. Lady, she would not have been bringing children back into the classroom until the National Education Union said that she was allowed to do so. We will continue to work with all. We recognise how incredibly important it is to do the best for every single child. That is why it is so welcome to see so many schools opening their doors, welcoming children in and giving them the very best of what they can offer.

The hon. Lady raises an important point about summer schemes, but we need to lift our eyes higher and to be more ambitious. She is right to highlight the fact that there are real challenges that children have suffered as a consequence of this lockdown. But to put that right, we need to take a longer-term approach on how we can support children over a longer period of time. That is what we will be working towards and what we will be delivering. And, yes, we will continue to work with groups and organisations right across the spectrum to ensure that the policies are evidence-based and that they will deliver for children. We will not be doing virtue signalling; we will be taking the actions that will make a real improvement and a real difference to children’s lives.

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of working with Ofqual. That is what we are doing, including with representative organisations of schools and teachers, to make sure that next year’s exams—whether they be GCSEs, A-levels, T-levels or BTECs and other qualifications—are fair and reflect the hard work of the children.

The hon. Lady mentioned the issue of SAGE and its data and Public Health England. That is not within my control, as it is an independent body. SAGE regularly publishes all its data and will be doing so with reference to this. When it comes to local authorities across the country, whether they are in the north-west, the north-east, the south-east, or the south-west, we will work with all of them where they have concerns, and with Public Health England, so that they get the best advice, because the interests of children and of those who work in schools are my primary interest and my focus in making sure that we can bring schools back. We will work with those local authorities’ We need to bring all schools back in every part of this country. If the evidence starts to point to the fact that we need to close down schools in small clusters as a result of this, obviously that is the action that we will take, but only on the best advice from PHE. At the moment, the advice from PHE and SAGE is that all schools can open and that they should open.

Covid-19: School Reopening

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Rebecca Long Bailey, who is asked to speak for no more than two minutes.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

We all desperately want schools to reopen for the sake of children’s education and wellbeing, but the Secretary of State must appreciate that the guidance provided so far does not yet give the clear assurances over safety that are needed. Anxious shielding families, worried grandparents, teaching staff in fear—sadly, this sums up the theme of the past 48 hours. I hope that, to allay these concerns, he can address the following issues today.

Will the Secretary of State consider changing the focus of the plan so that, instead of asking schools to scramble to implement an unrealistic plan by a specific date, we ask them to plan to meet certain conditions that, when met, would signal that it was safe to open—a subtle but important distinction? Does he acknowledge that, due to the availability of staff and space, splitting classes while simultaneously providing remote learning is incredibly difficult, and will he work with schools to develop a realistic plan for social distancing? Has he modelled the impact of reopening schools on the infection rates, and will he publish that? Will he acknowledge that for younger year groups, social distancing will be virtually impossible and that the current guidance, sadly, gives the impression that those pupils and staff should just accept being exposed? With this in mind, will he rethink the position on PPE?

Finally, most schools break up for summer in mid-July; if the ambition is to get pupils back for a month, that means the whole school would need to be back less than two weeks after the priority years, so how does the Secretary of State expect schools to implement social distancing for the whole school when many heads say this is just impossible? If they do not, then what is the point of schools planning strict health and safety measures for two weeks only to abandon them? The Secretary of State repeatedly states that schools will open only when it is safe, and he referred to the scientific advice, which requires a return in a controlled manner; I do not see much of a controlled manner at the moment, so please will the Secretary of State work with the sector to get this right?

[Gavin Williamson]

Of course. The hon. Lady points out the importance of working with the sector, and that is what we will do at every step of the way, and that is what we have been doing. We recognise the importance of supporting the sector to make sure that, as children return to schools in a controlled and phased manner, we offer schools the maximum amount of support, recognise that every school is individual and unique in how we support them, and give them elements of flexibility so that they can make the transition from just providing an education setting for vulnerable children and children of critical workers. Expanding that in the limited way that we are proposing will require some elements of flexibility; schools and the sector will need that, and we will work with them to achieve it.

I have always been clear that we will give the sector as much notice as possible, and we have said that, if we are allowed, as seems likely, we would like to see schools opening from 1 June, giving them as much forward notice as possible in order for them to get ready. We think that is a responsible and sensible approach to a phased return. I slightly fear that if we were to ask the hon. Lady to pin down the date it would end up being about what would be the year rather than what would be the actual start date. But we do want to work with her; we want to work with the whole sector to make sure that this is a phased, sensible and controlled return to schools, because those who suffer most from schools not being open are the children who are so desperate to attend.

Trade Union Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell]

I wish to challenge the Government about the way in which they are handling the Lords amendments. They need to be clearly scrutinised to make sure that there is evidence behind what is said, as today is yet another example of a Government who are evidence light when putting their proposals before Parliament.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will just quickly declare an interest first. I am a member of Unite and of the GMB, and was a Unite official for 17 years.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidential basis for the entire Bill has been non-existent throughout its passage through Parliament? Levels of industrial action are at historical lows in the UK. The days of work lost per year to strikes are down 90% since the 1980s.

Schools White Paper

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Schools in Salford are under immense strain: there are chronic shortages of teachers; class sizes are rising; and the extra-curricular services, such as mentoring, which can often mean the difference between a child from a disadvantaged background succeeding or failing, are being scaled back. With all the Chancellor’s rhetoric about the northern powerhouse, now is the time to raise standards and to skill our region for the future, not to take money and effort away from education by undertaking an extremely costly and unnecessary programme to convert all schools into academies.

I am also concerned that the Government appear to be undertaking such a policy with no evidential basis to show that academies are more effective than maintained schools. Even the Local Government Association education chair, Roy Perry, has stated that

“only 15% of the largest academy chains perform above the national average”.

Furthermore, schools should be rooted in and accountable to their local communities, but the Government’s proposals create quite the opposite, taking schools away from local authority control and removing the express requirement to install parent governors. That is quite contradictory from a Government who only a few years ago championed localism.

Let me turn now to the treatment of land assets, which many describe as a land grab reminiscent of the dissolution of the monasteries. The new plans will see all school land transferred directly from local authorities to the Secretary of State, who will then grant a lease to the relevant academy. The Minister may recall that back in 2010 the primary care trust land was transferred to a property management company, NHS Property Services Ltd, with the sole shareholder being the Secretary of State for Health. I have questioned the necessity of creating such a company when the Secretary of State holds the land in any case, but it would of course make perfect sense if there was, say, a proposed sale of that property management company in the future—I say no more. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed today whether such a property management company would be created for land held under the Government’s proposals.

As for the leases themselves, details do not appear to be available at the moment, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity. Most importantly, will an academy tenant be required to seek consent from the Secretary of State for any underlettings? Will there be any degree of local engagement to ensure that any tenants are deemed beneficial to the school and the wider community, rather than simply offering a financial gain for the academy?

On future land sales, I am very concerned about how this system will be managed by the Secretary of State, particularly in respect of who will derive benefit from any proceeds of sale. The current proposals are extremely ambiguous and do not clarify where proceeds will be directed, but I suggest that they go to the relevant local authority so that they can be put to good and beneficial local use.

Further Education

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Today’s debate is particularly important to me as Salford city college and other further education institutions in my constituency have had to battle savage cuts over the past five years. The college is under review as part of the Government’s post-16 areas review policy. Indeed, Salford city college was one of the 129 colleges to sign the open letter sent to the Chancellor earlier this month. I wish to make clear my support for them.

In the previous Parliament the education budget for 16 to 19-year-olds fell by 14% in real terms. Funding for 18 and 19-year-olds was cut further, so provision for these students is 17.5% lower than for students aged 16 and 17. In July the National Audit Office reported that the

“financial health of the FE college sector had been declining since 2010”.

In addition, the Further Education Commissioner warned that over 55% of colleges will be in financial difficulty by the end of next year.

Despite these clear warnings, I fear that the Chancellor appears to be gearing up for another round of cuts to further education in the spending review next week. Let me be clear. Colleges in my constituency cannot cope with further cuts to their budgets. The city college has already had to lose teachers and support staff, make cuts in pastoral care and extracurricular activities, and drop a number of courses just to survive. These services were not a luxury. They were integral to ensuring that the young people of Salford participated and excelled in education. A person who comes from a poor background and whose family has suffered the savage effects of a lack of education and poor employment prospects for generations could be forgiven for feeling that aspiration was not for them, but only for a select few. Pastoral care and a wide range of courses are key to lifting these people out of poverty and breaking the cycle for their future children.

Without this support, how many young people will fall through the cracks of our education system? This is not just a bad thing in and of itself, but economically short-sighted. Education is critical for employment, especially in constituencies such as mine that have suffered from de-industrialisation and need both new jobs and a workforce equipped to do them. MediaCityUK, for example, is the hub of media creativity in the UK and is a fantastic asset to our city, but when it opened hardly anybody there came from Salford, and we have had to work hard and fight tooth and nail locally to ensure that we have educational courses to upskill our young people and make sure that they can be employed there. This is all under threat.

From the Conservative Government’s rhetoric, one would think that they support the institutions that allow people who work hard to get on, but the cuts already inflicted on further education services and the threat of more to come tell a completely different story. How do the Government expect people to improve their skills when the vehicle for doing so is breaking down? How do they expect these young people when they grow older to gain well-paid employment that will ensure that they do not have to depend on financial assistance from the Government? This is not long-term economic planning, as the Chancellor would have us believe, and it does not lend itself to a sustainable welfare system in the future.

Trade Union Bill

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

I declare an interest in this debate as a proud member of my trade union Unite.

The freedom to speak out against injustice and to campaign for economic equality and the rights and freedoms of workers is underpinned by the European convention on human rights—rights that were bitterly fought for by the blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors. The Government claim that they are forced to amend those rights, and we are led to believe that that is because the number of strikes called in recent years is a threat to our economic wellbeing. The total number of days lost in the 12 months preceding April 2015 was 704,000, but before the House becomes hysterical about that, it is important to note that historically that figure was in the millions. In fact, we are experiencing an all-time low for strike action, and it is at its lowest level since before 1990. The simple truth is that workers do not take the decision to strike lightly, and they never have.

Is this Bill justified? The European convention clearly states in article 11 that a restriction on the right to strike would be judged by reference to whether it is

“necessary in a democratic society”.

With strike action at an all-time low. I see no legal justification for such savage stripping of fundamental democratic rights.

Let us leave human rights to one side for a moment and examine the next strand of the Government’s argument, which is that trade union activity and the right to collectively bargain poses an economic threat. That is simply not the case. Evidence provided by the New Economics Foundation recently concluded that as a wage-led economy, the UK’s prosperity depends on a substantial share of the national income going to wages. If we look at wage equality over the last four decades, we see that while many employers are equitable, a substantial number are not. Those employers share less of the profit that they generate with workers, and they do not alternatively invest that money in future industrial strategy. It is therefore critical that organisations that champion collective bargaining are able to represent their workers, and that those workers have the right to bargain collectively for their share in company and national revenue.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I apologise but I must make progress. I am conscious that a lot of Members wish to speak.

I stress that such rights are not simply to improve workers’ living standards, but to enable the functioning of the economy as a whole. If wages continue to fall in real terms that implies a shrinking of the market. That inhibits profit and growth, and results in a vast reduction in the amounts recoverable in taxes by the Treasury. Indeed, proponents of the competitive market—including those on the Government Benches—would do well to understand that intrinsic to its very existence is not just the supply and demand of labour, but the freedom of labour to move and organise. Members who are fans of the free market mantras of Milton Friedman and co. will no doubt notice a real contradiction in terms. On the one hand, the Government advocate freedom and deregulation of company activity in their promotion of free market ideologies, but when it comes to the activity of workers it is a completely different story.

It is clear that the arguments in favour of this Bill do not stack up. This Bill is a clear breach of the European convention and poses a real and present danger to our economic viability as a nation. I call on Members to reject this Bill today. Failure to do so will open an economic and democratic Pandora’s box that unleashes something so pernicious that we will not be able to close the lid again.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—