Parental Involvement in Teaching: Equality Act

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow so many moving and powerful speeches. I did not come to the Chamber intending to make a speech; I had hoped to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) a couple of questions, but having heard what he said, I was moved to rise to make just a few points.

My hon. Friend sought to characterise what has been happening outside Anderton Park school as an issue of consultation. I have to say, on the basis of what I have seen, that the message that comes across from those protests is not principally about consultation. Yes, the issue of consultation is in there, but the protests are actually about an objection in principle to LGBT-inclusive education. If that is not the case, how else can we read a placard that says, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”? What is that if not an objection in principle to LGBT-inclusive education?

However, it is not just the fact that those views are being expressed, but the aggression with which they have been expressed, that has upset and profoundly offended so many people of, I believe, all races and all religions in Birmingham. The level of abuse that the headteacher has suffered—the things that have been said through megaphones not just at Anderton Park but before that at Parkfield school—is utterly outrageous, and I think we have a responsibility in this place to stand up and say that that is simply not on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green has said that if he has upset or offended anyone then he apologises, and I am grateful he has said that and welcome that, but I do hope he will reflect on whether when on camera he turns to one of the leaders of those protests—a man who does not even have a child at that school—and says, “You are right; no more nor less, you are right,” those words were wisely chosen, because I do not believe that the message that that gentleman has given is right.

Dialogue between parents and schools is obviously a good thing in any part of the curriculum, but there are also some principles at stake here and they deserve repeating. Sometimes this issue is talked about is if it is about sex education, but it is not; it not about sexualisation at all. It is about relationships education, and to me there is one word and theme that has come up several times in this debate so far and that is absolutely central to all relationships education, and that is the importance of respect. I am sorry, but I disagree with my hon. Friend: I do not think that there is any age-appropriate threshold for respect. I believe that from the word go children should be taught to respect other people, whoever they are and whatever they are. I do not believe we would be right in adopting a curriculum or an approach which implies to young people that if they go to school with a friend who has two daddies or two mummies, instead of one daddy and one mummy, somehow he or she or his or her parents are less deserving of respect than the other child’s parents.

I just think that that is a principle which should be taught from the word go. We should have no problem in upholding that principle. It is a principle on which I will not compromise, and it is the reason why, I am afraid, on this issue I am on the other side of the fence from my hon. Friend.

Maintained Nursery Schools

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. We will be handing in a number of petitions in the House next week. We know that the single biggest indicator of how well children will do in their GCSEs is their developmental level at the age of five. That is why the critical early years are so important.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the all-party parliamentary group on the excellent work that they have done so far. The figure of 64% is striking in this context: 64% of nursery schools are in the most deprived parts of the country, and 64% of nursery schools face a deficit unless the Government change course. Do those two identical percentages not indicate that nursery schools need a fairer funding settlement?

[Lucy Powell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. He has, in fact, summarised my entire speech in one sentence, so perhaps I will cut it down a bit.

Let me return to the value of our maintained nursery schools, and explain why they are the jewel in the crown. Their admissions policies prioritise children with the greatest need: they have a strong track record of boosting early development for all children, but especially the most vulnerable. As my hon. Friend has just said, they are located in some of the most deprived parts of the country. We are always seeking to ensure that the highest-quality education is provided in the areas of most need, and we have achieved that with our maintained nursery schools. They have a unique pool of expertise in supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities—about one in five children in maintained nursery schools has special educational needs—but they also apply their expertise to many other aspects of provision. They have a network of teaching school alliances, and work holistically with other services in their areas. They are family hubs in all but name.

Why, then, are we worried about the sustainability of these schools? As the Minister knows, we have had similar debates before. Because of the campaigning that we did a few years ago, the Government committed themselves to transitional funding of £60 million for three years to keep the schools going, but that money is about to run out. Decisions are being made now about future staffing and place provision, and, unfortunately, they are having to be made in the context of not knowing whether the funding will continue.

Apprenticeships Funding

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered apprenticeships funding.

I am pleased to bring this important debate to the House and I thank the 55 Members from six parties who helped to secure it. I speak, of course, as a former Universities and Skills Minister, and I am well aware of how important apprenticeships are across the country. There is a further education college in every constituency, so cuts in funding will directly affect thousands of young people all over the UK. It is therefore disappointing that the Government published initial details of those cuts in August without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

I do not want to be churlish, so I thank the Minister for the letter that I received from him at 26 minutes past 6 last night. I am grateful for that. That was 56 days after I first wrote to him about those cuts, 45 days after the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister’s questions that she does not recognise the cuts, 21 days after the Minister batted away questions on the cuts during Education questions, and a timely 15 hours before I opened this debate. Unfortunately, the letter says nothing that I did not already know.

It is important to acknowledge that the Government have listened to concerns raised by the further education sector and opposition from Labour Members of Parliament in particular. The written statement that the Government made last Tuesday goes some way to mitigating the worst effects of the cuts, particularly for 16 to 18-year-olds and disadvantaged areas, but that U-turn is a very different line from the one taken by the Department on 9 September in its response to my letter to the Minister, when it made no mention of a consultation or change of heart and stated that the cuts of up to 50%

“will help to ensure every young person, regardless of background or ability, has the chance to take their first step into work”.

As is always the case with funding announcements, the devil is in the detail. Despite the Government’s U-turn, areas such as my constituency of Tottenham will face huge cuts. Tottenham is rapidly regenerating, and with the Government apparently committed to building the homes needed to tackle the housing crisis, there should be opportunities for my young constituents to get skilled jobs in the construction sector, yet the Government are cutting funding for 16 to 18-year-old construction apprentices in Tottenham by a staggering 37%. According to the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London, funding will be cut by 28% for 16 to 18-year-olds in Tottenham in customer service, 38% for those wanting to go into business administration, 43% for engineering apprentices, and 45% for hairdressing apprentices.

I ask the Minister why. Why does he think that my constituents, who live in one of the country’s most deprived constituencies, should not be able to participate in the construction that is happening across the capital? Why should they not be afforded the opportunity to become engineers? Why do his Government prioritise the academic stream with their new scheme to expand grammar schools while cutting funding for those with vocational backgrounds who want to be construction or engineering apprentices? It is a simple question: why?

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Institute of the Motor Industry described the original cuts as a “car crash”. I suppose a U-turn is not a bad idea when faced with a car crash, but that organisation is still warning that a lot of employers in the motor industry simply will not be able to cope with the existing shortfall in funding and the complexity of the existing frameworks. The Minister really needs to do more work on that if he is to answer the criticisms that have been levelled by both employers and potential apprentices.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me give an early reminder that interventions should be brief.

Schools that work for Everyone

Richard Burden Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

First, on my hon. Friend’s last point, the Government will shortly respond to the first phase of the consultation and will set out the second phase on how to ensure that the national funding formula is fair—he set out why it is so important that we do that. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right to highlight that rural schools are in a position to improve more strongly. One of the lessons of London is that schools are close together—I see this as a London MP—and it has been easier for teachers to spend time together working out how to raise standards. We need to ensure that we can take that approach while ensuring that it still works in areas where schools are more dispersed.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that in Birmingham grammar schools have existed alongside comprehensive schools for decades. Nobody argues that the King Edward schools are anything other than good schools, and they do collaborate with other schools. The point is, and I put this to the Secretary of State, that their existence has not changed and cannot change the life chances of the majority of children in Birmingham, including in terms of tackling the issue of underachievement of white working-class areas such as the one I represent. She suggests that she does not want structures to get in the way of standards. I put it to her that by making the expansion of segregation and selection the centrepiece of her ambition, her boss the Prime Minister is actually going in the opposite direction, and that whatever else this is about, it is not about schools that work for everybody.

[Justine Greening]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As he will be aware, the schools in Birmingham that he talked about are now prioritising children who are eligible for the pupil premium. It is wrong simply to turn around to parents who want more choice and say that they cannot have it and that somehow they are wrong. We should be looking at how parents can get more choice and we should not simply be ignoring it, as his party is.

Education and Adoption Bill

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe]

I concede the danger that if I ask the Minister to report on the operation of the powers, we will only find out after the event what has happened if agencies have got into difficulty. Obviously, I would much prefer the Minister to come forward today with clearer proposals for the steps he will take to protect those agencies, but without some reporting mechanism, how will Parliament hold the Executive to account?

We heard from witnesses during the evidence session that there is concern about the way that contracts can be drawn up by larger local authorities, as that can have an adverse impact on smaller, voluntary organisations. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering had been going for more than 70 years, but it collapsed during the parliamentary recess with the loss of about 50 jobs—a whole area of expertise wiped out because of the financial climate in some parts of the voluntary sector. The uncertainty created by these proposals is adding to that pressure, so it would be helpful if the Minister demonstrated that he recognised the dire circumstances that much of the voluntary sector is facing.

We must know in an annual report that if the Secretary of State exercises these powers, the expertise of voluntary agencies will not be lost for vulnerable children, that contract arrangements are fair and do not favour larger local authorities, and that they are subject to proper monitoring and inspection. Parliament has a right to such information.

One concern about the Bill is the focus on adoption to the exclusion of all other forms of childcare. In Committee, several Members mentioned special guardianship orders, long-term fostering and kinship care. Many people who work in childcare believe that the Government need to focus more on permanent arrangements, rather than appearing to favour one model of childcare over another.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned special guardianship orders. I have written to the Minister about the case of Tracy Phillips in my constituency as that highlights the ambiguity in the way that SGOs are treated, affecting things such as child maintenance and so on, and how they fit into the child maintenance system. Could the report cover that, or is there some other way for the Minister and Government to tackle some of the ambiguities between SGOs and other adoption arrangements?

[Steve McCabe]

The Department published a report in August entitled “Impact of the Family Justice Reforms on Front-line Practice Phase Two: Special Guardianship Orders”. I also believe the Minister is planning a more extensive review of SGOs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Will the Minister ensure that he discusses this matter with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, particularly in respect of child maintenance? He will know that the case I raised with him involved two grandparents who ended up getting an SGO but then split up. The grandparent who left ended up with no maintenance responsibility for the child, which he would have had if this had been an adoption. There are arguments on both sides there, but this needs to be sorted out, because the reality in that case is that one grandparent is left with a child with very few means of support. That is clearly something that needs to be sorted out.

[Edward Timpson]

We are engaging Government Departments right across Whitehall to ensure that the implications of SGOs are being properly considered. In the scenario that has just been set out, we will need to consider whether we understand fully the consequences of these types of orders being made, and I will ensure that that is communicated to the relevant Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions and that it is looked at by officials in both Departments as part of the review.

Trade Union Bill

Richard Burden Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with the changes, because they support union members and will introduce more transparency. They will still allow the unions to raise the funds, but they will just have to be more open about how they do so and what they do with them.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said earlier that when unions and employers work together, results are achieved. That being the case, why does the Secretary of State want to overrule agreements made freely between unions and public sector employees about the appropriate amount of time that should be spent on union duties?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman has moved on to an issue that I will cover later in my remarks.

MG Rover

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

In the next half an hour, I will talk not about the success story of the UK motor industry today, but about what happened to one company, and about the impact of what happened on a community and a region.

April 2015 will mark 10 years since the collapse of MG Rover. None who lived through that time—I am pleased to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar)—will ever forget April 2005. The effect was most keenly felt by employees of MG Rover, more than 6,000 of whom lost their jobs, and it was felt by whole families. However, it went further than that: it was about the identity of an entire area.

The collapse of MG Rover happened in the middle of an election campaign. When elections are on, it is usually difficult to get any politicians thinking or focusing on anything else. However, for all of us involved in events at Longbridge in 2005, the election was a sideshow. What was important was just being there at Q gate at Longbridge; and working with the city council, the taskforce and the Government to see if the administration of MG Rover could be prevented from becoming liquidation—and, if not, dealing with the consequences. All this happened in what should have been the centenary year of car making at Longbridge.

Part of me wants to say that I never experienced anything like that before. However, for many of us this was the second time we had been through something like this at Longbridge. In spring 2000, without warning, Rover Group’s then owner, BMW, announced that it was pulling out. Longbridge was to be sold to a firm of venture capitalists called Alchemy, led by Jon Moulton. If that Alchemy deal had gone ahead in 2000, Rover would have been rapidly downsized to become a small manufacturer of MG sports cars.

The west midlands as a whole, and the Government, pressed BMW to at least consider alternatives. The Government intervened to create a Rover taskforce, to bring the region together: it united government, universities, businesses, local authorities and trade unions. I was one of two Members of Parliament on that taskforce. Its task was to see how the region could accommodate downsizing a company on whose future the supply chain, and swathes of midlands industry, was then dependent. Within weeks it was clear that it could have been worse.

Negotiations between BMW and Alchemy collapsed. Rover at Longbridge was at risk of closing altogether. Nobody knows exactly how many jobs would have gone if that had happened—20,000 jobs, perhaps more. Of course, it did not collapse. An alternative to Alchemy stepped in, in the form of the Phoenix Consortium. I will say a little bit more about that in a while.

The fact is, though, that Rover’s remaining in existence for the next five years bought the west midlands time to diversify, and to modernise its automotive and manufacturing base in a programme initiated by the Rover taskforce—and it worked. By the time MG Rover collapsed in 2005, job losses across the region were less than 10,000—less than half of what they would been five years before. However, people who lost their jobs in 2005 were still 100% unemployed; and if they worked for MG Rover, they lost pretty well everything, including their job, buying five years so that thousands of others in the west midlands could keep theirs. That is why there is still a debt to be paid to former MG Rover workers that has not been paid.

That brings me to the Phoenix four. They took over Longbridge on the crest of unprecedented public support. Given that we faced closure, or downsizing with Alchemy, what Phoenix offered made sense: stabilising the company; pricing products more realistically; looking for partners, or a partner, on whom the long-term survival of that company depended; and buying the regional economy the time it needed to adjust.

Getting a partner nearly worked, too. A deal with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation was so close towards the end of March 2005 that I was preparing to join the then Secretary of State at Longbridge at a press conference, to announce that negotiations over in China had been successfully concluded. It did not happen. Arguments continue to this day, and will no doubt continue for much longer, about why not. There is not the time now to go into theories about that.

I want to say something about the Phoenix four and what their stewardship of MG Rover involved. We now know, from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills inspectors’ report, that the four had been engaged in creating a spider’s web of companies and deals that made them millions, but left employees utterly exposed when collapse came. They promised that Phoenix would be a stakeholder effort—that employees would have shares and a stake in the company—but the only shares they gave employees rapidly became worthless, while they kept profitable bits of Phoenix and related companies for themselves. Oh yes, and they even compensated themselves for giving worthless shares to their own employees.

Then there was the cruellest deception of all: the promise of a trust fund for the benefit of employees, which would divide up the assets of the remaining Phoenix companies if MG Rover collapsed. However, even as the Phoenix four were making that promise, they knew that they had taken money out for themselves from those companies and had effectively mortgaged what was left to the banks. Employees have never seen a penny, and the trust fund that was theoretically set up has now been wound up. Again, I say today to the Phoenix four—to John Towers, Peter Beale, John Edwards and Nick Stephenson—“Put your hands in pockets. Your employees did all you asked of them, and you owe them.”

Of course, the Phoenix four did not operate alone. The well known accountancy firm, Deloitte, advised them on many of their deals. That led to inquiries and eventually a fine of £14 million being imposed by the Financial Reporting Council—a record in the history of the FRC. Recently, Deloitte appealed and won some aspects of the appeal. No doubt its fine will be reduced, although we do not know exactly by how much. However, Deloitte was still found guilty on several other counts, particularly relating to conflicts of interest. One key aspect on which it won its case with the FRC was its contention that it is really too much to expect an accountancy firm to identify a broader public interest in such cases. My initial reaction was, “Have I heard that right?” If it is too much to expect Deloitte to take the public interest into account, does that not show that significant reforms to corporate governance rules are needed? I am working on some ideas in that regard with Aston university’s Professor David Bailey.

Looking back at MG Rover specifically, closer scrutiny by the Government of corporate governance arrangements set up by Phoenix—perhaps insisting, in the early 2000s, on having somebody on the board—might have helped to avert some of what the Phoenix four got up to in the meantime. Even if the Phoenix four continue to refuse to prise open their wallets, the Financial Reporting Council could show an example. Most of the fine payable by Deloitte, whatever it is, should go to former MG Rover workers and the communities that are affected, even 10 years later. It is an overwhelming moral case. Will the Minister think about that, consult colleagues and, I hope, endorse that request to the FRC?

Most MG Rover employees got other jobs within a year of the collapse. Some real success stories of individual employees came out of it, but many found themselves in insecure jobs, paid less than when they were at Rover. They were vulnerable when the financial crash came in 2008-09. Those who lived closest to the plant were often the worst affected. That says something about not only the dominance of one company in the Longbridge area, but longer-term changes happening in the south-west Birmingham economy. We see echoes of those changes in suburbs of other cities, too. Those changes have impacted on skill levels and aspiration, and ultimately they affect the life chances of people growing up there.

Yes, a lot of good work is going on—there is a renaissance in parts of the Longbridge area, where the development firm St Modwen is a major player—and yes, we even still make cars at Longbridge. Shanghai Automotive’s European technical centre, under the banner of MG, is based at Longbridge. Those things are good, but they are not enough. Shocking recent figures from the TUC show that my constituency is the worst blackspot in the country for the proportion of residents earning less than a living wage. Local people deserve better and they deserve more from the Government, whoever is elected in May.

Beyond the Longbridge area, the work that the Rover taskforce did between 2000 and 2005 was important in diversifying the regional supply chain. When Longbridge collapsed in 2005, the speed with which that taskforce was brought together again by the Government was impressive. It included the organisation of retraining, the re-engagement of former MG Rover workers in other parts of the automotive industry and in other industries, and the sorting out of problems with banks over car lease schemes, payments, benefits and redundancy issues. It sorted out mechanisms for emergency financial support for otherwise viable companies hit by major cash-flow problems by the collapse of MG Rover. It is still quoted as a model internationally, and the financial support packages devised in the west midlands in 2005 became a model when the general crash hit the UK in 2008-09.

As important as anything to the employees concerned is that when MG Rover collapsed in 2005, their pensions went with it. Were it not for the Labour Government’s pension protection legislation, which came into law just days before, many more ex-MG Rover workers would be facing poverty in retirement. The Pension Protection Fund did not happen by accident; active government made it happen. Will the Minister please learn lessons from that? Will he talk to colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to look again at whether the PPF indexing arrangements are as fair as they can be? Will he reflect on how the fragmentation of agencies, the way in which the DWP works today and the current funding of further education would all get in the way of developing the kind of response that there was in 2005?

Will the Minister do the MG Rover test on local enterprise partnerships? In the Greater Birmingham and Solihull area, we have a good LEP, but how many LEPs today could perform the central co-ordinating role that the regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, did during the two Rover crises in 2000 and 2005? If the LEPs would not react with the same speed and efficiency in bringing partners together, we need to work out what needs to be done. Will the Minister reflect on that?

I leave the Minister with another request, which is to think about what the coalition Government’s employment law reforms would have done had they been in place when MG Rover collapsed. The company went into administration in 2005 and ultimately went into liquidation. There was no money in the pot for redundancy payments. It meant that employees had to apply through their trade unions to employment tribunals for protective awards to ensure that they could get their statutory payments for redundancy from the Government’s national insurance fund, and for protective awards to get even eight weeks of their contractual entitlements from the redundancy payments service. Thank goodness that the trade unions were there to help them with that, but thank goodness, too, that this Government’s employment reforms were not in place.

Under the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013, which was brought in by this Government, employees would have had to pay £1,500 even to issue a claim at an employment tribunal, and £5,700 to get their cases heard. A total of £7,200 would have probably had to be paid out to get the cases heard properly and resolved—paid by employees who had just lost everything. Guess what? Under the 2013 reforms, when the employer is insolvent, employees cannot get those fees back, even if they win their case, unless they get special dispensation. That cannot be right. Such situations can and do happen to other firms, including firms with no union to represent employees.

Even employees working in a small firm that went bust would have to pay more than £2,000 just to get their statutory redundancy pay and eight weeks’ contractual entitlements paid by the redundancy payments service, so will the Minister take a step back, think about that, and review that order and that law? I would like him to say that the 2013 order will be repealed, but even if he is not prepared to do that, I hope he will at least agree that the fees should be waived where an employer is in administration, receivership or liquidation. The MG Rover story is an example of where that could make a real difference to lives. The MG Rover story gives more than 6,000 individual reasons why the Minister should do that.

[The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing a debate on a matter that is of such painful importance to so many of his constituents and the communities he represents.

It is perhaps rare but also important that we do not just talk about what is happening today and over the next six weeks—it is easy for us all to become caught up in that—but that we look back at the past and try to make sure that we are always learning lessons from things that went wrong to ensure that they do not happen again. It is obvious that the collapse of MG Rover and the closure of the Longbridge plant was a devastating blow to the community and to the many thousands of people and their families who depended on the jobs they had in that company.

It is a matter of great regret that the people who took over MG Rover when there was an earlier threat of collapse did so without, frankly, proper intentions to build the company and secure its long-term future. Instead, they acted in ways that led to their disqualification as directors or managers of limited companies. Their conduct as directors was found to have fallen well short of the standards of commercial probity and the general conduct befitting the director of a limited company. Frankly, I hope that their part in such a shameful episode that caused so much pain to so many people, and such loss to the community that the hon. Gentleman represents, is a matter of great personal shame to the individuals he has named. I also hope that he agrees that the disqualification penalties that those individuals suffered were appropriate, but he is right to point out that they have not suffered financially in the same way that many of his constituents have. I completely understand why he and many of his constituents feel an abiding sense of injustice at the distribution of the penalties for the failure of MG Rover between those who ran it and those who worked for it so loyally for so long.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Financial Reporting Council investigation into the action taken by the company’s auditors, which led to a fine that the auditors then appealed. He is right to say that the appeal is ongoing and it is not yet clear what fine will be imposed. He suggested that, when that fine is finally levied, the Financial Reporting Council should consider making the proceeds available in some form to the local community. He will understand that the Financial Reporting Council is an independent body established by the accountancy profession, so it would not be proper for me as a Minister to issue any direction or even guidance, but I will say that he made a very strong argument with which many people with a sense of natural justice will have sympathised. I have no doubt that, when the fine has been determined and is about to be levied, the members of the Financial Reporting Council will have heard him and will no doubt want to respond directly with their thoughts on the matter. I can think of no better use for such a fine than the one he suggested.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Pension Protection Fund. I agree that it was a fortuitous fact for which we should all be grateful that the fund was introduced in advance—just—of the failure of MG Rover, so that many people were at least able to benefit from that level of protection of the lifelong savings that they had worked so hard to put aside. He also asked about the indexation rates. I am afraid I am not an expert on that, but I will encourage officials in the relevant Department to respond to him directly on his concerns about the indexation rates that apply in that scheme.

The hon. Gentleman asked how, had they been in force at the time, the current rules on access to employment tribunals would have affected his constituents following the failure of MG Rover. That is another subject on which a different Department, in this case the Ministry of Justice, leads. Nevertheless, he will know—and it is important that the public know, so that they are not unnecessarily afraid of the circumstances, should they become victims of a company’s failure—that people can apply for an exemption from or reduction of employment tribunal fees. That way, people with limited means are not excluded from seeking redress. About a third of applications for fee remissions by people making a tribunal claim are successful. He made a reasonable point when he said that one consideration in assessing such applications could well be the circumstances that had led people to go to an employment tribunal, such as the failure of a company in the manner he described.

[Richard Burden]

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he is approaching the debate. I recognise that the matter does not fall under his portfolio, but my point is that although remission can be awarded, the problem is that it is all retrospective. People need confidence when they lose their jobs, not afterwards.

[Nick Boles]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He referred to the role of trade unions. Perhaps to the surprise of some members of the Labour party, I am generally a supporter of trade unions, because there are occasions—he has outlined one of them—when they have a very important role representing their members and bridging any difficulties that they have in accessing justice. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have announced a review of tribunal fees. I would not want to prejudge that, but he has made a powerful argument about how they might operate in circumstances such as those at MG Rover.

What I am about to say will not necessarily come as much comfort to the individuals who lost their jobs at MG Rover, because although many—indeed, most—found other jobs, the pain and loss that they experienced will never be removed from their memories. Nevertheless, it is important that we reflect on the wider success of the automotive industry, including some at the Longbridge site, as well as of the communities that the hon. Gentleman represents and the wider west midlands. It has been a remarkable feat, almost entirely the work of the people he represents. They have managed to pick up the automotive industry from a pretty dismal place and turn it into one of the most successful automotive industries anywhere in the world. Would that it had happened within the form of MG Rover and without the traumatic experience that so many of his constituents had to undergo, but I am sure that he too would like to thank and pay tribute to those who have managed to rebuild British car manufacturing to its current position and to celebrate the rapid growth in manufacturing employment in his constituency and the broader west midlands region. Long may it continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laws]

My right hon. Friend is right. I am delighted to hear about the new buildings in his constituency. We are not only allocating a massive amount of money for improving the school building stock and making sure that there are extra places, but we are building new schools at a considerably reduced cost, compared with the very expensive Building Schools for the Future programme.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Balaam Wood academy in my constituency needs vital rebuilding work in order to secure its future serving one of the most deprived parts of Birmingham. It was in line for Building Schools for the Future money, but, as we know, that was scrapped. It is still waiting to hear whether it will get support under the Priority School Building programme, but if schools like that in local authorities try to use their own land and assets creatively to finance such things, they face massive bureaucracy from the Department. Why do the Department and Ministers make it so easy for free schools to get capital and so difficult for local authority schools?

[Mr Laws]

If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the school in his constituency, I would be happy to meet him to discuss it. We would want to remove any bureaucracy where schools are sensibly trying to draw together capital plans, but we also have the Priority School Building programme and the ongoing academies capital maintenance fund. They are satisfying the condition needs of many schools across the country.

Birmingham Schools

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I mentioned the phrase “broad and balanced curriculum” in my statement, and Ofsted’s new framework will contain more guidance on that. The Clarke report identified a narrowing of the curriculum, which I discussed with Sir Michael Wilshaw when I met him yesterday. We also discussed how to task inspectors with investigating undue narrowing and, in particular, when they go into schools, with ensuring that schools have not changed things in readiness for the inspection.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The Clarke and Kershaw reviews showed serious failings by Birmingham city council going back many years and not confined to one administration. Although it is right that the city council has apologised and said it will co-operate with the findings of both reviews, in the light of concerns raised in both reviews about the Department, why is the Secretary of State so relaxed that her own investigations will not report until late summer? In advance of their reporting, how can she have confidence to say “full speed ahead” with her education reforms, particularly when fragmentation between government, local authorities and others is a recurring theme in both reports?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman should not conclude that I am relaxed about this in any way, shape or form, but I think it is right to give the permanent secretary time to conduct and conclude the review. Since my appointment, I have seen no evidence of fragmentation; there is close working at all levels between schools, councils and organisations such as Ofsted, and that will continue under this reform process.

Free Schools (Funding)

Richard Burden Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point that in Stour Valley we have a school that is providing education of outstanding quality. He has been a consistent champion of providing new provision in the local authority of Suffolk, which has not always had the best schools in the past. The new schools provide not just choice but challenge, and have helped to drive up standards in Suffolk overall. I am grateful that Suffolk local authority has taken an enlightened approach to driving up school standards.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

May I gently remind the Secretary of State that he has not answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? The National Audit Office report suggests that two thirds of the places provided under the free schools programme were diverted away from areas of high and severe primary need. Does the Secretary of State reject those findings or not?

[Michael Gove]

The first point is that no money was diverted away. It is clear that free school spending augments spending on providing local authority school places. It is clear also that local authorities have sufficient funds. Under the previous Labour Government, the hon. Gentleman’s own local authority of Birmingham received £45 million to provide additional school places. Under this coalition Government, it has received £65 million. Some 87% of new primary school places through the free schools programme are in high or severe areas of need, so they are augmenting—adding to—the provision that those areas need. I should also point out that the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to be in a city that enjoys, in the Perry Beeches chain, one of the best performing chains of academies and free schools anywhere in the country. Thanks to the success of head teachers such as Liam Nolan, children in Birmingham are at last enjoying a high quality of comprehensive education of the kind that I know he and I want to see spread across the country.