Colleges Week

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this Backbench Business debate and on marking and celebrating Colleges Week.

I want to speak in support of the colleges of our nation, which are such a significant part of our education system. My hon. Friend outlined some powerful statistics when he was making his case so eloquently a moment ago, but one in particular jumped out at me, which is that more than 1.5 million students—1.6 million, in fact —are educated at colleges in England every year.

Colleges play a critical role in delivering the skills that our nation and our economy need. I visited many colleges some years ago when I worked on apprenticeships, and they were great visits. However, there is one feature from them all, which I want to draw out and comment upon: the links between colleges and local employers. Through those links, colleges not only provide the workforce that companies need now, but develop the skills programmes for the future.

We are seeing huge changes in the global economy, as countries face the challenges of sectors and routes to market that are going digital. There is also the overarching challenge of net zero and the consequent decarbonising, and how that is creating new skills, new industries and a requirement for significant training. Colleges are at the forefront of meeting those challenges through skills, based on partnerships and local insight, through apprenticeships, with each college training 950 apprentices, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and through professional development, as careers change and people of all ages need to reskill as industries develop. Further, colleges are training tens of thousands of people aged over 60. It is therefore important to keep investing in these areas for our future national prosperity.

The UK has not valued colleges enough over past decades. There has been some kind of underlying assumption that the system should really be focused on university degrees, which are right for so many but not the only definition of excellence. I see opportunity and excellence much more widely; I see it in our college network. Spreading the word about the range of choices that people have is one of the benefits of Colleges Week.

I should also congratulate the Minister on a policy change that has quite recently put apprenticeships on the UCAS website. That is a game changer. The feedback I have had from school and group visits in Harrogate and Knaresborough is that that has been a highly successful initiative and people have become aware of apprenticeships. It has almost been like giving them a parity of esteem, which has not been present before. It has certainly boosted knowledge in a very positive way.

We are obviously here supporting colleges today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has made a powerful case. It is also fair to say, however, that colleges have not fully received the attention that their success and scale merit. My hon. Friend said colleges were formerly a Cinderella service. That might be a little strong and people have woken up to that; however, Colleges Week presents a great opportunity to pay tribute to all our colleges and all that they achieve.

I want to highlight a major development taking place this week at Harrogate College, and also to congratulate the team at Harrogate College and the Luminate Education Group on their work on it. That development is a £20 million scheme to replace the main building at the college and construct a renewable energy skills hub. In effect, there will be a totally new campus, which is very exciting and a real game changer.

Preliminary work started this week and full construction starts next month. Energy efficiency is being built in and will help the college to deliver its plan to become carbon-neutral by 2035. The upgrade will see state-of-the-art facilities on campus, including a mock hospital ward, an electric vehicle workshop and a construction centre that will focus on renewables and the building methods of the future. Basically, that directly relates to my earlier points about how important the links between colleges and local companies are for the skills that are needed; indeed, it is proof of the wisdom of that policy.

The college principal, Danny Wild, has kept me posted throughout the development of this great project, and I was able to speak with Ministers and do all that I could to help to get it over the line. Of the total budget of £20 million, £16 million comes from the Department for Education’s further education capital transformation fund—and transformation is indeed what we are talking about with this development. It will make Harrogate College future proof—the college’s words—and consolidate its position as the leading provider locally of T-levels. It is anticipated that the new development will be open for students in the summer of 2025, which really is not long for a project of this scale and ambition.

Apart from providing better facilities for the students, this development will send a major signal that Harrogate College and all that it does are both aspirational and of the highest quality. Basically, students will be equipped with the skills for a new era. When we see college investment and college success, it is not just about small initiatives at the college itself; the economy of the entire area will benefit. We have a strong local economy, but the companies within it often report difficulties in filling vacancies—the unemployment rate locally is 1.8%. This project will help to fill those vacancies, because it will help to tackle skills shortages.

So I say well done to the Harrogate College team. I look forward very much to visiting the college shortly, and I know that there are positive developments right across the country. There is much to celebrate all over the country, but I just wanted to highlight and celebrate this local news. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say about ensuring that this sector is front and centre in our education system.

[Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)]

We now move to the Front-Bench wind-ups, starting with the Opposition spokesman.

Higher Education Students: Statutory Duty of Care

Robert Syms Excerpts

Monday 5th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that the petition being debated relates indirectly to a claim against a higher education institution. The legal case is ongoing and therefore sub judice. Mr Speaker has agreed to my exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of resolutions on matters sub judice to allow limited reference to the findings of the county court in that case. However, I ask that Members do not refer to details of the case or the conduct of the case, including by attributing particular arguments to the parties involved therein. I remind Members who wish to speak to bob, as there are quite of a lot of you.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Throughout this debate we have heard tragic stories: it is clear that the problem affects many families up and down the country. I am afraid I am going to add the case of Harry Armstrong Evans, whose parents, Alice and Rupert, have been running a campaign in his memory. He came from Launceston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). Because my constituency has the only university in Cornwall, the parents also approached me since they felt this was important.

Harry had had an exceptional set of exam results during his time at the University of Exeter, but he went from being a star pupil to having an unexpectedly set of poor results in his final year. He was in anguish and tried to reach out to his course tutor to discuss it, but it was during half term and the course tutor was not around. As a result of that anguish, Harry took his life. The great tragedy is that his parents were not aware that there was a problem. They had no reason to expect that Harry would have unexpectedly bad results in his final year and saw no reason to reach out to him to say, “Don’t worry if it does not go well in the final year”, or to try to broach that conversation with him.

Some colleagues have said this afternoon that suicide is preventable. It is important to recognise that although it is preventable, that does not mean that there is someone else to blame. When people experience a suicide in the family or among friends or work colleagues, there is always a sense that if only they had known that there had been a problem, they would have reached out to somebody to tell them that there was no need to worry or to be concerned.

It is important that we are clear with universities. When we say that there is a case for a statutory duty of care, we are not necessarily saying that they are to blame for everything that might happen. We are all just collectively saying that there are things that we could do differently, that suicide is preventable, and that if we work on getting things right, we can reduce the number of such tragedies, for suicide is always a terrible tragedy.

Following the death of Harry, Alice and Rupert launched their own parliamentary petition to call for something that they have called Harry’s law. This focuses specifically on the issue of requiring universities to at the very least publish the suicide data that they have. It would simply require that where coroners inform universities that there has been a suicide of an enrolled student, that university has to declare it and make that information public. If the Minister is resistant to going all the way to having a statutory duty of care, or if he is advised by departmental lawyers that such a step is unnecessary and does not add much, at the very least could we require universities to publish the suicide data? If they are required to publish that, I think it likely that they would pay much more attention to the work that they do and the pastoral care that they provide to avoid such terrible tragedies.

Alice and Rupert Armstrong Evans have also proposed that if a university is performing particularly badly and has a highly disproportionate number of suicides, they should potentially be placed in special measures or be given the support that they need to make sure that they get in place the right kind of pastoral care. If the Minister is not willing to support a statutory duty of care for universities, I hope he will look at what can be done to improve the transparency of data and require universities to publish that as a first step, and then perhaps a statutory duty of care could be considered at a future date.

[Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)]

We now have the Front-Bench wind-up speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

Although education is a devolved issue, as the hon. Lady knows, I will of course work with the devolved authorities—absolutely. It is absolutely essential to learn from each other. The Labour party spokesman talked about Wales, for example. There is a lot that we can learn from.

Turning to the statutory duty of care called for by the petition, I absolutely get the arguments and hope I have demonstrated that I share the petitioners’ fundamental aims, which are to protect those who study at university and to prevent future tragedies. If creating a duty for higher education providers towards their students was the right way to achieve that, it would absolutely have the Government’s backing. There are reasons why we believe that it may not be the most effective intervention.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) expressed some important views about bureaucracy. PAPYRUS, the suicide prevention and mental health charity, says that one of the risks of the shift from “should” to “must” is that we already see, most prevalently, a rescinding of energy. My worry is that if we introduce a framework that says “must”, people will recoil even further and avoid any natural intervention that they would ordinarily make. I am worried that the thing that he wants to happen might create a one-size-fits-all approach, when we need to look at different ways of intervening for mental health.

First, the Government’s view, shared by independent legal experts, is that a general duty of care already exists in common law as part of the law of negligence. That means higher education providers must deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinarily competent institution. Recent judgments failed to find a duty of care in the circumstances of those particular cases. However, I am aware that the decision in Abrahart v. University of Bristol is being appealed in the High Court, so I have been advised that I am not able to comment further at this stage, although we will look at the issue carefully.

Secondly, there are already further protections for students in law. In particular, the Equality Act 2010 protects students with disabilities, including mental health conditions, from unlawful discrimination and harassment. It also provides reasonable adjustments where such students would otherwise be put at a substantial disadvantage. Providers must also fully observe health and safety obligations and requirements to safeguard vulnerable adults, as well as contractual obligations.

Thirdly, setting aside the legal position, we do not believe that the most effective way to improve student mental health is to introduce new legislative requirements when the sector is making progress on a voluntary basis. Although the sector absolutely could and should do more—I have tried to set out some of the things that we are calling for—providers are still innovating and improving, and there is not yet consensus on which interventions are most effective. That is the point I am trying to explain to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire. It is no excuse for not doing anything or for inaction, but it does mean that the one-size-fits-all approach may not achieve the best results and support for students suffering from mental health difficulties, which is what we all want to see. As I say, we have other pieces of legislation already in place on equalities and on negligence.

I expect universities, as organisations with an obligation to do the right thing for their students, to rise to the challenge that we have set for them today. As I have mentioned, if we do not see the expected improvements I will not hesitate to ask the Office for Students to introduce a new registration condition on mental health. It is vital that the whole sector takes this call to action seriously.

I hope that I have been clear that we are not standing by and letting things continue as they are. I am determined that all universities will sign up to the mental health charter and that Professor Peck’s proposals will be implemented. I will reiterate those aims when I host a mental health roundtable for sector leaders. We will also continue to monitor how effectively the existing law is being applied.

I want to say one thing to everybody who has talked about the need for more legislation—my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald cares passionately about this, and I thank her for all that she has done for her constituents. To be absolutely clear, I am not closing the door on future legislation if that is what is required to make students safer. For now, we are seeking actively to bolster every aspect of the support systems that are available to students. Absolutely no one should take up the shining opportunity of a university place—it is meant to be one of the greatest times of one’s life—only to find that poor mental health support prevents them from getting the most out of the experience and the fulfilment of attending that university.

[Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)]

I call Nick Fletcher to make some brief final comments.

Education and Local Government

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) on a very good maiden speech? The measure of this is that when somebody speaks, one thinks, “Actually, I would like to hear from him again”, and one does not necessarily say that about every colleague. I also have to say that I think this House will miss his predecessor. Wantage is in good hands, and I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in future.

The past two and a half years have been some of the most painful times in politics that I can remember. I am pleased that the British people were given the chance to break the deadlock and elect a Government with a majority. For those of us who are back, the atmosphere is totally different. The fact that the Government can get on and deliver Brexit is a wonderful thing and good for democracy.

To turn to the debate, one of the things that has always concerned me in Poole is how badly some of our schools have been funded over the decades. It is very difficult to argue that a child in Poole should be given less of an opportunity than someone else in the country. The Government have had, on two or three occasions, an opportunity to improve funding a little. I am glad that the Secretary of State has taken on board representations from f40 and others and we are going to make further progress over the next few years. However, I take on board points made earlier that funding is not all. Discipline, uniforms and leadership play a big role in the classroom. I am pleased to see that standards are improving and I hope we continue that as a drive for the future.

I have a few concerns. This country is a great magnet for foreign students in terms of English language schools, of which we have many in Dorset, and colleges and universities. Sometimes the immigration system behaves in a way that is not helpful to our earning billions of pounds-worth of money from abroad and bringing people to have a great experience in our colleges and universities. Sometimes, those people are a softer target than the people the system is trying to crack down on. I hope that we not only encourage foreign students to come to the United Kingdom but make the immigration system a little more flexible in the way that it treats them. Students from Saudi Arabia do not need to work when they come to the UK but sometimes students from Colombia do. If we limit people in the hours that they can work, we sometimes penalise those from poorer states. In a post-Brexit world, we have to encourage people to come to the United Kingdom. They bring in billions of pounds-worth of money. They create lots of jobs in the United Kingdom. It is seen in the accounts as foreign invisible income. It is about education as well as other things like insurance and banking. That is what we really need to encourage.

In Poole we have people who home educate, and they get very nervous every time the Government and civil servants review this. There is a role for home education within our system. I know that Ministers understand the concern when the central civil service wants to have a good look at what is going on. Sometimes it is for reasons of bullying and sometimes for religious reasons, but home education, in a free society, ought to be very much part of the system. We are starting a process of repair through fairer funding for our schools. We need to encourage foreign students because they benefit our country greatly. We need to have a diverse education system because that is the best thing for our nation.

I turn to the other subject of this debate: local government. I wish we did not make local government officers bid for so much. They spend hours putting in bids that they cannot possibly win, rather than contributing towards governing their local area. We need to be a bit more flexible on that.

The real challenge is home ownership. We need to provide security for those who rent, but we must also reverse the reduction in home ownership that has occurred over the past 10 to 15 years. The Government need to be turbocharged in this area. Many young people want to buy, and we have to do everything in our power to assist them, so that they can get on the home ownership ladder, which makes such a difference. Having equity in a home can lead people to start a business, and it changes their whole view of life. If Conservative government is about anything, it is trying to help people to buy their own home and have a full stake in society.

I welcome the Queen’s Speech, which has many exciting things in it, and I think that we are going to have a good four years of government in which we make progress. With those few words, I look forward to hearing more maiden speeches.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Draft Further Education Bodies (Insolvency) Regulations 2018

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 General Committees

[Anne Milton]

I should reassure the hon. Gentleman that I do not feel the need to erect an air-raid shelter over anybody, and certainly not Her Majesty’s Treasury, which is quite good at looking after itself to be absolutely honest. I am not really in that business. However, it will be important to look back and ask what has worked and why. The problem is that the debate at the moment, not just in this House but among the public, is all about money. That is a mistake; it is not just about money. I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. It is about what you do with the money. Good management and leadership are important in making these institutions work.

The hon. Gentleman quoted the UCU, but it would be unfair to suggest that we have got to this moment without me or any of my predecessors being acutely aware of where FE colleges get their money and of the need to make sure that that is funded in future. We are doing several pieces of work. He referred to Philip Augar’s review of post-18 education funding. FE colleges come into that remit. We are also looking at level 4 and 5 provision. A lot of universities are providing level 4 and 5 provision. Should that happen or would it be better done in FE colleges?

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Clearly there are concerns about funding for FE colleges. One difficulty is that many of them have foreign students and under the current visa regime, if they change their course they have to go back to their country of origin and if they want to go on to university they have to go back to their country of origin. That does not help. When the Government publish the White Paper, I assume that the Ministers who have responsibility for FE will make representations to make the situation a little easier, because this is additional money for the sector that many colleges can earn. Bournemouth and Poole College earns about £1 million a year in such fees, so this is a way in which we could get more money into the sector.

[Anne Milton]

I hesitate to talk about joined-up Government because it never feels as joined up as it ought to be, but joining it up so that a decision about the visa rules does not have an adverse impact on the sector is critical, because having students on courses means financial income. We are doing quite a lot of work on that at the moment, as my hon. Friend might imagine.

I know that Hull has had huge problems; I have spoken to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) about that. I would just say that money is going in; there is a danger of forgetting that when we look at the base rate of funding of further education colleges. The pot of money that the Treasury made available for the restructuring facility was £700 million, and a substantial amount of that will have been spent; that is important. We will also put in £500 million by 2020, with the full roll-out of T-levels.

On the subject of T-levels, we are putting in £20 million over the two years to March 2020 to support providers as they prepare for them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East mentioned technical education; this is at the heart of that. We are also putting together a £20 million investment, including recently through Taking Teaching Further, which tries to get industry expertise into colleges. People with that expertise are often exactly the people we want teaching in FE colleges. There is quite a light regime regarding what qualifications people need in order to teach in an FE college—rightly so. We need to inject people like that into the system. We are providing a maths premium and £38 million for the initial providers of T-levels, so that they can invest in the sort of equipment that is needed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Syms Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

7. What progress his Department has made on the introduction of T-levels.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

17. What progress his Department has made on the introduction of T-levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

We have thus far selected a relatively small number of colleges to teach the first three T-levels from 2020. This is an ongoing programme and more T-levels and colleges will come on stream in the years to come. We expect to launch the process to select providers for 2021 early in 2019.

[Sir Robert Syms]

I welcome the introduction of T-levels, which could be a game changer for the British economy. What other sectors are the Government talking to about introducing T-levels in future years?

[Damian Hinds]

Eventually, as per the Sainsbury report, we will be looking right across industry and the requirements for technical and vocational education and training. We are looking at the combination of T-levels and apprenticeships to deliver learning across those routes. These are just the first three for 2020 and there will be a further 12 to come very soon.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Robert Syms Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr Robert Syms)]

Yes.

Clause 16

Local arrangements for safeguarding and promoting welfare of children

[Stella Creasy]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 16, page 13, line 11, at end insert

“, including unaccompanied refugee children once placed in the area, and unaccompanied refugee children who have been identified for resettlement in the area.”

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Robert Syms Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are about to consider it. The hon. Gentleman may make his remarks in the clause stand part debate.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

We want to hear them.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Steve McCabe]

It is always great when someone clarifies the situation. I am grateful, Mrs Main.

I notice that clause 16 specifies the partners for the local safeguarding arrangements as being the local authority, the police and the clinical commissioning group. Will the Minister briefly say why the clause limits it to those partners? Did he consider a role for education? If so, why did he decide not to pursue that? I realise that the partners are entitled to bring in other people they regard as appropriate, but I wonder what the reasoning is for limiting the specified partners to the local authority, the police and the clinical commissioning group.

Education, Skills and Training

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who as a Minister in the Labour Government was respected by Conservative Members as somebody who listened and engaged.

I support the Gracious Speech. It contains a good programme for the Government and plenty of important, decent Bills that we can support. I will start with the referendum. When I was first elected, I voted for a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty, and was defeated; then I voted for a referendum on the Nice treaty, and was defeated; and then I voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and was defeated, even though Messrs Blair and Brown had committed to having one. It is refreshing, therefore, to have a Prime Minister with the confidence to put one in his manifesto, win an election, legislate and give the British people a choice. I am 59. I voted in the referendum in 1975. I suspect there are very few people in the Chamber who voted in 1975, and it is right and proper that the British people consent to the future arrangements. I lean towards the leave side, but nevertheless it is a real “shock horror—politician does what he said” moment, so we ought to give the Prime Minister credit.

The education Bill will be a game changer, particularly because of the fair funding formula, which I know London Members are worried about. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who campaigned throughout the last Parliament to get the Government to look at this. It is not that we do not believe people in some urban areas should have more money; it is that when they sometimes have two, three or four times as much money, children in places such as Dorset and Poole are being undervalued by the nation. We need to move in a new direction while being aware that, as with all these things, there clearly are winners and losers and that it cannot be done quickly. Nevertheless, the Bill is a good start.

I am also pleased with the NHS charging Bill, particularly for visitors to the UK. As the Secretary of State for Health often says, we have a national health service, not an international health service. There are occasions when I think we should be more vociferous in pursuing people who use the service who should not. Part of the problem with recouping money from people is that the service is not really set up to do it. We need to think very carefully about how to recoup the £500 million a year that the Bill expects from those using the service who should not do so. We all know that people sometimes come to this country with the express purpose of taking advantage of the NHS. We all know that there are shortages of resources, and that in these tough times it is right and proper for the British Government to stand up for British interests by ensuring that people pay their fair share.

I believe a range of Bills in the Gracious Speech will make life chances better for people in the UK. As mentioned in the House yesterday, children in care are being given a higher priority. John Hemming, who used to be a Member of Parliament, spent a lot of time campaigning for the rights of children in care. Sometimes they get lost and their life chances can be somewhat less than those of others. It is right and proper for these sometimes forgotten children to be looked after and given the best start in life—at least a better start than could be expected in their circumstances.

I have a slight word of criticism. I visited one of my successful local companies, Sunseeker Yachts, which employs nearly 2,000 Dorset people and currently has 40 apprentices. It worked out that the apprenticeship levy would cost the company a quarter of a million pounds, but they have not yet seen how to claim any money back against that. It appears as a dead-weight loss in its forward plan. It is anxious for the Government to explain very soon the procedures and the criteria that will apply so that it can plan for the future. It exports well over 95% of its turnover, and the company is well regarded internationally. In common with many businesses employing apprentices, it is a little worried that the devil in the detail has not yet become known, and it needs more evidence to be able to plan.

I support a whole range of Bills. The modern transport Bill is innovative, and talking about driverless cars is better than having a leaderless Opposition. We have a good programme for the next four years. We will make people’s life chances substantially better. The Prime Minister has put forward a one nation progressive programme, which we can all rally around. It will lead to a better situation for our citizens and a Government that we can be proud of.

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I take back that cheap shot against Tony Blair—it was perhaps unnecessary—and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Over the centuries, we have established a pretty good system. I think we are the only country in Europe never to have been a police state or had a police state imposed on it. We should be pretty proud of our slow constitutional growth.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

When President Nixon and Spiro Agnew resigned, the United States ended up with a President and Vice-President who had been elected by Congress and not by a mandate of the people. It is therefore possible to have a change of power without an election there, which would not happen here.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Exactly; that is a very fair point.

Our own beloved Mark Darcy, a BBC journalist who is really an ornament of the constitution, put it very well when he said that there was a danger under the Act of Parliaments

“oscillating between hyperactivity and torpor” .

We appear to be at the torpid end of this Parliament.

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I regret that you cannot join us and make a speech. We recollect your coruscating arguments during the passage of the Bill, but we accept that you are of course now completely neutral.

I just think that five years is far too long. We have experienced a very front-loaded Parliament. The best evidence of that has been the recent explosion in the number of Back-Bench debates, compared with the number in the early part of the Parliament. I welcome Back-Bench debates, but they are taking place not through the kindness of the Government but because there is no majority in the House to do anything that would make a real difference. In my experience, the very best Conservative and Labour Parliaments have been four-year Parliaments, and the very worst have lasted for five years—in particular, our 1992 Parliament and Labour’s 2005 Parliament. Towards the end, five-year Parliaments get weaker and weaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

This is an important debate and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) opened it. The subject needs to be aired by this House. I do not necessarily see the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 as the work of the forces of evil or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats. On the other hand, the alternative of the previous system is not necessarily a panacea.

In practical terms, if the coalition had fallen apart at some point, the Prime Minister would probably have come to the House and proposed a Dissolution, and I would have been extremely surprised if the Leader of the Opposition had not agreed with the proposition of having a general election to sort out the situation. The need for a two-thirds majority principally means that the Conservative party and the Labour party could conspire to have a Dissolution on a date on which they both agree. Essentially, it does not prevent a general election from taking place; it just means that there would have to be a degree of consultation between both major parties.

I do not think that fixed-term Parliaments are necessarily a good thing, for some of the reasons that have already been discussed. I think there comes a time—four years is probably long enough—when a Government ought to try to get a new mandate from the electorate. If we look back at history, we will see that at one point we had seven-year Parliaments and then the term was reduced to five years. We have always taken a pragmatic approach to general elections. We missed a general election in 1940, for the very understandable reason that we were doing other things at the time. That was quite reasonable and one must remember that that Parliament ran all the way to 1945.

Whenever the United Kingdom has had early general elections—I think we ought to focus on early general elections, rather than those that have taken place towards the end of a term after four, four and a half, or five years—it was usually because the electorate gave an indecisive result and, for the sake of good government, the political parties wanted the electorate to reconsider through another general election. At the end of the day, apart from holding the Government to account, Parliament is about ensuring that there is a Government, who have to deliver the health service, education and pensions. Of course, the 2010 Government had to manage the British economy, which has to be managed in a particular way. Those are very important issues.

Governments have gone early on two occasions in my lifetime. The Wilson Government of February 1974 went and got a small majority that October, and the 1964 Labour Government were re-elected in 1966, having initially got a very small majority.

[John Hemming]

Obviously, we have had fixed-term Parliaments for a long time; it is just that the Prime Minister had the power to call an early election. Who does my hon. Friend believe should have the power to decide to have an early election?

[Mr Syms]

Actually, the power to call a general election is a poisoned chalice for a Prime Minister: if they win it is great, but if they lose they generally get the chop because they made the wrong decision. Under the old system, Conservative campaign headquarters told its candidates that there were only so many Thursdays—which, by convention, we used—and only so many days of the year, because of summer days and autumn, on which we could have a general election. When it comes down to it, there are only four or five dates a Prime Minister can choose from. A Prime Minister has the seals of office from the Queen and the responsibility to discharge a Government programme. If someone has to decide, I would prefer it to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. He has spoken of the poisoned chalice, but what about Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and 1987, and Tony Blair in 2001 and 2005? Is he suggesting that partisan considerations were not at play in the choice to go after four rather than five years in those four cases?

[Mr Syms]

I am perfectly sure that, in normal politics, some incumbents have a slight advantage. Clearly, both Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair used it to the maximum. One election was delayed by foot and mouth, so events can intervene and cause a delay, if everyone agrees to it. At the time, there was consensus across the House that it would have been impossible to have a general election. I remember driving through Devon and seeing pyres of the carcases of animals being burned. That showed the British system being flexible to deal with something that emerged very quickly.

[John Hemming]

I thank my hon. Friend for his previous answer. He said the effective test of whether the Prime Minister’s decision to have an election was a good one was whether the Prime Minister got elected, and that the test was measured by the political party. In essence, such a decision is driven by the party interest, not the public interest.

[Mr Syms]

There is an element of truth in that, but to go back to my earlier point, if a Prime Minister dissolves Parliament and loses, they usually end up losing the leadership of their party. Harold Wilson was unusual: he won three elections out of the four he contested, but survived after losing—by surprise—in 1970. He of course chose the date in 1970, but that was after a long period during which his party thought that it would win. In reality, most Prime Ministers go when they think they will win. Most of them hang on when they think they will lose, in the hope of something turning up, which it normally does not, and five-year Parliaments can be tortuous and difficult.

I believe we should go back to the previous system of having some flexibility in when general elections occur. In reality, they normally occur some time in the fourth and fifth year of a Parliament.

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Mr Syms]

I will give way for the last time.

[John Hemming]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that a key priority of this Parliament has been to sort out the finances, but uncertainty creates greater instability in the financial markets. If we had to pay another 1%, it would cost us about £10 billion or more a year. Does he think that that is a reasonable price for the taxpayer to pay for giving back a power over general elections to the Prime Minister?

[Mr Syms]

One thing on which I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who introduced the debate in a very reasonable fashion, is that we may in future have more coalition Governments than some of us would like. If we look at the pattern of politics, we can clearly see that more people are willing to vote for a range of parties, which in itself brings challenges for the major political parties. It may well be that fixed-term Parliaments are used as a device when other coalitions are formed in future.

I hope that there will be a clear overall majority for the Conservative party when there is an election—or that there is a clear majority among the electorate—but if there is no such majority and, to return to my earlier point, someone has to run the economy, interest rates need to be maintained, restrictions on public expenditure are still needed and tough decisions have to be made, coalitions will sometimes be the best vehicle.

I have always taken a very pragmatic view of the British constitution. It has shown that it can be amended, changed and challenged by what is thrown at it. The remarkable thing about 2010 was that there was an indecisive general election but a strong Government were formed to deal with the very difficult issues we faced. Those issues will still need to be dealt with in the next Parliament.

I simply point out that it would be better to have flexibility in the system. At some stage, we will find ourselves in the situation where a general election is the solution to dealing with the problems. Given some of the current polls, with both major parties on percentage shares in the 30s, one possible result would be for each to have between 260 and 280 seats and for neither to be able to form a coalition with any other party, and that would lead us into grand coalition territory. We had that in February 1974, when the Conservatives conspired to allow the Labour party to govern until there was another general election. It would be unusual but not impossible to have a situation in which no Government could be sustained. In such a case, rather than having some absurd coalition with both major parties getting together but agreeing on nothing, it would be sensible for the electorate at some point to get the chance to decide which party or coalition of parties they wished to run the country.

The coalition has not done a bad job. It was necessary, and it has probably helped the British economy. Having fixed-term Parliaments was one part of the deal. That was perfectly respectable politics, because there was a need to reassure the junior partner in the coalition. However, being conservative constitutionally, I rather hope that we can go back to the previous system. If we do, it will be the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), if he is the Prime Minister after the next election, to decide about the following election. If he then made the wrong decision, he would have to pay the consequences for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I realise I am craving the indulgence of the House. I would not normally seek to intervene in a debate when I was unable to attend the opening speeches. I understand, however, that the main protagonists have yet to speak, so I will use this brief opportunity to give my pennyworth in the hope that they may each be able to reply to one or two of the points I will make.

I have been listening to the debate, but I wonder if I could take the House back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) did, to the beginning and to when the coalition was being formed. When it was formed, I remember it was announced that there were going to be some constitutional changes, including this one. We were told that we were ushering in a new era of the new politics that was going to transform the people’s perception of how we conduct ourselves in this place. It was going to show the parties re-engaging with the enthusiasm of the voters and that, as a consequence, this would be a much happier country. I remember having a conversation with a Minister on the stairs going up to the Committee Corridor. He said to me that politics, after five years of the coalition, would be unrecognisable—that is what he said. If we ask voters today what they think about how politics looks today compared with four years ago, I think they would say that it is all too recognisable.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone described—I understand he has had to leave the Chamber in a rush because he is attending to other duties in the House—has turned this place in upon itself even more than it was before. We are even less focused on what the voters think because we have given ourselves tenure. We have given ourselves security. We have given ourselves a fixed-term lease that cannot be challenged. And there is the idea that this was done as some selfless and noble act! I am amazed that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) —I am afraid he is not in his place at the moment—should keep raising the question of how the Prime Minister might exercise his power with regard to partisan considerations. Well, perish the thought that any Prime Minister would ever do anything with partisan considerations in mind! I look back at previous Prime Ministers and think to myself: did Gordon Brown ever act in a partisan manner? No, no, never! Did Sir John Major or Tony Blair ever act in a partisan manner? No, no! The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was obviously yet another selfless Act introduced by a Prime Minister, with no party considerations involved! I think we are being asked to stretch our imaginations a little too far.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is one of the most partisan and self-interested Acts of Parliament that has ever been put on the statute book. It did not just provide MPs with tenure; it provided the coalition Government with tenure. It was providing the coalition with security; it was providing them with a five-year guaranteed supply of money from the taxpayer for their Administration. It was self-interested on the part of the Conservative Ministers who wanted to give themselves tenure. It was self-interested on the part of the Liberal Democrats to give themselves tenure not only in this coalition but in a future hung Parliament to guarantee that the only option would be another five-year coalition in which they, the smallest party, would once again have influence disproportionate to the number of votes they received. Even I missed the point about why the Labour party was so happy to give tenure to the coalition. The Labour party knew it was in a mess. It had a deeply unpopular ex-Prime Minister who had just been thrown out of office. It was going to have a long, protracted leadership election process. The last thing it wanted was another general election within six or 18 months. It was in no fit state to fight one, so of course it also supported the Act. This has created a politicians’ paradise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, it is designed to shut the British people out of the decision about what kind of Government they should be able to choose.

[Mr Syms]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Equal votes in constituencies for fair representation is one of the fundamentals of politics, yet the boundary review was voted down for narrow party interests.

[Mr Jenkin]

I totally agree. The whole question of House of Lords reform was also being advanced for party political interests.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley asked who should have the power to dissolve Parliament. Should it be the Prime Minister? I put it to him that holding that power is part of the authority of being Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) described it, part of the poisoned chalice of office is that the Prime Minister holds that power. By passing the Act, we have robbed the Prime Minister of part of that authority. We have robbed the Government of part of the authority of office that the Government live on a day-to-day basis, subject to the confidence of the House of Commons. That has been taken away and represents a fundamental change in our constitution.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) wants not only a written constitution and the continuation of fixed-term Parliaments, but the separation of powers. Basically, he wants an American constitution rather than a British constitution, but let us look at the American constitution. First, it is paralysed. It cannot get its deficit down and it cannot elect a strong Government. It can elect a President, but the separation of powers means that Congress can defeat everything the President wants to do. I do not think that that is a very good recipe. We do not want to follow that. In any case, the separation of powers is based on a misapprehension of how constitutions work. There is, in fact, no such thing as a separation of powers in any constitution. That was what Montesquieu thought he understood about the British constitution. The need for a separation of powers was the lesson that the American founding fathers thought they had learned from him about the British constitution. However, in the American constitution the President, the Executive, vetoes legislation and appoints the judiciary, and the legislature conducts pre-appointment hearings on the senior people in the judiciary. There is always overlap between the functions of government, and ours is a system of parliamentary government in which the Executive can hold office only with the permission of Parliament.

The Act has fundamentally altered the balance of power in our constitution. English votes for English laws, which many of us, including Labour Members, want, would require only a minor adjustment to Standing Orders and the running of the House, yet people are saying, “Oh, we’ll have to have a constitutional convention.” The Act made a far greater change but without a constitutional convention or any consultation; there was absolutely no debate. It was not even explained to the Conservative parliamentary party before we agreed to the coalition. It only became apparent that there would be a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill when the coalition agreement was published. Well, we have all learned our lesson, and the Conservative party will not be forming a coalition in the next Parliament until we have seen the coalition agreement in draft, and we will want to go through it line by line to ensure that such sleights of hand are not repeated.

Grammar Schools

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Like other hon. Members, I know how dear this subject is to you, Mr Brady. No doubt you are having occasion to bite your tongue, to be an impartial Chair.

I start with the usual caveat that I enter in such debates. The vast majority of children go to comprehensive schools, and if we are to remain a first-class economy, we must raise education standards for all children in the United Kingdom, in whatever sector they are being educated. However, that does not mean that we should not value and cherish the 160-odd grammar schools. Looking around the Chamber, I see a smattering of the geography of Britain where parents banded together in the bad old days and managed to maintain their grammar schools, as we have done in the Poole and Bournemouth area. These schools have suffered hostility and sometimes indifference. I am glad that at last we have a Government who appreciate the value that these 160 schools bring to the UK and the chances that they give to the children who go to them.

One of the saddest things over the past 20 or 30 years because of the changes is that a bigger divide has developed in the UK, in that those from a middle-class background who can afford to pay for education have more opportunities, whereas some of those from more disadvantaged backgrounds have found that, with the demise of grammar schools in many areas, their opportunities have not expanded as much as they might have done 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It is still amazing to me to see the people whom this country has produced who make a major contribution to business, to universities and to the media who came from a grammar school background.

We must cherish and support the grammar schools that we have. They provide a beacon for the academy programme. I understand why the Government have focused more on academies than on grammar schools. Clearly, everyone is in favour of grammar schools, but not everyone is in favour of the 11-plus. Rather than arguing about that, it was probably right and proper to get on with the academy programme, which seems to be building up a head of steam. The existence of grammar schools will allow many academies to look at the way in which they teach their pupils. I am thinking of the streaming, the uniforms and the whole ethos of those schools. If the expansion of the academy programme sees many academies adopt those things, that may be a quicker way of ensuring that the widest possible number of pupils get a better chance in life.

We come into politics to make a difference, or at least we hope to make a difference. Of course, it is terribly difficult for any of us to measure what difference we make. However, the changes that the Government are making to school admissions, particularly as they relate to grammar schools, really are a major difference, because the presumption against expansion is to go, which means that good schools will be able to expand. I have no doubt that one of the most important announcements made by the Government is the one that will allow grammar schools to expand, because they are popular and more people will wish to go to them, providing that they meet the standards. That is the first staging post on the way to cherishing and perhaps expanding this sector in the future as a major beacon for educational standards.

I do not intend to say much more, but the number of colleagues present for the debate says something about how strongly they feel. The Minister and I are old friends, and I am pleased with and proud of what he is doing in the Department to improve standards and opportunities not only for those from prosperous backgrounds, but for those from poorer backgrounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I take from that that the hon. Gentleman has some doubts about his own Government’s policy in not allowing more grammar schools to be built; that is the logical conclusion of his statement.

We now know that there is a mixed bag of views among Government Members about the matter. I agree with the Minister that we should not build more grammar schools, because selection at age 11, in my view, does not work and is wrong. I will expand on that in a moment.

[Mr Syms]

As the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Opposition, if he believes that selection at age 11 is wrong, is he in favour of abolishing the 160 grammar schools?

[Kevin Brennan]

Our policy on the matter is unchanged. It should be up to local parents, via the ballot mechanism described earlier, to decide whether they want to keep the grammar schools that are in their area. Our policy is unchanged from what it has been for many years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing the debate. When he opened the debate, he talked about a one-size-fits-all education. He told us his story of social mobility, which he attributed to his attendance at grammar school. He seemed to indicate that that kind of social mobility would not be possible without grammar schools, but I have to tell him that that is not correct.

I think that I come from a background similar to the hon. Gentleman’s. My parents both left school at 14. My father worked in the steelworks and my mother was a dinner lady. I attended a comprehensive school and ended up here via various other institutions along the way, including teaching in a comprehensive school, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) also did. Social mobility is not dependent on attendance at a grammar school. There is conflicting evidence regarding the impact of grammar schools on social mobility, when looked at in the round, and the evidence that the hon. Member for Dartford cited was circumstantial rather than conclusive.