Parental Involvement in Teaching: Equality Act

Debate between Roger Godsiff and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the important issue of parental involvement in primary school pupils learning about the Equality Act, which was passed in 2010. The Act, which I welcomed, supported and voted for, has nine protected characteristics: age; disability; gender assignment; marriage and civil partnerships; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. Accompanying the words of the Act is guidance, and the “Sex and Relationship Education Guidance 2000” is also referred to and relevant. In particular, paragraph 1.13 states:

“In the early primary school years, education about relationships needs to focus on friendship, bullying and the building of self-esteem.”

Paragraph 1.31 further states:

“Sexual orientation and what is taught in schools is an area of concern for some parents. Schools that liaise closely with parents when developing their sex and relationship education policy and programme should be able to reassure parents of the content of the programme and the context in which it will be presented.”

The Children and Social Work Act 2017, which I supported and voted for, puts relationships and sex education on a statutory footing and requires all primary schools to teach age-appropriate relationship education.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I recently read a post that said:

“It’s not about homosexuality, heterosexuality or transsexuality—stop promoting sexuality to our children full stop. Let kids be kids.”

We need to protect the innocence of our children at all costs, and I believe that this is not only a parent’s right but their duty and their job. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to prevent that by enforcing teaching against the will of a parent is not acceptable in any way, shape or form?

[Mr Godsiff]

I will deal with that later.

The relationships and sex education set out in the Children and Social Work Act does not come in until September 2020, although primary schools can introduce it a year earlier. There was also draft guidance on how the Act should be implemented, and I supported and voted for the statutory instrument associated with that guidance. This legislation builds on the provisions of the Equality Act and, although it has relevance, as I shall explain later, it is the Equality Act and the nine protected characteristics that I shall be talking about today, not least because that is quoted by the headteacher of the school in my constituency where the controversy has arisen.

The Equality Act does not require primary schools to actively teach the nine characteristics. According to the guidance accompanying the Act,

“schools are free to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their syllabus, and to expose pupils to thoughts and ideas of all kinds, however challenging or controversial, without fear of legal challenge based on a protected characteristic.”

I support and welcome the guidance, but therein lies a problem. In Birmingham, there are 258 primary schools. Thirty-nine are in my constituency. Some are local authority-maintained, others are part of academy chains, but that is pretty irrelevant in the context of this debate. In many of the 256—not 258—schools, headteachers introduce pupils to what is in the Equality Act in ways that they believe meet the requirements of the guidance. Recognising that some of the nine characteristics may pose challenges for communities who have more conservative social attitudes, and taking into account the demographic composition of their own school, they have chosen to engage with their parents to explain the nine characteristics. They hold workshops about the individual characteristics and ongoing consultations with parents, showing them the type of materials that the school proposes to use, and they engage with parents about what age is most appropriate for the various characteristics to be introduced to pupils.

That seems eminently sensible to me, and it seems to be in line with references in the Children and Social Work Act and the draft guidance, which refers to “age appropriateness” in the context of religious background and the need for ongoing consultations. I unreservedly support and applaud those 256 headteachers, and parents are overwhelmingly supportive because there has been no appreciable backlash by parents at those schools.

At two schools, however, there has been a major reaction among parents that has become increasingly bitter and polarised. One of the schools is in my constituency, and the other is in an adjoining constituency represented by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood).

Patient Medical Records

Debate between Roger Godsiff and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Godsiff]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) has taken note of what she said and that the Department will be forthcoming in identifying exactly how much confidential NHS data have been released to private profit-making companies. He might also point out how much income the Government have received from that.

There are a huge number of problems with the existing scheme. I could mention the information leaflets that look more like junk mail and have no opt-out return slip on them, or the fact that data extraction was planned to start before the code of practice on who will be allowed to access the data was completed, or the lack of a clear figure on cost. However, perhaps the most damaging flaw in the whole plan has been the refusal to listen to or to address those concerns when they were raised by doctors and patients. We simply cannot and should not bring in a scheme that lacks the consent and approval of the vast majority of people whose confidential health data will be used.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the Chamber for consideration; it is the second time in three weeks that we have had the chance to debate the issue. Data collection is important, because of the benefits that could come from it, but confidentiality and people’s confidence in the system have been undermined. Does he agree that the fact that the NHS data collection is specific to England, and that the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister responsible has indicated that he would have some concerns over a similar proposal, indicates that there is not unanimous support for it across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Godsiff]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which just goes to show that the Northern Ireland Assembly view the matter with more concern than the Department of Health seems to at the moment.

I say again that simply spending the next six months dropping more leaflets through letterboxes or building a website will not be anywhere near good enough. The Government must now come up with a coherent plan of how they will change care.data to address the many concerns that have been raised, and NHS England must work out how it will let people know about that.

Basically, the Government have two choices, but first they should stop fighting with GPs and patients who are unhappy with the scheme. I can assure the Minister that the GPs and patients who have contacted me have plenty of ideas about how the scheme could operate with proper safeguards built in. Will the Minister commit, during the six-month period, to engaging with GPs and patient groups about their concerns? As I have said, the Government have two options. They can either ensure that all the patient data extracted are only shared with non profit-making bodies working in the NHS or with recognised medical charities, or, and this is the second option, allow identifiable data to be extracted and used by companies for profit, but only, surely, when patients have specifically opted in to permit that.

The one thing any new scheme must have is clarity. Which datasets and variables will be released? Who decides what information or combination counts as identifiable information? Who will be held accountable if data are wrongly released and confidentiality breaches occur? What will happen if a patient withdraws their consent after data have been extracted, because they change their mind?

The Government must engage with GPs and patients. They could do far worse than look at the survey carried out by Pulse, which showed that three quarters of GPs believe that NHS England should abandon the opt-out system and ensure that data are extracted only after patients have given consent.

Car Insurance Premiums

Debate between Roger Godsiff and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to initiate this short debate under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. The cost of car insurance concerns everybody who owns and drives a car, not least my constituents who live in the B11 and B12 postcodes of Birmingham. I will explain later why I mention those specific postcodes.

I am aware of the detailed report on car insurance produced by the Select Committee on Transport and of the recommendations that it has made to both the Government and the insurance industry. I commend the Committee’s work and welcome its recommendations on personal injury claims and referral fees, uninsured driving, fraud, and the whole question of young drivers, whose driving habits are one of the industry’s biggest justifications for the overall increase in the cost of motor insurance.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), made it perfectly clear when giving evidence to the Transport Committee that the responsibility for the level of premiums rests with the market and not the Government. I accept that. However, in some other countries—and not least in one of the Canadian provinces—motor insurance has been socialised or run by a Government agency because the market was unable to handle its responsibility, despite having a captive audience of motorists who were rightly obliged by law to insure their vehicles. I shall not attempt to lead the Minister down that path because I suspect that he would not wish to follow, but I make those points to place them on the record.

After reading the Transport Committee’s admirable report, I was struck by the sheer weight of submissions from insurers, solicitors, claim management firms and their associations—all of whom, purely by chance, are part of the referral system. I got the distinct impression from reading the report that the motor insurance industry was trying to convince the Committee—and, indeed, perhaps itself—that it was not making any money out of the motor insurance business and that it was taking on the onerous burden of insuring motorists only out of some sense of public duty. Indeed, the Committee was told:

“insurers currently spent around £1.20 for every £1 collected in premiums”.

I am sure that the Government would say that those are the economics of the mad house and will lead to bankruptcy. However, the motor insurance industry has apparently kept going purely to help out motorists. The Committee was told:

“the underwriters of motor insurance had been loss-making since 1994”.

I drive to and from my constituency, and I am sure that motorists throughout the whole of the United Kingdom would like to say a heartfelt thank you to the motor insurance industry for being prepared to shoulder such losses for 16 years and for their altruistic attitude towards the whole business.

In case hon. Members think that I am seeking to pillory the insurance industry, I should say that I am not. I recognise that the industry is an important part of the UK’s financial services sector and that, in general terms, it provides competitive and tailored products, such as building, household, personal and holiday insurances. However, all those are optional, whereas motor insurance is, rightly, compulsory.

I pick my words carefully when I say, to put it bluntly, that having read the report, looked into the issue and considered many representations I have had from constituents whose motor insurance premiums had gone through the roof, I think that the motor insurance industry is just milking the motorist. Instead of tailoring insurance premiums to individual driving records and the personal circumstances of the motorist and the vehicle they are using, the industry is taking the cheap and easy option of postcode charging and having box-ticking premiums. It is giving scant regard to an individual’s personal circumstances because it knows that to drive on the highway, someone has to have insurance. Motorists are trapped and the industry can do what it wants.

The motor insurance industry and its lobbyists, some of whom may be here today, are very quick off the mark. My e-mail account was totally inundated and blocked by thousands of representations when those concerned saw that this debate was taking place. I applaud their rapid-response approach to the matter. The Association of British Insurers has said to me:

“the market remains competitive, despite recent rate increases, and some of the best deals may be found by phoning insurance companies or brokers directly rather than by using price comparison websites.”

I will give a couple of examples to show not only that that is incorrect, but that the motor insurance industry uses postcode premiums and gives minimal regard to personal circumstances.

A constituent who lives in Sparkhill, which is in the Springfield ward—one of the wards we gained last week at the local elections from the Liberal Democrats—has been driving since 1987 and has a 10-year no-claims bonus. He has a public service vehicle licence and is a bus driver. His postcode is B11 and he was quoted £1,200 a year for his motor insurance. That is for a PSV holder and bus driver, with 10 years’ no claims. He then used the address of one of his relatives who lives in an adjoining postcode. Apart from that, he supplied exactly the same details. How much was he quoted? Some £276, which is four times less. He is being penalised because he lives in B11. As I said—10 years’ no claims, PSV holder, bus driver. However, he lives in the wrong place and is charged four times as much.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to the hon. Gentleman’s last remarks, in Northern Ireland we are subject to higher prices for insurance than in other parts of the United Kingdom—England, Wales and Scotland. In the whole of Northern Ireland, we pay higher prices than everyone else because of our postcode. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that better competitive prices for insurance should be available across the whole of the United Kingdom and that Northern Ireland should not be excluded?

[Mr Godsiff]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, motor insurance is not being discriminatory; it milks the motorist wherever they live in the United Kingdom.

Another constituent who lives in Sparkbrook, B12, has had a driving licence for 38 years and no claims for 10 years. His insurance has been between £250 and £300 for fully comprehensive and his best quote is now £600. He then got quotes for exactly the same driving history but with a Solihull and a Warwick and Leamington address, and they were less than £300. So he is being asked to pay double because he lives in the wrong postcode.

Those are just two examples, but I have many others about how my constituents are being penalised. The motor insurance industry takes the cheapest and easiest option of using postcodes, rather than individual circumstances, to set its premiums. It does so at a time when there has already been a 29.9% rise in motor insurance for all motorists, and young men and women have been subject to rises of 46.6% and 58.8% respectively. That is ridiculous.

Let me give you another example of how the motor insurance industry exploits its monopoly position. I know a person who spends part of his time in the UK, and one or two months abroad every year. He checked recently with his insurance broker to find out whether he could save money by avoiding paying insurance premiums for the months that he was out of the country, and his car was off the road and garaged. He was told by his broker:

“it used to be the case that the Insurance Industry would allow you to not pay premiums for months when your car was garaged and you were abroad but they no longer allow this”.

I contend that that is yet another example of how the motor insurance industry milks motorists, rather than seeking to tailor its policies to their personal circumstances. I am not suggesting for one minute—I would not dream of it—that there is collusion between motor insurance companies, but the fact of the matter is that they openly say that they share information regarding fraud—quite rightly. But it is disingenuous to believe that they do not share information concerning their charging policies and postcode premium policies.

I end by saying this: I do not expect the Minister to bring about a revolution in motor insurance overnight, and I know that he will consider the recommendations of the Select Committee very seriously. However, motorists, like the wider population, are under increasing economic pressure and many people still have to rely on the use of their cars for their daily lives. Furthermore, if young people are priced out of using a car because of the massive cost of insurance, then, I regret to say, there will be an increase in the number of uninsured drivers. That would not be a good thing, and I agree with the Minister about that.

The motor insurance industry has to realise that it is in the privileged position of having a captive audience. Instead of whingeing about not making money out of car insurance—which is not true; everybody knows that it is not true—it should be developing insurance policies that reward careful drivers with a proven record of not claiming, and take into account personal driving history. It should also scrap the unfair and discriminatory policy of penalising everybody in certain postcodes and allow motorists who use their cars only for a certain number of months a year to pay insurance for those months only, instead of being charged for the whole year.

I know that the Minister has listened carefully to what I have said, and I hope that he will depart from his brief and address those two specific points. Those points concern motorists in my constituency, his constituency and throughout the country. I do not see why motorists should be milked by the motor insurance industry.