Colleges Week

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Damian Hinds

Thursday 29th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate in Westminster Hall on this important subject. He rightly mentioned that he and I have talked about these topics many times over—I think it is fair to say—many years. I know he has a fervent passion for and deep knowledge of the subject, and I thank him for what he does with the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning. I join him in thanking and congratulating the Association of Colleges. Like many colleagues, I had the opportunity earlier this week to go over the road—the other side of Parliament Square—to the AOC awards event. It was great to meet an award winner from my local college in Alton and its other campus in Havant, but also to see the huge variety of people benefiting from all that colleges have to offer. Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) spoke with passion about the importance of colleges and the great work they do in educating and training people of all ages and backgrounds, as well as the key role they play in communities. They rightly talked about the challenges they face, and I do not argue with any of that.

I am the Minister for Schools, but I still know there is no more important subject than colleges. I see every day that we have great schools educating our children, giving them a great education and grounding to take them on whatever path they choose at age 16. Of course, we also have strong higher education institutions, delivering world-class higher education to young people and equipping them with the high-level education and skills they need. We then have further education colleges, which are the filling—if you like—in the education sandwich. Like the best sandwich options, there is a variety to choose from because colleges do just about everything, including all the things I have just mentioned. They do basic skills, English and maths and so-called level 3 provision. More recently, there has been the introduction of T-levels. They do apprenticeships, as we have been talking about, and I will come back to adult learning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney reminded us, FE colleges also do HE, as well as pre-16 provision for certain groups of young people. To cap it all, some colleges even have their own nursery—they are really providing the full range of education. We are not talking about jacks of all trades, because they do not just do lots of things; they do them very well. The latest figures show that approximately 92% of colleges were judged to be good or outstanding at their most recent inspection, which is quite an incredible figure.

The Secretary of State and the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education visit colleges around the country frequently. I should say, by the way, that the latter would have loved to be here today. He phoned me this morning to say so, and to ask me to pass on his best wishes, in particular in celebration of Colleges Week. He is not able to physically be in two places at once; otherwise, he would have been here. The Secretary of State and the Minister meet staff and students and see at first hand some of the excellent work they are doing, as I have had the opportunity to do in previous roles in the DFE. They are astounded by the range and breadth of high-quality provision on offer in fantastic facilities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney rightly alluded to another key role that FE colleges carry out, which is acting as agents of social mobility. Many learners in FE come from disadvantaged backgrounds, so our colleges are essential for ensuring that individuals from all backgrounds are supported to progress into employment or further learning. It is fair to say that for many years, colleges were unsung heroes, doing fantastic work without ever really getting commensurate recognition for that work. That has changed now, because everybody understands and recognises the importance of what they do. This debate is a great example of that recognition.

The skills agenda, in which colleges play a critical role, is one of my Department’s key priorities. Colleges are delivering our radical skills reforms, helping individuals with basic skills needs right up to challenging the highest performers to reach their potential, raising the stages of technical education through the delivery of apprenticeships and the introduction of rigorous T-levels.

It is easy for us to say that colleges are great, and that we recognise all they do, but we need to back that up with support and investment. That is why we are making major investment in post-16 education, in which colleges play a huge part, with an additional £3.8 billion over this Parliament for education and skills. In particular, throughout this Parliament, we have consistently increased overall funding for 16-to-19 education year on year, including an extra £1.6 billion in 2024-25 compared with 2021-22—the biggest increase in 16-to-19 funding in a decade. FE colleges, like all 16-to-19 providers, have benefited from that investment. We are investing £3 billion in capital between 2022 and 2025 to improve the condition of the post-16 estate, deliver new places in post-16 education, provide more specialist equipment and facilities for T-levels and deliver institutes of technology.

We recognise that the issues colleges are facing are not just about whether they have enough funding and how to make the funding stretch to deliver everything they need to do, but about systems, procedures and bureaucracy. Colleges have told Government that we need to address those things, and we have listened. That is why we have consulted on reforming the further education funding and accountability systems, and last year issued our response. We have committed to simplifying funding systems and creating a single adult skills fund and a single development fund. We have already started delivering on those commitments and will continue this work to reduce the bureaucracy associated with funding. We have set out a much clearer approach to support an intervention for colleges, and will also remove duplicative data collection and take steps to simplify and improve audit. All these things will help to minimise burdens on colleges and let them focus their efforts on delivering that excellent education and training.

Of course, FE would not be what it is without teachers and teaching. The quality of teaching and leaders is the biggest determinant of outcomes for learners, and that is why we are investing £470 million over the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support colleges and other providers, and to address key priorities, including on recruitment and retention. That funding has already fed through to colleges and other providers via increased 16-19 rates and programme cost weight increases from last September.

It is part of a wider programme to support the sector to recruit excellent staff. That includes a national recruitment campaign to strengthen and incentivise the uptake of initial teacher education, teacher training bursaries and the Taking Teaching Further training programme. We also announced £200 million to improve teacher recruitment and retention by giving those who teach key shortage subjects a payment of up to £6,000, tax-free, per year in the first five years of their career. For the first time, that applies to those teaching eligible subjects in all FE colleges.

Let me turn to some of the comments made by the hon. Lady who speaks for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). This debate has not been primarily party political, and nor should it be. We are celebrating Colleges Week, and that is something on which colleagues right across this House agree. I welcome a number of the things that the hon. Lady said, but there are a couple that I cannot quite let go, particularly on the subject of apprenticeships.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) was quite right in saying that, if we are going to talk about apprenticeships, we must talk like for like. I am afraid that, before 2010, there were some people who, when asked about the quality of their apprenticeship, did not know that they were on an apprenticeship. We have changed that and underpinned the apprenticeships programme with guarantees of quality: the minimum length of the course; the minimum amount of time in college; the creation of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education; and, critically, employer-designed standards. That has made a very solid set of very high- quality apprenticeships. I would urge the hon. Lady and her party not to pursue the plans and policy that they appear to be—not to undermine those apprenticeships or have fewer of them, and instead create a new quango.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his comments, and we do not need to get into a debate today—there are many other opportunities for that. He is right that it is important that we do not create dividing lines where we do not have them, in an area that needs both stability and long-term planning, but I want to challenge him on the point he has made. It is true that apprenticeships starts have fallen, and I am not saying that we have not also supported some changes through the passage of time. However, we all know that there are challenges, such as employer involvement in start-ups, employer fatigue due to the difficulties with the current apprenticeship system and the drop in SME engagement, and it is really important that the Government acknowledge those challenges.

It is also important not to misrepresent Labour’s call for a reform where employers, if they so chose, could spend up to 50% of their apprenticeship levy more flexibly. Too much of that levy is being returned to the Treasury because employers are unable to spend it on any learning. For most employers, the reform would not make much of a difference because they are only able to spend about 50% of their levy, and that would not change. Perhaps the Minister might also know that, if we see more growth in the economy, we will also see more of the levy coming in and greater apprenticeships there too.

[Damian Hinds]

Again, let us not have a party political debate—that is not the nature of this discussion today. I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that I have not misrepresented the Labour party’s policy in the slightest. She then went on to repeat it, which is to say that there would be less money guaranteed to be available for apprenticeships. That would surely lead to a move away from those high-quality apprenticeships that I mentioned. I understand the attraction of voices saying that the levy is not a good way of doing things, but I have to tell the hon. Lady that it addresses a fundamental problem—

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

Absolutely, and I will come back to the fundamental problem in a moment.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister again, but I think he does not fully understand the Labour policy and that may be because he has not engaged with it in detail. The point on the growth and skills levy is that the opportunity to spend on more modular courses and more flexible learning, creating the opportunity to build qualifications through more modular approaches, could support more engagement with learning and contribute to a reduction in the early ending of apprenticeships, where the targets of apprenticeship completion are not even being met. That is a real issue.

[Damian Hinds]

I assure the hon. Lady that if there is any misunderstanding about the Labour party’s policy, it is not because people have failed to engage with it; it is because it is not clear—and one great benefit of our apprenticeship system is that it is clear. The approach of the apprenticeship levy resolves one of the fundamental questions of investing in human capital, training and people, which is the so-called free rider problem.

For many years, some employers invested strongly in their workforces and then some of the members of those workforces, after a couple of years of training, would get up and go to the competitor. The levy is precisely to make sure that the whole of our economy and the whole of industry has a like interest in developing those skills and developing investing in the potential of people. I advise the hon. Lady to be careful in deciding to get rid of that and replace it with a new and unneeded quango.

I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who also spoke about the centrality of apprenticeships and the quality of them. He spoke about the importance of colleges to the whole local economic area. I too represent an area with a particularly low level of unemployment, even though unemployment across the country is low compared with historical norms—it is at slightly less than half the level it was when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Waveney came into Parliament in 2010.

Particularly in areas of even lower unemployment, however, skills matching becomes vital for the local economy. I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in congratulating both Harrogate College and the Luminate Education Group on their work on the renewable energy skills hub. That is a great example of colleges being future-looking, forward-looking and innovative, making sure we are equipped with the skills for the future and creating facilities that contribute to that.

I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who has brought us to this Chamber today—and we are all grateful to him for doing so. He listed some of the several ways in which colleges are vital to our economy and society. He too spoke of the importance of colleges in their local communities. He reminded us that that is about people of all ages—including those who might not have had that great an experience coming through education the first time, who can have another chance, and those who had a fantastic experience the first time around, who can further develop their skills. It is also about the jobs of tomorrow and making sure we can continue to adapt and that in so doing we offer social mobility to people throughout the country.

My hon. Friend also talked about productivity, which is so important here. We know that there has long been a big productivity gap—since the year I was born and beyond, and I am 54—between this country and the United States and Germany in particular. It has improved, but it is still a gap and we need to move further. Making sure we can match skills to where they are needed and hone those skills is incredibly important.

My hon. Friend also spoke about the importance of colleges themselves as big employers in local areas, and we should never forget that. He also discussed the importance of working with employers, a subject also covered by our hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. In particular, I note the work of Suffolk New College in leading on the local skills improvement fund for my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney’s area. Indeed, I pay tribute to all three colleges serving his local area—East Coast College, Suffolk New College and West Suffolk College.

We are getting close to a fiscal event, and my hon. Friend quite rightly put in his Budget bids, which will have been heard. He also talked about some of the progress made. I agree that the value of the Baker clause is not just what it does directly, but the symbolism and the message it gives that all children should know about the full range of what is available to them at the age of 16. Some of those children will be better suited to going to a school sixth form, some will be better suited to going to a sixth form college and some will be better suited to going to an FE college. Some will be better suited to a largely academic route and some will be better suited to a technical and vocational route. Having those options made known at a suitable time in that journey is really important.

There are also T-levels. Of course, colleges are not the only places that deliver T-levels, but they are at the centre of that great reform. They offer more hours in college and bring English, maths and digital skills right into integration with the core vocational subjects and, crucially, the nine-week or 45-day industrial placement. When I meet employers or young people who have done T-levels, that is the thing they always talk about the most: the opportunity to apply what they learn in college directly in a workplace and develop the workplace skills that we know are so valued by employers. By the way, they bring an opportunity to see a young person in action in the workplace for an extended period.

There are the higher-level technical qualifications and the advanced British standard, which is in development now. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was quite right that we are developing that landmark reform to remove fully the artificial divide between the academic and the vocational. In doing that, we need to start investing now—and we are investing now. That is such an important point to make, and it is understood across Government.

When people think about a college, probably the first thing that comes into their head is a picture of a building, but my hon. Friend and I, and everyone here, know that it is all about people. That is why those investments in people are so important, including the extension of the levelling-up premium to further education colleges for the first time. The Teach in FE recruitment campaign is running, and there is the Taking Teaching Further programme. We know that there is a particular importance to, and sometimes a challenge in, getting people with recent industrial experience—those “on the tools”—into college to impart those skills onwards. There are FE teacher training bursaries worth up to £30,000, depending on the subject, tax-free, in the academic year 2024-25.

I will close by thanking everybody who has taken part in this debate, particularly our hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for tabling it and convening this important discussion. It was informative to hear from him and others about local issues, successes and, of course, how much we value our colleges—“Love our Colleges”, to coin a phrase from Colleges Week. The one clear thing coming from this debate is that we all recognise the importance, value and role of our colleges, as the strapline that I just mentioned makes clear.

I have set out how we are backing our recognition of colleges through investment and support by increasing funding, investing in facilities and estate, reforming accountability and funding to reduce burdens and investing in programmes to support and boost the further education workforce. I hope and believe that those things will benefit colleges and support them to deliver. I know that we ask colleges to deliver a lot these days, but that is because we know that they can and do deliver incredibly well.

Access to Education: South-East Northumberland

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Damian Hinds

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Henderson. It is an auspicious day: I believe it is your maiden chairing of Westminster Hall, and it is a privilege for us all to be part of it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on his passionate and comprehensive remarks about access to education in his area. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child in the country has a first-class education and every opportunity to make the most of their abilities. We are also committed to ensuring fair access to a good school place for every child, including the most vulnerable. That is why we have taken steps to ensure that schools allocate places in a clear, fair and objective way.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, all state-funded schools, including academies, are required to comply with the school admissions code. In 2021, a new code came into effect, which aims to improve access to school for vulnerable children and to reduce any gaps in their education. The latest data available show that the admissions system is working well. Nationally, in 2023, 94% of parents received an offer of a place at one of their top three preferences for secondary schools, and 98% an offer at one of the top three preferences for primary schools. That matches 2022, so we are maintaining that high level.

Anyone who thinks a school’s admission arrangements are unlawful or unfair can object to the schools adjudicator. The adjudicator’s decision is legally binding. If a school fails to meet its statutory duties, it can be directed to do so by the Secretary of State. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be concerned when children and young people are unable to attend the parents’ preferred choice of local school. The Department works closely with local authorities and admissions authorities on those matters.

Overall in 2023, in Northumberland 99% of parents received an offer at one of their top three preferences for secondary, and 93% were offered their first preference. That compares with 94% nationally for top three and 82.5% for first preference. So, the Northumberland rates are above the national average. As he will know, academy trusts are their own admissions authority, but we do expect local authorities and schools, academy trusts and diocesan authorities to work together, to ensure there is a co-ordinated approach, which helps local authorities to meet the duty on place sufficiency.

I do, though, recognise the frustration of parents and carers living in south-east Northumberland, who may now be less sure of their child’s chance of accessing a place at their school of choice, due to the academy’s change of admissions criteria in 2020, which considers distance from the academy rather than attendance at specific feeder schools, as the hon. Gentleman rightly identified.

Distance is not an uncommon criterion; in fact it is very commonly used for admissions. It does ensure that children living close to the school can access their local school and avoid travelling longer distances. Data provided by the local authority indicate that the number of year 7 pupils in the area will decrease over the current forecast period, up to 2029. To provide wider background for colleagues, there is a general effect going on in the demography of the country. It is not the same everywhere; there are different patterns in different communities.

There has been a bulge—not the most elegant term—of pupils coming through primary school who are now going to secondary school. The secondary school will initially grow, and primary numbers overall will tend to come down somewhat. Over time, that effect will work its way through secondary school as well. The long and the short of that is to say that one would expect that in year 7 admissions those numbers will change over the years.

The local authority is reporting that there are sufficient physical places to meet demand. I do accept that, in some cases, those would be places lower down in preference, due to established patterns of travel, the over-subscription criteria of some schools, or where a school is continuing its improvement journey. We will do all we can to speed up that improvement, so that there is genuine choice in local areas.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to reflect on and respond to some specific points, some of which I have covered in my remarks already. I would say overall on school choice, all parents want the best for their children. In any system where there is school choice, not quite everybody gets their first, and that is a by-product of that choice. As was the policy of the previous Government prior to 2010, we also believe that parents having that choice to rank their preferred schools in order carries great benefits, including for families and children themselves.

The hon. Member asked specifically about housing development. Local authorities make projections of birth rates and the expected effect of rates of housing development, depending on the type of housing, how many families with children there are likely to be and the likely age of those children. I am sure that his authority in Northumberland will do that as well.

The hon. Member referred to PANs, and schools can and do change PANs over time. He is right to identify that in the particular case that we are talking about today, those admission numbers were reduced. That was part of the school improvement plan to give greater headroom. As he rightly said, that improvement has been happening in those schools and we have been seeing better results. I gather that the trust has also been allowing some admission over the PAN, which has been of some assistance.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), took the debate into wider areas beyond just south-east Northumberland, which gives me an opportunity to respond to some of those points, so I am grateful to her. She mentioned having to provide for school choice, and I agree entirely. That is why we have created over a million new places in the school system since 2010, specifically to make sure not only that there are adequate numbers, but that school choice is facilitated. That stands in contrast to the 100,000 that were cut in the years leading up to 2010. There is now the highest funding that there has been in schools.

The hon. Lady spoke about attendance, and she is right to identify that we have an issue with school absence, and particularly persistent absence. By the way, we share that issue with most other countries in the world. We certainly share it with the other countries in the United Kingdom, including where other political parties are in control, but we see this much more broadly. During covid, there was an adverse impact on some people—not just directly connected with covid, but in its aftermath—and that has been difficult to work through. That is very understandable and no one is blaming parents for it, but some attitudes to the threshold at which a child should stay home from school if they are under the weather have moved a bit. We are trying to change those attitudes back to where we were pre-covid, and there has been progress. If we look at the autumn term that just finished, absence was markedly lower than it was in the autumn term a year before, but we know there is further to go and we will continue to work on that.

The hon. Lady also mentioned wider questions around society, income levels and the effect on children. She will know that we have extended eligibility for free school meals much more widely than the previous Government did. When her party was in government, one in six children received free school meals, but it is now one in three. That comes at a time when the number of children in workless households has come down markedly—by 600,000 since 2010—and at a time when the proportion of those in work who are on low pay, as a result of the national living wage, has come down very significantly as well. We have also invested heavily in breakfast clubs, holiday activities, food funds and more.

We have made five major extensions to early years and childcare entitlement, and there is a sixth very big extension on its way. In higher education, the opportunities for people from lower income backgrounds to attend university are greater than they have ever been.

The hon. Lady even touched on apprenticeships, which I was surprised about. Apprenticeships have been totally overhauled and reformed. We have modern apprenticeships designed by employers with proper end assessments. We have introduced T-levels with a very substantial, industrial work placement at the centre of them, with English, maths and digital and more hours in college. Again, that is designed and certified by employers. Those are materially increasing the life chances of children taking vocational and academic routes.

We see the results in such things as the PISA—programme for international student assessment—comparisons of international performance in education. In the period from 1997 to 2010, although ostensibly results domestically looked like they were improving, on the international comparisons we were coming down. Since 2010, we have come back up—

[Seema Malhotra]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I would be delighted to hear from the hon. Lady.

[Seema Malhotra]

I do not propose to come back on all the points that the Minister has made, but the poverty and the challenges of the cost of living crisis and the sustained impact of austerity are having a huge impact on children and families. The impact has been cumulative over many years. Apprenticeship numbers have been dropping since 2017, with the impact of the levy that was implemented, and the engagement of small and medium-sized enterprises with apprenticeships has dropped by 49% since 2016. Those are official figures. Does he agree that it is important, in terms of a good-quality education, that we look at the sustained engagement of employers and tackle the barriers? It is important to recognise that they exist rather than pretending that there is not a problem.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between Seema Malhotra and Damian Hinds

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

We are of course greatly concerned with what happens in-country and in-region. We want to see progress. We want to see the Palestinian Authority extending its governance. But this measure is specifically about the entity of Hamas. It is a proscription of a body because of its involvement in terrorism, and this debate and vote must focus on that specific question.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister clarify what assessment has been made of important discussions that may need to go on in relation to humanitarian issues, education and healthcare, and how that will continue in the very important work that has to be done to support people in the Gaza strip?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. If she will forgive me, I am coming to that a little later in my remarks, and I will cover it then.

Hamas formally established Hamas IDQ in 1992. IDQ was proscribed by the UK in March 2001. At the time, it was determined that there was a distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas, and that the only part of the organisation that was concerned in terrorism, and should therefore be proscribed, was the military wing. Over the past 20 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said, Hamas’s so-called military and political wings have grown closer together, with any distinction between them now considered to be artificial. The Government’s assessment is that Hamas is a complex but single organisation made up of constituent parts, one of which includes Hamas IDQ. It is clear that these constituent parts are not wholly independent of Hamas’s so-called political wing and that they take strategic direction from it. There is also movement of key individuals across the organisation as well as, of course, a shared ideology. It is clear that the current proscription listing of Hamas does not reflect its true structure, and that is why this order has been laid. The Home Secretary has a reasonable belief that Hamas, in its entirety, is concerned in terrorism. It is our assessment that the group prepares for, commits and participates in acts of terrorism. There is also evidence that the group promotes and encourages terrorism.

Indiscriminate rocket or mortar attacks against Israeli targets are key examples of Hamas committing this terrorism. During the May 2021 conflict, over 4,000 rockets were fired indiscriminately into Israel. Civilians, including two children, were killed as a result. The rocket attacks also targeted airports and maritime interests. Hamas also frequently uses incendiary balloons to launch attacks from Gaza into southern Israel. There was a spate of incendiary balloon attacks from Gaza into southern Israel during June and July 2021, causing fires and resulting in serious damage to property. These attacks were likely carried out by both Hamas and by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is already proscribed. Only last summer, Hamas launched camps in Gaza that focused on training groups, including minors, to fight. In a press statement Hamas described the aim of these camps as to “ignite the embers of jihad in the liberation generation, cultivate Islamic values, and prepare the expected victory army to liberate Palestine”. This vile indoctrination of young people into the organisation’s violent ideology shows how diametrically opposed it is to our country’s core values.

The action we are taking is not a commentary on the ongoing tensions in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, nor is it a departure in any way from the Government’s long-standing position on the middle east peace process. We continue to support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. This decision is based on the Government’s assessment that Hamas, in its entirety, is concerned in terrorism and that proscription is a proportionate action to take, and nothing more. Having concluded that the distinction maintained in the list of proscribed organisations is artificial, it is right that this is addressed. Hamas, in its entirety, is a terrorist organisation. We must be clear on this to avoid conferring legitimacy on any element of the organisation.

It goes without saying that this Government do not provide any assistance to Hamas or the Government structure in Gaza that is made up of Hamas members. However, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), this proscription will not prevent aid from reaching civilians in need. In Gaza we have strong controls in place to monitor spending and ensure that aid sent into the region reaches its intended beneficiaries.

To conclude, the enduring and wide-ranging nature of the threat from terrorism demands an agile approach and a comprehensive strategy. That includes confronting groups that participate in and prepare for acts of terrorism or unlawfully glorify horrific terrorist acts. We must use every tool at our disposal to prevent them from stirring up hatred and division in our communities. We will never be cowed by those who hate the values we hold dear. The safety and security of the public is our No. 1 priority, and I commend the order to the House.