Budget Resolutions

John Bercow Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). We work together in many areas, including as co-chairs of the all-party group on manufacturing. He displayed his typical passion in his speech this afternoon. My view is that we must be forward looking in our approach and embrace an increasingly dynamic economy. If we tie that in with our industrial strategy, we have much to be optimistic about.

I start by acknowledging the positive news on employment. A record 31.8 million people are in work, which is reflected in the figures in my constituency. Businesses can be particularly proud of the fact that there has been a 74% fall in unemployment since 2010. Naturally, as the unemployment figure falls, it becomes increasingly difficult to reduce that figure further. For that reason, we must think differently about developing a skills base and investing in research and development. Industry 4.0 is a prime example of an idea that must be integrated into Government policy and that must span a range of Departments.

I also welcome the introduction of T-levels. Technical education has the potential to boost productivity. The new system, which will be introduced in 2019, increases the number of hours on such courses and includes good, strong work placements. I spoke in a recent debate on the productivity plan. If we are to improve productivity in the UK, we must first improve our domestic skills base. The £500 million per year in extra funding for technical education is a boost. Warwickshire college, which is in my constituency, is an example of what can be achieved.

Giving parity of respect to technical education in relation to A-levels has been something in which I have long believed. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the significance of this standard. More generally, strengthening ties between our education system and business should be a priority, particularly as the demands on businesses will continue to shift with the changing landscape of the economy.

I welcome the national productivity investment fund, which was announced in the autumn statement, and the funding that will be provided through the spring Budget to upgrade transport infrastructure. In the midlands, some £23 million will be directed towards improving the transport network. Wider spending on infrastructure with a focus on providing the very best framework for business is vital. The launch of the industrial strategy challenge fund is also very welcome, particularly with its focus on investing in innovation. It is absolutely the right approach to take and I hope that it can be built on as the strategy develops.

During the Queen’s speech debate last year, I spoke about the importance of shaping an industrial strategy to give certainty and confidence to British business. Despite being a little alone with that opinion on the Government Benches, I welcomed the industrial strategy Green Paper and the development of the Department. With this new funding, projects that further the capabilities of the automotive sector and that increase the longevity of batteries in electric vehicles can go a long way in securing a prosperous and sustainable future. Investment in infrastructure in tandem with investment in R and D is vital if our potential is to be realised.

The midlands is well placed to be at the forefront of such technologies, and it is in that context that I welcome the launch on Thursday of the midlands engine strategy, which specifically mentions the automotive industry and the fact that 39% of UK employment in the sector is in our region. With a strong science and research base, providing additional support to the midlands is the most effective way of enabling the UK to take a greater share of the international market. Regional empowerment should be a key consideration of Government policy. Sustained support for the midlands engine is, therefore, vital.

My final point is about the concern of a number of businesses in my constituency about business rates. In recent weeks, I have canvassed opinion locally on the upcoming changes to rateable values. By way of an example, a pub in my constituency is seeing a rise from £18,000 to £68,000. Another is seeing an increase from £33,000 to £94,000. Elsewhere, a business is seeing its rateable value rise to £12,500; being £500 above the rates relief threshold will mean a further tax bill of £6,000. Even for successful enterprises, these significant hikes in business rates risk jobs losses and closures of businesses altogether. The £1,000 business rates discount for one year for pubs with a rateable value of up to £100,000 is put into context with the rises I have just mentioned. Allocating £435 million towards supporting those that will be particularly impacted is welcome, but I urge the Chancellor to review the issue urgently.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Gareth Snell for his maiden speech. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As I call the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in wishing her a happy birthday.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Budget is, at its heart, deeply unfair. It is full of broken promises and missed opportunities. I am a Sheffield MP. I love Sheffield. I grew up in Sheffield. I am extremely proud to represent its people in this place and that means standing up for them. Sheffield City Council has faced cuts every year for seven years, now totalling £352 million, and it will have to find another £40 million next year to balance its budget. Sheffield is a fantastic city with a strong industrial base. It is where stainless steel was invented, and I must put it on the record that Sheffield definitely drove the industrial revolution, no matter what others have said today. However, wages have fallen dramatically. In fact, shamefully, it was recently found that Sheffield is the low-pay capital of the UK. There is little in this Budget to help that.

The self-employed are the engine drivers of entrepreneurship, with many working at the cutting edge of technology. Self-employment in Sheffield has increased by 10% in recent years, showing our city’s entrepreneurial character. However, real wages among the self-employed have fallen faster than those of employees. For my constituents, the Chancellor’s £2 billion broken promise on NICs will have a serious effect on their livelihood. As I said, unfairness is at the heart of the Budget, which hits low and middle earners hardest, hurting working people in Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. While increasing taxes for the most vulnerable in our society, and simultaneously choosing to do nothing about working standards for the self-employed, the Chancellor decided to cut taxes for the richest. Policy measures introduced by this Government since 2010 will result in over £70 billion in tax giveaways to big businesses and the super-rich over the next five years. Much has already been said about the contentious business rates revaluation, and pubs in my constituency will feel the pain of increased rates despite the headline-grabbing one-year-only discount. The British Beer and Pub Association forecasts that increases on beer duty will result in 4,000 job losses and more pub closures.

We know what to expect from this Government by now—they kick the can down the road—so the Chancellor’s speech naturally contained no mention of the industrial strategy, nothing for the struggling steel sector, and no mention of climate change. Social care is in a state of emergency due to cuts to local council budgets, with over 1 million vulnerable elderly people not receiving the care they need. The extra £2 billion for adult social care does not make up for the £4.6 billion in cuts over the last Parliament and, believe me, councils in the north are not getting the same Surrey sweetheart deal on social care. The Chancellor had the opportunity last Wednesday to properly address the funding crisis, but he did not take it. He announced no money to deal with hospitals despite the £5 billion black hole in NHS maintenance. There are not enough GPs in the NHS, and cuts to nurses’ bursaries have led to a reduction in applications for nursing courses. A&Es are in crisis, and waiting lists are soaring. Mr Speaker, forgive me if I feel that this is all too little, too late.

Ensuring a decent education for our children should be an absolute priority, not an afterthought. This Government promised to protect pupil spending but it has fallen in real terms after inflation—another broken promise. According to the National Union of Teachers, Fox Hill primary school in my constituency will be £1,003 worse off per pupil than in 2013, and Wisewood Community primary school will be £1,586 worse off per pupil over the same period. By 2019, per pupil funding will have fallen by an average of 11% from 2013 levels.

There are 1.5 million fewer adult learners than there were under the previous Labour Government, and adult skills training has been cut by 54% since 2010. Furthermore, the beleaguered further education sector has fared little better. According to the IFS, by 2020 per student spending will be only just above the level seen 30 years ago at the end of the 1980s.

It is ironic that the Budget fell on International Women’s Day. Tory cuts have disproportionately affected women and, sadly, the Budget does nothing to change that. The Budget hurts the self-employed, low earners and those on benefits while letting the richest off the hook. It is a divisive and unfair Budget, and the Conservatives are clearly not the party of the working people of Britain.

This Budget is, at its heart, deeply unfair. It is also a Budget full of broken promises and missed opportunities, and it will hurt my constituents of Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has subsequently advised me that it is her birthday, too. So again, on both sides of the House, we wish her a very happy birthday.

Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]

John Bercow Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (b) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), leave out “from time to time” and insert

“at least once in every three year period”.

Amendment (a) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

“(d) to allow a parent of any pupil receiving relationships education or relationships and sex education to request that the pupil be wholly or partly excused from receiving that education and for the pupil to be so excused.”

Amendment (c) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), at end insert—

“(e) about arrangements for inspecting the quality of teaching of relationships and sex education at schools in England.”

Amendment (d) to new clause 15, in subsection (4), at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must review the regulations at least three years after they come into force and once in every three year period thereafter.”

Amendment (e), to new clause 15 in subsection (4), at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must review the regulations from time to time.”

Government new clause 16—Other personal, social, health and economic education.

New clause 1—Safeguarding: provision of personal, social and health education—

“(1) For the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children a local authority in England must ensure that pupils educated in their area receive appropriate personal, social and health education.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “personal, social and health education” must include but shall not be restricted to—

(a) sex and relationships education,

(b) same-sex relationships,

(c) sexual consent,

(d) sexual violence,

(e) online and offline personal safety, and

(f) domestic violence and forms of abuse.

(3) Targeted inspections carried out by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) under section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 shall include an assessment of the provision of personal, social and health education under subsection (1), including whether the information provided to pupils is—

(a) accurate and balanced,

(b) age-appropriate,

(c) inclusive,

(d) factual, and

(e) religiously diverse.

(4) Assessments made under subsection (3) must include an evaluation of any arrangements for pupils of sufficient maturity to request to be wholly or partly excused from participating in personal, social and health education.

(5) For the purpose of subsection (4) “sufficient maturity” shall be defined in guidance by the Secretary of State.

(6) Withdrawal from personal, social and health education by pupils under subsection (4) shall not be considered a breach of the safeguarding duties of a local authority.

(7) This section comes into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

New clause 3—Sibling contact for looked after children—

“(1) In section 34(1) of the Children Act 1989, after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).”

(2) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).””

This new clause would ensure that children in care are allowed reasonable contact with their siblings.

New clause 4—Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain—

“(1) Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) ends at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would revoke provisions in the Bill that enable local authorities in England and Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland, and vice versa, two years after the Act comes into force.

New clause 7—Post-removal counselling for parents and legal guardians who are themselves looked after children or care leavers—

“Where a child is permanently removed from the care of a birth parent or a guardian further to any order made pursuant to—

(a) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision orders),

(b) section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placement orders),

(c) section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (adoption orders), or

(d) section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (special guardianship order)

a local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide a counselling service and commission specialist therapeutic support for the parent or guardian where—

(i) the parent or guardian is a looked after child, or

(ii) the parent or guardian is a care leaver.”

This new clause would provide post-removal support for parents who are themselves a looked after child or care leaver.

New clause 8—Former relevant children: provision of sufficient suitable accommodation—

“In the Children Act 1989, after section 23C insert—

“23CA Duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation for former relevant children

(1) It is the duty of a local authority to take reasonable steps to secure sufficient suitable accommodation (whether or not provided by them) within their area to meet the needs of former relevant children, where “former relevant children” has the same meaning as in section 23C(1) of this Act.

(2) In taking steps to secure the outcome in subsection (1), the local authority must—

(a) produce, and make available to all former relevant children, information about the providers of accommodation and the types of accommodation they provide,

(b) be aware of the current and expected future demand for such accommodation and consider how providers might meet that demand, and

(c) have regard to—

(i) the need to ensure the sustainability of the housing market, and

(ii) the need to encourage providers to innovate and continuously improve the quality of such accommodation and the efficiency and effectiveness with which it is provided.””

Local authorities already have a duty to ensure that sufficient accommodation is available for looked after children in their area. This new clause would introduce a similar duty on local authorities to ensure sufficient, suitable accommodation is made available for all care leavers up the age of 21.

New clause 10—Benefit sanctions for care leavers—

“(1) The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 are amended as follows—

(a) in regulation 102(2)—

(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;

(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25”;

(b) in regulation 103(2)—

(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;

(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25”;

(c) in regulation 104(2) after “18 or over” insert “and section (3) does not apply”.

(d) in regulation 104(3) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25.””

This new clause will ensure that the maximum sanction for a care leaver under the age of 25 can be no more than four weeks whilst under the age of 25, in line with 16 and 17 year olds.

New clause 11—National offer for care leavers—

“(1) The table in regulation 36 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 is amended as follows—

(a) in column one after “single claimant aged 25 or over” insert—

“or former relevant child as defined under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 aged under 25”

(b) in column one after “joint claimants where either is aged 25 or over” insert—

“or either are a former relevant child as defined under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 aged under 25”

(2) The Secretary of State will make provisions for bursaries to be available to all care leavers, who are undertaking their first year of a statutory apprenticeship, as defined in the Enterprise Act 2016 (the “care leaver apprenticeship bursary”)—

(a) in this section “care leavers” has the same meaning as section 2(7) of this Act.

(b) The bursary will be administered by local authorities on behalf of the Secretary of State in line with their corporate parenting responsibilities defined in section 1 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017.

(c) The value of the bursary will be of equivalent value to the Higher Education Bursary outlined in The Children Act 1989 (Higher Education Bursary) (England) Regulations 2009.

(d) Bursaries under this section will be disregarded for the purposes of calculating a claimant’s Universal Credit entitlements.

(3) The Housing Benefit Regulations 2009 are amended as follows—

(a) in regulation 2, in the definition of “young individual”, in each of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), for “22 years” substitute “25 years”.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

The National Offer will uprate the financial support available to care leavers under the age of 25 by: (1) extending the over 25 rate of standard allowance of Universal Credit to all care leavers under the age of 25; (2) placing a duty on the Secretary of State to make provisions for all care leavers under the age of 25 and in the first year of an apprenticeship to be paid a £2,000 bursary, which will be distributed by local authorities on her behalf; and (3) delaying the transition onto the Shared Accommodation rate of Local Housing Allowance until the age of 25.

New clause 12—Duty to maintain and report a local safeguarding and welfare capacity register—

“After section 16(E) of the Children Act 2004 (inserted by section 16 of this Act) insert—

“Duty to maintain and report a local safeguarding and welfare capacity register

(1) The safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must assess, and maintain a register of, capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the area.

(2) The assessment must include, but shall not be restricted to, an assessment of the number of additional children, including unaccompanied refugee children, that could be fully supported by children’s social care services in the area.

(3) At least once in every twelve month period—

(a) the safeguarding partners must report the capacity assessment for that period to the Secretary of State, and

(b) the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a single report setting out the information provided under paragraph (a) and any relevant information that may be provided by the devolved administrations.””

This new clause would require local safeguarding partners to assess their capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. This assessment must include the number of additional children the area could support, including unaccompanied refugee children. Local safeguarding partners would be required to report this information to the Secretary of State annually, who in turn would publish and lay before Parliament a single report, which may include any relevant information received from the devolved administrations.

New clause 13—Strategy for safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children—

“(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must develop and publish a strategy for the safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children living in the United Kingdom (“the strategy”).

(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the progress of the strategy’s development at least once in every four week period prior to publication of the strategy.

(3) The strategy must include, but shall not be restricted to—

(a) information clarifying the roles and responsibilities towards unaccompanied refugee children of any public agency the Secretary of State considers relevant, including in particular—

(i) the European Asylum Support Office,

(ii) local government service providers, and

(iii) the Children’s Commissioner;

(b) information clarifying how safeguarding practices should differ for those children covered by the strategy who—

(i) have family members in the United Kingdom, and

(ii) do not have family members in the United Kingdom; and

(c) recommendations on how to ensure full cost reimbursement to public agencies required to provide services under the strategy.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a strategy for safeguarding unaccompanied refugee children.

Amendment (a) to new clause 13, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must consult with devolved administrations before publishing the strategy.”

New clause 14—Local arrangements for reporting on capacity to provide children’s safeguarding and welfare services—

“After section 16E of the Children Act 2004 (inserted by section 16 of this Act) insert—

“Local arrangements for reporting on capacity to provide children’s safeguarding and welfare provision services

(1) At least once in every 12 month period, the safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must report to the Secretary of State on their capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

(2) The report must include, but shall not be restricted to, identification of capacity to provide safeguarding and welfare services to children who could be resettled in the area, including unaccompanied refugee children who could be transferred to the area from abroad including those with existing or current applications for transfer.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the information received under subsection (1) in a single report.””

This new clause would require the local safeguarding partners in an area to report annually to the Secretary of State on what capacity they have to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in that area. This includes what capacity they have to resettle children, including unaccompanied refugee children, in the area. The Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament the information received from local authorities in a single report.

Amendment (a) to new clause 14, after “(1)” insert—

“and any relevant information that may be provided by the devolved administrations”.

New clause 20—Review of access to education for care leavers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an annual review on access for care leavers to—

(a) apprenticeships,

(b) further education, and

(c) higher education.

(2) The first review must take place by the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(3) A report produced following a review under subsection (1) must include, in particular, an assessment of the impact on care leavers’ access to education of—

(a) fee waivers,

(b) grants, and

(c) reduced costs of accommodation.

The report must be made publicly available.”

Amendment 12, in clause 12, page 10, line 30, at end insert—

“(3A) At least one member of the panel appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) must—

(a) be independent from Government, and

(b) have relevant specialist expertise in tackling domestic abuse.”

This amendment would require that at least one member of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has specialist expertise in tackling domestic abuse.

Amendment 1, in clause 16, page 13, line 34, 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.”

Amendment 3, page 13, line 34, at end insert—

“(1A) The safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must conduct and publish a review of the steps taken by that local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children since 1 June 2010, including an assessment of the impact of Government policies since that date.

(1B) The Government policies to be considered under subsection (1A) are those deemed by the safeguarding partners to be relevant to the safeguarding and welfare of children.”

This amendment would require the safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England to conduct a review of steps they have taken to safeguard and promote the welfare of children since 1 June 2010, including an assessment of the impact of Government policies since that date.

Amendment 2, in clause 22, page 17, line 30, at end insert—

“(3) Guidance given by the Secretary of State in connection with functions conferred by section 16E in relation to unaccompanied refugee children must be developed in accordance with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

[Edward Timpson]

I shall deal first with new clauses 15 and 16, which relate to relationships and sex education and personal, social, health and economic education. I shall then respond to key points raised in other new clauses and amendments. I shall ensure that they are covered within the time that is available under the now agreed programme motion, as I am conscious that many other Members wish to speak.

Many Members on both sides of the House have worked hard for some years to increase awareness of the issues to which new clauses 15 and 16 refer and the case for statutory underpinning of relationships and sex education and PSHE, and I thank them for their efforts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), along with the Chairs of the Health, Education, Home Affairs and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committees and the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), have been particularly strong supporters of that approach.

Relationships education, RSE and PSHE can help to ensure that pupils are given the knowledge and skills that they will need to stay safe and develop healthy, supportive relationships. That is particularly important when they are navigating the new challenges of growing up in an online world. Parents, of course, are the primary educators and guides of their children, and we should not forget that: they play a central role both in helping their children to grow up into successful adults and in protecting them from harm. However, parents are telling us that they want schools to help them to deal with what are complex and fast-moving issues to ensure that their children grow up equipped with the knowledge and skills that they need to be safe and successful. Our proposals to make these subjects compulsory are supported by professionals working in the field, by parents and carers, and, importantly, by children and young people themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), I will point out what is demonstrably obvious: more than 10 Members wish to speak. The programme motion that the House has passed—it is not a matter for the Chair—is extremely tight, but I want Back Benchers to be heard. The Minister has set out the Government’s position and the hon. Lady will set out the Opposition’s position, but Back Benchers must be heard.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me reiterate that point and say how disappointing it is that the Government have allocated just 90 minutes to discuss all the issues relating to the welfare of the most vulnerable children, particularly when Back Benchers on both sides of the House contributed so much to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I would like to accommodate more colleagues, so extreme brevity would be hugely helpful.

[Stella Creasy]

In the light of your request for brevity, Mr Speaker, let me be clear that there is a common thread through my points and the amendments that I have tabled: inclusivity, which Members across the House probably support in principle, but in practice, the devil is in the detail of the amendments, and that is why I want to speak.

First, on sex and relationship education, I welcome the moves being made by the Government. It has taken seven years, but finally we will right the wrong whereby while composting and compound interest are on the curriculum, consent is not. I ask the Minister to look at the wording of new clause 1, its explicit reference to same-sex relationships and the importance of being clear during the consultation that we will make sure that children are able to talk about every relationship that they have or may come across in life, and be taught to value them equally. That matters, because 95% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children say that they were not talked to at school about same-sex relationships. When that is so much part of the modern world, it is important that we include it in the modern training that we give our children.

Not least, I want to raise the concerns of teachers from Walthamstow, who said to me that they still live under the spectre of section 28 and the idea that there are things that they cannot talk to children about. The Minister knows my concern that use of the word “appropriate” in his legislation may raise that worry for teachers, so today I look for him to say explicitly that he expects same-sex relationships to be part of the curriculum; that he expects that when bullying is talked about in schools, homophobic bullying will be addressed, at both primary and secondary level; and that we will find a sensitive and religiously inclusive way to cover issues around same-sex relationships, in line with the Equality Act 2010. We should not trade off making progress on some areas of society—through bringing in an ability to talk about consent and domestic abuse—against not making progress on gay rights in other sections of our society. The Minister will point to the 1996 wording that the legislation echoes, but we had section 28 in 1996; this is 2017. Let us make sure that when we make progressive legislation, it is truly progressive.

It is important that we have inclusivity when it comes to child refugees. That is why I want to raise amendment 1 and speak in support of new clause 14 and amendment 2. In October, I asked the Prime Minister to tell us what had happened to the 178 children of whom her Government had been notified who would qualify, under the Dubs amendment, to come to our country but had gone missing from France. Six months on, I am still waiting for a response, but those 178 children are just a fraction of the 10,000 children who have been reported missing in Europe over the refugee crisis. Some 120,000 unaccompanied children—orphans—have come to Europe since 2015. The Dubs amendment is designed to help those children. We agreed as a House that we would do our bit for them, but what kind of a “bit” are we doing? We are talking about 350 children, which equates to 0.002% of all unaccompanied child refugees in Europe. When we debated Dubs, we talked about 3,000 children, which would be just 0.025% of them.

It is right that people should be concerned about what other countries are doing and that we hold the French, Greeks and Italians accountable for their treatment of these children, but Turkey alone is taking 2.8 million Syrian refugees; how can we hold our heads high if we do not do our bit as well? The Dubs scheme is about us doing our bit.

New clause 14 is explicit about safeguarding the children who have applications for transfer—the children in the camps now. I agree with Members who talk about pull factors; the pull factor is safety. We are talking about Afghan children running from the Taliban, Sudanese children running from rape and murder, and Oromo children running from political persecution. They are pulled to our shore for safety. Closing the Dubs scheme will not stop that pull factor, but it will make the traffickers the most attractive proposition those children have. Crucially, amendment 1 and new clause 14 identify our responsibility for involvement in the safeguarding process; we should involve not just the Home Office but the Department for Education. That is where amendment 2 comes from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We will hear from a few more contributors, I hope.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I shall speak to my amendment (a) to new clause 15, which would give all parents a chance to withdraw their children from relationships education. As you know, Mr Speaker, there is already a right, long enshrined in our laws, for parents to withdraw children from sex education. I want to ask the Government why parents are to be allowed to continue to withdraw their children from sex education, but not from relationship education. It is an important point. The Supreme Court, in answer to the desire of the Scottish Government to impose itself between children and their families, ruled:

“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”

Those of us who support the amendment believe that parents have the primary duty, and of course a desire, to bring up their children and educate them in their own values. The state should not impose its values on parents.

Frankly, the Government’s thinking on the matter is confused. Their policy statement says:

“We have committed to retain parents’ right to withdraw their child from sex education within RSE (other than sex education in the National Curriculum as part of science), as currently, but not from relationships education at primary. This is because parents should have the right to teach this themselves in a way which is consistent with their values.”

That document rightly justifies the right to withdrawal from sex education, but offers no justification whatever for the inconsistent and aberrant decision not to extend that right to relationships education.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I must finish. If we respect the rights of parents over sex education, why trample all over their rights when it comes to relationships education? It is understandable that some will view this as a state takeover bid for parenting.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with commendable succinctness, which allows me to call Angela Smith.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on amendment 12, which is in my name. It seeks to ensure that the proposed child safeguarding practice review panel includes an independent domestic abuse expert.

The recent Women’s Aid report “Nineteen Child Homicides” outlined the depth of the challenge of child protection in families where one parent is abusive. It identified strong evidence that, when arrangements for child contact are being made where there is a history of domestic violence, the current workings of the family justice system support a pro-contact approach, which can undermine the best interests of the child or children.

On average, only 1% of applications for contact are refused, but domestic abuse is identified as an issue in up to 70% of family proceedings cases. In three quarters of cases where courts have ordered contact with an abusive parent, the children have suffered further abuse. Clearly, therefore, significant safeguarding concerns result from the management of child contact arrangements. Indeed, the report I referred to highlighted the cases of 19 children in 12 families who were killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse in circumstances related to unsafe contact.

Research has identified a range of key lessons for the child protection system in relation to child contact in families where one parent is abusive. Those lessons are critical to the Bill’s aim of improving local safeguarding. In particular, understanding abusive partners’ coercive control of women and children is critical to improving child safeguarding.

On the proposed role of the child safeguarding practice review panel, my amendment would ensure that the concerns I have outlined are heard, by making sure the panel included at least one recognised independent specialist domestic abuse expert. In Committee, the Minister seemed to agree with that proposal when he stated that the panel would bring a more systematic and comprehensive approach to pulling together knowledge and understanding for cases involving an issue of national importance and relevance, and as far as I am concerned, domestic violence is an issue of national importance. By putting such an expert on the panel, the Government would also address their stated desire for it to provide social work practitioners with specialist advice and the best available research and evidence on domestic abuse and children.

I will push the issue to a vote if you allow me to, Mr Speaker, because the Government could act on it very easily and very quickly, and it would benefit women and children up and down the country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I emphasise that I would like to call the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) from the Scottish National party as well, so extreme brevity is required.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I rise to speak in warm support of new clause 15 and to congratulate the Government. The Minister will remember that I served on the Public Bill Committee and spoke in support of the then new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I very much welcome the two safeguards in the new clause—on age-appropriateness and parental rights to withdraw—which I think address the points that have been raised.

This is a new clause—a 21st-century clause—for a 21st-century education system and for the world in which we live, and it reflects the deep need to provide our young people with the education and skills they require to meet challenges that many of us on the Conservative Benches did not face when we were their age.

Many people rail against the rates of divorce, abortion, teenage pregnancy and the like, and I am absolutely convinced that there must be a causal link between those statistics and the very patchy and relatively poor levels of sex and relationship education we have had in this country hitherto.

The new clause appears to have garnered the support of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am a member, as well as of Barnardo’s, the Terrence Higgins Trust and others. I would therefore suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are clearly on to something and are approaching it in the right way.

We do nothing that could be described as moral if we leave our young people unprepared to meet the challenges of relationships and modern life. I certainly support the fact—I raised this in the Adjournment debate brought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—that the clause covers academies and free schools. Given the direction of travel in the education environment, that seems entirely appropriate, and I support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

[Mr Speaker]

We are making commendable progress—even greater progress, if that is imaginable, than I had anticipated, as may be apparent to colleagues.

Schedule 4

Oversight by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care

Amendments made: 18, page 47, line 26, leave out from beginning to “in” in line 27 and insert—

“( ) Section 25 (the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care) is amended as follows.

( ) .”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 19.

Amendment 19, page 47, line 29, at end insert—

“( ) For subsection (3A) substitute—

(3A) A reference in an enactment to a body mentioned in subsection (3) is not (unless there is express provision to the contrary) to be read as including—

(a) a reference to Social Work England, or

(b) a reference to the Health and Care Professions Council, or a regulatory body within subsection (3)(j), so far as it has functions relating to social care workers in England.”

( ) In subsection (3B) for the definition of “the social work profession in England” and “social care workers in England” substitute—

““social care workers in England” has the meaning given in section 60 of the 1999 Act.””—(Edward Timpson.)

This ensures that references in legislation to a regulatory body mentioned in section 25(3) of the National Health Service Reform and Health and Care Professions Act 2002 do not generally include a reference to Social Work England.

[Mr Speaker]

Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motions, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by the Doorkeepers. I know they will be of very consuming interest to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is greatly seized of the importance and content of these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mr Speaker]

I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified the following provisions of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 8 and 9.

I have certified the following provisions of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 1 to 7, 11 to 31 and 41 to 67, new clauses 15 to 18 added to the Bill on Report and schedules 2 to 4.

For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(4), I have certified the following amendment made to the Bill since Second Reading as relating exclusively to England and Wales: amendment 13 to clause 62, made in the Public Bill Committee.

Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office. Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?

[Edward Timpson]

indicated assent.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Natascha Engel in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Karen Buck. Not here. Well, one person who is here—I can see that very clearly, to my great satisfaction—is the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames).

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

2. What her plans are for education funding in West Sussex.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I listened carefully to the response from the Secretary of State, who has not broadened the matter, and therefore the question appertains exclusively to West Sussex.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s Chester constituency is a considerable distance from West Sussex, but if, and only if, his question focuses exclusively upon West Sussex—

[Christian Matheson]

Almost exclusively, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

No, exclusively. Get in there, man.

[Christian Matheson]

West Sussex’s education funding has increased by 1.9%—I am very pleased to hear that—but other areas close to West Sussex will have received cuts of up to 1.3%, so why is West Sussex being treated so much more generously?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a very fine man, but I am not sure that he would triumph if he appeared on “Just a Minute”.

[Justine Greening]

I recognise that the funding formula means that schools will receive different settlements from the ones that they have had in the past. We are trying to ensure that every single child, wherever they are growing up in England, gets the same amount of funding, but that there is then a top-up in relation to additional needs, such as in respect of deprivation, which has been based on out-of-date data up until now, or indeed additional funding for low prior attainment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. By his earlier reference to the situation “across the country”, the Minister extended the question beyond Devon, allowing other would-be contributors to ask a question.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

The head of one of my local academy trusts tells me that his school will lose more than 2.5% of its overall budget as a result of the national funding formula alone. That figure is higher than the 1.5% cap promised by the Government. Does the Minister share the trust’s view that the cuts will have the biggest impact on deprived and vulnerable children? If so, what are the Government doing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I am sure my hon. Friend will want to make those points as part of the consultation that is under way, but as he will be aware, our formula looks at area cost adjustments that take into account variations in not only the general labour market but specifically the teaching labour markets. Such an approach is designed to compensate schools that face higher wage costs. We have a measure that is based on salaries, which we think is the best way, but as I said, this is a consultation and I am sure he will want to put the point he makes into it.

[Mr Speaker]

It is quite a long way over the border to Liverpool, Wavertree, but there we go. I call Luciana Berger.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

During these questions, we seem to be dealing with some “alternative facts”. According to the details I have in front of me, Liverpool schools are set to lose £3.6 million. I visited a primary school in Picton in my constituency—Picton is one of the most deprived wards in the country—that is going to lose more than 10% of its budget; we are talking about more than £100,000 for some of the most deprived children in this country. Can the Government please explain to Labour Members, and to the whole House, exactly what is going on and why they seem to be presenting something very different from what our schools are having to contend with in reality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman’s question. He often does not see the apprentice wood for the apprentice trees. We now have the highest number of apprenticeships on record in our island’s history at 899,000, with more than 780,000 apprenticeship starts since May 2015. We are investing millions in ensuring that employers and providers hire apprentices. We have a record to be proud of.

[Mr Speaker]

We need to speed up.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

10. What discussions she has had with the Home Secretary on the Government’s student immigration policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

One last question—the voice of Luton North, Mr Kelvin Hopkins.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

14. What comparative assessment she has made of the sixth-form education system in England and education systems in other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Caroline Dinenage)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that our early years workforce is one of our greatest assets. We will shortly be releasing a workforce strategy, which will outline how we want to improve what already exists. We need to help employers to attract, to retain and to develop their staff to deliver the very highest quality of early years provision.

[Mr Speaker]

Short questions and short answers, please.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

T4. As part of the fair funding consultation, will the Secretary of State consider establishing a minimum level of funding per school?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend will know that 22% of the schools in his borough will see an increase in funding, and per-pupil funding on average in Harrow remains high, at £4,792 per pupil. That is higher than in many local authority areas around the country.

[Mr Speaker]

Of topical length, please, Mr Greg Mulholland.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Leeds is reviewing its support for transport to school for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and there is a risk that people over-16 may not get such funding. Will the Government commit to ensuring that all children in such a situation in the country get the funding they need for transport to school?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of the cost to the public purse, I hope, rather than a rerun of all the arguments, which would be very tedious.

[Richard Arkless]

I think the whole House would like to know that we got value for money in that judgment, and of course there are lots of rights and obligations in many Acts of Parliament and it is the courts’ job to interpret them. Can the Attorney General explain why the Supreme Court held that the Sewel provisions in an Act of Parliament were not a matter for the courts?

[The Attorney General]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will read the judgment carefully: it says that whereas the Sewel convention might be important politically, it is not a matter for the courts to enforce. That was perfectly properly for the Supreme Court to say. What respect the Sewel convention is given in political terms is of course not a matter for the court. The judgment made that clear.

[Mr Speaker]

The operative words are “public purse” and “fees”. Can we stick to that? It would be helpful.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

If the Government were genuinely motivated to spend this money by wanting a definitive answer from the courts on a constitutional question, why did they not thank the judges in the divisional court in November for such a clear answer, instead of being in a position where the Justice Secretary had to be pressured into giving a lukewarm defence of them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I did not realise that my hon. Friend was quite that young. He sets out the serious point that the world has changed immeasurably since 2000. Children now learn about relationships in different ways, but the challenge is that they are learning about them in ways that give them a skewed, inaccurate view of what relationships are about. It is important to look at how we can ensure that the guidance genuinely works and reflects the world as it is today, therefore giving ourselves and our children a better chance to get the education that they need.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s beard is deceptive.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend have a word with our excellent Secretary of State for Education and identify the best schools in the country that tackle homophobic bullying and sexual harassment together with the parents of their pupils, and roll out that best practice across the country?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is being invited to talk to herself.

[Justine Greening]

I will not comment on that, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that many schools are doing that—I visited a school in Birmingham that is doing great work in this area. Excellent work is under way, but it is now time to look at how we can learn from what works and see that percolate through our school system so that all schools can do a better job for all children on teaching SRE.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Given that it is now 42 years since Barbara Castle’s Equal Pay Act, why is there any gender pay gap, not only for 30 and 40-year-olds but for people in their teens, twenties, fifties and sixties?

[Mr Speaker]

I thought it was 47 years this year, but maybe my maths is wrong. It was certainly a long time ago.

[Sir Simon Burns]

Wasn’t it 1975?

[Mr Speaker]

I thought it was 1970. [Interruption.] Anyway, we are agreed that it is a long-standing statute.

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes, I think we can all agree that it has been a long old time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) is right to point this out. We have legislation that stops people being paid differently for doing the same job, but what drives the gender pay gap is the fact that girls tend to go into lower paid sectors compared with men and, of course, the pay gap really kicks in at around 30 and 40 when women leave work to have children and may not be supported back into the workplace as well as we would want. That is why gender pay gap reporting is so vital.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all now better informed.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

3. What steps she has taken in response to trends in the level of racially motivated incidents since the EU referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I totally agree that such behaviour is unacceptable, and we should not tolerate it in any form. I regularly go running, and I have been stopped for selfies, but never subjected to any catcalling. We can do more. Sport England’s This Girl Can campaign and other initiatives have really helped to narrow the gender gap in sports participation. The new Active Lives survey demonstrates that 59% of women are now doing at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, which is the amount recommended by the Chief Medical Officer, but we can do much more to ensure that there are no barriers to women participating in sport.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the Minister has been stopped for selfies because of the quality of her running, her celebrity status or, more likely, both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Again, I recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the report. It is decades—in fact, many decades—of patching and mending that has led to patching and mending no longer being practicable in the opinion of the authors of the report, so clearly a number of major issues need to be addressed.

[Mr Speaker]

We are out of time, but I really want to hear the last question, not least because the hon. Gentleman is a newly elected and extremely keen member of the Committee about whose name he is concerned. I call Mr Philip Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

7. If he will bring forward proposals to change the name of the Women and Equalities Committee to the Equalities Committee.

School Funding

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

There are five remaining would-be contributors and the Front-Bench speeches to wind up the debate should start at or extremely close to 6.40. Two minutes each will suffice and colleagues can help each other.

Technical and Further Education Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Representative panels—

‘(1) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education shall establish—

(a) a panel of persons undertaking approved English apprenticeships; and

(b) a panel of persons undertaking study towards approved technical education qualifications.

(2) A panel under subsection (1)(a) shall be established by 1 April 2017 and shall advise the Board of the Institute on all matters concerning approved English apprenticeships.

(3) A panel under subsection (1)(b) shall be established by 1 April 2018 and shall advise the Board of the Institute on all matters concerning technical education qualifications.’

This new clause would establish representative panels of apprentices and of learners in technical education who are not doing apprenticeships.

New clause 4—Careers education: duty to publish strategy—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a strategy for the purposes of improving careers education for persons receiving education or training—

(a) in the course of an approved English apprenticeship;

(b) for the purposes of an approved technical education qualification; or

(c) for the purposes of approved steps towards occupational competence.

(2) The strategy shall be laid before Parliament.

(3) The strategy shall specify provisions under which the Secretary of State will seek to—

(a) ensure that persons receiving education or training under subsection (1) receive information, advice and guidance relating to their future careers, and that such information, advice and guidance is delivered in a way which meets each person’s needs and is impartial;

(b) ensure that such information, advice and guidance may be taken into account by relevant authorities and partners to meet the needs of local or combined authority areas;

(c) ensure parity of esteem between technical, further and higher education; and

(d) monitor the outcomes of such information, advice and guidance for recipients.

(4) The provisions specified in subsection (3) shall have specific regard to particular needs of different groups of persons receiving education or training under subsection (1), including—

(a) persons with special educational needs;

(b) care leavers;

(c) persons of different ethnicities;

(d) carers, carers of children, or young carers, as defined by the Care Act 2014; and

(e) persons who have other particular needs that may be determined by the Secretary of State.

(5) The strategy shall include guidance for the purposes of improving careers education, to which the following bodies shall have regard—

(a) the Office for Standards in Education, Children‘s Services and Skills;

(b) the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education; and

(c) the Office for Students.

(6) The Secretary of State shall by regulations designate relevant authorities and partners for the purposes of subsection (3)(b).

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate—

(a) further groups of persons under subsection (4)(e); and

(b) further national authorities or bodies under subsection (5).

(8) Regulations made under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(9) For the purposes of this section, “careers education” means education about different careers and occupations and potential courses or qualifications to attain those careers and occupations.’

This new clause would establish a statutory requirement for the Government to produce a strategy on careers education, which shall be taken to be the “Careers Strategy”.

Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 21, line 13, at end insert—

‘(4) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in performing its functions must have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in connection with access to, and participation in, education or training provided in a form specified in subsection (6).’

This amendment would ensure that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education must have due regard for widening access and participation.

Amendment 5, page 21, line 13, at end insert—

‘(4) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in performing its functions must co-operate with the Apprenticeship Delivery Board on progression into, and delivery of, apprenticeships.’

This amendment would ensure that the Institute has a duty to co-operate with the Apprenticeship Delivery Board.

Amendment 6, page 21, line 13, at end insert—

‘2A After section ZA2 (general duties) insert—

“ZA2A Expenditure by the Institute

In the discharge of its duties and functions under this Chapter, the Institute shall in any one year expend a sum no less than the sum projected to be raised under the Apprenticeship Levy in that year.”’

Amendment 7, page 22, line 2, after “to” insert “state-funded”.

Amendment 8, page 22, line 23, at end insert—

‘(1A) In making determinations under subsection (1)(a) on occupations relating to apprenticeships, the Institute shall attach particular importance to the needs of apprentices aged between 16 and 24.’.

This amendment would ensure the mapping of occupation groups has particular regard for people aged 16-24 taking apprenticeships.

Amendment 9, page 23, line 2, at end insert—

‘(2A) Outcomes under subsection (2)(b) shall include recognised technical qualifications.’.

This amendment would ensure that all apprenticeship standards include a recognised technical qualification.

Amendment 10, page 28, line 6, leave out “course document” and insert

“standard or technical assessment design specification”.

Amendment 11, page 28, line 9, leave out “another person” and insert “other persons”.

Amendment 12, page 28, line 10, leave out “another person” and insert “other persons”.

Amendment 13, page 28, line 12, leave out section A2IA(4).

Amendment 14, page 28, line 17, after “education” insert “route”.

Amendment 15, page 28, line 28, after “education” insert “route”.

Amendment 17, page 28, line 30, leave out section A3A(2)(c).

Amendment 16, page 28, line 32, after “education” insert “route”.

Amendment 18, page 28, line 39, after “Ofsted” insert “, the QAA”.

Amendment 19, page 29, line 1, after “Ofsted” insert “, the QAA”.

Amendment 20, page 29, line 3, after “England,” insert

“including those offered by Higher Education Institutions,”.

Amendment 21, page 29, line 13, at end insert—

‘“QAA” means the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.’

Amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21 would ensure that the QAA would be included in the list of organisations required to share information and that degree apprenticeships were fully covered by this requirement.

[Gordon Marsden]

Mr Speaker, may I, on behalf of everybody in the Chamber, wish you, the Deputy Speakers—one of them is taking your place as I speak—and all your officials a very happy new year, and the same to all Members of the House?

The issue we are pursuing this evening is whether this will be a happier new year for apprentices and the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. The Government will know that the Opposition have been broadly supportive of the process that they are bringing forward, although it was somewhat forced upon them when their original mechanism, which was to get many of these things through in the academies Bill, was shipwrecked—the academies Bill mark 2 proved to be no more popular with some of their Back Benchers than the academies Bill mark 1. We therefore got a fairly rapid notice of the Technical and Further Education Bill before Christmas.

Having said that, we had a good Committee stage and I want to pay tribute to the Minister for his conviviality and the constructive way in which he responded to us. Of course, as the old saying goes, fine words butter no parsnips, but I hope that by the end of this evening we will have at least a few parsnips buttered.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

As a former Acton resident, the Secretary of State will I am sure share the concern of local parents that the Ark primary school—secured with much fanfare in East Acton to match its near neighbour, which has an outstanding reputation—now has a full roll of students and a secured site but no physical building. Will she do everything she can to pressure the education funding authority to find the shortfall that Balfour Beatty wants for its bid price? East Acton is the most deprived ward of Ealing borough. It is in the bottom decile for the whole country and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady has made her point with great force and eloquence, but it does not need to be made at any greater length.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

I was going to ask the Minister to issue further guidance. I do not think the 9 December guidance had been issued when I tabled the question, so I am grateful for that and encourage him to look at special needs schools operating within multi-academy trusts solely as special needs schools. There is an enormous difference in special needs schools between thousands of pupils and hundreds of pupils.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by the power of his own question tabling.

[Edward Timpson]

I expect nothing less from my hon. Friend in terms of the pressure he is able to bring to bear on the Government. He raises an important issue. We continue to support and provide guidance for the growing number of MATs in this area. I encourage any newly forming MATs to get in touch with their regional schools commissioner, who will be able to support them and help to direct them towards further sources of support.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)]

All this getting up and down is good practice for Christmas—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the Minister knows that he is going to answer the next question, he is very welcome to remain standing at the Dispatch Box. No one would think that there was anything disorderly or unreasonable about that, and he should feel welcome to do so.

[Robert Halfon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, but it is good for the calories in advance of Christmas.

We are committed to ensuring that apprenticeships are as accessible as possible to all people from all backgrounds, and we are making available more than £60 million to support apprenticeship take-up by individuals from disadvantaged areas. Our get in, go far campaign aims to encourage more young people to apply for an apprenticeship and more employers to offer opportunities. We are increasing the number of traineeships to further support young people into apprenticeships and other work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

Well done! We have strengthened primary maths assessment to prioritise fluency in written calculation and we have removed the use of calculators from key stage 2 tests.

We have not made an assessment of the proportion of children in Northamptonshire or England who know their multiplication tables by heart, but we have pledged to introduce a multiplication tables check for primary school pupils in England to ensure that every child leaves primary school fluent in their times tables up to and including 12 times 12, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) says, is 144.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all very much better informed.

[Mr Hollobone]

Does the Minister agree that learning the times tables is an absolutely essential part of success at maths? What is the Government’s official view on the best way for times tables to be taught and learned?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is too modest in declining to take the opportunity to say that he has, over many years, led by example through his repeated and impressive marathon running, with which the whole House should by now be well familiar.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Physical activity is really important to equip the next generation with the skills to contend with both their physical and mental health. Alone, however, it will not contend with our nation’s obesity crisis; we know from the child measurement figures how challenging that issue is for our country. Will the Government be bringing forward compulsory personal, social, health and economic education so that we can equip the next generation with the knowledge and skills to know what they should be eating as well as what physical activity they should be doing?

[Edward Timpson]

I have already told the House that PE is compulsory at all four key stages. The Secretary of State has set out the need to improve the access to, and the quality of, PSHE, and we are continuing to look at that very carefully. Just to stop the press, I will be taking part in the London marathon again next year to continue my efforts to lead by example.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is genuinely a hero in his own times.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I, too, would like to wish the Secretary of State and all Members of the House a merry Christmas, but it ain’t going to be a very merry Christmas for our schools. The recent Government consultation document says there will be a floor on schools’ funding so that no school will lose more than 3% of its funding per pupil as a result of the changes to the funding formula—a hugely necessary protection, as some schools face cuts that are too severe to manage. Not only has the National Audit Office shown that, despite the floor, schools are facing funding cuts of 8% per pupil, but it has criticised the Department for failing to make the scale of the coming cuts clear. The Secretary of State has two choices—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady will resume her seat. I am sorry, but if we are going to have a right for the Opposition Front Bench to come in on topicals—I make this clear now, with immediate effect—it must be done very briefly; otherwise, it completely absorbs the time that is for Back Benchers. A single sentence from the hon. Lady will suffice.

[Angela Rayner]

Thank you—sorry, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has two choices: will she cut the funding in 2020, or will she issue guidance to schools on what those cuts will be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Shortage of time is good reason to call a master of brevity: Mr John Redwood.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When will pupils be able to take up places in the new grammars envisaged in the Secretary of State’s policy?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Finally, whether she is a mistress of brevity or not, I call Fiona Mactaggart.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Headteachers in Slough schools were very grateful to the Minister for School Standards when he met them to discuss teacher shortages. Unfortunately—I am sorry to bring this to the Chamber—I have reminded him twice since then that they have not received the letter that he promised them at that meeting. Can I expect it to be sent before Christmas?

[Mr Gibb]

I will do my utmost to ensure that they receive a letter. I enjoyed meeting them and they raised some very important points, but we are ensuring that we are filling teacher training places. There are more teachers in our initial teacher training system now than there were last year.

[Mr Speaker]

Well done.

National Funding Formula: Schools/High Needs

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Wishing the fellow a full recovery, I call Mr Julian Knight.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome both the substance and the tone of the statement. Schools in Solihull receive £1,300 a year less per pupil than those in nearby Birmingham. As a result, we lose teachers to Birmingham. Will the Secretary of State assure me that at least some of that unfairness will be addressed during this Parliament?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

It slightly pains me to call an Everton supporter today, but I do so nevertheless.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I will keep the gloating to a minimum, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State is dressing it up very well, but the reality of what she has announced is that some schools in the most deprived parts of the country, which face the biggest challenges, will have money taken away from them and given to schools elsewhere. Would it not have been much fairer for her to have asked the Chancellor for more money to bring the gap up that way? Instead, she is making schools in the toughest areas make teachers redundant to pay for this change.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

We have the strongest legal framework in the world, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which came into force in July last year. The Law Officers are supporting the Prime Minister’s taskforce on modern slavery, and the Crown Prosecution Service continues to see a year-on-year increase in the numbers of prosecutions.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to group Question 1 with Questions 6 and 8.

[The Solicitor General]

Forgive me, Mr Speaker. I make that application to group the questions in that order.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

8. What steps the Government are taking to increase the number of prosecutions for modern slavery.

[Mr Speaker]

Good; and the hon. Gentleman may be learned, but if not, I am sure it is only a matter of time.

[Andrew Stephenson]

One of the main areas of modern slavery that we are uncovering in Lancashire is the trafficking and subsequent sexual exploitation of women. Often these victims will not come forward because they are being controlled through fear and violence. What more can my hon. and learned Friend do to support vulnerable women through the process?

[Mr Speaker]

I call James Cleverly. Not here. I assume the hon. Gentleman was notified of the intended grouping. In that case, where on earth is the fella?

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

On the train.

[Mr Speaker]

No doubt.

[Seema Kennedy]

Can my hon. and learned Friend tell me a bit more about what the Crown Prosecution Service is doing to prosecute this type of offence in the north-west of England?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The independent review commissioned by the Prime Minister that the Solicitor General has referred to expressed concern about the insufficient quality and quantity of intelligence at national, regional and international level, which it is said hampers our operational response. What steps does the Solicitor General think can be taken to ensure that our exit from the European Union does not further hamper our operational response?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

As I was saying, Mr Speaker, the cross-Government hate crime action plan, published in July 2016, focuses on the reduction of hate crime, the increasing of reporting, and ensuring that all criminal justice partners deliver the appropriate outcomes for victims.

[Mr Speaker]

I realise that, as a distinguished lawyer, the hon. and learned Gentleman’s speciality is words—preferably a large number of them—rather than numbers.

[David Rutley]

Like many others in the Chamber, I was very concerned about the spike in the number of racial and religiously aggravated offences after the referendum. Will my hon. and learned Friend please tell the House whether that trend has continued in recent months?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The late Professor Gary Slapper, the well-known commentator and columnist who sadly died at the weekend, was a considerable crusader for informing the law on corporate responsibility. It would be a tribute to his memory if we were to work on that.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should also look at two other matters? The first is the so-called Magnitsky arrangements for freezing the assets of those involved in corruption. Secondly, in order to enforce that, we must maintain the operational independence of the Serious Fraud Office.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that three points satisfy the hon. Gentleman’s palette.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady raises a very important question. I will have to look into this matter and reply to her in writing.

[Mr Speaker]

It is a very important question, but, unfortunately, it is somewhat different from the question on the Order Paper. That may explain the Minister’s need to undertake some important research, the fruits of which I am sure we will witness in due course.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Having a disability-accessible train service is hugely important, but disabled people need to be able to get to the train station in the first place. What is the Minister doing to make sure that local authorities have a more consistent approach to making our built environment more disability-accessible, particularly in making sure that we have more consistency in shared space schemes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. What with oral and written questions, Opposition day debates, Backbench Business day debates, business questions and Select Committees, there are doubtless more opportunities for Members to raise these issues today than there were when Mr Barnett invented Barnett consequentials in the late 1970s. Many avenues are available. As I have said, however, the Procedure Committee is looking into the matter in some detail, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to take part in that inquiry. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

It is good of the Leader of the House to drop into his own questions session. We are immensely grateful.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

The floods of 2013 were devastating in Somerset, and my constituency covered half the flooded area. The Somerset Rivers Authority was established to deal with flood resilience, and the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government gave assurances that the authority could be funded through a precept on our council tax bills. May I have an assurance that work on the framework for such an arrangement is under way?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is absolutely fascinating material, especially in Taunton Deane, but I question whether it has any particular relationship with the issue of Barnett consequentials. I am sure that that is a matter to which the hon. Lady will devote her grey cells in the hours that follow.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

A few seconds ago, the Deputy Leader of the House cited this question time as an appropriate mechanism for scrutiny of Barnett consequentials. Will he therefore tell us what the current Barnett consequential is for the health service in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

If it is all the same with my hon. Friend, I would rather not.

[Mr Speaker]

We certainly do not want the right hon. Gentleman to go to the cellars and stay there until 2022; we would miss him greatly.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

On timetabling, can the Deputy Leader of the House say what progress has been made in government in securing a money resolution for the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by a majority of 216 on Second Reading four weeks ago?

[Mr Speaker]

That has nothing to do with sitting in September 2017. The House is in a very curious mood today; questions are very interesting, but they suffer from the disadvantage of bearing little or absolutely no relation to the matter on the Order Paper. But the Deputy Leader of the House is a barrister, so if he cannot respond, nobody can.

[Michael Ellis]

The Government are making calculations on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

The concern has been that questions could be ruled out of order by the Chairman or that they might not be answered substantively, and that less time would be available for questions that had been balloted for in the usual way. This is simply an attempt by the House to ensure that the time is allocated as efficiently as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I have no idea who this Chairman person is, but I will give the matter a bit of thought and see if I can work it out.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have every sympathy with what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) is proposing, Mr Speaker, but you are always very kind and assiduous in ensuring that all right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland get a chance to ask our questions. If we had topical questions, that would reduce those opportunities. Could we instead have more time for Northern Ireland questions?

Education and Social Mobility

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Opposition day motion on education and social mobility. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I should advise the House that a very substantial number of Back Benchers have applied to speak—no fewer than 28, if memory serves. Realistically, I imagine, the debate will not run beyond 4 pm or, at the latest, 4.30 pm. Of course there is no time limit on Front-Bench speeches. Front Benchers tend to take significant numbers of interventions, perfectly properly, and that is favoured by the House, but I am sure that those on both Front Benches will wish to tailor their contributions in the light of what I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Talking of excellence in sport, does my hon. Friend agree that we should celebrate the fact that Mo Farah, who grew up and went to a state school in my constituency, has succeeded on the world stage? The school that he attended is now suffering from cuts, which mean that it is referring more than 40% of its pupils for mental health support services.

[Mr Speaker]

He is also a staunch Arsenal fan, which makes him an even greater man.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. We need to make sure that every child, regardless of their background, makes the best progress in life. We know that selection is not the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On account of the level of demand, there is a requirement for the imposition of a time limit. We will begin with a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but the time limit on Back-Bench speeches must now be reduced to five minutes with immediate effect.