Apprenticeships

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Nigel Evans

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We tried to push the Government on that. The old rule of thumb used to be that for every £1 million-worth of procurement an apprentice was taken on. The Minister should seriously look again at that, because it is a way of stimulating demand for apprenticeships.

The point made earlier about 10-week programmes makes a mockery of the brand and looks like statistical gerrymandering to all those responsible for delivering quality apprenticeships. They are not what people out there believe to be apprenticeships; they are training programmes. They are very welcome in the vocational field, but they are not apprenticeships. While the Government take credit for all that they have done and for the current level of apprenticeships, many Members seem to forget that some current apprentices in traditional occupations started their apprenticeships under the Labour Government. For example, my beloved son is an apprentice electrician, which is a four-year programme. Perhaps I am being cynical, but the Government seem to be systematically rebranding work experience programmes as apprenticeships, and I genuinely hope that that is not the case.

The reason for my scepticism probably has something to do with a recent incident in my constituency of Liverpool, Walton. I keep questioning why the Government, who claim to be so dedicated to reducing unemployment and increasing apprenticeship numbers, allowed the National Construction Academy in Aintree to close its doors on their watch. Not only will the decision deny up to 80 young people each year the chance of accessing training via the centre, but Walton is unfortunately home to the sixth highest level of unemployment in the country.

The Minister will know that I have the greatest admiration for his undeniable appreciation of vocational routes into employment, but surely he must understand the relationship between public sector spending and private sector growth. Despite the coalition’s at times relentless desire to drive a wedge between the public and private sectors, the two are heavily interlinked and mutually co-reliant, as can be seen in the construction sector, for instance. As I have said on a number of occasions since becoming a Member of Parliament, the symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors means that cutting one makes the other bleed. Needless to say, the construction sector is haemorrhaging badly at the moment and needs an urgent transfusion. The construction industry has a long history of taking on apprentices, but such programmes have now been savaged, with capital investment slashed—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

There are not many in Liverpool who will shed any tears for the catastrophic downfall of News International and Rupert Murdoch or their belated withdrawal of the deal to purchase BSkyB, although they will sympathise with those innocent of any wrongdoing who have subsequently lost or may lose their jobs.

Twenty-two years ago the people of Merseyside decided to take on The Sun after it lied about the Hillsborough disaster. Although for a short time we received support in other cities, people gradually forgot the smear that had been perpetrated against us, while others preferred to believe what they had read, but nobody forgot on Merseyside. In 1999 the fight for justice for the 96 victims began and it is as strong today—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Winding-up speeches to begin.

Press Self-regulation

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument in favour of press freedoms as the cornerstone of our democracy, but I am sure he will agree that with press freedom there should equally be press responsibility. I cite the example of the worst sporting disaster in British history, when 96 football supporters were killed at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989. In the immediate aftermath of that human tragedy, press reporting hit an all-time low. Despite the huge loss of life, that most despicable of men, Kelvin MacKenzie, used the front page of The Sun newspaper to peddle lies about Liverpool supporters under the banner headline “The Truth”. When the scurrilous claims that it made were proven to be—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. Please, could the hon. Gentleman make it briefly?

[Steve Rotheram]

When the scurrilous claims that the newspaper made were proven to be entirely fallacious and without foundation, Kelvin MacKenzie refused to print a banner headline of a similar size and font, with the same page prominence that my hon. Friend talks about, stating quite simply that they had lied, something for which he and his former newspaper will never be forgiven in Liverpool. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that if editors were forced to give equal prominence to retractions, they would be think carefully before fabricating stories and besmirching the reputations of individuals or of great cities such as Liverpool?

Education Bill

Debate between Steve Rotheram and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am from Liverpool, so I suppose I am getting used to cuts. I will try to amend my speech to fit the six minutes allocated.

As we have already heard, the Bill covers a wide range of concerns—from school discipline and behaviour to schools admissions and exclusions, setting up new academies and even changes to apprenticeships and the reform of student fees and loans. It is a mishmash of proposals designed not to give everyone the best chance of a good education but to create a three-tier system of the haves, the have-nots and the have-not-got-a-chances. In the future, unless parents have money or good connections, their children will be sent to schools facing massive cuts in their budgets, while money is siphoned off to academies and free schools.

Narrowing the curriculum to five subjects will mean abandoning all the young people who have thrived on vocational courses. Removing the promise of an apprenticeship will leave a legacy of young people who do not fit into this 1950s vision of what an education should be—young people consigned to the scrap heap by a Secretary of State who cares more about Latin and the classics than he does about Liverpool and the educational attainment of children from ordinary working families.

Above all, the Secretary of State is asking this House to strip local authorities of their role in managing the provision of education, and to transfer to him 50 new powers to interfere in and control almost every aspect of our schools system in England, including what subjects our children learn and what kind of schools they go to. Indeed, so much will be affected that, in view of the time, I shall confine my remarks to an aspect of education that gets little attention in the Bill, something that I believe highlights this Government’s misguided priorities.

We on the Labour Benches judge a society by how it treats its most vulnerable, not by how the strong prosper. In that sense, many Members have been right to express deep concern today about what the proposals will mean for the treatment of children with special educational needs. As Ofsted highlights, just over one in five pupils—1.7 million school-age children in England—are identified as having special educational needs. Critically, as a whole, pupils currently identified as having special educational needs are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, are much more likely to be absent or even excluded from school, and achieve less well than their peers, in terms of both attainment at any given age and progress over time.

Getting education right for those young people transforms their chances and our ability as a society to benefit from what they could be, rather than dealing with the consequences of what they never get help to overcome. First and foremost, what many parents of children with SEN in Liverpool will ask about this Bill is: how can we judge what these proposals will mean for those children if we have not even been given notice of when the special educational needs Green Paper that this Government said they would publish will be published? In the absence of such information, the proposals offer little comfort to parents, who fight hard to ensure that their children receive the education they need, whatever their ability.

Many in the Chamber would recognise the challenges that Ofsted identified in its work reviewing SEN schooling and in the special educational needs and disability review. However, that is why it is all the more worrying that the proposals in the Bill have been brought forward without any details outlining what they will mean for children with SEN. Under the present system, a parent of a child with SEN often fights long and hard to get their child statemented, to ensure that they can access the services necessary to address their specific requirements. Under the proposals in the Bill, I fear for those children who need the co-operation of different services to participate in education—for example, children with a disability—or to access speech and language therapy, or mental health support.

It is not just in ensuring that children with special needs are supported that the cross-agency approach is important. Many of the current provisions were introduced as a result of the Laming report, as we heard earlier, following the death of Victoria Climbié, in order to protect the health, safety and well-being of children and young people. I therefore hope that Ministers will offer more than kind words for the parents of children with special educational needs who are listening today, and explain clearly how the Government’s proposals and the removal of the role of local authorities will not lead to a loss in joined-up services for our most vulnerable students. We know that children with SEN or a disability are more likely to face discrimination in admissions. The outcomes of the case often depend on the evidence presented, and if—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.