Department for Education

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michelle Donelan)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me start by saying thank you for the welcome I have received today and by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for opening this important debate. He and I share a lifelong deep passion for education, given our own experiences, and that is why education has always been my personal focus, through our time on the Education Committee, and during my time as Minister for children and families, as Minister for universities and, more recently, as Minister for higher and further education.

I am here today because of the countless teachers, lecturers, school staff, administrative staff, parents, pupils and all those who keep our education system running. They are looking to Westminster today for reassurance that their priorities matter. Exam results day is coming, and covid recovery is ongoing, so I stand here today because I cannot let them down. That is why I believe it is vital that the stories and experiences of real people do not get lost in today’s debate. Forget the Westminster bubble, if you are a parent of a disabled child wondering what this Government are doing to make your local school better equipped and more inclusive, this is the debate for you. If you are a young person building the foundations of your career at college or at university, and wondering what this Government are doing to improve the quality and value of the qualifications you receive, this debate is for you.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on her new appointment. I serve the most income-deprived constituency in the country, yet I am very proud that my constituency sent more children to university than any other constituency in the west midlands last year. In an interview earlier this year, she said that many of the degrees that those students study were Mickey Mouse degrees. Which degrees was she referring to?

[Michelle Donelan]

I have been very consistent on this subject and will continue to be so; every young person deserves to know that when they pick a degree course it is of a high quality. Low-quality courses do nothing to progress social mobility; all they do is limit opportunities, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want for his constituents.

If you are an adult wondering what this Government are doing to help you gain that new job, high wage or new career, this debate is for you. In my maiden speech, I said that it should not matter where someone comes from, it is where they are going that counts, and I said that education is absolutely key. I said all those years ago that what it boils down to is that it is so important that MPs, from across the House, focus on opening doors for our society and opening up opportunities.

Remote Education and Free School Meals

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) [V]]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I want to share a few thoughts from the frontline here in Europe’s youngest city, Birmingham. It is fair to say that many people will have a degree of sympathy, in that this was a crisis that could not have been foreseen, but nor could anybody else have foreseen it, and yet somehow here in this country we have had more lives lost than almost anywhere else, livelihoods have been hit harder than almost anywhere else, and now, as we are going to hear from this debate, more lessons are being lost here than anywhere else. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that young people have a very hard road ahead of them. Here in Birmingham, like everywhere else in Britain, our children have really suffered from the exams fiasco last year. Here in the west midlands, youth services have been cut by two and a half times more than the national average, we have youth unemployment that is over 20%, and now our young people are being punished because they cannot get the education they need at home.

I was glad to hear that the Secretary of State is now interested in social policy. Let me share some data with him. We surveyed 443 schools last week in Birmingham, and I thank Ian Ward, the leader of the council, and cabinet member Jayne Francis for organising that. All but one of the respondents said that they had problems with technology for children at home. Some secondary schools are saying that they are 400 laptops short, 70% said that there were problems with connectivity and almost all of them said that there were problems getting through to the DFE. Listen to Maddie Bromley from Court Farm Primary School: “Deprived school. Allocation 51 laptops, only 10 arrived. Still waiting on the rest. Had to chase Government repeatedly.” Or Helen Slack, the head of Twickenham Primary School: “No allocation for years 1, 2 and 3. Parents ringing in tears. Can’t get an answer from the Department for Education.” Another school said: “We are an infant school. We have been ignored by the DFE.” And another: “As an infant school, we were not eligible for laptops.” Another head said: “We have been in desperate need for laptops. Any help appreciated, thank you.”, and another told me: “We have requested over 15 times now from the Department for Education and still haven’t had a response.” Some are reporting that there are anywhere between 70 and 250 parents in desperate need of technology support. This is a shambles. I say thank you to Birmingham City Council and thank you to Graeme Brown, the editor of the Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Mail for offering to jump into the breach and organise laptop collections, because where the Department has failed, we now need the good people and the good companies of Birmingham to come together to fill the breach.

Education

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

The purpose of requiring consultation between the school and parental groups is to dispel the myths that build up about the content. If parents have concerns about the content that is being taught, schools should take them very seriously. We worked very carefully on the wording of the draft guidance, to bring as many people as possible on board, and we are giving schools discretion over when to teach some of the more sensitive subjects. The compulsion is to ensure that those issues are covered at some point during the children’s education, but when that happens will be a matter for the schools to decide. Schools also have to take into account the faith backgrounds of the pupils and their parents.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

rose—

[Nick Gibb]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman and then make some progress.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful. As the Minister knows, I have worked with his officials every day for the past month on one of the issues in one of my schools. The parents at that school believe that the Equality Act 2010 and every single protected characteristic in it should be taught, but as a result of the breakdown in consultation, the regional schools commissioner, an independent arbitrator appointed by the Department and I have had to come in and spend a month on the matter. Surely that situation cannot be replicated in thousands of primary schools if there is a breakdown of trust, so we need more prescriptive guidance to ensure that there is no retreat from the aims of this proposal.

[Nick Gibb]

The policy makes it very clear that there should be consultation between the schools and parents; that the schools should publish on their websites the details of what is to be taught; and that parents should be given plenty of notice, so that there is time for their input into the development of that policy. They need to know that if the school takes a different decision, they can, ultimately, withdraw their child from the sex element of RSE in secondary schools.

The new subjects will put in place the building blocks that children need to develop healthy, positive, respectful and safe relationships of all kinds, starting with lessons at primary school about family and friends. At secondary school, what is taught in relationships and sex education will expand to reflect the person as a potential partner and parent; for example, teaching will include the characteristics of healthy and unhealthy intimate relationships, the roles and responsibilities of parents with respect to raising children, and the positive effect that good relationships can have on mental wellbeing. These subjects give us the opportunity to help to protect children and promote personal development and positive character attributes such as honesty, integrity, kindness, resilience and courtesy.

All children will be taught about online relationships and about how behaviour should be the same online as in other contexts. At age-appropriate points, they will be taught about specific online issues, such as who and what to trust, or sharing information. In secondary schools, they will be taught about the dangers and the potential impact of sexually explicit content.

Health education will give us the opportunity to drive up the consistency and quality of pupils’ knowledge about physical and mental health. Physical health and mental wellbeing are interlinked. It is important that pupils understand that good physical health contributes to good mental wellbeing, and this starts with pupils being taught about the benefits of daily exercise, good nutrition and sufficient sleep, and about the positive impact that self-care techniques can have on their health and wellbeing.

Effective teaching will give children the knowledge to recognise and seek help for poor mental and physical health and support them to promote positive mental and physical wellbeing and to thrive both at and beyond school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Although I have some reservations, which I will discuss, I warmly welcome the new guidance for the introduction of compulsory health, sex and relationships education. Of course, many schools already deliver the full suite of guidance to their pupils. These regulations will ensure that all do so.

Growing up is hard. The internet and social media can make it a cruel place. In my time at school, bullying was rife and the home was a place of refuge. With the online and social media world, there is no escape. We have to reinforce to young people that online activity can be a weapon. Knives cause physical violence; cyber-abuse causes mental violence. The results can be equally devastating. Lives are destroyed, and lives have been lost. We must ensure that our schools are getting the message across. I therefore welcome the focus on mental health and wellbeing, relationships and sex education, and the need to think of the feelings and sensitivities of others. I welcome the coverage afforded to issues such as discrimination, forced marriage, domestic and sexual violence, and addictions, and the emphasis on the need to have respect for oneself and every other person in class and celebrate differences.

There are a few areas on which I seek reassurance from the Front Bench. First, I disagree that parents of secondary school age children should be able to take pupils out of sex education classes. Quite frankly, young people who fall into that category probably need even more attention, because they are unlikely to be discussing these issues at home. I am pleased that the new curriculum will give a 15-year-old the right to opt in, thus taking the matter from the parent, but it concerns me that by this time there may not be time to get sufficient sex education classes, particularly with GCSEs being taken. I would like some reassurance that the entire sex education component will be covered in that shortened window.

Secondly, teacher workloads are increasing. When speaking on this matter before, I called for room to be found for a sex education and relationships curriculum, in preference to adding to existing workloads. I would like an assurance from the Minister as to how this education will occur. If the answer is that a large amount of time will not be taken, that in itself would be of concern to me, because I believe that the wellbeing of our young people requires that investment in time.

Thirdly, I understand the need to allow schools themselves to develop content, and I believe that it is often best when teachers use their own authentic approach and style to communicate these messages. However, I am concerned that schools will be put under pressure from parents to tone down the content or eradicate parts altogether. We have witnessed scenes where some in the Muslim community have put pressure on schools. Parkfield Community School has been the scene of weekly protests over lessons covering LGBT issues. The school is rated “outstanding” by Ofsted, which praises its record of promoting tolerance, acceptance and mutual respect. The school has now said that it will cease to teach its course until a resolution has been reached. That is absolutely appalling.

[Liam Byrne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Merriman]

No, I will not.

The resolution should have been a public spaces order ban on the protesters and fines for the parents who withdrew their children from school.

[Liam Byrne]

I am the local Member.

[Huw Merriman]

I will give way on that basis. I beg the right hon. Gentleman’s pardon.

[Liam Byrne]

That is not what Parkfield School has done. It has agreed to go into dialogue with parents to ensure that the Equality Act is taught. That is the fact of the position.

[Huw Merriman]

I am happy to take that correction, but as I looked through the reports, I saw that the content on that specific area had been taken down, and I felt that that was absolutely appalling. I will correct that if it turns out not to be the case, but the reality is that we have seen those weekly protests of people carrying—

[Liam Byrne]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

Please let me continue. We have seen those weekly protests of people carrying placards, which has been a disgrace. I have a right to call that out, just as the right hon. Gentleman obviously has a right to comment as the local Member.

[Liam Byrne]

Let me correct the hon. Gentleman on a point of substance. The long-term curriculum plan of the school was set at the beginning of the year, and that is what the school continues to deliver. Of course the protests are unacceptable in terms of some of the abuse that has been hurled, and he is right to call that out, but I ask him please not to muddy this sensitive issue with facts that are incorrect.

[Huw Merriman]

I stand corrected, but I also stand by the point that content in a particular course had been taken down—I mentioned the reports—until this had been resolved, and I find that absolutely appalling.

[Liam Byrne]

indicated dissent.

[Huw Merriman]

Obviously the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but I ask him please to accept that in Parliament I am entitled to one, too.

This issue demonstrates to me that it is vital that schools feel supported by Government and MPs. We need to send a message out today that while schools have the choice on content, every school must deliver it, without exception. I would like a reassurance that we will ensure that there cannot be another Parkfield, and that the Government will insert their own content should it be found wanting.

These reservations should be put into context. Overall, this step forward is absolutely superb. We have moved on. I am really proud to be standing here and helping to deliver this initiative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

These are important new rules and I am glad that my Front Bench is giving them our wholehearted support. On the Labour Benches, we are very proud of our role in repealing section 28, not just in law but in spirit. We are very proud of the role we played in getting the Equality Acts on to the statute book. I never come into the Chamber without looking at the words on the wall behind me. “More in common” is at the heart of the Equality Act 2010. That Act and inclusive education are the most important ways in which we deliver that message on the wall behind me, through inclusive education to the children and the future of this country. It reminds us that we cannot and will not pick and choose the equalities that we champion and therefore teach our young people.

The Minister will know that in Parkfield School in my constituency, we have outstanding educators and pioneers such as Andrew Moffat, who is now up for global teacher of the year. We wish him all the luck in the world in securing that prize. However, Parkfield is a good illustration of the challenges that we all have in navigating this agenda not on paper but in the real world. That is where we saw the risks of what happens when consultation just comes to a halt for years on end. We saw what happens when parents become concerned that protected characteristics are not taught in full or in a balanced way. We saw, lit up in lights, the concern when there was a hint that this was a programme that was linked to the de-radicalisation programme, Prevent. That is still something that requires an apology.

Disputes will arise as we translate this agenda into action. As the Minister knows, I feel the Government were much too slow to get a grip on their academy in Parkfield. That delay allowed those with intolerant and extreme views to hijack what was a group of parents simply wanting their voice to be heard and their role to be respected. I hope that we will send out a clear message from this Chamber to those who have been circulating that intolerant hatred aimed at the LGBT community that we will never see it go unchallenged. We stand united—united against that hatred in our city and in our schools. Parkfield parents want the Equality Act to be taught in full. They want every protected characteristic to be taught. They ask nothing more than for their voice to be heard and their role to be respected.

The challenge for the Minister, as he knows, is that he is asking academies to take full school autonomy without the kind of accountability that delivers the dialogue that he says is at the heart of this guidance. He needs to put more guidance on the table, because inclusive education is too precious to risk in disputes like those we have had over the past month.

Relationships and Sex Education

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate, Mrs Moon. The turnout of hon. Members from across the House is testament to its importance.

It is a little disappointing that the debate clashes with the statement by the Secretary of State for Education. We will be making our speeches a little bit in the dark, as most of us have been here in Westminster Hall, rather than in the Chamber for that statement. Matters may have moved on a little, depending on the content of the Secretary of State’s statement. I wonder if that Government statement was initiated by this debate and the e-petition, which many of our constituents signed.

I want to put into context my contribution and the perspective of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) discussed the whole range of issues around sex education, relationships and sex education and relationships education. However, most of my constituents have been contacting me about the specifics of mandatory relationships education at primary school. None of my constituents is seeking particular or differential opt outs at secondary school level. It is all about the age appropriateness of conversations with young children in the context of religious backgrounds.

When these issues were first raised with me, I did what all hon. Members do: I turned to the law itself. What does the Children and Social Work Act 2017 say in respect of mandatory relationships education for primary school pupils? Section 34 gives the enabling power to the Secretary of State to lay down the regulations and guidance, which I believe is the subject of the statement in the House today. It says that religious background and age appropriateness must be taken into account. That is the legislative protection for faith communities, so that children who are being educated in any part of the education system outside the faith school system are protected and have their religious background taken into account.

Before any relationships education is delivered, according to the legislation, there must be a consultation. Failure to hold a consultation has led to a number of issues arising in my constituency and across Birmingham. It was not just a badly conducted consultation that did not involve all parents; there was no consultation whatever. That is in direct contravention of the spirit of the draft regulations and the draft guidance, and the absolute commitment in section 34 in relation to religious backgrounds.

Parents come to me in my advice surgery and say, “There is no consultation, Shabana. Who do we complain to?” It turns out that there is no process and no guidance for how to deal with those concerns. Those parents’ first question to me is, “What is the sanction when a school fails to carry out any consultation at all?” It appears to me that there is no sanction or mechanism. The regional schools commissioner does not have a role. I do not think that the Secretary of State has a role. Nobody seems to be able to say what the sanction is when the process fails.

If a school does carry out a consultation, the question is who decides what is appropriate and what is not. What happens when you have conflicting views between different sets of parents? That is particularly important in respect of religious backgrounds. As a member of a faith community myself, I can tell the House that we are not all the same. There are many differences of opinion between religious groups—between different groups of Muslims—on what is appropriate.

I welcome those from faith communities who are watching this debate from the Public Gallery. I hope they will not mind me noting that many are from the Orthodox Jewish community. There is an interpretation of religious texts within the Jewish community that leads people to what is described as an orthodox set of values and beliefs. There is also a self-described modern, progressive and reform end of the Jewish community, as there is in the Muslim and Christian communities—in all faith communities, in fact.

What happens when religious background is taken into account in a primary school setting in Birmingham and there are two groups of Muslim parents with full religious conviction, one of which says, “Actually, we think this is unacceptable,” and the other says, “No, this is perfectly acceptable.”? Who is the arbitrator when their rights collide? There is nothing in the guidance and no consideration of the fact that it is perfectly possible for religious groups to come to different views about what is appropriate.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Does she accept that that is a particular problem in academy schools, because the accountability points upwards to the office of the Secretary of State? At least with a local education authority school, one can go to one’s local elected representatives to try to sort the mess out.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My right hon. Friend has been attempting to reconcile conflicting interest groups in his constituency, as he will discuss later. He is right that most cases in our constituencies have arisen in academy schools, for which there is nowhere to go other than the Secretary of State. If those schools were within the family of Birmingham local authority schools, we could at least come together in a joint process that respects and gives voice to religious backgrounds—not just moderate, reform or progressive religious communities, but orthodox ones. We could negotiate a settlement that does justice by all parties, allows all our valued, loved and respected communities to be included in that process and enables our children to have the confidence to move forward in modern 21st-century Britain. That is what all the parents who have come to see me in the last few weeks want and why they wanted me to be in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I think that more of my constituents than anyone else’s have signed the petition, but my speech will be based on the particular experience of Parkfield Community School in my constituency over the past three weeks. The debate has come to a head there much earlier than elsewhere, and I have had to step in and try to broker very difficult meetings between school leaders and local parents.

The Minister will know, because I have told the Secretary of State for Education so, that I feel that parents and teachers at Parkfield have both been let down by the Department. The situation has been allowed to grow unattended for much too long and the Department’s approach has been much too ponderous. I am grateful for the hard work of certain departmental officials, but I know that if Parkfield were a local authority school, I would have had the two cabinet members responsible outside the school gates defusing the tension that has been allowed to grow and grow.

Parkfield is an outstanding school with outstanding school leaders, but we now confront a breakdown of trust between parents and the school leadership that has created unacceptable tensions. On the one hand, parents are very angry; on the other, teachers are feeling intimidated—and there was a graffiti attack on the school this morning. Both of those are absolutely unacceptable.

The tragedy is that school leaders and parents both want the same thing. Parents in my constituency are passionate about the Equality Act and are as determined to tackle homophobia as Islamophobia, but in this situation what they want is what I will fight for: the right for their voice to be heard, their role to be respected and their choice to be protected. We know that relationships education is vital to raising children in the realities of modern Britain and the modern world; it is helpful that that has been acknowledged by Members across the parties today. However, if we do not pay regard to those three basic rights of parents, we will fail in our duty as legislators.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) that it is deeply disappointing that the guidance was discussed on the Floor of the House today, yet we are debating it here in the Westminster Hall Chamber. The consultation was finished months ago; obviously, it is important that Ministers strive to get the guidance right, but we have been left in the unfortunate situation where we cannot debate its detail today, nor can the Minister reflect on this debate in perfecting the guidance for the years ahead.

I will touch briefly on the three rights of parents that need to be given sharp focus in the guidance, which obviously I have not had the chance to read. First, we need to ensure that parents’ right of choice is respected. Our experience in Parkfield relates to the teaching of the Equality Act, particularly the protected characteristics in it. Although that is a different piece of legislation from the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which enables the proposed regulations, it is difficult to unpick relationships education from education that relates to a protected characteristic. All parents ask is simply that the teaching of relationships education and protected characteristics education be absolutely balanced and give equal regard to each of the characteristics, including the background of faith.

As it happens, there are many ways of teaching the Equality Act. Birmingham City Council has one toolkit, Stonewall has another—I put on the record my thanks to Ruth Hunt, former chief executive of Stonewall, for her counsel over the past week—and there are also programmes such as “No Outsiders”, developed by the school. The challenge that we have is that parents were under the impression that “No Outsiders” was the only way in which the Act could be taught. That is simply not the case, but it has meant that parents’ right of choice over the delivery of education has not been delivered in the way that we should aspire to.

Secondly, we have to respect the right of parents to be the principal educators of their children with respect to relationships education. Decisions about the age-appropriateness of material have to be made in the open, not behind closed doors. Where their relationships guidance is in collision with Equality Act education, I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will clarify what is what—and, crucially, which matters do and do not enjoy the right to withdrawal. At the moment, I am afraid, there is wholesale confusion among parents and among teachers.

Thirdly, we have to ensure that parents’ voices are heard all the way through the process. “No Outsiders” may well have been a path-breaking process, and there were lots of workshops when it was first undertaken, but those workshops were four years ago. Consultation must not be a one-off; it must be a constant golden thread running through the delivery of Equality Act education and relationships education.

In light of the new guidance published today, I am afraid that “No Outsiders” will have to be comprehensively overhauled and refreshed because of the substantial overlap between the two kinds of teaching. I hope that today the Minister will guarantee that the three basic rights of parents—the right to have their voice heard, the right to have their role respected and, crucially, their right of choice—will be protected as the school reworks its teaching over the months ahead.

My final point is the same as that made with such brilliance and eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. I understand that the guidance will create particular guidelines for how relationships education is taught in primary schools. I understand that it will be down to the school to choose whether some kind of sexual component will be included in that teaching, but it is not clear whether there will be a right to withdraw from relationships education, because we were given to understand that there is no such right.

If a school chooses to take a particular path, what is the accountability mechanism for parents to disagree and bend the course of that decision? We simply cannot have a two-class system in which the parents of a pupil at a local education authority school can go to councillors in order to make their argument heard, whereas it appears the parents of a pupil at an academy would have to go through their Member of Parliament up to the Secretary of State and try to influence the situation that way. I am afraid that that will lead to our having more and more parents who simply withdraw their children or, as is the case at Parkfield, organise demonstrations outside the school gates. What kind of atmosphere is that creating? We know that there will be some gay children at Parkfield. How on earth do they feel when graffiti is daubed on the building and protests are held outside the school gate? That is not the sign of an accountability mechanism that is working satisfactorily; it is the sign of one that is failing.

I hope the Minister will reflect on the experience we have had in my constituency. I hope that he will be able to continue to work with Parkfield at speed as it works through the new way its curriculum will need to be developed and delivered in the light of the guidance issued this afternoon. I hope that he will reflect on some fundamental points. The first is to clear up the overlap between Equalities Act education and relationships education—clear up what will and will not come with the right to withdrawal. Crucially, if rights to withdrawal are to be withdrawn, the Government need to set out more clearly the mechanisms by which parents can influence and change a decision taken by academies, which to many of us seem impervious to local opinion.

On Friday, I wrote to the leader of Birmingham City Council and to the former chief executive of Stonewall to suggest that we create a proper consultation mechanism locally, in which we can take the brilliant work that has been undertaken in the education equalities toolkit but also bring to the table the views of faith leaders and the expertise of organisations such as Stonewall. I hope that will allow us to create a process that gives parents confidence that their views on age appropriateness are being taken into account, that faith background is being respected, and that consultation is being undertaken. The truth is that although the accountability mechanism might well be able to steer LEA schools, it will be a pretty voluntarist approach for academies. That is a recipe for problems in the future.

I hope that all of this will have been taken into account in the guidance, with great clairvoyance by the Minister. If it has not, I urge him to bring that guidance back to the House and reflect seriously on the concerns we have heard from Members of all parties this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Sir David. I welcome today’s debate on the right to withdraw from relationships and sex education, and the opportunity to set out clearly the rationale for the very significant reforms and to support all pupils’ social, personal and academic development. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on her excellent introduction to the debate, and I thank her for her support for the draft guidance and the regulation.

It has been a debate of powerful speeches that reflect the wide range of views on what can be a controversial subject. The array of views in the Chamber reflects the array of views in society more widely. The Government have sought to distil those views in the statutory guidance to reflect those disparate viewpoints. It has been carefully crafted and has received widespread support.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) asked whether the subject will be compulsory in all schools. The answer is yes, both in local authority maintained schools and in academies and free schools. It has not been introduced through the national curriculum but through the basic curriculum, which means it applies to all schools. We are committed to supporting schools through training and further advice, to share best practice. We are allocating £6 million in 2019-20 to develop a support programme for schools. It will be compulsory from September 2020, which gives time for schools to prepare, although we are encouraging early adopters to introduce it from this September.

The Children and Social Work Act 2017 placed a duty on the Secretary of State for Education to make relationships education compulsory for all primary schools, and relationships and sex education compulsory for all secondary schools. It also provided a power to carefully consider the status of personal, social, health and economic education, or elements thereof. Following a call for evidence, and having listened to concerns about equipping children for life in modern Britain—particularly concerns about safeguarding, mental health and online safety—we decided to make health education compulsory in all state-funded schools.

The focus of health education in primary schools is on teaching the characteristics of good physical health and mental wellbeing. That starts with pupils being taught about the benefits of daily exercise, good nutrition and sufficient sleep. It includes teaching about simple self-care techniques, about personal hygiene, bacteria and viruses, about good dental health and flossing, and about basic first aid. Emphasis is given to the positive relationship between good physical health and mental wellbeing, and to the benefits of spending time outdoors.

It was clear from responses to the call for evidence that many people wanted pupils to be better equipped to manage the online world. That has been reflected in the debate, including in the last couple of speeches. Pupils therefore will be taught about the benefits of rationing time online and the risks of excessive use of electronic devices. Schools should also consider how these subjects collectively can support the development of important attributes in pupils, such as honesty and truthfulness, kindness, consideration and respect, permission seeking and giving, and the concept of personal privacy.

I hope hon. Members will acknowledge the very clear and carefully crafted guidance we are providing to teachers for these subjects, including how we determined the required content for relationships education in primary schools and for relationships and sex education in secondary schools. We have listened to the breadth of views that have been expressed and ensured that any developments, including on the right to withdraw, remain consistent with the guiding principles for these subjects, which Parliament endorsed during the passage of the Children and Social Work Act.

Our guiding principle, therefore, is that these subjects should help keep children safe, which includes knowing the law on relationships, sex and health. Of course, that includes age-appropriate teaching about relationships that primary-age pupils need to understand—about building caring friendships and dealing with the ups and downs of friendships, for example. We have set out how schools can acknowledge respectfully that some pupils sitting in their classrooms may have same-sex parents or, indeed, a different family model. That is why the guidance states that pupils should be taught that

“others’ families, either in school or in the wider world, sometimes look different from their family, but that they should respect those differences and know that other children’s families are also characterised by love and care.”

We worked closely with a wide range of stakeholders to carefully craft the guidance in a way that is sensitive. The guidance states:

“In teaching Relationships Education and RSE, schools should ensure that the needs of all pupils are appropriately met, and that all pupils understand the importance of equality and respect. Schools must ensure that they comply with the relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010…under which sexual orientation and gender reassignment are amongst the protected characteristics.”

It continues:

“Schools should ensure that all of their teaching is…age appropriate in approach and content. At the point at which schools consider it appropriate to teach their pupils about LGBT, they should ensure that this content is fully integrated into their programmes of study for this area of the curriculum rather than delivered as a standalone unit or lesson. Schools are free to determine how they do this, and we expect all pupils to have been taught LGBT content at a timely point as part of this area of the curriculum.”

That guidance was carefully crafted to create a coalition of the widest support, and I have been pleased to see a range of stakeholders acknowledge that today.

[Liam Byrne]

I am listening to the Minister very carefully. What will be the mechanism for resolving disputes where parents disagree with the judgment a school has come to?

[Nick Gibb]

I will come to that in a moment.

The Church of England’s chief education officer, Rev. Nigel Genders, said:

“If adopted, these guidelines will equip schools and teachers to help children and young people gain the skills and knowledge to understand and value one another within a pluralistic society.”

We have had similar support from the Catholic Education Service.

All schools, whether religious or not, will be required to take the religious beliefs of their pupils into account when they decide to deliver certain content, to ensure that topics are appropriately handled. However, it is of course vital that, by the time they become adults and participate in British society, pupils understand, respect and value all the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. The Department trusts schools to make the right decisions about what and when they teach their pupils about topics, including equalities.

Post-18 Education

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have moved forward with what is called the LEO—longitudinal education outcomes—dataset to help students make those analyses directly, and indeed to help those who provide information on courses.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

The madness of the current system is that it costs students and taxpayers a fortune. Student debt is spiralling up to £55 billion, nearly half of which will be written off and picked up by general taxpayers. I urge the Secretary of State to look forensically at how we knit together further education and higher education so that we radically expand the number of earn-while-you-learn degree places, which are collapsing in great cities such as Birmingham, where they have halved in the past 12 months alone.

[Damian Hinds]

That was a question of two halves. In the first half, I think the right hon. Gentleman was describing what is called sharing the cost, which we do. We believe that it is right that the individual who benefits should take on part of the investment, and the taxpayer also picks up part of it. I agree entirely with the points in the second half of the question: we should have proper join-up between HE and FE. Many universities already do important technical education, and many FE colleges also conduct very good HE. We want more of a join-up.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Liam Byrne Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The real-terms ability of the maximum fee to keep up with inflation is enabling £12 billion of investment to get into higher education over the coming years. It is critical to make sure that students get value from the investment that they make in themselves and that teaching is of high quality. That is why the teaching excellence framework is such an important part of the Bill.

The proposed office for students is another part of the Bill that clearly shows that we are putting students at the heart of our higher education policy, as they should be. The creation of an office for students, which will be the principal regulator for higher education, will put students’ interests at the heart of regulation. It will have a legal duty requiring it to consider choice and the interests of students, employers and taxpayers, and it will look across higher education as a whole, with responsibility for monitoring financial stability, efficiency and the overall health of the sector.

The current system was designed for an era of direct Government funding of higher education when fewer people attended university. Higher education attendance is no longer a privilege of the elite. We lifted the limit on student numbers, meaning that more people than ever before have been able to benefit from a university education. The legislative framework needs to reflect that.

The office for students will create a new single register of higher education providers, replacing the current fragmented system and ensuring a single route into the sector. The simpler system means that this Bill will reduce regulatory costs on the sector and contribute to this Government’s deregulatory agenda. It also ensures that the requirements are clear and fair. Only those on the single register will be able to obtain degree-awarding powers, become universities or charge fees that attract student loans. Those providers will have to comply with conditions relating to, for example, their financial stability and the quality of their provision. The office for students will have powers to impose additional conditions—for instance, around access and participation for students from disadvantaged backgrounds—on fee-capped providers that wish their students to be able to access student support.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Let me join in the congratulations to the Secretary of State on her appointment. Why is there no duty on the new office for students to promote collaboration? The crisis that we confront in this country is around technical education, not higher education. If we want to grow the number of students on level 5 apprenticeships, we need to transform the level of integration and collaboration that exists between further education and higher education. Why is that dual-track system not being encouraged by placing a duty to collaborate at the heart of the office for students?

[Justine Greening]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, which is an important one. I want universities to continue to work hard on the ground in many of the local communities of which they are part, to encourage a pipeline through which children can come and apply. If the percentage of university students from disadvantaged backgrounds is to rise, that is incredibly important.

The right hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that an element of the Bill tackles collaboration, specifically with UK Research and Innovation, which I will come on to shortly. There will also be time to debate this in the Bill Committee. I absolutely agree with the sentiment that he has expressed, and it is important that universities engage with local communities beyond their own campuses and encourage young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

The Bill puts in place the powers that we need to take a more flexible approach to funding. As the hon. Lady says, some students are less likely to want to take out a conventional student loan. We need to respond to that if we are to widen participation, and that is precisely what the Bill does. It will actually achieve the aims she talks about.

We will have transparency, which will require higher education institutions to publish application, offer and progression rates by gender, ethnic background and socioeconomic class. Across all its functions, the office for students will have to take into account the need to promote equality of opportunity across the whole lifecycle for disadvantaged students, not just access.

Academic autonomy is the bedrock of success for our higher education sector. The Bill introduces measures to safeguard the interests of students and taxpayers, while protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It enables the OfS to be independent of Government and the sector, as a regulator should be. It will be an arm’s length non-departmental public body, just as the Higher Education Funding Council for England is now.

The office for students will operate a risk-based approach to regulation by concentrating regulation where it is needed and ensuring the highest standards are maintained across the sector, while reducing the regulatory burden on the best performing institutions. If a university is doing well, it should not have to worry so much about bureaucrats peering over its shoulder.

However, one important aspect of such risk-based regulation will be a more flexible approach to degree-awarding powers. We will move away from the one-size-fits-all approach, which currently requires smaller, specialist institutions to demonstrate that they can award degrees in any subject, and requires new providers—including some of the very best overseas institutions—to spend four years building up a track record in England, irrespective of a long record of excellence elsewhere in the global academic world.

The provision to vary degree-awarding powers will enable specialist institutions to gain such powers only in the subject areas in which they have an interest or a need. It will enable the office for students to give degree-awarding powers on a probationary basis to institutions that can clearly demonstrate their capability and have a credible plan to ensure they meet the full degree-awarding powers criteria after three years. As part of that, the OfS will require clear and robust protections for students when granting probationary degree-awarding powers.

[Liam Byrne]

The Secretary of State is being characteristically generous in giving way. Is it her expectation that many of our great further education colleges that are already providing higher education will be able to acquire their own degree-awarding abilities, in a much more generous way than is currently possible, as a result of this change?

[Justine Greening]

Broadly, the rule that 55% of students need to be studying on degree courses will remain. In the end, however, what we are trying to do more broadly with these changes is to open up the chance for new high-quality institutions to join existing high-quality institutions in our higher education sector in being able to offer degrees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I intend to remedy that as best I can in my remaining remarks.

In the briefing for the Bill, the Office for Fair Access emphasises that it needs to retain the ultimate authority to approve or refuse access agreements. It is timely to emphasise that OfS board members should have expertise around social mobility and fair access. The Bill’s introduction of a transparency duty for higher education applications is positive, but as the Sutton Trust said in May, the Government’s record on improving social mobility is poor. We agree with the National Union of Students that the Government need to create a requirement for an annual participation report.

If we want the office for students to be a genuine office for students, there also needs to be a designated place on the board for a student representative. However, it is not only students who are key stakeholders but people working at all levels in our institutions, and that is why I particularly underline what Unison said about the lack of accountable strategic decision making around employers and students remaining a concern. That is something else that the OFS needs to look at.

We cannot get away from the fact that the student position is nowhere near as rosy as the Government are saying. For 20 years, the official position has been that maintenance support is not meant fully to cover the annual costs of living for full-time students. The loans are supposed to be supplemented by earnings or contributions from family. Too little attention has been paid to the other debts that students contract. The debate around increases to tuition fees is important, but the fundamental problem of sustainability also lies in maintenance support and student cost of living. That is why student dissatisfaction levels are so high and so alarming.

I turn now to the issues around the separation of regulation and funding between teaching at OFS and research at the new UKRI body. GuildHE says that it risks undermining some of the positive interaction between teaching and research. I have already set out the risks that allowing challenger institutions degree-awarding powers from day one could have on the quality of our institutions. The regulation needs to be robust, rather than just proportionate, but as I have emphasised when we debated the Government’s scrapping of student maintenance grants earlier this year, FE colleges are a key driver of social mobility. They deliver more than 10% of all HE courses in this country, often to the most disadvantaged students and often in places with a dearth of stand-alone HE provision and a history of low skills in the local economy. They span the country, from the NCG in the north-east to Cornwall college and my own excellent Blackpool and the Fylde college.

Last year, 33,700 English applicants were awarded maintenance grants for HE courses at FE colleges. One would have thought, therefore, that the Government would have seen them as a key element for expansion as part of their array of challenger institutions, yet hidden away in the annex to the impact assessment for the Bill is the Government’s forecast for the number of FE colleges that will be delivering HE as a result of the Bill. The forecast figure for 2027-28 is exactly the same as that projected for 2018-19, whereas other alternative providers are projected to more than double in number. It is true that the Bill will make it easier for FE colleges to get degree-awarding powers, but what comfort will that bring when systematic cuts to colleges’ ESOL provision, adult skills and other areas have reduced the capacity of FE to participate in HE expansion?

In addition, many key HE programmes on which both FE colleges and modern universities rely could be scrapped if up to £725 million of EU money currently going to local enterprise partnerships is lost—money that produces jobs and skills for them and their communities and on which hundreds of courses and staff depend.

[Liam Byrne]

Would my hon. Friend underline how important this point is? For many of the communities we serve, further education is the critical springboard into higher education. In the great city of Birmingham, we have the grand total of just 100 young people on level 5 apprenticeships. We cannot change that number unless we radically increase the way in which further education and higher education work together. That is why this element of the Bill needs highlighting as so important.

[Mr Marsden]

My right hon. Friend is so right; in his previous position at this Dispatch Box, he championed that position and continues to champion it excellently today.

We and many others, including the Royal Society, have major concerns about the merger of the science councils and the consequent tensions between the new UK model, English models and the devolved Administrations. It is an issue that seems to unite many people across the piece, whether it be the former President of the Royal Society, Sir Martin Rees, who has said that the plans were “needlessly drastic”; the Academy of Social Sciences, which fears that it will lose autonomy and weaken communication with academics over future research planning; or Paul Nightingale of the Science Policy Research Unit, who said that it was doubtful whether having an “extra layer of bureaucracy” would help.

We share the concerns of Cambridge University and others that there need to be stronger safeguards for dual funding and protecting the integrity of the QR. To deliver this dual support, there will need to be smooth interaction with the devolved Administrations, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish Funding Council and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. However, the Royal Society and others, and indeed the director of the University of Scotland, Alasdair Smith, are very concerned about how this will operate. These changes prompted the Lords Science and Technology Committee to write to the Minister to express its concerns. It has stated that it had serious concerns about the integration of Innovation UK into UK Research and Innovation. It is concerned that Innovation UK should retain its business-facing focus, and the recently distinguished Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, now the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), also asked for clarification on this point.

The proposed changes to the departmental landscape since last week split responsibility for research and teaching across UKRI and the office for students respectively. Two separate frameworks, the research excellence framework and the teaching excellence framework, both lack links to funding.

Now, of course, there are major concerns post-Brexit about how universities are going to fund that research. At present, UK universities receive 10%—just over £1 billion a year—of their research funding from the EU. The Times Higher Education says that 18 UK institutions face losing more than half of their research funding as a result of the decision to leave the European Union. This affects some of our newer universities as well as long-established universities in the Russell Group. That is why Professor Paul Nurse in his research review for the Government warned that leaving the EU jeopardised the world-class science for which the UK is known.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). Whatever we disagree about, I very much respect the fact that he has in the past pointed out the damage done to the higher education system by ill-thought-out commitments and policies on immigration. I hear his note of caution about the regulation of new providers. I will say a bit more about that in a minute.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) said in his excellent speech—others have mentioned this—the Bill comes at a time when universities and research institutes are reeling from the Brexit vote. The drafting of the Bill and the associated consultation clearly took place in the context of an expected remain result. The uncertainties about replacing EU research funding and the position of EU students now confronting the sector would be good enough reasons, in themselves, for putting this legislation on hold to give this House and the Government the opportunity to ensure that the framework for higher education and research is fit for purpose in a post-Brexit world.

There are other concerns about the Bill. While I do not have a problem, in principle, with facilitating new providers and more choice in the sector, there are strong grounds, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster hinted, for proceeding more carefully than the Government propose, because it is likely that limited Government finance will be further stretched when funding per student is already under enormous pressure, and there is a risk that failure by new providers will be bad for students and damage the reputation of UK higher education more widely. Let us remember that UK universities and research are currently a huge national asset—an area of competitive strategic advantage that will be even more important, economically and culturally, as we strive to make a success of life outside the EU.

Further, specific, concerns have been drawn to my attention by Oxford University. Clause 23, which provides for the assessment of standards as well as quality, is an extension of regulatory power that infringes institutional autonomy. The Government need to tell us what its purpose is and how it will be used. Clause 43 empowers the office for students to revoke by Order the Acts of Parliament or royal charters that have established our universities. The ability to dismantle so much with so little by way of parliamentary scrutiny cannot be right, and much stronger scrutiny and protection is needed.

[Liam Byrne]

Is it not incumbent on the Minister to give a categorical assurance to the House that where rights and entitlements proscribed in royal charter are deleted, they will be reinstated by the Government?

[Mr Smith]

Yes, indeed. As I have said, there must be full scrutiny by this House. These are Acts of Parliament that are being overturned by an Order—it is absolutely extraordinary.

There are further worries on the structure of research funding. It took the Secretary of State an awfully long time to get on to research. While the Government’s stated intention is to keep the dual funding principle, all research funding is to be the responsibility of the proposed UK research and innovation body, and there is no explicit provision for ring-fenced funding for anything other than specific pieces of work. It is therefore not clear in practice how dual funding is to be delivered. The call in the Bill for a “balanced funding principle” to which the Secretary of State must have regard is vague. I put it to the Government that it is crucial to future UK research capacity that the Bill strengthen the commitment to dual support.

I am also concerned that the Bill does not mention the higher education innovation fund. The Bill artificially divides teaching and research, when in practice the two often go together, especially at the highest levels, including in the work of museums and the well-founded laboratory principle. There really needs to be proper recognition of that in the Bill.

Similarly, there is a huge omission in there not being any requirement for UK Research and Innovation to provide for postgraduate research education and training, which is crucial for graduates moving into the high-tech sector. That was previously regarded, and rightly so, as being so important that the research councils had it written into their royal charters, so why is it not in this Bill? It certainly should be.

I am also alarmed that under clause 84, research councils could be abolished or merged by order. That could affect whole areas of research, so surely it is sufficiently serious that Parliament should have proper oversight.

There is much that is wrong with this Bill, and it is spectacularly ill timed. The Government should take it away, consult and think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I want to pick up where my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) left off. The truth is that much in the Bill is long overdue. Much of the proposed legislation is necessary, but the truth is that the Bill was written for a very different time and in a very different era. The risk is that the Minister is presenting to the House a halfway house that will leave us with the task of having to come back to some big strategic questions to finish the job.

The Secretary of State was absolutely right to underline the necessity of the Bill. We need the strength of our higher education institutions today like never before. In this post-referendum era, we will have to get a lot better at making things a lot more efficiently. The level of productivity growth that blights our economy today is actually worse than it was at the end of the 1970s, when we used to call it the British disease. The problem with the Bill, however, is that it does nothing to address the big strategic challenges that confront students, our science base and our skills system. I will touch quickly on each.

First, let me talk about students. We all know that there is still a big debate to be had about the financial viability of the student loan system. This afternoon is not the occasion to rehearse the fragility of the Ponzi scheme that now underpins that system, but I often used to debate with the Minister’s predecessors whether Britain could look forward to a debt write-off of £70 billion or £80 billion. The basic message was pretty simple: the student loan system as currently set up is not fit for purpose, and it is certainly not fit for the future.

The Minister has proposed a number of measures to ensure a degree of transparency, not least freezing the thresholds for student loan repayments, but the truth is that we need a wholesale overhaul of the transparency of the system. We need the system to work well, but, quite frankly, too often we are looking through a glass darkly when we try to figure out what is going on.

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I am disappointed that there is not enough in the Bill about lifelong learning, and I am very disappointed that there is nothing in it about workplace learning. I would like a bold revolution in the way we bring together Unionlearn, the Workers Education Association and the Open University, so that it is possible for workers to go from ABC to PhD in their workplace. In a world where someone can get a massive open online learning course beamed to their smartphone, that is surely possible, but we do not have the qualifications system we need to make that a reality, nor is policy in the right place.

The second big challenge we confront is on the science base. Quite frankly, although we are all grateful to Sir Paul Nurse for the heroic job he has done in overhauling the governance of the science base, there is nothing in the Bill to confront the big strategic challenge for science in this country, which is the fact that we are plummeting down the league tables when it comes to science spending. A few years ago, the Royal Society put it rather well, when it said that

“unless we grow smarter, we will grow poorer”.

If the global race is anything, it is a science race, and today we are falling behind. By 2019, China will become the world’s biggest science player. Right now, we are already losing the race for the good high-tech jobs of the future. We will not fix such a strategic challenge if we are languishing at 23rd out of 33 OECD countries. Our big competitors around the world—Japan, Korea and countries in Scandinavia—are now spending 3% of GDP on science each and every year, while we spend something like 1.3% of GDP on science. In fact, we would need to crowd in funding and add public spending totalling £23 billion if we were to bring science spending in this country up to the level of our strongest competitors. It is not even clear to me whether we have a 10-year framework for science funding any more. I certainly see nothing in the Bill about how we will strengthen a position that is becoming extremely serious. At a time when so many of our universities are having huge holes punched in their science base and science funding because of the decision to come out of Europe, we needed an awful lot more from the Secretary of State this afternoon about how we will tackle the looming crisis.

The third challenge that I want to touch on briefly is the one that troubles me most: why is there nothing in the Bill to address the revolution that is needed in the technical education system in this country? We know how to design good dual-track technical education systems. How do we know that? Because we did it for Germany after the second world war. We just forgot to do it for ourselves. The noble Lord Percy reported to this House in 1944 that

“the position of Great Britain as a leading industrial nation is being endangered by a failure to secure the fullest possible application of science to industry…and…this failure is partly due to deficiencies in education.”

The problem is that what was true in 1944 is true today. We do not have a strong dual-track system that takes a student in a constituency like mine and leads them on to the very highest level of technical education. We have a rise in unqualified science teachers in our classrooms; a careers service that the CBI says is on “life support”; a further education system that was cut by 40% over the course of the last Parliament; and an apprenticeship system that is growing the number of level 2s, but delivering the grand total of just 100 apprentices on level 5 in my home city of Birmingham. Today, just 2% of apprentices go on to level 5 study, and there has been a 40% fall in the numbers on HNCs, HNDs and foundation degrees. Those who are seeking a professional and technical path to higher education from the age of 14 up to the age of 21 go through a system that is overseen by Ofqual, Ofsted, the AQA, the Education Funding Agency, the Skills Funding Agency and now the office for students. It is, quite frankly, a dog’s breakfast.

We need a holistic review to put in place a single, comprehensive dual-track system for technical education. That means everyone from the age of 14 learning some kind of technical education; it means rebuilding the careers service; it means high-quality, gold-standard apprenticeships with everyone studying English and maths up to the age of 18; it means a new degree of specialisation in our colleges, with the creation of institutes of technical excellence; and it means an apprenticeship system that gives at least half of our young people the chance to take a technical apprenticeship up to level 5. We know how to run those apprenticeship schemes because great British companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and BAE Systems are doing so. The only problem is that they are harder to get into today than Oxford University.

Crucially, we need a new partnership between further education and higher education. We should be emulating the best practice in the United States, where it is possible to do the first couple of years of a degree at a further education college before moving on to finish it in a couple of years at a world-class higher education institution. That is why the duty to collaborate is so vital, and why it is such a problem that it is missing from the Bill.

We have been burying our scientists with our sovereigns since the death of Sir Isaac Newton. There is no other country on earth that would get BAFTAs for films about its great scientists. We are one of the world’s great science powers, but our position is in jeopardy. That is why we needed more than a halfway house from the Secretary of State this afternoon; we needed a Bill that repositioned higher education as the powerhouse it needs to be for our country’s future.

Children of Alcoholics

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for children of alcoholics.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am glad to see the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Edward Timpson) in his place. The matter we are about to debate is something I know he will care deeply about, and I very much look forward to working with him over the months—and, I hope, years—to come, to implement many of the things that I will talk about. I think he will embrace wholeheartedly what I call for, and I look forward to turning some of the ideas that we will debate into action.

I have done some difficult jobs in politics with my right hon. and hon. Friends, but in many ways this is the hardest speech I will have made in my 11 years in the House: it will be the first time I have talked publicly about being the child of an alcoholic. My dad was an amazing individual. He was warm and charismatic. He was the son of Irish immigrants. He dragged himself into grammar school and into university. He was a great idealist who devoted his life to public service. His warmth, charisma and idealism inspired me to join the Labour party when I was 15, and it was his example that inspired me to get stuck into politics—to do my bit to try to make our country a bit better.

My dad battled with an addiction to alcohol for most of his adult life. When he lost the woman whom he loved so passionately—my mother—at the age of 52 to pancreatic cancer, it knocked him over the edge. I know from first-hand experience the damage and harm that come to families living with an alcoholic. I know what that sense of guilt and shame feels like. I know about the kind of co-dependency that builds up in families as different members of the family do what they can to support each other. In my case, it was a co-dependency with my mum, who I talked to about my dad’s drinking from the age of seven or eight. I know all too well the feeling that most children of alcoholics have as they wrestle with why they cannot fix things or make things better. I know what it feels like to worry constantly about whether your parent is okay. You worry about whether they are on a floor and whether they are eating. I know what it is like to be at a bedside in an intensive care unit, having been told that your parent has maybe a one in 10 chance of surviving. I know the agony of constantly asking yourself whether there was more you could have done to help stop that drinking. I know that there are no answers to those questions.

I know what it feels like to feel second best. “Second Best” was the title of a great book written by Calum Best, the son of George Best, the footballer. Calum has done a great deal over the past few years to highlight the plight of children of alcoholics and to explain what the emotional turmoil feels like. I also know that if anything, I had it easy. Ultimately, I had a loving home. So many children of alcoholics have it an awful lot worse than I did, and many of them are here with us today in the House.

Children of alcoholics are five times more likely to develop an eating disorder. They are something like three times more likely to attempt suicide. They are three to four times more likely to become alcoholics themselves, and that is what happened to my dad. He, too, was the child of an alcoholic. In the months since my dad’s death just before the election campaign started, it has been a struggle to decide whether to speak up and speak out. I have been inspired by such people as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) to take the plunge.

For me, the challenge was the programming that comes with the fourth commandment, which is for people to honour their mum and dad. I struggled with whether I would be dishonouring my dad’s memory by bringing this issue into the public domain and talking about it. I suppose I concluded that I had to honour the boy who became a man who became my dad, because there was no help for him when he was growing up as the child of an alcoholic. If I want to change things for children in the future, I have to play my part by speaking up.

The final trigger for speaking up was the loss of a great friend to this House, Charles Kennedy. When I read a lot of the media coverage about his death, so much was riddled through with the old clichés about how Charles was a man who battled with demons. Charles was not battling with demons; he was battling with a disease—alcoholism. The sooner we start talking about alcoholism as a disease and the sooner we get rid of the taboos, the stigma and the shame, the easier we will make it for hazardous drinkers in this country to get the help they need to quit or to cut down.

The scale of alcohol harm is profound. It is estimated to cost our country something like £21 billion a year. It costs the national health service something like £3.5 billion a year, and there are something like 1 million accident and emergency admissions related to alcohol harm each year. I have accompanied people on a couple of those admissions myself in the past few years. When we look at different parts of the country, we can see how the problem is getting worse. Figures from the House of Commons Library that I am publishing today show that the number of A&E admissions due to alcohol harm is rising in two thirds of local authority areas. The problem is not going away; it is snowballing and getting worse. As a country, we have to decide not only how we will break the silence around the disease, but how we will break the cycle of alcoholism cascading down the generations.

I would like to offer a few thoughts today, based on my conversations with friends in the House. I thank in particular the host of organisations that have had the good grace to listen to me bleat on about this issue over the past few months. Some of the charities have helped me try to build an integrated picture of my path. In particular, I give enormous thanks to Hilary Henriques of the National Association for Children of Alcoholics. It was through her doors that I walked about a month and a half after my dad died. NACOA was magnificent. It helped me see clearly for the first time that I was not on my own and that my dad’s drinking was not my fault, and that, frankly, there was little I could have done to change things for him. NACOA celebrates its 25th anniversary this year. It is a small group that is run on a shoestring, and it has helped more than 200,000 children in our country over the past few years with the same kind of advice that it gave me earlier this summer.

Additionally, I thank Sir Ian Gilmore at the Royal College of Surgeons; the British Medical Association; the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield; Alcohol Concern; Adfam; Turning Point; and the Institute of Alcohol Studies for the advice that they have given. I do not want to offer the Minister some kind of manifesto that is perfect in all its design; I want to start a conversation, which I hope he will engage with in the months and years to come. Last night, I asked Members of this House and the other place whether they would be interested in joining an all-party group for children of alcoholics, and I have been overwhelmed by the response and moved by the personal stories that colleagues have shared. I hope that the group can work together with a number of other all-party groups—we have the chair of one here this morning—that have done such a magnificent job to champion solutions to the curse of alcohol harm.

Let me offer the Minister a few points to get the debate going. Above all, I want the Government to do more to support extraordinary helplines such as NACOA, which make such an enormous difference. As a former Minister with responsibility for children’s health, I know that there is a challenge when it comes to specialised commissioning for children’s services. There is never enough of a problem in any one part of the country to create a critical mass of demand, so we have to find ways in which local authorities can work together to put in place specialised commissioning. Crucially, however, we need to support charities such as NACOA, which is making so much difference to so many people.

I want to ensure that we have a Minister with clear ownership of the problem. The responsibilities span not only the brief of the Minister here today but those of Department of Health Ministers, so I was glad that the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), told me that the Minister here today is in charge of co-ordinating the challenge. The Home Office took the lead on the alcohol strategy published in 2012. We need clear, visible ownership of who will provide and lead the support policy for children of alcoholics.

I want the Government to set out clearly a plan of action to support children of alcoholics. Having someone in charge of creating a solution is not good enough if we do not have a plan in place. As the Minister knows, the Government published their alcohol strategy in March 2012. It did not mention children, support for children or the challenge of children of alcoholics. Over the next few months we need the Minister to come up with a specific plan to provide support for the children of alcoholics. He might tell me that the forthcoming report, “Collateral Damage”, to be published in 2016, will be the framework for that. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the bravery he has shown this morning in his moving description of his own experiences and what happened to his dad. He is asking the Minister a list of things. As he mentioned, I chair the all-party group on foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Will he include in his list of asks the children of alcoholic mothers who drink during pregnancy? We need the awareness and support that he has been talking about to be applied to that group as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the leadership that he has shown on that. Mothers who drink during pregnancy are absolutely included in the asks. I hope that the Government will accelerate the publication of advice for pregnant mums about what it is safe and not safe for expectant mothers to drink.

I want every public health director in England to make an estimate of how many children of alcoholics live locally. I want a local plan to make sure that hospitals, GPs and school nurses and teachers know how to identify the children of alcoholics and how to put help within their reach. The challenge with alcoholism as it relates to children is that it often falls between stools—between the public health director, the commissioning groups for children’s social care, the groups for adult social care, and primary care services. The children of alcoholics often sit in a hole in commissioning, which is why we need a specific plan of action locally.

I want the Government to publish a national league table of which councils are spending what on alcohol treatment, so that it becomes much easier for the public and parliamentarians to see where the problem is greatest. In that way we can challenge whether public health directors, councils and health and wellbeing boards have put in place the right provision for hazardous drinkers who are parents.

I want to make sure we have a public information campaign aimed at parents who are hazardous drinkers, so that they are clear about the damage they do to their children and how they can get help. What has been good about the way in which we talk about smoking is that we now aim our messaging at parents and help them understand the harm to children. Now that alcohol harm is the third biggest public health risk after obesity and smoking, it is time for a public health campaign on the same lines aimed at parents who are hazardous drinkers.

I want the Government to change the law, particularly the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, so that it would be illegal for under-16s to drink at home. Current legislation allows for drinking at home from the age of five, and I think that is the wrong message. I congratulate the coalition of alcohol charities that are preparing proposals on that front.

If the Scottish Government win their case for minimum alcohol pricing, I hope that the Government will look again at introducing that policy across the whole of England. Crucially, every charity and campaign group has said to me that we need far more research into the scale of the problem. The research that we have at the moment is patchy, and I think the Minister could do a great deal with a very small amount of money to make sure we have a good research base in place.

The 10 points that I have mentioned are a framework that parliamentarians can discuss over the weeks and months to come. I hope they are ideas that the Minister will be able to embrace wholeheartedly. If I were to pull out just my top three, however, the proposals would be as follows. First, we should equip front-line professionals to take proactive steps to identify the children of alcoholics and to make sure that they are equipped to advise and counsel children on where they can get help. For me it was absolutely crucial to understand that I was not alone as the child of an alcoholic, that my dad’s drinking was not my fault and that there was not much I could do about it. I want every child of an alcoholic in this country to know that they are not alone and that help, such as the NACOA helpline, is on hand.

My second priority would be the public information campaign. Many people have said to me that the Minister should take inspiration from the success of the public smoking campaigns, and we should gear up quite quickly a campaign aimed at hazardous drinkers who are parents.

Thirdly, we need to make sure that there is the right investment in treatment services up and down the land. We have made great progress over the past few years in putting in place the right budgets for drug treatment. By and large, we now know what works when it comes to alcohol treatment, but provision is patchy. The Minister will tell us that it is down to local authorities to ensure that the right treatment is in place, but right now, we as parliamentarians do not know whether the right treatment is in place. We need transparency so that we can get to grips with where budgets need to go up and where they need to go down.

What is shocking about some of the statistics that I am publishing this morning is that some local authority areas have seen 20%, 30% or 40% increases over the past few years in the number of A&E admissions due to alcohol harm. That tells us there are particular parts of the country where the problem is incredibly pronounced. Behind those statistics are children, which is why we need to know which local authorities are spending what so that we can campaign for better support.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has secured the debate. Does he agree that, as was certainly the case with my mother, many alcoholics are functional? They often go to work and outwardly lead normal lives, so they do not present themselves at A&E and the problem is invisible to many people. We need to make sure that in the campaign, and in whatever the Minister responds with, we understand that this group of people is wider than the public perceive.

[Liam Byrne]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Her intervention gives me the chance to say on the record how important her courage in speaking out some years ago was in persuading me that I could do it too. I very much follow in her footsteps.

Every child of an alcoholic has a different story. My right hon. Friend’s story is different from mine. Each of us in our own way and on our own journey learned that we could not really change things for our parents, but we sure as hell can change things for our children. That is what we have to do now as parliamentarians. We have to try to break the silence on this issue so that we can break the cycle of alcohol harm cascading down the generations. To normalise this conversation, we have to organise this conversation. We must sweep aside the stigma and the taboos. We must treat alcoholism as the disease that it is and make sure that help is within reach of those who need it. That is the only way we can help to heal so many lives up and down this country. It is a difference that I think we can make with practical steps over the months and years to come. I look forward to working with the Minister on putting some practical action into place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

That sounds like a very interesting project, and I would certainly be happy to look into that issue if my hon. Friend writes to us with more details. I was recently at Upton Cross primary school in West Ham, where the charity Place2Be is working with the school to provide a similar service offering spaces where children can share their experiences.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

This term, schools around the country are rightly being asked not only to respect but to promote British values. Does the Secretary of State agree with the proposal in my early-day motion, tabled today, that it is time we added compassion to that list of values? My constituents think that that is one of the qualities that make this country great. Should we not start to celebrate it as such?

[Nicky Morgan]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and his support for the teaching of fundamental British values in all our schools. He is absolutely right to say that those are the values that make our country great. I am very happy to look at this. We could have an endless debate on which values to capture, but the ones that we have, particularly respect and tolerance, are hugely important and I want everyone to get on with thinking about how best we can promote them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

We want to see the completion of the single market so that British businesses can compete more effectively across promising sectors of the European single market. We have a strong export sector and we want to break down further barriers that prevent our businesses from fulfilling their potential in that market.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

May I stiffen the Minister’s answers? The truth is that British universities win more research grants from the European Research Council than any other country in Europe. Well over £1 billion flowed in last year from Europe into the British science base, which is more than any other country received. The European Union and our membership of it is mission critical to our success and the future of our high-tech, high-productivity industries. Over the months to come, will the Minister join me in helping to ensure that British universities are at the forefront of leading the campaign for this country to stay in the European Union?

[Joseph Johnson]

British universities and British science punch well above their weight around the world, and they secured 16% of the last batch of grant money from the European Union. That is because we have a competitive, world-class research base, and we are the Government who are supporting it and providing a stable climate for business and universities to invest in research and science. The Labour party would jeopardise that with its new economic policies, which would destabilise our business climate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Byrne Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

All parts of the public sector have been obliged to contribute to the national savings effort undertaken in recent years, but I would note to the hon. Gentleman that research councils have been exempted from those constraints and, as a consequence, have been able to compete around the world in attracting the best scientists to this country. They are doing so extremely effectively.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

Our universities are critical to the strength of our science base, but following the tripling of tuition fees in the last Parliament, four out of five students no longer think that their courses are value for money. The Minister’s predecessor said that he saw no case for raising tuition fees in this Parliament. What does the Minister think? Will tuition fees go up in this Parliament? A simple yes or no will do.

[Joseph Johnson]

Due to the financial situation we inherited, we are of course forced to review all BIS spend—as all Departments are reviewing their spend. As our manifesto made clear, the Government are committed to continuing to ensure that we have a stable and sustainable funding regime for our universities and higher education institutions. They are secure and financially stable, and we will continue to ensure a fair balance of interests between taxpayers and students.