Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I ask the Minister, in considering this amendment and the other amendments before us, whether it is not time for a major announcement from the Government to work towards improving the opportunities for young people in physical education, physical literacy and sport. If she can stand up before this Committee and give us that announcement today, I would be absolutely delighted.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I was not originally planning to trouble this chorus, so I will be very brief. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I absolutely endorse and support his Amendment 185A, which he spoke to just now in very cogent and powerful terms. If we can ensure that there is more sport in schools, that will have a read across to health and well-being and it will help counter obesity.

I suggest that one of the most important takeaways from this short debate has been the figures put forward and explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, around the obesity crisis we are facing in this country. It really is quite shocking. The impact that will have on the health service in future generations is something we should all be really concerned about. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also made that point extremely well.

During my 32 years as an MP, I tried to visit a school every fortnight. Over 32 years, that is quite a few schools. I saw a great variety—a huge spectrum—of performance in terms of school meals. To be honest, you can have whatever standards you want, but if there is not leadership in schools on the part of the head and the chairman of governors, and there is not determination and will to ensure that food is of a high standard, then even with more money schools will not deliver. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made a very good point that it is not just about cost, as you can deliver better-quality food with really good ingredients at very little extra cost. That has been proven beyond any doubt.

I had a look a moment ago at Ofsted’s responsibilities. Ofsted is not actually responsible for food in schools but can comment on the standards of food. I have read a huge number of Ofsted reports over the last number of years, and I do not recall any of them commenting on food standards, even when it is well known that food standards in that school are at a very low level. It is legally the Minister’s department’s responsibility, but Ofsted can comment, and I think that it should comment much more often. Can she comment on that point?

I raise very quickly the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, regarding SEN pupils at special needs schools. In my old constituency, there were two special needs schools and there were a number of autistic units in secondary schools. A special school, with the leadership and the right policies in place, can often deliver really high standards of food; I have seen that on many occasions. Normally, there is a determination and will in those schools to make sure the pupils are properly fed and given every opportunity. That is very often in the context of a well-equipped and well-funded special school.

However, when it comes to an autistic unit within a secondary school, as my noble friend Lord Holmes pointed out, there are lots of issues around transport, the one-to-one attention that these children often demand, the role of TAs and the fact that very often you have an autistic unit that is separate from the main school, although it is part of the school. I suggest to the Minister that sometimes that unit can get left behind. What is her department going to do about that, because so much of what we heard during this group of amendments is very positive but it requires delivery? Even when the legislation is passed, I hope that some of these amendments will be picked up by the Government. Although my noble friend Lord Moynihan said his was a probing amendment, I see no reason why the Government cannot adopt and support it, go away and think about it and include it in the Bill when we come back on Report.

With those few remarks, I hope the Minister will take on board the point that, whatever the Bill says, it will require her and her department to make sure it all happens in the future.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I always enjoy the sports love-in we get in these debates. I admire the support we have for each other.

I was a great fan of the Blair Government in so far as, on the curriculum, they ensured that in primary schools there was at least two hours of physical education a day—and that happened. They also encouraged swimming and after-school activities, with the setting up of after-school clubs. That was really important but, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, suggested, since those days we have gone backwards.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Addington that you can link after-school provision and breakfast clubs to activities as well, and that happens all the time. We have talked about the 400 breakfast clubs, or however many there are, but for years many schools up and down the country have been providing breakfast clubs, either for free or sponsored by a local business or provided by the school itself from its pupil premium or at very little cost. There are probably more breakfast clubs in that category than the current pilot has to offer. We should thank those schools for what they have been doing.

I also have a great deal of time for the coalition Government’s decision to bring in free universal meals for all of key stage 1—that is years 1 and 2. The independent results from the provision showed that providing free meals improved attendance and learning, helped children who were in poverty and improved social interaction between children, because when you have breakfast together, you talk and relate to each other, and that is hugely important.

The amendments that have been tabled have to be thought through very carefully. They all have something that adds to what we understand. I do not understand, for example, why the Government never consider automatic enrolment. Is it to try to save money? Surely not. I also think that we have got to a stage now where we have the 300 or 400 pilot schemes in the breakfast clubs, and I would like to know when the next phase is going to happen and how many schools we think we will want to encourage. There will no doubt be a question about the provision of kitchens and all those sorts of things. I would like to know the answer to that.

We have that. We have the free meals for key stage 1, which have been extended with the Government’s announcement. Presumably we will look at after-school provision at some stage because providing meals for children after school is important as well. There is the issue of meals in holidays. All those have a cost to them. I understand why the Government do not want to do things straightaway, because you have to find the money to pay for them, but we could have a road map of where we want to go—what do we want to do first? What are the next things we want to do?—so that the points made in Committee can be clearly thought through.

We started this debate with the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I was fascinated by the information that she gave us, which was picked up, of course, by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It is not just about provision; it is about the quality of the provision and how healthy that provision is for children. It is easy to give a plate of toast or whatever, or a soft drink, but that is not necessarily healthy. It is easy to give Kellogg’s—and yes, Kellogg’s would want to sponsor various schools, would it not?—because it is filled with sugar. That is not the breakfast I think children should be having. Those are really important issues and when the Minister goes away from this Committee stage, I hope she will reflect on these amendments, because I think they are potentially life-changing for our children and young people.

Finally, let us just remind ourselves that, as of 2023, over 4 million children across the UK live in food-insecure households, with the cost of living crisis creating further problems in terms of access to nutritious food. The absence of school meals during holidays has been linked to cognitive decline, poor nutrition and a rise in child hunger-related hospital admissions. That is independently verified. I thought the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in relation to special schools was hugely important; again, the Minister should think very carefully about that. I thank noble Lords for the amendments, which, if enacted, will make a huge difference to our children and young people.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellingham]

107D: Clause 10, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regional co-operation arrangements must include the local integrated care board in their development, delivery and governance.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment aims to highlight the need to include health agencies in the regional cooperation arrangements.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I open this important group of amendments on regional care co-operatives with my Amendment 107D.

We will hear later about the stresses and pressures on local authorities in relation to the cost of children’s homes. The establishment of regional care co-operatives was a key recommendation of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, carried out by the now honourable Member for Whitehaven and Workington, Josh MacAlister. I pay tribute to Mr MacAlister MP for his ground-breaking work on this review. He put a huge amount of effort into it and needs to be applauded for that.

I look forward to hearing about the amendments tabled by other noble Lords, who I am sure are keen to raise important issues relating to the RCCs. My amendment is very straightforward. It seeks to clarify the role of the independent care boards—ICBs—in the RCC arrangements. In my experience as an MP for a number of years, visiting many care homes and talking to many practitioners in this field, every child in residential care will almost certainly have significant mental health needs and, very often, physical health needs as well. The Minister will be aware of the serious concerns that have been expressed by a number of organisations that the reform of ICBs will lead to changes in the funding allocations for their safeguarding role. This could compromise and undermine their effectiveness. My amendment makes it crystal clear that ICBs must be included in the “development, delivery and governance” of the RCC arrangements.

The Minister, a very experienced former Cabinet Minister, will be aware of the concerns expressed by the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals—NNDHP—for children and NHS England regarding the health workforce’s ability to implement the relevant clauses in the Bill. In March, NHSE reported that

“all current caseload reviews suggest that child safeguarding expertise is already fully committed and at full capacity”.

I very much hope that the Minister will take that on board because these concerns have intensified following recent announcements. As well as the abolition of NHS England, ICBs will be required to reduce operating costs by 50%. Furthermore, all NHS providers are being asked to reduce corporate costs by the same percentage. I support that in principle, as I am sure everyone on these Benches does. We want to see an elimination of waste, more effective management, and efficiencies. I have a very simple question for the Minister. Surely safeguarding is a front-line service. It typically sits within the corporate services of most NHS provider trusts. Furthermore, the Minister will be aware that the model ICB blueprint asks ICBs to test and explore options to streamline and transfer some of their safeguarding activities away from the boards. So will these changes in accountability require secondary legislation in the future? Why, when this is such an important front-line service and competence, is it so often categorised as part of corporate services? It makes no sense to me.

I raise another point. We have been talking more about local authorities, particularly county councils and putting more responsibilities into their hands. Many of us find that to be a positive move. But there is a great deal of change going on in local government at the moment. The Minister will be aware, because I mentioned this the other day in a debate, that in Norfolk, for example, there is a debate going on about local government re-organisation. There is every possibility that we will go from the current county council and eight districts to one unitary, with Norfolk County Council carrying out all the competences across the districts, or maybe to two or three unitaries across Norfolk. That is the pattern in many other counties.

I suggest to the Minister that although reorganisation will make savings in the longer run and drive efficiencies and cost reductions, in the short term there will be a lot of disruption and dislocation, as well as redundancies of key staff. What measures will the Government take to make sure that these local authorities really can cope with the changes that are coming very quickly down the track, many of which are contained in the Bill? I put it to the Minister that because of these changes in the Bill, there may well be implications for staffing across the different safeguarding bodies.

I very much hope that the Minister will address these concerns and reassure the Committee and the NNDHP that there will be the capacity and funding for the ICBs to be full participants in the RCCs. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As usual, my friend the noble and learned Baroness makes an important point about the application of the law in this particular case. I think, as she suggests, that legal accountability and responsibility remains with the authority placing the child, but that does not mean that, in practical terms, there should not be engagement, and I would have thought that that would have been good practice. I also think that it is important that there is clarity about where the responsibility stays. That goes for the care co-operatives as well.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the extremely comprehensive response that she has given the Committee; it lasted a while but she covered a lot of ground on a lot of amendments.

I certainly agree with what she had to say about the wider strategy of trying to fix the current placement market and, above all, making sure that the right home is in the right place for children around the country. She certainly gave me some comfort on the role of the RCCs and the way in which they are going to be able to help local authorities and work with them and take pressure off them. I am grateful that she mentioned that there is going to be work in progress to look at the consequences of the abolition of NHS England.

On the role of the ICBs, I should have been aware of Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, because I was on that Bill committee many years ago and I remember the clauses about multi-agency safeguarding and the other bodies that are involved in this process.

I am very grateful to the Minister. I am sure that colleagues here will look very carefully at what she said. If need be, I for one will want to discuss this further with her and will look carefully in more detail at her reply, and maybe come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I thank her and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 107D withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 83 seeks to address what is currently a series of gaps in the information that we have about the effectiveness of the virtual school head role. Clause 6 extends the statutory duties of the VSH role to children with a social worker and children in kinship care. The question is whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing and what resources are necessary to implement it effectively. As I understand it, we do not yet have the evidence that confirms the positive impact of that role, nor the emergence of value for money.

I take your Lordships to the interim evaluation, which was published in 2024. On page 11, it states:

“The evaluation of Phase Two follows a broadly cyclical pattern of data collection and analysis, alongside ongoing analysis of secondary national datasets … We assumed that there would not be only one way of providing effective support and that the aim at this stage was to support shared learning about potentially effective practice, rather than to conduct an effectiveness trial … The final report for this evaluation … will test whether there are any early signs of progress at aggregate level in attendance, persistent absence, suspension and permanent exclusion”.


I suggest to the Minister that the policy document for the Bill seems to overstate the impact. That policy document says:

“The evaluation of the extension shows early signs of improved educational outcomes … with several local authorities reporting improved attendance, reduced exclusions and enhanced collaboration between education and social care services”.


I am concerned that trends in attendance could be influenced by a range of other factors apart from the presence of the VSH. We therefore possibly have correlation rather than causation. I may have misunderstood things, but can the Minister please correct me if I am wrong?

I hope the Minister will look sympathetically at my amendment. It seeks to fill the evidence gap, both in terms of impact and in terms of resources, before extending the role of VSHs still further. Otherwise, the Government are at risk, in my opinion, of expanding and even diluting the impact of a role without the evidence that clearly demonstrates that it really can make a difference. I hope the Minister will look at this amendment sympathetically and in the spirit in which it is drafted.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 82 would provide further opportunities for children in kinship care to have access to boarding school places where appropriate. The Government should be applauded for their commitment to raising the profile of kinship care as a vital part of the ecosystem for children from broken families. As we heard earlier in the week from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, there are more than 150,000 children in kinship care in England. Kinship carers are unsung heroes, without whom it would be almost inevitable that the care system would buckle.

For most of Part 1 of the Bill, I have taken a back seat as I do not have direct expertise in the many complex areas that it seeks to tackle. However, for this proposal I was the Minister responsible for boarding schools, both state and private, when at the DfE. Noble Lords participating in the Bill will know what a huge task confronts kinship carers when taking on children, more often than not from broken homes and carrying the emotional scars of the unhappiness that has emanated from this breakdown. We have heard how the level of support for kinship carers is patchy at best and often almost non-existent. For many potential kinship carers the prospect will simply be too daunting, even if they might be the best solution in a given set of circumstances.

That is why I am so keen to give much more oxygen to the prospect of offering boarding school places to children in kinship care. Where it works for the child—and, of course, this is not always the case—it can provide a vital partnership to the carer in the upbringing of the child. At the simplest level, the day-to-day caring responsibilities for the kinship carer are reduced to around 16 weeks a year from 52 when boarding school is providing a home for the balance of the time.

I believe it is a dramatically underutilised resource. There is an unexplained squeamishness across many directors of children’s services to use it more. However, when I was the Minister in the area in 2018, we published a small longitudinal report showing just how impactful it could be. By coincidence, it was work led by Norfolk County Council, where I live, and the results were remarkable. We at the DfE then jointly published the report—it is no longer available on the DfE website, which is a shame. I urge the Minister to not only read it—I can send her a copy—but ask officials to put it back up again.

In essence, it tracked 52 vulnerable young people for between two and five years. Over that time, 33 of these young people were able to come off the risk register completely following placement in boarding school. Dr Claire Maxwell, who contributed to the report, then a reader in the sociology of education at UCL, highlighted three specific benefits. First, the setting can provide amelioration from risky emotional and physically stressful situations—for example, a circuit breaker from a local gang culture. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, a moment ago about the number of children from care ending up in prison—it is appalling. Secondly, there is improvement of educational outcomes. Thirdly, it is a more cost-effective solution than other forms of care intervention. Dr Maxwell’s view, and that of charities in the sector, was that successful boarding placements can help strengthen families experiencing significant difficulties. The longer school day that is part and parcel of boarding school life can provide a form of round-the-clock care and is part of the reason for the improved emotional and educational outcomes.

In this study, the 52 children were placed in 11 different boarding settings, a mixture of state and private provision. Some 21% of these children achieved a formal GCSE qualification in maths and English—above grade C, in old money. This compared with a national looked-after children pass rate in that year of 17.5%. These are not dramatic differences, but put alongside the substantial reduction in the numbers being removed from the risk register, it makes for a very positive story. This study also compared costs against more institutional forms of care beyond kinship. At the time of writing the report, the Norfolk Boarding School Partnership had an average cost between £11,000 and £35,000 a year, compared with £56,000 for a looked-after child in a normal or more standard setting. This translated into a saving of £1.6 million over four years for this group.

Obviously, kinship care is more affordable because carers get less support, but my argument is that if boarding was offered to potential kinship carers, the take-up would be much higher, therefore reducing local looked-after children costs. Today, the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation offers bursaries for looked-after children attending private boarding schools. We know that the educational outcomes for looked-after children remain way below the national average, and this is not a silver bullet—but, combined with the other benefits, as I have outlined, I believe it is a vital additional tool in the box to support these vulnerable children who never chose this harsh route into life. I hope the Minister will support me by agreeing to my amendment to provide more awareness of these opportunities.

--- Later in debate ---

We are resisting this amendment as we believe an extra review is not necessary. We have been formally evaluating the impact of the role since it was extended to include children in need on a non-statutory basis in 2021. A final evaluation of the work will be published later this year, and I am sure we all look forward to that with enormous interest. Our updated statutory guidance will provide a clear framework that enables virtual school heads to support the educational outcomes of all children they have a duty towards. We will continue to work closely with key stakeholders, including the National Association of Virtual School Heads, to ensure the role is sufficiently resourced and funded to meet all children under the virtual school head remit.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I am very grateful for the comprehensive and courteous way that the Minister has responded to the amendments. Can she comment on the need, as I see it, for some sort of report back to Parliament?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

With all this work, I believe it is important that we focus on the job in hand through the route of accountability and the local authorities, and do not give virtual school heads yet another onerous task to do. I believe that enough safeguards are in place and enough ways that the outcomes can be reviewed, so I do not believe that this is necessary at this time.

I was going to say that I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments, based on the fact that this is work in progress. We all know the significance of this area and the contribution that so many people make to it. We are opening up an exciting new chapter to make sure that the work that happens is accountable and transparent, and that more people are aware of what needs to be done and how these young people can be helped going forward.

SEND and Alternative Provision

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government absolutely recognise the point the noble Baroness raises. We are already providing professional development focused on special educational needs and disabilities; we have online training; we run live webinars; we offer peer mentoring for school and college staff through our universal services programme; and we aim to reach at least 70% of schools and FE colleges each year until 2025, while also expanding the assistive technology pilot, which is expanding training to increase staff confidence in using assistive technology. In my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, I touched on some of the measures that we are taking to support people with disabilities and additional needs into the workforce.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I too warmly welcome the White Paper today, particularly the new national standards plans. The Minister is aware that very often EHCPs and indeed tribunals get badly delayed because of a shortage of available educational psychologists. I looked at page 52 of the White Paper, and the new money for training educational psychologists is very welcome, but can she give some indication to the House as to the actual numbers of new educational psychologists we will see?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. We are anticipating an additional 400 educational psychologists from the funding that we have just announced.

Secondary Schools: Autistic Pupils

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I commend the noble Lord; I know he has worked tirelessly on this extremely important and complex issue of children and adults with autism. I would of course be delighted to go back to the department and talk to my ministerial colleagues to make sure the meeting takes place. I absolutely hear his concerns in relation to exclusions. He will be aware that the department updated our behaviour guidance last summer and stressed the importance of anticipating triggers of behaviour for children with special educational needs, including autism, and making sure provision is available for them.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that a significant number of education, health and care plans for autistic children are being delayed by the failure of councils to recruit enough educational psychologists. Indeed, some EHC plans have been issued without the child in question seeing an ed psych either remotely or in person. What does the Minister plan to do about this problem?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would be grateful if my noble friend could share details of these cases, so that we make sure we understand them properly. The House will be aware that a diagnosis of autism needs to be a medical diagnosis. We will publish our improvement plan for provision for children with special educational needs. That will clearly cover how we want EHCPs to work better in future; it will be before the House shortly.

Schools Bill [HL]

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 140 but before that I note that the debate has raised a number of fundamental issues. Listening to it tells me that we have another set of issues that the Government need to take away and think carefully about. I understand that Report is due to start in little over a fortnight. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, is absolutely correct about the need to have these discussions; fundamental issues are being debated around whether there should be an appeals system and what kind of system it should be, and what the exact role of a local authority is. The noble Lord made a very important point: the Bill should be about supporting home educators and not about a punitive system.

I want to give another example of how I see the problem in this group. My Amendment 140

“aims to clarify the provisions on school attendance orders to ensure that school attendance orders should only be issued when in the opinion of the local authority this course of action is in the best interest of the child.”

At the moment, the Bill reads:

“A local authority in England must serve an order under this section 10 on a person”,


and gives reasons in paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (c) gives the reason that

“in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school.”

What is the meaning of the word “expedient”? Sometimes these words have meanings that maybe the Government do not intend. My interpretation of the word “expedient” is that it is about attaining an end. It is a convenience to attain the end, but it may not be right to attain that end.

That has led me to consider who in a local authority is responsible for making a decision. Ministers may reply that this will all be shown to us in guidance. I am quite bothered about that, because a huge number of issues have been raised, in all parts of the Chamber, about how this system will actually work.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Does the noble Lord agree that the word “expediency” seems to display a state of mind and a prejudice against home learning? It will, as he rightly points out, put undue power in the hands of officials.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I agree with the noble Lord that it could well do that. I noted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I hope I quote him correctly. He said that it will be tremendously easy to be a bad local authority. Given the way that this has all been written, that may prove to be true. He also said that there needs to be oversight as to whether a local authority is being reasonable. There has to be a system to assess this. I spent many years in a local authority environment. Officers and councillors will change, and case histories may not be fully understood, and yet decisions are being made. I do not know what protections are in place against poor-quality decisions being made.

My amendment says that the absolute requirement is the best interest of the child, not that a decision is deemed by a local authority to be expedient. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond as to why the Bill has been written in this way. It may be convenient to be expedient but it may not be proper. For that reason, we need to have a further discussion. I do not see how Report can happen in a fortnight to three weeks’ time. The Bill needs its Report deferred until the autumn.

School Funding: East Anglia

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered school funding in East Anglia.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. We are here to talk a little about why the £14 billion package of schools funding promised by the new Government is too little and too late for schools in my constituency and across East Anglia.

My constituency boasts many very good, often outstanding schools run by hard-working headteachers, teachers and support staff, but school funding has fallen by 8% in real terms since 2015. The workforce has been cut systematically year on year because funding has not been available to replace valuable staff members who retire or move on. That has resulted in bigger classes, teachers teaching out of specialism, and a fundamental reduction in the quality of the service schools can provide to both children and parents.

Nine out of 10 schools have suffered Government cuts to per-pupil funding since 2015, and a parliamentary petition calling for increased funding for schools received more than 113,000 signatures. In response, the Government stated simply that they recognised that schools faced “budgeting challenges” and were

“asking them to do more.”

That has been taken more literally than any of us could have predicted, with schools asking parents to donate hundreds of pounds a year to buy textbooks and equipment and to repair leaking buildings.

Only last week, a school in my constituency made a plea to parents and guardians to come in during the holidays to prepare the grounds for the school term because it could not afford a caretaker. The headteacher said contractors would usually work over the summer but this year there was no room in the budget to cover the expense. Thanks to the good will of those already hard-working parents, the repairs will be done in time and the school will be safe and ready to welcome its pupils. However, schools across my constituency and the whole of East Anglia have had to go cap in hand to parents and carers, begging for help to cover basic supplies, when they should be focusing their energies on providing the best possible education.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely and important debate. He and I have been working with Educate Norfolk and Norfolk heads over the past year or so. When we asked them what funding increases would make a significant difference, they came up with the sorts of figures the Government have just announced. I appreciate there is a long lead-in time, but does he agree that that is at least a welcome start to restoring funding levels?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being supportive of the debate and for the work he has done with me and local headteachers. That money is welcome, but it is not enough. I will come on to the details of that. I agree that any increase is welcome, but we need to ensure that it is the right increase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

Heads will roll back in my office.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a problem in Norfolk with some schools that went into major building programmes under PPI? We heard at one school that we visited in Taverham that after 6.30 pm the school does not belong to the teachers and that they cannot have outside events there because it is in the hands of PPI managers.

[Clive Lewis]

I might get my figures wrong, but I get my acronyms right. I think we are talking about the private finance initiative. I was with the hon. Gentleman at a fantastic school in Taverham where the PFI contract stated that its vast resources, including the gym and the swimming pool, could not be used by the local community. Once the school gates were locked, that fantastic resource could not be used by the rest of the community. Given that taxpayers’ money from that community is paying for that school, that is a complete outrage and I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

In 2017, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) won her seat as a result of a campaign based on school funding, not Brexit. That was the issue her constituents were up in arms about because it was their children, jobs and livelihoods at stake. The Prime Minster is in trouble on schools, and he knows it. When, last week, the Government announced that they would be providing £14 billion in one-off funding between now and 2022, headteachers responded by saying it was not enough. As I said earlier, we will continue to need an extra £3.8 billion every year to keep our schools afloat and £12.6 billion to reverse the effects of austerity altogether, not a one-off pre-election bribe.

The National Education Union says that headteachers are unlikely to

“trust the motives, or the professed support, of ministers who have, time after time, voted through measures that have made families poorer. Teachers deal every day with the effects of increased child poverty in children’s inattention and distress and know that it is these causes that need to be addressed if pupils are to behave better and achieve more in schools.”

The Government need to stop their panicky pre-election promises to increase school finances and give schools the funding they need, when they need it, not because there is a general election looming. A whole generation of young people have already been failed because of cuts to education funding, and simply announcing a specialist academy trust in the north of England does not count as trialling a new approach. We have already been there and done that; it did not work.

Here is a suggestion: rather than prorogue Parliament to get a no-deal Brexit through, let us ensure that that does not happen, save the £2.1 billion it is said that we will spend in the event of a no-deal Brexit and spend that on education. We can put that hard-earned taxpayer money towards keeping our schools open and our school buildings safe and maintained, and giving our children the education and the childhood that they deserve.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) again on securing the debate.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, I should have said that the question is that this House has considered school funding in East Anglia.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Thank you, Mr Gapes. I made exactly the same mistake when I was chairing in here the other day, so I have every sympathy.

Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South. He and I have worked closely on this agenda. We may differ in our outlook on various matters concerning education, but we have a shared sense of complete and utter respect for the teaching profession in Norfolk, and for the hard-working headteachers and teachers in schools across the county; they have an incredibly important task.

This debate is timely because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have had an ongoing dialogue with Educate Norfolk, which is a group of secondary and primary headteachers. Those meetings have been excellent and have given MPs first-class briefings on most aspects of schooling in Norfolk. As my colleagues from Norfolk and elsewhere in East Anglia will know, one of Educate Norfolk’s consistent demands was for more funding—not just in penny packets, but as a significant uplift in school funding.

I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for Norwich South on this point. We have a new Prime Minister who has a new agenda and has his priorities, and he has made it clear that school funding is one of those priorities.

[Mr Bacon]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). Would he agree with me that to say that the new Prime Minister is in trouble on schools is an exaggeration at the very least, if not a distorted caricature? With other Norfolk MP colleagues, I have attended meetings with the excellent headteachers at Educate Norfolk. They were making a careful and balanced case for more funding, which was well explained. The Government have responded by giving the education budget more or less what they asked for.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

There is a lot of truth in what my hon. Friend says: Educate Norfolk asked for a significant real-terms increase. I made a note at the time that one of the figures they pointed out was that the schools budget in 2017-18—that is two financial years ago—was £41 billion. They felt that over the next four financial years it should go up by at least £10 billion. As we know, under the announcement made a few days ago, the increase will be £2.6 billion next financial year, £4.8 billion the following year and £7.1 billion in 2022-23. That brings the schools budget up to £52.2 billion in 2022-23; the Minister may correct me on this, but I think I am right. That is not just some increase in the future; it is an increase next year and the following year. It is extremely significant given the context that we still have a budget deficit and a national debt, which will carry on going up in actual if not real terms.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Ind)]

We all agree that any money is welcome, but it is not right to say that our schools can wait for one, two or three years. There is a school in south Cambridgeshire—admittedly not in my constituency, but that of the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer)—that now has to close on one day a week; it cannot open its doors every day any more. Accepting that money will not flow so freely—particularly if we have a no-deal Brexit; we all know we will be short of cash then—is it appropriate for the Minister to look at an interim solution? For example, did the hon. Gentleman know that schools across the UK are sitting on surplus reserves of £1.7 billion? To balance the deficit between schools that are underfunded, in counties such as mine, and where they should be, we need £223 million; that figure is more than covered. Would the hon. Gentleman accept that perhaps that is an interim solution, while we are waiting for the money to flow through?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

The devil will be in the detail, but it is incredibly important to get the money flowing quickly. The Minister can look at that, but, as I understand it, this is new money coming into the Department. It will mean that every school will get a real-terms funding rise next year, and hopefully that will have a significant impact on our schools. Secondary schools will receive an increased minimum of £5,000 per pupil and primary schools will get the minimum of £3,750, going up to £4,000 per pupil in 2021-22. There will also be an extra £700 million for special educational needs and disabilities. It is significant and I welcome it.

I also welcome the announcement made by both the Education Secretary and the Chancellor regarding teachers’ pensions. As the hon. Member for Norwich South pointed out, having high morale in the profession is crucial in terms of retention, managing mental health, the welfare of teachers and making sure we get the absolute best out of all our pupils.

I welcome the announcement on pensions and the pledge to meet the £4.5 billion requirement from outside the education budget; maybe the Minister can clarify that. I look forward to hearing what he says about this, as my understanding is that it will not impact on the extra money for schools. The employer contribution of 23.6% will be on top of the salary, which will ensure that the scheme is fully funded. One can link that to teachers’ pay, which again is crucial to morale and retention.

I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Norwich South said, but I hope that many of his concerns and the examples he gave will soon be historical, because they will be overtaken by the new funding that will become available. It is important that teachers are well rewarded. A starting salary of £30,000 by 2022-23 will help to make teaching salaries among the most competitive in the graduate labour market.

I have a specific question for the Minister: in July, he announced that teachers would have a 2.75% pay increase, but that his Department would only fund it to the tune of 0.75%. The understanding was that schools would have to pick up the rest. Can he clarify the situation? Obviously, we do not want school budgets to have to in any way subsidise the increase in teachers’ pay. I very much hope that the announcement made last week will cover that key point.

As I mentioned, the devil will mostly be in the detail. How quickly will the funding reach the schools? I am optimistic, on the basis of what the Minister has said in his interviews; I congratulate him on his performances in the media over the past week or so. He has been very clear and upbeat about this, and very passionate as well, because this funding will enable him to move forward in some of the key areas of priority within his portfolio.

[Sandy Martin]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the majority—more than half—of the promised money will be paid after the next general election, even if the next general election takes place at the latest possible time, and so this is a promise of money that the current Government have no way of controlling?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that, yes, it is not all coming in one go, but there will be a £2.6 billion increase next year in 2020-21 and, if this Parliament goes its full five years, in 2021-22 it will be £4.8 billion and then up to £7.1 billion.

This is new, real money, now. It is incredibly important that we recognise that point. We can argue that it will not be enough, but I have also heard hon. Members talking about social care, the health service, the A47 and other priorities. It is a question of balancing priorities, and I am pleased that this Prime Minister has recognised that schooling and our young children are a key priority.

[Heidi Allen]

I suppose the question I have is: what on earth are my schools supposed to do now? Compared with, for example, a Westminster school, we get roughly £1,600 less per head per year, £400 less than the average across the UK. What on earth are we supposed to do now?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is very simple: the fairer funding for schools formula did indeed discriminate against a lot of small schools. I will come on to that in a moment, because what we need to know is whether the small schools in my constituency, in her constituency and in the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends will see significant benefits. I would suggest, on the figures being put out by the Department, that that definitely will be the case. It is exactly what different teaching groups have been asking for.

I would also like the Minister to comment on one announcement that he made, which is relevant to the small schools that the hon. Lady has mentioned: the £700 million extra for special educational needs and disabilities, the so-called SEND pupils. There is a shortage of special educational needs co-ordinators in Norfolk and a significant lead-in time to get more in place. How quickly does the Minister think this extra money will be available? What impact will it make, and when will it make that impact?

I also ask the Minister another question about small schools, because we have in Norfolk—as I am sure we also do in Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and other counties in the country—the sparsity factor, which is designed to assist very small rural schools in areas that are sparsely populated. In my constituency, I have a number of federations of small schools, which have been a great innovation, because they can leverage their success and capabilities in different areas and put extra resources into individual schools when they need it. Working together in a federation is often a really good way of going forward, rather than closing a small school. However, we have a situation in which some small schools in a federation get the sparsity factor money, but schools nearby, in next-door villages, do not. I have never yet heard a satisfactory explanation of why.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes some good points on the challenges faced by smaller rural schools, particularly on special educational needs. I am sure that we all welcome the extra £700 million being put into special educational needs funding nationally, but it is important that that money gets to the frontline and to pupils. Does he agree that it is important that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that county councils such as Suffolk give that money rapidly to schools that need it, and to ensure that there is no delay in allowing those schools to recruit the extra number of SENCOs that they need to recruit?

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Maybe the Minister can comment on how quickly we can get those extra SENCOs in place and what extra support there will be for their training.

Like the hon. Member for Norwich South, I have come across many schools around my constituency that are extremely concerned about the problems and challenges they have faced. Quite a few of the extra financial challenges have been on the back of Government-imposed costs—for example, the teachers’ pay increase awards in 2017 and 2018, which had to be partly funded by schools, the apprenticeship levy imposition and additional human resources, pension and rural bus costs. Hopefully, many of those costs will now be taken on board by the Department and therefore not imposed directly on schools. Can the Minister also confirm that?

We hear from dedicated headteachers—I have heard from many in my constituency—who have had to make savings by, for example, increasing class sizes, reducing teaching hours, cutting pastoral support, asking parents to contribute to the running costs of their children’s school and so on. No teacher should have to face that type of challenge. I am confident that this funding, which we should not be churlish about, will really make a fundamental difference, so I thank the Minister for that and look forward to his comments.

Finally, I was going to say something about further education colleges, but I think that that is a story and a subject for another day. I will say something about mental health in schools, because there is a real issue with both teachers’ and pupils’ mental health. This has been a recurring theme in the meetings we have had with Educate Norfolk. A number of headteachers have said to me that even though the Government talk quite a positive story about helping teachers with mental health, not a great deal actually happens. For example, there is no Government data on mental health problems among teachers, or indeed among pupils.

I ask the Minister whether, when he moves forward with the teacher recruitment and retention strategy, there will be specific measures in that strategy to help teachers with mental health. As far as pupils are concerned, does he agree that every single school should have a lead individual who can give mental health support? Can he tell the House what percentage of schools, both secondary and primary, have a lead person in place to handle this important matter?

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making this announcement. We should recognise it as not a penny-packet sum, nor a sum that is way out into the blue sky in the distance, but a sum of money that will be available next year, the following year and the year after that, and that, if properly spent—and if the framework around it, addressing some of the issues that I have flagged up, is got right—can make a fundamental difference, both to the schools across our constituencies and, above all, to the future of those children in the schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, because we have not made the announcement for early years funding. If he can be patient a little longer, we will be making that announcement.

We will continue to distribute this money through the national funding formula, which is our historic reform to the schools funding system that continues to ensure that funding is based on the needs and characteristics of schools and pupils, rather than on the accidents of history or geography.

Today we have reaffirmed our intention to move to what is called a hard formula, whereby all school budgets are set on the basis of a single national formula, guaranteeing equity among all schools, wherever they are in the country. Moving to this approach will mean that neighbouring schools that happen to sit on different sides of a local authority boundary will be funded on the same basis, and it will no longer be the case that different decisions made by different local authorities mean that similar schools receive different budgets. We intend to move to this hard formula as soon as possible. Of course, we recognise that this will represent a significant change and we will work closely with local authorities, schools and others to make this transition as smooth as possible.

The hon. Member for Norwich South said that he was opposed to academies. He has publicly expressed what I would regard as unwarranted hostility against the Inspiration Trust—a multi-academy trust that is doing huge work to raise school standards in his part of East Anglia. That probably explains why he failed in his speech to congratulate Jane Austen College in his constituency, a free school, which this year published its first GCSE results. Its provisional Progress 8 score places it in the top 10% of schools nationally. Some 75% of pupils achieved grades 9 to 4 in maths and English, and 30% of students at that school achieved a grade 8 or 9, which are the top grades that can be achieved in a GCSE. I offer huge congratulations to Jane Austen College and all the staff and teachers at that school.

My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for North West Norfolk raised the hugely important issue of special educational needs funding. We are absolutely committed to supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities to reach their full potential, and we expect all schools to play their part. That funding increase therefore includes more than £700 million of extra funding to support children with special educational needs and disabilities to access the education that is right for them. We recognise that local authorities have pressures on these budgets for next year, and alongside that additional funding we will continue to work with local authorities and schools to ensure that this investment is working well for those children in greater need. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney also raised the important issue of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Will the Minister look at the point about the long lead-in time in training more SENCOs? There is obviously a shortage at the moment and that could hold things up.

Construction Industry Training Board HQ

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Construction Industry Training Board proposal to move its headquarters from Bircham Newton, West Norfolk.

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Betts, for calling me to speak. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for a debate on an issue that may not be of crucial national importance but is extremely important for my constituency.

The Construction Industry Training Board has been based in Bircham Newton in west Norfolk since 1964. CITB took over a disused RAF station—RAF Bircham Newton—and when the then Government gave it the base, which comprises about 300 acres, the quid pro quo was that it would move the National Construction College and the training activities to Bircham and, basically, take over the jobs that had been supplied by the Ministry of Defence and the RAF. Today, about 600 jobs are based at Bircham and they are spread in roughly four ways, among the headquarters, the National Construction College and other colleges, the card scheme call centre and the awarding body.

CITB raises about £300 million in income every year—in fact, the amount for the current financial year is £307 million—of which I believe 63% comes from the levy, authorised by Parliament, allowing CITB to raise money from the industry. That money is used on the grant scheme and charitable activities; in fact, CITB is a registered charity.

I am delighted to see that it is the Minister for School Standards who will respond to this debate, because although he is not the Minister responsible for this issue, his position means that he takes a great interest in the whole apprenticeship and skills agenda. The construction and civil engineering sector is a vital part of our economy. In order for it to be able to compete internationally and deliver the highest possible safety and skills, it is necessary to have an organisation such as CITB and, indeed, a levy, without which CITB would not be able to raise money from the industry.

I will not go into too much detail about why we need CITB, because I want to concentrate on its “Vision 2020” and what will happen in the future. Before doing so, however, I will just say a word or two about the proposal’s profound impact on my constituency. King’s Lynn in the centre of my constituency is a town of about 40,000 people and it is surrounded by many remote rural villages. Bircham is about 10 miles from King’s Lynn and CITB is a very big employer in a remote rural area. It provides high-quality jobs, and the links to the community, which have been established over all the years that CITB has been at Bircham, are extremely significant, because CITB has been excellent in its outreach to the community and in putting in place its community social responsibility.

Of course, there is also the multiplier effect, because an organisation employing that number of people on good wages in a remote area will have a profound impact on suppliers and on the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. That multiplier effect underpins probably at least as many jobs as CITB offers directly, possibly many more.

There has been a really important link between the community of west Norfolk, my constituency and CITB. I also suggest that there has been a covenant, as it were, between CITB and the local area, because we have supplied it with a truly excellent place to do business, to carry out its training and to locate its headquarters; in turn, CITB has made investments in the area. That covenant between CITB and the local area is based on trust and partnership.

As the Minister will be aware, in 2017 a consensus process was carried out and, furthermore, Her Majesty’s Government carried out an industrial training board review. One of the conditions of CITB raising the levy, through statute and under parliamentary control, is that it needs to build consensus with the industry and get its support.

Obviously, the consensus process takes place regularly, and in 2017 consensus had to be built with the industry at a time when many smaller firms were finding the levy onerous, and a number of larger construction and civil engineering businesses were making it very clear that they wanted CITB to change. They all took the view—and I think the Government did, too—that CITB was underperforming, had rather lost its way and needed a new vision. The result was last year’s CITB’s “Vision 2020” paper and recommendations.

CITB submitted a business plan to adopt a simpler and more streamlined way of working, and described it as “levy in, skills out”. It wants to become an oversight body and an enabler, rather than a direct provider of different services. Part of the process of building “Vision 2020” is to exit direct training. At the moment, CITB provides the training itself through the National Construction College and other colleges, which are incredibly impressive. They operate out of a number of buildings in Bircham Newton, some of which are former RAF hangars and ideal for different types of training, including bricklaying. Outside those hangars—indeed, on the airfield itself—CITB can provide scaffolding training and heavy plant training. There is a huge amount of space and the National Construction College is a world-class college.

I certainly find it regrettable that CITB is going to exit direct training, because there is a cadre of really impressive instructors and support staff at the National Construction College. I understand the arguments—although I do not agree with them—that the CITB should exit direct training to become an overseer and an enabler.

The second part of “Vision 2020” is to hive off CITB’s non-core activities, such as the card scheme and the awarding body, and the third part is to co-locate the headquarters. Currently, CITB’s headquarters are split among Bircham Newton, London and a few satellite offices. Let us look at each of those in turn.

I have already mentioned the National Construction College and the world-class activity that goes on there. Any Minister who visits it can only be impressed at the calibre of the instructors, the ethos of the place and its reputation for delivering top-class training. Furthermore, a lot of money has been spent on the college’s training facilities, the hangars and the other support facilities, as well as on the student accommodation, which is obviously vital. If the aim is to attract students sponsored by the different construction firms, those students require good accommodation and a lot of money has been spent on that in recent years.

I think that moving away from direct training is a bad decision and I believe that a more confident, better-run and better-managed organisation would have had the presence of mind to have made the case for retaining the direct training provision. However, that argument has now moved on, leaving, unfortunately, a great deal of uncertainty among the cadre of instructors and support staff, who feel they have been very badly let down. On the other hand, there are many construction and civil engineering businesses out there that I think will consider taking on that contract. I have spoken to plenty of firms that have great trust in Bircham and I think they will put in a bid to take on the contract to provide training.

Let us have look at the other parts of “Vision 2020”. The card scheme and the awarding body are non-core activities and will be sold off. In fact, the awarding body has already been sold off to a larger business, which has moved it to an innovation and technology centre in King’s Lynn. That is very good news indeed and there is no reason why the card scheme, which is based near a call centre, cannot stay in the area, too. The prospects are promising and I am working with CITB to ensure that that process makes progress.

As I have said, the headquarters are currently split among mainly London, Bircham Newton and a number of satellite offices. There has been a consultation on moving the headquarters, and CITB says that it wants to co-locate them. I absolutely get that argument because split headquarters do not enable the best possible streamlined management that we would expect. Unfortunately, the consultation has been extremely badly handled and the staff have been let down in many ways. Had there been a better consultation, the current situation of really poor staff morale might well have been averted. For example, at the start of the consultation process, incorrect letters were sent to a number of employees. According to middle management and the unions, which have proposed an alternative plan, that has led to a huge amount of stress and confusion. I certainly believe that that could have been avoided.

In its paper of 25 June, CITB makes the case for new streamlined headquarters. I get that, but I do not understand why it says that they cannot be at Bircham. It says that they need to be moved to a new location, away from Norfolk, that has better communications and a better pool of skills, and which clients, industry and the Government are able to reach more effectively and efficiently. Middle management and the unions made an alternative case for keeping the headquarters at Bircham, which I support 100%. At this juncture, for CITB to move from headquarters that it owns and has recently spent a great deal of money on makes no sense whatsoever.

I will go through the main arguments for staying at Bircham. If an organisation owns somewhere and then sells it to move to another office it owns, I get that, but CITB says that it will sell the entire Bircham site and rent an office, preferably at Peterborough. I have nothing against Peterborough. My constituency has great economic links with the city and, indeed, with Cambridge and Norwich, but Peterborough is about 40 miles away. Yes, it has good communications, being on the A1 and having a main line rail service, but King’s Lynn also has a good rail service and, with modern working practices in place, and with the power of the net and more flexible working, there is absolutely no reason why the headquarters cannot stay at Bircham. Furthermore, the headquarters staff are trained up, highly motivated and know the area. They work in extremely congenial surroundings, on a former RAF base in beautiful countryside with the most fantastic views. Job satisfaction is incredibly high. They do not have far to drive to work—some probably cycle. It is a very happy atmosphere, which has been completely poisoned by CITB’s suggestions. What is worse, in the collective consultation’s supporting information the organisation has the nerve to say that middle management and the unions have not put forward an alternative location. They have, and it is Bircham. That statement is completely and utterly insulting.

Furthermore, staff must be kept on side. The process will be difficult and tough. If CITB moves out of direct training, it must have supportive and loyal headquarters staff who are motivated and who understand the organisation. What it has done so far is to collapse staff morale, creating real anger and bitterness, and I am very angry myself about how this has been handled. The organisation has been extremely badly managed at the higher level—middle management has done an excellent job—with an absolute absence of strong leadership and, indeed, proper vision. It keeps talking about “Vision 2020” but there has been no proper vision regarding how the organisation should move forward and, as a result, the staff are extremely angry. A new chairman has come in, Peter Lauener, for whom I have great admiration, but he has his work cut out. If the organisation is to recover in any way, shape or form, the decision must be reversed.

There are other arguments for staying at Bircham, which I will briefly put to the Minister. The first is that it is important to have a positive, constructive relationship with the new training provider, whoever that might be—it could be one of the large civil engineering companies, or a further education college. The training contract is worth many millions of pounds—possibly hundreds of millions. If the headquarters move to Peterborough and all the current staff are either contracted out, as some will be, or do not move—the staff surveys show that very few want to—there will be new management and historic knowledge will be lost. The current staff will not be on hand to manage the important relationship with the new provider. There are bound to be teething problems with the new provider, with the protocols and the specifications, but it needs to be a partnership. If the headquarters are moved to Peterborough or elsewhere—such as Milton Keynes, or even down to the south coast—that staff will not be on hand to oversee and work alongside the new training provider.

Another important reason why CITB must stay at Bircham—in the short term, at any rate—is the oversight of the masterplan for Bircham Newton. I will not go into details, but my right hon. Friend the Minister can talk to my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab)—I am glad to say that he is now right honourable—who, when he came to Bircham the other day, as Minister for Housing, which includes responsibility for planning, was incredibly impressed by what he saw. I think he was amazed at how modern and impressive the buildings were, and really blown away by the site and all it had to offer.

The site is more than 300 acres and is divided in half by the B1153. The eastern part, which is probably half of the total acreage, has been completely underutilised historically and it has the most phenomenal potential for all sorts of exciting, dynamic possibilities. There could be some new housing or a science park, and there is no reason why we could not have an offshore wind farm academy. Along the Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Suffolk coast there are vast numbers of offshore wind farms and there is a burgeoning onshore service sector. However, we need skills and training in that sector, and what better place to locate a college than Bircham Newton? There could be demonstration eco-homes on that part of the site, provided by different construction and housing companies that would bring their trainees from around the country to work in an environment that would be highly conducive to improving those skills. There could also be supply chain centres of excellence.

To oversee such a great programme of reform and innovation, we need a strong input from CITB itself; it needs to be on hand to oversee the masterplan. We have in place a taskforce of which I am a member, chaired by CITB and with the membership of the local councils, the borough council, the county council, the local enterprise partnership, the further education college and all the other bodies that really want to make the masterplan work. If we get that plan right, we will have something to be proud of. As the Minister knows, Norfolk and Suffolk have far too many disused RAF bases that have not had a masterplan and have been subjected to inappropriate development with no proper oversight or consistency, and all the things that can go wrong with ad hoc development on a brownfield site have gone wrong on some of those airfields. They are not places to be proud of. If we get this right we will have something we can be really proud of, but we need CITB on hand to work alongside the MPs—my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and me—and the local councils, the LEP and so on. Getting it wrong does not bear thinking about.

What I suggest to CITB is a compromise arrangement. I will go along with plans to diversify training and sell off non-core activities, and I also support the plan to co-locate the two headquarters, but what I am saying to the incoming chairman, Peter Lauener, is that he needs to keep the headquarters at Bircham for at least three to four years. If he does that, he will not hollow out senior management, lose a huge amount of historic knowledge, go through very costly disruption or spend a lot of money that CITB probably does not have on renting new offices, and he will be on hand to oversee the training partnership and the masterplan.

What I find depressing is that the state of mind of CITB senior management seems to be such that it has made a decision and is determined to go, even though it says in letters that there is ongoing consultation on Peterborough and the preferred location for the joint headquarters. It says that is not a final position and that collective consultation remains open for the unions, middle management and elected employee representatives to submit for consideration any proposal that includes an alternative location. We have submitted exactly that—staying at Bircham.

Peter Lauener has two choices. He can either go ahead with this ill-thought-out, illogical move now—in other words, take a decision later this year and move towards the end of next year or in early 2020—or put things on hold and we can all see what the position looks like in, say, three years’ time. That would enable us to see how the training partnership and the masterplan develop. If the jobs are secured, would it be the end of the world if CITB then said, “We have overseen this great success story and we are going to move to somewhere that is nearer to our client base”?

Alternatively, it can carry on with the current policy, which will result in the organisation going into meltdown. There will be a further, complete collapse in staff morale and a withdrawal of co-operation and good will from the staff. There will also be a significant backlash from MPs in the region and county, the local councils and the LEP. There will be a dissipation and destruction of that good will, which will make life very difficult for CITB. It will be difficult to continue its current “Vision 2020”. If CITB carries on like this, MPs will say that the organisation is not fit for purpose, does not deserve the levy and deserves to close down completely.

Will the Minister make it very clear that although he supports “Vision 2020”, Ministers do not have a strong view on the organisation moving to Peterborough or any other new headquarters? Ministers should listen carefully to what I am saying, call in the new chairman and make clear to him that he is in danger of presiding over a complete disaster area. A once proud organisation will fail completely, unless action is taken.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The changes are a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to ensuring justice is done to Members from all parts of the United Kingdom. The EVEL arrangements apply only in respect of legislation, amendments or statutory instruments that cover matters that are devolved in Scotland, over which this House has no say and no jurisdiction, but which are a matter for this House to determine in respect of England, and it is only right that English Members should exercise the veto that these arrangements provide.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on changes to hon. Members’ budgets; and if he will make a statement.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)]

Mr Speaker, I attended a meeting of your Committee for IPSA on 18 October, and the agenda included discussions on IPSA’s current consultation exercise.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Has the Leader of the House had a chance to examine IPSA’s proposed changes to zone 3 accommodation funding limits? May I make it clear that they do not affect me, because I do not claim any London rent from IPSA? However, does he agree that they could have a damaging effect on MPs with young children? Does IPSA not understand that, apart from on Monday, when we sit late, on virtually every other evening many MPs are kept here until well after the House rises?

[Mr Lidington]

The points my hon. Friend makes about the pressures of parliamentary life on Members’ families are true, and I think they are true of Members right across the House. As we all know, IPSA is an independent body, and it will, I am sure, consider carefully the representations from hon. Members and others, and then come to a decision at the end of its consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bellingham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I agree that we should do all that we can, and we have made it a huge priority to help more individuals with learning difficulties and disabilities to take up apprenticeships. We have done this by providing guidance for individuals and working with employers to help them better to understand what more we can do. Our apprenticeship revolution will leave no one behind.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

21. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Construction Industry Training Board, which is based in Bircham Newton in my constituency, has been excellent at encouraging people with disabilities to take up apprenticeships? Can he confirm that when the CITB’s existing levy is merged with the apprenticeship levy, it will still have sufficient funding to carry on with its excellent programmes? Will he come up to Bircham Newton to visit the CITB at some stage during his tenure?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the good work of the CITB in this regard, and when the apprenticeship levy is introduced from April 2017, we can make sure that it continues to have the funding available to do the same kind of work.