Schools: RAAC

Lord Mann Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Just to be clear on the Building Schools for the Future programme, there are schools today where we have found RAAC that would have been in that programme and were among those cancelled. There are also schools that got funding through it where we found RAAC, so it is not fair to say that Building Schools for the Future would have solved this problem. We are dealing with a number of cases that had funding through that programme which did not remove the RAAC and where we are now dealing with that.

The noble Lord is right that the department argued, as every department does, for as large as possible a settlement from the Treasury. We are very proud of our school rebuilding programme, but I also draw the House’s attention to the amount of capital that has been spent over the last 10 years both on condition funding and on building new school places. During this Administration, there has obviously been a bulge in pupil numbers which has led to around £2 billion a year, on average, being spent on building new places for pupils by either extending existing schools or building new ones. In the last spending review, the budget for condition funding—maintaining our schools—was increased by 28%.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, are there many leisure centres used by schoolchildren as part of the school curriculum that are impacted by RAAC?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am not aware whether there are leisure centres. The decision that we took in relation to schools reflected a number of factors. One was, obviously, the safety of pupils being paramount. Secondly, there was the speed with which we believed we could remediate most cases and, thirdly, the capacity and capability in estate management within the education sector. I am not an expert on leisure centres, but I assume that many will have dedicated expertise or have access to it.

Schools Bill [HL]

Lord Mann Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support the right reverend Prelate in everything he has said. He will recall that in Committee, I supported him in the change to the governance of academies in the context of faith schools. I am grateful to the Minister—although she is engaged in other matters at the moment—and the Government for agreeing to make this amendment. I think it is sensible and I am glad that the Government have agreed to it, but I have to say that I cannot support Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Incidentally, I understand much of what she said, and I have a great deal of respect for her. She quite rightly referred to the fact that you do not have to be Christian in order to have Christian values and ensure that they form the basis of a moral education for young people. Of course, that is why there are very many faith schools in our country which are attended by people of other faiths and sometimes no faith at all: because they want that sort of moral education. That is one of the great values of our faith schools in this country.

This is not about faith schools; it is about academies —we do not have them in Wales, by the way, but we supported them as a Labour Government. We have talked much about Wales. As a former Secretary of State for Wales myself, I am very grateful to the Minister for saying how we lead the way in many respects, but I do not agree on this one, for two reasons.

First, the right reverent Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to the fact that there is still more work to be done with regard to religious education, so let us await the result of that work. Secondly, I have studied the amendment very carefully, and it is about religious education—or is it? I assume that, in England, it is still a requirement for state schools to teach religious education, so that is what they must teach.

The nature of that teaching has changed dramatically since I was at school. When I was a young Catholic in a state school, I had to file out of assembly because I was not allowed to take part in what was regarded as a Protestant assembly in the school. I was not allowed to go to RE lessons because I was a Catholic and the lessons were Protestant. Happily, and thank the Lord, that has all changed. Under my own Church, after Vatican II, not only did I attend all those things but I read the lesson in the assembly.

The world has changed and there is no question but that, over the past 30, 40 or 50 years, the teaching of other faiths in religious education has increased—and rightly so. If you live in an area of England that is dominated by people of other faiths, of course you teach those faiths—it is about religion. If you have to teach non-religious things, call it something else—it is not religion.

If it comes to a vote, I will not support the amendment, but I understand the ideas behind it. I think the most significant thing is what the right reverend Prelate said: let us wait for the experts who teach RE to tell us what they think is best. But let us not do away with religious education, as we believe it is, at this important point in our history.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I feel obliged to make a few comments on the question of what is and what is not religious education.

On Amendment 30 and the discussion of other religions, is the teaching of Judaism regarded as religious education or civics? I declare an interest as on the register as a trustee of a multi-academy trust. A major piece of work is already under way looking at how contemporary Jewish life could, in a very minimal but important way, be put into the curriculum of every school, and how contemporary anti-Semitism could be more than touched on and built into teaching in a timewise, modest way. That could be defined as a discussion of Judaism and classified as religious education.

From my perspective, in a sense, that does not matter. What matters is that somewhere within all secondary schools in the country, pupils get a glimpse of another community and its life, our history with the Jewish community—which has not been the proudest over the past 1,000 years—and some feeling and understanding of what it is like to be Jewish in this country.

I do not have a specific view on whether the amendment would work or not. The spirit of it is very interesting and useful. There is a challenge there and the more debate and discussion we have on the challenge of how other faiths, communities or both are fed into the school curriculum in this small but important way is vital to faith communities, education and the country.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I ought to declare an interest as a former head teacher of a Church of England school. We live in a multicultural, multifaith community, and we make that successful by respecting each and every one of us. I shall come back to that in a moment.

We on these Benches support Amendment 30. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that you do not have to be a Christian to believe in Christian values, but the values of other faiths are also important. For example, my daughter went to a Jewish school, where she learned many values which were not, initially, her understanding. Because that Jewish school admitted children from different faiths, at 28 she still has lifelong friends from a whole range of different faiths: Muslim, Jewish, Christian and Hindu. She seems to constantly go to Hindu weddings for some reason.

I have a question for the Minister to which she might not know the answer, so perhaps she could respond in writing. I understood that we had SACREs, Standing Advisory Committees on Religious Education; each local authority had to establish a SACRE, which determined the religious syllabus for the schools in its district or city. I do not know how that works now. I was the chair of a SACRE for a couple of years, a long time ago. I do not know how that relates to the previous debate on academies, current religious education in schools or the amendment. If we agree to this amendment, which I hope we do, how does a SACRE get involved? Can it say that it is not in favour of doing this or that? If the Minister does not know or cannot get those in the Box to tell her, perhaps she could write to me. That would be very helpful.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said that RE must be safeguarded in all our schools, and here is the problem. The problem is not religious education; it is the quality of its teaching. I have been in non-faith schools and been appalled at how religious education is taught. Nobody is qualified—it can be the person who is least qualified who does it and, frankly, it would be better not to do it.

I was always a great believer in school assemblies. The law of the land said—I think it was under the Blair Government—that every school had to have a daily act of collective worship. I do not think that happens in most non-aided schools. At one stage, Ofsted used to report if it was not happening. A school assembly can be a wonderful way to celebrate people of faith or no faith—it can bring the school community together. But some schools just go through the motions and try to squeeze 500 pupils into a hall to tick the box that they have had an assembly. Frankly, I would rather that they did not do it than try to fulfil the letter of the law.

I hope the Minister will look kindly on this amendment, because it is very important. On the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, if we agree the amendment, it does not prevent those discussions taking place.

College of West Anglia and Worksop Football Academy

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, what long hours you have been working today. I have an important issue to raise. It is relevant to my constituency and the Minister is well aware of it, and I suggest to the Minister that it has wider resonance beyond my constituency. It is one example, although not isolated, of a significant problem that afflicts further education and the use of sports academies.

In January 2015, the Worksop Guardian ran a report on its website—it was later in the newspaper and on the local football club’s website—that outlined how a football academy was to be established in Worksop by Doncaster College, in partnership with Worksop Town football club. The report stated:

“Worksop Town hope to give local youngsters a future in football or guide them into further education, through their new Football Academy.”

It went on:

“Students will combine daily training sessions and matches with classroom studies, under the watchful eye of teaching staff from Doncaster College.”

The academy would offer academic qualifications, the possibility of going on to study at university, and perhaps a scholarship to America, with level 1, 2 or 3 BTEC sports diplomas, worth up to three A-levels, for each participant. According to the paper, Mr Russ Horsley, the sports academy development manager at Doncaster College, called it an exciting partnership

“in line with our new academy of sport”

founded by Doncaster College.

Unfortunately, having made this great announcement, Doncaster College did not fulfil that commitment to establish a football academy with Worksop Town football club, although the community and I discovered that only some years later. Instead, the contract went via another college, the College of West Anglia, which, at the time and throughout the existence of the academy, neither I nor anybody else in my constituency, or anybody connected with Worksop and Worksop Town football club, had any knowledge of or indeed had even heard of. The college subcontracted to a company called GEMEG whose director was one Russell Horsley, the major shareholder and company secretary since he formed the company in 2011. That is the same Russell Horsley who was the sports development manager at Doncaster College who had announced the initial partnership.

The Minister should be aware that the local further education college—known as North Notts College at the time—tried particularly hard to get in on the act and run this football academy with the local football club, but it was told in no uncertain terms that there was a better deal with Doncaster College. Despite my interventions on behalf of my local college, we were rebuffed and told that this was a perfect relationship.

What transpired was not quite what had been promised. The College of West Anglia was not known to us. It had previously had a relationship in a sports location called Gresham, near West Bridgford, just by the city of Nottingham. It was around an hour from my constituency—about 50 miles away. It was a place that none of my constituents had ever visited and a place that I had never heard of until I discovered that, apparently, the young trainees of the academy from Worksop were all at Gresham for the first six months of their £168,000 Government-funded course. I was able to demonstrate very quickly, within minutes, that zero of my constituents had ever visited Gresham. Most had never visited Nottingham. None of them had heard of the College of West Anglia. Their course had been in Worksop, and yet the College of West Anglia claimed—and has claimed right up to this year—that these students were being trained in Nottingham.

According to West Anglia, during a visit on 8 February 2016, no learners or staff were present. This cannot be a surprise because no learners had ever visited this establishment, yet the college, having taken £168,000 in Government money, was maintaining that it was delivering, through a subcontractor, this fantastic course in Gresham. With all the standards required, it said that it was guaranteeing the health and safety and the quality of the teaching and the output, but this never actually took place; it was a fiction, a fantasy. There were, of course, zero health and safety assessments, and zero quality assessment of what was going on in Worksop, which, suffice it to say, was not a success. This course cost £168,000 and nobody completed it—nobody, not a single student. The students had a bit of a view on it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House. Does he not agree that this case highlights very clearly the importance of accountability and traceability of public funds? May I congratulate him on the important, vital and creditable work that he has done in bringing this scandal to light?

[John Mann]

Absolutely.

What was the College of West Anglia doing with £168,000 of taxpayers’ money? Well, I can tell the House what it was not doing. It was not funding food for any of the trainees, who were expected to pay

“£3 a day for food at a pub”.

That was part of the course for every trainee every day. The trainees were also required to pay “£70 for training kit”. They were not assessed for bursaries. Now, I have met a lot of these students. I know my constituents; I have looked at their addresses. I know that most of them would have got a bursary. A girl with dyslexia would have got a good bursary under disability discrimination provisions. But they could not get a bursary because they were not assessed for one. Some should have received free meals, but they were not assessed for free meals.

The students should have been given the equipment they required to carry out the course, but they were charged for the training kit and were required to buy their own computers to take into a classroom. But it was not a classroom. In fact, this was a further subcontract because Worksop Town’s ground and clubhouse—known to the fans as “the bar”—in which this course took place is subcontracted from another organisation. So the College of West Anglia subcontracts to a company called GEMEG, which partly subcontracts to Worksop Town football club, which subcontracts part of the facility from another outfit and pays £2,800 for the privilege of doing so.

No travel costs were paid, unlike many other colleges with bursaries, so these young 16-year-olds had to pay to travel. One verified to me that travel was £5 a day. Another wrote to say:

“We never had set times to start and finish.”

Another said:

“I coached in schools and didn’t get paid.”

Coached in schools? Well, hang on a minute. Where is the safeguarding in the 12 primary schools where these students were expected to coach? These students have been put at theoretical risk for the rest of their lives for any claim that could be brought against them.

The schools were also at risk because they had no idea. Many thought they were paying a company called Tiger Enterprises, owned by the manager of their local Worksop Town football club. It was Tiger Enterprises that received the fine for non-attendance, paid by cheque by one of the participants. So hang on a minute—the College of West Anglia has £168,000 of taxpayers’ money, and one of its students is charged £100, which goes to a private company owned solely by the manager of the local football club, for non-attendance at the College of West Anglia course. Somebody is owed some money here—some of these students, who have some protections under the law. But the law does not really seem to have applied to them when it came to this course, this college and its actions.

Section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 puts a requirement on the college for the general wellbeing of children. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 also puts a requirement on the college, but it did not even know the location of these young people. It did not know that these young people were going into primary schools—untrained and without insurance—to coach four and five-year-olds in football.

This is a shambles and a scandal. My constituents were put at risk and none of them got qualifications. Other people made money. Worksop Town managed to get £20,726 out of the £168,000 as its share of the loot for what it was providing in some way. Yet the community sports ground that provided the facility required in the course for the playing of sport is still owed over £5,000 to this very day. The College of West Anglia, having failed to deliver a course that provided any real qualifications, having received £168,000 of taxpayers’ money, having failed to address safeguarding, health and safety, or quality control of any kind, and having not even known which part of Nottinghamshire, 50 miles out, these young people were at, has not even paid the bill for its course to a community club run entirely, 100%, by volunteers. That is the level of the scandal.

To reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), what is going wrong when the College of West Anglia today refuses to meet me about this and refuses to pay its debt? The chair of governors and the principal say that they have dealt with the issues, but they have not dealt with the issues of this scandal whereby they used their name to rip off the taxpayer for this money, to provide no qualifications, to put my constituents at risk, to cost my constituents money, and to leave a community sports club about £6,000 out of pocket when most of the local kids’ teams are playing football in places where they are trying to raise money for toilets and changing rooms.

I want this college to pay its due moneys immediately. But I hope, as well, that the Minister will look at a system that allows this kind of scandal to arise. It would have been perfectly feasible to deliver a good course, run well, that motivated these young people and where the vast majority of them would qualify and have the chance to go on to further things, rather than the shambles faced by 23 young people in year one and an equal number in year two who did the course a month or two before it eventually collapsed, which is how I found out about it. As for those in the Football Association and the football world who have ticked every box to endorse this and allow it to happen, where on earth were they—lacking the safeguarding that is a pre-requisite to their existence? They were not there, and they have a lot of questions to answer. I hope that the Minister is going to change the system so that money from the taxpayer and from her Department—I know she was shocked about this—is never wasted in this way again.

[The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this debate. As he knows, I really appreciate him raising his concerns with me about the educational provision delivered by the College of West Anglia at Worksop Town football club. We have discussed this case on several occasions, and he has taken a close interest in the investigation undertaken by the Education and Skills Funding Agency. When things go wrong, it is critical that, first, we do all we can to put them right—we cannot always do so, and we cannot turn back the clock—but equally important, as he rightly said, we need to look back and learn lessons to prevent them from happening again. He is right that this case has wider implications beyond those confined to Worksop Town football club and the College of West Anglia.

Subcontracted provision needs careful management. The ESFA allocates £5.7 billion annually to provide study programmes for young people. It is very important, as the hon. Gentleman said, that public funds are appropriated correctly with the interests of our young people protected. As he is aware—I hope he will forgive me if I mention a few things that it is quite important to put down for the record—the programme at Worksop Town football club was completed in 2016, and the College of West Anglia independently took the decision to terminate its contract with the subcontractor, GEMEG, from July 2016.

Once the concerns about the provision were brought to our attention, we commissioned an investigation, but it was the hon. Gentleman’s efforts that brought this to a head. In June 2018, we published the findings, so that all in the sector can learn the lessons of this case. The hon. Gentleman was persistent in getting to the bottom of this case. It was clear that the original ESFA draft investigation report was not as comprehensive as it should have been, and his insistence has ensured that a full and proper report has now been published.

We are clear that the arrangement between the college and the subcontractor was unacceptable. The investigation highlighted that the college needs to carry out a full review of its subcontracting controls and assurance systems and processes. That must include the college’s process for monitoring subcontractors, as well as subcontractors’ methodology for conducting enrolment, induction and initial assessment of learners.

As a result of the investigation, the College of West Anglia is barred from starting any new subcontracting arrangements for 16-to-19 learners until the ESFA is satisfied that all the proper procedures are in place. The ESFA continues to monitor progress against the college action plan, but it is not yet satisfied, and the bar on new 16-to-19 subcontracting remains in place.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions. He talked about the purchases that young people were required to make. Young people are quite vulnerable. In fact, they were not required to purchase sportswear that was not necessary for their learning programme, but the fine definition of that might well have been lost to some of them. Critically, the use of taxpayers’ money comes into question, but as important are the young people who have been let down, and sadly we cannot turn the clock back on that. The ESFA has subsequently clarified the funding rules to ensure that in future, that distinction is made clear to students who undertake studies as part of the sports academy, so that they fully understand what is and is not essential to the completion of their programme.

The hon. Gentleman raised questions about whether students received support funding to which they may have been entitled, in respect of expenses incurred. The investigation found that some students did receive payments of bursaries. However, it is clear that the College of West Anglia and GEMEG could have done a great deal more to make learners aware of funding support, in particular helping them to evidence their eligibility to make a claim.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his quest for answers, with the most serious question he raises being about the safeguarding of young people; nothing is more important. The investigation fully explored that area and was able to conclude that all teachers who worked with the learners had been CRB—now DBS—checked. No allegations of breaches of safeguarding were reported to the College of West Anglia while this provision was being delivered.

[John Mann]

I commend the Minister for her work and her approach throughout this unhappy episode. Safeguarding does not protect the young people who are put in the position of training four or five-year-olds without having the competence or accreditation to do so. I am pleased to inform her that Nottinghamshire County Council has agreed that a gold-plated qualification on top of all existing requirements is now the aim for anyone who does sports coaching in schools in Nottinghamshire. Is that not a great step forward?

[Anne Milton]

It is an important step forward, and I congratulate Nottinghamshire County Council. Safeguarding and anything to do with the training of young people should be gold-plated; it is as simple as that. Nothing less than the best will do, particularly in this day and age, when we hear of so many cases where things have gone wrong.

As a result of this case, the College of West Anglia is prevented from entering into any further subcontracting arrangements until it has provided evidence of independently verified improvements in its arrangements for control and quality assurance of subcontracting and has systematically addressed all the recommendations in the report.

This is a worrying case, and the report reached a number of conclusions highlighting areas of concern about where controls were simply completely inadequate. However, the lessons learned are being used to improve the experience for learners. The ESFA has revised its guidance and rules on subcontracting. It has also set in motion a wider review of its monitoring and enforcement of subcontracting rules across all post-16 funding. That review is due to reach its conclusions shortly, and it is already highlighting areas where we can learn lessons from such cases.

From 2019, the ESFA will introduce an annual review of subcontracting for all providers that subcontract. That will look across ESFA programmes, including 16-19 funding, the adult education budget, apprenticeships and the European social fund. It will protect students by looking for signs of non-compliance and checking with main providers that the rules are being followed. It is all very well to have rules, but one actually has to check that they are followed.

It is vital that directly funded organisations properly monitor and control all subcontracted delivery. They must ensure that safeguarding is rigorously policed, that students enjoy the same entitlements as those learning in schools and colleges, and that their education is of high quality. There are huge opportunities for young people if this is done well.

Linked to this case, the ESFA has taken the opportunity to review and strengthen the funding guidance for subcontracting and how it relates specifically to sports academies. Specifically, the rules state it is essential that the delivery of the ESFA-funded programme and the delivery of the academy or club’s activities are distinct from each other and, critically, that students understand the rules and requirements pertaining to each. The rules have been strengthened to emphasise that directly funded institutions are responsible for all aspects of provision delivered under subcontracting arrangements.

We have met the Football Association to raise concerns about the risks associated with sports academies. The ESFA continues to work with the FA to ensure that the rules outlined in the guidance to their football clubs and academies are in place for the next academic year. ESFA officials have worked with the FA and developed a quality assurance framework for football clubs, which is a big step forward, and we will continue to work with them.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his efforts to pursue this case.

[John Mann]

The FA, at an appropriate level, has been happy to meet me, and I believe it remains happy to do so. The Minister and her officials have—I think, on six occasions—deigned to meet me and have had the joy of doing so. Does she not think it is appropriate for the College of West Anglia also to enjoy the opportunity of at least one meeting with me to discuss this situation?

[Anne Milton]

I always enjoy the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman. In fact, I have to say to him that, as he is possibly aware, many Members of the House would perhaps have fallen at the first or second hurdle, but he persists and it is such persistence that gets results.

This is a complex situation that requires persistence and tenacity. I know that at heart what drives him is the fact that learners are being let down. That is what this is all about. It is important that we make good use of taxpayers’ money, but it is the young people who suffer if we do not get it right.

The hon. Gentleman and I have a shared commitment to seeing that all young people receive a high-quality education and are safe while they do so. I am enormously grateful for the support he has given to me and my officials. He has raised important concerns, and I hope he is happy that I echo them on behalf of the Government. The steps we have taken underline the importance we place on learning lessons from this case. Where there is Government money, there will always be people trying to get around the rules—as I said in Committee recently, there are vultures out there waiting to take that money for less effort—but I hope we can move forward, that lessons have been learned and that this is an end to this sorry tale.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with West Anglia College on his Department’s document “Investigation Report: the College of West Anglia”, published in August 2018.

[The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)]

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has been clear that West Anglia College cannot undertake any further subcontracting until the ESFA is satisfied that all the proper procedures highlighted in the report are in place. Frequent dialogue with the college continues, and I will keep the hon. Gentleman informed. I praise him for his tenacity in highlighting this issue.

[John Mann]

West Anglia College is avoiding me. Some £160,000-worth of taxpayers’ money, yet not a single student—all from my constituency—is fulfilling and passing the course. The college did not even know that the course was taking place 50 miles away from where it thought it was taking place. Is it not incumbent on the college now to attend a meeting and to pay back the money that has been lost by some of my constituents, in terms of facilities and expenses, because of the shambles delivered by West Anglia College?

[Anne Milton]

The hon. Gentleman’s term “shambles” is not inappropriate. This has been a shocking case, and it is from such cases that we learn lessons to make sure that it does not happen again. He talks about paying the money back, and I am sure the ESFA is looking at all possible options to make sure that his constituents are well served.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The hon. Lady has raised an important issue, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has also sought to address, and of which there has been some media coverage. Looked-after children are our responsibility: we are, ultimately, their parents. This is wrong, and should not be happening.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T3. The national child abuse inquiry looked in detail at what happened to kids who behaved badly and were then put in children’s homes by magistrates courts. Today, the same children are excluded from schools and left to their own devices. What assessment has been made of the root causes of the behaviour that led to their exclusion?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman has raised very important points about a subject in which he has considerable expertise. This is one of the reasons that we asked Edward Timpson to conduct a thorough review of exclusions policy. It is done better in some places than others, and it is important for us to learn from that. It is also important that, when children are excluded, alternative provision should be the start of something positive and new, rather than the end of positive education.

Sexual Harassment and Violence in Schools

Lord Mann Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I praise the work of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). As I have been listening to them over a period of quite some time, I have learned a lot of important things.

The issue raised here today is, without question, the highest on the agenda for the country. There is so much ignorance about the scale of the problem. The problem has been made worse by social media—by the extent of our exposure to it and the fact that people are now exposed to things that they were not exposed to before. People use it now for communicating with each other.

We are talking about an epidemic of abusive sexual photographs of girls being circulated on a daily basis around schools. Schools and teachers have no idea what to do about the problem as they have not been trained, and Ofsted has no criteria for dealing with it. Even if all of that was in place, the law in relation to the social media companies in this country must be fundamentally changed. The exemption from publishers’ liability must be removed, because if the system has been breached, it allows people or organisations to take legal action, exactly as they can in the print media. That exemption, which came from the United States at the beginning of the internet industry, is quite fundamental to our ability to do something about social media. In essence, we are powerless across the world and in this country when it comes to that issue.

I will not repeat what the previous two speakers said about systems of reporting, but my experience is exactly the same. There is confusion, a lack of clarity, a lack of confidence in the system and a critical lack of training for key professionals. Those are fundamental issues. Some schools have got it and are good exemplars, but the vast majority are pretty clueless. That means that significant sexual offences—the routine, daily offences and the life-transforming ones that wreck the lives of the girls who are attacked—are possibly not even recorded. The details cannot be passed from one headteacher to another or to a governing body, so no one knows anything because there is no system in place.

There is meant to be good practice in higher education with consent training in universities. That training on understanding consent is quite profoundly needed for men and boys, and for girls and women. But it is not compulsory; no register is kept. People choose not to go—guess which people. Making that training compulsory in universities, schools and in education for 16 to 18-year-olds would mean more debate and dialogue about how it is done, and would make it far easier to spread examples of best practice. That would have a huge impact. We men in here should also have that compulsory training. It should be a requirement for sitting as Member of Parliament.

Finally—and the Minister has been helpful and active on this issue—people are saying that, even for 16 to 18-year-olds, some aspects are taught and the rest is not, even some of the basic stuff. From my experience, there is literally nothing in place in sports academies for 16 to 18-year-olds, not even the legal safeguarding requirements.

I get very depressed by the numbers of people—usually of women—who come to see me, and I find out what happened to them at school. Their parents do not know; they have no idea whatever. These women will not have reported to the police the fact that they have been raped. The volume is so incredibly profound that we have an epidemic in this country. If we do not act, we are responsible. We have that power. Therefore, the entire Parliament should be in here. I very much encourage those who have taken a lead to keep doing so and to kick the rest of us into action.

Budget Resolutions

Lord Mann Excerpts

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

[Justine Greening]

Germany has its own approach to corporation tax. Ours has been steadily, and dramatically, to reduce it in order to make sure that companies can retain the profits they are making to be able to reinvest in growing their companies. The proof of the pudding is in the substantial and significant job creation that we have seen in our economy, by comparison with many other countries, over recent years. That is why we are able to put money into our public services.

As we prepare to leave the European Union, we will need to be more self-sufficient in our workforces, in our skills and in the training of our young people to set ourselves up for success. We will need new ideas, new jobs and new investment to confidently meet every challenge and grasp the opportunities ahead of us. We want a global Britain strong at home and strong abroad. It is now time for Britain to step up a gear to begin the shift up to the high-skill, high-productivity economy that we can be. This Government are ready to act.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Is it not a fact that under this Government, while the Secretary of State has been in office, we have fallen two places in the research and development international league tables, behind Slovenia and the Czech Republic?

[Justine Greening]

The autumn statement saw us provide further investment for R and D. Indeed, the national productivity fund has been set up to make sure that we can fund infrastructure, including R and D, more broadly. However, it is not just through physical infrastructure that our country will be successful—we need to invest in our people and in human capital as well. Through this Budget we are investing in human capital in skills, education and training to create a strong economy that works for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

The Secretary of State has spent a huge amount of time speaking and I have a lot of Back Benchers who want to speak, so I am going to carry on.

The Chancellor announced one other measure in the Budget to address the issue: £5 million a year for the Government’s cash-for-cabs scheme, bussing children to grammar schools. Of course, the Chancellor forgot to mention that the Government had just cut £6 million out of the schools transport budget for every other child. Those cuts left no statutory provision for disabled 16 to 18-year-olds and others, who were forced to change school. They are paying the taxi tax so that a handful of pupils can be ferried up to 15 miles to the nearest grammar school by cab, at a cost of thousands of pounds each. Apparently, the comprehensive school bus is out, and the grammar school Uber is in. That is all to give the Government a fig leaf of social mobility. The Chancellor said:

“We are committed to that programme because we understand that choice is the key to excellence in education”.—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 818.]

I remind the Government that good teaching, school leadership, proper funding, the right curriculum and many other things are also key to that excellence.

It is also a rather obvious point that the Government’s proposed system is not one in which parents or pupils choose the school; instead, the schools choose the pupils. Parents are unlikely to have the choice they have been promised on childcare either. The Chancellor told the House that

“from September, working parents with three and four-year-olds will get their free childcare entitlement doubled to 30 hours a week.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 816.]

But the Secretary of State has already admitted in written answers that only a small minority of the parents receiving 15 hours will be eligible for the 30 hours. Fewer than 400,000 families will qualify, despite the Government’s promise at the last election that more than 600,000 would benefit.

The Chancellor’s plans for adult education are no closer to reality. He announced £40 million to trial new ways of delivering adult education and lifelong learning, but his own Government have cut the adult skills budget by 32% since 2010, taking out more than £1 billion. I know that the Chancellor’s aides have referred to their neighbours in No. 10 as “economically illiterate”, but surely even they realise the absurdity of trying to reverse the damage caused by £1 billion of cuts with £40 million in trials.

It is a similar story with the £500 million a year to deliver the new T-levels. That amount of new investment would be welcome—after all, further education budgets were cut by 7% in the last Parliament, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that between 2010 and 2020, funding per pupil in further education would be cut by 13%—but the briefing lines do not quite match the Budget lines. The Red Book shows that in 2018-19 the new funding will be only £60 million. Even by 2021-22, the new funding will not have risen to the promised half a billion a year.

[John Mann]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the consequences for the productivity gap? Since the Tories came in, and even under the coalition Government, the productivity gap between this country and the rest of the world has worsened in every single year. It is now at its worst since 1991.

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

It is not the job of a Minister of the Crown to lay down the law on individual cases and companies that have not been found definitely to have breached the law. I have been as clear as possible about any employer, large or small, that does breach the law, and I hope the hon. Gentleman can apply that to any particular case.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

In our area, everyone knows that English native speakers cannot get a job at the Sports Direct warehouse, despite 3,000 people working there, and there was a baby born in the toilets there. Why were there 80 ambulance visits to Sports Direct in two years? Is it because employees are too scared and not allowed time off to see the doctor, and there is therefore a misdirection of NHS resources? Might there also be tied housing, meaning that people are too scared to speak because they are provided with a house to live in, the rent and the transport they have to pay for to get to work? We need a full investigation not just into Sports Direct but into the plethora of agencies it used to employ.

[Nick Boles]

If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has allegations and evidence of bad practice in relation to minimum wage, or any other, legislation they would like to bring to my attention, I would welcome it. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) mentioned that a trade union had raised concerns about this particular employer. If employees do not trust the Government phone line, despite the ACAS hotline being genuinely confidential and independent, and if they would like to submit their evidence through the union, they can, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that they need to be willing to engage with enforcement officers to provide evidence. The Government have to act on the basis of evidence; however well researched the Guardian article was, it is not enough on its own.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

It was impossible for the IPPR to know how much the Government’s policy would cost before it knew the eligibility criteria for the new entitlement. The Chancellor announced the eligibility criteria at the autumn statement and made it clear that there is record investment going into childcare—£1 billion in 2019-20. That is something we should all be proud of.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

12. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the potential contribution by city regions to developing educational provision.

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

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased, I am sure, to learn that the Secretary of State regularly meets Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of issues. City regions can certainly play a role, as seen from our work with Greater Manchester on a review of children’s services, and we already have combined authorities in Sheffield and Manchester leading the area reviews of post-16 education provision. We expect new combined authorities and city regions to work closely with the eight regional school commissioners.

[John Mann]

That was a bit of waffle. Is it not a good idea formally to link secondary academies with city regions so that the economic development and education potential can be rolled together? Will the Minister take that forward to other Ministers and get it properly on the agenda?

[Edward Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman has a habit of calling anything that anyone else says waffle. I have described what is happening, which is devolution, which I am sure he will welcome, as the area in which his constituency is located is looking to create a combined authority. We have the regional school commissioners doing excellent work, holding each area to account and making sure that regions are raising the performance of schools and education across their area. I am sure that is something he would welcome in Bassetlaw and elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

The Government believe very firmly in the expansion of all good and outstanding schools, regardless of what type of schools they are, because we want all children to have an excellent education regardless of birth or background.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T4. A part of rip-off Britain is increasingly affecting schools, which is the branding of every item of clothing by academies under the guise of school uniforms. As there is a monopoly supplier for every school, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that there is some competition so parents can have a choice and save some of their valuable earnings?

[Mr Gibb]

The admissions code is very clear: schools cannot use expensive suppliers for school uniforms. They cannot use the supply of school uniforms as a way of raising extra revenue for the school, and the schools adjudicator takes these matters very seriously, as do we.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Mann Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me continue. Far from diminishing the voice of trade unions, as I said in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), achieving the thresholds would increase the legitimacy of trade unions with management and shareholders and in the eyes of the general public. As we politicians know only too well, a strong mandate increases our legitimacy and the power and authority of our actions, and we have heard a lot over the past few days from the trade unions and their leaders about the value of a strong mandate.

As a result of this Bill, there may well be fewer strikes on less substantive matters that are not viewed by the unions’ own members as sufficiently serious to justify putting their employer and thus their job in jeopardy or that seriously inconvenience customers and the general public. Those that do go ahead will have a greater mandate and higher legitimacy, and consequently will need to be taken much more seriously by everybody involved in the negotiation.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I thank my parliamentary neighbour for giving way. He will recall the mass demonstration in his constituency following the unofficial power workers strike, when 5,000 people marched. I spoke at the rally and it concluded a dispute that involved a lot of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Is he aware that those constituents of his who participated would be criminalised by this Bill?

[Robert Jenrick]

The key issue is that trade union leaders should speak for their members and achieve a clear mandate from them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We have heard enough from him—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I seem to have made a popular decision.

Of course, the Government would make no such proposal, because it does not support democracy—indeed, it offends democracy. But we know nothing of the responses from all the institutions that may want us to take their views into account because the Bill was drawn up and put before the House even though the consultation closed only last Wednesday, five days ago. Incidentally, that breaches the Government’s own advice on how to consult on legislation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned, the Bill did go before the Regulatory Policy Committee, which was scathing about three aspects of the legislation it was asked to examine, including the thresholds for 40% and 50%. It gave a red card to all three, deeming them not fit for purpose and stating that the Government had not provided sufficient evidence of the likely impact of the proposals to support the consultation. The Regulatory Policy Committee is the Government’s own watchdog, and that is as damning an indictment of a piece of legislation as we are ever likely to see from it.

Another aspect of the Bill is the attempt to make processes involved in picketing part of criminal rather than civil law. It is designed to address allegations of picket line intimidation, but the Carr review, set up by the Conservatives under the coalition Government to investigate such allegations, specifically said that it could find no evidence of intimidation. In response to the review, which was led by a Conservative, the Local Government Association said that its view was that

“there are no particular issues for local government in terms of alleged extreme tactics and the appropriateness of the legal framework to deal with inappropriate and intimidatory actions …we…very rarely…hear of such alleged tactics”.

Through the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police said:

“In general the legislative framework is seen by the police as broadly fit for purpose and the range of criminal offences available to the police sufficient to deal with the situations encountered.”

This is a non-issue. It was examined by a committee that had to downgrade itself because there was no evidence.

The Government know little about the workplaces of Britain and understand less. They certainly have no comprehension of the role that free, independent trade unions play as an essential component of a mature democracy or the history of the struggle for workers’ rights in this country. Many Conservative Members probably think the Donovan commission was the backing group on “Mellow Yellow”.

[John Mann]

My right hon. Friend has substantive experience of these matters over many years. Does he think that when a grievance in the workplace is artificially blocked from expressing itself it tends to go away, or does it fester in much worse ways for a much longer period of time, to the disadvantage of the employer as well as employees?

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend raises the central point. I do not know about other trade union officials here, but I spent most of my time trying to stop strikes, trying to resolve them after they had happened and trying to find a formula to get people back to work. Try standing in front of 2,000 striking Liverpool postmen and telling them “I’ve got a deal.”

There is a complete fallacy which is shared by even the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell and his colleagues who are trade union members. They seem to miss the point that if unions cannot ballot legally, they lose the opportunity for leadership to hold the pressure cooker together and to conduct disputes in a civilised way with the employer. To lose or discourage that is asking for the kind of wildcat action mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see you are looking at me. I will conclude my comments. Where the Government have consulted, the response is not known. Where they have put the Bill’s measures to its own Regulatory Policy Committee, they have been deemed not fit for purpose. The review commissioned to look at aspects of this proposed legislation was downgraded by its own Government-appointed chair. The major aspects of the Bill will breach the legally binding undertakings that UK Governments have signed up to through the International Labour Organisation. The greatest threat to workers and employees is not from balloted industrial action, which last year led to 155 stoppages in an economy of over 30 million workers, but from disruptive unofficial action that neither side of industry can control and that the Bill will make more likely. I am reminded of a Russian trade unionist—we all met them in our days as trade union officials before 1990—who said to me, “Of course industrial action is legal in Russia, as long as it has been approved by the state.” All I can say is that the Russians would have been proud of this Bill. It is a bad Bill. It needs to be killed—now.