Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Secretary of State is rehearsing for his conference oration. That has to be what it is—we are grateful to him.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

This Government are making a complete hash of the apprenticeship levy in quality and quantity. It is running out of money, so the trainers who provide 70% of all apprenticeships cannot meet the demand from small businesses, such as the two I met recently in Blackpool that have had no money from the Department for Education. There was nothing new in the spending review for providers or for small businesses for apprentices. Starts for 16 to 18-year-olds are down 23% on the pre-levy numbers. There was nothing for the 800,000 young people who are stagnating in the NEET category, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) pointed out. There is not even a dedicated day-to-day Skills Minister to tell them, or us, why they are in this mess. Has anyone in this disappearing Government left the lights on?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Q4. May I give the Prime Minister some brief relief from Brexit and ask her about dogs? Last week, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, with its specific breeds definition, was not fit for purpose, as hundreds of pit bull-type dogs are confiscated yearly and destroyed, with no impact on dog bite numbers. Will she ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to act urgently on the Committee’s recommendations and not take the approach of the Lords Minister, who told the Committee that even a good-tempered dog had to be put down as “collateral damage”? My wonderful bull terrier-type dog was rescued from the streets, and to think of her being destroyed because her face did not fit in court is chilling.

[Mr Speaker]

We have heard quite a bit about the dog situation, but I think we are going to hear more.

Universal Credit

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I gave notice of this point of order to your office this afternoon. It relates to three questions that I tabled on Thursday last week pertaining to the trial and sentencing in Preston Crown court of three fracking protesters who have been released by the Court of Appeal without custodial sentences today.

In those questions to the Attorney General, I asked about an investigation into compliance with the judicial code of conduct in relation to the judge’s conduct in that case. Those questions were transferred by the Attorney General’s Office to the Ministry of Justice without any explanation. This lunchtime, the Court of Appeal quashed the custodial sentences. The response that I got from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), was along the lines that no Minister should comment on these areas. However, on looking at the list of ministerial responsibilities, it is quite clear that questions about public interest functions, including the reference of sentences to the Court of Appeal, are valid for the Attorney General. On top of that, the judicial code of conduct, which the Attorney General can look at, talks particularly about family connections.

I seek your guidance Mr Speaker, on the basis on which the Attorney General transferred those questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice. She said in her response:

“It would not be appropriate for me or any other government minister to comment on cases which are, or have been, before the courts”,

but that was not the question that I asked. Incidentally, the gentleman who signed off the judicial guidance in the code of conduct is the Lord Chief Justice himself, who today said that the sentences passed by the judge at Preston Crown court were “manifestly excessive”.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I had not myself received notice, but about the absence of which notice transmitted directly to me I make no complaint. I absolutely accept that he informed my office of this matter, but it may have been when I was elsewhere.

What do I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and for the wider benefit of the House? First, the transferability of questions from one Department to another is exclusively the preserve of the Government. That is not something in relation to which, however infuriating to an individual Member, an explanation is required to the Chair or even really the Member. It sounds as though some attempted explanation was given, but it has not satisfied the hon. Gentleman. It is, however, a power of a Department to shift an answer to another Department.

Secondly, by implication, the hon. Gentleman asks what recourse he has. The answer is that he can table further questions in an orderly manner, with the assistance of the Table Office, to press his case. That is the concept of what I call “persist, persist, persist,” which is not an entirely novel phenomenon in the House of Commons and with which the hon. Gentleman, from long experience and perspicacity, is well familiar.

Thirdly, although the hon. Gentleman cannot insist on the presence of a particular Minister—for example, to answer an urgent question, although I am not suggesting this would be such a case—if he thinks that it is relevant to the Attorney General, rather than to the Ministry of Justice, he can seek to raise this matter at questions to the Attorney General. The question whether he is then called to ask a question would of course fall to me, and he might find that he is successful. He must find out when there will next be questions to the Attorney General, and he should table a question. If he is fortunate in the ballot, he will be on to a very good thing. If he is not successful in the ballot, he should cast his beady eye over the successful questions and decide how he can relate his inquiry to one of the successful questions. He then leaps from his feet and hopes to catch my eye—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Gordon Marsden—get in there, man.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Friday’s National Audit Office report on the higher education market is hugely damaging. It says that the market is failing students and that such practice anywhere else would raise questions of mis-selling. Meanwhile, the Student Loans Company is in crisis. This is all under the watch of the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. What does he say now to the NAO?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The emphasis in topical questions is supposed to be on quick-fire questions and quick-fire responses. I am not sure that that has been altogether grasped either by those who advise Ministers and tend to write out long and tedious screeds or even by Ministers themselves, but it would help if it was.

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Last week’s stunning National Audit Office report said that the Department for Education could not show that £200 million from LIBOR funds pledged by the Government for 50,000 apprenticeships for unemployed 22 to 24-year-olds had actually been used for that purpose. Eighteen months ago, when I tabled four parliamentary questions on the issue, Ministers ducked and dodged answering. Was the £200 million shoved down a Treasury sofa, or was it just pocketed by DFE? What is the Secretary of State going to do now that the NAO has found the Government out?

Technical and Further Education Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

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

[Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Representative panels—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The strategy shall be laid before Parliament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) persons with special educational needs;

(b) care leavers;

(c) persons of different ethnicities;

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

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

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

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

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

(c) the Office for Students.

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

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

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

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

(8) Regulations made under this section—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ZA2A Expenditure by the Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“standard or technical assessment design specification”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“including those offered by Higher Education Institutions,”.

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

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

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

[Gordon Marsden]

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

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

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

Closure of St Paul’s Place BIS Office (Sheffield)

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on her urgent question. Today’s announcement that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is scrapping its office in Sheffield, which has 247 jobs, is a hammer blow to the people there. It is also a huge worry and a warning to the 12 other BIS regional offices, six of which are in the north, that they are at risk from this so-called restructuring. What assurance can the Minister give us that there will be no compulsory redundancies in Sheffield, and will she tell the House what offers of relocation expenses or even relocation itself there will be?

The BIS press statement talked vaguely about six business centres, which the Minister also mentioned in her answer, but they are servicing a centralised headquarters in London. Will the Minister say precisely where those centres will be—we have been told that possibly five will be in the south, and one in the north—and how many people will work in them? Are they simply a hastily drafted afterthought? Will they be just fig leaves, ministerial post boxes or possibly even digital fig leaves?

The BIS statement also said that the closure would reduce operating costs, so will the Minister tell the House what savings there will be from this closure, which comes on the backs of the people of Sheffield? The union, Prospect, said yesterday, that it was given only 30 minutes’ notice of this announcement. What discussions did Ministers have with workers and trade unions before the announcement was made?

The announcement comes on the back of the latest Centre for Cities report, which places Sheffield in the low wage, high welfare economy—half of the UK’s biggest cities are in that report. The report underlines the stark north-south divide and undermines all the Chancellor’s spin and rhetoric about a rebalanced economy. It is no wonder that civil servants told Radio Sheffield that they felt betrayed.

In the light of the 100 jobs lost at Sheffield Forgemasters and HMRC’s November announcement, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley has already referred, I have to ask whether this is what the Tory industrial strategy amounts to—cutting and running. This is not a strategic approach; it is a kick in the teeth. The Financial Times said that 20% of civil service jobs had been lost in the regions since 2010 as opposed to only 9% in London. With infrastructure spending in the north standing at £539 a head and London’s at £3,386, BIS is shifting more jobs to the Chancellor’s Whitehall comfort zone and exposing the empty rhetoric of his northern powerhouse.

Did the Minister’s Department discuss the decision with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who is busily promising devolution to local authorities while her officials are undermining it, and did the Minister’s Secretary of State discuss the closure with the Chancellor and did he approve it? Did BIS speak to council leaders in Sheffield and across West Yorkshire to see whether an alternative package could be put together? This Government need to tackle our skills emergency. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister should listen. The Government have dithered and missed opportunities—[Interruption.] Will the Minister stop chuntering from a sedentary position? They have missed opportunities to save our steel industry—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This speech will be heard—[Interruption.] Order! Minister, you have had your say, and you will have further says. There is something here about a basic dignity. Just sit and listen. It is not about you; it is about the issue. It is not about the hon. Gentleman either. Be quiet and listen. That is the end of it. It is not a request; it is an instruction.

Student Maintenance Grants

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marsden]

I am sorry but a great number of people wish to speak. I have taken a number of interventions already and I really must make progress.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just so that the House is aware, on present trends there will be only about an hour in total for Back-Bench speeches and 18 people are wanting to speak. I am underlining the potency of the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made from the Front Bench.

[Mr Marsden]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a nudge factor here; it is a nudge away from progress, from that regional growth and from those opportunities for groups and individuals who traditionally have been debt averse. Asking people on higher education courses at further education colleges to take on up to £50,000-worth of debt in areas such as the north-east, where in some parts that sum could equate to the price of a small house or flat, concerns colleges such as New College Durham. Its principal, John Widdowson, has said that

“nudge can work both ways—especially for people who’ve signed up for foundation courses and are considering going for honours—the more complex you make the funding process the more it can seem a barrier.”

Those sorts of concerns were recently echoed by the Office for Fair Access. But it is the individual life chances that may be blighted or disrupted by these changes that should weigh heavily on all of us, which is why the NUS and its student bodies have been so passionate in campaigning against this change. For me, all those individual cases in FE are summed up by the email I received only yesterday from a student in Blackpool, who said that she would like to thank me

“for defending the students who will be affected by the loss of grants. I am from Blackpool and in my second year of my degree with UCLan, and a married mature student with two children.”

She said that she had been plagued by illness as a child, which is why she was having to study in her late 30s, and stated:

“The complete U-turn by the Government who said education should not just be for the privileged and should not exclude the poor has now done exactly that.”

The changes will also affect significant numbers of students in the traditional university sector, including 14,000 at Manchester Metropolitan University, 8,000-plus at the University of Manchester, nearly 11,000 at Nottingham Trent and 3,738 at King’s College London. As I have said, it is a potential list of lost opportunities.

We can only speculate on what impact the regulations will have on future cohorts of students. The National Education Opportunities Network and the University and College Union are currently undertaking research with more than 2,000 final year A-level and level 3 students to look at how costs influence the higher education choices that those students make. The interim findings from that research show that more than half the students who are deciding not to go into HE are taking that decision because of the lack of direct financial maintenance grant support that they had envisaged for the year ahead.

The equality assessment states:

“At an aggregate level there is no evidence that the 2012 reforms, which saw a significant increase in HE fees and associated student debt levels, has had a significant impact in deterring the participation of young students from low income backgrounds.”

That is now debateable, because the safety net of maintenance grants, which was introduced in 2012 with that tripling of fees, is now being removed. That is why, in her letter praying against the regulations, the shadow Secretary of State wrote:

“Labour is concerned this change won’t improve Government finances in the long term.”

That echoes the view of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said:

“The replacement of maintenance grants by loans from 2016–17 will raise debt for the poorest students, but do little to improve government finances in the long run.”

The IFS states that, in the short term, Government borrowing will drop by around £2 billion a year, because current spending on grants counts towards current borrowing, while current spending on loans does not. In the long run, savings could well be less than that. The amount of money lent to students will rise by about £2.3 billion for each cohort, but the IFS says that only around a quarter of those additional loans are likely to be repaid. In the long run, therefore, the net effect is a reduction in Government borrowing by around £270 million per cohort, and a 3% decline in the Government’s estimated contribution to higher education. In a fair and balanced way, the IFS said:

“Students from households with pre-tax incomes of up to £25,000 (those currently eligible for a full maintenance grant) will have a little more ‘cash in pocket’…But they will also graduate with around £12,500 more debt, on average, from a three-year course. This means that students from the poorest backgrounds are now likely to leave university owing substantially more to the government than their better-off peers.”

It also states:

“The poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than up to £40,500. This will result from the replacement of maintenance grants”.

As I have already said, when the Government tripled tuition fees in 2012, they tried to sweeten the pill, by talking up the centrality of the maintenance grant to ensure that the most disadvantaged could still access higher education. They promised three things: a national scholarship programme; the maintenance grants for the disadvantaged programme; and the earnings-related threshold that would be uprated with inflation. The then Minister of State for Universities and Science, David Willetts, said:

“The increase in maintenance grant for students from households with the lowest incomes, the National Scholarship Programme, and additional fair access requirements…should ensure that the reforms do not affect individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately.”

That is what the Minister’s predecessor in the Conservative-led Government said in 2011-12, but the regulations that the Government passed in Committee last week will disadvantage the same groups of students that the Government promised to protect two years ago. David Willetts previously lauded the measures as a quid pro quo for the trebling of tuition fees, saying:

“Our proposals are progressive, because they help to encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to university, because of the higher education maintenance grant, and because of the higher repayment threshold.”——[Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 940.]

Now all three elements of those promises have been broken by this Government. The Minister’s colleague, now Lord Willetts, must be revolving in his ermine at the way in which his promises have been so lightly regarded by the Government.

The Government and their predecessors set great store by the principle of “nudge”—actions that persuade people to change their behaviour for the better. Let me remind the Minister that it is possible to nudge people away from desirable outcomes rather than towards them. A new Department for Business Innovation and Skills study shows that more than half the applicants said that they had been put off university by the costs. That is backed up by the Sutton Trust, which said:

“Shifting grants to loans may move them off the balance sheet, but it could also put off many low and middle income students and tip the balance against their going to university. Since grants were reintroduced, there have been significant improvements”—

and we welcome that, but those will be—

put at risk by today’s Budget plans.”

Research from the National Union of Students, which was published last week by Populus, shows that parents are concerned that the Government’s plans to scrap the maintenance grant will discourage their children from applying to university. Two fifths of those with a combined income of £25,000 or less believe that to be the case. The range of the groups affected by the changes is daunting. The assessment concedes that black and minority ethnic students in particular will be disproportionately worse off. On older learners, it says:

“Mature students will be disproportionately impacted by the policy proposals to remove the full maintenance grant and replace with additional loan as well as the freezing of targeted grants.”

The Government have also conceded that disabled people will be disproportionately affected by the decision not to protect the real-terms value of disabled students allowances. The assessment spells out the potential for discrimination because of religious beliefs, stating that there is evidence to suggest that there are groups of Muslim students whose religion prohibits them from taking out an interest-bearing loan. Finally, the impact assessment also states that female students will be particularly affected by the freezing of childcare grants, parents’ learning allowances and employment and support allowances, given their significant over-representation in these populations.

Further to that, the scrapping of 24+ loans in further education is particularly relevant to the case before us today, because it is indicative of what has happened in previous circumstances when the Government have gone down this road. As the Minister knows, the Government released figures in October 2015 that showed clear evidence of the deterrent impact on learners that I and others warned about when these loans were introduced as replacements for grants in January 2013. The figures showed that in 2014-15 only £149 million of the £397 million allocated for the process had been taken up. It is no wonder that people in the FE community have lamented the lost opportunity of £250 million that could have helped some of our most disadvantaged learners. The very group of people who benefited from the concessions given in 2013 by the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes)—that those who went on access to HE courses would have the outstanding amount written off in their access course loan—face another knock back. The damning details from the Government’s own impact assessment should surely give Ministers pause for thought, given that they threaten to affect the most debt-averse groups.

Worryingly, it appears that the Government have yet to produce an up-to-date estimate of the impact that the shift from grants to loans will have on the resource accounting and budgeting charge, which calculates the cost to the Government of the higher education funding system, based on how much students are ultimately expected to repay. Having heard the evidence that we have presented so far and the comments from around the Chamber, will the Government tell us why, if they were so confident about these policies, they did not bring them to the Floor of the House? More to the point, why did they not consult independent experts and various representative organisations? Why did they not commission research from any of the reputable independent policy bodies?

Last month, along with a number of other MPs, I sat in the corridor of this place listening to hundreds of students who had come to lobby us. Their message was consistent: scrapping maintenance grants will leave people struggling to go to university. People in the Chamber today have talked about consequences and people will talk about their own experiences. I was a tutor for the Open University for 20 years and I know that many of the students whom I taught had been put off higher education at an earlier age by the costs. Such things do not alter just because we are now in the digital world of the 21st century, and the impact of the changes, particularly on mature students, cannot be divorced from the precarious position of so many of those who study part time in HE.

Statistics published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency have shown that the number of first-year part-time students in 2014-15 is down 6% on previous years. The number of part-time higher education students since the Conservatives came into office has fallen by nearly 40%. No wonder the NUS is exasperated about that, and it relates it to the trebling of student fees since 2012 for England and English students in HE in Wales and Scotland. No wonder also that the president of Universities UK and the vice-chancellor of the University of Kent, Dame Julia Goodfellow, said that the decline in part-time numbers was a serious concern. I acknowledge, as they do, that the introduction of maintenance loans to some part-time students from 2018-19 announced by the Government is welcome, but in the meantime the nudge factors are very strong against such study. No wonder the Open University has also expressed its alarm, commenting on the Minister’s higher education Green Paper that flexible learning provision is also at the heart of Government policy development. Are not those concerns precisely why we need a proper discussion and are they not reasons why we need a commitment to bring a Bill to this House? I invite the Minister to give that in his response.

There is a lack of balance, as well as a nudging towards negative outcomes, and the issue will not go away. It is not surprising that connections have been made between the specific ways the Government have tried to dodge scrutiny in this matter. No wonder the Minister appeared relatively ill at ease in Committee, but to tell the truth perhaps the blame lies elsewhere. The article in The Independent reminds us that it was the Chancellor who tried to use a statutory instrument to smuggle through his tax credit changes, and we all know what happened to them. The Chancellor is proud of promoting himself as the Government’s master builder—all his rhetoric is shot through with the image. He preens as he boasts of the march of the makers and of how the Government, on his watch, is fixing the roof while the sun is shining, but the truth is that the Chancellor is a man with whom we always need to read the small print. He has consistently missed many of his debt and other targets, and as far as building a secure future for Britain’s learners is concerned, he is Mr Dodgy, whose actions are unlikely to get a certificate from the Federation of Master Builders. While the sun is shining, he has dislodged slates on the way down and has disguised cuts to adult skills as efficiencies, as his Newspeak officials call them.

He is pushing those students off the ladder of social mobility. It is time for him to get real in the real world, where the elasticity of demand eventually snaps and where stretching the envelope can finally break it. The direction of travel is threatening to deliver not a northern powerhouse but a northern poorhouse, undermining his regional strategy. We want no part of the narrative of failure, nor should this House, and that is why this afternoon we are calling again for Ministers to think again, to support the motion, and to annul the misguided regulation that this Government tried to hide away.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Monday 19th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman is matched only by the generosity of the Chair in affording him that opportunity. I am sure that he is keenly conscious of that.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

6. What guidance her Department issues to schools, colleges and other educational institutions on identifying young carers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister of State can deposit in the Library of the House a note on his family history, which I feel sure will be eagerly sought after.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. In our thriving ports sector, everyone—businesses, unions, thousands of employees—are fearful of the regulation because it threatens competitiveness and workers’ rights and protections. Given that his Department was so badly mauled in the European Committee in September that the Minister had to abandon his motion, why are we still waiting for concrete results? Despite his pledges, the Government got no support for blocking port regulations in Europe in October. If the Government did such a good job in October, why has he failed to bring his motion back to the House, as he promised?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) deserves the hearty congratulations of the House, and I feel sure that the award is prominently displayed in his home.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Government are blocking an EU directive that bus drivers should have disability awareness training. In January, the Minister promised me a review in March, but in response to a later question he seemed to back off that promise. With my letter on this to his Lords colleague at the end of March still unanswered, when will the Government keep his promise to the House and stop letting disabled people down?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am struggling to find anything that relates to the responsibility of the Prime Minister in the hon. Gentleman’s question. Therefore, we will proceed with Mr Gordon Marsden.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Q6. As the Prime Minister sits down for Christmas dinner to chillax with his family and friends, will he spare a thought for my Blackpool constituents and 500,000 others, whose Christmas will be mired in the incompetence and random cruelty of the benefit sanctions imposed by the Department for Work and Pensions? My casework on this includes a woman denied jobseeker’s allowance for doing voluntary work at one local branch of a national charity rather than at another. Will his new year resolution be to resolve the chaos of sanctions and of universal credit?

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marsden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is making his points more usefully than some of his Whips have done so far—[Interruption] but is he aware of the fact—[Interruption.] Tory Members should calm down. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 40% of UK exports go to the EU tariff-free, and that business leaders in this country have said that it would be dangerously destabilising if a referendum were to go ahead. Does he think—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There needs to be rather more calm in the Chamber. Interventions need to be shorter. I should point out that well over 40 colleagues want to speak. I want all of them to do so. They have an interest in minimising the noise level and maximising the progress. I call Mr Gordon Marsden—briefly.

[Mr Marsden]

Does the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) think it is in the interests of this country that we should have four years of uncertainty for business from his Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Points of order come after statements and there is a statement now, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise a point of order for which I have given prior notice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made clear in Prime Minister’s questions earlier, Ministers are poised to announce detailed plans to scrap direct financial support for more than 350,000 adult learners and replace it with a loan system. Their regulatory assessment suggests 150,000 adults falling by the wayside as a result, yet we are being told that regulations will be laid imminently, via the negative procedure, just before the House’s summer recess, offering no opportunity from the Government for debate. Is it in order for those changes to come into force, as they will, on 1 September, before we return, and is it acceptable that the further education sector should see the largest change in adult learning funding in a generation, with no opportunity offered to Members in this House to question Ministers or have a debate on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. The matters that concern him do not appear to me to raise any questions about the rules of the House. Therefore, they are not a matter for the Chair. No doubt Ministers will have heard what he has just said. It is open to any Member of the House to table a prayer against a statutory instrument. Moreover, I would emphasise that it is Wednesday today. The House will not rise for the summer recess until next Tuesday, so there are opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to seek to debate the matter, whether in Government time, Opposition time or, indeed, Back-Bench time. I hope that that is helpful to him.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. There has been no breach of order in the method that the Minister chose for his reply to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman’s point of order will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench, however, and I hope that, when framing answers, Ministers will take account of the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members in being able to access information. I recall from my own experience as a Back Bencher that it was exceptionally irritating when a series of carefully crafted written questions was responded to in a desultory and, some might have thought, a discourteous manner. To do so to the hon. Gentleman is certainly a hazardous enterprise, because he is bound to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, as he has just eloquently demonstrated.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order of which I have given you notice, Mr Speaker. I tabled two named-day questions for answer on 13 December by the Department for Communities and Local Government. They were factual questions about the payment of money for regional projects under the European regional development fund. Despite polite follow-up questions from my office, no reply was received until yesterday. I was surprised and concerned that the Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), had inserted into his reply a tendentious, partial and lengthy attack on the previous Government, including inaccurate comments about me. The argument that we shout like mad and protest too much might come to mind, but is it not an abuse of the conventions and courtesies of the House to pervert a factual written reply to a Member in that way? Given that the reply has now appeared in Hansard in that form, what recourse is available to enable it to be amended so that it reflects only the factual information that I requested from the Minister, and represents a response suited to a Minister of the Crown rather than a boastful rant more suited to a timeshare salesman?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I do not feel comfortable about commenting now on his question about retrospective amendment, but I can respond to him on two points. First, the content of ministerial answers is not a matter for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to write to the Procedure Committee if, as is obviously the case, he is dissatisfied. Secondly, I will say that, in my view, Ministers should avoid putting in their written answers to written parliamentary questions any polemical matter that would not be allowed in the questions themselves. The Table Office regulates the manner of the asking of the questions, and Ministers must exercise some responsibility and demonstrate some courtesy in the manner of their answers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Marsden]

The Deputy Prime Minister talks a good talk about devolution and localism, but that is about all he does. In fact, he and the Business Secretary acquiesced in the abolition of the regional development agencies. I have here a letter from him in which he acquiesced in the abolition of Government offices—one of the few areas in which local representatives can have an input.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister now give an undertaking to the House that he will intervene on his colleagues in the Government to make sure that the new regional growth fund decisions have a proper input from elected councils and local authorities, rather than—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have got the gist of it. Questions and answers must be brief.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The straightforward answer to that point of order is that—if memory serves me correctly—there will be an opportunity to question the Deputy Prime Minister on Tuesday next week. If hon. Members wish to put questions to the Deputy Prime Minister on the matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, they will have an opportunity—not least in topical questions—to do so.

So far as the wider comments the right hon. Gentleman made are concerned, I can only reiterate what I have already said about the correction of errors and underline the importance of Members using their own devices to pursue those matters. I cannot be drawn into the debate. The right hon. Gentleman has stated his position and I have indicated what opportunities there are for the pursuit of the matter.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier this week I raised a point of order with you about the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government saying in the House that he would not make any announcement about the abolition of Government offices and he was currently discussing that with interested parties—despite the fact that he had written to the contrary to the Deputy Prime Minister nine days previously. On that occasion you said that you had had no indication that the Secretary of State would come to the House to make a statement.

This morning, a written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State has announced that 1,700 posts in 10 Government offices are to be abolished. That follows a meeting that he had last night with trade union representatives when he said that he would reflect on the issues and discuss them. That is the second time in a week that the Secretary of State has indicated one thing and done another. Is it not reasonable that he should now come to the House to make a formal statement on an important issue that will affect governance and on which he has ducked and dived by making that written ministerial statement this morning?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State has chosen to disclose his policy through a written ministerial statement and it is open to any Minister from any Department to do that. The hon. Gentleman and others may be dissatisfied with that, and it is open to them to interrogate the Secretary of State about whatever contradictions they believe that his course of action has embodied or caused. But it is not for me to rule on whether there should be a written ministerial statement or an oral statement. The hon. Gentleman has aired his concern and I have a feeling that he will continue to air it.

Points of Order

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What a competition! What a delightful choice!

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, on 15 July, in Department for Communities and Local Government questions, in reply to a question about the future of the Government office for the north-west, the Secretary of State said:

“We are currently discussing this with interested parties, including the trade unions.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 1076.]

However, in a letter he sent nine days earlier to the Deputy Prime Minister, dated 6 July, he said that his colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), and himself had met formally to discuss the abolition and proposed

“to move to an early announcement of the abolition of the remaining eight offices.”

Mr Speaker, is it in order for the Secretary of State to say one thing in the House about continued open discussions when he has already written elsewhere about it being a done deal?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Gordon Marsden

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Would not scrapping the Government office for the north-west mean north-west local authorities having to go cap in hand to each Whitehall Department? Would not such a diktat be of a piece with the Secretary of State bludgeoning the Business Secretary over scrapping regional development agencies? What has he to say to the former Tory leader from Trafford, Councillor Susan Williams, who asked:

“Where is the voice of the NW to government?”

and then said that it was in “a void”? Would he not leave north-west local authorities swinging in limbo, with their economies disrupted by his cuts and no north-west body promoting major regenerational transport projects? Is not his localism just a fraudulent—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. That is now five questions. It is an abuse of the procedures of the House when Members, on both sides, ask questions that are simply too long. I want a short answer from the Secretary of State please.