Presidents Club Charity Dinner

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anne Milton]

My hon. Friend is a lioness in so many ways. I also speak as the mother of a daughter, and this can become very personal. I have also been the Deputy Chief Whip, and to some extent had duties and responsibilities towards women in the House. This is an issue on which women across the House combine. We have to send out a clear message that this is unacceptable. People need to know where the line is, because there is a line. This is about changing attitudes.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for securing this urgent question. I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place and thank the Minister for her comments today. I hope that the Secretary of State is as disappointed as I am that a board member and a Minister in his Department attended an event that described itself as

“the most un-PC event of the year”.

Let us be clear about what that meant. It meant an event where women were invited not as guests but as objects for rich and powerful men. They had to act as hostesses and were forced to wear revealing clothes. A number have reported that they were groped and sexually harassed. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that, like me, he believes those women and that the reported events were totally unacceptable?

I welcome the Minister’s comment that organising this kind of event should not be acceptable for any official, let alone a member of the board of the Department. I also welcome the fact that David Meller is standing down. He should not have any other role in education. Will the Secretary of State also investigate the attendance at the event of the Minister for children? Can he confirm reports that the Minister attended previous events and was invited personally by David Meller this year? His Department is responsible for safeguarding millions of children, for caring for thousands of victims of child sexual exploitation and abuse, for tackling sexual harassment and violence in our schools, colleges and universities and for educating another generation of girls and boys. Is it not time that it started leading by example?

[Anne Milton]

I will lead by example. I have spoken to the Secretary of State this morning, and I know that he is equally appalled by the reports of this event. I have also spoken to my fellow Minister in the Department. He did not stay at the event long—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

Yes, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the financial and academic future of that school.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Budget actually cut education capital funding by £1 billion in this spending review, and that part of that cut involves removing more than three quarters of the healthy pupils capital programme? Perhaps he recalls the Government’s pledge earlier this year that the healthy pupils fund would not fall below £415 million, regardless. Will he now apologise for breaking that promise?

[Nick Gibb]

The hon. Lady has misunderstood the budget process. We have not cut £1 billion from the capital spending of schools. What we have done is convert an element of the healthy schools budget into revenue spending, to ensure that schools are properly funded on the frontline, because we believe that schools need to be properly funded and that is how we have managed to allocate an extra £1.3 billion to school funding—something that she and the school system have called for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I would be happy to meet, or for a ministerial member of my team to meet, my hon. Friend. This excellent Bill came through Parliament at an important time, and I am happy to talk to him about how we can make sure that young people coming through our education system are connected up with the great career opportunities that await them when they leave.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Given what the Secretary of State just said about our excellent teachers, I hope that we can all agree that it is time to end the real-terms pay cuts for teachers. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that this will lead to schools squeezing non-pay spending and reducing the workforce without extra funding. The Chancellor wants us to believe that he has ended the public sector pay cap. The Secretary of State wants us to believe that she has ended cuts to schools. They cannot both be right, so which one of them is putting the “con” into the Conservatives?

[Justine Greening]

Obviously the School Teachers’ Review Body will be getting its remit letter shortly, but what I have tried to set out is a much broader strategy for teaching as a profession, and not just in relation to financial incentives and making sure that they are in the places where we particularly want teachers to teach. Later this week, we will issue our consultation on strengthening qualified teacher status, which I hope will be welcomed. Of course, we are working hard to remove unnecessary workload. Earlier this year, I held a flexible working summit with the professions and unions to talk about how we can make sure that teachers stay in the profession.

Social Mobility Commission

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

May I put on record our commitment to maintain the Social Mobility Commission? It has done great work over the last five years, and I again pay tribute to Alan Milburn for his work as chair. We intend to refresh the commission. We need to bring in some new people—people who will hold us to account and who will hold our feet to the fire—to ensure we get a good spread of representation on the commission.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) for securing this urgent question.

Once again, this Prime Minister is not for turning up, and nor is the Education Secretary. No wonder the former chair of the commission said that No. 10 was no longer listening. Perhaps the Minister can actually answer the questions the chair raised in his resignation letter. Are the Government really committed to the commission as an independent body? Although they have just put on record their commitment, what do they see as the commission’s role, and what will its remit be now? How much funding will the commission have? Can the Minister confirm that, in the year since the commission’s 2016 report, the Government have not adopted a single one of its recommendations? Did the commissioners raise that with Ministers before resigning? The report said that Britain had a “deep social mobility problem” and

“an unfair education system, a two-tier labour market, an imbalanced economy and an unaffordable housing market.”

What are the Government actually doing about that, and was that a factor in the resignations?

On the labour market, the Prime Minister made a defining speech on insecure jobs—she has been developing an expertise in that issue lately—but whatever happened to the Taylor review? In education, has the Minister seen the commission’s findings on the teaching workforce, early years and kids in care, who are still denied the 30-hours entitlement? Has he listened to the commission’s recommendations on housing, regional transport infrastructure and the need for rebalanced investment to create more decent jobs across the country?

When a former Tory Education Secretary resigns from a Tory Government commission, we know this goes well beyond party politics. In his resignation letter, the chair of the commission said the commissioners were resigning because he had “little hope” of the current Government building a fairer Britain. If their own commission has little faith in this Government, why should the rest of us?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am happy to answer this question on behalf of the Department, as the Minister for Children and Families and also as the Minister responsible for the opportunity areas, which demonstrate our real commitment to tackling social mobility in the coldspots, as laid out by the commission itself.

The hon. Lady asked, are the Government really committed to this commission? The answer is yes, absolutely. She asked about the role of the commission. That will not change; indeed, I pay tribute to the commission for the work it has done and to Alan for the work he has done.

The hon. Lady talked about the workforce in education, and I just repeat the fact that we now have 457,000 teachers working in state-funded education, which is over 15,500 more than before. She drew attention to the 30 hours of free childcare, and that is an example of exactly how we are trying to help working families. We have a 93% uptake from the children who have achieved codes. I have met parents up and down the country who have told me that this has transformed their lives, enabled them to juggle work and childcare and, indeed, put £5,500 in their pockets.

So I am proud of what this Government have achieved in addressing social mobility. To listen to Labour Members, you would think that everything in the garden was beautiful when they left power. Again, as in so many cases, we are sorting out the mess they left behind.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. High Crags Primary School was put into special measures in June 2015, before it became a sponsored academy. In 2016, just 23% of its pupils reached the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared to a national average of 53%. The school is now being re-brokered to be supported by the highly successful Tauheedul Education Trust, and Wakefield City Academies Trust will not be able to retain any of the reserves that it holds at the point of dissolution. Schools, including High Crags, will receive the resources and support that they need in order to raise academic standards.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Last week the Minister told me in a written answer that he would not publish a report on Wakefield City Academies Trust by the Education and Skills Funding Agency because it would be

“obstructive to the process of ensuring all the schools are placed with new trusts.”

Surely any financial issues are being disclosed to potential new trusts. What on earth is in the report that is so damaging to schools that it cannot be disclosed—or is it just so embarrassing to Ministers that they would rather hide behind excuses?

[Nick Gibb]

The issue of Wakefield City Academies Trust was not about finances, but about academic standards in the schools in that trust. That is why we are re-brokering all the schools in WCAT to other, more successful multi-academy trusts in the area. We are concerned not with making party political points, but with raising academic standards in each of the schools that serve pupils in those areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joseph Johnson]

We want the UK to remain the go-to place for scientists, tech investors and researchers in the years to come post-Brexit. We have given many assurances to EU researchers around the continent that they are welcome in the UK. We want their contribution to continue, they are hugely valued, and we have every expectation that that is going to continue to be the case.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I wonder if the Minister told Universities UK how the Department was funding the Prime Minister’s announcements on student finance. Can he confirm that those will cost the Department £175 million in this spending review period, and can he guarantee that this will not be funded by yet more cuts to the rest of the education budget?

[Joseph Johnson]

I ask the hon. Lady to wait for the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Budget in a few days’ time, because all the details of the funding of those announcements will be set out then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

Most parents would be staggered that the hon. Gentleman is so against my looking across my Department to make sure that I challenge it and its officials to work as efficiently as we are now challenging schools to be. That is quite right, and I am now able to put the fruits of that initiative into the hands of headteachers, providing them with more money on the frontline. We will be making effective savings, which is actually the way to get more out of our education budget.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm the National Audit Office assessment that £2.7 billion has been cut from the schools budget since 2015, and that the £1.3 billion she mentioned earlier will protect budgets only until 2020, after which she will either need new money from the Treasury or she will need simply to deliver another cut to school funding?

[Justine Greening]

As the hon. Lady should know, the next spending review process is yet to get under way. Of course school budgets, alongside every other budget across government, will be agreed as part of that. We had a question earlier about the fact that money and results are not necessarily correlated, and I have to say that if there is one part of our United Kingdom where a Government are failing their children, it is Wales—where Labour is in charge—not England.

Schools: National Funding Formula

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Once again on the last day before a recess we see the Secretary of State sneak out new policy. [Interruption.] I would hardly call that once in a national debate, but I wonder whether this statement has been put out today to try and hide and to distract from the fact that the Government are ripping up the rulebook on democracy, as they did yesterday in the debate on tuition fees. But of course, if this is a genuine change of heart, it is welcome. After all, the Secretary of State will be taking her policy directly from the pledges in the Labour party manifesto. Ever since she took office, we have been urging her to keep the promise her party made in 2015 to protect funding in real terms for every pupil.

Will the Secretary of State guarantee to the House that no school will be even a penny worse off in real terms—not cash terms—as a result of this funding formula? Will the proposal apply from this year or from 2015? The National Audit Office has found that schools have already lost nearly £2.7 billion since her party made that pledge. Members across the House have heard from schools that are already facing those cuts and that have had to beg parents to help them to find money and resources. Will she admit to the House that her announcement today does nothing to reverse those cuts and keep that promise?

The Secretary of State has said that her funding formula will increase per pupil funding by 0.5% a year until 2020, but the Education Policy Institute has found that in that period, inflationary pressures are over 2%, so will she admit that her funding formula will in fact mean a real-terms cut in school budgets? In today’s statement she says that the formula provides “a per pupil cash increase in respect of every school and every local area”, so will she admit that there will be pupils, schools and local authorities that see a real-terms cut in funding by 2020? She has referred to transitional protections offered to schools. How long will the transition period last? Will it include protections against losses during that transition, and for how long will those protections last?

The Secretary of State said that the basic amount allocated to each secondary school pupil will be “at least £4,800 per pupil”, but the Education and Skills Funding Agency guidance describes this an “optional” part of the funding formula. Will she guarantee that all secondary schools will now receive £4,800 per pupil? Can she tell us how much this increase in the basic per pupil funding rate will cost each year, and how she will fund it? Today’s announcement says that the minimum funding per primary school pupil will be £3,500. In December, the proposed basic per pupil funding in primary schools was £2,712, so again I ask: how much will the increase in basic per pupil funding cost, and how will it be funded?

None of the money announced so far is actually new money for education. Instead, the Secretary of State is simply cutting elsewhere to fill the black hole that the Government have created. Can she confirm that over £300 million of the supposedly new funding for schools has actually come from cutting the healthy pupils fund by over 75%? That money was meant to be ring-fenced for school sports, healthier meals, facilities for disabled pupils and mental health provision, and it is only days since the Prime Minister claimed that this would be her new priority. Only in February this year, the Secretary of State promised in a statement that the fund would not fall below £415 million. Will she now apologise for breaking yet another promise?

This leaves another £100 million that must come from her main capital budget. Where will that come from? She has said that she will “reprioritise” £250 million in 2018-19 and £350 million in 2019-20. Where will those cuts fall? She has also said that she will “redirect” £200 million from “central programmes that support schools on relatively narrow areas of their work”. Will she tell us what those programmes and those narrow areas are? Or is the truth that she simply made up that number, hoping that her civil servants can find more cuts?

The July announcement went no further than 2020. What happens then? I will be glad if the Secretary of State has listened to us, and to parents and teachers across the country, and looked again at the funding formula, but the fact is that this does not meet the promises that she has made. When will she return to this House with the funding that her party promised the electorate?

[Justine Greening]

I want to start by adding a massive thank you to the Department for Education officials who have worked on this for many years. It has been a complex piece of work, and it has been looked at under many Governments. I want to put on record my thanks to the team.

On the points raised by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), I had hoped, given the cross-party recognition of the need for school funding reform, that there might be a warmer welcome for this announcement. It is not just schools represented by Government Members that will gain from it; many in Opposition Members’ constituencies have been equally underfunded. This is not a political issue; it is a question of ensuring that we fund children, wherever they are growing up in our country, in a consistent, transparent and fair fashion. That is what we are shifting towards today. This is not an uncomplicated thing, and we have worked really hard to make sure that schools that were already well funded will continue to remain well funded. However, this is also about making sure that schools that have traditionally been underfunded for a very long time can now start to catch up.

The hon. Lady asked a few questions. I think she misunderstood my point about ensuring that there is a minimum per pupil funding rate of £4,800 for secondary schools and £3,500 for primary schools. There are not many schools that are not at that minimum funding rate, but it is important for those that are below it that we address those issues through the consultation response. That is what we are doing today—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady asks what the guidance says. That guidance is for local authorities, as I have explained and as I hope she will understand. Local authorities currently set local formulae. We had already said, and I had hoped she might have recalled, that that will continue for 2018-19. When I came back to the House in July this year, I set out that that would also continue for 2019-20 because we believe that the right way to bring in a significant change in school funding is to work with local authorities. As part of the setting out of the final funding formula, we also set out a small but important element of flexibility for local authorities to respond to the changes as they come through and to nuance them to take account of local issues. That is where the optional element comes in. We are simply saying that it is right to give local authorities a modicum of flexibility to ensure that they can use the funding effectively on the ground.

We are being clear-cut about what the funding formula allocates to every single school in this country, and Members will be able to see those allocations. They will be able to sit down with their local authorities, and if they want the funding to go to those schools they will be able to ensure that it does. I expect that some local authorities will feel that the right thing to do is to get on with putting the funding formula in place at local level and that they will simply pass the money straight through to the schools. That is something that I would support, but it is important to have a small amount of flexibility while the formula comes in.

The hon. Lady asked about the fact that we are putting an extra £1.3 billion of additional funding into the core schools formula and budget. I felt it was important to do this. Over the past few years, we have challenged schools to try to find efficiencies, because we want to get the most out of every pound we put in. However, it is also important that I challenge the rest of my Department to do the same kind of exercise that we are asking schools and headteachers to do. I believe that doing that has enabled us to free up some additional resourcing that we can now push directly to headteachers in the frontline. Frankly, I am staggered that the hon. Lady thinks that that is a bad thing to do. Anyone in my role should be challenging their civil servants to try to work smarter and more efficiently to get money directly through to the frontline. That is yet another example of the hon. Lady doing nothing other rant and produce rhetoric, and there is not a lot of thought behind that rhetoric about what is the right thing to do.

With that, I will sit down. I look forward to the contributions from hon. Members.

Higher Education (England) Regulations

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Higher Education (Higher Amount) (England) Regulations 2016 (S.I., 2016, No. 1206) and the Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2016 (S.I., 2016, No. 1205), both dated 13 December 2016, copies of which were laid before this House on 15 December 2016, in the last Session of Parliament, be revoked.

It has taken a long time to get to today’s debate. The Government first snuck out this fee rise in a written statement on the last day before the summer recess, and they tabled the regulations we are debating the day before the Christmas recess. The Opposition tabled a prayer against the regulations on the first sitting day after that, but it took some time until the Government eventually allowed a vote, which was scheduled for 18 April—only for the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament before that vote could even be held. It was almost as if the Government did not want to discuss their plans to raise tuition fees again during an election. And judging by the way young people voted in that general election, we can see why. Perhaps it is not surprising that the Government have been even more desperate to avoid votes in this House since the election result.

Let me remind Ministers of what the then Leader of the House, now the Justice Secretary, said from the Dispatch Box when he granted us a vote:

“The Government have delivered on the convention, and slots have been provided for debates on the prayers against the statutory instruments concerning tuition fees and the personal independence payment. The Opposition will get their opportunity to debate those after the recess. The Government will act, as all Governments do, on the basis of what Parliament decides.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2017; Vol. 624, c. 409.]

That was a commitment made by a Minister to this House. Perhaps the Ministers here today can tell us why they are breaking it—because, of course, we were not given those debates. We had to secure an emergency debate on the regulations, and even then the Minister refused to allow a vote. In fact, Mr Speaker, it was during that debate that you yourself had to intervene and tell the House:

“I had thought there was an expectation of a debate and a vote, and that the Opposition had done what was necessary”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 895.]

But eventually we have had to provide Opposition time on an Opposition motion that we are voting on today.

Today’s discussion goes beyond policy choices on tuition fees, although that is extremely important: it goes to the role of this House and our democracy. We have heard a lot about parliamentary sovereignty from Conservative Members, and we have heard a lot from Ministers about how they can be trusted with delegated powers such as those in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Unfortunately, the Ministers here today have shown by their behaviour that they will now go to unprecedented lengths to deny this House a vote on a serious legislative decision made using delegated powers. Frankly, their attitude would put Sir Humphrey to shame. They refused a vote on annulment within 40 days, despite the clear convention that we were entitled to one. They then provided a vote, only to dissolve Parliament before it could even be held. Then, after the election, they delayed even longer, and when we called a debate they said it was too late.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Is the shadow Secretary of State suggesting that the reason we had an election was to stop this measure?

[Angela Rayner]

I hope that the hon. Lady notes that after having to bring this Government to the House to discuss this really important issue time and again, we have had to do this in Opposition time. I hope that Conservative Members who promised the electorate that they were against rises in tuition fees will take that on board today and support the Opposition’s motion.

Ministers seem to have found a parliamentary Catch-22 which, in effect, makes it impossible for this House to have a say on regulations like these if they decide that they do not want to grant one. They refuse a vote within the time limit, and then afterwards say that the deadline has passed. Even more incredibly, they seem to be suggesting that they would simply ignore this House if we voted the wrong way on today’s motion—that is, of course, if they allow us even to have a vote. In the space of this week they have gone from Henry VIII to King Charles I. Let me be clear that so far as we are concerned, it is unthinkable that this House would pass a substantive motion and that the Government would refuse to honour it.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I do not wish to behead the hon. Lady’s argument, but she is labouring this point of process. I wonder whether that is to mask her lack of policy; let me be charitable and suggest that it is not. When we will we hear what her policy is on this important issue?

[Angela Rayner]

First of all, let me say that my husband would have been Charles I; I probably would have been a Cromwell. On the important point about our policy on tuition fees, we were clear in our manifesto that we would abolish tuition fees. I think the general public absolutely were clear on our policy on that. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, from a sedentary position, “What about Wales?” In Wales, we have a policy, despite this Government, of giving maintenance grants. What will the Secretary of State do for the students in England who need maintenance grants? The Government still refuse to give that support to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Rayner]

I will make some progress. The intention of the parent Act, the Higher Education Act 2004, was clear. It allows any such regulations to be annulled. The then Minister, the former Member for Hull West and Hessle, assured the House that

“any change to the fee cap must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure, not the negative procedure. Although we cannot do it in legislation—if we could, we would—we give an undertaking that if Labour is in government, the statutory instrument dealing with the matter will not be taken in a Committee but on the Floor of both Houses. That will ensure that all Members have the opportunity to speak if called, and they will all have the right to vote on the matter.”––[Official Report, Higher Education Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2004; c. 323.]

He gave that assurance to a Conservative Member who demanded it. That Member is now the Transport Secretary in a Government who are doing completely the opposite.

The job of a legislator is to legislate. If we are not allowed to do that, our role will be reduced to turning up every five years, voting in the Government and letting them rule by decree, which is what they are attempting to do on tuition fees. If the Government act in this way on matters such as tuition fees, Members from across the House will have to ask themselves whether we can trust the Government with the powers that they are seeking to grant themselves in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. It is ironic that just this week, the Brexit Secretary was keen to assure us that no such thing could happen. He told the House:

“Secondary legislation is still subject to parliamentary oversight and well established procedures. In no way does it provide unchecked unilateral powers to the Government.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 357.]

Even as he was saying that, the Ministers opposite me were busy proving him wrong by refusing to follow these procedures, rejecting parliamentary oversight and adopting exactly those unchecked unilateral powers to force this through. Of course, the Brexit Secretary has some other disagreements with the Education Secretary on this matter. I remember him saying that he had always been against fees. He said:

“In 2005 our policy was abolition and I was one of the drivers behind that”,

and that he was prepared to be “a rebellion of one”. Let us see whether he beats that figure today. He was right that the Conservative party’s policy used to be the abolition of fees entirely. A former Conservative shadow Education Secretary once said that the party would

“show we care about the student who wants to go to university, but can’t afford tuition fees.”

She is now the Prime Minister, but her past promises seem to have been thrown in the bin along with Nick and Fiona.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

If we are talking about promises broken, I seem to remember my daughters who are still at university being promised free tuition fees by the Labour party. I then remember the hon. Lady saying on the Marr show that that was nothing more than an ambition, largely because it was going to cost £89 billion.

[Angela Rayner]

I presume that the hon. Lady is slightly confused by the diktat from the Conservative Whips, which says something about student debt and tuition fees. We have been absolutely clear on both issues. We would not even be having this debate if the Labour party had won the general election, because we would have abolished tuition fees, as promised. The Conservative party already trebled tuition fees in 2010 to £9,000 a year, and that is what we are debating today. They have abolished the nurses’ bursary and scrapped maintenance grants for students from low and middle-income backgrounds, and ignored the fact that the drop-out rate among disadvantaged students reached a five-year high afterwards. They have also imposed interest rates of 6.1% and frozen the repayment threshold at £21,000 a year, despite Conservative Ministers in the coalition Government promising that it would rise in line with earnings.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that there is now evidence that students from less well-off families are graduating with significantly more debt than those from wealthier families, which is a direct threat to social mobility?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree, and the points that I have just made show that the Government could progressively do something about that. The interest rates are scandalous, and the income threshold has been frozen despite the Government’s promises that they would not do that. They also still refuse to bring back maintenance grants. Shame on this Government—they do not care about social mobility.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Angela Rayner]

Only this morning, the director of the Conservative think-tank Bright Blue echoed a point that we have been making for months, writing:

“What would make a real difference is increasing the salary threshold of £21,000 for repaying student loans.”

That is one of the—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The shadow Secretary of State is clearly not giving way at the moment. [Interruption.] Order. She is not giving way, and there is a long-standing convention that Members do not consistently harangue and barrack when their request to intervene has not been granted. [Interruption.] Order. After a reasonable period, which people use their judgment to decide on, they can try again. What they are not entitled to do is rant incessantly from a sedentary position. Let me be absolutely clear that it is not going to happen from either side of the House, and that is the end of that matter.

[Angela Rayner]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I said, only this morning the director of the Conservative think-tank Bright Blue echoed a point that we have been making for months about increasing the salary threshold. That is one of many options that we have told the Government time and again they need to look at.

I had a group of young air cadets from my constituency down here yesterday, and I hope that they are watching today even though the debate is a bit later than I told them it would be. It makes me so angry to think of the opportunities that the Government are denying those young people and others across my constituency. Through their policies, they have left graduates in England with the highest level of debt in the world. Students will now graduate with an average debt of £50,000, and those from the poorest backgrounds will have debts in excess of £57,000.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I have two universities in my constituency, and further education colleges. As my hon. Friend knows, not only have the Government abolished the education maintenance allowance, but more importantly, they have been trying to sell off the Student Loans Company. Interest levels will go higher if that goes through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. We are trying to highlight a number of things that the Government have done in both further education and higher education that have genuinely damaged the opportunity for our young people to get on and get by in life. Today, they have an opportunity at least to do what some Government Members promised at the general election by refusing to raise tuition fees again, taking them beyond £9,000 a year.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Lady will no doubt recall that it was her party that promised not to introduce tuition fees and then, when in government, went on to do that. Does she accept that application rates among disadvantaged English 18-year-olds and black and minority ethnic 18-year-olds are at an all-time record high?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Lady makes two important points, but she fails to recognise two important things that have happened alongside that. Lord Adonis made it clear that the Frankenstein that the Government have created with tuition fees is completely unsustainable, so Conservative Members cannot hide behind that if they think it limits their responsibility for trebling tuition fees. They are now trying to justify increasing them.

Our young people need that opportunity, but the Government feel that tuition fees need to rise again. When we last debated this issue, I said that Conservative Members might disagree with our desire to reduce tuition fees but it was wrong to deny the House the right to make the choice. Today, despite the Government’s best efforts, the House can make that choice, and I know that our constituents will remember the choice each of us makes.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

The £9,000 limit was introduced more than five years ago, but given inflation over that period, in real terms it is £8,500 today, and by 2020 it will be £8,000. Is it not the case that the direct consequence of the perfectly honourable position that the hon. Lady advocates is that less money will go into higher education?

[Angela Rayner]

I am at a loss about how to answer the hon. Gentleman. Our young people know the reality of the debt they take on today. I have just spoken about many different ways in which the Government could alleviate our students’ debt: there is the interest rate, the income threshold, and even maintenance grants if they really cared about students from poorer and disadvantaged backgrounds. Despite what the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, part-time and mature students are dropping out at record levels, and students are deterred from going to university.

We could debate this issue for many hours, but the motion that Members of this House can vote on tonight is clear. It is not about the debt or whether we abolish the £9,000 tuition fees; it is about whether the Government hike fees by another £250 a year—more than £1,000 over the lifetime of a course—making them unsustainable and completely unfair for students. That is the choice that Members have to make today. If they decide not to support this motion, they will have to answer to the students in their constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

The Labour party is increasing them. It is doing the very thing that Labour Members are expressing faux anger at in the Chamber today. I will come on to that in a second, because I have not quite finished—

[Angela Rayner]

rose—

[Justine Greening]

No thank you. I have taken lots of interventions.

During the election, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said that he would “deal with” student debt. I think he meant that taxpayers would deal with it. Then he ditched that promise after the election. It was snake oil populism at its worst. I have to say, however, that this debate represents a new low in Labour’s integrity-free politics. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne stands here today and opposes a fee increase in line with inflation, yet this is a core part of the fee regime that Labour put in place in 2004. Frankly, it is laughable that they are trying to be taken seriously on this. It is also an insult to everyone’s intelligence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), and it was an even greater pleasure to listen to the fine maiden speech from the new hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). She spoke of some touching and superb family values, which we all look for in our families. Her parents, whom she spoke of, must be very proud of her performance in the House today. I welcome her to the Chamber.

There are many spending commitments that we might wish for, and free tuition would be a wonderful commitment if we could afford to make it. That would be wonderful for me, because I have four children, all of whom may at some point enter the realms of higher education. But there are many other competing pressures, such as the pension system, the police forces, our armed forces, help for disabled people, the NHS and public sector pay. During the general election campaign when I talked to voters on the doorstep about some of the Opposition’s spending promises, the key question that I was asked many times was, “How are they going to pay for it?” The reality is that if students do not pay for tuition, the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill.

Of course, the Opposition will say that they have a fully costed manifesto to deal with the problem, but it is right that we look at the detail of that manifesto. [Interruption.] I am very happy to take an intervention if Labour Members would like me to. The reality is that there was £250 billion of extra spending commitments in that manifesto, on top of the fact that this country already spends about £50 billion a year more than it receives in taxes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that there was a £45 billion hole in Labour’s extra spending commitments, which included £125 billion in extra infrastructure spending, roughly £125 billion to nationalise our utilities and railways, and £100 billion to wipe off past student tuition fees—that was a commitment, whether or not it was a manifesto promise.

The reality is that spending commitments can only be made in a strategic way. We cannot simply use cheap party politics and a short-term, kneejerk approach to funding the finances of this country.

[Angela Rayner]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he actually read our manifesto and looked at our costings, and where in his party’s manifesto the DUP deal was?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We are talking about tuition fees, on which the Leader of the Opposition made a clear commitment to deal with past debt as well as future fees. The reality is that we have to find the money to pay for the commitments that we make, and there was a huge gaping hole in the funding for the Opposition’s commitments. Such a gaping hole was why this country ended up £1.7 trillion in debt, and the Conservative party had to deal with inheriting a £153 billion deficit on the back of uncosted spending commitments. Of the 13 years for which Labour was in power, it did not balance the books in nine of them. Its public spending was greater than its tax receipts. We need an end to this short-term party politicking and gesture politics. We need properly costed manifestos and properly costed public spending. We simply cannot wipe out tuition fees without finding the money to pay for it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Education Committee, made some good points about how we should look at reforming tuition fees by making sure that they are performance-related so that universities are held to account for providing a good education that provides a return on investment for students. We also need a more flexible approach so that students can have lower debt by taking modular courses, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly.

Question agreed to.

[Angela Rayner]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The vote we just had reflects that it is the will of this House that the increase in tuition fees be reversed. As was mentioned in the debate, it has taken far too long for the House to have the opportunity to vote on this issue. Now that it has, more than eight months since a motion to annul the regulations when they were first tabled, it has voted unanimously to revoke them. I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to how I may secure an undertaking from the Secretary of State that she will immediately give effect to the will of the House and reverse the rise in tuition fees. We have a constitutional crisis because the Government are running scared and not allowing votes in this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Obviously, the House has expressed a view in support of the motion. However, it is an issue for the Secretary of State, who is present now and has been for much of the debate. I am sure that she will wish to reflect on the view of the House and decide how to proceed. It is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

As I said a minute ago, that would not limit numbers. The fact that they are in the migration cap does not limit the ability of institutions to recruit as many international students as they wish, provided that they meet the requisite academic standards. There is no cap and no plan to introduce a cap, and that applies to Scottish institutions as much as it does to English ones.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

It is a sad fact that it actually does have an impact on the number of international students coming to the UK. For years, the Prime Minister told us that we need to clamp down on international students who overstay their visas, using figures to suggest that as many as 100,000 people are remaining in the UK illegally. In fact, we know the figure is now 4,600 students—the Government were out by 95%. Does the Minister fully support the Prime Minister’s desire to keep international students in the net migration target?

[Joseph Johnson]

We welcome strongly the work the Office for National Statistics is now doing to improve the quality of statistics relating to international students. Like the hon. Member, we noted its preliminary conclusion that the International Passenger Survey might be systematically undercounting emigration after study. I was very pleased that the Home Office report on exit checks data, published on 24 August, showed that students are very largely compliant with immigration rules. That is an important bit of information and it underscores our intent to continue the situation whereby there is no cap on the number of students who can come and study in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I have previously exhorted the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) to circulate his textbook on succinct questions. It is now timely that he should do so.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) made a very good point, and the School Teachers Review Body, the Education Select Committee and the Secretary of State’s predecessor have all said that pay has contributed to the crisis in teacher recruitment, but—notably—not the Prime Minister. Last week, our research showed that the Government’s freeze and cap on public sector pay has left the average teacher more than £5,000 a year worse off. Will the Secretary of State get the cap lifted for schools or is she telling us that nothing has changed?

[Nick Gibb]

We rely on the expertise of the School Teachers Review Body and the extensive and thorough review carried out by it. It has made recommendations, which we have accepted, that the main pay bands should increase by 2%—the minimum and maximum—and that the bands for more senior teachers should increase by 1%.

There are 15,500 more teachers today than when Labour left office in 2010. We are meeting 93% of the target of recruiting graduates into teacher training. More returners are coming back into teaching in 2016 than in 2011, and more people came into teaching than left last year.

Schools Update

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the slight advanced sight of her statement.

I will always be the first to welcome new money for schools. After all, I have spent a year asking the Secretary of State to give our schools the funding they need. It is nice to know I am finally getting through to her. I thank parents, school leaders and teachers across the country for all their work in pushing this issue up the political agenda. Both the Secretary of State and I know that this would not be happening today without them. But, sadly, today’s statement raises more questions than it answers.

I welcome the £1.3 billion announced today, but will the Secretary of State confirm whether it will protect per pupil budgets in real terms, or just the overall budget? Astoundingly, this has all been funded without a penny of new money from the Treasury. Perhaps the Chancellor did not want to fund schools, and thought that teachers and teaching assistants were simply more overpaid public servants. I wonder whether the Secretary of State agrees with him. Does her decision to seek savings from the free schools programme mean that she finally agrees with Opposition Members who believe that the programme has always been inefficient? It has always been more expensive than Ministers hoped it would be, so the idea that hundreds of millions of pounds can now be saved seems like a bad joke. Will she simply be honest with the House and tell us all exactly how much money will be cut, from which spending items and who will lose out as a result?

I know that Conservative Members are in full retreat from their own manifesto, but I do not see how this £1.3 billion can possibly fit with it. We were promised £4 billion—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A kind of group hysteria takes over. Mr Chalk, you are usually a very understated fellow—rather a gentlemanly type, I had always thought. Calm yourself. And you are sitting next to a very senior Member—Prince Andrew over there—who normally behaves as the very embodiment of dignity. Anyway, I am sure you will recover your composure in a minute. You should watch a few Federer matches; you will learn something about composure.

[Angela Rayner]

Conservative Members are in full retreat from their own manifesto. We were promised £4 billion only a few weeks ago, and now we are getting only £1.3 billion. Can schools expect anything else in future, or is this yet another broken promise?

The Conservative manifesto promised a free breakfast for every primary school pupil. First, the Secretary of State said it would cost £60 million, leaving parents across the country wondering how you can provide breakfast at under 7p per meal. Then she said that it would be £180 million, but that it would go only to the most disadvantaged pupils. She has had plenty of time to get her figures straight, so can she tell the House whether this is still her policy? How many pupils will benefit, and how much it will cost?

The Secretary of State said that the full funding formula has been delayed again, with local authorities playing a role in setting budgets until 2020. Is this because she has finally acknowledged the role local authorities have to play? Or has she simply realised that to implement her plans fully she would need to pass primary legislation, and that her Government are so weak and wobbly that they cannot even get new money for schools passed through this House?

What the Secretary of State has announced today is nothing more than a sticking plaster. Per pupil funding will still fall over this Parliament unless further action is taken urgently. I will welcome the opportunity to protect budgets for our schools, but this statement alone will do nothing of the kind.

[Justine Greening]

There is only one party that is in full retreat from its manifesto, and it is certainly not the Conservative party. We heard over the weekend that the promise to students was not worth the paper it was written on. I think it was one of the most dishonest pieces of electioneering I have seen in many, many years. Our young people deserve better than to be peddled some snake oil propaganda that proves to be not true.

I am pleased that the hon. Lady recognises this extra investment. I am shocked to hear that the Labour party has now turned its head on fair funding and suggested it might have voted against introducing the fair funding approach of a hard formula. I think many schoolteachers will be deeply concerned by that change of stance—yet another one.

The hon. Lady talked about getting through to the Conservative party in relation to school funding, but we have been funding schools. I think the message that has not been getting through to the Labour party is that simply loading up more taxes on people and more debt on our country for the young people of the future is not a sustainable way to run the public finances. What the hon. Lady’s response shows is that Labour has learned nothing in its time in opposition and has, in fact, gone backwards.

The hon. Lady asked some questions. I can confirm to her that we are, indeed, saying that we are going to have per pupil, real-term protection for the next two years. In relation to the free schools programme, what I was actually setting out—I do not think she properly understood it—was that we are protecting it, but we think we can finance it in a more cost-effective way. She then talked about the £4 billion, not realising, I think, that it was £4 billion over four years. I have set out £2.6 billion over two years. I think she will recognise that that is bringing the process forward at a faster pace, which is something to be welcomed.

One of the hon. Lady’s few questions—she did not have a lot of questions to ask—related to the approach we are taking to local authorities. She may have realised—I am not sure from her question—that we were always going to have local authorities use an approach involving a local formula in 2018-19, as it was due to be a transition year anyway. We are simply saying that we want that to extend for a longer time period. Given the historic nature of this change, it is right that we take the time to make sure that we work at local level to allow local authorities to adjust their funding to start matching the funding formula. However, schools locally will of course be able to see what amount they should be getting. I have no doubt that teachers, parents and governing bodies will raise questions for local authorities that deviate significantly away from the formula settlement that schools think they are entitled to have.

This a strong announcement of additional money combined with making sure that our schools budget is, for the first time in a generation, spread fairly across our schools and our children wherever they are growing up in this country. I hope that the House will broadly welcome it.

Education: Public Funding

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the Government’s plans for the public funding of education.

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

This Government are determined to ensure that all pupils regardless of where they live receive a world-class education. Over the past seven years, we have made significant progress. There are now 1.8 million more children in schools that are rated good or outstanding than there were in 2010. Today, we saw an eight percentage point rise in key stage 2 results, as pupils and teachers rise to meet the challenge of the new, more demanding, curriculum and assessments.

Looking beyond schools, the Government have prioritised funding for all phases of education. At the spending review, we announced that we will be investing an additional £1 billion a year in early education entitlements, including funding for the new 30-hours’ entitlement and funding to increase the per child rate that providers receive. We protected the national base rate per pupil for 16 to 19-year-olds in sixth forms, sixth form colleges and further education colleges in England. In the spring Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced new investment in technical education for 16 to 19-year-olds, rising to an additional £500 million per year.

We have maintained funding for the adult education budget, which supports adult skills participation, in cash terms at £1.5 billion per year. We have implemented reforms to higher education to drive greater competition and teaching standards. Together that adds up to a comprehensive package of support for education at all stages of life.

We want to ensure that every school has the resources it needs, which is why we have protected the schools budget in real terms since 2010. We set out in our manifesto our intention to increase funding further as well as to continue to protect the pupil premium to support the most disadvantaged pupils. We recognise that schools face cost pressures beyond the total amount of funding going in and we know that there are two crucial questions. First, we know that how schools use their money is important in delivering the best outcomes for pupils, and we will continue to provide support to help schools to use their funding effectively. Secondly, we know that how funding is distributed across the country is anachronistic and unfair and that the current system is in desperate need of urgent reform.

We have gone further than any previous Government in reforming school funding. The second stage of our consultation on a national funding formula for schools closed in March and I am grateful to the 25,000 people who responded, as well as to hon. Members who contributed during the more than 10 hours of parliamentary debates on school funding and during many face-to-face meetings over that period. It is important that we consider carefully how to proceed and, as outlined in our manifesto, we will make sure that no school has its budget cut as a result of the new formula. We remain committed to working with Parliament and introducing proposals that will command consensus. We will set out our plans shortly.

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the Minister, but there is no sign of the Education Secretary. And where is the Prime Minister? She isn’t running her party any more, Mr Speaker —she is running away from her party. The Education Secretary put in a bid for extra money for schools this weekend, not at Cabinet but on the front page of the Torygraph, and no wonder when Arlene Foster got £1 billion—she must be the most expensive right winger since Cristiano Ronaldo. Will the Minister confirm that that was an increase in school funding of £150 per pupil in Northern Ireland? And is there any extra Treasury funding for education in the rest of the country, or not?

The Minister has said that the new funding formula will avoid cash cuts, so where is the funding for that coming from? New money, or just cuts elsewhere? When he says that no school will lose out, can he confirm that that is in cash terms, not real terms? The Conservatives promised an extra £4 billion for schools in their manifesto. Is that now Government policy, and how much of that is for each year? They were going to raise the money by scrapping infant school meals. Is that still policy? Will the Minister provide universal free breakfasts in primary schools, and does he finally have proper costings for that? Is he still planning to fund new and expanded grammar schools, or has that now been abandoned as well?

The Education Secretary was not the only one haggling with the Chancellor in the Sunday papers. Her predecessor, now the Environment Secretary, said that he always listened to public sector pay bodies. He must have forgotten that he actually abolished the school support staff negotiating body. Will the Minister now look at reinstating a pay body for support staff, and does he support lifting the 1% pay cap in education?

The First Secretary of State also called for a national debate on tuition fees, so will the Minister give us one on the Floor of the House on the Government’s latest fee hike, which they sneaked through during the election campaign? Finally, will he centrally fund any safety measures for school buildings, and update the House before the recess, as well as looking at student halls? Just two years ago, the Government were elected on a manifesto that promised no cuts to the funding of any school or any pupil. Will they finally meet that promise?

[Nick Gibb]

We are spending record amounts on school funding: £41 billion this year, rising to £42 billion in 2019-20 with increasing pupil numbers. We will respond to the consultation shortly, but the public can be confident that what we promise in our response will be deliverable and will be delivered.

Most economic commentators know that the wild promises made by Labour during the general election to spend billions of pounds a year of taxpayers’ money nationalising the energy industry, the water industry and the rail industry, and billions of pounds on promises across a range of spending areas, will simply add more than £50 billion a year to our annual deficit, leading to a crisis of confidence among those who Labour expects to lend the Government that money. That in turn would lead to catastrophic damage to our economy, an economy that today, under this Government, has produced strong economic growth, record numbers of jobs and the lowest level of unemployment for more than 40 years. A strong economy funds public services; economic chaos leads straight to the International Monetary Fund and to emergency cuts.

The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. The School Teachers Review Body has submitted its 27th report to the Secretary of State, and it makes recommendations for the 2017 pay award for teachers and school leaders. We continue to consider the report carefully, and we will publish it, together with our response and a draft revised schoolteachers pay and conditions document, as soon as possible. The hon. Lady asked about universal infant free school meals. We have listened carefully to the sector’s views on the proposal to remove infant free school meals, and we have decided that it is right to retain the existing provision. Universal infant free school meals ensure that children receive a nutritious meal during the day, which saves hard-working families hundreds of pounds a year and boosts educational achievement, especially among children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

The hon. Lady also asked about fire safety in schools. We are conducting a survey of all schools to find out what cladding they have on their buildings. For schools over four storeys or 18 metres that have cladding we are asking fire inspectors to conduct an urgent inspection of fire safety.

Education and Local Services

Angela Rayner Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Let me first welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Speaker, and also the many new Members to the Chamber for today’s debate. I am sure we are all looking forward to hearing some excellent maiden speeches.

I also welcome the Secretary of State back to her place and her new Ministers to theirs. I suspect she may have found herself debating education issues quite a lot during the campaign, not least in her own constituency, but a lot has changed in these few short weeks, so today’s debate might be rather different. In fact, the Secretary of State concentrated more on the Labour party today than on her own Government and the Queen’s Speech. There are more than 2,500 words about education in the manifesto on which the Prime Minister stood those few weeks ago, but barely 50 in the speech we heard last week. Maybe that is why the Secretary of State concentrated so much on the Labour party manifesto. What we have heard is not so much a programme but a Post-it note. Although I listened carefully to the right hon. Lady’s opening remarks, I do not think we know much more about her policy now than we did before she stood up.

Let us start with the obvious points. The centrepiece of the new Prime Minister’s education policy was meant to be new grammar schools. I will not rehearse the arguments, but I will just put this observation on the record:

“When people talk about the grammar school issue, I never get people asking the question, ‘Why don’t you bring back the secondary modern?’ And in fact…most children would go to a secondary modern school…if we brought back selection”.

Of course, that is not an original observation. In this case, it is the argument made by the Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), when explaining why he opposed new grammar schools, when that was the Conservative policy under the last Prime Minister. I do not think it was said in this election campaign, so let me be the first to say it: #IagreewithNick. Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain what a hashtag means to her Home Secretary. I also agreed with the Minister for School Standards when he said:

“Now our job is to improve the standards in the three thousand comprehensive schools in this country and I believe it’s not getting rid of the grammar schools that was the issue.”

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State could shed a little light on her own policy by responding to a question that has been asked in most of these debates but never properly answered. Would a Labour Government abolish existing grammar schools?

[Angela Rayner]

I think I have been quite clear that we would concentrate on standards and not structures, unlike this Government, who are ideologically obsessing and wasting billions of pounds—not my words, but those of the National Audit Office about the Government’s fixations.

The question is, will the Government now get on with the job and does the Prime Minister now also agree with Nick? Will the Secretary of State make it clear that there will be no attempts to lift the ban on new selective schools? Will she finally concentrate on solving the real problems—those that we hear about time and time again and that we heard about throughout the general election: the crisis in funding and in the teacher workforce—instead of creating more problems for herself?

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Labour party manifesto talked about a lot of funding for many areas, but does the hon. Lady recognise that making unfunded promises and putting a huge amount of funding into the system has an impact on the economy and on schools? That impact was seen in Greece, which went bankrupt, with 8,500 teachers losing their jobs and schools having no teachers to teach in them.

[Angela Rayner]

I am absolutely astonished by that, given what has happened over the last 24 hours and the magic money tree that has suddenly been found for a coalition of chaos. I will take no lectures from the Conservative party, especially when the only numbers I saw in its manifesto were the numbers of the pages I was reading.

The Prime Minister also threatened to end universal infant free school meals during the general election. I hope the Government will now confirm that that policy has been abandoned, as part of their full-scale retreat from their own manifesto. Ministers claimed during the election that free breakfasts would be more cost-effective. Their costings left a bit to be desired, though: the original plan would have allowed only 7p per breakfast. I remember that when Labour was in government we got our school meal recipes from Jamie Oliver. The Conservatives must have been getting theirs from Oliver Twist. Even then the new costings were based on take-up of just 20%, so I look forward to hearing a full explanation of their policy on free school meals.

On a similar note, one thing that the Secretary of State has announced today is the Government’s new policy on mental health first aid training in schools. They said they would train the first 3,000 staff for £200,000—£66 per member of staff. At the same time, the charity delivering the policy said it would cost at least £117.25 per person, so the Secretary of State’s figures were out, but only by about £150,000. Having realised that her numbers do not add up, she has now rushed out another U-turn, saying that the £200,000 is for only the first year of the policy. Can Ministers finally tell us how much the policy will cost per year, how many teachers will be trained each year and how she managed to get the policy announcement so badly wrong? It seems a long time ago since the Conservatives were talking about strong and stable leadership. Only one day after the deal for the coalition of chaos was signed, and this Government are even weaker and wobblier than ever before.

Now let me turn to the words that the Secretary of State did get into the Queen’s Speech, which promised reform of technical education. However, she has already legislated for reform of technical education earlier this year, in the Technical and Further Education Act 2017, so can Ministers tell us whether there will be another new Bill on technical education in this Session? Or is the reality that this Government have come to the House with such a threadbare programme that they have been reduced to announcing Bills that they have already passed, in the last Parliament?

The Government had nothing to say on higher education. No wonder they wanted to talk about our policies. It is just weeks since they used a statutory instrument to sneak through their latest rise in tuition fees, while freezing the threshold at which graduates begin to repay their debts. The election came before the scheduled debate and vote on that rise, so I hope the Government will now provide time for that debate on the Floor of the House.

Nor did the Government have anything to say on the even more critical issues of early years education and childcare. At the end of the last Parliament they left early years education and childcare in disarray. They promised an early years workforce strategy but have given no indication of how they will implement it. Providers across the country have told the Government time and time again that the funding they are providing is inadequate, and hundreds of thousands of working parents have been denied the service that they were promised. How many words were there about that in the Queen’s Speech? None whatsoever.

Let me also touch on another issue, which is perhaps more important than any other this week: the safety of our school buildings. The Government had been planning to change the regulations on fire safety in schools contained in “Building Bulletin 100”. Funnily enough, those proposed changes have now been removed from the Department for Education website, but luckily we have a paper copy. The proposed new draft no longer included an expectation that most new school buildings would be fitted with sprinklers, on the basis that

“school buildings do not need to be sprinkler protected to achieve a reasonable standard of life safety.”

Perhaps the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government could take the opportunity later to confirm that these proposed changes have now been abandoned for good.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to carry out a thorough and comprehensive check on the fire safety of every school building in the country? We cannot put too high a price on the safety of our children. In view of the likely costs, does my hon. Friend think that the Government should set up a contingency fund to cover all those costs, as a matter of urgency, so that local authorities do not have to consider cutting other already shredded budgets to find the money to pay for the necessary work?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree—indeed, I was intending to deal with that point later in my speech. I hope that the Secretary of State will take my hon. Friend’s comments on board. We know that local government in particular has been hit by the Government’s so-called austerity agenda. The cuts that our local authorities face need to be looked at.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government told the House that the Government had ordered safety checks to be carried out to ensure that flammable cladding was not used on school buildings. Will he update the House on the results of that survey as soon as possible? If there are schools that use flammable cladding, can the Secretary of State for Education give a clear assurance that the costs will be covered by the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has requested?

It would also be helpful to know what action is being taken in student halls of residence. Can the Communities Secretary confirm that they are classed as “other residential buildings”, and are therefore subject to weaker requirements for sprinklers? If so, will the Government consider closing that loophole? What action will the Government take to ensure that both university and private halls are checked for flammable cladding?

Let me now turn to the subject of school funding. Yesterday, the First Secretary of State came to the House to announce the Government’s deal with the Democratic Unionist party. Fortunately for them, they seem to have located the magic money tree about which we heard so much during the election. The package included £50 million for schools, to “address immediate pressures”. That is £150 for every pupil in Northern Ireland.

Of course I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that they were not properly funding schools in Northern Ireland, and the money is to address that; but can the Secretary of State explain why, as schools face billions of pounds in cuts, the Government are doing nothing to address the immediate pressures on schools in England?

The Conservative party manifesto said that the new funding formula would be introduced, and that no school would lose funding as a result—in fact, the Secretary of State said it herself. Achieving that will require an increase in school funding over and above current plans, so, again, it is time for clarity. When will the Department publish a response to the second stage of the consultation on the fair funding formula, and when will the new funding formula be introduced? Will the Secretary of State provide a cast-iron guarantee today that no school will be worse off, in real terms?

If the Secretary of State has been talking to parents and teachers in her own constituency—let alone across the country—she will know that schools are facing severe cost pressures, and that head teachers are being left with impossible choices. I absolutely agree with what she said earlier about the staff and workforces in our schools and public services, but I must say to her that they need more than words. Even given the money that the Government found by scrapping school meals, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—which the Secretary of State likes to quote so often—has found that the implementation of their plans for school spending would mean a real-terms cut of nearly 3% in per-pupil funding.

The Gracious Address referred to a highly skilled workforce in high-wage jobs, but in-work poverty is at a record high, and the UK has the second lowest wage growth in the OECD since 2010. The only country where wage growth is lower is Greece, and that is a direct result of the failure of this Government. Their failure to invest in education will lead to a generation of children not getting the education they deserve, and not getting on in life.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. [Hon. Members: “Shadow!”] Give us a couple of months.

My hon. Friend has talked about the failure of a generation. Does she know that, at the University of Chester academy in Ellesmere Port, a generation of schoolchildren are now being failed because of a second failed Ofsted inspection—the second in four years? The multi-academy trust has also had a damning Ofsted inspection, but we heard nothing from the Secretary of State about what she intends to do to improve performance in academies.

[Angela Rayner]

During the general election campaign, I had the honour and privilege of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is absolutely right: those concerns are real. I think we saw that played out in the election. We saw that young people came to the Labour party because we had an offer for them. We also saw the direction in which the Secretary of State’s majority went. It certainly did not go in the same direction as mine. I think she needs to take heed of that.

We see the same picture of cuts in public services across the country: budgets cut, services lost and communities losing out. For instance, since 2010, nearly a third of designated Sure Start children’s centres have been lost. Funding for early-intervention services has been cut again and again, and it is the working families of Britain who will pay the price in the end.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has mentioned both Greece and cuts. She must be aware that, according to the House of Commons Library, Government spending in 2010 was £715 billion and this year it will be more than £800 billion. That is an increase, not a cut, and it includes record spending on education. In so-called anti-austerity Greece, Government spending is down by 30%, so it is not exactly a model.

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman will also note that we are in trillions of pounds of debt, and that the debt has doubled on the Government’s watch. They like to talk about the economy, but they failed on every single one of the fiscal rules introduced by the previous Chancellor. I will take no lectures on the economy from Conservative Members.

The Secretary of State seemed to suggest that Labour’s record in power was not one to be proud of. Of course, there are a number of aspects of our record that she failed to mention. Perhaps she will tell the House which party delivered record levels of investment in our schools; or perhaps she will tell us which party, during 13 years in power, slashed the attainment gap, and saw children from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds do just as well as their more affluent peers. It certainly was not her party.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Perhaps it is the hon. Lady who is guilty of not telling the House that under the last Labour Government one in three children left primary school without the expected levels of numeracy and literacy, and there was a 3,500% increase in “equivalents to GCSEs” which were certainly not equivalents to GCSEs. That was conning children that what they were learning in schools was fit for purpose.

[Angela Rayner]

Again, it is clear that Conservative Members like to talk more about the Labour party than about their own record book. [Interruption.] Let me answer the question. Let us just be clear about the position. Where are we now in the programme for international student assessment tables? We are slipping again. It was the previous Secretary of State who said that the Government would be judged according to their standing in the PISA tables, but its status is falling continually, so I will take no more lectures. When the Government talk about, for instance, their free school programmes although they cannot even get the buildings up and running and are spending billions, I think we are seeing a record of shameful waste under the Conservatives.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and others have mentioned standards. Perhaps it slipped some Tory Back Benchers’ notice last summer that the number of pupils at key stage 2—those who were leaving primary school—who met the requirements in the standard assessment tests had fallen from more than 80% to just 53%. That was absolutely shocking. It was not because the standard of teaching had fallen, or because pupils had become less capable, or because head teachers were not performing well; it was because the Government have been meddling with every bit of curriculum that they can their hands on. That is making standards fall and setting children up to fail.

[Angela Rayner]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. From now on, interventions should be brief. A very large number of colleagues wish to contribute, and I am keen to accommodate as many as I can.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

On the Secretary of State’s point on tuition fees, she seems to have misunderstood the way in which the policy was costed. That is hardly a surprise, given that her party is not exactly used to costing its commitments. The extra £2 billion that she calls a black hole would only be a black hole if all universities charged the highest fee level. Under her Government that number is rising again, with no end in sight. But based on actual outlay by the Student Loans Company, we have fully costed an end to tuition fees. Frankly, it is ironic to hear the Secretary of State who scrapped the maintenance grant complaining that we would not be able to undo her policy. This, too, is fully costed, and I am happy to send her a copy of our manifesto to show her just how we will do it. I will even get the next Prime Minister to sign it for her.

The Secretary of State talks about prioritising technical education. Does this mean that the 14% real-terms cut to the further education budget or the billions of pounds cut from the adult skills budget will be reversed? We can all guess the answer to that one. And may I remind her that our manifesto pledged to reverse her cuts to Sure Start? Sure Start and other early intervention programmes have the greatest impact on boosting social mobility for the most disadvantaged. How can she possibly justify cutting hundreds of millions of pounds in Sure Start funding, and the loss of a third of designated Sure Start centres under the Conservatives?

Finally, on helping the disadvantaged, the Secretary of State conveniently ignores the fact that new research shows that students from low-income backgrounds are most likely to be deterred by higher levels of student debt. Under Labour, there will be no barriers to young people pursuing whatever education they want, be it further or higher, academic or technical. It is only her party that, by slashing school budgets while tuition fees skyrocket, is capping aspiration.

Another way is possible. It is the plan set out in the Labour party manifesto—a plan that will invest in our young people to ensure that everyone, whatever their background, can fulfil their potential. It is a plan in which we reverse the cuts to school funding and then protect their budgets in real terms for the lifetime of this Parliament, and in which we provide free lifelong learning so that everyone can retrain and reskill when they need to, free from the fear of a lifetime of debt. It is a plan in which aspiration is encouraged, not taxed, and in which we invest in early years education and childcare, making sure that every child gets the best possible start in life, because social mobility does not start at 11 but in the early years, when interventions make the greatest impact.

This is what Members of this House must ask themselves. Do they stand for cuts to schools and local services, or for investment? Do they stand for the managed decline of further education, or do they support lifelong learning? Do they stand for taxing the aspiration of our young people, or do they stand for allowing every child to fulfil their potential? I know where we stand on this side of the House, and the choice has never been clearer.