Further Education Institutions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention, pointing out some of the cuts that her constituents are experiencing at the hands of the SNP Government in Scotland. It is incumbent on them to ensure that all children and adults have the opportunities to learn and continue to update their skills.

In conclusion, I believe that further education colleges are vital to those skills; they provide vocational training, apprenticeships and essential skills for young people and adults who want to upskill and reskill. They play a crucial role in addressing skills gaps, boosting productivity and promoting social mobility. However, as we have heard, the sector is facing significant challenges, including real-terms funding cuts, workforce shortages and complex funding structures. In her response, can the Minister set out how this Labour Government are increasing both day-to-day funding and capital funding for further education? How do they plan to address teacher shortages in FE? How are they ensuring that those in further education have the same opportunities to progress?

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) wishes to participate in this debate, I should say that there are only 10 minutes or so for the Minister to respond to the mass of points that have been made. I hope she will be brief.

Licensing Hours Extensions Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, alongside the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), and I am pleased to confirm that the Conservative party supports the measure. It is legislation that the previous Conservative Government supported, and we welcome its return to the House. The Bill changes section 197 of the Licensing Act 2003, moving licensing hours orders from the affirmative to the negative procedure. As we have heard, this will save precious parliamentary time while maintaining full democratic accountability through the prayer procedure, which allows Members to object within 40 days.

The hospitality sector is vital to local economies throughout the United Kingdom. From rural pubs to city centre hotels, these businesses need the flexibility to serve their communities during national celebrations. When His Majesty the King was crowned in 2023, establishments across the country wanted to mark that historic occasion. The current process makes it unnecessarily difficult to respond to such moments of national significance. Since 2003, this power has been used sparingly for national events; every single order has had to pass through Parliament, and has done so unopposed. Public consultation also shows strong support, with 77% backing the coronation extensions to licences in 2023.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

When this Bill had its Second Reading, I put it to the Minister who was responding then, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), that this was a rather puny measure, and that there is a strong case for deregulating this whole area, and for getting Parliament and the Government out of the hospitality sector’s hair in relation to licensing hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is far too limited a measure?

[Harriet Cross]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course, we should all strive for deregulation, and would like more of it all the time. That is probably a bit too much to take on within the very small confines of this private Member’s Bill, but it is certainly something we should strive for, in order to help businesses across the country, and definitely something I would look at.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will she also include within her inquiries, and her thoughts about ambition, some more control over the negative procedure? The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), who introduced the Bill today, asserted that anybody who was against an order passed under the negative procedure would be able to pray against it, but the opportunity to ensure that a prayer results in a debate is almost non-existent. That is a theoretical, rather than practical, constraint. One of the issues I have been trying to raise is—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Sir Christopher is a parliamentarian with enough experience to know that that is a very, very long intervention. He has been here from the start; he could have chosen to contribute in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I rise to speak only because I was not able to complete my intervention; as you rightly said, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was getting very long.

The point I want to make in my short contribution to this debate is that it is because of the lack of flexibility in the negative procedure that we find ourselves having to discuss the matter on Third Reading today. If the House had the ability to amend statutory instruments, and had a guarantee, more or less, that if there was an objection to an order made under the negative procedure, it could be the subject of debate, there would be less concern about orders being subject to the negative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure.

This Bill has been dragged through this House at great length. I do not quite understand the explanation for that. Under the Bill, in the narrow context of a sporting event taking place that resulted in the need for a celebration that there had not been notice of at a time when the House was sitting—according to the Bill’s sponsors, it would be relevant only in such circumstances—the Government could allow a licensing extension.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

As we have not yet heard from the Minister, I am not prepared to take a closure motion at this time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In the light of the number of people who voted at 9.35 am, I think it is highly unlikely that any closure motion could be carried, because it would need 100 Members to support it. I have been speaking for only two or three minutes. I know the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) is keen to get on and discuss his Bill, which I know the Government wish to talk out—I am a little bit perplexed about that.

The negative resolution procedure would be necessary only in an emergency. I was quite tempted to extend my remarks, because the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) tried to link the contents of the Bill with today’s first anniversary of the election of what I think is undeniably the worst Government this country has ever experienced. Would we really have wanted to celebrate that in the pubs? Last night, I was commiserating with a group of Conservatives in a London constituency about what had happened over the last year, and explaining to them that they should take courage from the fact that at least we are 20% of the way through this ghastly Government.

[Matt Turmaine]

My remarks were entirely oriented around the suggestion that those wishing to celebrate would be able to do so. No compulsion to do so was intended.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am so relieved to hear that. As a believer in freedom and choice, I think people should have the chance to go to the pub either to celebrate or to commiserate. I share the desire of the hon. Gentleman and many others in this House to promote the hospitality industry. There seems to be some evidence that a lot more young people are coming back to drink and celebrate in pubs, and long may that continue. In my constituency, as in many others, far too many good pubs and other hospitality venues have closed down, not least because of the Government’s imposition of extra employers’ national insurance and increases in the national minimum wage.

Although the Government will probably take credit for allowing this Bill—this very modest measure—to go through, it needs to be put in perspective. At the same time, they have been the author of a whole lot of measures that have been very bad news for the hospitality industry across the country, and in Christchurch in particular.

Apprenticeships and T-Levels

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this debate. There are no ifs or buts about it; we just have to get further education right. I want to confine my remarks to three areas. First, we need more teachers. Secondly, we need more space. Thirdly, we need reform of both T-levels and apprenticeships.

We are running out of teachers in further education. Courses are closing, waiting lists are growing and colleges cannot pay enough to attract people from industry—the Association of Colleges calculates that there is an average pay gap of £9,000. Would the Minister consider presenting a medium-term plan to improve pay and conditions to get teachers into our class spaces? Furthermore, will she extend teacher workforce planning to further education, as the previous Education Committee advised?

Colleges do not have the space to train young people, so we need sustained capital funding in skills infrastructure. I feel blessed to have been able to visit the Poole campus of Bournemouth & Poole college, where so much more could be done to teach clean energy skills if there was investment in the right space. The college knows what space it wants to build the facilities in; it just does not have the sustained capital funding to make that happen. Will the Government appraise the needs of colleges and support them to access the spaces they need to provide apprenticeships and training in the skills that will fuel the growth of our economy, given that growth is our Government’s No. 1 mission?

I look forward to the Government confirming what the qualifications landscape will look like for school leavers, following the very welcome commitment to pause and review Conservative plans to defund unpopular qualifications such as BTECs, which rival T-levels. T-level courses, particularly in education and childcare, may include a substantial work experience placement. That might be a good idea in principle—I have been very lucky to visit Bournemouth & Poole college and learn about its world-leading health T-level—but just over one in 10 construction and engineering T-level students could not complete the required work placement. Student numbers are lower than planned; drop-outs are high; announced courses have been cut or thrown into doubt before they started; courses have not been funded for young adults aged 19 to 24, when our country needs them to be educated and in training; and the Conservative Government, which this Labour Government replaced, botched the roll-out. Will the Government increase support to employers taking T-level students?

There are high hopes that the reformed growth and skills levy and the lifelong learning entitlement will give workers access to high-quality training in higher-demand sectors. I invite the Minister to visit Bournemouth & Poole college—particularly the Bournemouth campus—where we have 2,000 apprentices in training, and an outstanding achievement rate of 8.4% over the national average. Huge economic differences are being made to local employers such as Sunseeker, which, together with the college, has launched a training initiative to address a national skills shortage affecting the marine industry. Its Skills Academy provides fully paid 12-week intensive boatbuilding skills courses across five specialisms. Following training, students join colleagues at the shipyard to achieve a nationally recognised qualification over 12 months. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked whether we need Skills England. The example of Bournemouth & Poole college working with Sunseeker shows how an organisation can find and fill gaps at a national level, and co-ordinate the funding and frameworks to grow our economy.

Octopus Energy is ensuring that we create more than 4,000 skilled jobs, including qualified heat pump installers, by 2030 to help our Government to meet their clean energy by 2030 mission. With the launch of the first employer-provided low-carbon heating apprentice scheme, Octopus is demonstrating how employer providers can create high-quality apprentice programmes. We need to ensure that apprenticeship funding rules requirements and the accountability framework reflect the needs of employer providers, rather than focusing mostly on the needs of colleges and training providers. Will the Minister consider creating employer provider-specific funding rules in order to streamline the reporting responsibility? As part of the reform of Ofsted, which I welcome, will she support joint working between technical experts and Ofsted inspectors so that the inspectors better understand the technical requirements during inspections? That is particularly key for Octopus Energy’s pioneering approach of developing skills driven by rapidly developing technology.

For years, the same thoughts have been swirling through my mind and the minds of many of my constituents, whose doors I have been knocking on over the past two years. It all comes down to this single question: why can Bournemouth and Britain not do better? Why can we not have the things we are entitled to? Bad things are not inevitable; they are the result of political choices, such as those that have been made over the past 14 years. We want to make different choices in Bournemouth and in Britain. We want young people to get on and have decent, well-paying jobs that mean presents under the tree, a meal out with loved ones, a new home and a new car in the driveway, and a sense of purpose and mission in the careers they choose. I very much welcome the Minister coming to this debate, and I look forward to her response. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for calling this important debate. I really call for a turning of the page, because for too long, too many people have been held back.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Before I call Jim Shannon, I will just say that there are five people wishing to speak and 20 minutes, so you can do your own calculations.

Universities: Freedom of Speech

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government will uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom on our university campuses. Robust debate and challenge to views helps students to grow in an education setting; creating culture wars does not. That is why we will work with academics, students, campaigners and all those with an interest in upholding freedom of speech in our higher education system to get this right.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Is freedom of speech not an absolute freedom and right? Will the Government not do something to bring vice-chancellors to account for their failures to deliver freedom of speech on university campuses? Fifty-five years ago, I was the victim of that when the vice-chancellor of the university that I was attending tried to prevent me, as chairman of the Conservative association, from inviting a then prominent Member of this House of Commons to the university campus. The vice-chancellor was eventually forced to stand down. I wrote what was then a lead letter in The Daily Telegraph, the vice-chancellor was shamed into changing his views and the visit took place. Does that not show that the key to this is having vice-chancellors who really believe in freedom of speech?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated well the existing duties on higher education providers to secure lawful freedom of speech and, indeed, the right of citizens to ensure that it is upheld. He makes an important point. That is why we are talking to people with a whole range of views on the issue to ensure that we get it right.

Skills England

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Let me put on record that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. In preparation for your speech, I totted it up and it seemed that Skills England will be the fifth such national quango set up by Westminster since the Manpower Services Commission in 1973. The average tenure of a Skills Minister since 1997 has been 15 months—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. It is helpful if you address your remarks through the Chair, rather than turning away. Apart from anything else, it makes it difficult for Hansard to record what you are saying.

[Andrew Pakes]

I apologise, Sir Christopher; this is my first such intervention in one of these debates. Since 1997, the average tenure for a Skills Minister has been 15 months—longer than Liz Truss’s, but shorter than a premier league manager’s. The average life of a skills quango such as Skills England has been only eight years, less time than most people spend in primary school. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way that Skills England will be a success is if it is linked to industrial strategy, is tripartite and brings together employers and unions? That would mean that we would have a durable system and not a repeat of the failures of the past, which saw short-term interventions that have not delivered for working-class people.

Children's Access to Books

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Reading aloud is not just a pleasure for the people who listen to the story but for those who read the story. After all, we are all politicians here and we love hearing the sound of our voices. Indeed, I am telling a story today; we are doing storytelling for the future.

Before I continue, I wonder whether there are any more interventions. No? Then, I will happily continue to discuss the pandemic, but first I will comment on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell). I congratulate him on writing a children’s book—unfortunately I have yet to receive a copy, but I look forward to receiving one tout suite and I thank him very much for that.

I return to the effect that the pandemic has had on literacy rates. What is most concerning is the effect on the 10% of children who spent the pandemic at home without books. When they returned to school, they would have been further behind their peers who had books at home. Children on free school meals are not only much less likely to own books but are much less likely to enjoy reading with their friends—a statistic that has doubled over the pandemic, as children spent long periods without access to books or other reading material due to schools being closed.

As I mentioned in the previous debate that I secured, which focused on the importance of improving access to libraries, something that has been recently reinforced to me is the data that shows that 30% of parents were borrowing more books from libraries than ever before. Clearly, that is paying dividends in my area, with the announcement of a new library in Thurcroft. However, accessing books can be made easier, making it more likely that people will do that than only going to a library.

In my local area, Labour-run Rotherham council has spent millions of pounds on building a new central library, but we are still paying upwards of £5 million a year in rent for Riverside House, the council offices and library, which opened just 10 years ago, few of my constituents in Rother Valley will ever visit it and fewer still will want to borrow a book from the catalogue, which is in dire need of updating. Spending just a fraction of the money that the Labour-run council has spent on putting books into the hands of the children of Rother Valley would be a far more efficient way to improve those children’s lives.

Rotherham, as we know, has the second lowest reading attainment levels for key stage 2, something that the data shows us can easily be solved by helping children to access books more easily. That is where Rotherham council should be spending money instead. Luckily, there are easy solutions to these issues, both locally and nationally. One of this Government’s greatest legacies will be investment in areas that have been left behind for many years. In some cases, levelling up can mean direct investment and change to infrastructure, as we are pleased to see in Rother Valley with the Dinnington high street project and Maltby skills academy. However, providing books is undoubtably one of the simplest and most cost-efficient ways of improving the lives of 1.2 million children up and down the United Kingdom, giving them the best possible start to their lives and careers.

As was mentioned in the interventions, something that is becoming clearer is the fact that we must embrace technology in our pursuit of improving access to books. Across human history, the first true literacy revolution was the invention of scrolls and paper, allowing quicker, lighter and more accessible reading and writing away from the stone tablets of old. The second innovation was the printing press, bringing books and literacy to the people, as William Caxton did only a few hundred yards from where we sit today.

Many of us have lived through a similarly important revolution in the development of e-books and audiobooks, reinventing the way we read and get information. These new technologies will be game-changers for our children’s access to books and for how they read. E-books, which can be as simple a concept as a PDF saved on a phone or on any number of e-readers, allow for quick and free access to books, which was unattainable outside of a library just a few years ago. Not only can a phone or e-reader hold thousands of titles, it is nearly always cheaper than its printed counterparts, often for the simple reason of having next to no unit cost, meaning that they are far more accessible for younger readers in less well-off households. Indeed, many of the classic books that we may want our children to enjoy like we did are available online for free through sites like Project Gutenberg, which boasts over 70,000 e-books free to download, with titles from Marcus Aurelius to Sun Tzu—anything a child would want to read.

For children, there are other advantages to reading technology. A trial programme points to a huge uplift in reading enjoyment across the board when reading on screens. That is backed up by an increase in pupils’ reading outside school. Not only do children enjoy reading electronic devices, they enjoy it so much that they do it in their own time. It may be better for their development and preparedness for their careers, with jobs these days often involving reading text from a screen rather than a piece of paper.

Audiobooks should share the stage, given their proven results, encouraging those who might otherwise not read to do so. In the first instance, audiobooks have huge reach among younger readers. A 2022 survey tells us that 40% of those aged between 12 and 15 are regular users of audiobooks, whereas only 24% of those aged above 55 responded in the same way. What is more, audiobooks bridge disparities that we usually see in reading and writing among children. For example, the National Literacy Trust reports that listening is the only form in which boys have higher levels of engagement and enjoyment than girls. Audiobooks are an invaluable way of making books and the benefits that come with reading more accessible to those who might normally miss out.

Given that these new ways encourage reading and make books even easier than ever to access, how should we support them? As I mentioned, Yorkshire has the lowest rate of children’s book ownership, but given the ubiquity of smartphone and computer ownership and the availability of e-books and audiobooks, the answer is right there. We touched on some of the charitable endeavours in this area, and I am pleased to report that many other excellent charities are helping to spread e-book ownership, including from public libraries.

Increasing access to books means making them as accessible as possible. For more than 350,000 children with some form of learning difficulty, reading may present more of a challenge. How can reading for pleasure even be considered if reading is a constant struggle for these children? I have talked about how e-books and audiobooks greatly increase reading enjoyment, but that is especially true when looking at the impact on children with dyslexia or any other educational support needs, as well as those who simply struggle with reading. One in 10 children have some form of dyslexia. That should not be overlooked as an area that needs focus. Like other areas in life, technology can provide easy ways for many to overcome hurdles. In this case, e-books can be more beneficial than printed books, such as by being able to quickly change font or sizes or access the dictionary to find out the meaning of new or difficult words—a real step forward in helping those most in need of encouragement. The British Dyslexia Association has many excellent suggestions on how to help children with dyslexia to read and write, and agrees that e-books and other such technology are clear game changers for children with dyslexia.

As well as technology, another central suggestion is paired reading, which we have already talked about. A child and their parent reading together for 10 minutes a day is a perfect example. Unfortunately, when looking at the bigger picture, if 10% of children in my area do not own a book, and 10% of those children have dyslexia, that means that 1% of children—nearly 135,000 children across the UK—simply do not have the resources to overcome their learning difficulties, blighting their career and life prospects.

Over the course of this debate and the last, I have had a particular focus on younger children, such as those in primary school. That may be because of my own personal bias with my two daughters, Persephone and Charlotte. Unfortunately, however, it seems to me that the same is true of our education system, which focuses literacy education on younger children at the expense of older children. Over 75% of children aged between five and eight say that they enjoy reading, but sadly that number trends downwards over the next years of education, with only 45% of 14 to 16-year-olds saying the same. That means that somewhere in our schools children lose their passion for reading. Secondary school—for some, the last years of formal education—can be an invaluable time to fall in love with reading before life’s other worries take over. We must do more to encourage our teenagers to read and enjoy reading.

The point could be made that because so many forms of entertainment are instantly available to our children—and to teenagers in particular—we should do more to make books relevant and accessible. Here, again, we can look to technology to solve those issues. As I have mentioned, with e-books and audiobooks, children can have thousands of stories in their pocket, but how do we actually get them to open the e-books and read them? The rise of social media phenomena, such as bookstagram and BookTok, have undoubtedly led to more teenagers reading, with some books’ dustjackets now proudly marketing themselves as being TikTok favourites.

Social media platforms provide a social aspect to books, allowing users to give and receive recommendations from peers with similar interests, as well as connecting with those who have a passion for a genre or a series of books. The BookTok hashtag has over 143 billion views worldwide, with some of the most watched videos highlighting, for example, books by black British authors or what to put on a summer reading list. Those videos and social groups are reconnecting teenagers to books, albeit in a very different way from previous generations. It is engagement that should be encouraged, and helps to make books and reading as accessible as possible to teenagers. Whatever other concerns may plague social media, this is undoubtedly a force to be reckoned with in the battle for teenage literacy.

Now that I have outlined the importance of better access and accessibility to books, how should we look to achieve that access for our children? The best way to manage it would be through a British book strategy, with the ultimate goal that every child should have many books of their own to cherish and enjoy at their leisure. That would work hand in hand with the overall education strategy, and complement both the Government’s education White Paper from last year and the Prime Minister’s numeracy campaign. I believe this debate will go some way towards outlining what might be contained in that strategy, and I make the following points to the Minister.

First, we must examine seriously the ways in which technology can help children gain access to books, rather than looking at technology as somehow at odds with reading. I have extolled the virtue and benefits of e-books and audiobooks, given their lower cost and the universal access technology capable of reading or listening to them. They must be front and centre of any book strategy. There are, of course, other ways in which technology can improve access to books that I have not had time to discuss, such as apps for public libraries or technological support for the teaching of phonics.

Secondly—and perhaps a related point—we must work to ensure that reading is not seen as a struggle or challenge for those children who find it more difficult than others. With the right processes, even those with the most severe learning disabilities can be shown the joy to be found in reading for pleasure and so reap the same benefits as those without such difficulties.

Finally, we cannot forget to continue to stress the importance of reading as children grow up. Perhaps, given the proven rewards, reading or library time should be a continued presence in our children’s timetable throughout their educational career, regardless of what they are studying, to prevent the terrible decline in reading enjoyment that we are currently seeing. Perhaps encouraging reading-friendly social media may help to give books relevance to our digital society, and help in removing the barriers between teenagers and reading. That is especially true for those leaving formal education as they turn 16.

In conclusion, the Government’s excellent schools White Paper promises to

“do more to ensure every child can access cornerstone literacy and…give them the tools to lead a happy, fulfilled and successful life.”

Better access to books is the simplest and best way to manage that. The only tools children need are the books themselves. We know that high literacy and more reading ensure longer, happier and more fulfilled lives, and there is no better way to achieve those things than to put a book in the hands of every child. Next year, World Book Day will be on 7 March, a date by which I hope every child will have a book of their own to celebrate it with—a book to love and to share with their friends and family.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

I call Matt Rodda.

[Matt Rodda]

Sorry, Sir Christopher—I just wanted to intervene on colleagues, not make a speech.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

In that case, I call Jim Shannon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend has been a battler for his constituent and has written to me about this case. A 50% rule has been developed to support apprenticeship training for those who spend some of their time working in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That rule is maintained, but I will continue to support cross-Government collaboration to see if these problems can be sorted out and I am happy to write to the Welsh Government about his constituent’s case.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

11. What recent assessment she has made of the quality and value of education provided by independent schools in England.

[The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)]

Independent schools, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are an important part of our school system, giving parents choice. Independent schools drive innovation, support social mobility through bursaries and attract significant international investment. The diverse independent sector includes schools that serve small faith communities and that create special school capacity.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Can he ensure that other members of the Government show similar enthusiasm for the work and achievements of the independent schooling sector? Will he take this opportunity to thank all the families who make significant financial sacrifices to pay the fees of those schools for acting in the public interest and saving taxpayers quite a lot of money?

[Nick Gibb]

I am very happy to do that. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that approximately 8% of pupils attending Independent Schools Council schools receive around £480 million of bursaries and means-tested assistance.

Dyslexia Screening and Teacher Training Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

I am not quite sure what to make of that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am honoured to be third today. Let us see how it goes. It is a pleasure to be here, and to be clean and well fed.

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

“The best way to spread opportunity and reduce inequality in society is by providing every person with a world class education”.

Those are not my words but the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I passionately agree that this should apply to all, and my Bill represents the next step in turning those strong words into action.

I am delighted that the Bill has cross-party support. Indeed, its gestation had support from both sides of the House, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and indeed from the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who has sat on both sides of the House since the Bill was first drafted.

I firmly support the Government’s approach to increasing rigour and improving standards in our schools, which is at the heart of this Bill. That drive over a decade is raising standards, and with raised standards comes raised opportunity and increased hope for children. We have especially seen improvement in the most deprived parts of our land.

The Government’s explicit goal is now even greater literacy. Earlier this year, the then Secretary of State for Education—I think he was the last Secretary of State but four, but I have slightly lost count—put 100% literacy at the heart of the schools White Paper and the special educational needs and disability review, and he was right to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed the Government’s continued support for these two incredibly important planks of education policy: the schools White Paper and the SEND review.

There is a gaping hole in the Government’s literacy drive because, shockingly, just one in five dyslexic children is identified at school. Those are the Department’s own figures. When I found that figure in the Rose report of more than 10 years ago, I asked the Department, through parliamentary questions, for the updated figure, because I thought one in five was so shockingly low, but I found that it has not changed over the past decade. Only one in five dyslexic children is identified at school.

Without early identification, we will never reach full literacy. Success in driving up literacy requires us next to support those who have the most difficulty in increasing their literacy. The next stage of the education revolution under this Administration must be to improve opportunities for dyslexic children and for children with other neurodivergent conditions.

It is estimated that around 10% of people in the UK are dyslexic, but if we do not know who is dyslexic at school, how can we possibly help them and equip them with what they need to deal with the challenges life throws at us? Having been Health Secretary, I draw this analogy: if a person does not know they have a heart condition, they cannot get the support to sort it out. That is at the heart of what we need here, to ensure that we have early identification. Screening is a standard and valuable medical intervention. It helps people to live healthy, improved lives, and so it is with dyslexia.

My Bill would result in every child being screened for dyslexia at primary school, and it would give teachers adequate training to teach dyslexic children properly. It is an outrage that, although every teacher is a teacher of dyslexic children, teachers currently do not need to be trained to support dyslexic children. That needs to change, as it leaves thousands of dyslexic children without the world-class education they have been promised.

The fact that only one in five children with dyslexia is identified at school means that many leave school not knowing they have a specific condition that affects how they translate the letters on a page into sounds in their head. Instead, dyslexics up and down the country are called lazy or stupid. The worst is that that undermines their self-esteem, and the problem with that is that they label themselves. I was once told, “We don’t want to label children as dyslexic because they might feel downtrodden by that,” but I can tell the House from personal experience that once someone has found out, as a dyslexic, what the problem is, they can get the support. In my case, when I was identified as dyslexic aged 18—after I had left school—I then got the support to essentially relearn how to read, and that allows me to stand here reading from a little piece of paper while speaking it out in a way that I simply would not have been able to before I got that support.

However, it is not only the practical support we need; we also need to ensure that we know what the problem is. I know, and dyslexics who have that dyslexia identified know, that the problem is a specific neurological one of the translation of letters that wobble around slightly on the page into how that sounds in your head. It is not that someone is bad at languages or stupid in some way, and there are still thousands of children who have labelled themselves as that because they do not get the identification that they need. That has got to change, and it is wrong to say that labelling children is a mistake. On the contrary, ensuring that children know what the problem is gets them support and helps to improve their self-esteem.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Is it right that some people who have been identified as dyslexic are able to get particular help—extra time, for example—in taking their exams? If they are not identified as dyslexic, they will not be able to take advantage of that.

[Matt Hancock]

My hon. Friend brings me immediately on to the next page of my speech, and I know that he is extremely experienced in work on these private Members’ Bills on a Friday—so much so that he can anticipate precisely the next point I was going to make.

The current system is broken, because identification as dyslexic requires expensive tests that only a few children do, and there is a strong correlation between being able to access those tests and the means of one’s parents, the result of which is a much higher rate of identification in the private school system than in the state school system. In the state school system, 2.2% of people are identified as having a special learning need. In the private school system, 18% have an education and healthcare plan. The divergence between those two figures cannot possibly be explained by a difference in the nature of the children; it is all about access.

In this country for more than 100 years, we have had universal access to schooling—quite rightly; it is the basis of a fair society and equality of opportunity—but we do not have equal access to identification for dyslexia and other neurodivergent conditions, and as a result it is not just that we have a problem accessing the extra time that might be appropriate, but we have an essentially unfair system of allocating that extra time, because if someone can afford to get the identification, they get the extra time, and if they cannot afford to, they do not, and that is a social outrage.

It is not only an issue of morality but an issue of social and economic justice. I gently make the point, which relates to the previous Bill, that more than half of prisoners are thought to have dyslexia, and more than half of successful entrepreneurs are thought to have dyslexia. If someone is dyslexic, their life can go two ways. If they get the support they need and become successful, they often are more creative. There is more lateral thinking among dyslexics, not least because we think around problems like how to read something on a page. People who do not get the support, however, can end up too often in a life of crime.

The 2012 “Dyslexia Behind Bars” programme found that when prisoners were taught to read, the reoffending rate dropped by 5.9% within four years. Sadly, as Ofsted and His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons reported earlier this year, there has been no progress in literacy in prisons over the past decade, and the report was one of the most upsetting I have ever read. A dry Government document should not be as upsetting as that, and it describes precisely the problem caused by failing to put in place the measures in this Bill.

It is not all doom and gloom, though; there is also a massive opportunity. Dyslexic people tend to have skills that jobs increasingly need and future jobs need: creativity, lateral thinking and enhanced communication skills, especially in oral communication. Computers increasingly do the boring straight-line thinking; dyslexics have brains fit for the future. It is no wonder that progressive employers such as GCHQ, Universal Music and Deloitte proactively hire neurodivergent people. But if dyslexic people do not know that they have those talents—if they are not identified and they do not get the support they need—they cannot make the most of those advantages.

I have one further point on why there might be objections to the Bill. I have heard some people say that we do not want more false positives and to over-identify children who are not dyslexic. The Bill is carefully written to take that into account. It is calling for screening for all—it is not calling for all to take a formal test—with the purpose of the screening to get better data. We have an excellent phonics test in primary schools, which is good at identifying how good children are at turning phonic symbols on the page into sounds in their heads, but the measure of a dyslexic brain is the gap between that capability and capability at languages.

Most dyslexics are good at oral languages. They have got the gift of the gab—a bit like me, you might say, Mr Deputy Speaker. If they are good at that and poor at the phonics test, that identifies a different problem from being bad at the phonics test and bad at languages, which requires a different type of support. I am trying to address that gap. By having a test of language ability alongside phonic ability in primary school, we will find those who we know have the intellectual capability and wherewithal but have just got a specific neurological problem that means that they need support to get through this barrier. The Bill would help to address that problem. It would ensure that the Government have what they need to implement a system that takes the literacy that we need to see to the next level. If 10% of children are dyslexic, there is no way that we can reach full literacy without measures to find out who those children are and addressing that.

Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 14th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment

1, page 1, after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) In subsection (4)(c), omit “the person giving it considers”.”

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, page 1, leave out subsection (5).

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Let me put the amendment in context, for colleagues who have not looked at the text of section 42A of the Education Act 1997. Under section 42A(4)(c), the Act states:

“The responsible authorities must secure that careers guidance provided under subsection (1)…is guidance that the person giving it considers will promote the best interests of the pupils to whom it is given.”

In other words, the test is a subjective one on the part of the provider, rather than an objective test. My amendment would remove the words

“the person giving it considers”

thereby making it an objective test for the responsible authorities when securing the careers guidance required by the Act.

The context of the amendment is very much about quality. I was delighted that in the debate that took place in Westminster Hall on Tuesday there was much emphasis on quality in careers guidance, and a lot of reference to what the Gatsby rules set out. Let me briefly tell the House about some of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who introduced that debate. She said how important it is that children know what they want to do when they leave school, but that they will not be able to do that if they are not told about all the career opportunities available to them, the qualifications they will need, and the different educational paths they can take.

For example, when my daughter was at school she aspired to become a member of the veterinary profession, and I am proud to say that that is what she is. However, it was difficult because her teachers said, “Well, I’m not sure you’re going to be suitable for science A-levels”, and obviously without them she would never have been able to get the qualifications to go to veterinary school and attain the qualification that she has. The good advice she got from a teacher at the school meant that she could embark on science A-levels. That is a personal example from my own experience of the importance of quality. I do not doubt that some people at the school would have taken the view that the best thing was for her not to do science A-levels, but on any objective assessment it was the right decision. I therefore agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton.

My right hon. Friend went to say:

“The latest report from the Centre for Social Justice says that there is a growing need for tailored, innovative and inspiring career guidance with links to role models and employers.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 211WH.]

I think everybody agrees that that is so, but it is a concern that there is no single place where a young person can get comprehensive Government-backed careers information. The Centre for Social Justice also found that schools are not consistently delivering good quality careers advice. About one in five schools does not meet any of the eight Gatsby benchmarks, a series of internationally respected benchmarks that help the Government to quality assure careers advice in schools. That is very serious.

Everybody seems to agree that the Gatsby benchmarks should be the standard, yet we know that only one in five schools meet any of them. The question I want to pose, in moving the amendment, is this: what are the Government doing to ensure that we get not just careers guidance, but good quality careers guidance? I remind the House of the eight Gatsby benchmarks of good careers guidance: a stable careers programme; learning from career and labour market information; addressing the needs of each pupil; linking curriculum learning to careers; encounters with employers and employees; experiences of work places; encounters with further and higher education; and personal guidance. The fact that so many schools do not even comply with any of them should raise significant alarm bells. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, in concluding her remarks in the Westminster Hall debate, said:

“How do the Government plan to ensure that careers guidance is of a high quality for all pupils, irrespective of where they come from?”—[Official Report, 11 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 212WH.]

That is the issue.

I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who was not able to attend the Westminster Hall debate, on the Front Bench. In welcoming him to the debate, may I say how much I appreciate his decision to give Ferndown Upper School in my constituency a significant capital grant for its T-levels programme, which was announced just before Christmas? That is much appreciated. Ferndown Upper School has made enormous progress over recent years under excellent leadership and has expanded its numbers accordingly. If we were able to see an equivalent increase in the quality of careers guidance in schools across the country, we would all be absolutely delighted.

Let me turn to the response to the Westminster Hall debate from the Minister for Higher and Further Education. She said:

“The foundation of making that a reality is careers guidance in our secondary schools.”

She went on to say:

“That is why we are strengthening the legal framework so that every secondary pupil is guaranteed access to high-quality, independent careers guidance. Careers guidance, in itself, is not the panacea; the quality is absolutely crucial.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 224WH.]

How will we ensure that we have that quality, which we are told will increasingly be assessed by Ofsted, if it is going to be constrained? If Ofsted goes to a school and says, “Your provision is not of sufficiently good quality”, the school will be able to say, “Under the guidance—under the existing legislation—we think, or the person giving the advice thinks, that that is the right advice to be given for this child,” and there is no objective test. If the provider thinks that what it has done is correct, there is no possible way of criticising that or exercising any sanctions against it. That is why removing these words is of absolute importance if the Government want to deliver much better quality careers guidance in our schools. That is a small but important point, and I hope that we will get a constructive response from the Minister. If there is resistance to accepting the amendment in this place, perhaps it can be considered in the other place. However, we need to have more than just words about the importance of good quality; we need to ensure that the legislation facilitates it.

--- Later in debate ---

I thank all Members on both sides of the House who have contributed today, and look forward to continuing the debate on Third Reading.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I much appreciate the Minister’s comments, and his exemplification of the importance of Christchurch—of Tweoxneam—in the history of our country. I am glad that he is so well read in his subjects and knows the locality. I am sure that that had nothing to do with the decision to award this money to Ferndown Upper School, but nevertheless, it is very much appreciated.

I accept what the Minister says about amendment 2—it was very much a probing amendment. However, I invite him to reflect further on amendment 1, because at the moment the Bill says that

“The responsible authorities must secure that careers guidance provided under subsection (1)…is guidance that the person giving it considers will promote the best interests of the pupils to whom it is given.”

Surely, the school should be taking the responsibility for ensuring that the careers guidance that is provided promotes the best interests of pupils. The Minister did not really address the points that I was making about the number of schools that are not complying with any of the eight Gatsby guidance principles.

[Alex Burghart]

My hon. Friend is right about the one in five schools, but allow me to turn that figure on its head: from a standing start really quite a short time ago, four in five schools are now complying with large numbers of the Gatsby benchmarks, and are improving. Our Ofsted regime will include adherence to those benchmarks in its handbook, and I remind my hon. Friend that as part of our post-covid work, all schools will be inspected by Ofsted between now and summer 2025. As far as we are concerned, this is a genuine accountability measure.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I appreciate that, but one in five schools is not complying with any of the eight Gatsby principles that I read out, so surely we need to take action sooner than on the timescale to which the Minister refers. That is not a matter for legislation—his Department needs to get a grip on it. If schools are not complying with the basic principles set out in Gatsby, why is that, and why are they not being held to account?

I return to amendment 1. If a school transfers responsibility for careers guidance that is in the best interests of pupils to a provider who gets it wrong, there is no way in which that school can be held to account for having chosen a duff provider. The school will always be able to say in defence, to an Ofsted inspector, for example, that the provider thought that it was working in the best interests of the pupil to whom guidance was being given.

[Alex Burghart]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The Minister shakes his head, but if the Bill retains the phrase

“the person giving it considers”,

surely we are accepting a subjective test rather than an objective one. I will give way again to the Minister.

[Alex Burghart]

I was not seeking to intervene, but I am glad to take the opportunity. Ofsted would obviously hold the school accountable for procuring poor careers advice. I very much appreciate my hon. Friend’s point, but, to be clear, we take accountability for careers advice very seriously and we wish to drive up quality. We believe that it is in the best interests of the pupil to have independent careers guidance in schools where possible, from independent careers advisers who act, and are trained to act, in the best interests of pupils. I hope he will appreciate that we are working towards the aims that he sets out. It is a serious measure to have reference to Gatsby in the Ofsted handbook and a programme to inspect all schools against it, and I hope that no one will make light of that.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I much appreciate that full intervention to further clarify the Government’s intentions. In the end, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will have to see whether we get the improved quality in careers guidance that everyone in the House wants and on which the Government and Opposition are united.

I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for his comments. I do not always get compliments from the Opposition, but I much appreciate them and take them to heart, as indeed I do the support that I have received from my hon. Friends. They are waiting to deliver their Third Reading speeches, but they nevertheless had a good formula for commenting on the amendments, which was basically, “My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) has got it right and we do not need to comment any further.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington has worked hard on the Bill and it is great that he has given us an opportunity to raise these issues and focus on quality. He echoes what the Minister said about the amendments being unnecessary. I will not put the amendments to a vote, so let us hope that they prove to be unnecessary. We will have to see whether the good intentions materialise. For that reason, I once again express my appreciation to all hon. Members who have contributed to this short debate, and to the Minister in particular, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 3, line 3, leave out from “force” to end of subsection and insert “on 1 October 2021”.

This amendment will incorporate into the Bill the guidance for policy makers issued in August 2010 that there should be two common commencement dates each year, one of which is 1st October, for the introduction of changes to regulations affecting businesses.

Amendment 1 is a short amendment, supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), but it has a deeper purpose, which is set out in the explanatory statement. It means that the regulations under the Bill would come into effect on 1 October 2021.

In thinking about all this, it occurred to me that over the years we have lost sight of an important deregulatory policy of the Government, introduced, I think, in 2010: that, to reduce the burdens on business, regulations passed by this House should only be implemented on two implementation dates each year. One was, I think, 1 April and the other was 1 October. The idea behind that was that people in business should not have to keep an eye on when another regulation was going to be implemented or when those regulations that had been passed would be commenced. I thought it would be useful to try to tease out from the Government what their thinking is.

This Bill, in particular, contains an enormous amount of regulatory burden affecting the providers of important apprenticeships and training for youngsters. I do not disagree with the substance or the idea of what it is doing, but we must not underestimate the fact that what we are talking about is creating an additional burden. It would be better, in my view, to say that instead of its coming into force at the end of two months beginning on the day on which it is passed, it should come into force on 1 October and we could then re-adopt the practice that was begun, that there should only be two days each year when we commence these regulations.

That is quite a short point, and it will not be made any stronger by repetition, but I hope it will be taken seriously by the Government. I imagine the Minister, having received notice of this amendment, will be able to give me a definitive response from the deregulation unit, or whatever the equivalent body now is that deals with these matters on behalf of the Government and tries to ensure that this is a business-friendly Government.

Years ago, I was on a deregulation taskforce that made many different regulations. I wish this suggestion had been one of the ones that came out of our particular taskforce. It was not, but I think it was a sensible suggestion, so I am trying to use the vehicle of a Friday private Member’s Bill day and the opportunity of the Report stage of this Bill to ventilate the matter and try to engage the Government in a dialogue about it.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]]

I will be speaking against the amendment, and I will keep my remarks brief out of consideration for my colleagues whose Bills follow my own.

The intervention by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not, in my opinion, needed for several reasons. First, the guidance he refers to in the amendment was intended to give time for businesses to prepare for costs associated with changes in legislation or for any significant changes in their practices. As this Bill does not result in any increased costs for education providers or any significant burden for business, I would argue that this extra time is not needed.

Secondly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many designated safeguarding leads in further education are aware of the potential change in legislation, so again, I do not believe that further time is needed for providers to prepare for the change in law. Finally, as the Bill relates to education and aims at simplifying the safeguarding process for providers of post-16 education, it would make more sense for this legislation to come into effect for the start of the academic year in September. In fact, a change in legislation mid-term would arguably be more burdensome to business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Unfortunately, I do not seem to have achieved my purpose, which was to try to draw out a response from the Government the issue of having two separate days each year when regulations are implemented to reduce the burden on business. The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and the Minister have said in response, “Well, not me, guv”—this legislation does not impose any fresh burdens, and therefore the point I was making in my amendment and the remarks I made in addressing the amendment are really of no relevance. I think that is really the point that my hon. Friend the Minister is making. I shall have to explore other ways of developing the idea that we should reintroduce the practice that was first introduced in 2010 of having a maximum of two days each year when we introduce regulatory burdens on business, and hopefully many more days when we deregulate. I am grateful to those who have participated in this short debate for explaining that the Bill is not in the least burdensome and that everyone is absolutely hunky-dory about it so we should be content. In those circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

May I, too, wish the Minister a most enjoyable, productive and lazy weekend, bearing in mind that Sunday is also Mother’s Day?

I support the Bill. Obviously, it is desirable that we should maintain the highest standards of looking after our children when they are in the care of others, as they are when they go on training courses, whatever institution that happens to be in. I am lucky to have in my constituency some really good providers of specialist training for apprentices, which is now so popular and effective. I have visited those organisations and met the youngsters who have been through the process and then come back to instruct those currently in training, and it works extremely well. I am sure that the particular training academy that I have in mind will have no problem complying with the provisions of the Bill.

I had not really appreciated—and this has probably not been highlighted enough—that the Bill is arguably deregulatory. Perhaps it does not fit in with their current agenda, but if the Government are still interested in deregulation, they should be putting forward this Bill as an example of deregulation, simplifying the statute book and making it easier for those affected to know which regulations apply to them and which do not. That is just an observation of mine, based on having listened to today’s debate. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting those who believe that the Bill should receive its Third Reading.