Preparing Young People for Work

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the diversity of schools in our system is fundamental to the driving up of standards we have seen. As I said in my statement, for example, more students are taking EBacc subjects, which are leading to higher academic standards, and I am a great supporter of studio schools. I heard what he said, and I will try to meet him, but if I cannot one of my Ministers will do so urgently.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I share the concerns of my hon. Friends about the status of the new company. Is it a private company? It is being set up with public money. Given the Public Accounts Committee’s report this morning, which suggests that public money given to private companies is often not spent well, how will we ensure that public money is held to account, and what specifically will it be doing?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady got to the nub of the issue at the end of her question—what the company will actually be doing on the ground. When Labour has nothing else to say about a proposal, it obsesses about process. I have already mentioned that the company will be a community interest company, and it will of course explain to Parliament what it has done with the public money it receives. It will be doing a variety of different things, but one thing I do not want it to do is to quash the good practice already out there. There are already many excellent schemes involving the brightest and best schools linking to employers. We want to build on that and spread it across the country, including to schools in her constituency. I think the young people in her constituency will welcome these opportunities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but on this occasion I am afraid I have to disagree with him. I think that what most parents in this country want is that their young children and students should receive a broad and balanced curriculum, to be prepared for life in modern Britain and have their horizons broadened, not for doors to be closed. That is exactly what we are looking for in all schools. The difficulty with his point is the assumption that children at that school will never leave Lincolnshire, which I do not think is the case.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Today’s report by the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted the increasing gap between rich and poor families and its effect on children. It states that in spite of measures such as universal free school meals for infants, the Government are failing to meet their commitment under the UN convention on the rights of the child, particularly to protect the most disadvantaged children. Does the Secretary of State regret the decisions of the Government that have led to such a damning report?

[Nicky Morgan]

I will take a close look at the report, but what I most welcome is the fact that this Government have spent billions of pounds on the pupil premium, which schools are using and spending to raise educational attainment. We have seen the gap between the poorest and richest pupils narrowing as a result of the Government’s policies.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Prompt Payment Code, duties of the Secretary of State—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) ensure that any business with payment terms of more than 60 days cannot sign up to the Prompt Payment Code, and that any existing signatory with payment terms of more than 60 days is removed from the list;

(b) at the end of each financial year, the Secretary of State shall write to all businesses in the FTSE 350 who are not signatories of the Prompt Payment Code asking them to become so;

(c) the Secretary of State shall publish a list of those businesses written to prominently on the Government’s website.”

New clause 4—Late payment review—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) conduct a review into how the Government can use the payment publishing regime to ensure that small businesses who are paid late by a larger supplier are automatically paid compensation, and into how the onus of reporting late payment can be shifted away from the smallest businesses who cannot afford to lose significant customers; and

(b) report back to both Houses of Parliament on the conclusions of the review.”

Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 4, line 33, at end insert—

“(g) about the circumstances and process for amending payment terms of the company.”

This is for companies to include details of the circumstances and processes (including who will be involved) by which payment terms would be amended, preventing unilateral and ad hoc changes.

Amendment 91, in clause 11, page 12, line 19, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State may by order establish a Prohibited List of certain classes of exports that cannot receive UKEF/ECGD support.

(6) An order establishing , or thereafter amending a list for the purposes mentioned in subsection (5) shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”

This amendment would grant the Secretary of State the power to prohibit specified types of exports from receiving government support, thereby enabling UK export finance provision to reflect government policies and priorities, such as preventing arms sales to certain regimes. The content of, or changes to, any such list would need to be approved by Parliament.

Government new clause 5—Independent Complaints Commissioner: reporting duty.

Amendment 92, page 20, line 5, leave out clauses 20 to 26.

This amendment removes the obligation on future governments to set a deregulation “business impact” target for each Parliament.

Government amendments 27 and 28.

Amendment 7, in clause 37, page 35, line 9, at end insert—

“() duties to establish the past payment performance of potential parties to a contract, before contracts are entered into;

() duties to ensure contracts entered into include the contractor’s requirements for prompt payment of their suppliers.”

These are to ensure that the payment performance of potential contractors are known before contracts are entered into and that contracts entered into require contractors to pay their suppliers promptly.

Amendment 1, page 35, line 16 , at end insert—

“() duties relating to the provision of apprenticeships and training opportunities as a result of procurement;

() duties to publish reports about the amount of expenditure undertaken by the relevant procurement function in relation to—

(i) amount and proportion of expenditure undertaken by small and medium-sized enterprises,

(ii) amount and proportion of expenditure undertaken in the local area.”

Amendment 2, page 35, line 22, at end add—

‘(5A) A person making regulations under this section may also specify the reasons why firms may be excluded from entering into contracts.”

Amendment 3, page 35, line 28, at end add—

‘(8A) Regulations under this section are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000”

Amendment 4, page 35, line 30, leave out subsection (10).

[Debbie Abrahams]

This group of amendments is seeking to address the very significant issue of businesses paying their suppliers late. Recent data show that the late payment debt burden for UK businesses is more than £46 billion, with SMEs shouldering most of this. They are owed nearly £40 billion in late payments and 60% of small businesses are affected, with the average small business owed over £38,000 in late payments.

It is getting worse: £36 billion was owed in 2012, so the increase over recent weeks and months can be seen. In other debates we have heard about the implications of late payments for these small businesses, from productivity to access to finance and credit terms—all these are affected. For these businesses, there is not just the inconvenience of spending an extra 158 million hours chasing payment: vital cash flow that is stemmed often affects their very survival, their jobs and their livelihoods. In 2012 it was estimated that 124,000 small businesses were put out of business directly as a result of late payments.

For me, it has been about the personal stories. My interest in late payments started when a constituent came to me and said that their business was going under directly as a result of this issue. This opened a can of worms, not just in my constituency but across the country. The issue of late payments is endemic. When someone describes how their life’s work has been destroyed by what can only be described as corporate bullying—large companies paying their bills late just because they can, because they have the power—it is clear that it is one of the most raw forms of injustice.

From the late payment inquiry held last year, it was clear to us that it is not just a micro-economic issue. With approximately half the work force and half the UK’s income in the private sector coming from small businesses—a massive £1,558 billion—it is inconceivable that late payment is not affecting the wider economy and, of course, a sustainable recovery. I am glad that the Government are tackling the issue; it has been a long time coming. I started my Be Fair—Pay On Time campaign in 2011 and now the Government are finally getting to grips with the issue, but I am afraid that the measures in the Bill do not go far enough. It is regrettable that in Committee the Government failed to support measures that would have seen small businesses automatically compensated for late payment by their suppliers. I hope that the Minister will reconsider and have a look at new clause 1 and the amendments.

New clause 1 seeks to address the issue of retention of moneys in the construction industry. You may be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that at any one time over £3 billion is outstanding in the construction industry by way of cash retentions. This is an aggregate sum of moneys provided for by small businesses in the event that they fail to remedy defects. I have several examples, including that of a company that wrote to me to say that £60,000 of retention moneys was withheld—5% of the overall contract—for eight months. There was nothing in the contract about that. They had to go through adjudication and it ended up with them losing £22,000. These are small businesses, and this is their livelihood.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Having worked all my life in the construction industry, I am very much aware of retention issues. My hon. Friend’s final point was valid. When it comes to negotiating retentions, it always comes to a compromise: people will always lose, as they will never come out with the £60,000 that they were owed. That is effectively their money going to somebody else’s pocket.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend speaks from experience. That is certainly the experience of many contractors, and we need to address it.

There is evidence that cash retentions have been used to shore up the working capital of local authorities and tier 1 suppliers. There is a key concern that if tier 1 suppliers become insolvent, the small businesses in the supply chain are at risk of losing their retentions.

I recognise that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has said in its construction supply chain payment charter that it wishes to abolish retentions by 2025. My new clause, however, is a stepping-stone towards that by requiring the publication of companies’ policies, practices and performance on retention moneys, reviewing this and subsequently making recommendations about further action to help secure and protect retention of moneys for small businesses—in trusts, for example.

The new clause is timely, with New Zealand considering the requirement for cash retentions to be taken in trusts, and New South Wales in Australia is currently reviewing regulations to that effect. The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to review published information and then issue regulations to ensure that these owed moneys are protected for small businesses.

Moving on to amendment 6, a key issue for small businesses has been the changes made to contract payment terms without negotiation or notice. My amendment recognises that and would require companies to include details of the “circumstances and process” by which payment terms may be amended in the company’s published payment practices and policies. This will prevent ad hoc and unilateral changes from being made to the payment terms, which have again affected the financial viability of so many small businesses.

Amendment 7 looks at the issues around public procurement practices. One major issue identified in my late payments inquiry was that late payment is a cultural issue. Large companies pay small companies late because they can, as I mentioned—they have the power and the small companies do not. We need to change these attitudes, and we need to view late payment as being as unethical as tax evasion. Changing public procurement practices, as identified in amendment 7, provides an opportunity to do so, first, by requiring public bodies to determine the “past payment performance” of potential contractors before any contract is entered into; and secondly, by making the contracts of tier 1 suppliers commit them to pay their suppliers promptly. All the way down the supply chain, there should be a commitment that payments will be made on time.

Although my next topic does not relate to my amendments, it relates to public procurement practices. A report came out today from the Walk Free Foundation on the subject of modern slavery. Although the UK is supported for what it is doing to combat modern slavery, it finds that we are not doing as much as Brazil and the US, for example, in addressing Government procurement practices to stop this happening. I know this is highly irregular, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope the Minister is listening so that he can respond and make clear how we will deal with this problem in future Government practices.

[Toby Perkins]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams]

I have come to the end on that really important point, but I happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Toby Perkins]

My hon. Friend may be approaching the end, but if I am any judge, I know she is nowhere near the end of campaigning on this issue. She has been a robust and resilient campaigner on late payments, and I know that she was granted an award for her work yesterday by the Federation of Small Businesses. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her, not only on that thoroughly deserved award, but on the fantastic campaigning work she has done on late payments.

[Debbie Abrahams]

That was very kind of my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him. I will continue to campaign, because, as I have said, I do not think that the Government’s measures are strong enough. They have been dragged here kicking and screaming; I hope that they will now listen, and will address what are still weaknesses in the Bill.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I hope I am right in thinking that I can speak about any of the amendments in the new clause 1 basket. That seems to be the case, and I am delighted, because it means that I can speak about my amendments 91 and 92.

The Bill contains important provisions to help United Kingdom firms to export, which is, of course, welcome news for many of them. However, UK export finance is, in the Government’s own words,

“not presently legally able to discriminate between classes or types of exports”.

Amendment 91 would alter the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 to give the Secretary of State power to create a prohibitions list, thereby allowing the Government to ensure that UK export finance was not available to projects overseas that undermined other Government policies—specifically, policies on human rights and arms exports, and the 2010 coalition pledge to

“ensure that UK Trade and Investment and ECGD become champions for British companies that develop and export innovative green technologies around the world, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

The amendment would not bind a Secretary of State, now or in the future, to introduce such a prohibitions list, nor would it prescribe what should be included in the list. It would merely allow the Secretary of State to create such a list if he or she chose.

Given that the amendment is so moderate, I find the Government’s arguments against a prohibitions list very unconvincing. First, they argue that it is better to consider projects on a case-by-case basis, but the case-by-case approach is not working, even when measured against the coalition’s own pledge to support “innovative green technologies”. In 2012-13, UK Export Finance gave a £147 million guarantee to support oil and gas exploration by Petrobras in Brazil, and £15 million in guarantees for a loan for a gas power project in the Philippines. In March 2014, support worth US$215 million was announced for a major petrochemical project in Vietnam. Nor is the current approach working when it comes to military exports to repressive regimes. Many of the deals that have been underwritten by UK export credit support are controversial, including sales of military aircraft to Saudi Arabia and Oman, armoured vehicles to Turkey, and intelligence equipment to Indonesia.

Secondly, the Government argue that the UK would be less likely to be effective in achieving change through multilateral routes if we acted unilaterally in this way. If that is the case, why do other countries have prohibitions lists? The Export-Import Bank of the United States, for instance, prohibits

“loans, guarantees, and insurance as to sales of defense articles or services”.

In June 2014, the German Finance Ministry announced that Germany’s official export credit agency would be prohibited from supporting nuclear contracts.

I simply do not think it credible to argue that if the UK showed some leadership and led by example, that would somehow hinder multilateral action to the same end. Indeed, the reverse is the case, as John Ashton, the UK’s top climate diplomat in former years, has pointed out. In his view,

“our influence has always depended on the credibility of our domestic policies. How can we expect to persuade others if we are not doing ourselves what we ask of them?”

Thirdly, the Government say that there is not a problem with coal, because UKEF has not funded a coal-fired power station overseas since 2002. However, there is clearly a loophole in the UK’s policy on export finance for coal projects abroad. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) highlighted that loophole in a speech in April this year. He said that he would take action to close the loophole; I hope that he will follow through, and vote for my amendment today.

A change in export credits could also offer a boost to UK low-carbon industries seeking to expand overseas, as the chief executive of a British solar company operating in a number of African countries has explained. It is not just about stopping export finance in one area; it is about expanding it in others, so this is a pro-business proposition. Finally, I reiterate that this amendment does not specify what goes on the prohibitions list; it simply gives the Secretary of State the power to create one, in recognition of the fact that the current approach is failing on both human rights and environmental grounds, even measured on the Government’s own terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Banks]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that point. I am prompted by a sedentary comment to say that my argument is not so much about an invoice being queried as about a customer saying that they have not received the invoice, or that it is lost, 30 days after they have had a statement listing all the invoices they should have received. Basic accounting practices are either not being carried out within the business, or they are being carried out but no regard is being paid to them, and the process is being used as a payment delaying mechanism.

I understand that some might see new clause 4 as another piece of red tape, but it is a piece of red tape that can be easily discarded and thrown in the bin if companies do not make late payments, so it does not have to be onerous at all. That brings me back to the point that my hon. Friend made: the new clause takes the onus off the small business. It is up to the larger paying business—the debtor—to ensure that the bill is paid on time, and if it is not, an automatic compensation payment is made on behalf of the company making a payment to the company receiving it. New clause 4 need not be particularly onerous in action at all. It will cause no problem to a good, organised, thoughtful company.

Banks are much less willing to provide business support than they were in 1986, and that is often a nightmare for small and medium-sized businesses, especially in the construction industry. The banks will say that they do not particularly want to be involved in the construction sector, which I find depressing and extremely strange. Every business that needs to expand requires the construction sector. Every Government project for infra- structure, housing, schools, roads, telecommunications or railways—anything of that nature—needs the construction sector. That sector is the most likely to lift us out of our current economic position and deliver an improvement to our infrastructure that is long overdue and long needed. It is a particular challenge to have a good business in the construction industry that is adequately financed and resourced in this day and age, and that is short-sighted and a crying shame. It is not helped by the failure of Project Merlin and the funding for lending scheme. General financing is relevant to new clauses 3 and 4, as it is because working capital is tighter these days that prompt payment has become a real issue.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Is it not also the case that late payment and issues around cash flow affect a business’s ability to access finance and the terms on which finance is made available?

[Gordon Banks]

Of course they do. Every £1,000 not received has an impact on whether a business can prove to a possible financial investor, whether that is a bank or anything else, that it is a responsible company with the processes and the people in place to take the business forward. It may well have the people and processes in place, but it may be being stymied by the Tuesday and Friday phone calls to try to get the money that is long overdue.

New clauses 3 and 4 are a step along the way to moving the responsibility to where it should lie, ensuring greater financial impact on those who make late payments, and naming and shaming those who are not signed up to prompt payment practices. I was looking at the prompt payment code website last night. I represent a Scottish constituency, so I did a search on Scotland and I found that 43 businesses there have signed up to the prompt payment code. That level of commitment is extremely questionable. There are hundreds of thousands of businesses in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I am delighted to be called to speak in this debate and apologise to the shadow Minister and to those on the Treasury Bench for not being here at the beginning. It is a very important Bill that the Minister has brought before the House, and it is one that I feel strongly about, because my first job was running a very small business, and then I ran one that was only slightly larger. When one has lived and breathed cash flow, and dreamt about lack of payment for invoices that have been outstanding for 60, 70, 80 or 90 days, one knows why the provisions in the Bill are so important.

I know that the Minister understands small business; he was brought up in it. I also know that the shadow Minister is one of the very few people on the Opposition Benches who has business experience. It is good that we are having a discussion about some of the things that are incredibly important and pertinent to small businesses —pre-packs, zero-hours contracts, payment terms and director disqualification, all of which I plan to talk about —but it is also good that we are having this discussion, full stop, because they were not discussions that were had in any detail under the previous Government.

I would like to start on that note, because one of the things that I, as a small business owner and manager, turned to time and again was the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, a piece of legislation that was well meant by the previous Administration, brought in early as a result of a manifesto pledge, but that was almost completely useless. No one was really able to go to their customers and enforce the 8% above base stipulation set out in the Act, because they were afraid of upsetting them. I had recourse to it on only two occasions when dealing with customers. The frustrating thing was that although Parliament had willed the means, following a long campaign at the end of the Major Administration and the beginning of the Blair Administration, it was unable to will the ends. That is why I am so pleased with what the Minister has created in the Bill, because we are getting much closer to a system that will work.

The first thing we must recognise is that it has taken this amount of time, and the innovation of the coalition Government, to be able to do something of this magnitude. That is why I think that criticising the Bill and trying to claim that it is deficient in some way or other is a pretty mealy-mouthed approach to what is a big step forward in helping small businesses control the terms of trade that they have with their customers.

Having run a business that, at the start, was turning over only a few hundred thousands pounds, I know the pain that was caused to my business when every week the results showed, almost invariably, that we were trading at a profit, yet that was not reflected in the bank account because of poor payment terms by large companies and, frankly, large parts of the public sector, and that is a pain I will never forget. I remember getting towards the end of the month and being genuinely terrified that I might not be able to pay the people working for me because I had not been paid by big customers. It is a very unnerving, frightening and frustrating experience. The amount of energy it takes out of small business people, who should be deploying that passion and energy in building a business, employing people and increasing wealth and prosperity, means that it is very destructive to business growth.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Gentleman is very gracious in giving way and is making a moving speech about his experience. Constituents and many small businesses from across the country who have come to talk to me have shared that experience. Does this mean that he will support new clause 4, which is about undertaking a review so that small businesses which have problems with late payers are automatically compensated so that they do not have to risk using measures that have previously been unsuccessful?

[Ben Gummer]

I understand why the hon. Lady wishes to push new clause 4. I have read the Minister’s response in Committee to the points raised by the shadow Minister, and I think it was compelling. We are making a very big change which will have a revolutionary impact on the payment terms of small businesses, but if the regime and the legislation are too rigid, we could end up with perverse consequences, which is precisely the problem with the previous legislation and why it was reformed and then repealed in the course of one Administration.

To those who claim, for whatever reason—probably connected with the proximity of the coming election—that the Government could do something else, I would say that the measure is a magnificent change and one that we have waited for since 1998. The previous Government could have done all these things but did not. We now have a Government who are willing to do so, and we should give them our full support without moderation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course, if we can achieve the regulatory objectives with a lower burden on business, we can get the best of both worlds. Almost all the examples the hon. Lady gave were about the crash and the banks, but systemically important financial institutions are excluded from the one-in, two-out approach, precisely because we need to ensure that we have regulations so that we do not repeat the messes of the previous Administration.

Very briefly, let me speak to Government new clause 5, on the independent complaints commissioner duty, which I commend to the House, and Government amendments 27 and 28, on the business impact target. I made a commitment to look at what more parliamentary scrutiny of that target there should be. We are proposing that the report should be to the House. I look forward to building on the cross-party support for these measures and to explore whether a Select Committee can take a formal role in scrutinising the target. I therefore support those provisions.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the next matters relating to the Bill, I have received a report from the tellers in the No Lobby for the Division earlier today at 3.59 pm. They have informed me that the number of those voting no was erroneously reported as 269 instead of 259. The Ayes were 284 and the Noes were 259.

New Clause 5

Independent Complaints Commissioner: reporting duty

‘(1) Section 87 of the Financial Services Act 2012 (investigation of complaints against regulators) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (9) insert—

“(9A) The complaints scheme must provide—

(a) for the investigator to prepare an annual report on its investigations under the scheme, to publish it and send a copy of it to each regulator and to the Treasury;

(b) for each regulator to respond to any recommendations or criticisms relating to it in the report, to publish the response and send a copy of it to the investigator and the Treasury;

(c) for the Treasury to lay the annual report and any response before Parliament.

(9B) The complaints scheme may make provision about the period to which each annual report must relate (“the reporting period”) and the contents of the report and must in particular provide for it to include—

(a) information concerning any general trends emerging from the investigations undertaken during the reporting period;

(b) any recommendations which the investigator considers appropriate as to the steps a regulator should take in response to such trends;

(c) a review of the effectiveness during the reporting period of the procedures (both formal and informal) of each regulator for handling and resolving complaints which have been investigated by the investigator during the reporting period;

(d) an assessment of the extent to which those procedures were accessible and fair, including where appropriate an assessment in relation to different categories of complainant;

(e) any recommendations about how those procedures, or the way in which they are operated, could be improved.”—(Matthew Hancock.)

This amendment requires the scheme established by the financial services regulators for the investigation of complaints to provide for the investigator to produce an annual report on its investigations. The report must describe any general trends emerging from such investigations, and assess the accessibility and fairness of the regulators’ handling of the complaints investigated.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 20

Duty on Secretary of State to publish business impact target etc

Amendment made: 27, page 20, line 19, at end insert—

‘( ) The Secretary of State must lay each thing published under subsection (1) or (3) before Parliament.”—(Matthew Hancock.)

This amendment requires the business impact target, the interim target, the determination of qualifying regulatory provisions and the methodology for assessing the target to be laid before Parliament (in addition to the requirement for these things to be published which is currently required by the clauses.

Clause 25

Amending the business impact target etc

Amendment made: 28, page 25, line 10, after “lay” insert

“the thing as amended and”.—(Matthew Hancock.)

This amendment requires any changes made by the Secretary of State to the business impact target, the interim target, the determination of qualifying regulatory provisions and the methodology for assessing the target, to be laid before Parliament.

Clause 37

Regulations about procurement

Amendment proposed: 1, page 35, line 16, at end insert—

“() duties relating to the provision of apprenticeships and training opportunities as a result of procurement;

() duties to publish reports about the amount of expenditure undertaken by the relevant procurement function in relation to—

(i) amount and proportion of expenditure undertaken by small and medium-sized enterprises,

(ii) amount and proportion of expenditure undertaken in the local area.”—(Toby Perkins.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gibb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) said to me on Wednesday, “It just shows that you can boil cabbage twice.” [Interruption.] I think it was meant kindly.

The Government are committed to eliminating illiteracy. We have introduced the phonic check and we are determined to raise reading standards right across the school system, but free schools and academies are taking action more swiftly than local authority schools to tackle failure in those schools.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

The Government’s policy on free schools is in free fall. Given that local authorities have no formal powers under the Government’s education policy, what will the Government do to ensure strong local oversight at local authority level to ensure that the debacle that has been played out in Birmingham is not repeated elsewhere?

[Mr Gibb]

The evidence is that in those small number of examples where free schools have not succeeded, action is taken more swiftly than in local authority schools. There is evidence that many local authority schools languish in special measures year after year. That is not what is happening with the academies and free schools programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I thought that we were through all the substantive questions with time to spare, but we will take a question from Debbie Abrahams.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.

I am pleased that the Government have finally produced a Bill to deal with late payments to small businesses by large companies. It includes some of the recommendations from my inquiry last summer into late payments. However, it does not go far enough and will give little comfort to the small businesses whose viability is threatened. Why are these measures so timid?

[Matthew Hancock]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this subject. We consulted on all the potential options, including statutory maximums for payment terms. We put the consultation out with an open mind and a wide range of options. In fact, the small business groups that came forward with proposals in response to the consultation favoured transparency, not a statutory limit. We followed the evidence and the response to the consultation. Like her, I am determined to do everything we can to tackle this problem while not getting in the way of freedom of contract between businesses. We have taken these measures because of what the evidence demonstrated, and I think they will have a big impact. That is all part of our long-term economic plan.

Vocational Qualifications

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I absolutely will. I wish the hon. Gentleman luck in reaching 100 apprentices in 100 days, and I suggest that he take on an apprentice himself.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Small and micro-businesses in Oldham have told me that they find the process for recruiting apprentices cumbersome and bureaucratic. Given that nearly half the work force are employed in small businesses, what more can we do to engage businesses and make the process to recruit apprentices much simpler?

[Matthew Hancock]

One thing that the hon. Lady could do to make the process simpler is to support the measures in the Deregulation Bill that is going through the House. We are taking a whole series of measures, but if she has specific examples of bureaucracy getting in the way, I would be very keen to look at them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Timpson]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Well remembered, Minister!

I think that there is much that we can support in the Bill, but I wanted to ask about the single point of appeal and the reviews and pilots that are taking place. Will the Minister explain how the findings will be used in the further development of the appeal process?

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for returning us to the important issue of redress. I shall go into a little more detail in due course, but I can say now that I was conscious from the outset that we should do all that we can to integrate education, health and social care throughout the system, including in the areas where there was disagreement. I think that we have gone a long way towards achieving that during the passage of the Bill so far, but if the hon. Lady will bear with me for a few moments, I shall wax lyrical for her and the House’s benefit.

I understand the intention behind amendment (a) to Lords amendment 73. It is, of course, vital for parents and practitioners to understand the duties to deliver the social care services specified in the education, health and care plan. However, let me reiterate the points made by Baroness Northover when she spoke to Lords amendments 72 and 73.

The Government amendments mean that when a local authority decides that it is necessary to make provision for a disabled child under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 following an EHC assessment, the authority must—I emphasise “must”—identify which provision is made under section 2 of the Act, specify that provision clearly in the EHC plan, and deliver the provision. Furthermore—I hope that this is helpful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)—we will ensure that the SEN code of practice specifies the services under section 2 that must be included in the EHC plan and explains the existing duty to provide those services, in order to provide clarity and reassurance for parents and practitioners.

The code of practice will clearly specify the other social care services that must be included in the EHC plan and relevant local authority duties, including services provided for children and young people under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 that are not covered by the 1970 Act, such as residential short breaks, and adult social care services for young people aged 18 to 25, where a care plan is drawn up under provisions in the Care Bill. Given those reassurances, I do not think it is necessary to legislate for a further requirement to identify existing duties in the EHC plan.

Lords amendments 86 to 97 and 113 constitute a strong package to improve the join-up between education, health and social care when parents and young people wish to complain or seek redress. That includes extending mediation and establishing a review of appeals and redress in the new SEN system. Following a commitment that I gave on Report, we tabled a meaty group of amendments that will strengthen protections and support for young offenders with SEN. They require local authorities and relevant health commissioners to arrange appropriate special education and health provision for young offenders in custody, enable EHC assessments to take place while a child or young person is in custody, and require secure youth institutions to co-operate with local authorities and to have regard to the SEN code of practice.

The package also includes amendment 114, which would remove clause 70. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for his involvement in and guidance on the issue, and on many of the changes I have just outlined. As he knows, I was as uncomfortable as he was about clause 70. Although it was a legal necessity at the beginning of our deliberations, it did not really reflect the ambition that we shared, and I hope that he is as pleased as I am to see the back of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I certainly notice in schools in my Norfolk constituency that emigrants from Poland have helped to improve results in some subjects, and I completely disagree with her leader, the shadow Secretary of State, in respect of making implications about the impact of migrants on academic performance.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

6. What plans he has for future funding for students in the further education sector; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

We announced the 16-to-19 funding policy changes for the academic year 2014-15 last month, and we will confirm the allocation of funding for individual institutions by the end of March.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Oldham sixth-form college and Oldham college were notified, without any consultation, that their funding would be cut by 17.5%. That has a devastating impact on young people in our area and it is anticipated that 700 young people in Oldham will be affected. Long-term youth unemployment in Oldham has more than doubled since November 2010, and we know that the national figure is 1 million people. Given the Prime Minister’s pledge that our young people should “earn or learn”, is this move not another example of this Government’s hypocrisy?

[Matthew Hancock]

Not only are unemployment and youth unemployment falling—thankfully—from the very high levels we inherited from the Labour party, but we have had to make savings in the 16-to-19 budget. We think it is fair to make this change affecting those who have already had two years of post-16 learning; many 18-year-olds in full-time education do not study as many hours as 16 or 17-year-olds. I also say to the hon. Lady that her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), said on television earlier that she wanted the deficit to fall faster. I am not sure that she got the memo from the shadow Chancellor, but Labour has opposed every single cut, no matter how difficult.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)]

We continue to provide support to students. The national scholarship programme has been shown to have less effect on young people choosing to go to university than some of the other support that is available through maintenance and student access programmes. We continue to work on the agenda set out by my right hon. Friend, ensuring that as many young people as possible from disadvantaged backgrounds apply to university.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T7. The Government have consistently been on the back foot when it comes to addressing the issue of late payments to small businesses. In the review of that, how will they address the central issue that late payment is a cultural and leadership issue, and needs to be seen as unethical as tax evasion?

[Matthew Hancock]

Late payment is indeed a cultural and leadership issue. I held a meeting in the Department last week with all those concerned. As the hon. Lady well knows, we will be publishing a consultation paper very shortly. I commend her for her continued action and pressing on this issue.

PISA Results

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the academies programme, head teachers have the freedom—as is being used in the King Solomon academy in one of the most deprived parts of London—to vary the curriculum in order to make it fit the needs of individual students. We are also giving all schools greater freedom over who they recruit and how they reward them, in order to make sure that we continue to have more and more talented people in our classrooms.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Andreas Schleicher also said that no education system can exceed the quality of its teachers. How does a 141% increase in unqualified teachers in free schools and academies help improve quality?

[Michael Gove]

As I pointed out in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), the increase in the number of unqualified teachers in academies and free schools is a direct result of the nationalisation of independent schools. Overall, the reduction under this Government in the number of teachers without teaching qualifications reflects the fact that teachers are now better qualified than ever before. Critically, the decision over who to hire should be a matter for head teachers. It is critical to the success of any education system that we respect the autonomy of great head teachers to recruit people with the right qualifications for their community and students.