National Living Wage

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan]

Undoubtedly that is the impression, especially as the real living wage recommended by the Living Wage Foundation is significantly higher than the one that the Chancellor proposed. We certainly could question it, as he could not have been unaware that what happened was always going to be possible.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, welcome though the living wage is, the tendency of many employers—some of them with internationally high reputations—to introduce the casualisation of labour through zero-hours contracts and rolling contracts is likely to be accelerated? Does she also not agree that, in exposing these companies, the Government should go not just for a register, which would be welcome, but for regulating the way that these contracts are used, as they undermine wage rates and people’s security in employment?

[Joan Ryan]

Absolutely. There is no question but that low pay runs alongside job insecurity, and the situation is getting worse. What has happened absolutely demonstrates that terms and conditions and pay are inextricably linked. Again, as we have said with the care sector, people who are vulnerable and needy and who have the weakest voice are always the most affected. If it were not for the trade unions raising their voice, us raising ours, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden focusing on the issue in such a forensic manner, awareness of this matter would probably have been nothing like it is. Whatever the outcome, it is clearly totally wrong that any company should cut wages of loyal, long-standing members of staff off the back of the national living wage.

Let us make no mistake about it: if a company as big and as well known as B&Q can do this, anyone can. When my hon. Friend met the chief executive, Michael Loeve, he told her that he was “a bit annoyed” that B&Q was being singled out. He said, “We’re a great employer, and we’re not the only ones making the changes.” We seem to be in the realm of two wrongs making a right. He is right, though, about not being the only ones, sadly. B&Q was just unlucky to have received so much attention. It was unlucky that my hon. Friend’s friend worked there, instead of for one of the many famous high-street retailers doing the same thing.

It is true that B&Q had been particularly thoughtless about the predicament of its staff. Let us consider a few of the people from around the country who contacted my hon. Friend in desperation about their situation at B&Q. There was a gentleman who works at a B&Q store in the south-east, where he has been employed for more than 15 years. To give him whatever protection we can, let us call him Mr Jones. He has a family—two children—and is the sole wage earner in his household. He works hard but part time because of the strains of his physical disability. He works every Sunday he can, as well as all the unsocial hours on offer, but from April, under the new contract that he has been coerced into signing, Mr Jones will lose £1,000 a year. Yes, it is true that he will not lose out for the next 24 months because of the one-off payments that B&Q has promised to employees who are set to lose out, but he will still lose out after this period, because B&Q has no contingency plan.

Let us also consider Ms Smith from Yorkshire. She is a hard-working, low-paid mum. As a result of her contractual changes, her total monthly wage will be reduced by a staggering 30% pay cut, and the two one-off payments that she will receive do nothing for the £2,000 a year that she will lose from 2018. She says:

“How exactly am I going to make up this wage deficit? I have a young son to support, and next year is looking very bleak for us. . . I am worried about how I will support my family next year. I am heartbroken that the company I have worked so hard for, done 16-hour shifts for, come in on days off for, and valued greatly, has treated me like this.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am engaging with the facts—these are home truths the hon. Gentleman should appreciate.

When people ask, “Do you think everybody should get a pay rise to £9, £10 or £11 an hour?”, everyone of course says yes. I think it was Norman Tebbit who said that if we ask people, “Would you like a Rolls-Royce?” they will all say yes, but if we say, “You’ll have to live in a tent for the rest of your life to pay for it,” the answer will be no.

We have to realise that there are consequences to increasing the minimum wage. We all know that if we want to reduce the consumption of something—if we want less of something—we increase its cost. If the Government want fewer people smoking, one of the tools they use is to put the price up. If we want fewer people drinking, we put the price up. The same rules apply to employment: if we put up the cost of employment, we will find fewer people employed—that is just an economic fact.

[Mr George Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but the binary choice he presents of a Rolls-Royce or a tent is not the living reality of most of our constituents.

Last year, the Big Help Project’s food bank in Knowsley helped to feed 6,000 people, 3,500 of whom were children, for three days. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that cutting people’s wages will mean that even more people are dependent on food banks? Is that the 21st century, or is he harking back to the 19th century?

[Philip Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that what is more likely to send people to a food bank is not having a job at all.

When the Chancellor announced the higher rate of the minimum wage, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that 4 million hours a week would be lost, half resulting from reduced hours for workers and half resulting from the loss of 60,000 jobs. The great thing about the OBR is that at least we are now able to understand the consequences of such a policy.

There are a lot of advantages to having a higher minimum wage. A lot of low-paid people have found themselves in higher-paid jobs, and I very much welcome that. However, Labour Members who praise the policy should at least be honest about its consequences.

[Mr Howarth]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman; he can have another go in his own speech later.

Labour Members have to face the consequences of the policy: the OBR has made it clear that it will result in fewer people being employed. The right hon. Member for Enfield North mentioned companies such as B&Q and Morrisons. When I worked for Asda, every employee was given a 10% discount card. I have no idea what Asda’s policy is today—it may well be the same—but it used to employ a lot of people with families, and a 10% discount card was a very valuable commodity to them. We should be wary about forcing employers to put up pay, because the inevitable consequence will be that some benefits might have to go if they want to keep the same number of people employed in their stores. These decisions have consequences, and we cannot pretend that increasing people’s pay will not have consequences.

The right hon. Lady mentioned care homes and the care sector. We need to think carefully about what the consequences will be for them. In my constituency, in Bradford, a very small proportion of the extra 2% that is being levied on council tax is being passed on to independent care homes. I thought it was designed to help them with the costs of things such as the national living wage. This high-minded policy is motherhood and apple pie. It enables people to look good and argue, “I think that, whatever people earn, they should get more, and that even when they do get more, they should get even more than that,” but an awful lot of care homes around the country could close as a consequence. Is that really what we want to happen in the UK? It would happen not because employers are mean, nasty people, but simply because they cannot afford to pay the national living wage at the rates that the councils are giving them for care home fees. That is the economic reality, whether people like it or not.

I met a number of employers recently, and they pointed out that the policy takes no account of differentials. When the pay of people at the bottom is raised to a higher rate, they are not the only ones to get a pay rise, because everyone else in the organisation will say, “Hold on a minute, I was paid £1 an hour more than they were, so if their pay’s being increased by £1 an hour, I want an extra £1 an hour as well to maintain that differential.”

Anybody who knows anything about running a business will know that, particularly for employers who run small businesses on the high street in small towns in our constituencies, there is not a never-ending pot of money to pay higher wages to everybody and to protect those differentials. Something has to give: either those differentials disappear, much to the unhappiness of the people who had them before, or fewer people will be employed, or people will be employed for fewer hours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her work in preparation for the debate, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for the way in which she opened it.

I want to focus on the impact that the Government’s so-called national living wage is having, and could have, on the care sector, following the theme raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). The care sector is under increasing financial pressure, and many organisations have warned that the Government’s failure to provide additional funding for the national living wage could result in a number of care providers becoming financially unviable. It will also have an impact on the pay and working conditions of care staff.

The Local Government Association has estimated that introducing the Government’s national living wage will cost home care and residential care providers at least £330 million this year. A number of Members have mentioned the social care precept. In my local area of Salford, the precept can raise only £1.6 million, but the cost of the national living wage increase to the care sector is £2.7 million. It has clearly been left to taxpayers to pay for, with a mechanism that is not even sufficient.

Care England says that the Government’s national living wage announcement

“places additional, unfunded pressures on the care sector that it cannot cope with. Care providers have already had to fund the National Minimum Wage increase of October 2015, plus standard Cost of Living increase in contracts from local authorities, and increases in Care Quality Commission regulatory fees…The aggregate impact of all of these increases is substantial: providers estimate that this will cost them a 5% rise in the wage bill in the first year, and 7% each year thereafter.”

I have already been told that, like other businesses, some care providers have altered their employment contracts and conditions as a way of coping with those changes, meaning that additional costs from the national living wage are being paid for by careworkers themselves. As we have heard, many careworkers are already underpaid. The National Audit Office has reported that up to 22,000 home care workers in England are illegally paid below the national minimum wage, and I believe the actual figure is much higher.

In HMRC investigations of care providers between 2011 and 2015, more than four out of 10 were found not to be complying with the national minimum wage. The Resolution Foundation has calculated that careworkers are collectively cheated of £130 million a year due to pay levels below the minimum wage. That is done through a variety of mechanisms, such as careworkers not being paid adequately for travel time, despite statutory guidance. As one careworker has said:

“In order to earn a full time wage, the carers in our company usually start work at 7 am and work until 9 pm five/six days a week, with gaps throughout the day where we wait in the car until due at the next client.”

Some careworkers are paid as little as £3.50 per hour when lack of pay for travel and waiting time is considered.

[Mr George Howarth]

In response to a point that I raised earlier, the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said that he thought the biggest cause of more people going to food banks would be if people lost their jobs. As I know he is aware, the facts show that the majority of people who use food banks are those in low-paid and insecure employment.

[Barbara Keeley]

Very much so. We are talking about people who are paid £3.50 an hour, and their hours are being cut. Careworkers on zero-hours contracts complain about not getting the hours they want and are finding it hard to make ends meet, so my right hon. Friend is quite right. In a recent Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme, an undercover reporter employed as a careworker confirmed the point about staff being paid way under the minimum wage. He was being paid just £3.89 an hour, working in a London borough.

Rather than improving pay, the introduction of what the Government call the national living wage is having an adverse effect on the working conditions of some careworkers. I have heard reports of one domiciliary care provider in the north-west raising the wages of care staff to £7.75—fair enough—but balancing the increase by introducing other changes that have a negative impact on employees. Sick pay, which was previously two weeks on full pay and two weeks on half pay, has ended. The hours during which careworkers must be available for work now run from 7 am to 11 pm. Mileage claims no longer include the first 10 miles of each day’s journeys—and staff are already paid only 20p a mile, which is well below HMRC’s recommended rate of 45p a mile. Workers at that care provider believe they are effectively paying for their own pay rise.

I have heard of a care provider in the east midlands cutting staff allowances and charging more for services in order to implement the national living wage. I am sure we will see much more of that up and down the country. As a result of the mileage allowance being cut by 15p to 20p a mile and the first and last seven miles of travel each day being excluded, 35% of the workforce at that care provider will lose out. Some workers have reported that they will lose up to £1,000 a year. That is shameful. It is just like the B&Q workers my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North talked about.

The introduction of what the Government call the national living wage was supposed to improve employees’ living standards, but it appears that some careworkers are receiving little or no benefit from the changes and that some might even be worse off. If careworkers continue to suffer because of unpaid travel time, care visits that are too short and unfair working conditions, it will have a detrimental effect on their work and the wellbeing of the people they care for. In fact, the Social Care Institute for Excellence has warned that stress and low morale resulting from how care staff are treated can have a direct impact on care service quality.

I believe that care work is a demanding job and requires skilled workers who are compassionate and have the time to provide good-quality care. It is completely unacceptable that a job that has historically been undervalued is being so exploited today and that careworkers are not being paid the basic wage for the job they do. Given the examples I have quoted, will the Minister tell us what the Government will do to ensure that careworkers are not worse off as a result of the national living wage?

Schools White Paper

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

As I was saying, the White Paper outlines reforms of how teachers are trained and it outlines our commitment to make sure that school funding is fairly distributed across the counties, ending the gross inequities and distortions, so that heads and parents can have the confidence that the same child with the same characteristics and the same costs receives the same level of funding. It reaffirms our commitment to ensure that every single child reaches their potential, from stretching the most able to supporting those who, for whatever reason, have fallen out of mainstream education. It proposes a bold new strategy, which I think all Members should welcome, to tackle areas of chronic underperformance through new educational achievement areas that will target school-led improvement support from national leaders of education, teaching schools and the national teaching service in the most needed areas.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State is aware, the last sixth-form A-level provision in Knowsley in Garston and Halewood has now been withdrawn by the academy concerned, so she will appreciate that there is concern about that issue in Knowsley. Will she explain why she has refused to meet my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) and me to discuss our concerns?

Onshore Oil and Gas

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat]

Gas prices are set by the market. We have a spot price for gas which is set in the European gas market. People have made the point that the European price will not decline in the same way as in the US. That may be true, but I make the point again that they could have said that about oil and shale oil. We have seen what has happened there. Clearly, the more there is of something, all other things being equal, the more the price falls. Fuel poverty is not the subject of this debate, but many people are living in fuel poverty in our country and we should all be keen to have lower energy prices.

Before I close, I want to pick up on the pragmatic and responsible points made by the Scottish National party. All of us as Members of Parliament have a leadership role in our communities. We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton exercising his leadership role. Of course he faces pressures in terms of the environment of the Yorkshire dales, but he also understands that we need jobs in our country and we need to create wealth. Importing gas at scale from Qatar, Russia and Norway takes jobs away from our country and has an impact on industries in Cleveland and so on. That is the exercise of leadership. “Leadership” is an important word, and all of us in this place need to exercise leadership. Saying that we are going to have a moratorium on this activity because that is responsible and pragmatic when the reality is that this industry has been going for 10 years and can go to Pennsylvania, like my hon. Friend did, and have a look—it can do all of that—is what I would describe as negative leadership, and it is populist politics because there is a body of people out there who are receptive to that; and that is not what any of us were elected to this place to do.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

We have approximately 30 minutes left. That should be adequate time for the three Front Benchers, but I caution them that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who moved the motion, has said that he would like a few minutes to sum up at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

On this side of the Atlantic, we tend to think that the USA is a laissez-faire society, but when we go there and see the reality of policies, not only at federal level but at state level, we soon find out that the picture is very different from our assumptions. Next time, I hope that my hon. Friend will prepare a speech, because we will not let him intervene so many times, no matter how interesting his contributions are. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about what he will do to make sure that the Government pull every possible lever.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I advise him not to take the Opposition spokesman’s suggestion of addressing us, as Queen Victoria accused Gladstone of doing to her, as though we were a public meeting.

Women and Low Pay

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

A digital debate has taken place on Twitter ahead of today’s debate on women and low pay, and Mr Speaker has granted a derogation to allow the use of electronic devices in the Public Gallery for the duration of the debate. Devices should, however, be silent, and no photos can be taken.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered women and low pay.

The work that women do is crucial to the functioning of society, but their pay does not reflect that. Despite the fact that their qualifications are as good as, or better than, men’s, their skills are not rewarded to the same level as men’s, and their career progression is slower. We need to ensure equal pay for work of equal value.

This subject is vital for millions of women, and for their families and employers. Living on low pay means that women do not have enough money to give their children nutritious food, let them go on a school journey or take them on holiday. It means not being able to escape a violent relationship, losing much of their pay on the cost of fares to and from work, and not being able to save enough to cover even minor crises, such as the washing machine or car breaking down.

Forty-five years after Parliament passed the Equal Pay Act 1970, we are still to achieve equal pay. Forty-five years later, a 19% gender pay gap still exists. That is 3% higher than the EU average, despite the figure having reduced by a third under the last Labour Government.

When talking about women and pay, we often focus on high-paid jobs and the lack of women occupying positions in FTSE 100 company boardrooms. It is important to ensure that women have career progression, especially when the TUC has reported that the pay divide between men and women is nearly 55% among top earners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister said that the Opposition have not welcomed the changes to the national minimum wage, so I would like to say something about it. Before the spending review next week, there is a real fear that the £1.7 billion cost could bring down the care sector. If the Minister still has a chance to lobby the Chancellor before next week, he might like to make that point to him. There are real fears about that. In fact, when I asked the Community and Social Care Minister about it yesterday in Health questions, he actually asked me where the funding was coming from. In response to the Minister, the reason people have concerns is because of things like that.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making a very tenuous link. I hope that Ruth Cadbury will not be led down that particular primrose path.

[Ruth Cadbury]

If that is your wish, Mr Howarth, I will not.

I return to the contribution of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who spoke of his hopes for his baby daughter and her working future. Let us all hope that when she joins the workplace, she will be able to earn the same as the young men of her age, whatever sector she goes into and at whatever level. We all hope for that for our children and grandchildren, and those of our constituents.

The hon. Gentleman outlined the work done in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament and by local authorities. That is to be commended. As he said, low pay is a symptom and a cause of inequality, and Labour Members all have sympathy with that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said much that was absolutely appropriate and added much to the debate. She particularly captured the issue of discrimination by picking up on my true anecdote about the recruitment for the position of Santa Claus at a Christmas grotto in a local store in Wales, where Mrs Claus was to be paid half the amount that Santa Claus would receive. She pointed out that Santa would not be Santa without Mrs Claus supporting him and working with him. She is absolutely right. That might be a funny story but it happens day in, day out in workplaces across the country.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I point out to the hon. Lady that the story is less funny than the first time she told it.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I do apologise, Mr Howarth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood also pointed out that we should be talking not about five C’s, but about six. Her mother’s experience as a classroom assistant is absolutely true, and I would say that well over 90% of classroom assistants are women and are on low pay. It is right that they are paid adequately and are recognised for the valuable work that they do supporting our children.

The Minister comes from a women-dominated family, as many people would say I do, but we are not here to speak for ourselves and our immediate families. We are speaking for the women we represent, which is why we are in this place and why we believe that this debate is vital. As I said, I am sorry that there are not more Members from the Minister’s party here. He was right to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the contribution that she has made in this place over many years.

I commend the Government for the efforts that they have made so far in recognising that there is a wage gap and an issue of low pay, and that childcare is a major issue, particularly for women.

Although the Minister initially concentrated on board pay and high-level executive pay, he finally got on to the issue of low pay. As many colleagues have said, there is an awful lot more that the Government could and should be doing. As I said in my opening speech, and as others also said, it will take time to implement the new national minimum wage. We will not even have a review for two years, and it will not be fully implemented until the end of this Parliament, which is too long for women in this country to wait. It is worth repeating that 85% of the Government’s benefit and tax credit cuts will hit women. The Government are giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered women and low pay.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I commend my hon. Friend on his annual skills fair, which I know is already making a big difference to his constituents. He will be pleased to learn that the advanced manufacturing centre at Carlisle college will begin construction in 2016-17 with growth deal funding. There is no doubt that that will help to boost local skills.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that although it is important that employers have a leading role in the development of skills, it is also necessary that skills are transferable? Unless the FE sector is involved in the process of training people and giving them those skills, those skills will not necessarily be transferable.

[Sajid Javid]

I agree about the importance of transferable skills. Our local area review of the FE sector up and down the country will look very closely at local needs, and at ensuring that skills are transferable.

Teaching Assistants

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Bill Esterson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes an excellent remark. I hope the Minister responds to that point and other comments of a similar nature.

Teaching assistants also allow teachers the time to plan lessons, to mark work and to carry out their own duties and responsibilities, but such things can happen only if teaching assistants are supported in the right way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North made a point about support and continuing professional development for teaching assistants. The same applies to teachers.

Under the previous Labour Government, an agreement was reached for teachers to have some time each week for planning, preparation and marking, which is an important part of learning. If teachers have that time, they are in a stronger position during lessons, and support from teaching assistants contributes to that. Without good planning time and good preparation, learning can only suffer. Allowing good planning time and preparation is one of the values of having good teaching assistants.

The Reform report referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston drew on evidence to show where practice has not always been very good. It is worth reflecting on where things have gone wrong in the past; that is part of learning for the future. Is it any surprise that teaching assistants struggle when they are forced to take classes without proper training and expertise; that children may not learn as effectively when teaching assistants are required to do a significant amount of teaching, without the support, training or preparation to enable them to support children; or that when teaching assistants are given responsibility for the children who need the most support, and are then left to their own devices, learning outcomes are not that good? Of course it is not a surprise; but cherry-picking the evidence and saying that it demonstrates that teaching assistants do not perform a valuable role misses the point. The evidence makes the case for giving them the support and training that they need to do a good job; it is not an argument for not having teaching assistants in the first place.

There is a big difference between leaving unqualified teachers in charge—whether they are teachers in academies or free schools, or teaching assistants—and providing teaching assistants with support and training from qualified, experienced teachers, so that they can provide structured, individual support, one to one or in small groups, and receive continuing back-up and review from the teacher. Those are very different situations. It is clear that where there is proper structure, support and review, learning improves. It is a shame that some people cherry-pick information and evidence to support their conclusions.

I looked at the report, “Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools”, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston referred, which made the point:

“Given that lower attaining pupils are more likely to be given extra support it is vital that this is well organised and effective.”

To me, that statement summed up what is needed. At the time of the report and its analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning support assistants, the big expansion in numbers had only just started. There was scope for a great deal of learning about the most effective way of deploying them. The authors of the report analysed what was going wrong and what constituted good practice, and made recommendations:

“More needs to be done to prepare newly-qualified and in-service teachers with the necessary skills and preparation to help them manage the growing number of support staff with whom they work.

More needs to be done to prepare, particularly classroom based, support staff for their role in schools, especially for the now common, pedagogical, instructional role with pupils.

More time should be available for joint planning and feedback, and recommendations should also be made concerning ways in which TAs can be deployed effectively.”

Commenting on the deployment of support staff, the Institute of Education said:

“Schools should examine the deployment of classroom or pupil based support staff to ensure that they do not routinely support lower attaining pupils and pupils with SEN”,

which makes the point that children with the greatest needs need the greatest support from the classroom teacher. Some evidence shows that there have been times when the opposite has happened. It was published in 2009, so it has been available a long time. The report stated:

“We suggest that pupils in most need should get more not less of a teacher’s time”—

I hope that the Minister will respond to the point about special needs children—and added:

“Teachers should take responsibility for the lesson-by-lesson curriculum and pedagogical planning for all pupils in the class, including those pupils being supported by support staff.”

The evidence in the 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Education about best practice in the use of teaching assistants to support teachers is entirely consistent with the evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation and the remarks of other hon. Members in the debate. It shows that teaching assistants who are supported, encouraged and trained, who plan jointly with teachers, and who receive the right preparation and constant review, feedback and support are an invaluable addition to the educational landscape. They support children and improve young people’s life chances. We should support and encourage them and celebrate their work, as happened in November. The Opposition are clear about the important role of teaching assistants in schools. The Minister should do all that she can to support them and ensure that good practice is shared and should dismiss the suggestion that teaching assistant numbers should be cut.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. The two Front-Bench spokesmen have until 11 o’clock to make their speeches. If the debate concludes before then, I have the power to suspend the sitting until 11 o’clock.

Sex and Relationship Education

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Two Back Benchers are indicating that they want to take part in the debate. I intend to call the two Front-Bench spokesmen at 12.10. If people are restrained in their contributions, it may be possible to get the remaining Back Benchers into the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I will come to that and the other points made by my hon. Friend in a moment.

The questions on the website include the following. Is the resource consistent with the values set out in the school’s SRE policy? Is it appropriate for the age, ability and maturity of the children? Have parents been consulted? Will the resource be used in its entirety or will it be more appropriate to adapt it and select from it?

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked whether such material was being used in schools, so I will talk to the Sex Education Forum and to my hon. Friend about the materials, how their content is decided and how they are used in schools. I think the SEF, with its wide range of member organisations, including those representing children and youth, faith groups, health, parenting and families, should have a perspective on such matters. I also want to explore how the range of resources available influences practice in schools, and I will talk to the makers of BBC Active and Channel 4’s “Living and Growing” resources to understand how such resources are selected for particular age groups and how parents are involved.

My hon. Friend and others raised entirely legitimate concerns in the debate, and we must ensure that parents are listened to. There are safeguards in place to protect children from inappropriate materials. First, governing bodies have a statutory responsibility to ensure that schools have a policy on sex education, which, as a minimum, should give information about how sex education will be provided, any sensitive issues that will be covered and who will provide it. Secondly, local authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State’s statutory, “Sex and Relationships Education Guidance”. Paragraph 1.8 states:

“Materials used in schools must be in accordance with…the law. Inappropriate images should not be used nor should explicit material not directly related to explanation. Schools should ensure that pupils are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate, having regard to the age and cultural background of the pupils concerned. Governors and head teachers should discuss with parents and take on board concerns raised, both on materials which are offered to schools and on sensitive material to be used in the classroom.”

My hon. Friend also proposed the licensing of materials, potentially by the British Board of Film Classification. I can readily understand her wish for materials—

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. It is time for the next debate.

Education Maintenance Allowance

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Unfortunately, I do not think I will be able to compete with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) as regards our ties, but I rather hope that I will surpass the arguments that he made.

Before I get into the meat of my argument, I wish to express a debt of gratitude to Frank Gill, the principal of Knowsley community college, of which I am a governor; to the director of children’s services in Knowsley, Damian Allen; and to Jette Burford, the principal of Hugh Baird college in Bootle, which some students from my constituency attend.

The points that I wish to make have been shaped by a number of conversations and briefings that I have had, but also by a very interesting meeting that I had last year with some students at All Saints centre for learning in Kirkby, in my constituency. They talked about their hopes and aspirations and said that EMA had been a help to them and would continue to be. They also expressed their concern about the reduction in spending on Aimhigher, which had inspired some of them to go to university when they had not previously thought it possible.

The Secretary of State seems to have three arguments about EMA and his replacement for it, the pupil premium. The first is that EMA does not have any real impact on participation and on young people staying on in education. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon cited a piece of research that does not quite indicate what he thinks it does. It was based on a flawed sample, as several of my hon. Friends have said.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Howarth]

I will not. The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

You have mentioned me twice.

[Mr Howarth]

Okay then.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The right hon. Gentleman claims that the sample was flawed. Can he explain why he believes that? It was a representative sample of at least 2,000 interviews, taken in a scientific way.

[Mr Howarth]

I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber, but several of my hon. Friends have gone through the flaws in the report’s methodology in great detail.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

What are they?

[Mr Howarth]

I am not going to repeat them. I do not want to make a speech about that particular issue, but I raised it because the hon. Gentleman used flawed research to support his argument.

On participation, I know that 80% of those attending Knowsley community college who are in the relevant age range receive EMA, and the figure is 84% for Hugh Baird college. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor the Secretary of State can gainsay that. Since 1997, the number of young people from Knowsley who have gone on to higher education has gone up by 187%. EMA was not in place for all that period, of course, but those figures indicate to me that it was part of the package of things that enabled people to stay on into further and higher education.

The Secretary of State’s second argument is that there are better ways to reward young people and improve attainment. When he first made his announcement about EMA, I was prepared to accept that that might be the case. I have waited patiently since October for him to explain how it might be, but he has failed to do so, including today. I sat and listened carefully to his speech, but as several hon. Members have said, he chose to make a speech that was more about economic policy than about EMA. Other ways of supporting young people might work better, but unfortunately we have not been told what his case is and nobody has yet demonstrated it.

My final point is that some on the Government Benches seem to believe the argument about the 90% dead-weight, but there is something wrong about saying to young people in less favourable circumstances, “You don’t need any support.” Actually, it is a real struggle for families on low incomes. It is a struggle for young people not only to get to college—there has been a lot of discussion of transport costs—but to live anything like a decent life without some support. I find it deeply offensive when people use phrases such as “dead-weight” when we are talking about people who are struggling to realise their potential and to gain academic qualifications and, in many cases, to go on into higher education when that would have been inconceivable a generation ago.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said that he regretted the tone of this debate, but I regret how the needs of those young people seem to have been jettisoned without any real thought or debate whatever. The Secretary of State had to prove that the changes would work, but he did not do so, and he should now withdraw his proposals.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Education Policy

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Leaving aside the political knockabout content of part of the Secretary of State’s statement, I welcome the fact that more resources are to be targeted at children in the greatest need. Will he give me an assurance that he will work closely with local authorities and schools to ensure that the additional resources are targeted properly and effectively at those children with the greatest needs?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s constructive question. He is a distinguished member of the dwindling Blairite tendency on the Opposition Back Benches. He is fortunate in having in Knowsley one of the more imaginative and creative local authorities. That is why representatives from Knowsley are working with the Department for Education to ensure that we can target deprivation more effectively.