Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Graham P Jones and Kevin Brennan

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion No. 3: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I shall stick strictly to the new clauses that we have tabled.

New clause 5 would establish a duty for companies to report any breach of cyber-security and to inform customers when possible. Just 28% of such attacks are reported to the police. We have welcomed the Minister’s announcement that he will implement the general data protection regulation in full, but even the GDPR provides extensive caveats, and it falls a long way short of the comprehensive regulatory system that the United Kingdom needs. Our new clause would impose a general obligation on data controllers to notify the Information Commissioner and data subjects in the event of a breach of personal data security.

New clause 11 provides for a public register of shared data. It would require all disclosures of data between data controllers to be logged in a public register giving, at the very least, a title, a description and a web page so that people can find out more. If there is transparency through a register, there can be an informed conversation about whether a particular data disclosure will solve the problem that it claims to solve. There has been data-sharing to “prevent fraud” for decades, and there has been a complete absence of audited and accurate results from that work. With additional powers come additional responsibilities. The argument that because current data-sharing has not prevented fraud there should be more data-sharing could be described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. While part 5 of the Bill will remain a concern—I am sure that our colleagues in the other place will examine it—we believe that the Government should accept new clause 11 and demonstrate that they understand the importance of transparency in data-sharing.

Let me now deal with new clause 12, which concerns a review of data collection. Data are the currency of the digital economy but, in yet another missed opportunity, the Bill does absolutely nothing to address people’s rights over their data, which are increasingly a cause for concern. It is time that the Government acted, because consumer mistrust in the digital economy and in the use of our data is becoming corrosive. That is why we are calling for a royal commission to examine the use of our personal data in the commercial sector, to establish the extent of that practice, and to draw up a series of rights on which consumers and customers can rely in the digital age. The new clause would require the Government to commission an independent review of information and big data, and data administration, which would seek to establish the direction in which the stated policy intent of Government and big business—for individuals to have control over their own data—is heading.

Many providers are in the market for data, and there are many ways beyond our imagination in which our data can be modified. However, it will only take one exposé on “Dispatches” or a Mail on Sunday scandal to force the Government to react, and it is likely to overreact, as all Governments do. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity for the issues to be viewed in the cold light of day rather than in the heat of reaction, and I strongly urge the Ministers to support new clause 12.

New clause 19 is about free school meals. Many families who are eligible currently do not claim them. The new clause would explicitly provide for councils to share benefit data with schools, thus allowing eligible children to be automatically enrolled to receive free school meals rather than having to apply.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The issue of free school meals was raised in Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that two-tier authorities consisting of a shire and a district should be able to share data seamlessly and automatically, as unitary authorities do in metropolitan areas?

[Kevin Brennan]

I do agree. My hon. Friend made that point brilliantly in Committee, and I recommend that people read his lengthier remarks if they want to find out more about that issue.

Digital Economy Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Graham P Jones and Kevin Brennan

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The amendment is important. It defines the Opposition against the Government. We value the BBC, but there is always a criticism, and the Government are reaffirming people’s view that the Government do not really trust the BBC. If they can do anything to undermine the BBC, they will, instead of supporting it. During the passage of the charter, there has been to-ing and fro-ing, and criticism of the BBC, using the stick of distinctiveness and other sticks, such as the five-year break clause.

The Government always say that they are there to stand up for the BBC and give it the freedoms that it wants, but this is not a freedom, of course; it is a shackle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the Government are trying to outsource responsibility. They will not do it on bus passes; they will not say, “We’ll make the bus companies make the decision on free bus passes”, but they will make the BBC accountable for the over-75s’ free TV licences. I do not think that the Government can escape that responsibility, or the accusation that they are continually chipping away at the BBC.

Let us talk about the issue in numbers. By 2020, when the BBC has to pay fully, the figure will be £700 million. That is a considerable amount of money for the BBC to find at a time when the Government have chipped away at BBC budgets through a bit of slicing here and another bit of slicing there, and even with a cap on the licence fee.

[Kevin Brennan]

Is it not correct that at that point the people at the BBC will be faced with a decision, which is to do what is in their nature—to make programmes, to produce content and so on—or to continue an aspect of what is, after all, social policy? Will they not always have to look at what their core activity is: programme making and their distinctive role in the broadcasting universe?

[Graham Jones]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. There is no need to add too much to that, other than to say that if we want to talk about the Government’s view of the BBC and this chipping away, which our new clause is designed to prevent, it is the outsourcing of programme making again to 100% programme making that will now be made out in the private sector and not in-house. Again, it is part of the package of making the BBC less viable, so that we arrive at a day when a tough decision might have to be made because the BBC as it exists now has been completely undermined. The policy is not to put it on a firmer footing. This £700 million is a huge part of that chipping away at the BBC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

We trust that the Government will listen to the public and see that they are on the wrong side of the argument, but perhaps we will find out in a few minutes that they do not recognise that.

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not think the 5,503 people in my constituency who will be affected are fools, but does my hon. Friend agree that any Member who votes for the change must think that the people in their constituency who will be affected by it are fools? To take an example at random, the hon. Member for Devizes has 6,478 constituents who will be affected.

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have glanced over the figures, and it seems that more people will be affected in the constituencies of Government Members. Perhaps those Members should be mindful of their constituents who will have real concerns about the proposal. They will not be fooled by the idea that the Government are taking a genuine and reasonable approach in giving the BBC responsibility for TV licences for over-75s.

If the Government have to take with one hand—and I do not agree with that—they could at least have made an attempt to give back with the other hand. Other than some minor giveaways to the BBC, they have made no attempt to correct even the fiscal element of the change, never mind the moral, ethical, social and public policy elements. The Government say in their explanatory notes that the BBC cannot expect to get any retransmission fees from Virgin, which is covered by the Bill, or Sky, which is not. There will therefore be no material change in the relationship between platform providers and content providers such as the BBC, which are forced to provide their content on those platforms. The Government could at least have corrected the fiscal element of the change by doing something about that commercial relationship, but instead they decided to take £700 million from the BBC. They already have a track record of slicing BBC funding for pet projects such as local TV or broadband.

The public will not be fooled. Thousands of constituents of Government Members will see the change and wonder why their Member of Parliament has taken this decision. Those in receipt of an over-75 TV licence, or coming up to that point, will think it is a deterioration in public policy. They will think, “This is not in my interests. I don’t agree with it. Why has my Member of Parliament voted against the new clause?” Government Members should think long and hard about the new clause, because I am sure their constituents will not approve of them voting against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones]

I have a couple of points that I would like the Government to consider on clause stand part and why there is a deficiency, not only in the Bill but in all the other regulations, guidance and advice that support it.

My first point is simply that people the length and breadth of this country are sick and fed up of direct marketing. They are sick and fed up of the back of their doors having a mound of unwanted mail that they have to dispose of, which has come from companies that they have no interest in. I have a high number of empty properties—2,500—in my area, and in some cases this goes beyond being a nuisance and an aggravation, and becomes a fire hazard. We have mounds of direct mail behind the door, and it is never-ending and never stops.

People receive not only physical mail but email. Businesses the length and breadth of Britain—I have made the point that this is not a business-friendly Bill and it should be, as it is a Digital Economy Bill—are sick and fed up of their email boxes being stuffed full of unwanted emails, which are costing them a fortune as they have to put someone on them to go through them. It has got to stop. We have to act as a Parliament, and the Government have got to sit up and take notice. How much is this costing British businesses? How much is it aggravating UK citizens?

These companies seem to get away with it. There is a free-for-all at the minute. There is no way anyone can tell me that a mound of mail does not come through my letterbox weekly or there is not a long sequence of unwanted emails in my inbox, and no one can tell me that companies in my constituency and every other constituency do not face huge costs.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is right about that wider point, even though the clause deals particularly with calls. I do not know about him, but I am fed up of receiving calls even in my parliamentary office—I know that other hon. Members have had this—from energy companies, which continually seek to talk to me about energy bills. Does he agree that if the problem is getting to the heart of Parliament, it really is getting out of hand?

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As busy MPs, the last thing we want is to deal with that. I will come to clause 77, which is about marketing calls—all these things are interlinked. As he says, we get a mound of marketing calls, as do businesses. They are piling up, and they are unwanted.

I appeal to the Government to consider introducing mandatory pro formas in all these fields—marketing calls, but also email, direct mail and conventional snail mail. On a letter, I want to see the name and address of the people who sent it, so that I can tick the box saying “no more mail” and stick it back in that red box. I want to know how they have got my information, too. On digital communications, I want to see a pro forma on the bottom that says, “No more. I don’t want to receive any more. How did you get my details, and which company are you?” I want straightforward pro formas on the bottom of all those things. On marketing calls, I want those who are calling to have to explain explicitly who they are and where they got the data from and ask, “Do you wish to proceed with the call?” That would be very helpful. Having pro formas on all that marketing would empower individuals. This is about taking back control and empowering the UK citizen against some of these things, and simple pro formas would go a long way to helping that.

I ask the Government to consider introducing some amelioration or making some concession on this issue on Report. The British people would be eternally grateful to the Minister. He would become legendary in this place. His career path would be stratospheric. He would have helped so many people on a daily basis that he would be remembered forever as the Minister who resolved the issue of direct marketing calls. He has an opportunity to do that. A pro forma would suffice.

I come to a second issue: the exposés that, sadly, all too frequently appear on our television screens, on Channel 4 or “Panorama”. Every now and again, we hear scandals about marketing companies that act on behalf of charities and raise money through telemarketing. Those scandals often reveal undesirable elements and policies in those companies that go against the grain of what it is to be a British citizen. Those marketing calls must be dealt with, and clause 77 fails to deal with—

Digital Economy Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Graham P Jones and Kevin Brennan

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

We are dealing with this group in a slightly novel way. I will discuss new clauses 14 and 17 and then move on to my clause stand part remarks.

New clause 14 calls on the Government to produce a report exploring the options available for future-proofing the at-risk listed events regime, which helps ensure that sporting events such as the Olympic games remain universally and freely available. The listed events regime has been enormously successful and is popular with the public, but it is undoubtedly currently at risk and could become obsolete unless the Government take action to make sure that that does not occur.

I ask the Minister to consider revising the qualifying criteria to deliver a listed events regime fit for the digital era, which we are discussing in this Bill. Since the 1980s, successive Governments have sought to ensure that TV coverage of certain major sports events remains available to everybody, irrespective of their ability to pay. The UK has an A list, which is designed to preserve live coverage of certain major events on free-to-air television—for example, the Olympic games, the football World Cup, the Grand National and the rugby World Cup final. There is also a B list that does the same for TV highlights—for example, the Six Nations rugby tournament and the Commonwealth games.

The listed events regime helps ensure that events such as the Olympics, the recent European football championships—in which Wales reached the semi-final—and Wimbledon all reach the widest possible audience, delivering enjoyment to millions, inspiring the next generation to get active, creating role models and helping make sport aspirational. In total, 45 million people in the UK watched Rio 2016 and the Euros this summer and more than 10 million people watched Laura Trott and Jason Kenny on BBC television both secure gold medals on the same day at Rio 2016.

The listed events regime strikes a balance between ensuring the public can gain free access to major events and the understandable desire of pay TV operators and sports federations to try and maximise their commercial revenues. Importantly, the regime does not prevent pay TV from acquiring TV rights to listed events; it simply ensures that qualifying services can acquire the free-to-air rights on fair and reasonable terms.

Under the current rules, the benefits of the listed events regime are restricted by statute to channels that are first, free, and secondly, received by at least 95% of the UK population. Those criteria are becoming increasingly outdated as the number of homes giving up their TVs for other media devices begins to rise; the 95% criterion will probably not be met by any TV channel at some stage in the course of this Parliament. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister recognises that that is the case and whether Ministers are thinking about it.

As a result, regulators would have no clear legal basis for discriminating between channels, which would likely lead to listed events being ultimately far less widely available and watched. That shows quite clearly that the qualifying criteria need updating, and there are options for doing that. We are trying to explore those options with our new clause in Committee this afternoon—performing our proper constitutional role, much to the resentment of the Minister.

The BBC prefers the option in which the 95% reception criterion could be updated and replaced with a measure testing whether the channel is widely watched. That would require a qualifying service to have reached at least 90% of the public in the last calendar year. That would ensure that the public continued to have access to these sporting events on channels that are easy for audiences to find and that we know they actually watch in large numbers; that is obviously the intention of the current regime. That measure would be a proxy for factors including free-to-air continuous availability, popularity and audience awareness. The proposed test would be consistent with the spirit of the regime and aligned with wider public benefits such as offering moments of national celebration and inspiring physical activity, as well as being simple to implement and more stable than the current reception test.

Furthermore, such a test would be open to any service that was free at the point of use, committed to maximising access and not tied to any one distribution platform, so it would be more able to incorporate broadband streaming, for example, as counting towards the reach of a service as and when the infrastructure allowed. That would prevent the regime from being manipulated by organisations whose purpose was to maximise the attractiveness and availability of pay TV services by providing nominally free coverage on channels that may meet an availability threshold but of which there is very low awareness.

There are alternatives. It has been suggested that the qualifying criteria might be interpreted differently—I am talking about adding broadband availability towards the 95%. However, some feel that that may involve major risks. The combined coverage of the UK’s commercial digital terrestrial TV multiplex and broadband may well allow services distributed via those means to qualify, yet their geographic coverage would exclude large rural areas. That would particularly be an issue—I say this as a Member representing a constituency in Wales; I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, who speaks on behalf of the Scottish National party, will be aware of this—in the nations, where there is often greater difficulty with coverage in large rural areas, but it also applies to parts of rural England and, indeed, Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, broadband will not be able consistently to deliver a guaranteed quality of live streaming to mass audiences for some time to come. The BBC, in particular, feels that including broadband in the criteria implementation would be hard to measure and to implement.

The report proposed in our new clause would be an opportunity to fully explore concerns and the different options available for modernising the listed events regime. As I said, those events are very much valued by, and seem very much to be of benefit to, the public. Four in five people say that listed events are important to society. One in four said that the BBC’s 2012 Olympic coverage inspired them to take part in sport. Wide exposure of free-to-air sport can inspire, create role models and make sport aspirational. Indeed, it can bring the country, and the nations within the UK, together. Public service broadcasters likewise understand the importance of listed events and are committed to making sport freely available to all. Even though public service broadcasters are responsible for only 5% of sports output in the UK, they are responsible for 60% of sports viewing. That is something we would not wish to lose as a country, almost by accident, because of the technological changes that we have been discussing.

The UK has a mixed ecology that balances the public’s free access to major events with the potential for pay TV operators and sports federations to generate commercial revenues. The threat to listed events may radically tilt that balance. Rather than risk the abolition of listed events by the back door, Parliament and the Government should urgently consider revising the qualifying criteria to deliver a regime fit for the digital era. With this amendment, the Digital Economy Bill could be the vehicle to ensure that this happens. I shall be extremely interested in what the Minister has to say about this, and in the Government’s view of this important and much cherished feature of our sports broadcasting ecology. The Minister can feel free to dilate at length when he responds.

New clause 17 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley. It proposes modernising the public service broadcasting prominence regime, as recommended by Ofcom, by extending the law to on-demand services and the menus, where they are found. Since PSB prominence was legislated for in the Communications Act 2003, many gaps have emerged. The Act was designed in a markedly different TV landscape, even 13 years ago. It was four years before the introduction of the BBC iPlayer, for example. It was eight years before the digital TV switchover took place, and seven years before the introduction of the iPad. It created public service broadcasting prominence principles for broadcast TV sets, but not for connected TV sets, public service broadcaster channels, or PSB catch-up services, such as BBC iPlayer.

The regime has not kept up well, even with the multichannel world. For example, as I am sure hon. Members with young children will be aware, CBeebies and CBBC are behind 12 US cartoon network channels in the channel listings of the UK’s leading pay platform, Sky. As someone who was brought up on public service children’s television broadcasting—God knows what I would have been like if I had not been—and as a parent, I think that that is a shame, and that the Government should have a view on it.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

“Play Away”!

[Kevin Brennan]

I am not going to respond; I shall focus on my remarks. My hon. Friend may wish to regale us later with his favourite children’s TV programmes or public service broadcasters.

PSBs now face a far bigger transition to online delivery of TV programmes, and the regulatory regime lags far behind, so we should not miss any opportunity presented by the Bill to do something about this ever-changing situation. A growing number of existing and future services are being left out of scope, from BBC iPlayer to the now online-only youth service BBC 3, and from the new BBC iPlayer Kids, offering access to the best BBC kids’ content, to the upcoming iPlay, which will be a front door to the best British children’s content from any provider. Equally out of scope in the current regime are growing numbers of major gateways to accessing public service broadcaster content. The number of connected television sets in the UK is expected to nearly triple over the course of this Parliament, from 11 million to 29 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for saving us time with that helpful intervention.

[Graham Jones]

This is an opportunity to ask my hon. Friend a question. There seems to be some doubt about the relationship between Sky’s retransmission charges and public service broadcasters. Does he know whether Sky pays for public service broadcasters? I understand that Sky pays for ITV commercial channels, but as I understand it, it does not pay anything for public service broadcasting.

[Kevin Brennan]

We discussed this issue, and the nature of that regime, earlier today. My observation was that the situation was extremely opaque, which is why we proposed earlier amendments to the Bill to suggest that the whole area should be reviewed—for that very reason. My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point. It will be worth reading his remarks, and those made earlier today by Government and Opposition Committee members, on that point.

When we discussed new clause 14, which deals with listed sporting events, I worried that there is a degree of complacency in the Government. People will have heard what the Minister said about the issue, and we will be interested to hear what others have to say about his response. We should lay down a marker to say that we do not think that the Government are really listening or hearing what we are saying about this subject, and they are not sufficiently attuned to the dangers to listed sporting events. I know that the Minister is a keen and successful sportsman in his jockeying activities, on which I congratulate him. I am sure that he would want to see—

Education and Adoption Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Graham P Jones and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, and my hon. Friend has cited in an exemplary way the oral evidence that we were given, in order to bring home that point. It is a real point, and I am sure it is one that will emerge very strongly during the discussion of the Government’s draft regulations. That is because these schools are supposed to be the “coasting” schools, as defined by the phrases used by the Secretary of State, and not the ones with weaker-ability intakes, which seem to be destined, as per the evidence we heard from witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, to be hammered by the new definition.

However, there was a big difference in the approach that we had proposed previously. There was an interesting article recently in Schools Week by Laura McInerney, which I will quote from:

“Labour define coasting schools as those with GCSE scores above a threshold BUT have below average progress. Labour’s plan specifically targets the schools doing well in terms of their GCSE pass rates but whose pupils, having come in with average-to-high ability rates, only come out with Bs or As – rather than A*s.”

She went on:

“This compares to the current Conservative definition which specifically protects these sorts of schools by stopping any school above a 60% GCSE pass rate threshold from being considered as ‘coasting’. As datalab’s research shows this helps stop schools in wealthier areas – ‘the leafy suburbs’ – from being hit.”

I know that the Minister will go on to argue that if this is a problem—he does not seem to accept that it is—it will all disappear after 2018, because at that time “coasting” schools will be defined only by a progress measure. So, if we have got a problem here, I assume he will say, first, that it is not really a problem, and secondly, that if it is a problem at all, it will go away in time.

The problem is that schools with high-ability intakes tend to progress more quickly than those without such intakes. We should all be passionately interested in why this is. I think we can agree that we want to find ways to tackle that. Presumably, the Minister is hoping that Government policy is the way to do that so that people from a lower start can progress as quickly as people who have started from a higher level. We can debate that and have different views about the best way to achieve it, but I am sure it is an aim that we all share. However, that is not what the Secretary of State was talking about in relation to coasting schools when she made her remarks. In the absence of any other approach to coasting, the Government will end up targeting only schools with poorer intakes, rather then those in the leafy suburbs, which I thought was supposed to be the central point of the policy, certainly according to what the Secretary of State said.

What do the Government intend to do about these schools once they have been identified? We are told:

“Those that can improve will be supported to do so by our team of expert heads, and those that cannot will be turned into academies under the leadership of our expert school sponsors”.

The suspicion remains that forced academisation is really what this is all about, particularly in view of the academy performance targets that the seven remaining regional schools commissioners have, and of the point that was made in the Conservative manifesto.

There is also no sensible account in these proposals about the interaction between Ofsted and these measures. This came up in our oral evidence sessions. Are we going to get schools rated good and outstanding one week, only to be deemed to be coasting the very next week? How will staff, parents and pupils make any sense of it if they receive a letter from the school saying, “Our school has been rated ‘good’” or “Our school has been rated ‘outstanding’” one week, and the very next week they get a letter saying, “Our school is deemed to be ‘coasting’”? How will they, let alone the general public or the media, make any sense of it? What kind of headlines would it produce in the local papers for Members of Parliament concerned about schools in their constituencies? Will the Minister explain how that kind of situation would be managed? Would it have been better for some kind of interaction to be thought through between Ofsted and the coasting regulations and the way in which regional schools commissioners react to the coasting definitions? Could they have been made to interact more effectively so that such apparent anomalies would not arise? Perhaps the Minister is not worried about it, but it seems to me that it will cause confusion in the system.

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a point about the forced academisation of some schools in the “leafy” suburbs. Some schools in the “leafy” suburbs to the north of me are very small. We talk about class sizes of 30; I am not sure that some of these have school sizes of 30. Is an academisation process in those “leafy” suburbs unwelcome and perhaps financially unviable? Do they need to remain within the local authority education system?

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is better placed than me to comment on the schools in his area and his constituency, but he makes a very valid point when he say that the size of schools should be taken into account when considering these kinds of interventions and approaches.

A big difference between the approach that we favoured towards coasting schools and the current one is that we proposed a comprehensive package of support to help these schools improve.

Education and Adoption Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Graham P Jones and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

Q 22 Three noes and one yes. Could Sir Daniel perhaps explain why it is the only way?

Sir Daniel Moynihan: Maintained schools are under the remit of their local authority and the local authority has responsibility for their improvement and their monitoring. If a school fails, it will not normally be because of something that has happened overnight; it will be because of a gradual decline in performance over a period of time. The local authority should have picked up on that and used its resources to do so and my view is, therefore, that somebody else should be allowed to take on that school and improve it under the guise of an academy.

Malcolm Trobe: We clearly want all pupils to be in a good school. We want all local schools to be good schools. What we would say, however, is that changing the status of a school, in itself, will not necessarily change and improve the quality of the education in the school. What is required is a detailed, well thought out plan and a support system to go into the school. You need to understand the context of the school. One must understand resources; one of the critical things happening in a lot of schools that are in significant difficulties at the moment is that they are having major problems with teacher recruitment. One thing that we believe the Government need to tackle very urgently is ensuring that there are high-quality teachers available for these schools.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I am interested in this definition of coasting. My daughter is six and goes to a primary school. It is self-evident to me and my constituents that the differential between some schools is often the amount of time that is allocated to children out of school. There are the parental and social contributions and networks that children attend in some of the more affluent areas. How are they measured in this coasting measurement? Clearly, the same amount of time is not allocated in some of my poorer areas. There are challenges in life. How is that not part of the school day?

Richard Watts: Islington, which I represent, has a fair number of affluent people and we have more than our fair share of poor people. We see enormous differences in our schools, depending on people’s home circumstances. It is really important that schools do their best to compensate for that, but that is not wholly possible. No one should make excuses—