Further Education Institutions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Dixon]

I agree that we must open up access to education for all, including carers. Further education colleges require significant investment to upgrade and maintain their buildings and ensure that they can provide a modern learning environment and access to up-to-date technology. However, staff tell me that their ambitions for further capital investment are limited. Since colleges were brought back into public ownership, their ability to borrow money and invest in capital projects has been removed, and they must now seek permission from the Department for Education to borrow money, which is a slow process. I would appreciate the Minister outlining what the Government are doing to address the capital funding needs of further education colleges.

I would like to move on to some issues around skills training. Every year, 3.8 million people aged 19 and over access skills education in England. That is a critical part of our education system, enabling people to build rewarding careers and fulfil their dreams. Yet, across the country, businesses do not have the right skills available to deliver the services they want and we need. According to the Learning and Work Institute, the UK could face a £120 billion loss by 2030, with a projected shortfall of 2.5 million highly skilled workers.

In Saltaire in my constituency, businesses tell me that they are struggling to recruit people with digital and tech skills locally. Is that any wonder when the Conservatives cut FE funding so significantly? With the right support, FE colleges can drive productivity gains across key sectors, such as engineering, healthcare, digital technology and construction. They can supply skilled technicians and specialists, enabling businesses to expand, innovate and compete.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Regional colleges such as the North West regional college and the Northern regional college in my constituency do exactly what the hon. Lady outlines. Particularly, the likes of apprenticeships are the future for many young people, especially those from disadvantaged communities. We should encourage and support that.

[Anna Dixon]

I entirely agree that the FE college apprenticeships—these other routes—are important for disadvantaged children. I will expand on that in a moment.

I am delighted that this Labour Government are committed to equipping the workforce with the skills they need to rebuild Britain, including through the establishment of Skills England. I hope that Skills England will encourage and facilitate strong partnerships between colleges and employers. Perhaps the Minister might like to say whether we could go further in empowering local areas and colleges to tailor their provision to local labour market needs and community demands.

British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Mr Gregory Campbell will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the implementation of the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. At the centre of the issue that we are debating today is how successive Governments—Labour, Conservative, Conservative and Lib Dem, and now Labour again—have determined how the issue of nationality in Northern Ireland is dealt with. A consensus has come about, with all the successive Administrations following a series of what have been called internationally binding agreements, including the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement. They all left successive Governments with the consensus view that people in Northern Ireland who wished to describe themselves as British, Irish or a combination of both could do so. Each successive Government said that they would ensure that they dealt with people impartially and proactively, according to the nationality of their choice—in the constitutional framework of Northern Ireland within the UK, of course.

The consensus emerged, and many people in Northern Ireland expected that to mean—they certainly did not receive any information to the contrary—that whenever a nationality issue arose, there would not be any differentiation or favouritism shown between a person wanting to express an Irish identity and a person wishing to express a British identity, within the context of the United Kingdom. That all came about as a result, as I said, of those successive agreements, but the seeds of the issue in relation to UK passports were sown in 1949, when what is now the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth.

At that stage, legislation was passed to allow people who previously had lived in what is now the Republic, and had moved to Northern Ireland, to be regarded as British citizens and to acquire a British passport. That worked fine for a number of years, because most of the people who had moved had moved prior to that date. But obviously, as the decades wore on and we got into the 1960s and the troubles in Northern Ireland emerged, more people who had been born after 1949 were moving from the Republic into Northern Ireland.

For example, if we take the beginning of the troubles, the period from 1969 to 1972, people who had moved to Northern Ireland because of disturbances and violence in the Republic were at that stage in their early or mid-20s. They were born in the period from 1950 right up to the mid-1950s. All of them—including their children—were born after 1949 and none of them was able to avail themselves of a British passport, unless they went through the expensive and time-consuming naturalisation process. Therein lay the problem, because as time wore on, more and more people were falling foul of the 1949 process.

I have in my hands a British passport and an Irish passport. We expected Governments to treat people who were owners of these passports equitably and not to deal with them in a partisan way that would result in someone saying, “Well, is this because I own an Irish passport?” or “Is this because I own a British passport?” I entered this House in 2001, and in June 2005 I tabled my first written parliamentary question, which was to ask the Secretary of State whether he would

“ensure that people who have resided in Northern Ireland for a certain length of time, but were born in the Irish Republic, can obtain a British passport at the same cost as those who were born in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 167W.]

The answer was a standard answer about the fee that was payable, and did not distinguish between whether someone was born in the Republic or in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I was minded, when my hon. Friend had a passport in either hand there, to think, “Which one is best?” Well, we know which one is best: the British one. Does he agree that one of the benefits is that people who designate as Irish can and do have the facility to apply for the greatest passport in the world—the United Kingdom one? There are people who want to have the protection of their local British embassy, yet they are being precluded from that due to a delay that is difficult to understand, so does my hon. Friend further agree that those in Ireland who designate as British must be enabled to have that British protection that we take for granted with no further delay?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Indeed, of the passports that I held, the British one was mine. The other one was not—I can reassure him of that. I acquired it temporarily for the purpose of this debate; I will hand it back to its rightful owner. My hon. Friend is right: we have at long last seen an end to the delay, and I will come to that shortly.

In July 2005, immediately after the non-reply that I got in June 2005, I attempted to drill down and ask about the distinction between those who had been born in the Republic and those born in Northern Ireland. The answer came from the then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office—now Mayor of Greater Manchester, no less—Mr Andy Burnham. He again indicated that the full fee had to be paid in order for someone who had been born in the Republic but moved to live in Northern Ireland in the past 60-odd years to acquire a British passport. That answer was given 20 years ago this month.

I should add at this stage that I live very close to the border—I was born there. I can walk to the Irish Republic. It is within five miles, so on a good, nice day, I can walk there in an hour or an hour and a half, depending on how quickly I walk. There are 280 crossing points along this uncloseable border, which we have debated in other contexts. The relationship between people who live in the Republic, but close to the border, and those who live in Northern Ireland is intense, because there is much that we share. Those who moved from the Republic to Northern Ireland cherish the fact that their Britishness is enshrined deeply within their family, their generations of service in the military and their loyalty to the Crown—to Her Majesty previously and His Majesty now—so they took great offence at having to go through this expensive process to get what they thought would be their right.

After July 2005, when I seemed to be getting nowhere, I succeeded in November 2005 in getting a private Member’s Bill, which ran into the ground, as most of them do. I then embarked upon a whole series of questions. I will not bore Members with them, but I asked a written parliamentary question in November 2006 and I raised the matter in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2008—from memory, Dr Murrison, you served with me on the Committee when we looked at this issue—in the Chamber in May 2008, in the Northern Ireland Assembly in June 2011, again in the House of Commons in June 2013, July 2013, March 2014, January 2015, March 2018, November 2018 and February 2019, and again in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in October 2019. We were struggling to get through the undergrowth of problems and bureaucracy in sections of the Home Office, to try to convince it that these people were entitled to a British passport.

Then we came to the 2020s. I raised the matter in September 2020, October 2022 and June 2023, and then my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) managed to secure a private Member’s Bill in April 2024, which brought us to where we are today. Thankfully, that got Government support and became law.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The timeline that my hon. Friend has outlined certainly highlights the number of years that he has been in this place. However, the Act must strengthen and not complicate the process. Does he agree that, currently, the practical outworking of the Act is complicating the process, particularly on the financial side?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I am just coming to. Even after my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East secured parliamentary support for his Bill, there appeared to be a delay. I raised matter again last September, and in January and May of this year. That brings us to today.

As I understand it, from next week, thankfully, we will have reached the point where people who qualify can apply to obtain a British passport, but the problem is the inequitable nature of the application.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mr Campbell]

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Division, the issue now is twofold. I thank the Minister for her assistance in getting a reduction on the standard naturalisation fee, from £1,735 down to a total of £853. The problem is that many people in Northern Ireland who can apply under the new system may well live next door or across the street from someone who wants to apply for an Irish passport, and that person will pay less than £100, while a person who qualifies under the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024 has to pay £853. I hope that in the very near future, after the Act has been implemented, the fee can be reviewed, because it is exceptionally exorbitant. I accept that it is a reduction on the full naturalisation fee, but we are talking about people who fully feel themselves to be British citizens. They have been British residents, British taxpayers and British voters for decades, and now they are being asked to pay a fee that is eight times greater than the fee that others have to pay.

The other outstanding issue is the ceremony fee. I can understand that some people will see attending a ceremony as a nice thing to do—I wish them well and hope that they will enjoy the event that they go to. They may regard it as an event to cherish and look back on. But there are others who would take deep offence at having to go through a ceremony to get a passport that they believe they are fully entitled to. No citizen in Northern Ireland who wants to apply for an Irish passport has to rock up to the Dáil and go through a ceremony to get it. They simply apply and pay the fee, and the passport arrives after payment has been received. Hopefully, the ceremony can be made optional or voluntary. I would not want to deprive anyone who wants to attend a ceremony of the opportunity to do so, but, equally, I hope that the views of those who find it deeply objectionable to have to do that can be taken into account and there will be no requirement for one, even if the fee for a ceremony is incorporated in the amount that is payable.

I thank the Minister for her attention thus far. I am glad that she is here today. I thank her for deliberating on the matter and getting us to the point we are at, but these two issues remain unresolved. We have come on a long, protracted journey—every time I switch on the television, whatever the topic, people always seem to be on a journey, and we have been on this journey for 20 years. We are now 95% of the way there. Next week, we will get over the line, but there are two issues outstanding. I hope that the Minister can respond explicitly today and tell us that they will be addressed in short order, but I suspect that she will have to go back to the Home Office. Either way, I hope that the issues can be reviewed and that we can get 100% satisfaction so that people are treated equitably in Northern Ireland whether they regard themselves as Irish citizens or British citizens. Many thousands of people were inadvertently born 2, 3 or 4 miles away from where us UK citizens were born in the UK and long to be regarded in the same way as I and everyone in my immediate vicinity is regarded—as a UK citizen—and to be the proud holder of a cherished UK passport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison.

I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing this debate about the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024. I am grateful to him and to others who have campaigned on this issue, notably Lord Hay of Ballyore and the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I also commend the hon. Member for East Londonderry on his long history of engagement; I found it very interesting and helpful to hear how he has progressed his arguments throughout his time in the House.

I note all the contributions so far and thank all Members who have contributed to the debate today. I put on the record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Belfast East, who is not here today, for his steps in bringing the Act before the House in December 2023. His constructive engagement with all parties has been extremely important in bringing the passage of the Act to its conclusion. I was also grateful to meet him earlier this year, when I said that I would do my best to try to ensure that we commence the Act before summer recess. I am extremely pleased that we have been able to do so and I am also very happy to continue our engagement on it.

Last week I was in Northern Ireland, where I was pleased to announce the commencement of the Act, which introduces a new section into the British Nationality Act 1981 to make it easier and cheaper for Irish citizens living in the UK to become British citizens, and it applies across the whole of the UK. The 2024 Act strengthens the relationship between our nations and recognises our shared history, geography and cultural links. While I was in Northern Ireland, I had the opportunity to speak to Cool FM and to The Irish Post to highlight the commencement of this historic piece of legislation.

I have spoken to many people who said they wanted to see us commence this Act because of how it recognises those shared cultural, historic and geographical connections. However, it is also important that Irish citizens who want to become British citizens should have a simpler pathway, which recognises that Irish nationals are treated differently from other nationalities for immigration purposes, as codified in section 3ZA of the Immigration Act 1971. Again, that must be viewed in the context of our historic relationship.

The new route represents that unique relationship between our two countries and builds on the common travel area arrangements that have benefited citizens of both nations for decades. It will enable eligible Irish nationals who have made their home in the UK to participate fully in British society while maintaining their Irish citizenship.

The Act that was introduced into the House of Commons by the right hon. Member for Belfast East initially sought to allow for people born in Ireland after 31 December 1948 to register as a British citizen if they had acquired five years’ residence in Northern Ireland. However, the previous Government and Home Office officials worked alongside the right hon. Member to expand the scope of the initial act to cover Irish citizens of any age.

The Government were pleased to continue the work of the previous Government in commencing the Act following the general election in July last year. Like the previous Government, we wholeheartedly support the underlying principles of the Act and have given due consideration to its different components.

[Mr Campbell]

Does the Minister agree that one of the incongruous parts of the legislative process is that when the Bill, which is now an Act, was being negotiated in the other place, Lord Hay, who she referred to, was part of the process of it becoming an Act despite the fact that, although he could vote on it, he could not acquire the passport? Indeed, he was trying to get the legislation passed to allow him to obtain one.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. Indeed, he shared that when we met earlier this year. That was a helpful discussion, filling in the legislative and debate history as well as the personal history that contributed to where we have reached.

Hon. Members may be aware that the total cost for an adult to naturalise as a British citizen is £1,735, and the cost to register a child as a British citizen is £1,214. We agreed that those were not acceptable fee levels for applications made under the new route. Under the provisions of the new route, and in the context of a challenging fiscal climate, the application fee is 50% below that for other nationalities. It is £723 plus the citizenship ceremony fee for adults, which brings it to £853, and £607 for children. The fees for children can be waived if they are in the care of the local authority, or if it can be demonstrated that their families cannot afford them.

The new fees represent a substantial saving for Irish citizens resident in the UK who wish to become British citizens, and contrast with other fees associated with citizenship. The previous Government’s opinion from the Act’s passage through Parliament was that fees should be applied, subject to the usual process for establishing fees and charges for border and migration services. We believe that continuing the work in that spirit is the correct pathway for making the new route operational.

The Act extends across the whole of the UK. The decision on a fee, although recommended by the Home Office, is not solely a Home Office decision. The decision must be financially viable across the entirety of Government. It recognises that, although the route is easier, simpler and cheaper for Irish citizens, the checks and operations that are still required contribute to the costs of the migration and border system, as reflected in the fee.

I would like to make a couple of points about questions put by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The citizenship ceremony is an important part of the British citizenship process. British nationality law requires all successful adults for naturalisation or registration as a British citizen to take an oath and pledge at a citizenship ceremony. They will also get the certificate needed for a passport application at that ceremony.

The hon. Member asked where citizenship ceremonies take place in Northern Ireland. They happen in Hillsborough castle or at Lagan Valley Island and are presided over by one of Northern Ireland’s eight Lord Lieutenants. I hope that is helpful to him in understanding some of the ways in which the operational side happens in Northern Ireland.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, not just in Westminster Hall today but their work leading up to now. I am extremely pleased to announce that the new provisions set out in the Act will commence on 22 July. I reiterate our support for the underlying principles of the Act and our continued acknowledgment of the shared history and geography of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with our friends across the Irish sea. We meanwhile look forward to welcoming applications from eligible Irish citizens via the new route in the near future. I look forward to continuing discussions with the hon. Member for East Londonderry and others as we move forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Workplace Pay Gaps

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for leading today’s debate. She has worked incredibly hard on this issue. It is good that we can discuss its effect across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I wish to add a Northern Ireland perspective to the flavour of the debate, and to give some examples from Northern Ireland of where there has been a shortfall, where it has been addressed and what we can do better.

With regard to geography, ethnicity, gender and so on, the UK has witnessed, in the past and presently, pay gaps in certain industries. This debate is important to get a full perspective on the situation in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For example, there was a large disparity in teachers’ pay in Northern Ireland, which coincided with the failure of the Northern Ireland Assembly to meet for some time. There was a clear problem of unfairness to teachers working in Northern Ireland. In April last year, a formal offer on teachers’ pay for 2021, 2022 and 2023 was accepted by Northern Ireland’s five main teaching unions. The pay settlement agreed by the Teachers’ Negotiating Committee included a clause on a starting salary of £30,000 for teachers in Northern Ireland.

That is really important because for too long the teachers in Northern Ireland had lagged behind in pay negotiations and pay awards. That 24.3% increase in starting salary is to be warmly received and it makes that salary equal to England, as it should have been for a long time. The title of this debate is “Workplace Pay Gaps” and those are for both males and females, although I will refer to where women have been disadvantaged in other ways, but there should be absolutely no pay disparity anyway. Equality for teachers in Northern Ireland has eventually been achieved after four years. It is absolutely to be welcomed, but waiting on it for four years is hardly fair.

Additionally, there have historically been issues in Northern Ireland and further afield in the United Kingdom regarding the pay gap between men and women. The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has revealed that, as of 2023, the overall gender pay gap in Northern Ireland stood at 7.8% in favour of males. The hon. Member for Brent East referred to that issue, and I thank her for it. It has to be addressed by companies across Northern Ireland.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) have both alluded to the gender pay gap. Whatever the justification or otherwise might have been 30, 40 or 50 years ago, when there were different roles in society for males and females in employment, does my hon. Friend agree that those days have long passed? There must now be no distinction of any kind, whether it is based on gender or on any other differential. There needs to be pay equality right across the spectrum.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree. For instance, apprenticeships are available at Thales in the armament and military production line in Belfast, and young girls and ladies have the same opportunities as young fellas and men. The same applies at the shipyard and at engineering firms across Northern Ireland, especially in my constituency. I have seen the advantage of those apprenticeships. My hon. Friend is right to raise that point.

For every £1 earned by men, women earn only 92p. That has to be addressed: we need wage equality. Where employers are perhaps reluctant to provide it, the Government need to step in legislatively. The gender pay gap favours females when we consider full-time and part-time employees separately—there are gaps of 3.5% and 1.7% respectively—so there are some anomalies to be addressed.

The gender pay gap has narrowed over the years. It has decreased from 22.4% in 1987 to 8.7% in recent analysis: over 27 years, there has been a great drop in the disparity. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) compared the historical position with where we are today. I believe that the trend reflects ongoing efforts towards gender pay equality.

UK-wide, we have witnessed further pay disparities that certain ethnic minority groups experience in comparison with white employees. The hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) was absolutely right to highlight that clear gap, and the clear evidential gap to be addressed. For instance, in the 10-year spell between 2012 and 2022, black, African, Caribbean and black British employees consistently earned less than their white counterparts.

Furthermore, studies by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency have identified pay disparities between disabled and non-disabled employees in Northern Ireland. I think the hon. Member for Brent East referred to that disparity in her speech. Goodness me! If they are doing the same job to the same ability, they should be getting the same pay. There should be no disparity just because someone happens to be in a wheelchair, have a visual or hearing disability or have a mobility issue. That cannot be ignored. For example, employees reporting fair health, which is a proxy for disability, experienced a gender pay gap—wait until you hear this one—of 16.8%. Those who reported very good or good health experienced narrower gaps of 8.1% and 8.4% respectively. There is a real gender pay gap for disabled people.

Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea whether she has had any discussions with the Minister back home. There is no doubt that much progress has been made in addressing these issues, but there is still a long way to go. There is significant work to be done to ensure full pay equity across all demographics, not just in Northern Ireland but further afield in the United Kingdom. Has the Minister had a chance to raise that issue with the Northern Ireland Assembly?

There is hope that legislation can be introduced to address these issues. I look to the Minister today for a commitment to ensuring that they are resolved. I understand that many of the issues are devolved, but the Government here have a responsibility, centrally, to ensure fairness in pay across all employment sectors.

Register of Children not in School

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) for bringing forward this debate. We had a wee chat beforehand to discuss our thoughts, and she and I are very much on the same page in what we are trying to achieve.

As you know, Sir Christopher, I always give a Northern Ireland perspective; I think that it adds value to the debate. I know the Minister does not have responsibility for that, but the idea is to support the hon. Member for Meon Valley and give some examples and stats about what happens in Northern Ireland. This issue is really important. I have many constituents—I suppose when we add on the education numbers it is perhaps not that many, but I will speak about the figures later—who come to me who want to self-school. There are issues that occur through that, so I am pleased to be here.

Education is an essential component of every childhood. Some of my fondest childhood memories are those in the schoolyard in Ballywalter. Some Members may ask whether I can remember that far back. It was a long time ago, but I remember with fondness Ballywalter Primary School in the early ’60s, so I can give my perspective. I would refer to it as a rite of passage. My parents were determined to send me away to boarding school, as they did, when I was 11 years old. I remember it quite well. That was a big decision for my parents, because ultimately it meant that they could not have a holiday, and had to keep their old banger of a car forever and use their money to educate me. I am eternally grateful to my parents for making that happen when they were on a financial budget that made it increasingly difficult.

Boarding school, by its very nature, can make you or break you. My brother also went there, but unfortunately he did not like it. He left after about a year and a half. I did my five years. It was almost like a penance, but I loved it. I would never send my children to boarding school, by the way, just for the record, because it can build you or bring you down.

I have watched my children go through school, enjoying their formals and school trips, and now my grand- children—six of them, of course—are waiting to see what schools they get into after their transfer test. It is all very exciting, but incredibly worrying as well. We want the best for our children and grandchildren; that is what parents and grandparents do. However, I am also aware that that is not the journey that all families follow. The hon. Member for Meon Valley has set that scene, and I am going to give some examples of what they have to go through.

I know of several families personally who have made the decision to home school—I say these things very gently, but I think that they have to be said—due to the increasingly secular manner of teaching. One parent said to me that if they want their children to go to school, they have to accept that they do relaxation yoga, mimicking sun god poses, and that they are taught in a manner that they do not agree with. That family considered sending their child to a small private Christian school due to concerns about the push of ideologies in schools, yet the cost was prohibitive and it could never happen, so they are now in home schooling.

I was able to put that family in contact with a group of home schoolers. One idea that I want to put forward to the hon. Lady and the Minister is that some home schoolers can collectively work together. They may be on their own when they are at home at school, but collectively they can come together to do things. To give an example, in my area of Strangford, home schoolers collectively are able to undertake trips to places of interest, such as the council chambers and local museums. When I asked parents what they had to do to register their children, they told me, “We are asked for nothing.” I think it is important that there is a register, and it does not seem to be the case in Northern Ireland as far as I am aware. Many people are registered, but not everybody is, and I will give some stats later that illustrate that only too well.

Parents said to me that they told the GP that their children were not going to school, and they get their injections and dental checks at home, through the GP surgeries or through the dental practices rather than school. They are not neglected for any health issues, so it is important that home schooling does not deprive children of any opportunities and safeguards. However, they have no support and no help, and there is no register. That is where we are.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that wider society understands the distinction drawn by the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), and by my hon. Friend himself, between the very small number of children who have been, and may well be, at risk because of neglect shown by parents, and the very effective home schooling that is the choice of parents whose only concern is the future wellbeing of their children?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is absolutely right and has highlighted one of the issues that I wish to refer to as well.

In past years, home schooling was important to some people due to their health issues. In my capacity as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and latterly as an MP, I was able to make that happen—I helped people go through the process to have the self-schooling that they wanted. All those young boys and girls from those days now have very active adult lives because they got the opportunity of home schooling through their disabilities and medical issues.

Regarding the register, it is all well and good for the family who purchase their curriculum online and steadfastly teach their children in a structured way that suits the needs of the family. On the other side—and I mention this to the hon. Member for Meon Valley as an example— I was once approached by a local church asking for help to ascertain how it could ensure that a child who was attending its youth groups was being taught at home. That 10-year-old child could neither read nor write, and she told her leader in the youth group that her mummy did not believe she needed to do that. Therefore, there is unfortunately a need to have a register for the purposes of ensuring that things are progressing in the way that they should.

I wholeheartedly support the mechanism for children retaining the right to be home schooled, because I see the benefits of that. But I also believe that there should be help and support to ensure that children are getting the education that they need and deserve. I believe the first step is to create an online register so that someone is able to know that a child is being home schooled, and to monitor their progress. It is not about intrusion or about Big Brother keeping an eye; it is about ensuring that a child’s progress is happening in the way that it should.

The daughter of one of my staff members is a trained teacher who runs a forest school. This is another great example of collective home schooling that I often tell. She was recently vetted by Ofsted and received the level of outstanding, such is her talent and ability. She teaches children their early years development through nature, come rain or shine, and does a phenomenal job. She is registered and vetted; and the process works, and works well. Collectively, the school brings together all the children from families who home school them individually, and it teaches them well.

For that reason, I believe that children who are home schooled should have help and support to ensure they receive an education that will help them in the future. It is so important—and when we say that, we mean it. All the Members who are here, and many others who unfortunately could not make it, are convinced that the early years of a child’s schooling are vital.

While home schooling used to be obscure in Northern Ireland, the number of home-schooled children has steadily been increasing—indeed, it has trebled in the last five years. The stats are as follows: there were 287 children recorded by the Education Authority as home educated in 2017-18. That number had risen to 796 children in the 2021-22 school year—an increase of 175%. I do not know whether it was due to covid—it probably was partially—that home schooling became an objective for many parents. However, we think that the true figure is much higher, as parents are not legally required to register with the Education Authority if they want to home educate their child.

In 2021, a total of 710 children were recorded by the Education Authority as being taught at home. Three hundred and thirty nine were of primary age, and 371 were of post-primary age. In the most recent school year of 2021-22, that number rose to 796, with 329 children being of primary age, and 467 being of post-primary age. Clearly, therefore, parents have a deep interest in, and commitment to, home schooling.

To conclude, I just want to say how important this debate is. It is clear that we must begin to look at this matter to ensure that a register system is in place, although not for monitoring alone. It is not about breathing down somebody’s neck and ensuring that education is happening. It is about support, help and guidance and how we can make the situation better. Every parent has the right to provide education, but every child has the right to be educated, and we must ensure that that takes place.

Well done to all the home schoolers in my constituency, in that of the hon. Member for Meon Valley and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not something that I could manage; unfortunately, I probably do not have the patience, but well done to all those co-ordinated groups that meet to share information and experiences and work collectively. That engagement and interaction is a vital school in, and a vital part of, the home-schooling journey.

Financial Education in Schools

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered financial education in schools.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. Tip O’Neill was famously linked to the phrase “all politics is local”, but I can go one step further and say that this politics is personal, because I grew up with no financial education at all. I was given no education or instruction on how savings work or about interest rates. I was given no education about investment or what an individual savings account was—I had no idea. I did not know what pensions were; I had heard of them, obviously, but I had never been instructed on how they work, how to apply for one, what the options are, whether I should have a workplace pension, what a final salary pension is, what a defined-contribution pension is or what the differences between them might be—I had no idea.

I had no idea what mortgages were. I had heard of them, obviously, and I knew that people had them, but I did not know how to apply for them, the differences between an interest-only mortgage and a repayment mortgage, or what an endowment mortgage was—I had no idea. I had no idea about debt and debt management; I knew that I spent my money too quickly, but I did not know anything about debt management. If I got to a stage where I was in financial stress, as many people do during their lives, I had no training at all on how to manage that effectively.

I have children now—a 20-year-old who is just going off to university, a 17-year-old, and a 14-year-old. During the recess, I asked them whether they had received any financial education or training. Getting on for 40 years since my defective education, they have not received any education about financial matters at all, yet we know that that is a crucial part of our lives. A huge amount of research has been done by academics and the financial sector on how important financial training is for people’s ability to lead normal, high-quality, independent lives. I will go through a little of that research to give Members a flavour of it.

Cambridge University and the Money Advice Service did some work in 2013 in which they established that most money habits are embedded by the age of seven. They found that it was difficult to reverse those early-learned approaches later in life. If somebody does not have them by the age of seven, when they are at primary school, they are already on the back foot.

This year, Santander surveyed a large sample of adults in the UK, and 70% reported that better financial education would have improved their ability to manage their finances during the cost of living crisis. This is a real and present issue. Some 68% of adults think that financial education should be part of the primary school curriculum, so it has broad support from the general population. This is a real problem. I am not alone and I was not unique. I am the general public; I have not received financial education. That has a huge effect on people’s lives right now.

Back in 2021, GoHenry, Censuswide and Development Economics demonstrated at the very least a correlation between the financial education someone receives as a child and their later earning capability. Some 46% of those earning less than £15,000 had received financial education; among those earning between £55,000 and £65,000 a year, 77% had received financial education. It has also been demonstrated that if somebody receives financial education as a child, they save more into their pension pot. On average, people who receive financial education as a child save 44% more each month into their pension than those who did not. That is a startling statistic, and it is not just pensions, but savings more generally: of those who received financial education, more than 50% had saved more than £5,000 for a rainy day; of those with no financial education, only a third had saved that much.

I am sure Members are asking themselves whether that is correlation or causation. If it is causation the debate should finish now because the case has been made overwhelmingly for effective financial education in the school curriculum, but let us consider whether it is correlation. What we are really saying is that there is a middle-class secret to financial education and that those who receive such education at home get a huge leg-up throughout the rest of their lives. Even if it is correlation, it is the job of state education, universally applied, to overcome the deficit and level up so that we can close the middle-class leg-up and bring everyone up to the same standard.

I accept that the formal education system is not about proselytising—it is perhaps not appropriate for a teacher to say, “You must have a pension”—but it is about providing knowledge and information so that students can go on to make good decisions themselves. It is not the role of a teacher to say, “You have to do it.” I accept that. But where the outcome of a good decision is so profound both for the individual and for society it begs the question: how much of that knowledge should the education system focus on providing? A good decision in this area has a huge impact on society.

Let us look at the economy. In 2022, the pension wealth of this country was £5.4 trillion—in private pensions, not state pensions. Some 42% of all household wealth is contained in the pension system, 69% of which is invested in UK assets. If we made a small change in the amount of money going through the pension system, that would have an enormous impact on the level of productive investment in the United Kingdom economy.

Then we have the impact on mental health. We know that 11.5 million Britons have less than £100 in savings and that financial stress has a huge impact on mental health. I have had periods when I have been very worried about money. The worry is so profound that you cannot think of anything else. It dominates your life. We know that treatment for an individual mental health episode costs the state between £600 and £800.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on what would at any time in our recent history have been a timely debate. On the point about those 11.5 million people, most of them in the lower socioeconomic groups, does he agree that it is all the more important that teachers and those involved at the outset of people’s careers try to inculcate in younger people the need for and benefit of saving even small amounts initially, which build up to a long-term benefit in later years?

[Jerome Mayhew]

You are absolutely right. I will come on to the benefits of compound interest, which is part of the answer.

Apprenticeships: Government Support

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I asked permission, Mr Hollobone, in order to allow my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) the chance to speak.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) on leading the debate. Not long ago, I spoke in this Chamber in a Backbench Business debate on labour skills and shortages to highlight the importance of a sustainable and efficient apprenticeship programme for young people across the UK, so I am in full support of having more Government funding for apprenticeships, as the hon. Lady mentioned. I believe apprentices should be valued for their work, along with being paid equally and fairly.

It is always encouraging to see young people wanting to take up a skill, whether in mechanics, plumbing, the food industry or electrics. They are willing to devote their time, despite not receiving a great wage, to advance their skills and learn in combination with courses at technical college, such as the one in Newtownards, which is well used.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the unit being built in Coleraine, the £40 million Northern Regional College, will offer that type of facility? Such colleges are much needed, particularly in areas of high deprivation.

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do agree. My hon. Friend and I both have colleges in our constituencies that do marvellous work, and we want to commend them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. This Minister understands the issues very well and brings a wealth of willingness into his answers.

A constituent, who was recently in my office with his grandfather, took up an apprenticeship with a motor parts company. He was due to be paid by the employer to attend college one day a week, but he was never paid for that day. He has now been told by the Labour Relations Agency that he has no basis to claim that money back as he left the company more than three months ago. My constituent was unaware of that as it was not in his contract and, to this day, has not received the money he was owed for his one day a week at the technical college. What sort of employer would take that money off him? It is a clear example of young people doing their best to learn a trade and adapt to the world of work, but not getting their fair chance.

UKHospitality got in touch with me about those issues ahead of the debate. It states that reconsidering the working of the apprenticeship levy would help to ease the staffing crisis, benefiting employers, employees and the wider community. I support apprenticeships as a means of recruitment, retention and boosting productivity. It is important to acknowledge that some young people do not see university or further education as a way to advance themselves, but they do see the skills that could be learned through an apprenticeship. I sit on the board of governors for Glastry College. Some students come through who will never be educational achievers; they were always going to be guys who could do apprenticeships, boys who could get their hands dirty and make things happen. We have to look after them. The debate is about that and the hon. Member for Bristol South deserves great credit for bringing it forward, as I am sure many hon. Members will say.

In conclusion, such people would rather learn a trade and dive straight into the world of work and our education system should encourage that. I know the Minister agrees, as he has always said that in response my questions. Schools should offer pupils more support on the options they have, and that should start with us in Parliament giving our schools the funding and opportunities to do that.

School Exclusions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered school exclusions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and it is super to see the Minister and shadow Minister, and many other Members, here today. I want to thank the hundreds of members of the public who sent in responses for the debate, for their views and thoughts. I also pay tribute to the Select Committee on Education, the Children’s Commissioner for England and the many charities and organisations that have done so much in the relevant area. On the day after the Marmot review, it is timely that we should be looking at one element of inequality in society that is moving in the wrong direction, and that we need to try to shift: the increasing number of school exclusions.

Soon after I became an MP, a distraught mother came to my constituency surgery. Her son, who was on the way to being diagnosed as autistic—we all know how long the diagnosis can take—had been doing well at school, but when he had come back after half term lots of changes had been made to the classroom. He was unsettled by that and ended up demonstrating behavioural issues over a period of a week. He was permanently excluded from school as a result. He was five years old. I found it utterly extraordinary.

The boy’s mother had the wherewithal to come to her MP and find a charity to help support her. She managed to overturn the decision on appeal. She also happened to be a black woman. She sat in my surgery and said, “I do not want my son to be another one of those black boys.” It was horrifying, and I subsequently learned that it was not an uncommon example and that there is a huge problem. There has been a 70% increase in permanent exclusions since 2012, and just 1% of children who are permanently excluded get a good pass in maths or English at GCSE.

Of particular concern to me is the link to the epidemic of serious youth violence, which has left hundreds of young people dead on our streets in recent weeks. In Croydon there was a review of 60 cases of serious violence—60 young people who were either victims or perpetrators of crime. Of those 60 children, every one who was convicted of a crime had been excluded from school, and one in three had been excluded in primary school. We disagree on many things in this place, but I think we can all agree that our children deserve the best start in life, and that no child deserves to be left behind. I secured the debate because too many children do not get that start, and too many are being left behind. I fear that the draconian language coming from the new Government may make the problem worse, not better.

Today’s debate follows a report by the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime on the link between violent crime and school exclusions. We set up the all-party group in 2017 to develop solutions to the knife crime crisis. We had repeatedly been told anecdotally that school exclusions were contributing to a feeling of abandonment and hopelessness among young people vulnerable to crime. There is a correlation. Exclusions have risen by 70% as knife crime has reached the highest levels on record, but it is not enough simply to draw those parallels.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. On the point about the spike in figures, between 2000 and 2010 there seemed to be a welcome dropping off in the number of exclusions. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a fundamental re-examination of why there has been a spike in the past four or five years, to try to get figures down again, for the reasons she has articulated?

[Sarah Jones]

That is absolutely right, and the peaks and troughs in the numbers of school exclusions pretty much mirror those for knife crime. We need to understand why those things are happening and actively work to reduce the current peak in school exclusions.

The all-party group, supported by Barnardo’s and Redthread, spoke to young people across the country who had convictions for knife offences. They told us that being excluded had left them with more time to spend on the streets, getting into trouble. We sent a freedom of information request to local authorities, to get a better understanding of the state of provision for children who are excluded. The research revealed a crisis in support for excluded children. We analysed evidence from organisations such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and The Difference, charting the worrying rise in off-rolling and “grey exclusions”, and from the St Giles Trust, whose work with victims of county lines exploitation drew a direct link to those who were excluded from school.

We know that the public are concerned about the issue. Barnardo’s polled the parents of children under 18 and found that three quarters believe that children who are excluded are more at risk of involvement in knife crime. Children have not got 70% naughtier since 2012; something has gone wrong, and it is leaving vulnerable people exposed to involvement in crime. My hope today is that the Minister will listen to the evidence that the all-party group has collected, and the testimony of other Members in the debate, and agree to take some of our recommendations forward.

I will quickly look at the statistics. The latest set of data is for England in the year 2017-18, when there were 7,900 permanent exclusions—that is the 70% increase that I mentioned. The highest levels were in Redcar and Cleveland, and the highest levels for fixed-period exclusions were in Hartlepool. Half of all excluded children have special educational needs, yet support for special educational needs has undergone some of the biggest cuts. According to 2019 figures, it is estimated that there have been cuts to SEN funding of 17% per pupil since 2015. The SEN type most affected by exclusions were people in the social, emotional and mental health categories.

History Curriculum: Migration

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

My favourite fact is always that in Pennsylvania in the 1920s there were more Welsh speakers than in Wales. That came from Welsh migrants going to West Virginia and Pennsylvania to work in the mines. We also have the famous colony in Patagonia, which was set out in the famous novel “How Green Was My Valley”.

We need to be a bit braver about our history, about our history as an island race, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said. We have to accept that slavery happened. We talk about it a lot when we talk about American history. We touched on it a lot when I was at university—

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman indicated that we should be a bit more brave in remembering our history. Does he agree that it is sometimes regrettable that in recent years we have seen student campaigns in a small number of educational establishment to remove links to Rhodesia, for example, because of the perception of what happened there? Is it not much better to recognise and acknowledge that those things happened, whether we agree or disagree, rather than trying to obliterate them, particularly in seats of learning?

[Chris Evans]

That is the whole point of this debate: we cannot whitewash our past. These things happened; we should recognise them, and we should learn lessons so they never happen again.

The Department for Education itself said in 2014 that the teaching of Britain’s involvement in the slave trade was considered patchy. We should accept that for well over 300 years, whether we like it or not, Britain played a leading role in forcing Africans on to slave ships for transportation across the Atlantic ocean. It is not just America that has to take the blame for the slave trade; it is this country. When Britain abolished slavery in its colonies in 1830, it paid the slave owners financial compensation. The enslaved people themselves received absolutely nothing—okay, that was a long time ago, but there were 46,000 slave owners, and 3,500 lived in Britain. Those are truths that we should not be afraid to address.

In response to the earlier intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I made a point about not understanding history until I got to university and studied it in more depth. I understand Dr Deana Heath, who teaches southern Asian, imperial, colonial and global history at the University of Liverpool, when she says:

“I face an uphill struggle at the start of each new academic year. Many of the undergraduates who greet me know virtually nothing about any of the subjects I teach.”

When I went to university to study history, I was one of those undergraduates. It was not just Irish history that I did not know about; it was British history, and the terrible record of the colonies.

This issue is really important, so I have two asks of the Minister. First, I hope that he takes seriously the idea of putting oral history at the front and centre of the curriculum. Secondly, although we have a great history, we should also shine a light on those things that are uncomfortable for us, because if we do not learn from those mistakes, we run the serious risk of repeating them. I urge the Minister, who I know is a good and thoughtful man, to take those points on board.

International Men’s Day

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Men’s Day.

It is a privilege to lead this debate. I thank the Members of all parties who have shown their support for it by being here today, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has led debates about International Men’s Day in the last two years.

International Men’s Day, which is on 19 November, is now marked by 70 countries around the world and has been part of the annual events calendar in the UK since 2010. Its objectives, which apply equally to all men and boys, include the promotion of role models, a focus on male health and wellbeing, the improvement of gender relations and gender quality, and the creation of a safer world for us all. In the UK, International Men’s Day takes a gender-inclusive approach and therefore believes in ensuring that issues affecting women and girls are resolved, too. The themes in the UK this year are: making a difference for men and boys, and how we can give men and boys better life chances.

I stress that International Men’s Day is international. Although I am sure we will speak a lot about matters in the UK, we should not forget the challenges affecting men and boys around the world, which include boys having to be soldiers and the targeting of men, which we have seen in the conflicts in the middle east. That is not at all to forget what happens to women and girls. We must remember what is going on around the world, but I will concentrate on the situation in the UK. There is so much to talk about. All I can really do is skirt across a number of issues, but I know that hon. Members will go into other areas in more depth, and I welcome their remarks.

I will start with role models. I would like to recognise the huge number of men in the UK who work positively every day for their families and their communities, and who actively promote equality not just in their words but in their actions. People often ask, “Where are the male role models who can inspire other men and boys?” The answer is that they are in every community, but they often need to be encouraged to share their experiences—their difficulties as well as their successes. By their very nature, good role models are often reticent to speak about themselves and often do not even recognise themselves as role models. They think they are just doing their best, often in difficult circumstances. I think of a close friend who, as a leader of an organisation that works with hundreds of young people in north Staffordshire, is a great role model. He would be the last person to recognise himself as a role model, but he is, including to me.

How can we support such people? I suggest that promoting people publicly as role models is not necessarily the best way, and it is certainly not the only way. Everyone has their failings, and some of the media like nothing better than to raise someone up only to knock them down when they turn out to have feet of clay, as we all do. However, supporting the work of genuine but often unassuming role models who have a positive influence on men and boys and on women and girls can be really effective.

It is not difficult to identify them. Ask most local councillors, community workers, police officers and police community support officers, and they will know people who are great role models on the ground. We should see how they can be supported in their work, and perhaps supported to expand it. I have seen great and lasting work in my constituency and elsewhere by people in the scouting and guiding movements, boxing clubs and Duke of Edinburgh’s award groups, as well as by open youth groups run by committed professionals and volunteers.

The Government’s answer to problems is often new initiatives involving new organisations, which are given substantial sums of money but fold when that money runs out. In my opinion it is much better, where possible, to help existing people or organisations that have a proven track record over many years, but they are often the last to be considered for support.

I turn to health and wellbeing. Men are more likely than women to die prematurely; one in five men dies before the age of 65. Mortality under the age of 75 from cardiovascular diseases is twice as high among men as women, and it is three times as high among men for diseases that are considered preventable. Mortality before the age of 75 from cancer is almost twice as high among men as women, and it is 17% higher in cases of preventable cancer. There is so much more work to do to improve men’s health.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that one of the issues is improving male awareness about health? If the television breaks down, we men get the TV repair person in; if the lawnmower is not working, we take it to the gardening shop; and if the car breaks down, we take it to the garage, but we seem to be reluctant to go to our GP when we are suffering from a mental or physical health issue. We need to ensure that everybody—but particularly men, who have been reluctant to deal with personal health issues—goes to their GP or to the relevant health professional when they have such issues.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I totally agree; the hon. Gentleman anticipates what I was about to say. As he says, there is clear evidence that men are less likely than women to seek help when they are sick. That is certainly true of me. I have sometimes been reluctant to go to the doctor in case it turned out that I had something serious, as if the very act of seeking help would make it more serious than it was. I do not think it is just me. I did not want to confront the possibility of having a serious illness.

Good public health work has been done to ease people’s fears of seeking medical help if they think something is wrong—I think the NHS recognises that—but there is a greater need for health education, starting at school, to promote healthy lifestyles and to encourage people to consult their doctor early if they believe something is not quite right. I have recent personal experience; a close friend, who was not yet 50, had his cancer caught too late because, due to the nature of his job, he understandably attributed the symptoms to work-related stress when they were in fact much more serious.

Men should not worry that they will waste valuable NHS resources by going to their GP because they have unusual discomfort in their stomach, a persistent cough or problems passing water. Any NHS professional would prefer to allay their patient’s fears by showing that the problem is not serious—or, if it is serious, to catch it early and hence greatly improve the prospects of cure.

We have a serious problem with mental health among men and boys. Some 76% of all suicides in the UK last year were among men. That is 4,287 lives lost to suicide—more than two and a half times the number of deaths on the UK’s roads. The suicide rate has fallen in the last 35 years, and I welcome that, but the fall has been greater among women than men; it has fallen by 50% for women, which is wonderful, but only 14% for men. Suicide is the leading cause of death of men between 20 and 49.

The Samaritans commissioned research on the issues surrounding male suicide, which I will go into in some detail because they are so important. It found that men from the lowest social class who live in the most deprived areas are up to 10 times more likely to end their lives by suicide than those in the highest social class from the most affluent areas. This is undoubtedly a matter of inequality. Men in mid-life are most at risk, which surprised me. Men compare themselves against a masculine gold standard, to which having a job and providing for the family are essential, especially for working-class men. Men—I speak here from personal experience—are far less positive than women about getting formal emotional support for their problems, and when they do it is at the point of crisis. There is also a well-known link between unemployment and suicide; unemployed people are two to three times more likely than those in work to die by suicide, which is why combating unemployment is an absolute moral mission.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I do agree. It is important that the Supreme Court resolved this matter and gave us clarity on what should now happen, and it is now for Parliament to decide what to do next—and I am pleased to see that last night Parliament began to answer the question it had been posed.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

When the costs are eventually published, will the Minister ensure that the price that was exacted was for liberty and freedom from the bureaucrats in Brussels, against which it is very difficult to attach any cost?

[The Attorney General]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. This will be an expensive case, but the answer the British people gave should be respected and acted upon, and that, as I say, is now a matter for Parliament—it is no longer a legal matter—and I hope very much that Parliament will answer it clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I have set out my feeling that it is time we look at the guidance that is in place and how we can improve the teaching. That is the right thing to do. We will set out our next steps at the next stage of the Children and Social Work Bill, but we are already doing other things, too. We have already held our first advisory group on looking at updating our guidance on tackling bullying. Through that and the frameworks we have in place, we hope that we can help schools to develop improved codes of practice to combat bullying, too.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the Minister confirm that there is co-operation at a comprehensive level, particularly with uniformed organisations such as the Girls Brigade, as well as Girlguiding, to combat this pernicious aspect of the 21st century?

[Justine Greening]

Those sorts of organisations can be vital and incredibly powerful in changing attitudes and helping young girls in particular to understand that they do have a voice and should not accept this sort of behaviour. When I was at the Department for International Development, we worked very closely with Girlguiding on gender equality more generally, and I am pleased that that relationship can continue now that I am at the Department for Education.