Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Jones and David Mowat

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

14. The Cheshire and Merseyside sustainability and transformation plan relies heavily on more care in the community. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this will not work while local authority social care is being cut to the bone, because it will merely send people back to their own homes, where their health will deteriorate?

[David Mowat]

The Cheshire and Merseyside STP will be published tomorrow, and we will all know better then what it says. The hon. Lady is right that there is an interaction between social care and health, but she and I, as Warrington MPs, must both be pleased that Warrington is one of the top performers in terms of delayed transfers of care, and on that we should congratulate our local authorities.

Elected Mayors

Debate between Helen Jones and David Mowat

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this debate. It is better that we discuss the issues in this way than on “North West Tonight”. He started by saying that this debate was not about devolution, but it is about devolution, as well as about accountability for devolution. It appears from his remarks that he is in favour of devolution, which I am pleased to hear.

It is worth remembering the problem that the Government are trying to solve with this process. Secretaries of State already have all these powers, and the Government are going through this process because we live in a very centralised country—the power of Whitehall is unique. We see that in the gross value added performance of the regions versus London, with the difference between London and the north-west reaching its peak in 2009. Cheshire and Warrington has a local enterprise partnership and a strategic plan, and it is a relatively affluent part of the country, but its relative affluence has decreased over the past 20 years. All of us who represent the area should be concerned about that and should be considering ways to remedy it.

The fact of the matter is that our civil service is London-centric. Even now, London has higher public spending per head than any other region, including, amazingly, Scotland. That is revenue spend; on capital spend, we have seen IPPR reports stating that more is spent per capita in London than in the north-east and parts of the north-west by orders of magnitude. This measure is an honest attempt to fix that. If we proceed on the basis that we all want that, we can start to work on how we achieve it.

We have had two decades of failed regional policy, whether we are talking about the regional development agencies or whatever. The last Parliament started the devolution process with regional growth funds, the LEPs, city deals and growth deals. Some Labour Members opposed the process more or less at every stage—it is interesting that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) apparently still opposes the Manchester mayoralty. The Government therefore had to engage with local leaders such as Howard Bernstein in Manchester. In 2014, he said that there had been more progress on the devolution agenda in the previous two years than in the preceding 20, which is a good thing. It is good that we are continuing to try to make progress on that.

Devolution is asymmetric, and everywhere is a little different; it is complicated, but that is probably right. As we proceed with implementing the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, there will be more devolution. A clear principle of the Act is that the devolution has to be asked for. I am not here to support Government policy particularly, but the devolution has to be asked for. There is no question of doing something without consent, as we have just seen in Cheshire and Warrington—a mayor will not happen in 2017 because the local council has said that it does not want one. So be it. The council is accountable, and it needs to take responsibility for its decision, but to say that a mayor is being imposed is a little rich; it really is not true. The phrase “At the heart of devolution is democracy” has been used. That is right, and it seems a bit harsh to take the Government to task for wanting to have an election, but there we are.

We are going ahead with devolution in East Anglia, Liverpool, Manchester and various other places. The areas that are being devolved—skills, transport, health, housing and planning—are things on which local people want local representatives to have a say. It is absurd that decisions on, say, skills and the sorts of things that businesses in Manchester need are made by people in Whitehall, rather than Manchester. Exactly that principle applies to Cheshire.

It is true that accountability is a sticking point, because even in Manchester and Liverpool there has been an issue with elected mayors. I mentioned “North West Tonight” at the start of my speech; I saw Joe Anderson, the Mayor of Liverpool, on it. He was arguing with a Labour party colleague who was against elected mayors and he said, “Why should Secretaries of State devolve large chunks of their powers to committees of local authority leaders who might meet every so often?” Joe Anderson put that well. There has to be accountability for the aspects of power being devolved from Secretaries of State. None of this makes any difference to the powers of a local authority—there is no upwards devolution, or upward movements of power to the Mayor—but there is accountability. Apart from anything else, the National Audit Office will not let the Government devolve this stuff, or will give the Government a hard time, if there is not clear accountability for that responsibility.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The National Audit Office does not make laws; the Government do. The Government can legislate for what they want to do.

[David Mowat]

That is correct. The Government can and should do what they want. My point is that we are talking about transferring power over hundreds of millions of pounds from Secretaries of State, and it is reasonable that the Government and the National Audit Office, as part of the process of government, should take an interest in ensuring that there is clarity about accountability.

Accountability works both ways. Just as the Government are right to impose or request accountability, those who decide that they do not want these powers, or who do not wish to ask for them, are also accountable. Warrington Borough Council, my own council, has voted down the proposal, which is completely its right. The council has an elected mandate, and the Government will not impose the measure, because it must be asked for. All I will say is that those people involved are also accountable to their constituents and to their region, with all that goes with that. If they have missed an opportunity, they are accountable for that, too.

Education Policies (Warrington North)

Debate between Helen Jones and David Mowat

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Rosindell, to serve under your chairmanship. It is a pleasure, also, to see the Minister in his place; he and I used to serve on the Select Committee for Education and I know that he has a genuine interest in education. I hope that he will take seriously what I am about to say.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the impact that the Government’s education policies are having, and will continue to have, on my constituency. In truth, however, the Government’s decisions and their cuts to the education budget will seriously hamper the life chances of many young people in my constituency, especially the poorest.

The borough of Warrington does not rank high in the indices of deprivation. It contains some affluent areas, but it also contains areas of multiple deprivation. Many of the poorest wards in the borough are in my constituency—indeed, they are among the most deprived in Cheshire—and it is those areas that are now being hit.

The cuts began with the Government’s decision to cancel the Building Schools for the Future project. As a result, two schools in my constituency—William Beamont high school and Lysander high school—saw their hopes of new buildings disappear rapidly over the horizon.

We opened one new school in my constituency under the BSF project. It was Culcheth high school, and I went to the opening in the autumn. It is a fantastic building, and it will enhance the opportunity for teaching and learning in the area, as well as providing more facilities for the community. It is so good that Warrington’s cabinet executive member for education, Councillor Sheila Woodyatt, called it the best thing to happen to Culcheth in 100 years—and she is a Conservative. It is sad that some of the more deprived areas in my constituency will not have the same opportunities.

The BSF project was cancelled without properly assessing the need to rebuild in certain areas. Indeed, I asked the Department what assessment it had made of the need for rebuilding at a number of schools in my constituency, but it took a long time to answer. I asked the question in July; I received the answer on 26 October. The answer made it clear that no real assessment of need had been made before cancellation, yet BSF would have given us £80 million to rebuild Warrington’s schools. That sum would have enabled the rebuilding of William Beamont high school and modernised Lysander high school. Those schools serve some of the most deprived areas in the borough. They serve wards where many have low incomes, and where an increasing number of people are unemployed. Above all, they serve areas where many have no qualifications, yet those schools have done a fantastic job in increasing aspiration and improving educational outcomes.

William Beamont is a specialist sports college with a second specialism in IT. Lysander high school is another specialist school. William Beamont has increased the number of children getting five good GCSEs; it has cut its exclusion rate, and it has increased attendance. Lysander school has exceeded its targets for improving its GCSE results, and it has also exceeded the council’s targets. They did all those things in old and unsuitable buildings. I ask the Minister to imagine what could be done if they had decent, up-to-date facilities.

Facilities matter. Conservative members of Warrington borough council know that they matter. When the BSF project was announced, Councillor Woodyatt told the Warrington Guardian that she welcomed the difference that it would make not only to teachers and pupils but to the community. Her allies, the Liberal Democrats—Warrington, too, has a Conservative-Liberal coalition—trumpeted about the BSF money in their newsletter, saying that

“substantial sums of money have been secured to modernise our schools”.

They did not say then that it was not necessary, and they did not foresee any problems. They were glad of it. Now, however, those schools will have to bid again for money from a much-reduced capital spending pot.

The Government’s criteria in the Treasury’s Green Book for allocating that money are clear; they are population growth and modernisation. Deprivation is not mentioned anywhere. We know that population growth will lead to a bulge in primary school pupil numbers, which will necessitate the spending of more money. The Government also want to spend money on free schools and academies, thus depleting the pot even more. The Warrington schools will be bidding for money from a reduced pot, but experience shows that many of those that have already been given the go-ahead are receiving only 40% of what they expected. That is a huge slap in the face for the poorer communities in Warrington.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

I am sorry, but I have limited time and the hon. Gentleman did not seek my permission to participate in the debate.

The BSF cuts are not the only problem faced by Warrington schools. As I said, those two schools are specialist schools, yet specialist funding has been stopped. William Beamont is part of the school sports partnership, which hugely increased the number of young people taking part in sport in Warrington. That funding, too, is to be axed.

As for the overall settlement, we foresee further problems. The Government are keen to tell us that they are to increase spending on schools by 0.1% each year. However, that takes no account of the fact that the pupil premium, which we were told would be extra, is included in that settlement. It is not extra money. It also fails to recognise that the growth in pupil numbers will mean a reduction in spending per pupil over the next four years.

Those schools will be left in unsuitable buildings, with a decreasing amount of money per pupil. They will also have to suffer the problems caused by council cuts. Services that they used to receive from local councils are gradually being reduced, and they will have to purchase them elsewhere. I give one example; the council is already considering withdrawing IT support for schools. That would give rise to further problems.

I turn to the Government’s decision on the education maintenance allowance. Almost 2,000 young people in Warrington receive the EMA. That money has made a real difference to participation rates in education; £10, £20 or £30 may not seem much to some, but it allows the poorer families in my constituency to pay bus fares to college, gives young people money to buy lunch and is has helped some to buy stationery and other things that they need for their courses. Those are all things that the poorer families find difficult to purchase.

Reducing that allowance will make a real difference to participation rates in education, because the money has worked during the past few years; it has increased the number of students staying on and the number of students in my constituency who go into higher education. The number of students in my constituency going into higher education rose by more than half in the 10 years from 1999 to 2009.

It seems that we will get in return a fund that will be used by head teachers and principals. I have tried asking the Government what the criteria will be for the allocation of that money and I cannot find out. In the last Education questions, I asked whether head teachers had been consulted about this change and the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning was terribly courteous, but he just did not answer my question. He also did not tell me whether there would be an appeals process. So we do not know how that money will be allocated and it seems that we are moving from a system in which people receive money according to their income—as of right—to a type of “Lady Bountiful” system, in which money will be dished out by head teachers. Actually, I doubt that many head teachers want to do that.

What we do know is that the Government will be saving more than £500 million on the EMA, but they will be allocating only £150 million to the new scheme. That means a huge reduction in the cash available to the poorest students. Although the Government tell us that they want to increase participation and staying-on rates, they will the ends without willing the means.

At Warrington Collegiate in my constituency, 61% of students aged between 16 and 18 are in receipt of EMA and a third of the intake is from areas of multiple deprivation. Warrington Collegiate strongly fears that removing EMA will mean fewer students coming through the college.

Warrington Collegiate also faces another cut in its budget. It is clear from the comprehensive spending review that the unit costs for 16 to 19-year-olds will be reduced. Warrington Collegiate does not yet know how that reduction will feed through into its budget. It expects a cut of at least 3%. May I repeat that those 16 to 19-year-olds are the very people whom the Government say they want to keep in education?

To add insult to injury, the university of Chester, which has a large campus in Warrington, has seen 88.5% of its teaching funding go. That is all the teaching funding for group C and group D courses, and probably half the funding for group B courses. The university estimates that to fill that gap it will have to charge fees of £7,000. The university is vital to Warrington and its economic development and to the development of the Omega site, which is a huge employment creation site in my constituency. The university of Chester has done tremendous work with schools to increase aspirations and to get more young people from families where no one has been to university before to enter higher education.

The results of this decision to cut funding could be very serious indeed for the courses that are provided at the Warrington campus such as courses in creative industries, business, media and sport. It is fashionable to sniff at those courses, but the Minister knows as well as I do that most of the graduates from those courses actually get jobs. It will be a very serious matter for young people in my constituency if they can no longer gain access to that facility.

In effect, what we are seeing is a triple whammy. I have no time today to go into the axing of the programmes for rebuilding special schools in my constituency, or what will happen with the reduction in school support staff, or the further reductions in council services. However, we have seen the building programme cut, we are seeing funding cut and we are seeing support for students cut. The impact of those cuts on the poorest wards and the poorest families in my constituency cannot be overestimated. The Government tell us that we are all “in this together”, but these are the very people who do not have the resources to replace that funding.

I say to the Minister that that is wrong on two counts. First, it is wrong economically. We all know that in the future unskilled jobs will start to disappear, and that the future of this country is in producing a skilled and educated population. We cannot underbid other countries in wages all the time; we have to gain on skills. Without education provision, however, our skills will not improve.

Secondly, it is wrong morally. “Morally” is not a word that we often use in Parliament, but I believe that these cuts are wrong morally. It is morally wrong to penalise our poorest communities and our poorest families in this way.

I know that the Minister is a decent man and that he has a real concern for underprivileged students in education. I hope that he will listen to the case that I—along with many others in their own communities—am making, because if we do not get changes in this policy what will happen is very simple. Fewer of our young people will stay on in education; fewer will go into higher education, and this country will suffer for many years ahead as a result. Young people are our most precious resource. We ought to be caring for and husbanding that resource, rather than chopping it off.

There used to be a slogan among the teaching unions—I think that it was used at the time of the last Tory Government—that, “If you think education’s expensive, try ignorance”. I think that we are in danger of trying ignorance. The people in my constituency whom I have talked about today will suffer hugely as a result, and I hope that the Minister will give the facts that I have outlined serious consideration.