Draft Conversion Practices Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

I understand that the shadow Minister did not have my statement in enough time, but I am disappointed with the way that her comments have massively broadened and misrepresented the scope of the draft Bill. I would encourage people to look at the detail of the draft Bill, and the very specific thresholds that we have established, because it is beholden on us all to ensure that this conversation is based on real facts. I am also disappointed that the Conservative party, to which I gave credit for its commitment to equalities issues in the past, has found itself in the position of having promised for years that it supports a ban on conversion practices, but now sounds as though it does not. That is a grave shame.

The hon. Member asked some good questions, which I will attempt to answer. She asked whether such practices are already illegal, and my answer to that is no. There are two reasons for that. First, gaps in existing law mean that we cannot prosecute offences properly. With domestic abuse legislation, for example, or coercive control, the legislation is designed for someone who has a relationship with an intimate partner, and it would not capture an offence committed by someone they did not know. There are many such examples where there are gaps in the law. Secondly, it is important that we have a definition of conversion practice in law. As with other offences such as upskirting or non-fatal strangulation, a definition is important to help victims understand what has happened to them and be able to come forward, and for prosecutors to build a case. I am confident that there is a need to legislate in this area.

The hon. Lady asks about the evidence base for the use of conversion practices. I have just come from an event this morning, and a report published by Galop—I have it here today. It contains hundreds of case studies of people it has spoken to on its helplines over the past few years, and of the appalling abuse that is happening right now in this country. The examples I used in my statement were from those case studies—people being threatened with rape and assault; people being beaten because of their identity in an attempt to change them. The evidence is clearly there, and I say to the hon. Lady that one case of abuse is too many.

I also say categorically to the hon. Lady that the cases she mentioned steered widely clear of the remit of the draft Bill. For example, the case of a mother helping a child is categorically not captured under the draft Bill. The case of an exploratory therapist helping somebody to understand their identity, and taking time in asking supportive questions, is categorically not included in the Bill. A healthcare exemption is included in the Bill to ensure that we do not have a chilling effect on healthcare professionals providing this vital service to young people, and indeed any person—[Interruption.] They are legitimate questions, and I am answering them today.

The hon. Lady asked me about the pre-legislative scrutiny process, which will be a Joint Committee of both Houses. I look forward to it—I genuinely want to have cross-party and good conversations about the draft Bill, and I hope that Conservative Members engage with that process in good spirits, just as I intend to engage with it. She asked about the principle of informed consent. We are talking about a criminal threshold for an abusive practice that is in line with other forms of criminal abuse, for example domestic abuse. I do not think someone can consent to abuse. That is a fundamental principle, and it is right that it moves forward in the legislation.

The hon. Lady asked other questions about how, when the Bill becomes law, it will interact with other safeguarding requirements or guidance in schools. Those are all important questions, and we will, of course, address them in detail as the Bill moves towards the statute book. I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement, but I remind her that she says she stands against abuse, so I urge her and her party to think again. This Bill fills a gap in the law to stop the most abhorrent and pernicious abuse faced by LGBT people in our country, and I urge her to change her mind.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate the Minister on publishing this draft Bill, and I very much welcome the fully trans-inclusive ban on abhorrent conversion practices. Although the Bill will enable the punishment of those who carry out those abusive practices, its real value will be as a deterrent to stop anybody being subject to such practices in the first place. What plans does the Minister have to develop a real understanding of the Bill, particularly among communities where such practices are currently prevalent?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for everything she did when she held my role to get us to a position where we are now able to publish the draft Bill. She did a great service in her role, and I am grateful to her for it. She is right to say that the value of the Bill is a simple statement of intent and principle to the LGBT community: “there is nothing wrong with who you are, and it’s not okay for somebody to forcibly try to change you, to abuse you, or to harm you”. This place sends out that important message to the country, and to people who are in these terrible situations and feeling fear and shame.

LGBT+ History Month

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) not only for taking the initiative on this debate, but for making a fantastic opening speech and saying so much about our trans community that is so important. I will come back to that in a moment.

In this LGBT+ History Month debate, it is important not only to acknowledge how far we have come on LGBT+ rights, but to renew our determination to protect the progress we have made and to do more both here and abroad to enable LGBT+ people to enjoy the same opportunities that non-LGBT+ people enjoy.

I will not repeat much of the excellent speech that my hon. Friend has just made and will keep my remarks fairly brief. I welcome the fact that through amending the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government are moving ahead with making LGBT+ and disability hate crime into aggravated offences, bringing them in line with racial and religious hate crime. But changes in the law need to be supported by cultural change. Unfortunately, too often we hear of denigration, taunting and bullying of LGBT+ people, sometimes through ignorance but also, I am sorry to say, through open prejudice, even among those who we would hope knew better in our public services.

Research by the TUC into harassment, bullying and prejudice of LGBT+ people in the workplace revealed that over half of respondents, rising to 80% of trans respondents, have been subject to one of those. There should be no rolling back of equality, diversity and inclusion programmes, whether that is LGBT+ inclusive relationship education for young people in schools or in a public or private sector workplace. I am pleased that our Employment Rights Act 2025 gives formal recognition to trade union equality officers and has strengthened employer duties against harassment. That will certainly help, but we should be under no illusion that there is not still much to do. I know a lot of work has been done on the conversion practices Bill, and I appreciate that the Minister is absolutely committed to bringing it forward and ensuring that it is fully trans inclusive, but time is ticking on, and I would be grateful if she could tell us when she is likely to publish a draft Bill.

Turning to the trans community, I have met many trans people and their families this year, as I expect the Minister has, who have been deeply upset since the Supreme Court ruling last April—not just by the ruling itself, but by the way in which the ruling has been seized on by some, interpreted far more widely than the context of the Equality Act 2010 and used as a weapon against trans people. We must find a way to enable trans people to live their lives peacefully and with dignity without having to come out repeatedly in all sorts of circumstances. I ask the Minister to ensure that, however we get to the final guidance on the practical implementation of the ruling, it really does respect the rights of trans people to privacy and to living their lives in their acquired gender, and that it also offers protection to all those organisations that find themselves under attack for being trans-inclusive. We need to see guidelines that focus on inclusion and not exclusion.

Turning to the international scene, we all appreciate that there are significant financial pressures at this time, but I would like to make a specific plea to ministerial colleagues to protect the support given to LGBT rights programmes through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s foreign aid budget. In the great scheme of things, it is not a huge amount of money, but it is nevertheless extremely important for several reasons—first and foremost, because it is not just a minority rights issue. Sadly, we see attacks on LGBT+ rights around the world used as a weapon to undermine our democracies, sowing division and dividing societies, and such attacks are often as a precursor to attacks on wider minority rights and to greater authoritarianism.

I will not repeat all the comments I made in Monday’s debate about the interference of Russia in our democracy and politics, but research by the Kaleidoscope Trust and its international partners, alongside UK Government and Equal Rights Coalition statements, has shown that hostile states, such as Russia, systematically promote anti-gender and anti-LGBTI+ narratives, which are used to polarise electorates, mobilise nationalist and populist movements, and even undermine trust in institutions, such as NATO, the EU and the UN. That is a threat to us, but it is an even greater threat in countries where democracy is more fragile.

Secondly, the UK still commands respect abroad, and strong support from the UK for programmes supporting LGBT rights sends a clear signal to other donor countries of the importance of this aid. Conversely, the cutting of UK aid for LGBT rights programmes may influence other donors negatively. Thirdly, any retreat from supporting LGBT rights is likely to embolden those who weaponise them and to exacerbate existing difficulties.

I am pleased to hear that the UK will host the IDAHOT—International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia—meeting in 2027. I ask the Minister if we could use that meeting both to improve our position in the rankings and to support LGBT rights internationally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point. The national funding formula recognises that some schools are necessarily small and do not have the same opportunities to realise economies of scale. Every school receives a lump sum, irrespective of its size—£134,000 for next year—and the Government have reformed the sparsity factor, increasing funding for that from £42 million in 2021-22 to £98 million in 2024-25.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

17. What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of trends in the level of university applications from international students on the long-term sustainability of higher education institutions.

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)]

I am pleased that we have surpassed our target, with well over 600,000 international students. They remain an important source of income and a source of pride for our universities, and the total impact of international students was worth £37 billion across the duration of their studies.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As the Minister has just mentioned, the economic benefit of overseas students is some £37.4 billion spread between universities and economies across the UK, but applications in this UCAS admissions round are down. With increasingly stiff competition from elsewhere, UK institutions cannot simply rely on their excellent reputations, so what more can the Minister do to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place for international students to study?

[Robert Halfon]

As I said to the hon. Lady, we have something like 689,000 international students and our target is 600,000 a year. We are working very closely with Sir Steve Smith. We want to diversify to a whole range of different countries to advertise ourselves to international students but, as I say, the trends are good. The hundreds of thousands of international students who are here benefit our economy and provide an important source of income for universities.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I will try to keep my comments brief, as I can see the time racing by. I will make reference to Wales, but the issues are pertinent to all of us. This year, the Welsh Government are introducing a new curriculum that will have fully inclusive LGBT education for all pupils, with no right to withdraw. That is so important. We have all stressed that status is important, as is proper timetabling and training for teachers. We have the protected characteristics of the Equality Act; all of those in the LGBT community should be given respect. It is particularly important for children to learn how to relate and how to cope with peer-group pressure and bullying, particularly homophobic and transphobic bullying.

It is important that materials that present society as it is are part of the curriculum, so that children who come from same-sex couple homes do not feel that they are different or odd, and that means not just in the relationship curriculum but in materials across all subjects. Age appropriateness is important, and governors have the opportunity to look at materials, which is commonly done, and should be practised across the board. Parents should do the same, so that they can see exactly what is being presented. It is really important to remember that we do not live in a vacuum. In our day, it was just whispers in the playground and nasty bullying; now, it is a whole range of stuff on the internet, including pornography, plus massive bullying via the internet, through social media.

I am an ex-secondary school teacher. Children are going to bring things into school that we might not even know the words for, frankly, so teachers need to be prepared. They need to be prepared on how to combat that and how to discuss the issues. We need materials that are positive, down to earth, factual and not sensational.

[Robin Millar]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I will not, as I am so short of time—normally I would. We need to gradually increase the degree of explicitness, as is age appropriate. However, it is absolutely essential that the information is taught in context and that, if children raise issues about violent behaviour and different types of sexual behaviour, teachers can talk through the dangers and consequences. That is a valid discussion. Talking about a particular piece of material on its own is not necessarily the context in which it might be taught.

I would like to move on to the issue of trans individuals. Young people will know of or will have encountered trans individuals—they will certainly have heard about them. They need clarity, because there is so much transphobia out there. They need to have the topic talked about. It is perfectly valid to do that in a school context.

The idea that any young person even begins to think about themselves as trans on a whim is fanciful. It is a very long way from beginning to think like that to telling somebody, never mind going any further. Obviously, a teacher needs to know their limitations and be able to access professional help, counselling and interventions. It is not for a school to make any decisions about a young person in that way.

Children are exposed all the time to all sorts of materials and it is absolutely right and proper that, in a responsible way, those in schools listen, take things seriously and present down-to-earth, factual alternatives to some of the stuff they are being shown.

So let us be clear about this. The overwhelming majority of schools and staff, parents and governors, are highly responsible. If there are instances where inappropriate materials are used, those are the things that need to be dealt with. We should not take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I would be very wary of rolling back on progressive, fully inclusive LGBT education. We can call out individual problems that have occurred in individual schools in individual types of material.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

We are running slightly late. I call Stephen Morgan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the people of Taunton Deane are in a state of eager anticipation and high excitement at the prospect of a visit from the Minister.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Wales also offers opportunities for apprenticeships in forestry and horticulture, but employers and colleges in Wales are very concerned about how the apprenticeship levy will work. What recent discussions has the Minister had with Julie James, the Welsh Government Minister, and when does he expect the scheme details to be finalised?

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady asks a reasonable question. I had discussions with the Welsh Minister before the elections, which suspended matters briefly. There have been intensive contacts at official level not only between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Welsh, Scottish and other Governments on how the levy arrangements will work from a tax-raising point of view, but with my officials on how the levy will operate. We will publish more details before the summer recess.

Child Sexual Abuse

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Child sex abuse is the public health issue of our time, and it is about prevention, not just cure. It is vital that our view is driven by the science and not by the media. It is also vital that our efforts are focused through a national institution, and that is what we will debate tonight. This is about sparing generations of children—the next generation and many after—and not about prurient interest in celebrities, the BBC, racial stereotypes, or even politicians. The Government now have another opportunity to get a serious strategic grip on how we can combat and build out child sex abuse.

Creating a national “what works” institution to pull together the best practice and the strongest evidence on prevention of sexual abuse is the most important contribution that this Parliament and Government can make together. I first proposed the creation of a national institute to study and prevent child sexual abuse 26 years ago to the then Prime Minister Mrs Margaret Thatcher, and have done so repeatedly ever since. Now, after years of Governments of all parties being reactive and inactive, I am delighted to welcome real signs of progress. May I put on record my thanks to the officials and Ministers involved? One Minister, Lynne Featherstone, has now left us, but I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), in her place, and of course the Minister who will reply to the debate. Their contribution to this very serious issue has been second to none, and it would not have happened without them and colleagues in all parts of the House working together on it.

The breakthrough came in March when the Home Office, working with the Department for Education, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health, published this report, “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation”, which I strongly welcome. I commend the Government for looking to long-term solutions to this deep-rooted issue, not just quick fixes belatedly responding to specific crimes and expensive inquiries. In the report, they pledge to

“establish a new Centre of Expertise to identify and share high quality evidence on what works to tackle child sexual abuse.”

They should do so swiftly and with the support of absolutely everyone in this House. Why?

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Allen]

I am afraid that I have only 15 minutes to make my contribution.

I repeat: why? Let us imagine we had acted a quarter of a century ago—think of the body of work that a national institute could have produced by now on what works, what does not work, and what policies can be applied at lots of different levels in a multi-agency situation. We could have had an absolute treasure chest of things that would help us tackle child sexual abuse. Had we acted then, countless numbers of victims could have been saved from abuse and the development of thousands of potential perpetrators could have been prevented. The creation of a national institute is a chance for us to make a start now—to banish the feelings that we all have of powerlessness and anger and instead substitute a clear, practical solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Timpson]

We have heard now from two important regions of the UK. We have a shared purpose in ensuring that the knowledge we impart to all professionals, wherever they are practising in our country, is based on the best possible evidence. As part of that process, I would welcome any contributions from other parties and parts of the UK that want to learn from the work we are doing to ensure that we are not all trying to reinvent the same wheel.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the Minister agree that the institute might look at disclosure and barring service checks—how they work, who should be involved, to whom they should be extended—because in the past so often the failure has been from contact with people who have never been DBS checked?

[Edward Timpson]

I am not going to make that commitment on the Floor of the House now. I am not sure it is the purpose and remit of the centre, but it is an area the Government keep under review and I note the hon. Lady’s interest in the DBS system. I am sure it is something we will return to later in this Parliament.

The future funding of the centre will be determined at the spending review. The hon. Member for Nottingham North has argued passionately that investing in the evidence base will save money in the long term. Irrespective of the spending review—always dangerous words to put in the same sentence—my fellow Ministers across Government are determined that the centre will be not a short-term initiative but a long-term driver of practice improvement.

We are working across Government to explore what form the centre should take. We want to learn from the success of other organisations that have driven evidence-based practice, including “what works” centres, such as the Education Endowment Foundation, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Allen-inspired Early Intervention Foundation. We want to understand what has worked in terms of governance, funding and working with local areas, so that we can make the most of this endeavour and do it in such a way that everybody feels they are part of it and have invested in it as a long-term solution.

The centre will identify gaps in evidence, commission research pilots and evaluate local practice. It will, of course, need to learn from international practice, as I mentioned a few moments ago, as well as from what works across England and the rest of the United Kingdom. In all this, however, the centre will not succeed if it operates in isolation. It will need to draw on the expertise of academics, the voluntary sector, practitioners and local leaders. The centre will prove its worth only if it translates evidence into practice. Moreover, it needs to be fleet of foot and to be able to respond quickly to new and emerging risks to children, particularly as social media and technology evolve.

Across Government, we are already supporting projects that will help to build our knowledge in these areas. The £100 million Department for Education innovation programme, for example, is funding four areas to develop and test effective ways of supporting children and young people, including a secure children’s home in County Durham, which will test a model of support for young people who have been sexually exploited. Across South Yorkshire, we are testing the use of specialist foster carers to provide safe placements for young people at risk of child sexual exploitation. The outcomes of these projects will provide a good starting point for the centre of expertise.

Establishing a centre of expertise for tackling child sexual abuse is an ambitious and long-term plan. We know that addressing the gaps in our knowledge will not be achieved overnight. There is so much more we need to know before we can feel confident that every practitioner has the necessary tools at their disposal.

We need to prevent future abuse and to help those who have suffered so terribly, and it is for that reason that I am enormously grateful for the powerful voice that the hon. Gentleman raised on this issue this evening. I am grateful for the contributions from other Members, too. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his offer of advice, and I have no doubt that it will be followed up by a chance meeting at the back of the Speaker’s Chair in due course. As he has so eloquently argued, it is essential that we make the investment needed in this research now, so that in 25 years’ time we do not need to have the same debate again.

Most importantly, the centre is needed to help to protect vulnerable children and young people. We all know, both in the House and outside it, that the human cost of failing to do so makes this a moral imperative. I therefore hope that the House will unite behind this endeavour. It is going to be a long and committed piece of work that will put us in a much stronger position come the next election. By then, many more people should be working with children and feel that they are able not only to tackle child sexual abuse, but to prevent it from happening in the first place. That is the least we should do for the many vulnerable children who have not had that ready and available for them in their own lives. It is something that we need to tackle, and we are determined to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Lesser-taught languages

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick de Bois]

I pay tribute to them for their ingenuity and their willingness to try to solve their problem. That points to something I would like to say about the diaspora a little later, but I applaud their entrepreneurial and, shall we say, Conservative instincts to try to find a solution for themselves.

I am quite happy to respect the commercial sensitivity argument about not putting information in the public domain. However, as the Minister will see later, I am anxious that if he were to explore that argument with the OCR it would perhaps either provide comfort or expose as flawed the argument that has been put forward.

On the wider argument, does the Minister agree that the case for learning modern languages is very simple? The world is becoming even smaller. We are seeking to deliver on the Government’s pledge and target to build exports across the globe and to maintain strong trading arrangements with the EU. We will therefore need fluent, well-educated people to build our relationships with Turkey, Poland, Iran, Bangladesh and the other countries I have mentioned. We will need language skills to do business with many of those countries.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the exam boards have for a long time cross-subsidised the smaller subject areas? The key thing here is to increase the numbers of people taking the exams. We know very well that it is a huge step forward to go from speaking a language at home to working towards a qualification. We should be aiming to offer more children the opportunity to get a qualification that then makes them able to do the things he describes in the commercial world: to operate as adults, not simply as children who have a language at home.

[Nick de Bois]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Her work on the all-party group on modern languages champions the arguments for why we should engage with diasporas and capitalise on their contribution and their links, through the second and third generations, as well as making the teaching of these languages widely available. We could then turn around the reputation of Britain as a country that is not necessarily interested in other languages to one that champions such skills, so that we can return to and explore our roots as a trading nation. She makes the point about the advantages of the diaspora very well.

After five years in this place, I recognise that sometimes people are cynical about taking the word of an MP, so, shocking as that might be, I shall turn to some evidence that I hope the exam bodies will take on board. In 2013, the British Chambers of Commerce surveyed 4,768 companies, of which 70% responded that their access to greater exports was diminished by a lack of language skills. It is obvious, but it is good to have the evidence. UK Trade & Investment’s 2013 report, “The Costs to the UK of Language Deficiencies as a Barrier to UK Engagement in Exporting”, showed a staggering loss to British business of £48 billion in exports through poor language skills. I do not need a long education in mathematics to work out that this would be an astonishing return on our investment, if we could capture that £48 billion by continuing our investment in modern languages, including many of the lesser modern languages.

In case we need more convincing, I refer the House to the latest report from Professor James Foreman-Peck, of Cardiff business school, which, in 2015, showed convincingly that small and medium-sized enterprise exporters with strong language skills achieved far higher export-to-turnover ratios. That is the holy grail if we are to continue to drive our export business. It is simple. We require exam bodies to invest in the future by keeping and growing modern language courses, not cutting them back. On the point I think the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) was making, should we not be responding to the alleged concern about entry numbers for GCSE and A-levels, as in the case of Turkish, modern Greek, Polish and Bengali, with an attempt to reach more students by marketing the unique benefits of these courses? There is a vast audience out there waiting to take up the challenge.

First Aid Techniques: National Curriculum

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Julie Hilling]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. For me, it starts in schools. If only we could have—I will go on to talk about this more—a generation of life savers coming out of school. We have millions of people in the community who will not have had the benefit of being trained in schools. I applaud his organisations and the organisations in my constituency and across the country that do amazing work to raise money for defibrillators and for training individuals in how to do CPR.

Survival should not be down to luck. There are far too many other examples of people who suffer cardiac arrest and are not saved because the people around them do not know what to do: children such as Ciaran Geddes, who died aged 7; 12-year-old Oliver King; 16-year-old Daniel Young; or 17-year-old Guy Evans. Their mums are campaigning for defibrillators and emergency life-saving skills to be taught in schools.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Before I became an MP in 2005, I taught in a school where every single pupil in year 8 did a 12-week first aid course as part of their personal and social education. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the type of programme that should be implemented so that every single child coming out of school would have those skills?

Birmingham Schools

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I would make two points. First, the original Trojan horse letter, which as we know contained a number of facts and allegations that proved to be unfounded, was allegedly a letter sent to individuals in Bradford. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support in alerting me to some potential concerns. I know that Bradford council has taken them seriously, and I look forward to remaining in touch with Bradford—and, indeed, any other local authority that has concerns. The Department for Education is there to support and help if, for example, governors need to be removed and an interim executive board put in place. Secondly, as for what he tells me about Feversham college, I have no prior warning of any Ofsted inspections, which are quite properly an operational matter for the chief inspector unless I specifically request an inspection because of information that has been passed to me.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s failure to pinpoint these problems sooner makes it absolutely clear that he cannot micro-manage schools from Westminster. Will he now consider adopting a policy akin to Labour’s proposal for local directors of school standards, which would enable schools to be more accountable locally and would help to flag up these types of problems a lot sooner?

[Michael Gove]

No.

Free Schools (Funding)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Again, it is important that the House recall that under the last Government the provision of primary school places was cut, and under this Government it has expanded. At the same time as increasing the quantity of school places, we have raised the quality.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has allocated public funds to subsidise surplus places in under-subscribed free schools, while there is a shortage of school places in other areas. Will he now consider putting on hold plans for prospective free schools to open in September that still do not have applications for half their first cohort of places, and putting the money saved towards providing places where they are genuinely needed?

[Michael Gove]

It is important to acknowledge that money is going to providing places where they are genuinely needed. One thing I did not have an opportunity to point out earlier—[Interruption.] Let me give the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) these figures, which have been audited nationally. In Stoke-on-Trent under the last Government, £2.4 million went to new primary school places; under this Government, the figure is £12.4 million—three times as much. The hon. Gentleman is benefiting, not for the first time, from a Conservative Government being in place. I am confident that in due course we will find that all the free schools opening this year will be popular, and if for any reason they fail or falter, we will be quick to close them down or put them under new management.