Ofsted’s Work with Schools
Debate between Robin Walker and Kevin Brennan(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
A long time ago when I was a teacher at Radyr Comprehensive School and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) was a pupil there, we were inspected. It is a necessary part of the system but can be very challenging for all concerned. I very much welcome the—if I may use a single word—outstanding report from the Select Committee today and I am very disappointed that the Government have not accepted its recommendations. One is about extending the length of time before schools that are given an outstanding rating are re-inspected. Some years ago the Government had to row back from allowing schools rated as outstanding to go uninspected for as long as 15 years, with the result that on re-inspection more than 80% were downgraded. As we have heard over and again in the Chamber, that was a statistical fix to make it look as if there were more outstanding schools in the country. Is the hon. Gentleman confident that if the period were extended we could avoid leaving schools with a previous outstanding finding to languish uninspected when there are in fact problems in those schools?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, as he often does. When I became a Minister in the Department, one of the first questions I asked officials was whether that exception was still in place and whether if it was we could end it, and I was relieved to discover that my predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb) had already removed that “outstanding” exception. If he had not done that, I would have done so, because I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the length such findings were in place. That was clearly a mistake and it built up pressure in the system, which was deeply unfortunate in some circumstances. We have now gone back to a five-yearly cycle.
What we were querying was whether we could be more risk-based in our approach. All schools should be inspected on a regular basis, but we made the argument for good and outstanding schools to be inspected slightly less regularly, and for those which require improvement or are judged inadequate to be inspected more regularly, so that they have the opportunity to turn themselves around quickly.
I understand and respect the reasons why the Government might not think that that is appropriate and feel the need for a level playing field. They rejected that [art of the recommendation, but we anticipated that they might do so and therefore also recommended that they needed to help Ofsted make the case to the Treasury for the funding necessary to do all the inspections properly, particularly for schools in need of a turnaround—schools which know they need to improve and which need the resource and support of an in-depth inspection that engages with teachers across the board. That is the case we were making and I read the Government’s response as a partial acceptance of that case, albeit not one that puts us at any risk of returning to a situation where schools languish uninspected for long periods of time.
Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals
Debate between Robin Walker and Kevin Brennan(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Executive have always taken a responsible approach to working together in the interests of Northern Ireland. It says something that there is cross-community agreement on the importance of addressing this. It is therefore vital that both parties work as hard as they can to resolve the issue and make sure that the protocol delivers on what it promised about not impacting everyday life for people in Northern Ireland.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can I say to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) that it is not up to him whether Northern Ireland remains in the UK in perpetuity? That is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland under the Good Friday agreement.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Future Relationship with the European Union Committee on 8 October that border infrastructure in Northern Ireland would be ready for exit day, but the permanent secretary in charge of the project to deliver that infra- structure in Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has said that the project is unachievable and will not be finished until June by 2021. What is the Minister’s explanation for the difference between those two statements?
Mr Walker
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we continue to work closely with DAERA both at ministerial and official level to deliver the necessary arrangements. He will recognise that we are not talking about new customs infrastructure. We are talking about an expansion of existing facilities to make sure that we can meet the SPS requirements, and I think that it is something on which we can absolutely deliver.
Pat Finucane
Debate between Robin Walker and Kevin Brennan(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
I am grateful for your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Congratulations on taking the Chair. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this powerful debate. I see that the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) has just joined us and was unable to speak, but I am sure he would have made similarly powerful points.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) spoke passionately and poignantly on behalf of his constituents. I absolutely recognise the force and importance of his contribution. The murder of Patrick Finucane on 12 February 1989 in front of his family is one of the highest-profile cases from the troubles. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said, it is a shocking case in any situation. It was an appalling crime and it caused tremendous suffering. I acknowledge the tributes paid to Mr Finucane’s family and their quest for justice in this respect.
Previous investigations have made it clear that there was collusion in this case. That was totally unacceptable and the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, apologised publicly for what he described as the “shocking levels of collusion” that took place. I want to reiterate that apology today. This case is, sadly, but one example, as the hon. Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, of the violence and tragedy experienced by far too many individuals and families across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom during the troubles.
Members have referred to a number of tragic cases affecting far too many families, including the case of the Reavey brothers in 1976. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for the important intervention he has made on that matter, and I note that the Police Service of Northern Ireland Historical Enquiries Team found no wrongdoing whatsoever by Eugene Reavey in the incident that he raised.
Over 3,500 people were killed during the troubles, the vast majority at the hands of republican or loyalist terrorists. Many of those murdered were members of the police and security services, and it is only due to the courageous efforts of our police and security services that we have the peace and relative stability that Northern Ireland enjoys today. This Government are sincere and unstinting in their gratitude to those who served throughout the long years of the troubles to uphold the rule of law and democracy. Many hundreds of them, as we have heard, paid the ultimate price for doing so.
As the Government of the United Kingdom, we must be equally clear when the high standards to which we rightly hold ourselves and our service personnel have not been met. As hon. Members will be aware, the murder of Patrick Finucane has been the subject of a number of different investigations, some of which I will set out briefly. A major investigation into his death was launched immediately after the murder by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Responsibility for his murder was claimed by the proscribed loyalist paramilitary group the Ulster Freedom Fighters the day after the murder.
An inquest into the cause and immediate circumstances of the death was held on 6 September 1990. Between September 1989 and April 2003, Lord Stevens, the former chief constable of the Metropolitan Police, carried out three separate investigations into allegations of collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, the third of which—Stevens 3—was specifically into Mr Finucane’s murder.
As a result of the Stevens 3 investigation Ken Barrett, a loyalist terrorist, was charged with the murder of Mr Finucane. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in September 2004. William Stobie, a former RUC agent, was also charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Patrick Finucane, but the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the prosecution in the light of concerns about the mental state of a key prosecution witness.
As part of the investigation, the Stevens 3 team also investigated allegations that RUC officers had encouraged the murder by providing information about Patrick Finucane, that they assisted in the aftermath by removing a roadblock, and that they failed to act on intelligence in the aftermath of the murder in relation to the movement of weapons. The investigation also included the operational activity of the Army’s force research unit, reviewing and analysing all material relating to the FRU’s operational activity. The findings and recommendations from the investigation were submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in June 2007 the DPP directed that the test for prosecution had not been met.
A further independent review conducted by Sir Desmond de Silva, QC was announced on 12 October 2011. His terms of reference were to produce a full public account of any involvement by the Army, the RUC, the Security Service or any other Government body in the murder of Patrick Finucane. Sir Desmond had access to approximately 12,000 witness statements, 32,000 documents and more than 1 million pages of material produced as part of the three investigations led by Lord Stevens. He also sought and published a significant amount of additional material, including original intelligence documents, alongside his report. All relevant Government Departments and agencies co-operated fully and openly with his review.
The Historical Enquiries Team within the PSNI subsequently reviewed the content of the de Silva report to determine whether it provided any opportunities to progress the investigation into Mr Finucane’s murder. The investigating officer appointed to carry out the review concluded that there was no reason to review the decision of the Public Prosecution Service in 2007.
As we have heard, following judicial review proceedings the Supreme Court made a declaration that the state had not discharged its obligation to conduct an article 2 compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane; however, the court stopped short of ordering a full public inquiry, stating:
“It is for the state to decide, in light of the incapacity of Sir Desmond de Silva’s review and the inquiries which preceded it to meet the procedural requirement of article 2, what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement.”
Following the Supreme Court judgment, an independent review of previous investigations was commissioned by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), to help establish what steps should be taken to address the issues identified by the judgment. The current Secretary of State also met the Finucane family shortly after his appointment in February 2020.
The Secretary of State recognises the importance of reaching a properly informed decision on this matter and is committed to making that decision by the end of the month. That involves many complex issues, and it is right that he considers them all carefully. As the process remains ongoing, it is not appropriate for me to make further comment at this time. Although I am therefore not in a position to respond to all the specific points and requests made by Members, please be assured that I have listened carefully to them and they now form part of the public record.
Kevin Brennan
I am genuinely very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he tell the House how the Secretary of State will make that decision public when he takes it by the end of the month? Will it be in the form of a statement to the House, for example?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I assure him that we will seek to update the House as appropriate. Clearly, the first response should be made to the court and to the family, but I will pass on that point to the Secretary of State and urge him to make the decision clear to the House at the first opportunity.
A number of Members raised concerns about progress on wider legacy reform. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to addressing the legacy of the troubles in a way that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of reinvestigations that has failed victims and veterans alike. As with other priorities, progress on that has been affected by the circumstances of the past few months, but we are moving forward as quickly as we can.
The Government understand just how complex legacy issues are—that is why they remain unresolved, more than 20 years after the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. However, we are determined to get it right, and we remain committed to working with all parts of the community in Northern Ireland, including victims’ groups and families, to do so. I recognise the challenge to engage in that respect from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), and I can assure her that that engagement will be taking place.
It is vital that we now find a way forward that helps society in Northern Ireland to look forward together, rather than looking back to a divisive past. As the hon. Member for City of Durham said, we must ensure that, as we move this process forward, people can look forward to the future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robin Walker and Kevin Brennan(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Walker
Let me first join the hon. Lady in supporting all those living with and supporting people with Down’s syndrome. There is absolutely no intention whatsoever for any form of discrimination. As I repeatedly made clear in the debate on the regulations, they do not list specific conditions but rather ensure that we have complied with what CEDAW—the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—requires. These are complex decisions. It is only right that women can make individual, informed decisions, following medical assessments, clear provision of information and proper support from medical professionals. That support should be there in cases where they choose to take their pregnancies to term even in cases of severe foetal impairment. We will continue to support the Department of Health and the Executive to deliver on this issue.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Victims of the Troubles: Payment Scheme
Debate between Robin Walker and Kevin Brennan(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Walker
My hon. and gallant Friend makes a very important point. Of course we are pressing forward with legacy proposals to make sure that veterans and victims alike can have certainty. We should focus on getting information for victims and make sure that people do have certainty, and we should not see vexatious claims of any nature. He is absolutely right that, as we move forward in providing proper treatment and support for victims, we must also take into account the position of those who served so well to protect many more people from becoming victims.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) to her role on the Front Bench and pay tribute to her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who did such a wonderful job in that position. I am sure she will do an excellent job too.
May I follow up on what the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said? The Minister says that a technical funding argument is an excuse for holding up justice for victims in this instance. That sounds particularly empty as an excuse. Can he not be more specific about when we can expect to see the scheme opened?
Mr Walker
If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I do not think I said it was an excuse. I think I made it very clear that it is not an excuse. This is a case of the Executive needing to get on and designate the Department, and then this can go ahead. There is no technical reason why any discussions about funding should hold this up. We need to move forward with the process. We have put the legislation in place, and it is in the hands of the Executive to nominate a Department to take that forward so that we can get on and do it.