25/05/2016 House of Commons

rent are getting proper consumer protection including from landlords

who unreasonably withhold deposits. Order, order. Yes, points of order,

at least a three course meal in my experience. Point of order. Thank

you. I just heard the Chancellor say let's debate the substance and not

the process in our debates over the EU referendum. I've tried to do

exactly that. I've written numerous questions, I'm getting answers that

say, talk to the hand. I approach the procedure committee who admitted

I've not had substantial answers or any answers to some of my questions.

What more can be done? They are trying to muscle -- muscle asked to

make sure we don't get answers. I'm ashamed that the government's

behaviour. I'm very grateful to the honourable lady for her point of

order and for her courtesy in giving me advanced notice of its thrust. I

also note she's expressed herself in very forceful terms, expressing her

disappointment in the government. She is most assiduous in pursuing

this matter and what I'd say to her is this - it is, to put it mildly

regrettable that the Department for Business innovation and skills is

late in responding to a request from the procedure committee. That should

not happen, and if there is a whip on the Treasury bench, he or she

should note it is unacceptable, and if there that message should be

relayed to the relevant whip come sooner rather than later. I'm sure

that this lapse, which would be very unsatisfactory, not least to the

chair of the procedure committee and his colleagues on the committee will

have been noted on the Treasury bench, and I hope it will be duly

communicated to the Secretary of State. The honourable lady has

tabled questions that are orderly, and they wouldn't be on the order

paper unless they were orderly, so they should receive replies. And

they should receive replies quickly. My advice to the honourable lady is

to look for those replies each day from now on, and if she doesn't get

them, I rather imagine she will return to the subject. That in the

interest of propriety, the department should now provide those

answers. Its performance is unsatisfactory. And it is - I don't

want to use the word shameful - it is unsatisfactory.

Yesterday the house had a comprehensive debate on the

Government's foreign policy and in particular its raw in arms deals

with Saudi Arabia. I put it to the Government an urgent investigation

it should take place showing UK bombs have been used in Yemen.

Yesterday the Foreign Secretary stated the Ministry of Defence is

urgently investigating the allegations and I believe there will

be an urgent question on this shortly. This morning the Ministry

of Defence gave a statement to the BBC World Service which contradicts

the Foreign Secretary's comments. The Ministry of Defence statement

says, we are not launching an investigation. We are seeking urgent

clarification from Saudi Arabia as to whether or not these weapons were

used in the recent conflict and that is our usual policy. Have either the

Foreign Secretary or head office asked you if they can come to the

house and clarify the position? Law, not request to issue a clarification

has been to me. If memory serves me correctly, the line of the

governments that law investigation is underway -- law investigation is

underway was put by the Defence Secretary in response to the urgent

question yesterday. That is a different stance from that's

proffered by the Foreign Secretary at oral questions. It is not

entirely novel for there to be different statements on the same

subject emanating from representatives of different

Government departments. If a minister thinks, in the light of the

facts, he needs to correct the record of what he said, and I think

the honourable lady has the Foreign Secretary in mind in this context,

doubtless he will do so. If he does not, it is presumably because he

judges there to be no need. In a bad situation at the honourable lady

must table questions -- and that situation the honourable lady must

table questions if she wanted elucidation. On the 19th of May the

Shadow Minister for Europe, the member for North West Durham,

visited solely in my constituency where she gave a radio interview in

which she despaired what my constituents... I must ask the

honourable lady what on earth what was said outside the chamber could

tap to do with me in the chair? I think it reflects badly on every

Member of Parliament. All sorts of things reflect badly but it has

nothing to do with the chair. If the church took responsibility for what

was said outside the chamber I would have a very large responsibility. .

-- if the cheer. -- if the chair. I am grateful, Mr Speaker. When my

right honourable friend von Gordon raised the issue of the family and

my constituency the Chancellor said he would write to the member. Can I

point out the family are due to be deported in the next few days and I

am concerned about the timeliness of the letter, if that was to be

written. Can I asked the Speaker at what routes are open to me to make

sure this case is urgently addressed through the Home Secretary to

respect what was put in place at the time the family came here, the

post-work Visa would be in place and we don't report this family who are

a credit to the Highlands? My short answer to enquiry is if the matter

is urgent in his judgment he knows the recourse available. It would

then be for the cheer to judge whether or not the matter was

urgent. -- the chair to judge. No, he does not have a point of order.

It's one thing to play with one's all here, it's another to play with

somebody else's. -- own hair. We will leave it there for now. I

wonder if there was a point of order brewing but not on this occasion.

Another time. I'm sure he was being helpful. The clerk will read the

others of the day. Queen's Speech motion, debate on question. I

informed the house I have selected is an amendment be in the name of

the Leader of the Opposition. I call Angela Eagle. I just reeling from

the prospect of public hair up playing and whether we should end

this house have a rule against it. Last Wednesday we saw the age old

said audit of the State Opening of Parliament and it was done with the

usual pageantry and executed to perfection. The only flaw was the

one thank Her Majesty has no control over and that is the consent of the

speech itself. After the build up and said on it it was yet another

anti-climax. It outlined a mere 21 bels, from a Government with a

majority barely one year into its time in office. It is running out of

steam before its eyes. You could sense the dismay on the benches

opposite. It was described as sparse and the bland, threadbare, thin

gruel, uninspiring and vacuous. And that was just the verdict of the

Government's all underwhelm backbenchers. Others were less

diplomatic. The right honourable member, sold recently a senior

Cabinet minister, called a watered-down, blaming a Government

that has surrendered to the helter-skelter of the EU referendum

campaign. Ex-Tory Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo was more scathing

about the first majority Conservative Government since 1992,

telling Andrew Newell, after 23 years of careful thought about what

they would like to do in power, the answer is nothing. He went on to

say,. Of course. Do you think the introduction of the national living

wage is nothing? I think the introduction of the national living

wage is a porn because it is not a living wage. An increase in wages --

is a con. It does not apply to those under 25, describes itself as

something it is not so we have scepticism about how useful it will

be. Of course. Does the honourable lady consider is nothing, fairer

funding for schools which will affect, not on the effect on the

house, but many members opposite. The Labour Party once supported this

policy. What is the current position? We must look at the policy

on schools against the background of what the ISS said was a real terms

cut of 8% in the budget. What the IFS said. The volume of an

legislation is not an indication of the quality. I certainly agree

quantity is not all and I will come onto the details of those bills as I

make progress through my speech. The ex-Tory Cabinet Minister Michael

Portillo said the Government is in palaces because the only thing that

matters to them is saving the Prime Minister's career by winning the

referendum. He concluded, in what would be a damning epitaph for this

administration, that majority the bright Minister secured last year,

it is all for nothing. The Government has nothing to do,

nothing to say and thinks nothing. We have this nothing Queen's Speech

before us. If you are eye-catching announcements designed to distract

from the emptiness of the programme. Presented with the possibility of

driverless cars on our roads in four years and even private spaceports.

There is still no sign of a decision on the much more pressing issue of

airport capacity for the travel millions must now undertake. We were

told there would be a legal right to access digital broadband but there

is no clear route to resolve the scandal of the Government's total

failure to provide adequate digital infrastructure for all. Despite

being a fifth largest economy we still languish at 18th in the world

for broadband speeds. Perhaps it is a sign of how toxic things are

within the Conservative Party that even this self-described uninspiring

managerial and vacuous legislative programme has already caused yet

another Tory backbench rebellion. The Government has already caved and

by agreeing an amendment to the motion before us which will exempt

the NHS from a Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership. We on the

side of the house of long called for the Government to exempt the NHS

from three deals and we are glad they have now agreed -- from trade

deals. It is interesting to see what this divided Government are now able

to agree on. The only things they seem to be able to unite on flogging

of a valuable public assets such as the land Registry in the back

Registry which actually makes money, and unleashing the full force of the

market on higher education. This rebellion on the trade deal follows

other areas such as forced academisation, cuts to tax credits

for the low paid, cuts to payments for the disabled, tax relief resist

reform, saw packs, tampon tax, Sunday trading, fox hunting ban,

scrapping their own criminal courts charge, recommending some child

refugees to the country and how soon. This does not even include the

Chancellor's latest budget fiasco, which remains unresolved and seems

to contain a ?4 billion hole in his arithmetic. I'm happy to give way. I

am surprised that six minutes into her speech on the subject of

education, skills and training she has failed to mention the first

paragraph of the Queen's speech was about life chances. In circumstances

where we know half of the people in prisons who I don't have no

education at all and in circumstances with the Queen's

speech talks about education in prisons and social care, I believe

the Queen's Speech has something of real substance in it. I will get

onto that but this is a debate on the entirety of the Queen's Speech

and I am entitled to say what I like about any little bit of it. The can

make her own speech if she catches me Speaker's I and I will thank if

she let me make mine. I am here to make my point and I intend to do so.

The emptiness of the current conservative agenda, outlined in the

Queen's Speech, is apparent with the PR hyperbole which accompanied its

announcement. We have two mind the gap between rhetoric and reality.

Whilst they boast about their credentials as a one nation

Government, they are cutting support for working people and giving the

richest tax cut. They think ?450,000 for a starter home is affordable and

they are doing nothing effective to solve the housing crisis or soaring

rents. They boast of the life chances, as indeed the honourable

lady has just done, but in 2016, in Saudi Britain, homelessness is

soaring, millions are forced to resort -- in Tory Britain. There is

a widening attainment gap between different areas on the contrary,

millions more people are struggling to see the doctor and cuts in

funding me this is likely to get worse. The Prime Minister's life

chances agenda is either a joke or a con. How do you improve life chances

by abolishing shouldn't maintenance grant for the purpose, increasing

tuition fees and barely mentioning further education colleges and your

plans at all? How do you agree to attainment by fiddling the school

structures and ignoring low morale, chronic teacher shortages and

growing pressure on school places? The proposals have to be judged on

the context of the funding settlements for education, as I

mentioned earlier. The 16 - 19 age have seen a 14% fall in the funding

provision since 2010 and educational capital spending fell by 34%.

I hesitate to interrupt such a positive speech she is making but

she's having a busy day. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to rally a

little support for the Hereford University project which will

deliver the very life chances that I know she and I can unite in

supporting. The honourable gentleman should invite me to visit it and me

and him can go together so that I can see what is going on in

Herefordshire. Now, Mr Speaker, the Institute of fiscal studies have

percolated there is likely to be an 8% fall in funding per pupil between

now and 2020 in the School Centre. After a modest 0.6% rise in funding

per pupil in the last Parliament, don't say I don't put the figures

accurately on the record and give the government credit where it is

due, 0.6% for the first five years of the coalition, -8% for the next.

With adult and part-time education have seen huge falls in numbers

participating because they simply cannot afford to pay. Yet... I give

way. One of the things this government is trying to do through

the Queen's Speech and its new bills is to introduce new universities

which will give so many more people an opportunity to get the education

they need. Would my honourable friend join with me in looking at

students across this country right at this moment are very concerned

that there are threats to universities right now, with unions

going on strike and destructing teaching and exams. I've got one of

my daughters about take a finals. Would she agree this is not

acceptable behaviour? The first thing to say is I think some of the

threat is, if it isn't properly looked at, and we will have to look

at the Bill when it comes in greater detail, with the so-called new

providers, which and tried and untested and we will get into

talking about that particularly we get into the Bill itself. By the

way, I haven't done so, but I'd like to acknowledge the fact that the

honourable gentleman has taken the Secretary of State's place. I know

he is on his way to mum by to help talk to Tata about the crisis facing

the steel industry in our country, and might I say that it is about

time as I wish him all the best with the work that he's doing. So it is a

pleasure to welcome the honourable gentleman to the despatch box in his

stead. Mr Speaker, there is nothing in this Queen's Speech on the

growing funding crisis affecting schools. There is no mention of

adult up Skilling, which is a particularly difficult admission.

Without action in these areas we went tackle the skills urgency which

is holding back our economy. Unfilled vacancies have risen 130%

since 2011 with skills shortages accounting for over a third of

unfilled vacancies in key industries. I'm happy to give way. I

thank the right to honourable lady not least for once describing me as

a Eurosceptic Mart on before of the house. In terms of skills, why does

she think it has taken a Conservative government open in new

university technical College in Peterborough, opening in September,

whereas in benign economic times we saw massive increases in youth

unemployment and young people who didn't want to go to university left

on the sidelines? Well, I'm glad to see that despite being a Eurosceptic

Marta, the honourable gentleman is still alive and kicking, and doing

his thing on the Tory backbenches. I have to say to him that it was a

Labour government that started university technical colleges, and

I'm glad now he is having one in his own area, but I think that he is

being rather churlish in talking about our record, when we actually

created the university technical college concept. The government has

if very large target for apprenticeships come about 30% of

those starting don't actually finish the course. And 96% are level two or

three with lowly numbers attending apprenticeships. I understand level

two and three are important to attain, but even more important for

the future Health and Wellbeing Boards our economy is expanding the

higher degree level apprenticeships. And grateful to my honourable

friend, and she will remember that in the last Parliament I introduced

up private members bill, the apprenticeships and skills public

procurement bill. Isn't there a real opportunity being missed here that

with public procurement and major engineering project in particular

that we really ought to be getting more anchor our taxpayer Buck in

getting proper, decent, high-quality, advanced, and further

level apprenticeships tied into those public procurement contracts?

I couldn't agree more with my honourable friend. I Menard fire of

his, especially as I've seen those recent pictures of him abseiling

down a very tall buildings so my admiration has grown even more. His

bill was an extremely good one, and I think it is important the

government does think much more carefully than it has to date about

how it can tie in the money it spends in public procurement with

skills creation. The Business Secretary is going to have to do

that if he's going to save a prosperous future for British Steel

and he should think about doing it in a locked more areas. It is a to

boo that needs to be broken. I'm very grateful for giving way. Does

she share the concern of those that worried that the government's 3

million apprenticeships target will only be achieved if the quality of

what is being offered in this apprenticeships being diminished?

I'm afraid I do share that worry about the very large quantities

target to which the government has set and wants to pass by all

accounts. When I go to talk to business, which I do regularly up

and down the country, that of session with quantity, rather than

quality, causes some real worries and I hope the Minister will be able

to tell us today that he's got some ways of dealing with this because I

have come across some extremely dubious actresses, if I can put it

that way, with one of the apprenticeships, which I'm glad the

enterprise act has closed that loophole, but will need pretty

forceful and enforcement otherwise we will seek abuse. Would she accept

that social clauses within public sector contracts, which have worked

very effectively in Northern Ireland and Scotland, could be used much

more widely, and I don't even contradict EU rules, so they don't

even have that excuse on this occasion, and they could ensure

public money is used to ensure the skills base of the country is

increased? I couldn't agree more with the comments that the

honourable gentleman has made. It is absolutely right that social clauses

in procurement have really important role to play. I make one observation

that I have made over my time in Parliament, and that is that those

involved in public procurement can be very risk averse. All too often,

they don't think about the extra things they can get out of the money

the government is spending in committing to particular projects,

and they often use the excuse of EU procurement rules as a reason for

not being creative enough with the way in which they pursue

procurement. Now... No one, Mr Speaker, argues with the state today

in the higher education and research will of widening access and

participation in higher education. That is what we all want to see. We

on the side of the house object strongly to the approach the

government has taken in both the white Paper and the accompanying

Bill. The Business Secretary appears to believe that the solution to

widening participation is to inject market forces into the provision of

higher education, allowing new, untried, and providers to start up a

cheap degree awarding powers, and securing university status and he

wants to force students to pay for it all through higher Jewish and

fees. Yet there is absolutely... I'm happy to give way. I'm very grateful

to my honourable friend to giving way, and she's making an excellent

speech. Does she agree with me that also these reforms to hire education

and deregulation risk the excellent reputation that UK higher education

institutions have internationally, and that help us attract

international students into this country? There is, if I might call

it a brandishing with the risks that my honourable friend has raised with

particular suggestions in both the White Paper and the Bill. And we on

this side of the house will want to study in great detail and ask a

great deal of serious questions about the potential consequence of

what the honourable gentleman has suggested in the White Paper, and

what is present in the Bill. The rear is absolutely no evidence that

competition of this sort will lead to higher standards or a better

solution students. It is likely to entrench privilege and elitism even

more in the system his proposal, the proposal before us in this Queen's

Speech the regulates entrance to what this government sees as a

market in higher education. And this is taking a gamble, as my honourable

friend said, with the UK's international reputation for

providing the highest standards of degree education and also means that

any student studying at one of these probationary degree awarding

institutions, whatever they will be, will be taking a very personal

gamble, too. It's unclear what will happen if it all goes wrong or who

will pick up the pieces. After trebling Jewish and fees to ?9,000 a

year, this government now wishes to raise them again. The government

have chosen to remove the cap on Jewish and fees and to tie the

capacity to raise fees to very dubious proxies for what they've

called teaching excellence. Nobody objects to teaching excellence, Mr

Speaker. It is like motherhood and apple pie. Except motherhood and

apple pie is a lot at easier to define than teaching excellence. You

see motherhood fairly obviously. Apple pie, or once you've cut it

open to check there aren't any blackberries in it, but it is a lot

harder to know what teaching excellence is. Now, the

government... Has chosen various proxies, such as the subsequent

employment record of graduates. Student retention is another one,

and satisfaction surveys. I will give way, but in a minute and I want

to finish my point about the subsequent employment record of

graduates. There are many reasons why people have good or bad

subsequent employment records. And many, many of them have got

absolutely nothing to do with the teaching excellence of those schools

or universities they attended. For example, some people with

disabilities are routinely discriminated against in our labour

market, and it's very difficult for them to have very, very successful

subsequent employment records. That may have absolutely nothing to do

with the way they were taught or the standards of excellence of their

teaching. Many women, likewise, especially if they leave early to

have children have a very different subsequent employment record to what

they might have had if they hadn't left to have a family. It is well

documented, for example, those from the black and ethnic minority

communities are discriminated against in our labour market. It's

clear also when one looks at the figures that those who have exact

need the same qualifications, but from the black and ethnic minority

communities are discriminated against and have less successful, in

many, many cases, less successful subsequent employment careers, so,

having subsequent employment instead of teaching excellence already

breaks down. I give way. Has she seen the statement from universities

UK who say they welcome the plan is to maintain

the value of these and are looking forward to working with government

to develop Teaching Excellence Framework? They have also got grave

concerns and reservations about the route the government are taking and

for some of the reasons that I'm outlining now. Of course they going

to work with the government because they've got a White Paper in front

of them. There is a Bill on the table of this house and they want to

make it the best it can be but I wouldn't take that kind of

endorsement for bland agreement. Would she also agree with me there

is great difficulty of selling this concept of higher fees for students

at a time when universities haven't got to grips with inflation of the

salaries at the higher levels within the higher universities and many

students will simply see them being used as a means to fund wages? The

honourable gentleman makes a good point and I look forward to hearing

what the minister has to say about it.

I am grateful. She has been generous with her time. In circumstances

where we not one of the biggest single factors affecting a child

at's education is the quality of teaching, does she agree with the

principle it is appropriate to ensure we have excellence in

teaching and improve it, if we can? Yes but I am talking about how we

measure it and what it means. To be honest, if the honourable lady was

so concerned about the excellence in teaching C would be looking at Sure

start and early teaching, she would look at the problems we have with

teacher recruitment and she would look at a range of other things.

Nobody in this, as I said, in that house agrees, disagrees with the

concept of teaching excellence. It is how one defines and measures it

which is what I am trying to deal with known. We talked about

subsequent employment. The other two areas the Government looked at was

student retention and satisfaction surveys. There was a reason and a

student may not be satisfied with that institution which may not have

anything to do with whether it teaches in an excellent way not and

I think probably a lot more is going to have two be, a lot more work will

have to be done on these proxies if they will have any meaning. I look

forward to what the Minister will have to see about that because at

the moment it is a very dubious concept. Further to the points made

by the member, many people have given evidence to the business

select committee's enquiries into the teaching excellence framework

and many of the University vice chancellors were clear they want to

work with the Government to ensure needs to prove that might improve

teaching excellence. They need more time to ensure the metrics chosen

and the correct ones. Does she agree with me that would be more sensible

way forward for the Government? I know the select committee report

does outline sector has these entire reforms are being rushed to a

timetable that does not reflect best practice and I know there are a lot

of vice chancellors and others in the sector who are worried about the

implications. Just to say, she has made an argument about teaching

excellence and somebody who stored in university for six years as 15

years ago there was a very little ambiguity, even then about student

satisfaction surveys as though someone was doing a decent teaching

job. There is even less now given all the other modes of feedback.

Even if there was not you could fill in the aggregate from the service --

tale from the anchoring it. It is quite clear teaching can be

evaluated and it is quite proper it should be included in an evaluation

for student fees. I am not saying it can't be included I'm seeing the

proxies the Government have chosen have given cause for concern and I

tried to explain why and I think you have to think about how this works

through and we will be interested in what the Minister has to see about

this but I think if he is not... Let me finish this point first. If he is

not careful, he could end up introducing a range of results that

are not what he wants to see Andy could be paradoxical, disincentives

for excellence -- and they could be. Certain people always find it

difficult to good job subsequently in the labour market may become less

valid as students or less attractive as students to certain institutions

because of how these measurements are taken. That would be a utterly

backward step for the opportunities and life chances of a large number

of people already suffering disadvantage in our society. I think

the honourable gentleman at least ought to recognise that is a

possibility with some of these measurements. He is wanting to

indicate so I will give away again to him. It would be a consequence of

her arguments that it would be impossible to assess the teaching of

the Royal National College of the blinds in Hereford because it

teaches disabled people who suffer in the future life chances but no

one doubts that institution can be properly evaluated and indeed, it

does an excellent job. This is also a competition between universities

and there are some paradoxical results. If I were interested in

widening opportunities I wouldn't be worried about them and I think the

honourable gentleman ought to accept that. I give with. I am just going

to follow the point the Shadow minister is making. Obviously it is

aborted the metrics and process is right and appropriate but, just as

was the other thing, we're going through a process which is why the

white Paper states this is going to be phased in and piloted and it

recognises there will be an important process of consultation

and feedback. It is not entirely clear to me why the shadow minister

is expressing this as a concern that it will be imposed with no

consultation. Partially the speeds, it took six years for what she spoke

about and this will be done in only a couple. We must get this right or

there will be consequences but I don't think any people on either

side of the house would want to see. I am actually not wanting to get

into the second reading of the bill, I think that is not wise. I want to

get on and finish my speech. I tried to take a lot of interventions and I

think it's only fair on those who want to get into the rest of the

debate I get to the end of my speech. Education should not be

about shackling a generation with yet more debt, but I'm wishing that

balance to build a brighter future and that despite we on the side of

the house understand why that is the cost of higher education we cannot

allow market forces director worlds. These changes changes went ahead --

if these changes went ahead with in the parliament it is likely fees

would have risen to ?10,000 per year and poorer students could face bills

of up to ?55,000 bursary for a three-year degree. This is

unacceptable and we will oppose lifting the cap. -- ?55,000 for a

three-year degree. Out onto the education Bill. We know this was not

the belt the Prime Minister wish to include in the Queen's Speech. He

told us it would include measures to force schools -- all schools to

become academies. Since then witnessed a humiliating come-down

when the Government walk up to the fact the plans were unacceptable. My

honourable friend has done a fantastic job and her front bench

position and pointing that out to the Government. We welcome that you

turn on the sake of the house and will continue to challenge the

Government on its fixation with the forced academisation of good or

outstanding schools. We also support the principle of moving towards a

better funding formula but it is essential measures are put in place

to assist those areas set to lose out. A new formula cannot disguise

the fact that over this Parliament school budgets face the highest real

terms cuts -- school budgets face the highest real terms cut since the

70s. The aim of the Government does not do seem to be to address the

shortage of teachers but when they knew the path of forced

academisation. This has nothing to do with improving life chances but

has a rather dangerous, shows the Government with a dangerous

obsession with structures at the expense of standards. A Government

that is ideological at the expense of other children's future. On the

children's social worker bill we will support measures to protect and

create opportunity for the most vulnerable children in our society

and look closely at the detail of the spill the proposals the

Government is putting forward. We must ensure when action is taking it

as high-quality, has proper oversight and has the needs of

children at heart. We are clear up the child protection services should

never be run for profit. This Government has failed to provide

adequate adoption support. Local authorities are being starved of

support and social workers. Every child deserves a fulfilling

upbringing and I believed we all agree on that, but provides a solid

path to adulthood and we have a moral duty to tackle abuse and

neglect. This is Government which has ground to a halt just one year

after it was elected. The Government taken over by a referendum of its

own making. Consumed by its own poisonous infighting to present a

compelling vision for our country. The Prime Minister is contradicted

by his own junior defence and employment ministers and the

honourable member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip is taking time off

from his blunder bus tour to offer the keys to number 11 to at least

three different people. I don't know whether you are one of them, we know

all three. -- we know of three. I. Not without he approached the

Minister for higher education but know that people tell us when he

gets up. This is a Government which resorts to PR stunt and gimmicks and

we bought all their behaviour out for what it is. Order. The original

question was a humble address be presented to Her Majesty, as on the

order paper. Since when an amendment has been proposed, as on the order

paper, the question is the amendments be made. I call the

Minister of State for universities and science, Mr Johnson. As the

Right honourable lady the already said, the secretary of state is not

what is because he is in Mumbai where he is attending the board

meeting Tata and fighting for the interests of the UK's steel sector.

He would want to be here to champion this Queen's Speech and to expose

some of the shortcomings in the arguments we have just heard. I want

to dignify the suggestion of the quality of the Queen's Speech can be

measured by the number of bills in its. We let deregulatory Government

and all that legislate one strictly necessary. -- we are in the regular

Tory Government. Even if that were a regional benchmark it is worth

noting 21 build is higher than the average of 18 bills per session of

the last decade. -- 21 bills. But we won't go there. This Queen's Speech

that opportunity and life chances to education at the top of the

legislative agenda, ensuring every child goes to an excellent school

and there is barely funded one of the honour. Delivering high quality

employer led apprenticeships providing a clear route to

employment for young people and on the part of quality that were raised

by the right honourable member it is worth noting all apprenticeships

must be paid job with substantial training lasting at least 12 months

that develop transferable skill and lead to feel confident in an

occupation. And putting it high-quality university place within

reach of everyone with the potential to benefit. We have made huge

progress since 2010. 1.4 million more young people attending good or

outstanding schools, 2.4 million apprenticeships created and record

application rates to university. This Queen's Speech is the next step

in our long-term plan for our economy. I thank the Minister for

giving way. Can he explain why some young people going on apprenticeship

programmes and not actually being paid, they are being paid by our

costs. That amounts to around ?100 per week. Is that genuine page, in

his view? As I said, we are committed to high quality employer

led programme in which apprenticeships must be paid jobs

with substantial training opportunities that will equip them

to take on the full responsibility in that particular occupation. I

thank the Minister for giving way. In Macclesfield we have been

fortunate to see a major employer to consult the apprenticeships last

year. It is in some of the most important areas in our constituency.

Does he agree that approach with colleges taking a keen interest in

relevant local businesses is the way to establish more apprenticeships

and take that important initiative further forward.

Employers are continuing to drive up quality to provide the skills that

young people need. High quality apprenticeships will be embedded

further with the future established before the into jute of

apprenticeships and Ofsted will ensure providers continue to deliver

the high quality training expected. As to speak at, in her White Paper,

educational excellence everywhere, my right honourable friend sets out

this government's plan to drive up educational standards in England.

The government's goal is to achieve a school system where every school

is an academy by 2022 so that excellent teachers have the freedom

to give their pupils the best start in life. My honourable friend has

been clear we have listened and will not take blanket powers to force

good schools in strong local conduct...

good schools in strong local We will convert schools in the worst

performing areas where local authorities are unable to guarantee

their continued success. We will consult carefully on how these local

authorities will be identified and Parliament will have further

opportunities to debate our proposals. That is the basis of the

important legislation which my honourable friend will present to

Parliament. I'm extremely grateful for the Minister for giving way.

I've set up to academies and I remain a chair of governors of one

academy so I know full well that academy status can be one powerful

tool for school improvement but it isn't the only tool for school

improvement. Interim executive board, investment in teaching, new

curriculum are other tools. Why is he so assessed with 1-2 at the

expense of all the others? I'd point the honourable gentleman to the

White Paper which has a chapter on structure, and all the others are

about what makes great schools. Teaching, governments and so on. Mr

Deputy Speaker, turning to our universities, in the last parliament

we put in place the essential funding reforms that have set

universities finances on a stable footing and enabled us to lift its

Juden number controls. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way. As

well as increasing the level of Jewish and fees, the government is

also proposing to extend them to students of nursing, midwifery...

This is the biggest shake-up in funding since 1968 and will

Beaminster give us a commitment those changes will be made on the

face of the education ale in order there can be a full debate in this

house and a vote on that measure? We are delighted that we are able to

put NHS bursary is on the same footing as has enabled a widening of

participation in higher education in recent years, said that we address

the shortage is that we've seen in the nursing profession as a result

of the current system. Turning to our universities, in the last

Parliament we put in place essential funding reforms that have set

universities finances on a stable footing and enabled us to lift

number controls that have been affecting nursing profession. We

committed to ensuring the committed success and stability of these

reforms and we also committed to ensuring that universities deliver

the best possible value for money to students. And we said we would

introduce a new framework of incentives to recognise universities

offering the highest quality of teaching. The Bill, introduced in

the Commons last week, will deliver on these and other manifesto

commitments. I'll happily give way. He will be aware that until this

month, Suffolk was one of the only counties in the country with no

university that fits that technical description, so can I offer him my

profound thanks and that of our county that he has given permission

for the creation of a brand-new University of Suffolk, and will he

congratulate all those that worked for this and join me in wishing them

well for the future. Yes, I'll happily join him in congratulating

the new University of. It is terrific that one of four counties

in this country that didn't have a university now does. There are three

others and we're hoping new institutions, which we are hoping to

encourage of similar quality to the University of offer, will soon come

in and cover the cold spots which we have inherited. Can I congratulate

my honourable friend on the new University project in Herefordshire

which is under way. That is not merely aim to transform higher

education in my county. And to create extraordinary economic

potential. But also to innovate across the country as a whole in

areas of tying higher education together and using all the resources

of those different aspects towards greater in point but it. With the

support of colleges here and in America. In order to make that

vision happen, does he agree it's important not just for central

government to give a lead, as he has done, artful local government,

grants and central government guarantees, and private eye to come

together as a single hub? Thank you. We are delighted to be supporting

this great new venture in Herefordshire. The new model in

technology and engineering which addresses several long-standing

problems, skills shortages in engineering. We welcome this and we

welcome its arrival and collaboration with world leading

institutions from the United States, and we want to see more such

institutions, and I applaud the honourable member for Herefordshire

and his other Hereford MP Coley, no longer here, who has just left the

chamber, for their tireless work in championing this new institution.

England's universities rank among the best in the world. They generate

the knowledge, skills and attitude that fuel our economy and sustain

our open society but the world of higher education has changed

fundamentally since the last major legislative reforms of 1992, and our

system needs to meet new challenges. A rapid increase in jobs requiring

high and level skills has created a worldwide demand for more graduate

employees and for greater diversity of higher education provision. Yet,

in this country, we are still well below the OECD average for

university attendance, was proportionately fewer to university

to study at an undergraduate level than our main competitors.

First-time entrants were 48% versus 55% for the OECD average in 2013. We

also lagged behind when it comes to further studies. First entry rates

to Masters courses are only 15% versus 20% for the OECD average. We

are also far from eating our economy's needs for graduate level

skills. Between now and 2022, over half of job vacancies will be and

occupations most likely to have graduates. We need to remove

barriers to entry high quality new entrants to help meet the demand for

skilled graduates. Given the Minister has outlined the desperate

need for skilled graduate employees, why is his government so reticent to

reintroduce the post study work Visa for Scotland's? Mr Deputy Speaker,

we have a very successful international education export

sector in this country. We have a market share globally of over 10%,

which we are holding. We see annual growth in international student

numbers of between 3-4% a year. We are attentive to the need to remain

competitive but we have a successful international educational sector,

and we have to drive up the quality of the student experience on offer

in all our universities. I will give way. On the note of the skills gap

that he referred to, he knows that characteristically in the south-west

we are below productivity levels, and what would make a big difference

in my constituency is actually university to help skill up those

young people that I fear we're losing to other places, like

Hereford. I completely agree with my honourable friend. Universities are

read great driver of regional and local economic growth, and there has

been an LSE study that came out recently that demonstrated this very

strong correlation between opening new universities and significantly

increased economic growth. They estimate the doubling universities

is related to GDP. On skills, we all understood the government was going

to publish a skills White Paper. That appears to have been downgraded

to a skills plan. Has that change been made, and, if so, why? The

honourable member should wait a little bit longer and he will see

the full fruits of the work of my friend, the skills minister, and

colleagues in the Department of education, led by the expert panel,

chaired by Lord Sainsbury. At the same time, continuing with why our

higher education needs to meet new challenges, at the same time, the

system needs to be more innovative, so it meets the diverse needs of

learners of all ages and employers of all sizes. As promised in our

manifesto, we will promote more flexible learning, including the

provision of two-year degrees, and degree apprenticeships. And we need

the system to be delivering outcomes for those that go through it, and

for the taxpayers that underwrite it. At the same time as employers

suffer skills shortages, especially in highly skilled STEM areas, we see

20% of graduates winding up in nonprofessional rolls 3.5 years

after graduating. This graduate labour market mismatch is a waste of

their potential and Dave brake on our productivity as an economy. --

and a break. What he agree with me that it's also important that we use

our local enterprise partnerships in order to invigorate where the needs

are and how we can meet those needs, and not Tony has my honourable

friend mentioned the University of Suffolk camp but my own West Suffolk

College has had an ?8 million stimulus from our new Anglia LEP.

Yes, we certainly agree with all of that. Universities are the heart of

many of the most successful LEPs and we want to see their good work

stimulator economic growth and relevant provision of higher

education in their local areas by universities. That's why at the

heart of this Bill our powers to make it easier for high quality new

universities and Challenger into douches to enter the sector and

award degrees, to drive up quality and to give applicants more choice

about where and how to study. There are some who say close the door to

new universities, put the cap back on student numbers, restrict the

benefits of higher education to a narrow elite. We've heard the same

arguments at every period of university expansion. In the 1820s,

UCL and kings were dismissed as Cockney universities. Today, they

are globally renowned universities. We heard it at the time, the Civic

colleges in Manchester, earning, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and

Bristol became redbrick universities before the First World War, and we

heard it when the Conservative government of John Major was putting

through Parliament the 1992 act that created a wave of new universities

out of the politic mix. We need more universities again today.

Universities are great engines of social mobility, and formidable

drivers of regional economic growth, which is why I was so pleased to

welcome the announcement of the University of Southampton, and I'm

so supportive of the Hereford plans. These are just two good examples of

the challenge institutions we have in mind in opening up the sector to

new high-quality entrants, and we welcome support for our proposals

from sensible figures, such as Lord Mandelson, now chancellor of

Manchester Metropolitan, one of those very institutions that gained

university thanks to a Conservative government in 1992. As he put it,

who have recognised the essential contribution, a wide range of

institutions can make to our economic success and social mobility

in this country. I'm happy to give way. Well, thank goodness for that!

Just to make it clear to the honourable gentleman, nobody on this

side of the house objects to expanding the university sector. We

do have and we are right to ask about the speed of which that will

be done, how probationary status will work and what kind of gamble

that will represent, and we will go on asking those questions. The

honourable gentleman shouldn't set up a straw man or woman and tried to

accuse us of being against expansion. We aren't but it has to

be high-quality! I am delighted the Shadow Secretary of State is

supportive of new entrants, new challenge institutions. It is

exactly what the sector needs and I'm glad we have established that

important point of principle that you are supportive of new entrants

into the sector and that you believe in competition. But a good thing I'm

delighted to hear it. Can I just caution my friend the Minister not

to be so quick to assume the opposition will be as supportive as

perhaps they say today. Take a lesson from the expense of the

Labour Party when it came to introducing competition in schools

with the introduction of free schools. We faced extensive

opposition from Labour councils at local level, from vested interests

that even though they talk about improving the quality, they hated

the competition which delivered choice to parents and students.

I hope my right honourable friend will be proven wrong but I suspect

he may be proved right in the course of this bill when we discover the

true colours of the party opposite and it real desire to see

competition in the sector, which I somewhat doubt. The former Business

Secretary of state is right. The higher education Bill we introduced

last week represent an ambitious agenda for social mobility. Some

said when we reform the student finance but this person --

participation would fall. Everyone on the opposite benches dead. That

is not the case. We have made progressive student loan system

ensuring finance is no barrier to entry, and that is working. Students

from disadvantaged backgrounds are going to university at a record of.

13% in 2009 to 15% in 2015. Labour were wrong then and wrong now.

You're now 36% more likely to go to university if you're from

disadvantaged backgrounds than in 2009. If the right honourable member

wants to comment on this I will happily take an intervention

nothing? OK. We are not complacent. The Prime Minister has set a

challenging call to double potatoes and -- -- participation rates for

disadvantaged by 2020. The Sutton trust shows only 3% of disadvantaged

pupils go to the highest universities. It's a product that

record was much indeed. That is why I have just written to the director

of the access giving him all the political cover he needs to drive

further progress in widening participation at the most selective

institutions in this country. Furthermore we are strengthening

access agreements more generally and they will now cover both access and

participation so students receive support the needs right the way

through their courses, not just at the point of entry. And we will give

the director fair access and participation in greater set of

sanctions to help ensure universities deliver the agreements

they have made with him. We know some students face additional

barriers in accessing higher education because, in some cases

their religious beliefs mean they are unable to take on

interest-bearing loans which is why, subject to Parliament, we will be

the first Government to introduce an alternative student finance product

that will support the students enjoy education. This, combined with other

measures, will help us meet our goal of increasing the number of people

from disadvantaged backgrounds, one third of whom are Muslim, going to

university. We are committed to increasing the number by 2020. The

Minister will know I have been writing to this department is about

compliant loans and the thing missing for students who are put off

by the failure to provide this product is a timetable for when it

will be available sharia compliant loans. Can he commits a timetable

for communities like mine can access these products? I congratulate the

right honourable member for her contribution towards this campaign.

This Government was the first to consult on how such a product and

what the man they might be for such a product. We now have a legislative

vehicle with which to introduce it and we are moving at full speed and

the sooner you let this bill through the house the sooner we can crack on

and deliver the alternative finance product you want to see.

Thanks to the reforms we are already making to part-time and postgraduate

study also a clear message to people in this country that it is never too

late to learn. This Government is transforming the funding landscape

for part-time and postgraduate study. We are, for the first time,

introducing a maintenance loans for part-time undergraduates in addition

to the tuition fee loans made available in the previous

parliament. We are continuing to reverse Labour's restriction on

studying for a second degree so you can get your student loan to take a

second part-time degree in a sub mac subject. We are introducing finance

for postgraduate study. -- STEM subjects. We are giving people the

opportunities they need to gain new skills at every stage of their

lives. Would-be Minister outline the Government's commitment to support

the interrogation of refugees, not just with English-language, -- not

least with English language, which is a crucial component in their

learning. We are committed to supporting refugees as they enter

higher education and will look closely at that any gaps, with

respect to English language provision.

Turning to a question any opposition's Amendment, could only

take the steps we have taken to wider participation in higher

education because the decision, the difficult decisions taken as a

Government to ensure our universities are sustainable

finance. They are. Total funding for the sector has increased from 22

billion in 2009 - ten, two 28 million in 2014-15 and is forecast

to reach 31 billion by 2017 - 18. The OECD said or approach means

we're one of the few countries in the world to half of a sustainable

approach to financing in modern system of higher education. Our

economy needs a world-class higher education system and we cannot allow

a situation where our universities are once again underfunded. The

?9,000 tuition fee of 2012 has already fallen in real term value to

?8,500. If we leave it and change it will be worth ?8,000 by the end of

this Parliament. We want to ensure our universities have the funding

they need and every student receives the high quality experience for the

time it in higher education. I am not the First Minister to the

variability in teaching quality or imbalance between teaching and

research in the higher education system. Labour ministers for many

governments or many governments have made exactly the same point but it

will be a Conservative Government that will actually do something

about it. We want to shine a spotlight on good practice, give

applicants more information about the type of teaching and graduate

outcomes they can expect and raise the status of excellent duress

teaching and that is why we are implementing our manifesto

commitment to introduce a teaching excellence of famotidine up the

quality of teaching and spread best practice. -- excellence of teaching.

It's worth noting the irony that it was a Labour Government under Tony

Blair that in 2004 sensible Blake put in place new legal powers

allowing governments to maintain university fees in line with

inflation. For the 2017-18 academic year I can confirm the rate of

inflation apply to maximum fees applied to institutions

demonstrating high quality teaching us 2.8%. The measure we are using a

set out by measures introduced by Labour in 2006. The party opposite

might have changed their views on that entire era and no longer

support the policy it itself introduced but we on the scent will

refuse to allow students learning to suffer. -- are we on this side.

Allowing the value of maximum fees permitted by legislation to be

maintained in real terms is essential if universities are to

continue to be able to deliver high quality teaching. He is making a

very credible case and does he agree that if we do not find better

quality degrees through this system the only alternative is to taxation

or borrowing levied across the whole populist who do not necessarily

benefit from higher education? -- through the whole population. My

right honourable friend makes the point perfectly. The alternative to

what we're doing is in general -- greater burden on general taxpayers

who have lower lifetime earnings than those who benefited from a

university education. In the case of wood and they will lifetime earnings

?250,000 higher than nongraduates. -- in the case of women. For men it

is ?170,000. I find it interesting the Minister

is accepting that is a need to keep in line with increasing costs in the

university sector but does not accept the same for further

education in our school system. Our our Father education budget has been

protected and we to prioritise apprenticeships as one of our most

important policies and for the committed to achieving 3 million

high quality apprenticeships. There are also clear in the support for

our intention to link access to this limited inflation uplift to an

assessment of quality. A principle we have long accepted for the

funding of research in our universities. It was a Conservative

Government that brought in the first research assessment exercise in 1986

and it is now doubts our rigorous system of only funding excellent and

delivered up the quality of our research over the last three

decades. Look at the statistics. The UK recently overtook the US to and

trust among compilations for field within citations and back. With just

0.9 of the world's population and 3.2% of research and development

expenditure the UK accounts for 60% of whom more highly cited articles.

Now is the time to extend that -- 16%. We should link teaching

excellence not just a student numbers in the way we have long and

successfully done for research. There were two very interesting

omissions from the right honourable lady from the other side. One

involved the fact not one mention of what students want out of this which

is higher quality teaching. The second got massive omission, was if

teaching quality decreases then the fees at the crease as well which

gives a mass of carrot to all the universities to improve the quality

of teaching. We are putting in place the reputational and financial

incentives to spread best practice and the teaching excellence

framework will be an important part of that. The inflationary uplift and

we are allowing universities who demonstrate high quality teaching is

a ?12 billion investment in the skills base of this country over the

next decade. It is now up to the opposition to explain how they will

make this shortfall in university funding. Either it will mean cutting

resources from our universities, risking the sustainability of our

world-class sector and leading to do be introduction of aspiration

limiting student number controls, or it will be the classic Labour Party

response, which we are already beginning to see articulated to any

policy challenging, more spending, more taxes, more borrowing, more

debt. Members opposite might heed the words of Ed balls. He originally

told the Times that Labour, clearly did not find a sustainable way

forward for the financing of higher education. He described that failure

in the run-up to the last election as, a blot on Labour's copybook.

Indeed it is and the shame is the clearly still have not learned the

lessons. We are fulfilling our manifesto commitment to ensure the

continuing success of our reforms, balancing the interests of taxpayers

and students. We have struck a balance, numbers of disadvantaged

students are at record levels of university funding it up, research

funding is predicted this is a one nation Queen's

nation Government and through our proposals we are extending the

benefits of education to school pupils and students across the

country and we must never let the party opposite put that at risk. May

I remind the house after the SNP spokesperson there will be

five-minute limit on all speeches. I am grateful for this opportunity to

take part in this debate. Given the subject of the debate before I begin

in earnest, I should declare to the house my wife is a primary school

teacher in Scotland. I would like to put on record my welcome for the new

Scottish Government seem an odd spike the First Minister Nicola

Sturgeon last week and in particular new members of the Cabinet. --

Scottish Government Cabinet. I look forward to working with all my

friends and colleagues in the interests of the people of Scotland.

It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to College leaving the

Scottish Cabinet, which Lochhead, Scotland's rural affairs Secretary

for nine years and stood up for Scottish farming and the food and

drink sector. Also might constituency counterpart Alex Neil.

After driving infrastructure and health portfolios in his imaginative

and diligent way. I wish them all the best.

So far up the successive days of debate we have had had more far more

substance than the government's programme in itself. This was an

utterly vacuous Queen's Speech with very little cheer and even less of

relevance to the people of Scotland. The SNP is the widely acknowledged

effective opposition in this place and it put forward an alternative

Queen's Speech, an alternative programme for government and an

alternative to austerity. We have proposed 15 bills which we believe

the government should have considered as part of its programme.

These bills of substance and would have made a real difference to

people up and down these Isles who have been hammered by Tory

austerity, a political and ideological choice, not an economic

necessity. While the bills contained in the Queen's Speech regarding

education, skills and training and access to employment, the subject of

this debate relate to England I will certainly but they serve to

highlight the contrasting approach to these important matters between

the SNP, Scottish Government, which has independent power over education

and the Conservative UK Government. The great spectre hanging over the

higher education and research bill is that of students facing fees of

up to and is now more than ?9,000 per year. Scottish students access

their university education without fees. Members will be interested to

note that the right Honourable member for tartan, the chance of the

exchequer, promised that the Conservative Party when electing

government would scrap tuition fees altogether but what a Damascene

conversion we have seen. He wants to see tuition fees rise even further.

Following the elections in Scotland it is clear that the government's

Tory colleagues up the road falling suit -- right following suit, as

they are about back door taxes for students as well. Members opposite

and our colleagues in Scotland to benefit from free tuition now wish

to pull that ladder from behind them. The SNP government has

guaranteed free university tuition in Scotland had to maintain a

principle that access to university education must be about your ability

to learn, not your ability to pay. It is worth noting at this stage

that more of our population in Scotland is educated beyond school

than any other European country, at 46.5% educated at tertiary level and

a high percentage of young people now leave school for a positive

destination than any time on record. One area where the UK Government

sadly retains control over education in Scotland is in relation to the

non-EU graduate's right to remain a work in the UK after studying here.

Abolishment of the post-study work Visa for students was a regressive

step which has reduced our ability to retain world-class talents for

highly skilled and much-needed positions. It seems foolish, a

foolish position to take but it is a good idea for the students to

benefit from our world-class universities, but to disallow

ourselves from benefiting from their skills and talents once they have

finished their education here. The Smith commission report stated that

the Scottish and UK governments should work together to explore the

possibility of introducing formal schemes to allow international

higher education students graduating from Scottish further and higher

education institutions to remain in Scotland and contribute to economic

activity for a defined period of time. At the time of the Smith

discussions a letter was spent to representative organisations warning

that the removal of the UK wide post-study work Visa in 2012 had

resulted in a significant fall in the number of international students

coming to Scotland. At a time when it is crucial, as we heard from the

minister, who has left its place, that we address skills shortages in

key areas of industry, to improve economic growth it is extremely

disappointing that this Queen's Speech makes no mention of the

introduction of the scheme in Scotland. In 2015 the post study

working group set up by the Scottish Government to provide a view from

the business and tertiary education sector is on the impact of the

removal of a work scheme in Scotland at how such a scheme should operate

if introduced concluded that, and I quote, introducing a poster they

were written Scotland would benefit Scottish economic growth and

business development as well as enriching the learning experience

for all students by attracting more international students to Scotland.

In February of this year the Holyrood devolution commission, made

up of MSPs from all five political parties unanimously recommended that

the Home Office change this policy and it is therefore extremely

disappointing that the UK Government seem unwilling to listen to the

views of a diverse range of political parties and organisations

in Scotland on this matter. In our alternative Queen's speech we have

progressed I get -- proposed a migration bill which would include

the reintroduction of the post study work Visa and as highlighted at

Prime Minister's Questions by my right honourable friend from Murray,

as well as my honourable friend from Glasgow North and latterly the local

MP, the disgraceful treatment of the brain family highlights the

desperate need for the Visa reintroduction. There is also an

urgent need for changes to the government's approach on access to

employment, employment support and training and skills, all issues that

have been run down by this government's actions today and

reckless cuts to government spending. We want to see an

emergency summer Budget to boost investment in public services and

stimulate GDP growth and support wage growth and increased taxes

beats and boost productivity. All the Tory rhetoric a long-term

economic plan the speech includes no recommendation of havoc among will

boost productivity and economic growth in the long run. Members on

the benches opposite feel betrayed that there was no mention of the

much vaunted white Paper on health and work, which was supposed to

compensate for the savage cuts to GSA rag and universal work credits.

Many people were given the promise of jam tomorrow by their ministers

in order to withdraw their opposition to these cuts on the

basis of the White Paper being published this year. Some were right

to say, as I did, and others on the benches beside me, that the White

Paper should have been published before these cuts were made for

exactly the scenario we now see unfolding. The cuts to GSA rag and

universal credit reaping all that damage have been made and now the

supposed replacement has been scrapped. The secretary of state

used an appearance at the work and pensions select committee to

announce that he was scrapping the proposed White Paper and taking more

time to consider a green paper and he said he made it clear in his

first statement in this house that he was looking to court -- to press

the reset button. I asked him a direct question that day about the

White Paper, when it would be published, given his predecessor

told me at the last appearance at the dispatch box that it would be

long before the summer, and how much money would be committed to it? The

new secretary of state could not answer my questions as I post on

that day, so he committed from the dispatch box to write to me on the

matter. I wrote to him, as a follow-up, to request a meeting

along with my honourable member friend and I am still waiting for a

reply. I have repeatedly chased the matter up and perhaps now we will

see a reply forthcoming. The UK Government has wasted precious time

in not publishing the White Paper. I would now urge the new secretary of

state to come to this house with a date for the green paper to be

published. Any success will ultimately be determined by the

government's willingness to engage with community and voluntary

organisations as well as experts to shape any new framework. The new

secretary of state at the DWP hopes to have changed the tone of the

debate but what we need to see is substance so when he talks about

pressing the reset button, why has he not gone back to the brutal cuts

to ESA and universal credit? The lack of assistance to women born in

the 1950s regarding the repeated delay and mishandled state pension

entitlement which has been commendably spearheaded by the

campaign members and the bedroom tax or the reforms to benefit tank

capability assessment for those with mental health issues and long-term

conditions, who face the stress of constant unnecessary reassessments,

and the waste of money and time and additional stress caused by

decisions that never should have been made in the first place. They

are then overturned a tribunal. Or the two child rule, or the rate

clause or any of the decisions taken by the secretary of state's

predecessor, why was it that the White Paper, of all these disastrous

areas of policy, that he chose to review Chris Pratt we are concerned

that the valuable time to make progress on disability employment is

being lost as a result of this delay and ministers should bring forward

the proposals as soon as possible. The announcement of the green paper

ought to be a welcome move if brought forward with urgency and

real meaningful engagement with the community and voluntary sector but

we remain sceptical that the Tories will rise to that challenge. They

cannot be allowed to kick this any further into the long grass. The

Minister must make an statement of his intentions and lay out the

development of a new programme with a time frame and cuts coming down

the line for the disabled, the Tories must act now. Tory

backbenchers will also be interested, as we are, into how the

Minister has abandoned the White Paper and we hope they will join us

in calling for progress on the green paper and come forward with haste.

It must be drawn to the attention the house that after the

release of 49 DWP enquiry reports into the deaths of Social Security

receptions -- recipients, finally released after a long freedom of

information battle, we should know that 40 of the reports followed a

suicide and in ten cases the recipient had been sanctioned. The

peer reviews do not make a direct link between TWE policy and deaths

but they do highlight the serious problems faced by claimants with

complex issues, mental health challenges or learning support needs

and I would hope that we can now see an end to the unwillingness of

ministers to accept that their policies, however well intentioned

they may think they are, are having serious consequences and could be

costing lives. There must be a full review urgently to include the

impact of the work capability assessments as they stand and the

punishing sanctions regime and the cuts to disability support. The SNP

has proposed a social equality Bill to restore work allowances for low

income workers and single parents, to end maternity discrimination and

further shared paternity rights for individual employers and also

address the barriers to employment for disabled people. This would take

matters in line with the principles by which the Scottish Government

will found the new Scottish Social Security agency, by treating people

with dignity and respect. Whilst the Queen 's speech did not have

anything useful to say about these matters at the tail end of it we

were informed that the government would hold a referendum on the

membership of the European Union, which despite a lacklustre campaign

so far will not have come as a revelation to many. This was

followed by the vaguest of sentences notifying us that proposals would be

brought forward for a British Bill of Rights. Given the vast

differences that exist in the Cabinet and the government's

backbenchers on the issue of membership of the European Union and

the European Convention on human rights and many people losing track

of who is in and out it is difficult to imagine how we could find enough

comic course to agree on what such a bill would contain and the Queen 's

speech did not shed any further insight into this and this is

probably for this reason that the Bill of Rights will be brought

before the house this year. The briefing notes for the Queen 's

speech on rights say they would be based on those set out in the

European Convention of human rights and also taking into account our

common law tradition that suggest that while the government is

sensibly distancing itself from Home Secretary's personal view on EC HRA

has little of substance to say regarding the purpose or need for

such a bill. A professor from the University of Cambridge stated that

there is no hint of any developed thinking in the Queen's Speech about

how the perceived shortcomings of the HRA ought to be addressed or how

reform in this area could be reconciled with the UK remaining a

part of the EC HR. If the government is unable to provide detailed

answers to these points it should question whether in attempting to

appease some of its own backbenchers is worth more than having sensible

legislation. With regards to Scotland a key concern in this area

is that government has shown little consideration has to about how this

will affect the Scottish parliament and other devolved legislators in

these isles. The Queen's Speech briefing notes addressed this issue

only briefly. It stated that revived in the Human Rights Act can only be

done by the UK Parliament and they will consult fully before bringing

forward proposals and it is true that the Scottish parliament does

not have power to alter the Human Rights Act but the Law Society of

Scotland have argued that under demolition guidance note ten, when

UK legislation will alter the legislative competence of the

Scottish parliament or the executive competence of Scottish ministers,

the consent of the Scottish parliament is needed. Repeal and

replacement of the humans rights act would, in our view, require the

amendment of the Scotland act 1998. In those respects which would affect

the competences of the Parliament and the Scottish ministers. Any

change to the Scotland act concerning the Human Rights Act and

98, which affects the competence of the Parliament or the Scottish

ministers will in terms of DGN Tenneco hard disk -- require the

consent of the Scottish parliament. It is not simply a consultation with

the consent from the Scottish Parliament that will be needed given

that there is a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament that do not

support such a change this consent is unlikely be forthcoming.

Theodore Roosevelt said the credit belongs to the man who spends his

time only worthy cause, and who at worst if he fails, feels well

dealing greatly. In this case I believe the Prime Minister and the

government have instead offered a weak and poor programme which will

do little to address the needs of the people of these isles, and while

some measures are to be welcomed such as the likely delivery of the

universal service obligation on broadband, the Queen's Speech is yet

another missed opportunity by the government to address the key

issues. Instead of offering clear solutions and innovative ideas, I am

afraid that in the years to come, this Queen's Speech will be

remembered as an empty, vacuous and largely irrelevant sideshow from a

government and party more concerned about patching over internal

divisions on the issue of EU membership and jockeying for who

will be the next leader than the living to the people. As a result of

a large number of members having with prawn I will now raise the

limit to eight minutes. Better up than down! Thank you very much. For

that splendid news! I can only carry on as I normally do. I just want to

talk about the actual Queen's Speech which of course is a one nation

Queen's Speech and is a one nation Queen's Speech because it talks

about opportunity and also productivity. Opportunity that

everybody and productivity for our economy, because underneath all the

21 bels lies that demand, that interest form or opportunity, fairer

opportunity and the better economy delivering more productivity. I will

talk about two bills in particular and one is the children and social

work Bill because our committee has done some work in this field and I

would invite the Secretary of State to think about what we will be

seeing about social work. I will not let any cuts out of the bag because

we haven't published it yet. I think it will be of interest to those

considering more detail as the bill develops. One thing I am really

pleased to note is we will have a care leavers covenant and that is

the one thing I would say came out of some other early discussions in

the education select committee about children in care with mental health

difficulties who felt they were basically falling off a cliff edge,

and the care leavers covenant is clearly going to prevent that from

happening. Would he agree that in the work the education select

committee did on clear, it was many care leavers who felt the support

that children might ordinarily get from their own families was suddenly

gone by the age of 18? I completely agree. My honourable friend who was

a member of the education select committee at the time and that the

early work, and I think the whole point of this is to make sure they

do not fall over the cliff edge and children looked after by the state

are particularly vulnerable to falling over that edge and we must

do all we can to stop that happening. Just one quick word about

regulation. We covered this in our early enquiries and I will not

comment in any great detail about what that regulation framework

should look like. We certainly agree that we need to see an improved

regulatory offering for social work. Can I now talk about the education

for all bit. I am going to start off by noting that for all means for

absolutely all children and there are some children in schools

unregulated and unregistered and we need to think about them as well. I

will be asking the Secretary of State to give some thought as to how

she will respond to the expressions by the Chief Inspector about the

schools which are not effectively doing a good job and are not often

seen and are beneath the radar. We need to make sure that when we see

education for all, we mean all. The White Paper talks about the school

led system and absolutely it should. Those of us who support the

academies programme will come its continued growth. Obviously it is

important for us to be sure that academies feel comfortable once they

are out there and one of the reasons why the education select committee

is going to be looking at what does a good trust lookalike is precisely

that thought, because we do need to encourage academies to come together

to support each other because this is partnership and co-operation.

This is schools taking the initiative to help other schools and

I think that is a combination that will work to drive up standards

especially in those areas where standards are not high enough, and

we know there are pockets of such places. Is he there are four in

favour of Ofsted inspecting academy chains? At the moment the government

prevents them from doing so so we don't know what their overheads are

or what they are spending on the chief executive salary. This is a

matter of the education select committee has been forceful in both

the last Parliament and I expect will comment on that matter again. I

am personally in favour of Academy trusts being inspector will and I

think that is something we should be looking into. We will obviously

comment on that when we do our enquiry in due course. I will not

prejudge what that enquiry will say. Unless issue of local authorities, I

think it is important that we recognise some local authorities

have not delivered adequate education and there are examples in

Yorkshire for example, and I think it would be helpful for the

department to set out effectively the case in terms of data and maps

as to where the problems are, so that members of Parliament and

others can effectively calibrate the need for more academies as

appropriate to that information. That will be really useful for us to

have. On the issue of fairer funding because this is implicit in the

White Paper, and absolutely rightly so, we need to see some improvement

in funding. It's got to be the case that schools in Gloucestershire can

be confident of fairer funding. I say Gloucestershire because I

represent the area but that applies to a whole range of counties and

urban areas as well. Fairer funding is absolutely necessary. I am really

pleased that the education select committee will have the opportunity

to check what is proposed by the Department. I think that is

extremely helpful. We will conduct some enquiries and you course. It is

very good that the Secretary of State has effectively enabled us to

do so through the timescale that she has set out just as she responded to

the issue of the academies when we first launched the White Paper and

there was something of a furore over the scale of ambition in connection

with academies. So it is in the same vein that I make my next point about

cooperation and opportunity to consider. I think it would be really

helpful with the education for all bill was published soon so that we

could have an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny, that might

be a useful opportunity to look at some of the detail behind what is a

feeling local authority, what would be a local authority which is

effectively beneath the capacity threshold which would be defined in

terms of whether or not it should cease to be a provider of schools

and so on. That opportunity would help members of Parliament to

understand more clearly the direction of travel and perhaps see

a way forward. I invite the Secretary of State to consider that

proposal and I know the legislative programme is tight and I know there

are few opportunities for delay, but I do think that would be a good

contribution to the debate. I am going to end on something that I

think would be important and it is this. I was reading with interest

these thoughts of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an independent and

very authoritative organisation picking up the point about whether

or not we should be in the European Union. And noting that if we left

the economy would be smaller in size by about 15 billion within about two

years. These are figures which are bandied about frequently and

understood by many. And the ISS is not the only leading authority to

basically point out our economy is doing well precisely because we are

part of the European Union. I mention this because throughout the

Queen's Speech there was an awful lot of dependency on public

expenditure. We will deliver an education system which is ambitious

and successful as the Secretary of State intends it to be, we are going

to have to pay for it. It'll be harder to pay for it if we kept

ourselves the shins by leaving the European Union and reducing the size

of our economy and therefore making it harder to meet public expenditure

pledges we might wish to have in the future. I would suggest that it is

really important that we do remain in the European Union precisely to

the lover our ambitions. I have just spotted somebody must be trying to

intervene because my honourable friend has helpfully informed

everybody that I am completely deaf in my left ear! I find that always

quite useful, certainly in family conditions and often in politics but

not with my honourable friend wants to intervene. I thank my honourable

friend. That must also be the reason why sometimes my husband doesn't

respond when cold, obviously deaf in one ear. The point I was trying to

make is not only is it important we are part of the European Union for

the reasons he outlined but also in order to ensure that our young

people have access to broaden educational environments such as the

Erasmus programme. Thank you. I am very grateful to have the chance to

speak in this debate. I am pleased to be following the chain of the

select committee and they agree with a good deal of what he said on our

membership of the EU and I also agree with him in his invitation to

the Secretary of State to publish the education for all Bill in time

for the select committee to undertake some pre-legislative

scrutiny. That would be very valuable, and it is on that bill I

want to focus my remarks this afternoon. I wanted to start by

welcoming warmer leave the abandonment of the Pledge of

universalisation by 2022. That is a very welcome U-turn. I am pleased

the honourable member for Worcestershire is in his place

because he and I had a debate about this on the radio and I made the

point that it was absolutely clear there wasn't the support on the

Conservative benches to get that legislation through house. He

assured the listeners to the programme that actually it was all

absolutely fine, but I am delighted the Secretary of State recognised

that I was right about this and he wasn't. I do pay tributes to her as

well for at least executing the U-turn were commendable speed and

not dragging out the agony over a long period as we have sometimes

seen in the past. I don't think it was ever have an idea we should

force all schools to become academies and I am glad she has

dropped it, but it is disappointing that the bill still has the aim

according to the documentation along the Queen's Speech to move towards a

system where all schools and academies and I do think that

ministers should be listening not least a headteachers about this very

important subject because the National Association of head

teachers says that aim, the declared aim of this bill, and I quote, good

and outstanding schools should still be made to convert regardless of the

professional judgment of school leaders, the opposition of parents

and the best interests of local communities. I really think that a

Conservative government ought to be listening to headteachers, to

parents and to local communities in these matters, and not continuing

with their view that every school should become an Academy, whether or

not it is in those interests. Akkad isolation can be a very good thing

with plenty of examples where it has turned around the fortunes of a

school, but forced academies nation isn't.

Ministers have not been able to provide any evidence that a

canonisation necessarily raises standards because it does not. Areas

identified by Ofsted as having problems with low education

standards include areas where most of the school have already become

academies. It would be very helpful if there was a panacea like

acadamisation, every organisation to overcome the problem of

underperforming schools but the reality is there is not a panacea,

that raising standards is a long and tough horn and ministers are looking

for a short cut but the fact is that there is not one. To quote the

National Association of head teachers again, targeted support is

what is needed rather than forced top-down reorganisation. I thank my

honourable friend for giving way. He is making a very powerful speech.

Does not the history of his part of Tower Hamlets and east you show that

acadamisation is not the answer but what transformed prospects in his

area was the London Challenger 's schools working together to raise

standards. It is about what has happened in east London where we

have seen a remarkable transformation of education

standards in the last 20 years and it has been because of the

application consistently of the tools that he has identified,

including Academy ovation in some cases, but other leaders as well. I

am worried that that could be at risk and I will speak more about

that in a moment. There is a cost to academies and eight, there is legal

costs and other cost and we had a debate when the government policy of

forced acadamisation and how much it would cost. The secretary of state

did say to the education select committee that she would let the