25/01/2017 House of Commons


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Why to all the false start -- Point of order. I think we should build a


sense of anticipation so I will take the point of order from the oral


lady. Thank you, on Friday, just 58 minutes before the house rose when


the organisation was being watched across the pond. -- in operation.


The TWDC al on the DL with regards to child policy. Never a number of


concessions, not nearly enough. -- not nearly enough. DWP. Do give


families convert. I seek clarification from the leader DWP of


if there was any intention of informing the palace at this matter


or should we should be left to conclude that this news would be


caught up in the avalanche of appalling policies emanating from


the White house. The usual answer is no however I generally wish to thank


the honourable lady from giving me notice of her point of order. I am


aware, as other members will be, that she has a long-standing


interest in this sensitive if you. That said, I must tell the


honourable lady that I have received no notice from ministers of any


intention to make a statement in the house on this subject. That is a


judgment call them rather than for me. I'm sure her words will have


been heard on the Treasury bench, not weak by a senior weight upon who


I trust we can rely to and they sentiments to those who should head


on. -- whip. We believe that an, having built up anticipation. C Ian


Paisley. Control of Smoke Pollution Act let us hair. Thank you for


preserving meat. The Leader of the Opposition said a police officer was


shot dead at the weekend in Belfast. It was corrected by the member for


north Belfast, that is not thankfully the case, thank God, but


for the family and for police officers generally, can we have


corrected by the front bench spokesman as urgently as possible so


the racket of this hostile not contain the delirious fact that a


police officer was murdered in Belfast. I am grateful, and I


benefit from advise in these matters. They advice I have just


received, there is my responsibility of whether I accept it or not, is


advise I accept that there is no need for any further correction. It


was an error all. I recognise what the gentleman said about how


upsetting that will be, but it was a mistake. It has subsequently been


corrected and the honourable gentleman has now, quite properly,


use the opportunity of a point of order to correct it. I didn't think


anything further needs to be said. The honourable gentleman is a wily


character and he has found his salvation. Point of order, Mr Bob


Blackman. You will be aware that members from across the house have


the opportunity to sign a book of commitment for Holocaust Memorial


Day. I am pleased to say that more than 200 honourable and right


honourable members have signed the book but that does mean more than


400 have-nots. Who I come through your good offices, drawn to the


attention of the house that the book is available at the bottom of the


member staircase between GBM and 40 PM. At is a very helpful notice. No


disrespect to the honourable gentleman because it is very helpful


for honours, but it had already been planned by my office that I would


sign the great Glen I leave the chair Tuesday, and I certainly


shall, as I always do. But I think it would be a wonderful thing if all


colleagues would take the opportunity to sign the book as the


honourable gentleman helpfully suggests. -- today. If there are no


further points of order, we come to the ten minute rule motion. Ron


Blenkinsop. -- Tom. I want to bring proposals for onshore power stations


50 megawatts or less to adhere to the terms of the engineering


industry and requiring circumstances to connect purposes. Our clients


which produce this e-mail what's below are not subject to the terms


of national planning consent. Instead, plans including those which


produce energy from waste are regulated by the plan and talent


governing act 1990. This was supposed to give power to local


people for development in their locality but it has created


loopholes and uncover scrupulous employers seeking to exploit


construction workers working on these plants. This is because the


terms and conditions have not been adhered to for allegations of 50


megawatts or less. I brought this in 2015, but my friend Max from several


areas and unions know this problem still exists today, even though they


agreed with me last time and do still. Some of these validations are


using deliberately confusing contracts to employ workers on bogus


self-employment terms. Exploiting migrant workers so that rather than


paying local workers the national industry agreement rate of six and


97 per la depending on the accompanying sea level involved. --


up to ?6 90 seven per la. -- hour. One of these is a Croatian company,


the model is simple, bid for construction, subcontracts from


companies that refuse to work in the national agreements terms and then


undercut local wages by bringing out their work force workers from


Croatia to work operation and wage levels. The same thing was put in


place by GMB and Unite when constructing a power station in


Yorkshire. As that fell under, the Croatian company was due to pay


every penny back to its employees. The employees returned to


integration. That is exploitation plain simple and demonstrate the


disregard this firm hold for all its employees. Unfortunately, this very


firm seeks further employment from a Danish firm and GMB and Unite have


tried to tackle this. Particularly in size and in Yorkshire, Wales and


Scotland. National is from GMB and Unite have travelled from Denmark


and Croatia to inform the appropriate trade unions. Despite


their hard work, any real solution to this must come from this house.


The exploitation of migrant employees and undercutting British


workers has only happened because of the unintended loophole in


legislation, namely that trade union negotiating these standards do not


need to be complied with in power stations producing less than 50


megawatts. This needs to be written into companies of any size on


British soil and that's the only way to prevent this undercutting and


allow workers of all nationalities to bargain collectively to improve


their pay and conditions. In vivo to leave the European Union, members


from across this house have attempted to address concerns about


immigration. As a nation, we need to address these concerns and take


action on loopholes like this one, allowing companies to bring in


migrant workers on a temporary basis, exploiting them and


undercutting the wages of brick British workers. Instead, where they


are able to get work on such sites, namely under confusing contract


pricing them are self-employed, making them pay twice as many


national insurance contributions to benefit employers. In this case and


others, I was leaving the European Union presents both a threat, losing


the well intentioned protection against new practices, and an


opportunity namely to strengthen those protections to ensure not only


are minimum standards are complied with by the industry-standard, too.


We do not need to wait until you have left the EU to do so, we can


act now, put a stop to doubt the manipulation of migrant workers and


undermining of employment standards in the UK. This is an issue which


can and should be addressed to maintain integrity of agreements. I


raise this with no apology for presenting the bell. The question is


that the honourable member B to bring in the bell. As many as are of


the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". -- bring in the


bill. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We will prepare and bring


in the Bill? Said Kevin Barron, Sarah Champion, John Healey, Andy


McDonald, Alan Cunningham, Iain Wright and myself.


One Blenkinsop. -- GMB and Unite. -- Tom.


Town and country planning electricity consent bill. Second


reading, what they? Friday 24th of March. Friday 24 of March. We now


come to the opposition day motion on prisons in the name of the Leader of


the Opposition. To move the motion, I call Mr Richard Berger. Thank you.


The last time there was an opposition day debate on prisons, it


was nary one year ago to the very day. Back then, as honourable


members will recall, my honourable friend from Hammersmith opened the


debate for the opposition. He told the house that the inescapable


conclusion is that the prison system in this country is not working,


contrary to the famous announcement of the level nor talent. Well, one


year on -- noble lord Hallett. This remains inescapable. -- Howard. Just


the secretaries have cut front line prison officers by over 6000. It was


the political decision to impose austerity on the nation and on our


prison services that brought ours to this point. Married with an erratic


prisons policy veering further in this way and then that way. First,


the Right Honourable and alternate member from Rushcliffe wanted to


reduce prison numbers. -- GMB and Unite. He was fact. Then the member


for Epsom and Ewell to gain very authoritarian line, introducing


benchmarking. -- learned. As well as a book banning. Those of which


failed. Next, the honourable member forcibly Heath wanted to


decentralise and hand... And the current Justice Secretary wants a


little bit of policy from each, prison policy la carte. The number


of prisoners officers were cut with no check on the number of people


being imprisoned. The effect of this ought to have been obvious.


Imprisoning more people and deciding they can afford. In the 12 months to


June 2016, there were 105 self-inflicted deaths. Nearly double


the number five years previously. An all-time high. I will give way.


Might I draw his attention to the select committee report which


advocated that to try and cut the cycle of prisoners reoffending, it


would be good to try and provide employment for them, particularly by


reducing national insurance contributions to employers. While it


is not a silver bullet, it would play some part in reducing pressure


on prisons if such a policy was adopted. I want to thank my


honourable friend for his intervention and that is a very


valuable points he makes with rehabilitation, a subject I will


turn. I will give way to the Right Honourable and learned gentleman. He


is quite right in that he set out to acknowledge the serious crisis in


the prisons which are overcrowded, slums and weeding grounds for crime.


He set out the interesting range of options for tackling it, but his


motion nearly concentrates on the prison officers Association answer


which is to spend more money and hire more prison officers, probably


improving their pay and conditions. Does he have any views on the range


of options which include reducing the number of prisoners by


addressing foolish policies so you got room for the rehabilitation


policies that the honourable member for Birkenhead has just recommended?


I thank my honourable friend for that constructive contribution.


There is far more than just talking about the issue of staffing and the


issue of sentencing and numbers will be touched upon later in my speech,


if I can make some progress. I will give way to my honourable friend.


They thank you for giving way. There are too many people in our prisons


mental health conditions or should not be there. Dean Saunders, one of


113 people, took his own life in one of our prisons as last year. The


outcome of the inquest that he should never have been there in the


first place. I share my right honourable friend


was my concern is that she raised injustice questions. I will deal


with that later in my comments. When the number of offices were caught


with no check on the numbers of people being imprisoned it should've


been obvious. They are in prison more people. There were three and 45


deaths in custody last year, in the same period serious assault on


people increased by 146% and instances of self harm increased by


more than 10,000. Within the spends of just the few weeks they were


prison dryers, prison riots in Lincoln, in Lewis Campbell in


Bedford and in moorland. In December, HMP Birmingham saw what


many described as the worst riots at the category B prison since strange


ways of quarter of this century ago. I will give way. I thank the


honourable gentleman. A lot of this criticism is predicated on the


concept of austerity under this government but surely he will


concede that under the last Labour government in much more benign


economic circumstances, his party under the end of custody licence


scheme release dated 2000 prisoners. Over 1200 were caught reoffending.


It was still mismanagement of the prison estate.


The prison system has never been perfect but what I will say is under


a Labour government there was not April is in crisis. Under this


Conservative government that is in prison crisis and I must make some


progress. I have been generous with my interventions. The members want


to speak in this debate. In relation to Birmingham come it took 13


Tornado teams over 12 hours to regain control. Some put the


estimates of the damage at ?2 million. The ministry was warned


back in October that urgent action was required in relation to staff


worries about their personal safety. It remains unclear whether the


ministry did anything at all. Last October, in an unprecedented


intervention... I will give way. On that points come easy as wooded


as I am that not only have we seen each huge reduction in the numbers


of dozen officers but that is deliberate strategy to get the more


experienced, more expensive prison officers to stand down, to retire to


replace them with cheap apprentices, graduates coming in. That is the


real lack of experience in our prison sector as well as the


dangerous lack of numbers. My honourable friend makes the vital


point. We have got eight dangerous cocktail of experienced prisoners in


prison and experienced prison officers leaving prison. That is not


good for safety and that is not good for the service. I really must make


some progress I am afraid. In wake of these riots the Justice Secretary


Toby has yesterday that more tornado staff are being trained. She expects


more trouble and things to get worse before they get better. The list of


problems the ministry has to content with his long. Overcrowding,


understaffing, lack of safety, the quality of delivery from privatised


probation services, drugs, and drones. In nearly 4000 IAPP


prisoners who are still in jail way past their tireless. One prisoner


officer told me the situation in our prison service is like eight game of


Django. It feels we are on the brink of the final piece been removed and


the whole thing coming crashing down around us. He did not say that


likely. We have government the 's's White Paper which has a mixed


reception from those with experience and expertise in the penal system


and penal reform. I need to make some progress. Nearly all of these


problems stem from the acting of eight quarters of prison staff since


2010. The Justice Secretary's colleague, the honourable member for


Gainsborough, as the Justice Secretary yesterday if she thought


this cult was wise. The Justice Secretary did not answer, she has


the opportunity to answer today. I will give way. I stand by that, we


all want more prison officers. Camden future Labour government


recruit all these prison officers? The future Labour government will


not treat our hard-working, hard-pressed prison officers as the


enemy. I hear the drawers of disapproval from the government


benches, anybody would think they were presiding over the successful


prison service. Anyone would think there was it prison crisis. The


government benches would listen rather than draw at me and I would


be grateful. I need to make some progress, I am afraid. The ambition


set out in the White Paper to increase staffing levels is welcome.


But 2500 officers represents less than half of the number of prison


officers cut by conservative Justice Secretary 's since 2010. To get 2500


extra officers come 8000 officers will have to be recruited in two


years. I wonder if the Justice Secretary has confidence that will


happen. I, Mr Speaker, do not come across many in the justice sector


who think it more than eight pipe dream under her management. In the


year September 2016, the Secretary of State had 400 fewer officers. It


is the crisis in staff retention. They are leaving more quickly than


the Secretary of State can recruit them. The prison officers


Association membership has rejected eight pay deal offered by the


government. What plans has the Secretary of State made to improve


the offer and begin to make these jobs more attractive to the public?


At present she faces in recruitment drive which is in danger of having


failed before it has begun. Announcements, for example, the


ex-servicemen personnel might grab quick headlines but in truth it is


nothing new. They have always been former members of our armed services


taking jobs in our prison service. The role of soldier and the Royal of


prison officer aren't exactly the same, by the way. Prison officers


who have been in the Army have told me that with the six issue of state


must explain how she can converse is for the fact so many experienced


officers have life and are leaving our prison service. Overseeing its


transformation to the prison estate populated by more experienced


prisoners and more inexperienced prison officers present eight clear


and present danger. Inadequate staffing levels have the range of


consequences. Prisons are less safe. Staff are far less outnumbered.


Prisoners spent more time in their cells since they cannot be managed


outside. Prisoner frustration is further heightened by lack of time


out of their cells. I will give way. I am most grateful


and commend him on his excellent speech. Dirty agree with me that one


way we can reduce the present population is if the government make


better progress in the transfer of foreign national offenders. At the


moment there are 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prisons


representing 12% of the population. They signed agreements but very few


prisoners get sent back. I thank my honourable friend for


making that important point. Injustice questions yesterday, the


secretary said he was in discussions with the Brexit department about


that and we do need to hear more about the progress of those


discussions. The Justice Secretary frequently buys to the emergence of


new psychoactive substances as factor in the current crisis. Does


she know that in Scotland where prison policy has been stable for


some years, where staffing has remained constant, there hasn't been


the rocketing of Ireland, the House has been seen across the rest of our


prison estate. They have NPS issues but they David axe staff. Our


prisons are overcrowded. Prison in my city of Leeds holds twice the


number of prisoners that is built to House. Wandsworth, Swansea, Brixton


and Leicester are not far behind. All full to capacity with another


50% on top. We need, this'll be the final time I will way...


He knows I hold him in high esteem. Lady checker Baty said the shadow


Attorney General, she wanted half half the prisoners to be released


immediately. Is that Labour's policy?


I am not aware of any such policy announcement being made and it is


not Labour policy committee not Labour policy. Some strange is the


collation is going on from members of the opposite benches. It is not


Labour policy to release half of the prisoners. Why in earth would that


be the case? But we do need lasting way in which to manage the prison


population. Last November the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, appeared


before the justice committee. Not surprisingly, he was questioned on


the prisons crisis. Lord Thomas offered their view on what could be


done. He said the prison population is very, very high at the moment.


Whether it will continue to raise is difficult to tell but that I will


use it well. I am not sure at the end of the day we can't dispose of


more buyers really tough, and they mean tough, community penalties.


Prison has always been seen as aid punishment. Person brings that


breaks asocial contract and can be imprisoned. Members across this


House by see this as befitting sanction. It must be right that


where it convicted person is danger to the public, they are kept away


from the public until such time they no longer pose threat. The


significant minority may never be safe to release. But for some of


those who offend, we must ask if prison is the right place for them


to be sent. We should ensure we always reflect upon this because if


we do not, we find ourselves in the position of the government does now.


The warehousing of thousands of people without any support or real


access to rehabilitation so when they leave prison as they inevitably


will... I will not give way. They are in the same position they were


when they entered. They might still be drug dependence, they might be


homeless, they might still be in poverty. It is right in fact, Mr


Speaker, it is our duty not to be complacent but deflect and ask


ourselves if how we deal with at least some of those who break the


law working with many offenders it isn't. The stay in present and it is


too short for them to learn new skills or to seek qualification, or


to stabilise it drug addiction. In recent weeks, I met stakeholders who


questioned whether it is worth sending prison that people to prison


for a few weeks and officers lament seeing the same people over and over


again. It is right, Mr Speaker, when stakeholders, people at the front


line and expert raises matters that we take them seriously. We must


punish and we must deliver smart sentences as well as strict


sentences. Always asking ourselves what is the most effective way of


protecting the public. I firmly believe, Mr Speaker, this is an


urgent discussion which MPs need to have.


Because the amount of questions being shouted out from the


opposition makes me wonder is they know what they are providing over.


The risks were sending people to prison, particularly for the first


time. There's a lass from the Government front bench. The


situation in our prisons is not a laughing matter. -- there are


laughs. We should take this seriously. We throw people into the


prison river and the currents sweep them towards a more drugs and crime


than they experienced outside. If we had alleged -- if annotation fails,


that is partly to blame. What is the Justice Secretary doing about IPP,


imprisonment for public protection services? She needs a scheme to


release those who it is safe to release. She shouldn't consider how


that is done, perhaps releasing them on a licence period in proportion to


their original sentence. In November last year, my honourable friend, the


member for Parton, publish the interim findings of his review into


the treatment and outcomes for black, Asian and minority ethnic


people in the criminal justice system. It's stark findings also


have implications for our prisons. It found that for every 100 white


women handed gusto deal sentences in the Crown Court for drug offences,


227 black women were sentenced to custody. For black men, the figures


are one for London burned to 100 white men. These figures ought to be


-- 141 in comparison to 100. These findings are travelling in and of


themselves but the fact that this is happening disproportionately also


adds to the strain on our prison system. These subject of


rehabilitation, it is essential to any serious criminal justice system.


We are not yet getting it right. The fact is that most people in Britain


will one day leave prison and third, if we are to protect the public and


keep our unity is that most people in Britain will one day leave prison


and third, if we are to protect the public and keep charging energy


saved, rehabilitation has to be properly funded and taken seriously


by politicians as an aim. It must not be treated as though it's a soft


option. Between January and December 2014, 45% of adults released from


prison had reoffended within year. There is released from a sentence of


less than 12 months, 60% reoffended. At the time, the honourable member


threaten and Newell introduced transforming rehabilitation, the


probation service was reckoned to be performing well. Many stakeholders


issued a warning, against the break-up of the service. As with


many MLJ consultations at the time, the public was ignored. The


proposals will boost through regardless. Companies received


negative reports last year in Derbyshire, Durham and London. The


Inspectorate... I will on the very final occasion. I want to thank my


honourable friend for giving way and he's making a really powerful case.


Does he agree with me that the Government change particularly to


probation services, Durham used to have the best in the country, they


did an amazing job in trying to rehabilitate prisoners but that has


a lass fallen by the wayside because of Government reforms. -- alas. It


would be nice to see opposite members take some responsibility for


our probation system because it is a disgrace that it's failing anyway it


is. I thank my honourable friend for her comments and it's a travesty


what has happened to probation services in the area and region that


my honourable friend represents. The privatisation has been a disaster.


The Inspectorate probation dribble of May 20 16th and that these... I


will give way. I promise, the final occasion, I give way. I'm grateful


to the honourable gentleman for what he considers being weaknesses and


then drawing attention to them. He hasn't come forward with a single


positive alternative. Any moment remain to him, well they enlighten


you as as to what Labour do other than simply complain. I certainly


will do. Just bear with me. The work of the national predation service


was considered better in a number of important areas. As I said,


privatisation has failed. But it's not just down to the ministry and


jubilation to support people will stop if people are leaving prison


faced with the same conditions as the four they entered it, this will


make any meaningful change difficult. Support is needed. Needed


for employment, for housing. One women's prison had inmates leaving


with nowhere to live and was hanging out tents and sleeping bags to


people when they left. This can't be, can it, a feature of a proper,


more than just the system in the fifth richest country in the world?


The prison education trust was welcoming the white pepper whilst


welcoming the white paper said that we need more than the ability to


read and write. If the Government is serious about cutting down


reoffending... He shouldn't shout out from a sedentary position. He


should shout while standing up. If you forgive me for saying, shouting


while standing right next to these the Seager's chair is perhaps not


quite the most intelligent action he has undertaken in the course of, so


far, gamers auspicious career. Thank you. I didn't take offence when the


Government Whip was shouting out, are there any policies? Because I


didn't think it was directed at this side of the palace. We are faced


with a range of problems, there is who are vulnerable, disabled,


homeless, addicted to drugs. Focusing on issues of that kind is


essential because they have been victims of austerity. Prisoners are


leaving prison with nowhere to sleep. Too many people are in prison


with serious mental health problems. MPs rarely break promises, I promise


not to take any more interventions. I will break it and allow this one.


Thank you for eventually giving way. I'm most honoured. Any opposition


motion, they mentioned Lewes prison, it is in special measures, as


mentioned yesterday. What he felt to acknowledge is the huge amount of


work going in. Not just in a prison officer numbers but other issues,


such as the huge rise in sexual offenders, making it hard to manage.


I don't share any suggestions as to enable it to help places like Lewes.


Tackle the problems. The number of prisoners convicted of historic sex


offences increasing has an effect what I would say this, does cutting


the number of prison officers by one quarter mitigate this or does it


make it worse? It seems to me that the answer to that is quite simple.


Before I brought my remarks to conclusion, I really want to turn to


my... I wanted... The present Minister has an unfortunate habit of


tackling and really inappropriate points, demonstrating it before and


now, because I want to talk about the case of Dean Saunders, who


tragically deluded suicide in Chelmsford prison. An inquest jury


found another errors in his treatment. -- committed suicide.


There were recognised health problems but a procedure was not


followed to move him to hospital. He was said to be seeking the details


of all those cases to see if there was a pattern. The charity, inquest,


whose aborted the case said he should never have been in prison in


the first place because his death was preventable. -- and his death


was preventable. The independent monitoring board report jury


findings. What needs to happen is that the ministry must ensure that


recommendations of such bodies are acted upon. In conclusion, we need


to be tough on crime wherever it is found and we need to protect the


public. At the same time, we need to make prisons places were effective


rehabilitation is a living, breathing reality. We want people to


leave prison and become productive members of society, having left


crying behind. At present, when it comes to the prison service, as in


relation to so much else, this Government is failing. It's failing


prison at, prison inmates and their families, the public. Ultimately,


the mess this Government is making of our prison system means it is


failing society. I commend this notion to the house. All other. The


question is as on the order paper. I can inform the house I have selected


the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister to move that


amendment I call the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.


Secretary Liz Frost. Truss. Since I have become Justice Secretary, I


have been very clear that the of violence in our prisons is too high.


We have very worrying levels of self harm and deaths in custody.


Tomorrow, we will see further statistics on violence from the


period July to September 20 16. The last set of statistics we saw


reaffirmed why we need to take immediate action. I have been clear


that these problems have been years in the making and will not be fixed


in weeks or months. The honourable gentleman in a piece he wrote this


morning acknowledged there are no magic fix to the issues and they


certainly haven't heard any magic fixes from him today in his speech.


I well. There may be no magic fixes but would she agree with the


honourable member opposite that the Government pasty ban substances at


the request of prison officers and increase the number of prison


officers that the honourable lady has outlined. I completely agree


with my honourable friend and I'm absolutely determined that they do


turn this situation in our prisons around. Unless prisons are places of


safety, they cannot be places where offenders can read one. That is why


they are taking immediate action, as my honourable friend said, to


stabilise security in our prisons, tackle the scourge of drugs, drones


and found and it's why we have secure additional funding annually


to recruit an extra 2500 prison officers to strengthen our front


line and invest in the wider just as reforming. -- phones. I will give


way. I'm grateful to her for giving way and is good news that there is


additional money for prison officers coming into the service but she is


right to say that the scale of violence in our prisons is variable.


The reduction, and she must take responsibility, the Government last


big responsibility, for the amount you are -- the amount of prison


officers we currently have. I thank the honourable gentleman for his


point. I have been Claire, we do need extra staff on the front line.


There have been a number of issues that have resulted with what we face


now. -- clear. The result of psychoactive substances, drones and


thousands. We do monitor the number of sickness in our visions to


address that issue. -- phones. I thank my honourable friend. Which


they agree with me that, in a 30 minute speech, the only concrete


analysis given by the spokesman is that there is a monster will link


between a staffing and violence? Mess has been contravened by the


evidence given to the selling committee by Doctor David Scott at


the open University who rejected that link and that there are other,


much more complex, societal matters in the prison population and estate.


I thank my honourable friend. There are a number of factors,


psychoactive drugs is one of them. We do need the proper level of


staffing, which we are putting into prisons to make sure prison officers


are able to supervise and challenge offenders properly. That is


important. It is important, not just for safety, but to reform offenders.


I will make a bit of progress and then I will give way to the


honourable gentleman. The prison safety and reform White Paper was


published last November and its detailed the biggest overhaul of our


prisons in a generation to deal with these issues. It is absolutely right


that Britons punished people who commit serious crimes by depriving


them of their most fundamental liberty but they need to be at


places of discipline, hard work and self improvement. It is the only way


we will cut real ending and reduce crime in our DVDs. I give way. --


communities. Just on the starting point, and I'm


trying to be helpful to her in this. Her own bench indicates 89 of the


prisons are currently under the staffing level for their own


Ministry of Justice target. Could she tell me how many of those


prisons are still going to be, under her own benchmarking staffing


levels? I will address the specific issue of


how we will recruit those additional staff later my comments. All of


those prisons will not just only be brought up to the benchmark level,


we are increasing staffing levels beyond that benchmark level. We have


to recruit and then additional staff, that's part of our plan to


recruit 4000 officers this year. I will give way to my honourable


friend and then make more progress with my speech.


HMP Lewes has mentioned in the motion by the opposition today, and


yet I've not heard the Secretary of State has visited the prison and


dismisses the effect of having high numbers of sexual offenders in the


prison. That does affect retention of prison staff and to dismiss it


out of hand shows a lack of experience and knowledge of what is


happening in our prisons. My honourable friend is absolutely


right. I'm going to come onto the issue of the prison population later


in my speech, and specifically address the issue sex offenders.


Very quickly. I must say I rather assumed you


would give way. Sir Simon Burns. May I ask, given how welcome it is,


the extra prison officers that she is proposing to recruit, as a


short-term stopgap, I understand it takes about nine months to fully


train a new prison officer. Would it be sensible to relax or give more


powers to governors so that they could bring back into work retired,


experienced prison officers on short-term contracts.


My honourable friend is absolutely right in that assessment and we are


indeed doing that. We're bringing back from prison officers on a


temporary basis. I'm now going to move on to what


we're doing on recruitment and retention because that is the most


important issue we face, as a prison service. We will not achieve our


aims of reform if we don't have enough officers, and also if we


don't train the officers, have proper career devilment, to make


sure we make the most of our workforce. -- career development. In


October we announced our plans to recruit an extra 4000 staff in ten


of our most challenging prisons. I'm pleased to say we have made 389 job


offers by the end of March, head of target on that front. We have


recently launched a graduate scheme, called Unblocked, to attract the


top, talented graduates. We had over 1000 expressions of interest in this


scheme and within 24 hours we had 350 graduates from Russell group


universities applying to the scheme. So this idea people don't want to do


the job I think isn't right. I think there are a lot of people out there


who want to reform offenders and get involved in helping us turning


around our prison service. I think we need to talk up the job of being


a prison officer, because it is incredibly important. One prison


officer described themselves to me as a parent, a social worker, a


teacher, and what could be more important from turning somebody from


a life of crime to someone who will contribute to society? What we're


finding is when we go out and recruit, a lot of people are


interested in this role. Of course we have do retain a fantastic prison


officers. I want to quit the honourable gentleman. 80% of our


staff have been with us longer than five years. So the idea we don't


have a strong depth of prison officers is wrong. We need to make


sure they have the career opportunities and the promotion


opportunities, that's why we're looking at expanding senior grades


in the service, why were looking at promoting our existing staff, but


also giving them a career ladder, so they have opportunities to train on


the job and get those additional skills they need.


We are also giving prison officer governors the right to recruit


locally. What that means is the governor can build much more of a


relationship with the local community, get people involved, show


people what life is really like inside prison and encourage people


to work there. These local recruitment job fairs have been


really successful. Of course this is challenging. Recruiting 4000 people


in one year is challenging. But I think we could do it and we have


that opportunity, we are enthusiastic about it, we have the


budget to do it for the first time in a number of years, I will give


way to the honourable gentleman. That is absolutely right on one of


the things that has been very much welcomed in Bedford is the


opportunity for the governor to do more proactive recruiting. Does she


find it interesting that in her amendment she talks about


decentralising authority to prison governors, something completely


missed by the Labour Party? I completely agree with my honourable


friend, because we do need to give prison governors the power over what


happens in that own prison, deciding the regimes they operate, deciding


the staffing structures, motivating and recruiting their own team. But


also being able to have more say over how lives are turned around.


One example is giving them the power over their education providers.


We're going to prison governors to account, in terms of how people are


improving in English and maths, how successful they are getting


offenders off drugs, which we know can help lead to rehabilitation, how


successful they are in getting offenders into work when they leave


prison, so there are encouraged to work with local employers and setup


apprenticeships. We need to give them the levers to do that, we need


to give them the responsibility. We are also working on leadership


training, so they have to skills and capabilities to take on those extra


responsibilities. It is the only way we are going to turn lives around,


because the fact is, whatever I do in Ministry of Justice and whatever


my civil servants do, they are not the people on the ground in the


wings, talking to prisoners Day in and day out. It's those people are


going to turn rides around. That's why we need motivated staff, we need


governors who are empowered to do that job and that is what our


reforms will achieve. -- turn lives around.


I think the whole house would actually sympathise her and support


her in the area specifically about the morale of prison officers. When


the gentleman from Aldershot and I were presidents prison officers


together at Dartmouth, prison officers that they were out of sight


and out of mind. We felt no one had interest in their weapons and it


went catastrophically wrong. -- -- in them. With the right honourable


lady agree we should show them they are not out of sight and out of mind


and we do care? Perhaps the scheme to bring back


former prison officers into service. He might be part of that. He could


be a shining beacon, he could be a shining beacon.


I am so reluctant to disabuse the honourable lady and to disappoint


her, however the honourable member of Aldershot and I were only


temporarily in Aldershot for a television documentary called At The


Sharp End. In any case we are setting up a


Parliamentary scheme, specifically to work more closely with prison


officers and give them the kudos that they deserve, because they do


an incredibly important job, often behind walls. What I want to see


with the reform programme is more reaching out into the local


community, working with local employers, because as the opposition


spokesman said, ultimately the vast majority of people in prison one day


going to be on the outside, they are going to be part of the local


community and we need to on that. But whilst we are putting in place


our long-term, long and medium-term measures to get the additional staff


in to reform our prisons, we are also taking immediate action to


improve security and stability across the estate, which includes


extra CCTV, deployment of national resources and regular task force


chaired by the prison meeting officer. He holds regular meetings


which allows us to react quickly to emerging problems are provide


immediate support to governors on anything from transferring difficult


prisoners to speeding up the repair of damaged facilities. A number of


honourable friends have talked about the issue of psychoactive substance,


which has proved a game changer in the prison system as the prison and


probation ombudsman acknowledged. In September we rolled out new


mandatory drugs test the psychoactive drugs to all prisons


and have increased the number of search dogs and train them to find


legal highs. We are working with mobile phone operators to stop


illicit phones, which we are trialling in three prisons and we


have specific powers to block phones being used.


Would she give way? I'm very grateful. I'm disappointed she


hasn't mentioned the impact of automatic release halfway through


sentence on the behaviour of prisoners. Surely if someone isn't


prison for six years may know by law they will be released after three,


irrespective of how badly they fade in prison, surely that has had a


negative impact on the behaviour all levels in prison, that if they


didn't know if they were going to be released and maybe go the full term


unless they behave in prison, is the Secretary of State going to address


a particular issue? Clearly if people don't behave well


or misbehave they will receive additional days. That is an


important part of the lever that governors have, in terms of being


able to reform offenders. I was talking about security issues,


and we are also working to deal with drones and we are rolling out body


worn cameras across the estate. We've also got plans and we're


working on dealing with organised crime gangs, with a new national


intelligence unit. A number of honourable members have talked about


mental health. We are investing in specialist mental health training


for prison officers, to help reduce the worrying levels of self harm and


suicide in our prisons. In particular we know the early days in


custody artistically critical to mental health and keeping people


safe. -- in custody are particularly critical.


I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. As she will


know, a lot of women in our prisons have severe mental health problems


and have also been subject to a lot of abuse in their lives. Can she say


why there is so little about women in the white paper and also what


she's doing, and what her department is doing to implement the


recommendations of the Corston report?


I thank the honourable lady for her question. We are working at the


moment on a strategy for winning offenders, that also deals with how


we look after women who are on community sentences, as well as


custodial sentences. What I want to see is more early intervention,


dealing with some of those issues that lead to people reoffending,


such as mental health than drugs issues. We are working on that at


the moment and we'll be announcing further plans on that in the summer.


We are in investing and additional 2500 staff across the prison estate,


but we also changing the way we deploy those staff. There is more


opportunity for prison officers to engage with offenders, to challenge


them and also support them, in terms of them reforming themselves. Very


briefly. Can I put to hurt the question I put


to the Shadow Lord Chancellor, the issue of foreign national offenders.


She will know that an easy way to reduce the number of people in our


prisons is to follow through on the excellent work done by her


distinguished predecessors, who are both in the House today, the members


for Rushcliffe and Surrey Heath, in signing these agreements to send


people back to their countries of origin. Why did she think progress


has been so slow? I thank the honourable gentleman for


his comments. I'm pleased to say a record number of foreign national


offenders were deported in the last year, so we are making progress, but


we recognise there is more work to do. My honourable friend the prisons


minister is leading across government task force on this issue.


Going back to the work of the 2500 new prison officers on the way we


are changing the role of prison officers, what we want to do by


recruiting these new staff is making sure that every prison officer has a


caseload of no more than six offenders who they can challenge and


support. That is the way we have built up our staffing model, making


sure we have sufficient prison officers to be able to do that.


Because the one-to-one to sport, dedicated officer is at the heart of


how we change our reoffending rates and how we keep our prisoners and


our prison officers say. The right honourable gentleman, the honourable


gentleman talked about the issue of the prison population, although we


are still none the wiser about what Labour's prison population policy


was after he If we look at the prison population,


it has been stable since 2010. We haven't had a rise in the prison


population. In fact it went up by 25,000 under Labour. What we're


seeing in the prison population, and this comes to the point my


honourable friend Reyes, if we are seeing fewer people in prison for


short sentences. We are 9000 fewer shorter sentences given out every


year but we are seeing a greater number of people in prison,


particularly for areas like sex offences, because we are prosecuting


more sexual offenders and we have also seen these sentences for sexual


offenders considerably increase, which I think is absolutely right,


reflecting the serious damage that those individuals have done to their


victims. Thank you. All that point, for


prisons looking after sex offenders it's much more difficult than the


average prison inmates because they have to be segregated and old


Victorian prisons do not do that easily. That adds pressure. I think


we are doing work specifically on how we deal with sex offenders


better and making sure they are on treatment programmes that. Then


committing those crimes in the future, which is very important.


I'll give way. The one item of policy which the Labour spokesman.


On in his speech was the future of the remaining IPP prisoners. There


are 4000 of them still in prison years after the sentence was


abolished, most of them now beyond their recommended term. Some are


dangerous and can't be released but is she addressing the problem of how


she can make it easier for the parole board to address these


questions, reducing delays, alter the burden of proof says that they


are able to release all those where there is no evidence that they pose


a serious risk to the public when they are released? I thank my


honourable friend. The opposition talked about IPP sentenced prisoners


and it was the Labour Party who introduced the IPP sentence as my


honourable friend who abolished it, so well done. Well done. We have a


legacy with a number of these prisoners built in prison. What I've


done is established a IPP unit within the department to deal with


the backlog and make sure that we are addressing the issues that those


individuals have so that they can be released into society in a Safeway.


But we always last sheet public protection. -- safe way. There are


some who cannot be released for that reason. I think the Secretary of


State will be generous with her time. One of the area is great to me


by local police, which is impacting on our prisons, particularly in the


psychoactive substance abuse before coming into prison. And there are


types of prisoners that are having to be managed are all a different


ilk. The kind of addiction is unknown and difficult to quantify.


We might have an idea on how difficult that is. My honourable


friend is right. It's a very serious issue both in society and prison and


we are looking at additional training for prison officers to deal


with that. We also have tests to get those prisoners of those substances


and prisoner education programmes because they do have a serious and


their effects. When it comes to Greenpeace. What I want to do with


an Musee sentences is make sure we are addressing mental health issues.


-- community sentences. The four people commit crimes because they


are too many people coming into our prisons that are of high risk of


committing a crime. They need to intervene earlier and that is an


effective way of reducing circulation through our prisons.


Rather than saying we need to have an arbitrary number that the


release. What we need to do is deal with these issues before they become


at a level where somebody gets a kiss their team sentence and that is


our approach. I'll be saying more about that in due course. To drive


forward the reforms I've been talking about, they will have


control over budgets of education, staffing structures and be able to


set their own prison regime. At the moment, we have a whole plethora of


prison rules including how big prisonerbath-mat can be. I'm


grateful to my friend Mike. -- honourable friend. Particularly in


respect to those with commercial relationships governors can form


with companies to give proper work to prisoners. Could she say


something about 131 Solutions. My honourable friend must have read my


mind because it was only this morning we were talking about 131


Solutions as my honourable friend was establishing that organisation.


-- instrumental in establishing. This is vital to our reforms and I


want people on the inside to be doing jobs, training that leads to


work on the outside. We have to start from what jobs are available


on the outside and bring those employers into prison. We are


looking at how we can develop that. Furthermore, governors will have a


very strong incentive because there will be a measurement on how many


prisoners secure jobs on the outside but also how they go into


apprenticeship is on. What I want to see is offenders starting


apprenticeships on the inside that they can then complete on the


outside, so there's a seamless transition into work. We've got some


fantastic employers working with us, like brakes, Jensen, who I met this


morning. But we need more players participating. -- Timpsons. We need


to get that across better. -- Greggs. Instead of people going onto


benefits, that they go into employment that reduces reoffending.


We will launch a strategy any summer that will go into more details


about. -- that I will go into more detail about. A number of honourable


members have mentioned probation services. In the same way as we are


measuring outcomes for prison services, such as employment,


housing, education, we also want to see similar measures for probation


services, so we make sure that, when people are in the community, they


are also being encouraged into activities, god of drugs so they are


less likely to reoffend and we will be saying more about probation in


April when we announced our changes to the probation services. It's also


difficult, of course, for reform to take in dilapidated buildings, old


prisons, overcrowded prisons. That's why they are modernising the prison


estate to create 10,000 prison places where reform can flourish.


It's a ?1.3 billion investment programme and will reduce


overcrowding and replace outdated prisons with modern facilities. As


part of this, we are opening new prisons next month that will create


over 2000 modern places and we have made announcements about new prisons


in Glen Harper and whether brands well. We will make further


announcements about new prison capacity is as well -- Glenhaver and


Wellingborough. . One of the issues the FA as a society is not having


that definition of society. At the moment, the Secretary of State say I


am responsible for housing prisoners, but I say it's much more


than that. I am responsible for making sure that we are using that


time productively while people are in prison to turn their lives around


so that they become productive members of society. That is going to


be embedded in legislation and it will be accompanied by further


measures, including new standards, league tables and governed mint


empowerment. -- Government. We will also intervene in failing prisons


and with the prison in probation ombudsman on a statutory footing to


investigate deaths in custody and the number of statements from


honourable member about some of the very tragic deaths in custody that


we have seen, and the prison and relation ombudsman performs an truly


vital role. -- extremely. The whole house like knowledge there is too


much violence and self harm in our prisons. It is right to say we have


decade long problems on reoffending. Almost have prisoners reoffend


within one-year at a cost of ?15 million to our society and huge cost


to the victims who suffer from those crimes. That is why this


Government's prison reform agenda is such a priority. It's why we've


secured extra funding and we are taking immediate steps to address


violence and safety in our prisons. This will be a larger reform, the


largest of our prisons in a generation and these issues will not


be solved in weeks or months but I'm confident that, over time, we will


transform our prisons, reduce reoffending, get prisoners into jobs


and away from a life of crime. Thank you. The original question was as on


the order as that, since when it was first produced that it is that part


of the question. Can I say, we should heavily get everybody in on a


seven minute limit and can I call Caroline Flint? Thank you, Mr Deputy


Speaker. I have three constituencies. -- three prisons in


my constituency. Three very different prisons. One has category


C prisoners and we have another with 1000 prisoners in a cat C security


prison. We have another prison, a private establishment. Over many


years, I visited these prisons and overall I have the say the


relationship has been viewed and the community has been assured that


whatever is happening in these prisons has not have an adverse


affect on the divinity, though we do see a lot of people have bonding


from the open establishments. I know this area is very difficult and one


of the things I was proudest of when I was Home Office minister was


introducing drug testing on arrest for inquisitive crime. We could


identify the drug problem leading people to steal and giving them


support before they ended up in court. I believe we should do


everything we can to address the causes of crime, as well as being


dropped when people break the law. The Government has owned up to the


problem. In the White Paper, it has been acknowledged that the levels of


assault on staff of the highest on record. Comparing June 2012, total


assaults are up 64%. Assaults on staff are 99%. Incidents of self


harm of 57% deaths in custody at 75%. Prisons are less safe. But also


less safe from prisoners as well. -- less safe for staff. A lot of


prisoners but the system is failing to rehabilitate and failing to


protect the public from further crimes. In November, the Justice


Secretary wrote in the Daily Mail, what is Claire is that the system is


not working. I'm afraid what is also clear is that on the generation


Government what is that the Government is failing, too. --


clear. Failing to give care to officers and staff, to prisoners who


are more likely to be assaulted in germ cells -- assaulted, injure


themselves or others. It is also failing the taxpayer because, in


Hanover, the Government have admitted they cost of reoffending


?15 billion. If we look in violence in prisons, the latest safety in


custody statistics show that, for the year of June September 20 16,


over 300 deaths in prison. A doubling of self-inflicted deaths


among women prisoners from a very low base, but still important. Up to


eight, from four. Over 1000 cases of self harm. That is 400 incidents of


self harm to everyone via an prisoners. A staggering rate. Over


500 prisoners self harming. Over 2000 hospital attendances with


injuries serious enough to require treatment. That places pressure on


staff having to escort and leave other staff having to staff a


situation in their prisons where there have been reductions in the


staffing levels. In the year to June 2016, assault, 23,775 incidents.


That is 278 assault for every 1000 prisoners. The thousand 134 series


assault, up 32%. This is not a happy situation. -- 3000 134. Whether it


is the junior union or for that matter Unite. A prison in my


constituency office training to help prisoners get employment when they


leave. Little said in employees who, without the right staffing levels,


could be on the receiving end of an assault or two. Was disappointed


that the Minister didn't meet with community union to discuss the


charter for safety operating standards. The union represents many


of the staff in prisons and like EPO A, I think they've come up with


other constructive, practical suggestions as to how it could be


proved. That method that. It worries new that when we set for community


union shows that it is common to have one officer on a wing of 60


plus inmates. I'd be interested to hear from the Minister and his


response what they will do about making sure the end are working


better for our prisons. When it comes to the white paper


there is much, I think, worth discussing. It outlines improved


training for staff, body worn cameras, cognitive skills straining


and I agree with all of that, and the governors to have more freedoms,


but I have to say to the right honourable lady, in one of my


prisons in particular, the turnover of governors over the last decade


has been enormous. So we need to make sure we have governors who are


able to stay put and put into effect any of the changes they want to be


put into practice. But I'm sure she agrees as well, staffing is still


key to all of this. Stable staffing where people can work together with


prisoners, but also with each other to the best effect. The minister


promised 2500 more staff but that will not bring staffing levels back


to the 2010 level. The Government claim the 2500 is extra, it is good


to have clarity. But in answer to questions at the Justice committee


on the 29th of November in 2016, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of


State referred to the fact this will mean 8000 to be recruited in the


next two years which is 1000 per quarter, that is two to three times


the rate of the achieved in recent years, which looks a tall task. My


prison went from 252 staff to 296. HMP Moreland went from 386 to three


54. From 2015-2016 with upwards of 300 to 800 officers recruited per


quarter but that has failed to stem the shortfall and we are dealing


with an ageing prison population. It is important to look at new ideas


about how we can support prisoners and rehabilitate them but without


the right numbers of staff in our prisons, I feel that will be a tall


task, if not impossible to achieve. It is a real privilege to follow the


right honourable lady. She is highly effective advocate for the causes in


which he believes was an outstanding minister. When the Labour Party


comes to its senses, I hope she will restored to the front bench position


she deserves. May I also say congratulations are in order to the


Shadow Justice Secretary for securing this debate. It's important


have a roof opportunity to reflect on what is happening in our prisons.


I am grateful to him for calling this debate but it was a pity that


in the course of his remarks, while he understandably drew attention to


concerns about what is happening in our prison estate, did not put


forward a single positive alternative proposition. The


contrast with my right honourable friend the lost Chancellor and


Justice Secretary was striking. She has been in office for less than 12


months but during that time she has unveiled and advanced a series of


reforms which I believe have the potential to transform our justice


system more powerfully for the good than any of her predecessors for a


generation. And the way in which she dealt so skilfully with


interventions and also outlined not just in policy detail but with


authority and humanity, what requires to be done underlines how


fortunate we are to have a genuine, passionate and humane reform in such


an important role. Now, it's quite right and I think


almost every speaker in this debate will, paid tribute to those who work


in our prisons. I always remember a visit I made to HMP Manchester when


I talk to a prison officer who was working with the most difficult


prisoners. I asked him why it was he had chosen, deliberately, to work


with some of those offenders whose cases were most complex and whose


behaviour was most threatening. He explained he'd been brought up in a


part of Manchester affected by crime, with unique challenges and


one of the things he wanted to do was put something back, to work with


offenders, to make sure their were changed, and as a result that people


who had been nothing but trouble, people who had been liabilities to


society, people who had brought misery and pain into the lives of


others, people who were wasting their own lives, could be turned


into assets. That we as a society could ensure whatever talents they


had, long buried in many cases, could at last be put to the service


of the community. I remember being inspired by the fact that this young


man from a working-class background had decided that the biggest service


he could give to the community that raised him as to try and turn round


the lives of others. It's that spirit that is abundant in those who


work in our prisons. The frustrations I had in my role, I


never for a moment was anything other than grateful for their


service, their commitment and their dedication and that is why I'm


particularly grateful to my right honourable friend for the steps she


has taken to enhance the way those professionals at work in our prisons


can do the right thing. Not just the reform governors who are changing


the way in which prisons work by exercising a greater degree of


control and autonomy over the individual prisons that are there


responsible at it, but the way in which those who work on the front


line in our wings, particularly but not only in our form prisons, being


empowered to take a much more positive role in encouraging and


securing rehabilitation. I would like a decree to pay tribute to my


right honourable friend for the initiative she has unveiled,


unlocked Graduate. As she pointed out more than 350 undergraduates


from some of our very best universities have now applied


explicitly to work in prisons, just as teach first transformed the


reputation of teaching, so this initiative is helping to recruit


more people to our prisons. It is also the case that alongside the


work of unblocked graduates, prison education is ensuring those in


custody at last receive a higher quality of education and the chance


to transform their lives for the better. It is also the case that the


work of Charlie Taylor in reviewing youth justice is being followed up


and implemented by my right honourable friend. And in so doing,


we are making sure that those whose contact with the criminal justice


system occurs relatively early in their lives, who would otherwise be


set on a course of criminality, are diverted from crime and ensured to


have a productive future at the earliest possible stage.


Talking about youth justice, I think there is an important lesson that


all of us can draw from the experience of the youth justice


system over recent years. It has been the case that youth crime has


fallen, dramatically, in the last few years, at the same time as the


number of young offenders in custody has fallen also. It is not the case


that in order to be tough on crime that we need to maintain the same


level of individuals in custody that we currently have. There are smarter


alternatives to incarceration that we need to contemplate. Let me be


clear, there will always be some criminals for whom custody is the


only appropriate answer, given the seriousness of their crime and the


capacity that they have to reoffend. Sondheim Society will be so outraged


by particular crimes that incarceration is the only answer. --


and Sondheim Society will be so outraged.


I work in the city constituency and a visit to the Salvation Army a


couple of years ago, I came across somebody who had been imprisoned but


got institutionalised by it and therefore he just wanted to go back


fairly soon afterwards. My honourable friend is absolutely


right, some individuals become institutionalised by prison life.


There are many individuals who are imprisoned as a result of problems


that they have acquired, either mental health problems, or substance


abuse or a related issues, which means that their behaviour, as such,


that for their own health and Society does not safety, their need


is to be for a time separated from society, but they shouldn't be


imprisoned. They should be receiving appropriate mental health care,


because the environment they face in custody and incarceration will only


harm them and do nothing to either healed make sure they become


positive and contributing members to society. One of the things I would


like to see, and I know my right honourable friend is looking closely


at, is the possibility of building on the experience of problem-solving


course, where those who are charged with sentencing offenders have the


option of course of custody, who can also save to the offender if they


undertake mental health care or commit to dealing with their drug or


alcohol addiction or change their behaviour in a meaningful way, they


have the opportunity to serve their sentence out of custody. I also


think it is the case that release on temporary licence, the opportunity


for those people who have shown genuine redemption and a desire to


commit to society, giving them the opportunity to be released early,


under strict terms, so that they can reacquaint themselves with the world


of work and learning has to be the right way to go. I know of one who


is has been serving her sentence after one horrendous mistake, in a


women's prison in Surrey, who as a result of release on temporary


licence is not only been able to act as a mental to young offenders to


steer them away from a life of crime but is now pursuing training in


order to becoming a barrister. -- a mentor. To ensure the life which she


herself was responsible for harming can now be turned to good. I think


that example, I think that path is one that all of us in this house can


embrace, and for that reason, I support the amendment.


I'm grateful and it is a pleasure to follow the right honourable


gentleman. He, like me, is one of the number of exes in this chamber


today who have had responsibility at different times for the prison


service. He will know how difficult it is, as I do, to the Secretary of


State was my job and prison minister 's job to deal with these issues.


What you said today's extremely important about who we imprison and


how we use imprisonment and how we use alternative sentences. That


should be listened to. Even he would recognise there are many challenges


in the current system. I think from the Secretary of State's


contribution, she knows it. I think for my right honourable friend who


has tabled a motion today, he knows it. And speaking today is a member


from the Justice committee, in the absence of the honourable gentleman


for Bromley and Chislehurst, supported by the honourable lady of


Banbury, I want to put down some of the challenges as we see them from


the Justice committee today. My right honourable friend the Don


Valley has indicated some of the statistics but it is extremely


challenging. We have had six major incidents. We have had an escape,


which is an unusual occurrence for the last 13-14 years in prison. We


have got, sadly, a very high level of self-inflicted deaths, 107, a


rise of 13% over the previous year. And I certainly expect that to rise


still further with the figures that will be announced tomorrow. I will


give way. Extremely grateful. He will be


aware, as we all are, that on December 16 last year Jerry Smith


tragically killed herself in HMV Doncaster. The position of


transgender prisoners is one that is absolutely agonising in its


implication and I think it's one we simply have to recognise. Would he


accept that we need to do more for transgender prisoners at the moment,


in view of the horrendous record of self harm and suicide that has


afflicted them? I agree with my honourable friend. I


think question one yesterday was on that very issue on the Secretary of


State indicated it is a priority for the Government. We do have a number


of vulnerable people in prison and those self-inflicted deaths, and


also the homicides that have occurred are extremely difficult. We


have, as my right honourable friend mentioned, 26% increase in the


reported incidents of self harm. We have a massive increase of 35% in


hospital attendances. We have a massive increase in the number of


assaults on prison officers, by 34%. We have increases in the number of


attacks on bladed weapons, spitting and blunt instrument use, which is a


really challenging situation and I accept that. I welcome the fact that


the Secretary of State has, to some extent, you turned on the staffing


cuts that her predecessors had in place. She will know that there is a


real challenge to accept the increase to 4000 in each of the two


years, to get a net increase of 2500. I know the committee welcomes


that as a whole. At a time when we've seen the cut in


staffing numbers from 26% since 2010, we're not going to get


anywhere near back to the central point of the level of prison


officers that were in place in May, 2010. She needs to look at how we do


that. But I accept that is not the only concern we have today. I want


to come if I may, in the absence of the chair of justice of the select


committee, just highlight some of the things we are currently looking


at in the Justice select committee which I have the prisons minister


can respond to at some point in time, because these are key issues.


But we're not going to be what implements policies for a number of


years, so we need to offer strong scrutiny to other government is


currently doing anything this is the key issue the next few weeks and


months of the Justice committee. We have now established a presence at


committee, looking at a range of issues to do with government


empowerment and some other challenges the minister names. I am


pleased to share that role with the honourable lady for Banbury but we


are still, if I may, a little short of some of the detail of what's


going to happen in relation to the government's programme. And I think


it would be helpful for the Minister and the government to look at


putting the meat on their current level of activities so that we can


judge what is going to be taking place in whatever time they have


left in office in this government. Because we can talk about what the


alternative opposition policy will be, the election could be as far


away as three and a half years away nearly, so therefore in that time


this government have a key role to play. And we have heard today that


government empowerment will take place in just over two months' time


in April 20 17. We have one third of those and governors who will be


given that greater power and greater autonomy. I am not as clear as yet


how that will work in practice, what the benchmarks will be, how the


ministers will monitor those governors, what the outcomes will be


for those governors and what freedoms they will have that make a


difference. I am not sure that the speed of bringing those changes and


has yet been thought through by the government. We have as the Minister


will now six reformed prisons, which were piloted only in the last six


months, which we don't yet know the outcome of those reforms. I think it


is incumbent on the Minister to give some indication of what the current


outcomes are on those six reformed prisoners. I am not clear on the


accountability. I know from having the prison ministers job that when


something goes wrong in a prison it will end up on the prison Minister's


desk and almost certainly end up on the front of the Daily Mail or the


front of the sun. I'm not clear how that accountability will work in


relation to governors, and I think some clarity from the Minister as to


what the decision in a prison 200 miles from his office in the


Ministry of Justice will mean when ultimately it lands on his desk for


that level of accountability. I'm not clear, and I want clarity today,


about what the commissioning process will be for prison governors. Do


they have the skills and training to be able to commission services


outside for employment, for health, for procurement. Those things have


been done centrally. I'm not sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether the


effect of all that local level of commissioning will mean that we lose


some of the economies of scale that the Ministry of Justice has, and in


a fractured localised system what is the role of the Ministry of Justice


in setting issues in due cause? I'm not sure how governors are going to


recruit local prison officers. I would welcome some clarification on


behalf of our committee as to whether terms and conditions of


service, training, delivery are going to be devolved down, or


whether they're not. These are issues that go to the heart of the


government's amendment to the motion today, and go to the heart of the


prison subcommittee that we'll be looking at on a cross-party basis


with the Justice committee in the near future. I'm not sure whether


there is discretion. We've had evidence from Peter Dawson of the


Prison Reform Trust last week who said it would "Unleash competition


between governors, prisoners and probation in a competitive


environment, and the pros and cons might even drive up costs overall".


I think we need some real vision and clarity, not of the direction of


travel but of what the bones of that travel are with ministers as a


whole. I think it is also important we have some indication of what


performance measurement and league tables are going to look like


because ultimately at the end of the day as the right honourable member


for Surrey Heath and the Minister and my honourable friend have said,


we are caring for people through the gate. Most prisoners will leave


prison and return. Our due to as the state is to make sure they return in


a way that does not let them reoffend and ensures they contribute


positively to society. We need more facts from the government and bore


direction. A pleasure to follow the right honourable member who is one


of the club of exes in this area. When I held my honourable friend's


responsibilities, he knew perfectly well the bits of the system that


were very difficult to change, and I remember talking to him about the


possible to how many foreign nationals who are able to transfer


out of the system, and his regular interrogation as to how we doing


with the numbers showed his expertise and understanding of the


system and I am delighted at the work he is doing on the Justice


select committee and contributing to this debate. I hope my contribution


as one of the exes in trying to reflect on what I see about the


system will be hopefully a positive contribution to the debate, and I'm


delighted that it's my neighbour, my honourable friend for East Surrey,


who is the prisons minister who has been in my experience absolutely


open to talking to people who are experienced in the system, getting


ideas and getting very well across his brief. And he is to be


congratulated for that. He is less clear enough serving under the Lord


Chancellor who has the qualities my right honourable friend the Surrey


Heath gave, and he and the current Lord Chancellor of course put policy


back into the place that it was left by the time of my right honourable


learn that friend, the member for Rushcliffe, under whom I have the


honour to serve. The Shadow Lord Chancellor had I thought the one


point in his speech was the change of policy in that period between


2012 and the arrival of my right honourable friend the Surrey Heath


as Lord Chancellor did create significant difficulties for the


prison service. They would have found some favour with my friend the


honourable friend the Shipley. However we are now dealing with the


consequences and I have to tell him that the prison officers Association


is not innocent in this matter. The priority for my right honourable


friend for absent annual was to deliver the savings target that the


Ministry of Justice had to deliver, and they were significant. He was


then presented with a deal by the prison officers Association that if


he ended the competition programme for the potential privatisation of


prisons, a competition programme begun by the party opposite, if that


was the and the wings were left in the control of the public sector,


then they agreed to the establishment changes that were in


the public sector bits to try and hold onto the management of


Birmingham prison, and those were savage cuts in the establishment and


indeed the winning bid for HMP Birmingham had about 150 more staff


in the bid than the public sector bid, but it was the second round of


establishment cuts that would then be put into the service after


2012-2013, and implemented in the course of 2013-2040 and saw the very


severe establishment of reductions to the prison service, all in the


public sector, which is what my honourable friend is now having to


wrestle with the consequence of, and the government has woken up to the


consequences and is now putting 2500 prison officers back on the


establishment, and I know my honourable friend the South West


Beds had to deal with the consequences of this policy as the


then prisons minister, and immensely difficult it was too. And the


message I want to give to my honourable friend and the front


bench, and indeed try to win the itinerant across the house is the


potential role of the private sector. Do not overlook, and the


problem under my right honourable friend for absent annual was the row


with circa and G four S. Over the management of the tagging contracts.


Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, it caused G for S and circa


not to be considered for contract, the biggest suppliers of private


sector services into the custodial system, and it meant that we lost a


serious amount of competition, indeed a whole competition programme


was stopped, and the right honourable Lady for Don Valley


referred to Doncaster prison services, that is run by circular,


and when I went to see it as prisons minister, it was a quite outstanding


prison, and circa had engaged with the department and had a contract,


and they were incentivised on what they were going to deliver as


Doncaster prison. There is not necessarily a right and wrong answer


that public and private sector but the big advantage that private


sector prisons give you is first of all they are cheaper, they are


cheaper to run and blessed cost to the service. They also invest


heavily in the leadership in those prisons, and what I've found in my


experience is the most innovative prison regimes, particularly around


rehabilitation and management of offenders in prison was in the


private sector. Now I know that my honourable friend's reforms outlined


in the White Paper trying to give some of these freedoms now to the


governors of public sector prisons, and I wish him all power to his


elbow in order to do that, but it is my belief that if we are to get


resources into the custodial estate, there are two ways we are going to


achieve that. It has to be done in partnership with the private sector.


We need to change and improve the state, that means continuing with


the process of selling off the old prisons that are expensive to run


and often inexpensive parts of real estate, and operated by the private


sector. If the money is not available in the public sector


budget now, then at least the private sector gives you the ability


then to deal with the funding over a prolonged period. Oakwood prison,


the costs of running a place in Oakwood prison, the shadow spokesman


makes the point was ?13,000 a year for it was in place compare to an


average cost of ?22,000 per place for a more expensive... Thank you Mr


Deputy Speaker, and I'm pleased to follow the right honourable member


for Reigate, and I want to thank him for his interest in Durham prison,


when he was prisons minister but I have to say I profoundly disagree


with him that privatisation of the prisons is somehow the answer to the


problems were currently facing. Like my right honourable friend, the


member for Don Valley, I have three prisons in my constituency. I have


Durham prison which is a community prison with 1000 prisoners or


thereabouts, I have a high security prison, Franklin prison, with over


800 prisoners, and I also perhaps more unusually because there are not


very many of them in the country, I have a women's prison and a youth


offending institution as well. So I think I'm in a pretty good position


to have some direct and first-hand knowledge, right across the prison


estate, what is happening to prisons currently. And the picture is not a


good one. What we know is that prison budgets have been reducing


with the budget being cut by 2010 by almost a quarter. There were savings


made last year up to about 900 million, with another 91 million of


savings being requested from prisons this year. At the same time of


course the prison population has not really fallen, and most of these


cuts have come in terms of cuts to prison staff numbers. So we have had


a reduction of over 6000 prison staff since 2010. Now this has


really an enormous impact on the ability of our prisons to run


effectively, and as we have heard this afternoon, welcome though it is


that the government is going to recruit another 2500 prison


officers, it doesn't make up for the shortfall or the cuts since 2010,


and of course we also know that the government will have to recruit


many, many more than 2500 in order to be able to find the number of


prison staff that we need. And what has been the impact of this on our


prisons? Deaths in custody are up by 14%,


self harm is up 21%, assaults are up 13% and that means assaults on staff


being up 20%, and serious assault on staff up by 42%.


Now, I don't know about the prisons minister sitting on the bench, but


that is not a record that I would want to stand up and defend. That's


a set of circumstances that I would want to come to the House and we


recognise that there are real problems in our prisons, and these


other measures we are going to take as a matter of urgency, in order to


get our prisons back on track. And a white paper doesn't really cut that,


so one of the things I want to hear from the prisons minister in his


winding up, is what is he going to do as a matter of urgency, to


address some of the problems facing our prisons. I want to just quickly,


because I've only got for a minute for each of them, run through what I


think it needs to do. For the women's prison, far to women are


inappropriately sent to prison. 52% of women in our prisons have


children and lots of those children end up going into care when their


mother -- mothers are put into prison for a short period of time. I


would like to see from the Government a clear strategy to deal


with women prisoners, to direct them to other forms of custody and bring


forward a plan and I look forward to hearing what he and the Justice


Secretary is going to come forward with. I think they said they would


announce it later this year, in terms of a plan for women prisoners,


and in particular cutting the prisoners state, so women are really


given much more sentences in the community, or other types of


custody, rather than in the prisons as they currently are. With Durham


prison, that's community prison, received is really high. We need to


see measures to cut it and in particular to continue to invest in


education, skills and work experience. We know from the


monitoring reports on the inspections that not enough


attention is going into education and skills. That is really


difficult. Difficult to maintain high levels of


education my numbers are being cut. That is an area the Government needs


to address. Frankland prison, in some respects presents the biggest


challenge for the Government. The prisoners have very complex needs.


We know from the monitoring reports that what is critical is that the


Government continues to resource centre that deals with violent


behaviour, for example, and tries to turn it round for the prison


population. All of those special services are at risk if prisons are


not properly staffed and if they are not properly resourced. What I want


to hear from the minister is what is he going to do quickly, to resource


our prisons more effectively, and to ensure the sedative The Miz reduced


and alternative to prisons for men and women? Gordon Henderson, it will


have to go down to six Thank you for that good news, Mr Deputy Speaker.


It is great to follow the honourable member for Durham. Like her, and the


right honourable member for Don Valley, I also have three prisons in


my constituency. Lalli, Stamford hell and Wales side, which is


mentioned in the opposition motion. One of the largest concentration of


thousands in the country. I would like to begin by paying tribute to


the fantastic men and women who work in the prisons, they are dedicated


and hard-working professionals, of whom I am immensely proud. They work


in extremely challenging environments, facing on an almost


daily basis the threat of violence, with few complaints and a great deal


of courage. Mr Deputy Speaker, that threat of violence is growing for


all sorts of reasons, some of which we've heard. They include the


increase of drugs are smuggled into prisons, often by drones that


deliver contraband direct to the cells. Increased alcohol and gang


culture in prisons, retribution for of debts, violence for the recovery


of stolen contraband and frustration caused by reduction in recreation


time because of a shortage of prison officers. That is a fact I am


particular concerned with, because unless something is done soon to


increase staffing levels, or those other problems I've mentioned will


get worse. There's no denying morale among prison staff is low, and


that's not surprising when you consider the environment in which


prison staff have to work. The police are dealing with people all


day but those people are victims of crime or people suspected of crimes,


but who turn out to be innocent. The people with whom prison officers


deal, have to deal with day in and day out have all been found guilty


of a crime, many of them violent crimes. If a police officer is


attacked in England the perpetrators are tracked down, prosecuted and if


found guilty sent to prison for a lengthy sentence. However if a


prison officer is attacked by prisoner, too often in the past the


only punishment meted out is withdrawal of privileges. Now I


believe prison officer should be treated in exactly the same way as


police officers. If a prison at attacks prison officer or another


prisoner, I think that person should be tried and if found guilty being


given as sentence as if the prison crime is committed outside prison.


That sentence should then be added to the sentence prisoner is already


serving. I believe what we need now is a


proper review of the working conditions and pay structure of


prison officers, including perhaps consideration, again, of


regionalising pay that recognises the high cost of living in the south


of England. And the difficulties in attracting so many people in a job


with so many challenges when there is better opportunity available. I


believe also the Government needs to re-examine its policy on retirement


age of prison officers. It simply unfair that police officers and


firefighters are able to retire at 60, where as prison officers are


expected to work until they are 68, despite their work being just as


physically demanding. Mr Deputy Speaker, my prison


officers have a very difficult job, made worse by the ratio of


front-line officers to inmates. I would like to set out what the ratio


is and I do so by using information from the quarterly workforce


bulletin. The key operational grades in public sector prisons are banned


3-5 officers. At 30th of September 2016, the last available figure,


there were 18,000 3-5 officers in prose. -- imposed. At the same time


there are 80,000 prisoners. What are the implications? That 18,000 Band


3-5 prison officers, you have to first of all take into account that


at any one time about 20% of those officers are off work for one reason


or another, because of sickness, court duties or holidays. That


leaves a total of 14,000 400. Of those officers only work 37 hours a


week. Prisoners are incarcerated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It


takes 4.5 officers to provide continuous cover over the week. That


means that any one time there are just 3200 Band three to five


officers on front-line duty in prisons in England and Wales. That


means that any one time there is only, for each officer on duty, he


has to after 25 prisoners. Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to quickly


address the opposition motion before us today. There is much in it with


which I cannot disagree, not least because the facts set out in it are


cut incontrovertible. Indeed, if the motion and finished on the word


odour overcrowded in line seven, I would have been happy to support it.


-- overcrowded. But I'm not happy at on calling on the Government to


improve overcrowded nurse wasn't... I won't be voting against a Labour


motion but I can't support it. It is a pleasure to listen to such


an empowered speech, and I would also like the opportunity to take


the chance to declare I am the co-chair of the Justice Unions and


family courts Parliamentary group. The Ministry of Justice cites three


key objectives which underpinned the prison service, to reduce prisoners


reoffending and to provide safe establishments in which we treat


prisoners humanely, lawfully. Today Wales has four jails housing 3436


inmates, 4% of the total prison population in England and Wales. On


Monday I visited a prison in North Wales which is due to open next


month. This so-called super prison will include Wales' capacity for


housing prisoners by 50%. My party does continue to have a number of


concerns about this prison, in particular the massive strain it


will place North Wales Police, who are expected to face extra staffing


costs of ?147,000 a year as a direct result. And at a time when the


already underfunded police forces stretch, with limited resources on


tight budgets, I must question why is acceptable to expect a local


force to foot the Bill for a UK Government project. This super


prison is designed first and foremost to meet the needs of


north-west England, not that of North Wales, yet the Government


insists North Wales Police force are responsible for covering the costs


of policing this facility. My reservations about this government's


policy on prisons should not be confused with criticism of any kind


against the dedicated staff who work in the criminal justice system. I


would like to thank operational supervisor Peter Barfoot, with an


excellent guide an advocate for this new prison. I was greatly struck by


a strong sense that the staff, both experienced for new recruits, were


looking forward to contributing to a worthwhile social facility. Two


prison officers were forthcoming in explaining they had moved from post


to other prisons specifically because of the opportunities that


this prison, in terms, and I think this is important, in the quality of


the estate, which is a new build, and also, equally important, the


offender management objectives of that prison, which looks set to be


very innovative and exciting and I'm sure you will be following closely.


I will ask the Minister once again to ensure we do not only have the


correct staff, in terms of experience and skill, but in


language. The prisoners in close proximity to some of the most Welsh


speaking regions of Wales and I would want to give the Minister the


opportunity to assure the House there will be the appropriate


provisions, including the hiring of Welsh speaking staff, to enable the


prison to operate effectively. Could the Minister confirmed they will


work with the prison to draw up an institution specific Welsh language


plan? In Wales, whilst we have the ability to set much of our own


health and social policy, our criminal justice system is still


dictated from Westminster, which prioritises the needs of England. In


order for Wales to truly help people to reintegrate into society and


prevent reoffending we must have these powers devolved to the Welsh


Assembly. I want to make the request of the Minister. As the Government


supposedly committed to decentralisation, and if he or the


Secretary of State is committed to reducing reoffending rates, will


heel shoe -- he or she reconsider decentralisation? And also at the


same time as visibility study in the devolution of the prison service, as


recommended by the commission. I want to confine my remarks to the


subject of fixed term recall is, which I wish were much more widely


understood by the public and in this house, because I think it is one of


the biggest outrages of our current prison system and yet hardly anybody


knows anything about it at all. Most people in the country believe


that when someone is let out of prison early, whether it is halfway


through their sentence, a quarter way on home detention curfew or an


at some other point before they should be let out, that if they


reoffend breach their licence conditions they should go back to


prison to serve the rest of the original sentence at the very least.


Unfortunately this is not often the case. In reality the overwhelming


majority of the public believe the offender should serve the whole


sentence in prison. 82% of those asked in a survey carried out by


Lord Ashcroft thought prison should see the whole prison sentence


carried out. This is not rocket science but common sense. But fixed


term recall is introduced to reduce the pressure on prison places in


2008, and I don't think many people know about what's happening.


A fixed term recall is where the offender breaches their licence or


reoffend is an return to prison for a mere 28 days. Not for the rest of


their prison term, not even for most of it, for just 28 days.


When fixed term recall is why introduce, they excluded certain


offenders. But my right honourable friend the rush breath when he was


Lord Chancellor, in his bid to reduce the prison population


further, relax the rules by way of a change in the legal aid sentencing


and punishing act 22. So as of the 3rd of December 2012, fixed term


recall that were made available to previously denied prisoners. These


were offenders serving a sentence for certain violent or sexual


offences. Those subject to a home detention curfew, and in my opinion


most shockingly, those who had already been given a fixed term


recall for breaching their licence in the same sentence. I don't think


many people out in the country know that. I certainly know that many


people out in the country won't like it.


These fixed term recourse aren't just happening in occasional cases,


in 2013-14 they were given to 40% of all offenders who were recalled, and


in 2015 to 28%. That's an awful lot of people only going back to prison


for 28 days instead of the rest of their sentence, and fees 28 day


recalls were laid only the sentences of one year or more, so were talking


about the most serious of offenders, their 14 day recall is applied to


shorter sentences but they are a much more recent concept. The more I


have investigated the whole issue of 28 day fixed term recourse and the


more figures that have been released, more disturbing things


have become clear. In 2014, 7486 prisoners were recalled for just 28


days. Of those, 3166 had been charged with a further offence. That


means there were 3166 people charged with a further offence when they


should have been in prison in the first place, who then escaped


serving the original sentence despite committing be further


offence. The vast majority of these had 15 or more previous convictions.


The most common is burglary. So over half of these being given this


pathetic slap on the risk were people who had committed this very


serious crime. They were also given to people convicted of manslaughter,


attempted homicide wounding, rape and robbery. Perhaps the icing on


the case in this whole sorry state of affairs is that in 2015 816


offenders were allowed more than one fixed term recall for another breach


or offence to the same original sentence. So in just three years,


3327 of the most serious offenders in our prisons were released from


prison, breached their licence, returned to prison for 28 days,


released again, and then from a further breach of licence returned


to prison for just another 28 days and then released again. This is a


complete failure of a policy in my opinion and completely indefensible.


I raised this issue yesterday in justice questions and the Minister's


dash-mac reply about risk is interesting but this is a very sad


joke. These people should not have been released early in the first


place as far as I'm concerned, but having been released there should be


no other option but to them to be returned to prison for breaching


their son since and especially the reoffending for the remainder of the


original sentence at the very least. The final thing I want to mention on


this is that this week response has become so well-known in the criminal


community that some people are taking their chances of getting


record, knowing of the punishment is pathetic. That is like a 28 day


all-inclusive mini-break. Worse still, some prisoners who have been


released deliberately tried to get themselves back into prison to give


them enough time to see how their criminal operation in prison is


carrying on whilst they are out, knowing that they will only get 28


days. This has been confirmed by Manchester University Metropolitan


University, where they say prisoners have been able to earn ?3000 in 28


days by the bringing in drugs. Other prisoners have said everyone keeps


going and coming back on these recalls and bringing more drugs back


in with them. This is an absolute farce. The criminals are laughing


all the way to the bank whilst nothing is being done to stop this


nonsense. When will the Minister get a grip of this thing and end of this


fraud on the public? It is a pleasure to follow fellow member of


the Justice committee the member for Shipley. He has raised this issue


before I'm sure, but by the time the minister comes the reply he would


have got a grip on this matter, and announced some changes that will


satisfy the honourable general -- gentleman. If not, then it will be


raised again not just on the Justice committee but also in the house. In


the short time that I have available, I want to raise just one


issue, which is the issue of foreign national prisoners. I agree


wholeheartedly with what has been said by other right honourable


members about the crisis in our prisons, and indeed if we are


thinking about having a club of ex-ministers, I indeed was an


ex-minister in the Lord Chancellor's department, but prisons at that


stage was at the Home Office, so I take no responsibility for what has


happened in the past. But maybe a seminar of ex-prisons minister is


chaired by the honourable member for Hexham from the author of that


definitive book, and maybe we can come to the solutions or memos of


this house would like to see adopted to try to bring this crisis to an


end. Going back to foreign national prisoners, and I am delighted that


the prisons minister is chairing the task force, we want to hear more


about this, because it remains a mystery to me why 12% of the prison


population happens to be people who are foreign national figures, and of


that figure half that number, 4000 plus, are from EU countries. Bearing


in mind we are still a member of the European Union for the next two


years, I find it extraordinary that we are not able to send more foreign


national prisoners from our prisons. After all, what is the point of


undertaking negotiations signing transfer agreements with EU


colleagues, and they are unable to take back their citizens. So I think


it is a priority for this government to ensure that in the two years


available before Brexit that we will insure that citizens of that


country, from countries like Poland and Romania who are top of the list,


should be returned back. I was surprised at the last committee


hearing to hear the Minister's chief Officer Michael spirt of the


decided 130 should have been sent back and they had not. As the


Minister and the house knows, the derogation for Poland ended on 31st


of December. When he comes the reply I hope he will tell us that this


matter is now being looked at very carefully, that prisoners are being


transferred. I am glad that a record number were removed last year, but


the headline figure was so low that practically any additional figures


becomes a record. We need to do much, much better than we are doing


at the moment. Recently, of course, we hear that under the agreement


that has been made with Albania, only 17 Albanian prisoners have been


transferred from our prisons. It is not that we are against foreign


national prisoners, we are just in favour of them being able to serve


their sentence in their countries of origin. If that happens, it will


reduce the prison population by a 10,000 and it will save the taxpayer


?169 million, so I hope very much that when the Minister comes the


reply he will give us some new information, which will encourage


the house to believe that this issue is being taken very seriously. Thank


you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I start by declaring an interest as a


trustee of the Butler trust, which is an organisation, which seeks to


improve the skills of prison officers across the country, and to


share best practice, and I have the pleasure to serve as a trustee,


alongside PJ McFarlane, who is a former chairman, a very


distinguished chairman of the prison officers Association with whom I'm


very proud to be a fellow trustee. I am very pleased that the Ministry of


Justice has managed to secure the funding to recruit an extra 2500


prison officers and I start by paying tribute to the work that they


do, date in and day out. They are an outstanding group of public servants


whose work is unfortunately not as well known, and well appreciated, as


it should be. The move towards more autonomous collisions will help


local communities appreciate more fully the sterling work that prison


officers do day in and day out. I also want to make sure in terms of


safety that prison officers are always supported as well as possible


by good local police associations. Annika Beck there would effectively


and in my time as prison officer, I felt that the corporation between


police forces and local prisons ferried around the country. It needs


to be good. The reason that this is so important


is not only because the British taxpayer is paying for this, but if


we could reduce 9000 prisoners in our prisons would give us the head


room, a flexibility to do rehabilitation better across our


prisons, and that is what again on both sides of this house we are so


keen to see. It is very much the focus of the White Paper, which I


was delighted to see published in November. One of the issues I'm very


pleased the Ministry of Justice is taking forward is the farmer review


on prisoners families. I believe strong families are essential to


strong communities across our country, they are engines of social


mobility, and they matter very much for prisoners for lots of practical


reasons. We know that if a prisoner's relationship or marriage


doesn't fall apart, they are more likely to have somewhere to live


when they come out prison, they are also more likely to get into work,


so I strongly welcome the Ministry of Justice's support for the review.


The continuing emphasis on education is excellent, with a greater focus


on testing and making sure there is improvement. Yes, of course I'll


give way. Thank you forgiving way. In relation to education, yesterday


there was an event organised here by the cultural learning allowance. --


Alliance. My sister is a member of that alliance, have to declare. The


most recent research includes research that shows young offenders


take part in our arts activities are 18% less likely to reoffend, which


is of huge benefit to the public and to the prisoners's families as well.


Would you agree it is important that we invest in arts education in


prisons? Yes, weather is clear evidence that it reduce the


reoffending, she is right to raise that issue. One phrase never like to


hear was that prisoners were being taken to education. I think


education should run across the whole prison, on the wings, in the


landings, in prisoners cells. I commend what is happening in


Wandsworth where the inspirational governor Ian Vickers is taking 50


prisoners who have level three qualifications, paying them, giving


them a uniform, they can lose their job if they don't perform well, and


getting them to work alongside those doing education in prison to spread


lending across the prison. That is an excellent initiative. The focus


on work and training in prisons that will lead to a job on release is apt


salute the right. Prison apprenticeships, which will carry on


we often hear name checked the employers that do the right thing


and take on ex-offenders that play fair by everyone to reduce


reoffending to keep everyone safe, but I have to tell the house there


are a number of employers, and a number of very well-known national


employers, who do not take on ex-offenders as a matter of policy.


I am not going to name and shame them today, because I am in


correspondence and dialogue with them, and I hope that quiet


persuasion will lead to them doing the right thing, but just as we name


checked those who do well, I put on notice those who don't do the right


thing, that there will come a time when we will call them out and urge


them to do better in this area. I was pleased to hear from the


Secretary of State that in April she will be saying more about probation,


and we need high standards for probation. I pay tribute to our


probation officers again, a very dedicated group of public servants.


They need to work hand in glove with prison officers, I know the


Secretary of State and the prisons probation Minister will make sure


that that does happen, and in particular and want to see probation


officers making sure that the emphasis on education and on


employment that is taking place in prison carries on during the


probationary period, making sure that work focus continues, that the


ex-offenders attending the local college for example. That will take


us forward and addict grimly important.


Can I just give a warning, I need to drop the limit to four minutes after


the next speaker. Thank you. I would like to repeat


what we've heard from many other honourable members, the tribute of


all of us in this house to the work people in the prison service do.


They take on an incredibly difficult task and we are incredibly grateful


to them for the work they do. It was brought home to me when I took up a


challenge from my honourable friend from Ealing North, about visiting a


prison. I visited Nottingham prison. I would encourage all of us to do


so, so any MPs voting in this debate who haven't been around a prison,


are doing so from a position of ignorance. In listening to the


speech of the Secretary of State today, I have to say there is much


in the rhetoric I heard that I would support. Much of what she was saying


about the issues and challenges facing the prison service we would


all agree with, but I have to say, her vision of what was going on and


the policies of this government there little relationship to the


experiences prison officers actually have.


Criticism was made by the honourable member from Rushcliffe of the


motion. And whilst we recognise there many other aspects to than


simply those in the motion, it seems there is little to disagree with in


terms of what is in the motion. Four friends of mine have worked in


recent years at a prison in Doncaster, two have recently been


retired medical grounds, one is off sick at the moment and whilst this


debate refers rightly to the overall reduction in prison officers, what


isn't so much being focused on is the deliberate strategy of replacing


experienced prison officers with cheap replacements, and people right


at the start of their career. I think it's an extremely dangerous


policy. My honourable friend from Leeds has spoken about private


prisons but this is also happening in the Government estate. One of my


friends that worked in Doncaster left the service, was assaulted


three times in a six-month period, once very seriously indeed. On the


first occasion he was encouraged to telephone the staff welfare hotline.


On the third occasion when he found he was told he had used the hotline


too many times and was actually allowed to use time to get any


support, after a very serious assault on him at work. Another


friend in the service told me how he needs a knee replacement operation


that has cancelled the operation because he believes if he takes time


off to get his knee repaired he will be sacked on the capability grounds.


He specifically asked me why experienced prison officers felt too


intimidated to get the medical treatment that they actually needed.


Another friend who has worked in the service for 25 years left last year.


He said when he started there were 12 prison officers for 90 prisoners,


now just three prison officers are there. Three prison officers may be


adequate when things are quiet and everything is going OK, but it


leaves too little time to engage on rehabilitating the way prison


officers want to do. But when a prisoner takes a phone call at five


to eight, saying his wife is leaving him or his children have been taken


away by social services, need support on the prison officers


stepped in and do an incredibly important task. When those resources


aren't there, whether it be a moment of crisis in a prisoner's life or to


prevent fights or simply support prisoners to consider what courses


they might do I go down the route of rehabilitation, a vital chance is


lost to help a prisoner back onto the right path. That sense prison


officers no longer feel is incredibly important role in our


society, is for filling in the way it once was, is something that


should concern us all. When prisoners start to consider


that no one is interested in them, that's when we see the sort of


violent episodes that we've seen recently and there's not enough


being done to prevent reoffending. It is a fact that experienced prison


officers also crucial to the development of new staff. Managers


in prison much less experience than they once were. I wonder what chance


the new ?19,000 prison apprentices have, put into overcrowded prisons


with disillusioned and inexperienced prison officers, where the mentoring


that once would have been there for new staff is unfair. Are we just


setting up to fail? I support the motion in the name of


right honourable friend but I would go further and say unless government


recognises why the riots are happening and not only stops its


deliberate attempt to chuck experienced officers out of the


system to save money but implement a strategy to retain those experienced


staff and see them as central to the success of the recruitment of the


new generation of prison officers, then not only will these problems


continue to escalate, but our prisons and society will pay a very


heavy price for that failure Iniesta,. -- in years to come. Simon


Hall. I hope I won't take any more time


than four minutes. And you forgot my name, I shall edit my Christmas card


list and I get back to the office. It is an honour to follow my


honourable friend from Chesterfield, and I agree with him on the member


of Ealing North, that it should be a requirement of all of us to visit


prison so we can see things done on the ground where we have them in our


constituencies. I have a prison in my constituency, which I have


visited now on a number of occasions. So many times the


prisoners and I seem to be on first name terms. I have seen the


excellent work that the prison officers Association do with the


staff, with the prisoners, and where the voluntary sector gets involved.


That's a session preparing prisoners to get skills, get their CV is


right, to get them equipped for work, and working alongside that


charity with a number of national businesses, reflecting on what my


honourable friend from Bedford just said, who are keen to take


ex-offenders on when they have finished their sentences. Will my


honourable friend give way? I'm glad you mentioned volunteers. Would he


agree we should salute the work of volunteers who go into our prisons


across the country to work alongside prison officers? I agree


with my honourable friend, if for no other reason bar the fact it says to


those prisoners that society hasn't forgotten about the man hasn't


dismiss them out of hand, that they still see them as potentially


productive part of the community when they come back. There were two


things I wish to talk about today, which I hope the Minister will pay


attention to. The first is in very specific


relation to my prison, which the Ministry of Justice team will no,


because it was in the media relatively recently and has had


problems. I make a brief comment, if I may, about the robustness of


Karelian as the contractor. Contracts have two sides that to


that particular point. The first is clearly on the company which is


contracted to deliver the service, to deliver that service. The other


side of the coin is for the person who lets the contract to monitor a


bubbly and enforce what is required from it. I remain to be convinced


that Corillian is up to the job and that as the manager of the contract,


that they have done the job it is required to do. I don't take a


private sector good, public sector bad or vice versa but sometimes I


think some of these companies contracted to do this very important


work do need to raise their game. I've spoken to the Minister about


that and I know he and the Lord Chancellor is receptive to the case.


Madame Debord is bigger, yesterday I was called at justice questions to


talk about recruitment, an issue that has dominated the debate today.


In response to my question my honourable friend the Prisons


Minister replied that guys Marsh has been made a priority prison, which


means the governor is getting extra resorts in addition to our national


campaign effort to recruit the staffing needs. Of itself that is


excellent news. I thank the Minister for it, I welcome it, as does the


governor, but as I pressed in my question, and I make no apologises


for pressing again today. Having a prison in a rural area presents


problems when it comes to recruitment. The cost of our housing


is higher. Public transport scarce. We find our unemployment rate is


very low, we only have about 300 people on JS say in North Dorset. So


in that recruitment drive, can I urge ministers to ensure that there


is flexibility and scope for innovation? That could be providing


help for a new prison officer to get a vehicle or motorbike will


something to be able to get to and from the prison. It may be helped


with relocation or housing costs, some form of grant to help pay for a


deposit, a loner or whatever. I also think the terms and conditions could


be looked at. I appreciate this is a sensitive area but I would hope that


the POA would support something such as that, if the endgame to deliver


more prison officers into those prisons, to make the regime and


atmosphere much safer for Basta. I also encourage him to work more


closely with the MOD. -- safer for their staff. A very fertile


recruiting ground for new prison officers.


Peter Heaton Harris. I'm sorry, you've conflated two


honourable members of this house. I am very closely related to the


honourable member but not he. Is it me you intended?


Peter Heaton Jones. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The


prisons system faces many challenges, but the Government is


taking, I think an enormous steps to address them. We have heard some


them today. The investment extra investment of ?1.3 billion to reform


and modernise the prison estate is front and centre in the white paper


which was published in October of last year. Nonetheless, the prison


system does face challenges. I was very taken by the comments of my


right honourable and Bernard friend, the member of Rushcliffe, towards


the beginning of this debate, when he said nobody on either side of


this house would deny the fact there are serious challenges faced by the


prison service. That is absolutely the case. I welcome what is in the


white paper. I've already mentioned the 1.3 billion to reform our modern


eyes the prison estate, which I greatly welcome. As I do the fact


that we are now recruiting 2500 front line officers. -- and


modernise the prison estate. I was pleased to hear the Lord Chancellor


say at the beginning of debate that the further commitment, which was to


recruit, to fast track 400 new prison officers into ten of our most


challenging prisons by the end of March, that we are already more on


track and I think the figure of 389 was mentioned as to the number of


appointments that have already been made under that scheme, which I


think is excellent news. I want to go on in the time


remaining to discuss the points that just concerns me, that is that of


security. I have had discussions with ministers on this in the past.


In particular the issue around the growing problems of drones being


used to deliver drugs, contraband, mobile phones and various other


matters into prisons. I've actually long held the view that we haven't


quite, as a society, as a community, maybe as a government, grasped the


difficulties that drones are now giving us and the explosion in the


number of people who own them, quite apart from the security matters in


prisons, we've seen the all four cases of near misses with aircraft.


I think we need to tackle this. And as part of this problem of security


in prisons, I think that is something we need to look at very


seriously. I know there are practical measures being taken, such


basic things such as netting being put up to prevent things being


dropped. I think we need to look at that more carefully, and the issue


of drones overall. The other one that does concern me


is this continued challenge that we have, with the misuse of mobile


phones, with the delivery of mobile phones into prisons using, what I


understand it are, increasingly ingenious methods. I don't use that


word as praise just that there are new ways being found all the time to


deliver mobile phones into prisons. We do have to stop those and we have


to do that using practical, hard measures. But I do say this. I think


the mobile phone industry has a responsibility here as well. I think


there is more they need to do technically, to work with us, to


work with the prison authorities, to ensure there are ways blocking


mobile phone signals. There is more that can be done. I know only too


well that there are many places who don't have mobile phone signals.


That is unintentional. I'm sure there is a technical way we can ask


the mobile phone operators to take responsibility and to make sure


those blackspots are there intentionally, to stop them getting


into prisons. I will be supporting the Government's Amendment and I


praise the work that's being done and I welcome Paper.


Victoria Prentice. It is a pleasure to follow the


member for North Devon and indeed one of the most exciting parts of


the Secretary of State's speech for me was when she mentioned the pilots


on blocking mobile phone signals in prisons. Mobile phones increase the


number of organised crime that can be carried out on a daily basis in


prison and is critical we deal with this. It is also a pleasure to


follow a number of distinguished exes this afternoon who have given


fantastic ideas, aren't we lucky? We don't have to recall them as the


member of Shipley would like us to believe, in order to benefit from


the brilliance of the ideas that they all came up with to improve the


serious situation on the safety of our prisons.


The Justice committee reported in May 2016, and we urge the government


as my honourable colleague mentioned earlier to act quickly on prison


safety. It's clear from everything that has been said this afternoon,


not least from the Secretary of State, that the emoji is bursting


with ideas. The Justice committee welcomes the White Paper. Due cause


we will scrutinise and probably welcome a great deal of the police


and the bill we have been drip fed negative of this afternoon of what


is coming. But in order to do our job of holding the department to


account, we do need adequate information. On 29th November, the


prisons minister was kind enough to come before Oscar Ouma and said he


would give 's monthly performance on safety indicators. We haven't had


these, despite chasing, and I urge him once again to produce these as


soon as possible. We need it. We have also welcomed the extra money


that is being given to our prisons. We know a fit of that will be spent


on staff, we welcome that but we need more information about where


the rest of that money will be going. We need to know if this


works. We need the data to be able to assess that. I understand the


frustration of the department, with those of us who say reducing prison


numbers is the solution to their problems. My own ideas on who the


release, and this is not the committee's ideas, I stress, many of


which have been mentioned would include IPP prisoners, foreign


national prisoners, though we know it isn't as easy as all that. Women


prisoners and their trends have very low reoffending rates but that is


tinkering around the edges of the large prison population at the


moment. If we can't recruit, as I except the department is trying


desperately hard to, would the minister commit today to at least


considering whether we should have a shift in the sentencing framework, a


shift as the member for Surrey Heath mentioned to community-based


alternatives? And the other issue that I would ask him to consider is


that we desperately need more secure mental health beds in order that we


can screen prisoners immediately on reception in the prison and divert


them to the best place for them to be. None of us on the Justice


committee think that the prisons minister has an easy job, and we do


welcome many of the reforms that the government has set out recently, but


we need the data to do our job in holding him to account. It is a


pleasure to contribute to this debate. I remember when I was first


elected a member of Parliament being taken to the police station to a


room where there were 18 faces on the wall, and the police officer


said of course when a large number of these people are on the mind or


in prison, crime goes down. And when they're not, the opposite happens. I


served as a magistrate for six years in Westminster, and though we had


very strict guidelines, we listened very carefully to the excellent


probation officer before we gave sentencing, obviously, I was always


aware that we were making a judgment that I would not know the outcome


of, and a few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Amber


foundation in Exeter, a very worthwhile charity that has a number


of sites dealing with ex-offenders, giving them a pathway back to full


citizenship. I want to use the time available this afternoon to talk


about the importance of education, because education and rehabilitation


have to be the major focus of the department, because actually unless


we get this right we are actually in this awful cycle of putting people


away, having them come out and go back in, and the impact on crime


levels and on those individuals for the rest of their lives is very


poor. I hope that the government will continue their ambition to give


real autonomy to prison governors so that we can ensure programmes


offered in place are the ones that work for their institution and can


command authority to drive real change. But we also need to be


realistic about the complexity involved in reforming prison


education. I would like the minister to talk about what


I am pleased to hear about apprenticeships but given that so


many will have learning difficulties and no formal education, will he


allow prisoners to have increased pay, time out of cells, or even


early release in exceptional places. We must contemplate radical policy


options if we are going to see a step change in this area. I would


also ask the minister what is his department's view for the balance


between providing holistic education focused on developing potential,


including the arts but also basic literacy and programmes focused on


local labour market outcomes after prison. Will he give sufficient


autonomy to local governors on this issue? But we need to bear in mind


that a very high proportion of prisoners will have the special


educational needs, and will need individual attention, and this will


be expensive. What plans does the government have to help with the


recruitment of those with the specialist skills to work in what


will be a very challenging sector? I welcome the announcement around


investment in more resources, but let's not be under any illusions in


this house about how complex this challenge is. So I hope the Minister


when he responds will give some detail here come and I congratulate


the government on getting to grips with many of these issues, and the


original thinking I am seeing from the dispatch box. It is a pleasure


to follow the member for Salisbury, and with his permission I would like


to focus very parochially on Bedford, as it is mentioned in the


motion, and to start if I may buy commending the Minister on the


afternoon and evening of the disturbance in Bedford, he managed,


notwithstanding the responsibilities that he had to recover the


situation, to keep me as a member of Parliament fully informed


throughout. As the honourable member for Reigate mentioned, this is a


hallmark of this particular minister and I am grateful to him. Since that


disturbance, that had prison has been recovered and rebuilt. I would


ask the minister, as I have been nice to him, if he would also meet


with him to discuss the small investment that has been pending for


Bedford prison that could make a substantial difference there? I


would also like to talk about the issue of accountability, one of the


issues leading up to Bedford, there were 72 recommendations by the


inspectorate, of which two years later only 12 had been enacted. The


governor who has recently returned to her position, I have every


confidence she will find remedies to those problems, but perhaps the


Minister could address in his remarks how in future does he see as


governors are given more accountability how they themselves


will be held to account, but in particular in Bedford prison we have


an excellent IMB, what will be their role across the country, in terms of


accountability? May I also say on the issue of prison officers, we


have mentioned very frequently both in terms of numbers and in terms of


pay that having spoken to a number of members of the prison officers


anonymously after the disturbance, it is clear that two other issues


have been bought out. Firstly it is not just about pay, it is also about


prestige of the profession. Many members have made very strong


confidence to that today, but too often the prison officers are seen


as the nearly force, not quite held in the same regard. I would just


commend the Minister that there are probably a number of things he could


do on the issue of prestige as well as pay that could make a difference,


and also I talked about the importance of the issue of


experience. There has been a downgrading of the age range of


which people can be brought into the prison officer corps, but that has a


knock-on effect, in terms of confidence and teamwork when put in


a very difficult situation. And finally, as last year was the 150th


anniversary of the Howard league, named after a former high Sheriff of


John Howard, can I reinforce the comments that have been made about


the attention being paid to suicides in prison? This is a pertinent


issue, I would be interested what he said. That their 150th anniversary,


I said the Howard league were the essential irritant to government on


prison reform. Having listened to the opposition today, I have to say


unfortunately the Labour Party had absolutely nothing, in terms of


positive suggestions, and I hope the Minister himself will do much better


in his contributions. Can I start my paying tribute to all prison


officers in the country who do a fantastic and difficult and often


dangerous job, particularly prison officers in my constituency at HMP


Lewes, which has seen disturbances over recent months and was put into


special measures just before Christmas will stop I'm not sure if


the Shadow minister has been the Lewes prison, I know the prison


minister has, and I would encourage him to do so if we hasn't, because


having visited the prison myself on a number of occasions, you cannot


fail to be moved by the dedication of those prison officers that work


there tirelessly. I am disappointed by the motion put forward by


opposition members, and I note there are no further opposition members to


speak, because it fails to demonstrate any understanding of the


issues failing prison officers day in, day out. It isn't just about


staffing levels. In Lewes prison for example, there have been a number of


vacancies for a while now that have not been able to be filled. I take


on board the points made by the member for North Dorset that in a


rural constituency in the south-east of England it is hard to fill those


vacancies, and irony welcomed the moves by the Secretary of State to


move towards local recruitment where a governor can actually manage


people leaving and have replacements ready at hand, and manage the skill


mix and the experience of their prison officers to make that


transition much more easier. The building of Lewes prison, as I have


said in my interventions, is a difficult prison to manage. It is an


old prison, which makes it very difficult when you are on register


numbers of staff to be able to see what is going on. It is also a


depressing prison inside. There is hardly any lighting, so not just


inmates but for prison officers to work their day in, day out, is tough


indeed. Indeed, the inmates there are also changing. The same usual


faces that keep coming through the revolving door, there are also


prisoners that are there for offences such as sexual offences,


which were never there ten or 15 years ago. That has added pressure


on the prison officers and the prisoners themselves. But I want to


touch on the minute and a half that I have left on the fact that to


support my colleague, the honourable member for Salisbury, in his words


that we are, the members opposite are not even touching on what is


motivating people to commit crime and enter prison in the first place.


We know that a quarter of those in our prisons come from the care


sector, have been in care at some point in their life, we know that


59% of those who are entering prison have been in prison before, and we


know that around three quarters of prisoners have problems reading or


writing. I went just because there is such short time to do so. -- I


went to give way. We absolutely have to deal with the way people enter


the prisons. Talking to people in New Haven in my constituency who


have come from the care sector in many cases, many of them


deliberately commit crime to get into prison because they don't have


confidence around housing or care, and many of their friends are in


prison already. And until we address those life chances issues, we will


be seeing the same people going through the prison system. And I


know that this government and the justice department are not just


working in isolation, they are working with children's Mr, with the


health Minister under the Housing Minister to deal with housing


problems, and that is why I am so disappointed with the motion before


us by opposition members, because it just fails to tackle any of those


issues, which are contributing to prisoner numbers, and they fail to


have any understanding of that at all. Last year and Ronald Chowdhury,


an extremist preacher and vocal supporter of the death cult Daesh


was jailed for five and a half years. Like many I was pleased


justice had been served but I was also deeply concerned by what


influence he might have over his fellow inmates while serving his


sentence. The influence radical inmates can have on other prisoners


should not be underestimated. Prisoners -- prisons have already


always had gangs and this is just another gang on the prison block. As


such I firmly welcomed the measures put into place, particularly the


stronger vetting of reasons, chaplains and front line staff and


the removal of those spreading extreme violence and corrosive abuse


from the general prison population in the specialist units. I would ask


the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that once contained in the


specialist units, extremists are not able to further collaborate and


propagate their dangerous ideologies. I have long asked for


tighter vetting the so-called faith leaders, and to ensure that all


sermons and services are conducted in English. We hear of a reluctance


among prison staff in challenging conditions extremist views,


particularly with regards to Islamic beliefs that are radical. Prisons


must not be allowed to exist as breeding grounds for the


proliferation of Daesh, and it is of vital importance that we continue to


push for the appropriate training of prison staff in this area.


They must be properly equipped to combat extremism. I was shocked to


hear inmates in Belmarsh prison and other prisons had extremist


material. Surely the minister would agree this is an offence under the


terrorism act and penalties must be served. In addition to this I would


ask the Minister to ensure there is greater emphasis on the


being at risk of radicalisation. There seems to be a link between


mental health and radicalisation. It must run in tandem with the support


provided through the programme. Beyond educational assessment


prisoner should be screened for radical beliefs on entry to prison


in order to make sure that such beliefs are detected as soon as


possible. This would mean that from day one prison staff are aware of


those likely to pose risks. I would also suggest that prisons record the


religious beliefs of inmates if they have any, on entering and exiting


prison. This will show how many are converted to an alien faith or


forced to convert in prison to survive. As a member of the Home


Affairs Select Committee we have investigated the rise of


psychoactive substances and I am pleased reforms have been introduced


to tackle the use of legal highs in prison. I would ask the Minister to


acknowledge the link between mental health and crime. Finally, in order


to turn our prisons into places of safety and reform we must track the


progress made by prisoners in combating addiction and addressing


extremist prison gangs and the levels of red religious conversion


and help our prisoners gain critical skills and the educational


requirements they need to get a job on function outside prison.


I enter into this debate with some amount of trepidation, if I'm


honest. We seem to have a veritable cricket team of former prison


ministers or lawyers who have been involved in it. Can I pay tribute to


my honourable friend for Reigate, who ended up coming up with me on a


cricket tour to Jamaica, where we went and visited a very interesting


prison, and the work he did to make sure there will be a new prison so


we can hope for a transfer some of the Jamaican prisoners from this


country back to Jamaica. I am not going to pretend for a


moment I have any prisoners in my constituency. Indeed I worked in the


1980s and 90s as the Conservative Party agent for the Prisons Minister


at the time, and I learned quite a bit. We visited Wandsworth prison,


where they were seeking to try and get Ronnie Biggs to go back to.


Indeed, when I said would they like, what had actually happened, they


said they wanted him to go back and collect his staff in person, which


he eventually, I think, went and did. I have got in my constituency


probably the busiest custody suite in the whole of the country. It


seems in my mind that is where we have to start from. There are three


things which I think we have to make sure happen. First of all we need to


make sure people can read and write and also add up. Can I commend the


Government on producing this league of prisons, which are achieving


that, I think that is good news. Secondly it's about making sure we


get them off drugs and I think that is something that the Government is


quite aware of. The third thing, which I think is very important, of


course I represent a naval garrison city, with a large Royal Marine


population, which is going to grow as well. Can I pay tribute to Trevor


Philpott who runs an organisation called veterans change partnership,


which is seeking to change the justice system so that we don't get


the veterans into the justice system in the first place. If I may


encourage the justice system also to make sure they make greater use of


those people who have served in the military when they are magistrates,


that would be incredibly helpful, because at least they have some idea


as to what happens. I'm sorry, I'm not going to give away because I am


sure of time. It seems to my mind, the other point I would also make


is, I was involved in an organisation called Forward Assessed


whether Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary got involved. When I was


on the northern Ireland select committee we went down, to a


community in Washington, and we learned how they were dealing with


the veterans. What they have is a veterans treatment Court as well.


That is something I would urge the Government to have a look at in no


uncertain terms. This is a vital that we get that right, and also we


do something about mental health and I would ask the Government to look


at better training for prison officers, because they do


brilliantly good job and I have a lot of prison officers in my


constituency who work in Dartmoor and I look forward to going to see


Exeter and Dartmoor outside my constituency as well. Thank you very


much indeed Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It


is a pleasure to be able to close this debate. I think it is right and


that everyone agrees we have heard from people who have spoken very


eloquently and knowledgeably about the issues that are facing our


prison system. Before I go into what those members have said I do want to


thank our prison officers, prison governors and all those who work in


the prison services, because they face very challenging challenges


every day in their lives and I think we owe them a lot for the work that


they do for us in the prison services.


I want to start with what the honourable member for Don Valley


said, who has three prisons in her constituency, and she talked about


the work she had achieved as a former minister, about trying to


reduce the number of violence in prisons. She has set out some of the


comprehensive failures of this government. I'm sorry if that is


going to disappoint members opposite, but as I will expand


later, there have been failures to tackle some of the big issues facing


our prisons. We also heard from the honourable


member who had three prisons in her constituency. She talked about the


prison budget cut by, she talked about the ?900 million taken away


from prisons. Obviously it's going to affect our prisons are run and


the impact on staff. She raised three questions she thought that the


prisons should be looking at -- the prison minister should be looking


at. The fact there are too many women in prison, particularly women


with children, and there doesn't seem to be any clear strategy in


place in the prison system to be able to deal with those situations.


If children can visit their parents, or how to assist them. It is also


reflected in the fact from the Ministry of Justice's on facts that


the number of suicides that have occurred in prison, a much higher


percentage were women. She talked about reoffending on the issue of


education and training, which would stop reoffending taking place and


talked about mental health issues and personality disorders. Again,


there has been a cut in the funding for the services and those things


need to be addressed as well. I also want to come on to what the


honourable member for Chesterfield said when he talked about the fact


that many experienced staff had left the prison service replaced by


inexperienced staff and I think it's well accepted experienced officers,


whilst carrying out their duties as prison officers, do far more than


just locking and unlocking the gates and taking prisoners in and out.


They are often only the only person the prisoners will be speaking to.


It's been accepted that they act as, you could say, advisors, family


members, a listening ear, someone who is sympathetic. I think to have


inexperienced people taking over these roles is not good enough.


Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly with what the honourable member for


Shipley... I can't remember... Said when he talked about the tremendous


work prison officers do and the fact their terms and conditions should be


looked at properly and they should be put on the same footing as other


people involved and doing these difficult, sensitive jobs, like


police officers, and they should be remunerated properly. It is right to


say since the Government came in in 2010 they did make massive cuts in


prison officers numbers, and that is one of the big reasons why we have


got some of the issues that we have in prisons. It's all very well for


the Government to say, well, we are trying to do things, and that's


good, but they should never have done that in the first place,


because if they hadn't cut those numbers in the first place and made


that false economy, we wouldn't be in half the mess that we are in now.


I try not to be party political about this, but I think it was the


wrong decision... It was the wrong decision, and I think it would be


really good if the Government accepted that that was a wrong


decision. Owning up to the fact it was an error, there's no harm in


that. Now, when I come to what some of the


other members have said, one of the suggestions put forward for trying


to deal with some of the prison problems, what the honourable member


for Surrey Reigate said, I have to set the chairman of the Home Affairs


Select Committee, whilst I was on his committee I agreed with him on


the international issues moral or less, private Asian is not the


answer in prisons. It hasn't been for probation. I think we have found


that probation service is used to have full staff gold rating but


since the privatisation has taken place, it has gone downhill. That


has some impact into what is going on in the prison service as well.


And then there's of course... Of course I will give way.


I'm very grateful to the honourable lady and the Foreign Affairs


Committee's losses the front bench's gain. I would just like to ask if


she could be explicit here about the potential role of the private sector


under Labour policy, it was Labour who had a commercialisation strategy


and opened up the competition for Birmingham prison in the first


place. This is the Labour Party saying there is no role for the


private sector in the delivery of justice in our country, simply on


ideological grounds? Well, the Labour Party also had IPPs


and I was not one of the people that favoured that particular provision.


In fact I will touch on about the impact of that into our prison


system. The Secretary of State spoke about the fact they are trying to


deal with the issues arising from IPP. The reason so many people have


done their sentence on IPPs is not because they can't get out, it's


because they have to go on training courses. Unless they've done those


designated, specific training courses, they can't get out.


Unfortunately there has been lack of funding for those training courses,


and the Government has to take responsibility for the fact a lot of


those people have not been released from prison as well. As I said, it's


been a really interesting and really good debate because we've had a lot


of experience people, ministers, ex-ministers and Secretary of States


for justice here who have spoken about this. I think what we can all


agree on is this is something everyone is concerned about. It's


not a big vote winner or an issue you often get people talking about


on the doorsteps, but it is an issue, because it shows us for what


we stand for as society. The one thing we can agree on and most


people agree with me, we have got problems and there are crises in our


our prison systems. The honourable member for Dell in


that used to be a former minister set out and talk about some of the


proposals in the White Paper that the government have brought forward


as we are dealing with this issue, but talks about all the


shortcomings. He talked about all the answers not provided for,


because it seems to suggest, well, you will have age prison being risen


by -- being run by prison governors and it is not answering the issue


like Will the governor have complete autonomy in the centre, will they


have enough money to carry out other thing they are wanting to do. Will


the inmates require too trip detoxification rehabilitation


programme, will he or she have that money to do so? It is very well to


say you can do this but where is the funding going to come? Will they


have an unlimited pot of money to be able to do this? How are these


people going to be recruited, who will they be answerable to? There


are lots of things in the White Paper which are not being answered


and do not deal with the problem. You have raised a number of issues


but I'm yet to hear what the solutions are from your side of the


house was top could I also ask the honourable lady does she agree with


shallow chakra party, the shadow Attorney General, that half the


present pollution should be released? If the honourable member


had been here in the chamber at the beginning of the debate, this


question was put by her predecessor. It was put by another member who was


present to ask that question, I think the honourable member for


Shipley. You are the government and it is for you to deal with the


crisis of... You're order, the honourable lady will take her seat


when the chair is standing, thank you. Can I just remind the


honourable lady there is a reason why we don't address people directly


in the second person, and that is because things get very, very


heated, and that is why the honourable lady addresses her


remarks through the chair, thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy


Speaker, for that, and I apologise for that. To come onto question of


they are the government, they have been in power for the last seven


years, prisons have been under their control and it is under their watch


that 6000 staff cuts have been made. It is under their watch that a


quarter of prisoners, I only have three and a half minutes. Given the


huge crisis that the honourable lady is outlining to the house, which


clearly she and her front bench colleagues share, could she is going


to on an opposition Dave motion they ran out of speakers and we didn't?


If that is trying to deflect away from what the government should have


been doing for the last seven years. Prison staff cut by 6000, around a


quarter of all prisons in overcrowded or unsuitable


conditions. Over the last 12 months there have been 6000 assaults, 105


self-inflicted deaths of prisoners, a record. For mental health and


distress. Incidents of self harm in prison have increased by over 25% in


2016 from previous years. So when we look at all the statistics that have


been provided by the Ministry of Justice, it shows self harm has gone


up, assaults have gone up, deaths have occurred, suicide has happened,


and I afraid to say that is the responsibility of this government


because you have been in charge of prison for the last seven years.


Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to echo the comments by the member


for Bolton South East in thanking our brave prison officers for the


hard work they do, but also extend that thanks to the Tornado prison


officers who have been active for the last few months and have done a


splendid job. This debate has been very well-informed and a lively


debate at times. There has been one speaker from plate camera, five from


the -- Plaid Cymru, five from the Labour benches and 13 from the


government's side. The government speakers include all former prison


ministers and two former Justice secretaries. Madam Deputy Speaker, I


would say that that shows how seriously we take issues to do with


our prisons but also turning around people's lives on the side of the


house. This side of the house has owned up to the problem. My right


noble friend the Secretary of State said right from the time she was


appointed at the level of violence in prisons is too high and has


acknowledged that staffing is part of what is a conflict is problem but


is part of the answer of what is a conflict problem that has developed


over a very long period of time. So there is consensus across the house


that as far as problems are concerned, we are all agreed


something needs to be done. The difference between the side and that


side is that if the 30 minutes that the opposition front bench


spokesperson spoke as the member for Surrey Heath so erudite 2-putted, we


did not get a single positive alternative suggestion. In fact it


reminded me, this house was once referred to as the gasworks.


Listening to the shadow opposition front bench, I sort of realised why.


His speech was full of hot air. Our plan is very, very clear. We have


said in a media terms what we will do is we are monitoring and


supporting governors -- immediate terms, in the longer term we are


tackling security threats to improve staffing levels and transform the


way prison officers support and challenge prisoners. As part of


that, we are looking at raising the prestige, their status and the role


of prison officers. These are not just words, they are back by action


that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State referred to. New


paper and new investment secured the investment staffing, a prison and


Courts built on the way, and implant strategy on the way, a strategy to


deal with women offenders, on the way, and this is real action to


tackle the very serious problems in our prisons. I am very grateful to


the Minister forgiving way. Does he take any responsibility at all for


the deterioration in our prisons since 2010? My right honourable


friend the Secretary of State made very clear it is incredibly


simplistic to allude to the fact that problems in our prisons are


simply due to staffing. We have the rise of new psychoactive substances,


old taboos are being broken in booze now. It used to be the case you


never attacked a female prison officer, but now we are seeing that


routinely on our wings. Our prisons have changed and to deal with that


convex problem we need a multifaceted set of answers, and


that is what this government is delivering. On the two principal


points the opposition made, the first was overcrowding. We still do


not know whether the front bench agrees with itself, in terms of


where Lady chakra buddy is, whether we should be reducing prison number


is to the tune in 40 5000. Even on the issue of prison officers, when


the member for Peterborough challenge the front bench


spokesperson on whether they would commit to increasing prison numbers,


prison officer numbers, by 2500 officers, they still could not agree


or make that commitment. So I am no wiser as to what the solution that


side of the house is offering to a problem that they say is critical,


yet in calling for this debate they have not been able to offer a


solution. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the brief time I have two sum up, I


will pick up some of the points that were made in the debate. The member


for Don Valley made a very good speech and I agree with her on


leadership that we want governors to stay put for longer and we also want


to make sure that in terms of staffing it is effective on the


wings and we do not have the one to 60 ratio that she mentions, I


totally agree with her. From the Secretary of State, the member for


Surrey Heath, made a character 's Cliff erudite speech and I agree


with him on the need for smarter automotives the incarceration, and I


would say that one way of doing this is dealing with problems before


custody. But also he mentioned problem-solving courts. We are


currently trialling the concept and it is one I am very hopeful about. I


would like to commend my honourable friend's points, but would he also


agree with me that in order to break the cycle of reoffending, tackling


substance misuse is key but also key upon discharge and release from


prison, and there is a real problem with misuse areas in many areas, and


that is hopefully an area he will look at. My honourable friend makes


an excellent point something my friend the member for Bracknell,


also a former doctor, is dealing with, and we will be looking at this


when we bring our proposals later. The former prison minister, the


member Fidelio, who I always enjoy listening to, given his constructive


approach, made a number of points around government empowerment, local


increment, but also performance management force surveys are


detailed and constructive points. By never just a select committee has


written asking for answers to some of these questions, and I would


ensure they get a rapid response, but in addition to that, I would


offer a meeting to sit down with him and the subcommittee looking at


prisons to talk about some of the detail of the White Paper. Madam


Deputy Speaker, a number of issues were raised around staffing which my


right honourable friend the Secretary of State Telford


eloquently in terms of our plans in the White Paper and how we would


deal with them subsequently. I just want to pick a couple of other


options. He was unable to accept in response to my honourable friend's


question any responsible at the Ford has happened. He is right to say


that staffing is not the only problem but part of the problem. We


are 6000 prison officers down, will he replace them? Yes or no? If my


honourable friend had been following this debate carefully, he would know


that we have also closed 18 prisons in that time. As the member said,


drugs etc, it is a very convex problem. Anyway, the government has


committed to increasing the number of prison officer numbers. Today the


opposition would not even match our number so I do not think I will be


taking lessons from the opposition on what to do in terms of staffing


numbers in our prisons is concerned. I want to touch on an issue raised


to the member of the Sittingbourne in Shipley, dealing with mainly


attacks on prison officers. I completely agree with the points he


made, announcing prisoners should feel the full force of the law.


There are of course independent adjudicator is that can already


impose additional days on prisoners, but also we are working with the


Attorney General, the police and the CPS to insure offenders face swift


justice, and we can provide better evidence in the courts. We are also


working with the Judiciary Committee of error clear powers so they can --


with the judiciary so there are clear powers so they can identify


crimes. We want body worn cameras across the estate. The member for


Leicester East mentioned the issue of foreign national offenders, in


the last year we had record number of offenders that were deported to


their home countries. There is still a lot of work to do, and there is a


task force made up of ministers for the Home Office, looking for all the


levers around our relationships with these countries in order to deport


people as quickly as possible. So, Madam Debuchy Speaker, we have heard


in a debate that the opposition called for no positive alternative


to the plans that have been offered by the government. I would urge all


members to vote for a Cliff line that the government has put forward


to deal with the challenging issue in our prisons that would also help


us turn around people's lives. The question is that the original words


than part of the question. Say I. Say no. Division, clear the lobby.


Order, order. The the one to the right 196, the Turn two to the left,


189. The ayes to the right were 196 and the nos to the left were 189 so


that Inter macro habit. I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.


Order, order. I now have the announced the result of the deferred


division on the question relating to financial services. The ayes were


292, the nos were 191, so the ayes have it.


I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the


name of the Prime Minister. Before I call the honourable lady to move the


motion. Can I point out there are 636 men's -- members wishing to seek


speak. Can I ask the front Bens to be as concise as possible and to


members wishing to speak, if they are making intervention on front


benchers they will find their names Mr yously slip down the speaking


list, and I am sorry to say we will start with a limit of three minutes


so if people could keep their interventions to an absolute


minimum, it means that everybody might get in, otherwise there will


be people at the bottom of list who will not be able to speak. So will


that let's get going. Angela Raynor. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. I


will try and keep interventions to a minimum.


We have heard much this week, Madame Deputy Speaker about representing


the mandate the people have given news this House, so today, I am


giving members opposite the chance to do that, to implement the pledge


that they gave the country, in their election manifesto, that said under


a future Conservative Government, the amount of money following your


child into school will be protected. There will be a real terms increase


in the schools budget, in the next Parliament. A pledge that was


repeatedly made by the last Prime Minister, the one who actually


fought an election, and he was very clear what it meant, he said I can


tell you with a Conservative Government the amount of money


following your child into school will not be cut. There is one


question that the Secretary of State has to answer today. Will she keep


her party's promise to the British people? The National Audit Office


has told us their answer, they have revealed on the current spending


settlement there will be an 8% cut in pupil funding. Between 2015 and


2020. That was the same conclusion that was reached by the Institute


for Fiscal Studies, this means that there will be schools in every


region, every city, every town and every constituency, losing money


because of the failure of this Government to protect funding to our


schools. So will the Secretary of State tell us whether she intends to


keep that manifesto pledge? And let us consider the context, I will make


some progress, Britain has a deep social mobility problem and for this


generation in particular, it is getting worse not better as a result


of an unfair education system, a two tier labour market and imbalanced


economy and unaffordable housing mark. That was the conclusion of the


Government's own social mobility commission and what about our


education system? We still have too many under performing schools, and


low overall levels of numeracy and literacy. England remains the only


OCD country where 16-24-year-olds are no more literal than


55-64-year-olds. Again, not my conclusion, but that of the


Government's only industrial strategy green paper which quite


rightly makes clear how central education is to our economy,


especially following Brexit. I give way. Grateful to my


honourable friend. This broken pledge about funding schools and


increasing funding 74 out of 77 schools, 96% of them face cuts of


over ?200,000 by 2019 in real terms. How is that defendable and how is


that evidence of a government that cares about education? I thank my


honourable friend for his intervention and I agree with him,


there is no justification for these cuts. The Secretary of State has, of


course, unveiled the proposal solution, her so-called national


fair funding formula, she presented this as a reverse distribution and


on the Government's own figures they are literally robber Peterborough to


pay for Poole. It doesn't take long for members on Bowe sides to


discover not only is there nothing fair about the proposed funding


formula but it also won't make up for overall real terms cuts.


Concerns is about what this means for our constituents are shared on


both sides of the House, that the honourable member for Brexle has


said his message sides to discover not only is there nothing fair about


the proposed funding formula but it also won't make up for overall real


terms cuts. Concerns is about what this means for our constituents are


shared on both sides of the House, that the honourable member for


Brexle has said his message to the minister is "I don't get this and I


don't think it is particularly fair." I hope we will see him in the


came ber and he will put his concerns forward. The honourable


member for Altrincham sale west said every secondary school in Trafford


will lose funding, even though it is one of the places famously


underfunded for education, perhaps we will hear if him too. The


honourable member for Cheltenham who co-chaired the F 40 group. He said


just this morning that the bottom line is that this, it has created


distorted outcomes which we think require significant remodelling. No


wonder he is concerned, because nearly half of the F 40 group will


face further cuts, rather than increased under the minister's


national funding fiddle. Of course, there is one member opposite who


seems happy to accept the cuts and that is the Secretary of State


herself. The Secretary of State is set to cut schools, they are set to


lose round 15% of their funding per pupil. Perhaps she will be lobbying


herself. The honourable member's listing members that are unhappy. I


like she am unhappy in Southend all the schools are receiving a cut


under this funding formula, I think the only area local authority area


outside Central London where that is the case. This is a point this is


not a final decision, the figures I got were from the House of Commons


library, I may have misread them, but is the point not this is a


consultation? If this was a fait accompli I wouldn't be supporting


the honourable lady but this is a consultation.


I hope that the honourable members will make contributions today, I


think the motion that is set out to honourable members across the House


today, makes it quite clear that the cocktail of cuts that our schools


are facing is going to see 98% of schools losing out, so o hope that


the Government do think again about their proposals. She is making a


powerful speech. In my constituency we are looking to cuts coming in of


?437 per pupil. With the Government saying it believes in social


mobility and wants to support that and with a third of our children not


achieving five good G7, doesn't she agree with me, it is the wrong time


to cut funding for schools four pupils that most need it. It. It an


own goal. I absolutely agree with the honourable member. I would go so


far to say the meritocracy is in shatters already, that the Prime


Minister is talking about. The National Audit Office has said that


she expects schools to make ?1.7 billion of savings by using staff


more efficiently. Can she guarantee today that these so-called


efficiency doesn't mean fewer staff? Because a ?1.7 billion cut could


mean up to o 10,000 redundancies for teaching staff in our schools. Of


course she resolutely failed to give us figures for the impact of the


planned cuts, but her own analysis of the research, that the education


unions have conducted show the cuts in my own region would amount to


well over ?400 million, requiring the loss of over 2,000 teachers.


Given that her own Government, given that the Government has failed to


meet their own teacher requirement target. I urge the Secretary of


State to think again before she tries to solve this on the back of


hard-working staff. And make no mistake, that this is a crisis.


Schools are already resorting to staff cuts to cope. The unison staff


survey conducted last year showed then more than one in ten remembers


pen dents reported redundancies. More than one in five said their


school left vacant posts unfilled over the past year or cut back on


maintenance, nearly a quarter had seen increase in class sizes and


over a quarter experienced cuts to budgets for books and resources over


the past year. I give way.


I am grateful to the honourable lady for giving way. To come back to fair


funding. I am sorry she doesn't agree with that. How can she justify


that a child in the constituency of her leader will receive ?6229 a year


on average and in the Shadow Home Secretary's constituency 6680. Many


in my constituency in West Sussex it will be less than ?4200. How can


that be justified? I say to the honourable member, that the Labour


Party is for fair funding but this isn't fair funding. This is sub fair


funding for every school across the nation. -- unfair. You should take,


the honourable member should take heed of what that means for his own


constituency. And that pulling people down is not the way to go


forward. If we want to make the best of our economy, post-Brexit, is we


need to make sure we invest in all schools, instead of taking from one


school, robbing from one group of young people yet seeing an overall


distribution cut throughout. I am going to carry on. Make progress.


It is no surprise that the National Audit Office found that between 2010


and 2015 the number of maintained schools are in deficit, rose from


nearly 33% to nearly 60%. The report refers to a sample schools that said


typical savings were through increased class sizes. Replacing


experienced teachers with new recruits, recruiting staff on


temporary contracts, encouraging staff to teach outside their


specialist and relying on more unqualified staff. None of the


measures are ones that parents would want to see in their school. The


National Audit Office tells us that her department's estimates for


savings do not take into account the real impact on schools.


For instance, the Government seemed to remain committed to cutting the


national education service's grant which amounts to 600 million, but


has not yet completed any assessment of how this will impact on schools


across England. When will this assessment be put to the House? Just


this Monday, the Public Accounts Committee heard from head teachers


who are desperately trying to keep providing an excellent education


system, in the face of funding cuts. I hope the Secretary of State heard


Kate Davis, head teacher of Darton college in Barnsley for example. She


said that the result of House? Just this Monday, the Public Accounts


Committee heard from head teachers who are desperately trying to keep


providing an excellent education system, in the face of funding cuts.


I hope the Secretary of State heard Kate Davis, head teacher of Darton


college in Barnsley for example. She said that the result of the funding


cut, "We have reduced the curriculum offer, cut out the whole of the


community team, we have reduced staffing and the leadership team." I


am sure the Secretary of State heard only this morning, that Tim Garside


the head teacher of alTring ham grammar school for boys said the


cuts in his school, they are facing, are so severe that he only had three


options left. To reduce the curriculum, to increase class sizes,


or to ask parents to make cash contribution to keep the school


running. So what is the Secretary of State's plan? Does she want schools


to cut subjects, increase class sizes or make parents foot the bill?


Is she not concerned that school risk discriminating against low


income family, and schools in lower income areas? And we have heard


similar, not just from representatives of teachers but


unions like Unison and GMB who represent teaching assistants, if


she thinks they are soft targets for cuts let me tell her she is much


mistaken. The evidence from the educational Darwin foundation shows


National Union of Teachersing assistant make an important impact


on literacy and numeracy and those previously struggling. The very


pupils that the Government said needed extra support if we were to


raise our schools and productivity only earlier this week. Since the


Government established the staff negotiating body, teaching


assistant's pay has declined so far many are on the minimum wage, there


are no more cuts to be made on pay. Any further cuts will hit teaching


staff directly. Thank you. I have got a big


secondary school in my constituency that has 67% of kids with pupil


premium, that believes they will lose ?300,000. Does my friend


believe that that action lives up to the rhetoric of our current Prime


Minister? I absolutely agree with my honourable friend. I am sure the


reason why this debate has been oversubscribed as because many


honourable members have realised this national funding formula and


the cuts are taking them over the edge and billing a crisis within our


schools system. But her party's promise was not to spend more on


school, it was to spend more on each pupil in real terms. Yet her


Government will cut per pupil spending.


Under Labour government education increased by 4.7% per year. The fact


of the matter is quite simple, the Secretary of State and her party


entered government on a manifesto that pledge to protect per-pupil


funding. That promise is being broken. Over the last two years I


have noticed the opposition seems to have an awful lot of money to spend.


But in terms of more money, which is busy what she is suggesting, does


she accept the IFF 's analysis of her manifesto commitments and hours


that say they are effectively the two figures, the investment in


education came to exactly the same figure? Does she accept that? I


would say to the honourable member that the difference between the


Labour manifesto and the Conservative manifesto is when


Labour was in power in 1997, in 2001, in 2005, our manifesto promise


that we pledge to increase spending on education. We delivered on it. It


is the Conservative government that is not delivering on their promises,


and they should hold them to account. Instead of proper funding


in our schools and investment in our future we have seen years of


regressive tax giveaways to the wealthiest another prime and Stan


the Chancellor have threatened to turn Britain an offshore tax haven


for billionaires, a bargain basement economy that loses billions of


pounds in tax revenues each and every year. The government are faced


with choices, Madam Deputy Speaker, and time and time again they make


the wrong decision. I know that every member on all sides of the


house will want every child in their constituency and in our country to


get the best possible start in life, but if the government does not


change its course, that will simply not be possible. So today is a


chance for the secretary of state to tell us if she will keep her pledge


and commit to provide the real term increase in school budgets that was


promised. If she will not, then I call on all members of the house to


send a clear message today that we will accept nothing but the best


possible start in life for our country. I call the Secretary of


State to remove the moment in the name of the Prime Minister. I beg to


move the amendment. Members on all sides of this house can agree that


we want to deliver a world-class education system that gives every


young person the chance to make the most of their talents, no matter


what their background or where they come from. Indeed that is the true


value of an excellent education, it can open up opportunity and support


young people to reach their true potential, certainly for me


education was the route to having a much better life than my Terence


have had. Our record in government speaks for itself in stock we have


seen 1.8 million more children now in good or outstanding schools than


they're worth in 2010, and indeed we are keeping our promise by


protecting the core schools budget in real terms over the course of


this Parliament. The Shadow Secretary of State talk about what


parents want to see in schools, and what they don't want to is what the


last Labour government record left them with, which was children


leaving schools without literacy and you receive a need to succeed.


Schroeder and leaving schools thinking they have strong grades


were in fact what they were seeing was grade inflation. We have


steadily sought to change that and to improve our education system, and


for many young people we are now seeing them leaving our education


system with a much better place to be successful in their future life.


I will take one intervention. The right honourable lady will be aware


that the Public Accounts Committee of what I am a member heard from the


permanent Secretary Jonathan Slater on Monday in relation to the NAL


report my honourable friend referred to. In that report, it does


acknowledge what the right honourable lady has said that there


is a real increase in the overall budget, but because there is a


larger number of pupils than was envisaged, there would be an 8%


reduction per pupil in funding. Do she agree with the NAL report and


the acknowledgement of the permanent Secretary to that effect -- NAO


report. It makes very clear there are cost pressures, I will come into


that late in my opening speech, but it also makes clear there are


significant scopes for efficiency in our school system as well. Although


we are raising standards, nearly nine out of ten schools are rated


good or outstanding. For many young people our education system is done


at achieving the standards it needs to. I welcome her decision that we


need fair funding. Does she agree that those schools in areas like my


own that were at the bottom of the pile under the previous government


was like formula need quite a step up under the next few years, because


they were very badly done by? I do agree and we want to see every child


at the same chance to do as well as they possibly can, no matter where


they are growing up in our country or where they are starting from


academically. And that is why we have to make sure that resources


going into the system reflect the high ambitions we have got for every


child wherever they are growing up and distributed as well to that


effect. Because of this government's economic policy that has seen jobs


and growth and careful management of public finances, that is how we have


been able to protect the core schools budget in real terms over


the course of this Parliament, and in fact the investment is the


largest ever on record, totalling over 40%. David Cameron's promise


was that the funding per pupil would be protected. That isn't being, as


we have heard, and in my constituency because of the formula


is being reduced further per pupil. Why is David Cameron's promise being


broken? It's not, we are protecting also the per-pupil funding as well,


and we know that in relation to making sure funding is fairly


apportioned between schools, it is time that we look at the school


funding formula to make sure we bring money in that is rectifying


the current system that is unfair and out dated. At the moment all


schools face funding that is not disputed evenly across the country


and it does not take into account pupil needs. A school in Sutton will


receive ?75 in extra funding for each pupil with English as a second


language, but in Tower Hamlets that figure is ?3548. We know a primary


school pupil eligible for free school meals and with English as an


additional language attracts ?4902 in a Sussex, but just on the road in


Brighton and Hove, it would attract more. We know that a secondary


school class of 30 children with no additional needs facts ?112, ?100 of


funding in Staffordshire. But ?122,000 in Stoke-on-Trent, a


difference of ?10,400 for one class. So we know that parents and families


see this unfairness playing out and it is simply untenable, but I


believe, to stand up and say that these historic imbalances and


differences in how we are funding our children are ones that we should


accept, and I don't think anybody, I it is a consultation, I have


extended the consultation period in the sense of it being 14 weeks


rather than usual this time of 12 because this is complicated, and it


is important that we have a measured proportionate rate around the right


way to do the swarming -- funding formula. What is absence from the


benches opposite is any alternative suggestions on a better way of doing


this. I would be interested to hear the shadow bench wraps up whether


they actually any alternative to the national funding formula, or indeed


any other education policy for that matter. Can I in for my honourable


friend that small primary schools in the countryside in my constituency


very much welcome the fact spa city is taken into account now, and they


feel they at least have a government that understands the needs of the


countryside. He is absolutely right, the formula recognises different


schools face different costs in particular. In rural areas


especially. So that's positive factor recognises that rural schools


often have a higher cost space, and it also sits alongside a lump sum


approach built into the formula to make sure schools have the money


they need to function effectively, and colleagues in rural seats will


recognise that rural schools as a group are gaining 3% in our formula


on average will stop in the primary schools in sparse communities they


will gain 5.3% on average. How is it contested with a manifesto


commitment to increase per capita spending in schools in Greenwich


when secondary schools are facing nearly an average million pounds


savings between now and 2019, and primary schools and average of over


?200,000 each? 74 out of 77 schools facing those sort of cuts. How is


that consistent with what the Conservative Party told parents in


my borough before the last election? We said we would protect the core


schools budget in real terms. That's exactly what we are doing. In


relation to his local community, the change in the funding formula


partially reflects that for a very long time we have been using


deprivation data that is simply out of date, and it is important that we


use up-to-date deprivation factors, and it is important that we


recognise for example that across London in 2528% of children in


London schools were on free school meals. That percentage has now


fallen to 17%. It is right that we make sure that we have a consistent


amount of investment in children from deprived communities. We know


that is where the attainment gap is opened up but it is also important


that we have that funding spread fairly and with up-to-date


information. I was a schoolteacher during the Thatcher government and I


remember my school running out of paper in around February, and myself


and a colleague had to go into the attic of the library, tear pages out


of books from the 1970s to give to our children to write on. I remember


thinking how can you expect children to write in those circumstances? Is


she proud of that record, and what does she feel it will do the staff


morale and schools up and down the country to see this scale of cuts? I


was not active in that time period, and I felt that my comp and the


school gave me a great start in life that is setting me up to be


hopefully able to make meaningful contributions to the economy and my


local community. In the interest of making progress, we are introducing


the national funding formula. I do recognise this as complex and also


challenging. There is a reason why it has not been done for a long


time, because it is very difficult we get this just right. That is why


we are having a longer consultation, it is why we put out all of the


details so that colleagues can look at all of the details, in terms of


how it will affect their local communities, and then respond to


that. I am very grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. In


my constituency which was already one of the lowest funding local


education authorities, two thirds of my schools are going to receive a


cut, and a third is only going to get an increase of maximum .3%. This


situation will undoubtedly lead to teacher losses and probably school


closures. Would my right honourable friend undertake to have a radical


look at what is only a consultation that needs radically overhauling? He


is right, I recognise the concerns he has got and I am very happy to


talk with him one-to-one about his particular local community, as I


have done with other colleagues. But it is a consultation in order to


make sure we can get this new formula right and it is important


that it works effectively on the ground. Alongside making sure that


we have protected the funding that is going to the deprived community


so we can tackle the attainment gap through that mechanism. We also


making sure our formula has an element of children starting from


further behind for whatever reason, so low priority and properly


addressed in the formula to make sure wherever a child is in our


country, if they need additional investment to help them catch up,


that investment will be there. The second stage of the consultation on


the funding formula runs until 22nd of March was that we want to hear


from as many school governors, schools themselves, local


authorities and parents themselves. I know colleagues across the house


will also want to contribute to that debate. As I said, we put a lot of


data alongside the consultation because we want to make sure people


have the information that they need to be able to respond.


It will mean we can have much more informed debates in this House about


how we want to fund or schools and the relative balance we want to see


of funding between core funding, deprivation and also low attainment


and sparsity. I am grateful to moil for giving


way. -- mole. I strongly support her in seeking to achieve fair funding.


It is the right thing do it is the worst funded constituency shire.


There will be little help for secondary schools and the primary


schools are going to lose out. When it's the worst funded shire


authority, how can that be right? Will she undertake to have a look at


the draft allocation again before it is finalised? Well, he will want to


contribute to the consultation that is under way as well. It is


important we hear from as many colleagues and indeed schools around


the country as we can, as I said, we have put out a lot of additional


information in order to have an informed debate across the House and


this will form part of that. I will make a little progress because I


know other colleagues want to be able have to have their say on


behalf of their local communities. I did want to come on the the broader


cost pressures I know schools are face, many of those pressures come


from steps that we have taken for example on introducing the


apprenticeship Levy, which is going to benefit millions of young people


over the coming years but also schools as well, through training up


and developing existing staff. We have introducing the national living


wage and that will benefit low paid workers who are working in schools,


as well as in other organisations, and I think that is the right thing


for us to do. But in terms of how my department can support schools,


around the country, in driving greater efficiencies, I think there


is a role we can play and we have done analysis to understand the


different cost bases of different schools that are operating with


similar circumstances, as the National Audit Office report set out


we believe it can be be made. I give way.


I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I appreciate


there is a busy debate. I would like to speak up briefly for London. What


I need your assurance, I am sure you have touched on what the form of the


school funding formula is going to have on the negative effect of


schools in London, some of which do face intolerable pressures. Well, it


has been important to I think recognise two things, the first is


that under the proposed formula that we are clent consulting on London


schools, purely because the cost pressures they face in terms of the


underlying cost base of running in and London, but then of course the


fact that although the deprivation levels have reduced they are still


comparatively high. London schools will be receiving 30% more, but she


of course will want to speak up on behalf of her own community, but


this is about making sure that we fund the right amount of deprivation


in relation to current data and we don't fund deprivation in relation


to data from, you know perhaps five or ten years ago. Let me finalise by


talking a bit about the fact that we do believe that we can work as a


department with schools to help them make the best use of their resource,


I want to see every single pound we are putting into the school system


improving standards as having the maximum impact for pupils and we


know we can work with schools to make sure having done this record


funding, they then are able to use it to maximum impact, and indeed, I


would point to for example York, one of the lowest, has been one of the


lowest funned authorities in the country and yet 92% of its schools


are good or outstanding, so we know that we can make progress in


education while making efficiencies as well. Grateful to her giving way.


I support what she is trying to do since Wiltshire is one of the worst


funded Education Authorities in the country. Will she look again at the


sparsity factor, school governors are crunching the figures and some


are saying they wonder about the future viability of small schools in


rural locations. He is right and indeed we looked in the formula to


make sure we did introduce a sparsity formula. Not all Louth had


one, what we are doing is making sure it is there for every school.


We put in the lump sum formula, but I think we got the stage with


developing the formula where the only way we could continue to


improve it was to actually ask people what they thought about it


and that is why the consultation is so important. It is important we get


it right but I recognise that this is a complicated formula that has to


work for schools in very different situations round the country. And


that is why this debate is so important, and it is right we are


taking the time to steadily after the face one consultation, to help


us respond to finalising it in a way it will mean it can work and have


longevity over time. Let me finish by simply saying that we are going


to work with schools, to hem them improve efficiency, we have


published a school buying strategy that sees us putting in place


national deals so we can make sure schools are getting the best deals


on things take utilities they need. Putting in place buying in digital


hubs so close to schools there are strong procurement teams and


approaches that means they have advice when they need it. Setting up


school business management networks so we work with the people who are


in schools driving efficiencies to share best practise and improve


performances, and overtime, I believe that we really can take some


steps forward on this. So, we are making sure that funding is going


into our schools. We are making sure our curriculum is strong and turning


out young people with the knowledge and skills they need to be


successful. It is not the only part of our education policy. We are


investing in apprenticeship, reforming technical education, we


are going to make sure that this is a government that ends up able to


say that every young person, where ever they are growing up, is able to


do their best and reach their full potential. I hope that over the


course of this debate, colleagues will recognise that is the strategy


and that is what we will deliver. The original question was on the


paper. The question is that the original


words stand part of the question. Fiona MacTaggart.


I am sure in the characterisation of different education authorities


which the Secretary of State would run through, she would say Slough is


unfairly generously funded. I want to speak about the hundreds of


pupils in Slough, who get no funding at all, for their education. How can


that be, you think? And I think it's a very serious issue which is not


properly addressed by her proposed fair funding formula. It is about


areas with swift growth, like Slough. We have been in the top ten


for authorities for growth in pupil numbers for years and we don't get


paid for extra children o who arrive after the October census date until


18 months later. Locally, the way that is dealt with


is a top slice of the DSG, the direct schools grant of 1.5 million


to fund classes in schools. Obviously in other authorities they


have facing growth in pupil numbers but in most places the additional


pupils aren't significant, new arrivals after October tend to be


balanced by departures, and most of the extra children are born in


families which were already there, and so apply at the usual time for


schools. That doesn't happen in Slough. Slough. When I asked schools


a the number it was stark. One had 13 children leave but 23 new


starters, one was completely new to English, others had eEnglish as a


second language. To more coming from overseas start next week. A


secondary school estimates that the age, the pupil formula, for the


extra 13 extra pupils who arrived after the Census date in 2015/16


would have been worth ?49937. In the current year, ?3950595. That has


gone down because that school has been subject to the minimum income


formula, which I call the maximum cut formula, because that is the


case for the secondary schools in Slough, another primary school


opened two extra classes in November 2015, to accommodate children new to


the town. I now has 63 pupils above their standard number. The bulge


classes are funded by the top slice of the dedicated schools grant but


that only lasts a year and the extra pupils won't be funded by the DFE


until next year, so this year two whole classes are being educated in


one primary school with no capitation funding, and we aren't


talking about children who are easy to teach. As well as children who


arrive... Thank you. The honourable lady is making what I think is a


unique and important point about places like Slough, does she agree


with me that this showings how the Government is yet to properly


listen? Indeed there is a hint in the new funding formula they might


do something about this. There is no clarity about what and there is


absolutely urgent, because these comparisons per pupil, between


different authorities, are not true, the pupils in the areas which


historically have been well funded and which are facing the largest


cuts, in places like Slough and London are the places with the


largest number of the free students which are not being paid for at all.


Minister for schools, also knows about the massive problems we face


in teacher recruitment. Five geography teacher advertisement in


Slough had been advertised over the last few money, not one single


applicant. The committee won't make English of which we have a shortage


of teachers, a job we can apply for teachers for overseas, we are in a


crisis and frankly, at the moment, the department isn't responding to


the real needs of the community that I have the privilege to represent. I


really want answers on this now. Thank you. The very fact we have


having this debate is proof that a huge step forward is taking place


there is a real proposal on the table. We should salute the


Government for getting that far. Obviously, we are in a consultation


process, the Education Select Committee is part of that process in


a sense pause we will be seeing the Minister of State for schools


shortly, and many of the points I am about to make we will expand then,


but I do think that if we have a situation where counties like


Gloucestershire are no further forward and some schools within that


County are going backwards in terms of funding, then there are issues to


explore. One of them, I think, is the need to effectively lift the


baseline through a number of ways. I am going to suggest three. I think


that we have to look at the deprivation block, in line with


pupil premium, because I think that the two things are clearly related


and it would be wise to consider the impact of pupil premium within this


question of actually the deprivation assessment. So I think there is


scope there for to lift the baseline. Second area, is of course


the question of small schools, we all want support small schools, but


there is a ratio here which I think we need to explore. It St that ratio


between what we think is a small school and a slightly larger school


might well be something we need to look at.


Because the impact of statistics can have consequences which are


unpredictable and certainly unintended. I think this is possibly


the case in terms of small schools. And the third area is the 3% floor.


There must be a way of making sure that the authorities which have had


historic problems with underfunding can have some kind of way out of


that, through recalibrating the 3% floor. I know those ideas are


complicated in the context of these reforms but it is necessary to


demonstrate that we really a committed to providing a free, a


fair funding. If we think carefully about the impact of the various


measures I have taken, in conjunction with the wider question


of the objectives of this new funding system, we may well deliver


for our children, exactly what we want. Now, of course... No, I am not


going to give way because there are too many people who wish to


contribute. In an ideal world we want to spend more on education, and


when this government continues to grow the economy as I am sure it


will, with or without Brexit, that will be achieved. But we have got to


be realistic about the size of the cake making sure that everybody has


an appropriate slice. The department's produced school by


school aanalysis of the proposed funding formula, for schools in


Liverpool the results are worrying, 80% of forecast to lose funding. We


are set to lose 1.3 million in the first year 18/19. When it is fully


implemented, unless it changes that will increase to over ?3 million.


I know that consultation is underway but it is important for schools in


my constituency that they know as soon as possible so they can plan


the budget for the future. I welcome the fact the Liverpool settlement


will mean more money for high needs funding but there is concern from


the council and schools that this high needs funding would be


available in time to alleviate the cuts in the schools block. Can I ask


the minister when he responds what timescale the government envisages


Ford Field implementation of the new formula, in particularly high needs


funding element? Elderly age funding is vital to the life chances of


pupils, and I have two Nursery schools in my constituency both


rated as outstanding by Ofsted, both now very concerned about the


government's plans for nursery school funding. I welcome assurances


that long-term funding will be secured for nursery schools so they


can continue their excellent work in providing quality Everly years


education. When I saw the motion today I wrote to the heads of


schools in my constituency asking them further concerns. Blackpool


Park infant school told me about their need for repairs. They are


using four mobile classrooms which are three years over their shelf


life. The school doesn't have the money to replace them because of the


financial pressures they face. Thank you. I also like my friend wrote to


local schools and does my friend agree with me that given the


importance of this it is unsurprising so many are wanting to


speak today. The financial pressures the school spoke about the ones


highlighted in the opposition motion today. Secondary schools are also


facing the pinch. The head of a college in my constituency said


small budget lines are being nibbled away and then the end this will have


massive cumulative impact. A head teacher told me that she is worried


about the impact of budget cuts on staffing levels, particularly with


regard to support staff. Pupils with special needs have particular


challenges for school budgets. The head of crocs that community primary


School raised with me the issue of raising those whose needs are more


complex. A headteacher of a very good special School in my


constituency is worried that the imposition of a national funding


model for children with additional needs has taken away local


flexibility to be able to move money around. Another of the fantastic


special skills in my constituency is Bank view primary school. They are


concerned about the impact of cuts elsewhere in the public sector and


the headteacher said to me, how are we able to make pupils affected


members of society who are unable to be employed at support agencies such


as this are having their funding reduced. I encourage the madness


when he responds, delighted to give way. I am very grateful and he is


making very reasonable points but does he recognise that for small


cities like my constituency it is fundamentally an equal to receive


per-pupil funding, about 50% less than the Metropolitan Avia he


represents and it is right to address that. I recognise it is


hugely challenging to ensure fair funding for all pupils in all parts


of the country, but the cuts I am referring to and that my honourable


friend talks about are not to do with national funding formula. I


addressed it because it is an important issue and because it is


contained in the government's amendment to the motion, but the


motion is about the funding pressures that schools face before


the moment he and of the national funding formula, and we need to


address that as well. Like him I consulted with my head teachers and


the headteacher of Brickell primary school, 55% pupil premium, fire am I


going to find ?230,000 out of next year's budget?. Those on the other


side have duty to help headteacher at like this? My honourable friend


is absolutely right and schools across the country in constituency


is and all parts of the country are facing these challenges. In the end,


my view is that investment in education should be a priority and


that is something we should be able to agree on a cross-party basis and


I am running out of time. I urge the Minister to listen to the concerns


of skills in Liverpool and elsewhere so that school budgets are


protected. It is vital that schools have the money they need to be able


to deliver the quality education that children and young people


deserve. Thank you. Last week I was fortunate enough to secure a debate


in Westminster Hall on funding for schools in Devon at which was well


supported by my colleagues from across the county and in which


several going back several others, including my honourable friend who


cannot be here tonight, made clear that unless there are some changes


we would find it extremely difficult to support the government. It was


therefore with some interest that I was made aware of this debate this


afternoon and I thought it was going to be in my case a rare occasion


when I would not be able to support the government. I have studied the


motion and the amendment carefully and having heard, I have to say, the


opening remarks of the honourable lady for Ashton-under-Lyne, beef


Flex can relax, and I support the government amendment and they say to


her gently, although she was not in this place during Labour's rule, but


if she had not been, like seven and the bill, asleep under the tree, she


might have noticed that in the period between 1997 and 2010 it was


a Labour government which exacerbated the educational funding


gap between rural and urban areas. I would say this to the House as well.


The team we have in the department at the moment, the secretary of


state and her schools Minister, are an excellent team, and they have


annexed territory and extraordinarily difficult situations


which they are attempting to resolve in early as possible. Given the


fact, and it is worth remembering and they know the honourable lady


wasn't in the House in 2010, but had she been she would have realised as


did many of her colleagues that the Exchequer was left completely empty.


Labourer blew the economy and blew their credibility and it wasn't


until 2015 that we saw some rebalancing with the coalition


government providing a much-needed boost in funding for more rural


schools. I would say to my right honourable friend the Secretary of


State, this is a consultation and at the moment it is a consultation


which me and my colleagues in the South West feel passionately about


and I am grateful and I understand the schools minister has agreed to


see a delegation of head teachers from Devon secondary and primary


schools, because the situation for us is bleak at the moment. Devon has


historically been one of the lowest funded educational authorities in


the country and we were looking forward, we were told there would be


a reassessment, we assumed this was going to benefit as after all those


years, all the campaigning we had done over decades, in order to get a


fairer deal, we didn't assume the result of this consultation would


mean that actually we were worse off. If implemented, the national


funding formula proposals would result in 62% of Devon's schools


gaining, 37% losing out and 1% remaining the same. The proposals


would reduce the overall schools funding by ?500,000 for first year


but more of that later. Thank you. After seven years of Liberal


Democrat and Tory cuts in my community, the government has failed


to meet its deficit reduction target and is back doing all it knows,


further cuts, this time targeting children are my constituency. I


don't believe children should suffer for the government's failure.


Southwark schools perform above the national average but face challenges


so I was surprised to see my borough targeted five million and cuts by


this government. Will he accept that this will end the recruitment crisis


amongst the teaching body? Absolutely and especially in London.


My constituency is even worse affected as a borough because using


Department statistics my schools are the worst affected anywhere in the


country. The government has claimed this was fair. There are 35 schools


in my constituency and those losing out include Baker's College, City of


London Academy, English maters, Notre Dame, all three Saint Josephs,


St John's Catholic, Saint Jude is, St Paul's, Townsend and victory, and


if anyone was keeping tally, 35! Every single school in my


constituency loses out! Not one benefits under the government's


proposals. Does he agree that if the proposal was implemented, to remove


the 3% protection, the position for schools in his constituency would be


a great deal worse? I completely agree. Those cuts the government


have put forward have led periods to get in touch with me to say what it


is about Southwark child unless government does not like and why is


my constituency particularly targeted? It prevents schools


ability to manage the challenge they face and damages the prospect of


children and families. The Department figures do not improve


costs that schools cannot ignore, pension contributions, higher


National Insurance Contributions Bill which means figures suggest


Southwark as a borrower loses ?12.5 million. Skills in my constituency


lose ?6.9 million alone. Ministers push forward with these plans they


will feel families and children and undermine parents' aspirations for


their children, undermine future opportunities for Southwark children


and prospects for the country overall. The government must rethink


this blatant attack on future opportunities.


Thank you. I welcome this consultation and the review because


in my constituency we will see increases of 2.6% or ?1.3 million.


42 of my 54 schools will see an increase, that 77%, and some of the


increases are significant. New York primary School will see an increase


of 11.4%, the theme that is running through these increases is that


these schools have been historically underfunded by the government


opposite and this government is recognising the challenges that


rural living present for local schools. This is an extremely rule


constituency with fewer than one person per hectare, and on the


course by have amongst the most 3% most deprived communities in the


country. They deserve to have a better funding deal and this is what


this government is trying to achieve. This is not about the Tory


shires as some, not all, but some members opposite like to paint the


picture. This is about making the funding fairer and that has been the


case historically. I echo the concerns of colleagues that the


laudable principle of including sparsity must work on the ground and


I know that the Minister will meet me to discuss individual schools and


he has already agreed to make sure that the principle applies. I also


recognise that the 12 skills are my constituency that faced the creases


face that challenge and they don't underestimate that but again I look


forward to discussing that with the Minister. There has been much.


Opposite regarding cuts. When we hear the figures about the Leader of


the Opposition having children whose education is funded to the tune of


more than ?6,000 per student, whereas in Lincolnshire and it is


?4379 per student, I simply don't understand how members opposite can


claim that that is fair and is not deserving of review. I say that


understanding only too well the challenges of education. I am


delighted to hear my honourable friend Mick those assumptions


because what she is highlighting is that schools like those in Kent like


Tonbridge Grammar what great reputations are massively


underfunded and this will go some way to making that fairer. This is


about making sure that the cake is just cut a little more clearly than


it is at the moment. And finally, I am conscious of the time and I


apologise, finally may I think the teachers, the governor, the staff of


my schools, my 54 local schools. I look forward to meeting all of them


before the general election... It is my promise! And I love it when they


come to the House of Commons because there's nothing else, bringing our


schools into this place to show them how it works, that is how we get


young people interested in our democracy. Thank you.


Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Schools are already facing real


terms cuts to their budgets and now forever a single one of the 26


schools in my constituency, the new national funding formula represents


a further blow of the axe. For every pupil in Nottingham city, funding is


cut by an average of ?650 while more affluent areas are expected to gain.


This isn't just bad for children in Nottingham, it is bad for your


country and society. According to the latest annual report there are


now twice as many inadequate secondary schools in the Midlands


and the North as in the south and east.


I support the principle of fair bunked funding but not at the


expense of children in cities, where we face the challenge of closing a


gap in educational outcomes between children from poorer homes, and


those in wealthier ones. Would she confirm that Nottingham's schools


have failed for decades under decades of Nottingham being run by a


Labour council? Nottingham schools, every single one of the secondary


schools in my constituency is not the responsibility of Nottingham


City Council, they are academies and sadly some are still not improving


and we face, already face intense funding pressure, the IFS tell us


that all schools face an 8% real terms cut to the budgets as as a


result of higher National Insurance contribution, increases in pension


funds. The National Audit Office provided evidence of growing


financial pressures, particularly in secondary schools, where 59% of


maintained schools are and 61% of academies were in deficit last year,


they concluded that the departments approach meant schools could make


spending choices, that put educational outcomes at risk. Now


local head teachers have told me what it will mean. Fewer teacher,


less pastoral support. More contact time for teachers, less choice at


Key Stage Four and five. It will be The Breakfast Club, the trip, the


reading sessions for parent, the extra curricula sports culture and


arts activities that will be the first to go. Things this can make


all the difference to children are going up in poverty. I know that


Nottingham has a number of schools that need to do better and yet it is


some of these very schools that are losing out under the Government's


new national funding formula. Learning is not a matter of chance,


the quality of school leadership and teaching is critical. Yet there is a


national head teacher shortage and a teacher recruitment crisis. And as


the social market foundation found, schools in deprived areas are more


likely to have fewer experienced teacher, more likely to have


teachers without formal teaching qualification more likely to have


teacher without degrees in relevant subjects, and more, I can't hear


what the Secretary of State is chuntering at, more likely to have


higher teacher turn over than schools elsewhere. These latest


funding changes will make school improvement harder and not easier.


Madame Deputy Speaker the Secretary of State and ministers say they want


to see more good and outstanding schools, it is a noble ambition,


it's what I want for every child this my constituency. I am proud of


the work that Nottingham's educational improvement board is


doing to try to make it is is a reality. Creating more good schools


requires more than ambition, actions speak louder than words and right


now actions must mean adequate funding too.


It is a great pleasure to have caught your eye so early on in this


debate and to speak in favour of the amendment and against the motion.


The motion is wrong. This is a novel point. The motion says schools


funding cuts. That is wrong, as a matter-of-fact, because this


Government, this year alone, is spending more than ?40 billion on


our schools, up and down this land, which is more than historically ever


before under any government, so the motion is wrong, and in fact. And


there was a time, there was a time when the party opposite was in


favour of fairer funding. For as recently as March 2010, the then


Labour government was looking at a funding formula, a national funding


formula, but as ever it has taken a Conservative Government to grasp the


nettle, I would be delighted. I thank him for giving way. Way. At a


time when the Labour Government trying to bring in the funding


formula the Capita was ?4,000 a head but most was in PIFs.


I am grateful for that invitation. For that intervention and if we look


at the per capita, the pupil funding figure, that is where it is most


important. The honourable gentleman for Bermondsey and Southwark,


mentioned fairness and he mentioned deprivation, his constituency, in


his constituency, pupils receive ?6450 per pupil, in my constituency,


in Poole and Dorset they receive 4100 and ?4200 per pupil. If this, I


would be delighted to give way. One academy head said as a result of


funding pressures now he is having to cut art and tech class, that is


today. How will 100 ?100 pow thousand xxxx,000 cut help? In


relation to the per pupil funding the point I am making is one of


fairness. If was done an index of deprivation I could look my


constituencies in the eye and I could say that is why you are


receive receiving on average ?2,000 per pupil less than you otherwise


would be. I will do briefly. I thank him very much giving way. I have got


in at last. At the expense of my time. It is grossly unNair the


pupils of Somerset have had on average ?2,000 per pupil less than


the national average. We have grateful for the Government


increasing funding by 4.5%. This will make it fair, when we, it has


been grossly unfair historically. I agree with what my honourable friend


has said. If there were an explanation, if it had been on the


basis of an index of deprivation, I could support it but it is not. It


is on historical anomaly, that is why I support the principle of


fairer funding, but when we look at the detail of the fairer funding, I


want to make two points. Firstly those schools that are right down at


the bottom. The local authorities such as Poole and Dorset, I suggest


should not be seeing any reduction in funding, so when I respond to the


consultation which I very much look forward to doing, I will make that


point to the minister. The other point I will make is in relation to


grammar schools. I welcome what the Government is doing in a move


towards grammar schools, giving our parents a greater choice and we know


it is popular and parents want to make the choice that is best for


them, and for their children, so I welcome the move and the direction


of travel for the Government. But it does seem odd that 103 out of the


163 grammar schools appear to be losing out under this formula. I am


grateful. I echo all he saying and similar willy in Wiltshire we see a


2.6 increase, the two grammar schools are two out of the ten


schools that are suffering and this needs further examination.


I am grateful. I see the minister in his place and I know he is listening


carefully. What I suggest is that the delegation of members of


bafflement, I know this will gladden the minister's heart, a delegation


of MPs, to come and see him, I o know he has been receptive in the


past, I know he will be again in the future. That is why I support not


only the principle offer funding but the fact we have a chance of a


second second stage running to 22nd March. With the minister nodding, I


will take that as an open invitation to knock on his door with a


delegation from the Cathedral City of Salisbury, and from Mid Dorset


and North Poole. I look forward to that meeting. The principle is


right, let us get detail right. I make no apology for talking about


the schools in my constituency which is the eighth worst affected in the


country. So, all 48 schools lose significant sums, the borough loses


2.8 million. Cacked orring to the work done by the teaching unions


that represented 15% per pupil per year. What I find objectionable,


when you look at the way the money is going from the highest losing


primary school ?65,000 a year, the highest losing secondary school is


Burlington academy, they are both excellent school, excellent staff,


but they are in two of the most deprived wards in the country,


college park and Old Oak and White City, and what are we really


expecting? That what message does it send out to the pupils and parents


and teachers of those schools who are working hard to try and ensure


that that excellent standard continues against the odds.


Westminster has a mixed story but a number of schools including those in


the 3% most deprived in the country, stand to lose, but does she share my


concern that the Government is finding resource for a number of


free schools that have been unable to fill place, when the Government


talks about efficiency could they not look at the efficiency of that?


It is a triumph of ideology over practicality. Let me just quote two


of of the #350e78 who know whey what they are talking about. One is the


head of the borough school forum and the principle of one of our


secondary schools. If schools budgets are cost when costs are


inning it can only have an effect on the education we are able to


deliver. We won't be able to deploy the number of teachers we need to


maintain standard and the Cabinet member responsible said it is clear


the Government is trying to redistribute a pot of funding that


is just too small, cutting funding hardest in London, rather than


giving all schools the money they need for teacher, building and


equipment is a divisive and just plain wrong. And that is absolutely


right, because there are two billion pounds across country in extra cost


pressures according to the National Audit Office. London is far and away


the worst affected region, with 8 of the ten biggest loser, most


boroughs, not every one, generally speaking, they are. And the reason


that I say that that is particularly objectionable is London is a success


story, this is punishing success, from London challenge, the London


school's excellent fund going back to the days, we have prized


education and particularly for people from deprived areas in London


and we see that as the opportunity, and it is a shame that a London MP


Secretary of State is overseeing this denuding of resources from


London schools, in the way that this is happening. I was coming, early


one morning, I will give way. I thank him for giving way, I am


sure, surely the logic, is there is going on the to be fair fundinger


you don't take away, you bring people up in other area, it is a


ridiculous policy they are pursuing. This is a very crude exercise and


political exercise. Some of the triumphalism we have seen from the


benches opposite I find extremely objectionable. Early one morning I


had a knock on the door from my neighbour and I said I have to go to


work, if you call this work, and she said, no, it is more aren't


important. Would you come round to my children's school because we are


having a meeting about the funding formula, so I went round, and I


listened to parents and teachers, very well-informed, really


concerned, it is a primary school in the next street to where I live. It


is true of schools across my constituency. These are real


problems, that real people are having to address at the moment and


the Secretary of State's contribution today, showed an


extraordinary degree of complacency here. She does know the problem,


because she is a good constituency MP, she knows the problems in


schools, she has to address them. This cannot be a levelling down,


this cannot be robbing Peter to pay Paul, we have to be fair to


everyone. Thank you. Thank you very enough. Education has the power to


change lives. As this motion recognises its helps children fulfil


their potential. I, like many MPs have campaigned to ensure that my


constituency gets its share of funding through a new fairer funding


formula, because the constituency I represent has been historically


underfunded. I want to see a formula which a significant element


allocated to core funding to ensure every school has the funds it needs.


Needs. Funding for good education is is not only important, it is


necessary. But I would like to focus for a moment on the implicit


suggestion in the most it is Government's funding decisions that


is inhibiting children reaching their full potential. Funding on its


own is insufficient to ensure excellence. I would like to give two


examples. In this 2016 Ofsted report, it


highlighted the success of early years. When it came to


recommendations it did not say that more money was needed but parents


need to take up the education already offered. Ofsted reported


that a children who would have benefited from early years was


simply not up government funding funded places. She is making a very


valid point in terms of early years. Would she agree with me that this


isn't just about a new fairer funding formula, this government is


giving a lot of money into education, including the 30 hours of


free childcare. A preschool in my constituency is having a brand-new


building built on the back of that money and they are only too grateful


to the government. It is not just about fairer funding. I am pleased


that my area was one of the 12 opportunity areas announced last


week together significant more amount of money, so this isn't just


about fairer funding coming in. I was mentioning two examples and I


would like to move on to the second. In secondary education, in the same


report Ofsted mentioned that secondary schools in the north and


the Midlands were weaker than in other areas in the country. It at


the lower performance in these regions could not be fully accounted


for by poverty or differences in school funding. It stated that


leaders and teachers had not set high enough expectations for


behaviour for the pupils, which leads me on to make a point. To


raise standards and to allow children to achieve their


aspirations, we need to do so much more than provide adequate funding.


We need to champion teaching as a vocation. We need to inspire more


outstanding teachers to teach. We need to give teachers the respect


and autonomy that they deserve. We need to support our students in the


classroom to enable them to deal with life's challenges, from helping


them with mental health issues to building up their resilience and


aspiration. We need to work with industry to identify local skills


shortages and raise standards in technical education. These go


hand-in-hand with funding. All of these measures have been championed


by this government, whether in the industrial strategy Green Paper


announced this week, in the Prime Minister's statement on mental


health earlier this month with a white paper on education excellence


everywhere last year. Education is the building block for the future.


Good funding is essential and we need to work together across all


departments to ensure that our children fulfil their potential. As


a former teacher, school governors and parents I understand the value


of providing every child with an education. Education changes lives,


empowers individuals, allow social mobility and is the single biggest


driver of economic success for a nation. It is right that we seek to


provide the very best education for all the children of this country.


This government is going about things in the wrong way. And the new


national funding formula will see 90% of schools were soft and


demonstrates more than anything else argued that the government is not


serious about raising educational standards, nor is it serious about


social mobility. My constituency, which continues to have some of the


highest levels of social deprivation and is in... Will lose ?399 for


every primary pupil. How can this be squared with the Jacksons that my


schools will lose 8% on average by 2019? Even before these cuts we are


already seeing increased class sizes, subject to being dropped from


the curriculum, students with special needs losing vital support,


teacher vacancies. I asked the Secretary of how she believes


cutting fungi funding for schools and Burnley will help a generation


of young people to succeed? There is nothing there about funding that is


not sufficient. How can it be fair to take funding from schools already


stretched to breaking point? Schools that already go the extra mile to


give their children the best possible start in life? Schools that


work hard... She mentioned before that 90% of schools will lose, but I


understand from the figures 70% of schools in her constituency will


actually benefit from that. I hope his figures are correct but I fear


they are not. My information to jest they are not. The research I have


dungeons that is not the case. My schools are working hard already


flat out to cope with social and economic deprivation to help


children overcome disadvantage. These schools are having the rug


pulled from under them. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not going to


help. In my constituency there has been a concerted effort by key


stakeholders, schools and businesses to work together to grow the local


economy. We're making good progress. We are focusing our energies...


Considerable effort has been expended on this and these funding


cuts Philip gay cake in the teeth. Education is a key to not just


better life chances, but our economic success. Ensuring adequate


funding is absolutely crucial so that every child wherever they live,


whatever their background can fulfil their potential. Every citizen


matters, not least our economy. Investing in education is investment


in the economy and failing to do this is short-sighted in the


extreme. The government talks of increased social mobility and


growing a strong economy, they need to understand that investment in


education is fundamental to this. It is a pleasure to follow the


honourable lady. First of all the Secretary of State and 13 are to be


congratulated because they seem to be too many of us on this side of


the house, and probably some outside of the house, almost two larger


problem to start to wrestle with. We are in a consultation process and of


course there will be anomalies and creases that need to be higher in


doubt, and unforeseen circumstances that need to be attended to. But the


scary thing is that members opposite who have spoken have been unable or


unwilling to see the inherent unfairness of the system which they


have not only promoted, but fed because it was... Where we see


funding for the year 16 and 17, with the government has been trying to


counterbalance the differentials. In Manchester, 4619. Doncaster 5281.


Dorset 4240 per pupil. Something has gone wrong. It says quite clearly


taxpayers in Dorset and the children's needs are less important


to taxpayers and the children in other areas. There was nothing fair


in the funding formula which the Labour Party bequeathed. We could


have had a knee jerk reaction which would have put the cat amongst the


pigeons, but I think the incremental approach which my right honourable


friend has adopted is to try to address and arrest this problem, it


is to be congratulated. I concur with many of the comments made of


when we go into our village primary schools and see the enthusiasm of


teachers, and the parents, and the governors and the teaching staff in


general, and we see the enthusiasm for education, and we know they have


been trying to do at one hand tied behind their back because they had


been penalised for a living and working in rural area. There is


great passion amongst the teachers in schools like Westminster Academy


which has the highest proportion of free school dinners anywhere in


Britain. They stand to lose at least a quarter of ?1 million. How is that


fair? I am very familiar with the problems which face some of the


schools in her constituency and elsewhere. I do not think, and this


is the point that maybe needs to be said rather baldly to members


opposite, but all because schools which have done very well in an


unfair system start to see some rebalancing whilst the cake is


divided again, I do not necessarily think that that is an argument to


say that they should be no change to those schools who disproportionately


have enjoyed funding whereas those in the rural areas have not. Will he


agree with me that many of rural schools in Somerset and Dorset have


been doing so well on the funding they have had that this extra


funding will enable them to perhaps have some of the things they haven't


been able to have because they're simply hasn't been enough money to


go rounds? I convened around table of the chairs and governors in my


school and the key thing that they says was the recruitment and


retention of teachers, and the basic goblin was the inequities in the


funding, the inability to have a formula which recognised rural


sparsity and the additional costs which those schools based. Of all


the parents who get involved in schools, and I declare an interest


because I have three young daughters in the village primary school in my


constituency, but I see the work that my wonderful wife, the chairman


of the PTF they does, but also the hard-working farmer who gets about


four o'clock in the morning to look after his livestock but still goes


to the parents meeting at four p.m.. The huge effort...


you see that level of keenness at all levels of the rural education


establishment, that is why they are keen to see a fairer funding model


which addresses the imbalance, which recognises the needs and make sure


that the lifeblood of many of rural communities, which I believe rural


schools actually are, can continue long into the future. In recent


weeks the government has revealed its reforms to the national funding


formula. These reforms paint a bleak future for the schools of Bradford


promising stagnant funding allocations which failed to meet


increasing pupil demand. This in the city which has and continues to face


difficult times, but is trying its best to improve standards. The


perfect storm in funding cuts which will damage Bradford's education


system and harm the life chances of our children. What I fear most is


that these reforms market determined and intentional culture of


underinvestment by this government in our school system. So what do the


funding reforms been for Bradford? It of Bradford primary schools,


secondary schools and academies are faced with cuts to the budget with


funding for early years provision set to be cut by 2.4 million, or 6%.


While difficult funding decisions are already being taken Bradford,


and in recent weeks the Bradford schools Forum took the difficult


decision to divert millions from mainstream schools to fund


additional school places for pupils with special educational needs.


Every child deserves an education and an excellent education. Against


this financial backdrop it is not only day-to-day teaching budgets


that are becoming ever more constrained, the ability of our


school system to invest in new provision is becoming less and less


viable. In recent months, the Prime Minister has said that she wants to


see parity for mental health provision. This must be true for


young people as it is for the rest of the population. At this time,


many believe mental health provision for our children and young people is


in need of urgent improvement. In response to my recent parliamentary


question, the ministers responded schools are able to decide on and


make assessments of the support they provide for the pupils based on


their individual needs. At a time when our school budget is facing


real terms funding cuts, it is unlikely that schools will be able


to find extra funding to fund new provision. Even if schools believe


that additional support would benefit the pupils. If the Prime


Minister is truly committed to parity and care between physical and


mental illness, her government must seriously consider making additional


ring fenced funding available to schools. In closing I say that if as


a country we are genuinely committed to driving improvements in


educational attainment, in tackling inequalities and supporting our


children with decent mental health provision, the and decent funding is


nothing short of vital. I'm lucky to represent the


constituency in Woolwich, if not one of the best borrowers in the country


for results and Ofsted ratings. Having visited every school ones I


can say that is due to exceptional schooling Billy Mckay teaching and


leadership. My comments today are informed by many meetings I have had


with teachers across the constituency including the


delegation I brought to see the funding ministers last year. My


first comment is about overall funding. It is at its highest level


but the fact is, there is additional demand. I will make no apology when


we have discussions about public spending being divided up in asking


for more money for schools but that has to be set against the demand for


members on both sides for funding from everything from NHS to national


infrastructure. The money has to be divided up in some way. That brings


me to my second point. The pre-existing formula was not a fair


one. It was a formula which had to be made fairer. Under the existing


formula, Kingston has the worst funding, students get ?400 less in


the same city, 40 miles away, how can that be fair? I campaigned with


parents in my constituency for a fairer funding formula and we have


seen a marginal increase and importantly a mobility factor being


taken account of because mobility... Will the Member not accept that


there are quite different social circumstances between the


constituency of area in London that he represents and that of Tower


Hamlets and the fact is schools in deprived areas require more


per-pupil funding? Hopefully the lady can repeat that in the poorer


parts of my constituency where people are deprived just as much as


in Tower Hamlets. In fact, I don't disagree one of the most important


factor should be deprivation and schools in Kingston and other


borrowers will get less because deprivation is a key factor but that


level of disparity is not fair. The fact of the matter is that whenever


there is a real conversation of a funding formula, there will be


winners and losers unless you have a massive increase in funding to level


up rather than level down and that is not a level of funding that any


party committed to in its manifesto. My third point is that headteachers


legitimately make the point that the costs of increased national living


wages, national insurance contributions and pensions are


putting the pressure on their budget. They are in other areas of


the public budget but we shouldn't forget that in this debate. My final


is this. This is the biggest issue in my constituency were high needs


funding has resulted in an overspend on the PSG of around ?5 million


which is going to have to be found from school budget as a whole. The


council and free school providers have put in applications for new


special schools within the borough of Kingston and Richmond, which will


in the medium term reduced pressure. In the short term there is no clear


answer to whether is ?5 million will come from apart from every child


school funding and I'm pleased the minister was able to meet the


council leader to discuss this a few weeks ago. In conclusion, all of


these points need to be taken into account and I'm pleased there was a


small increase for Kingston schools. At the end of the day, there has to


be fairness across the constituents recognise that and I will be putting


in a phase to consultation response and it'll be informed by the


headteachers in my constituency. This week on the Public Accounts


Committee, we reviewed the annual report on the financial


sustainability of school funding and the most helpful thing I can do now


is give the chamber some flavour of how that went. Present were


officials from the DFE including the permanent Secretary Jonathan Slater


but the session was preceded by a panel of teachers and they spoke


understandably of current and financial pressures. The impact of


funding and the strategies they have to deal with it. Things like


reducing the curriculum and ink increasing class sizes and mental


health extracurricular activities. And increasing teacher contact time.


The Department unsurprisingly didn't altogether recognise this picture.


Interestingly that they didn't dispute any of the financial facts.


There was no disagreement whatsoever that schools have to save 3 billion,


that represents an 80% cut by 2020 and this is the toughest challenge


since the last Conservative government was in power. There was


no dispute that more schools were in debt and that the debts were growing


bigger. The department simply didn't dispute those as financial fax zero


could they because they greet with the NAI report. Their argument was


not about financial fax themselves but about fax. If every school


procured efficiently on heating and insurance, if they manage the


payroll effectively then disaster can be averted. They stood ready and


the Secretary of State was ready with advice and tutorials to help


them do that. They think disaster can be averted, in the words of the


permanent Secretary, doable. My view is there are good reasons for


scepticism because the DFE exercise as it is has been a desk one. They


know little about the individual circumstances of schools, how could


they? There are too many to gauge and understand. And it is a fact


that not every school can actually reduce its payroll costs. Not if it


is endowed with experience and established. Not if it needs to take


up the slack caused by the reduction or the abolition of the educational


support grant, especially small schools. Not every school can reduce


procurement costs, not if it is an old building or it has done so or if


it is tied into long-term contracts. What is doable in theory is not


doable in practice. The most chilling passage is the NCO report


of paragraph 2.8. I advise members to read that very carefully. Thank


you Mr Speaker. I rise today to talk about school funding and many people


in this place went to be aware that I was very involved in school


funding and trying to get a fair formula for schools many years ago


when I was chairman of the advisory committee. They actually have then


working for 25 years and what civil servants always say is there will be


winners and losers. Of course there are winners and losers, they are


there now. In Derby city itself, the highest funded school gets paid ?564


per pupil, the lowest is about ?800 which is a huge difference for a


school when you have 13 of 1500 pupils, multiply that up, it makes


an enormous difference to the quality of education that you can


get. We know that some schools need more funding that they are all


wanting to lose ?800. Some of them do need funding but those at the


bottom of the list are consistently there are so I'm delighted this


government has decided that it is going to have the school funding


formula. It is about time it happened, we've been wanting it for


over 25 years and I'm delighted this government is actually tackling it


and will consult on this. My colleague from Derbyshire, which she


agree with me that this is good news for Derby city. We do need extra


support and me could in actual fact gain a .4%? It'd make a huge


difference to Derby schools and I think it's very important that it is


given to the right schools. Those schools have been underfunded for so


long actually get a fair crack of the whip and we don't allow Derby


City Council to skew it in any way, shape or form so that the same


schools get extra money and the ones who've been deprived do get any


extra money. There are issues with schools at the moment and I know


many schools are looking forward to having this national funding formula


which as I've said, it is so important that they do. There are


problems which have fixed costs, the fixed costs of the same whether you


are an inner-city school or a leafy suburb. So why are they up paid a


different amount of money? The biggest problem schools have at the


moment all something I do want to raise with the Minister is the


apprenticeship levy is there now and there is no more money for it and we


have to look at how we can fund it because it is within the overall


budget and they have no choice, it is a very good thing. The other


thing they are finding is they are dropping the Duke of Edinburgh award


system because they cannot afford to run it any more and this is really


important for Derby schools. There are some amazing opportunities for


young people and if we lose those sorts of extracurricular activities


then we are not giving the pupils the all-round education that I


believe that they should have the matter something I would like the


Minister if he can look at. Where schools for their maximise the


amount of money but what don't want to see is that they have to increase


class sizes. I would like to see as having another look, it cannot come


soon enough for so many schools in this country who have been looking


forward to it. Every child in this country deserves a decent education


and every disabled child deserves a decent education, the principal no


child should be worse off should run through this consultation. Where you


are born should not dictate your life chances yet that is the case


for too many children in our countries and too many children in


Wakefield were 25% of children are growing up in poverty. I was proud


to be a Member of the last Labour government that lifted nearly a


million children out of poverty and I'm so disappointed at what this


government has done overseeing the closure of 800 sure start centres


and changing the goalposts on measuring child poverty. We have a


very deep hit to Wakefield schools by this proposal so fair funding


should mean a levelling up... I'm not giving weight... Not a levelling


down so every school in my constituency will see their funding


cut under the proposals. The manifesto has been broken as we've


heard from the Member of Liverpool West Derby. Her government has not


provided for finding her people to increase in line with inflation, it


hasn't accounted for the increase in attending schools and has not


considered the cost of higher national insurance and pension


contributions which now have to be absolved by the school budgets. When


the efficiency savings are factored in to the funding formula, funding


in Wakefield, her pupils over ?600 before 2019, a real term cut of 11%.


Nine schools across the district are predicted to be in a deficit by the


31st of March and that means increased class sizes, subjects


dropped from the curriculum and in particular, pupils with special


needs and disabilities losing vital support and teacher vacancies left


unfilled. We have heard a very worrying impact that we will see on


special educational needs. At the moment there is some flexibility to


move money around and move money into the high needs block. Under the


new formula there will be disruption and uncertainty around special needs


funding for cities like Wakefield and it is simply not enough for


children in our city who need that extra support. She mentioned at the


outset that it is important get the same opportunity, she also mentioned


that the class sizes would go up, does she think it's fair that the


children in my constituency have class sizes in every single


secondary School of over 30 and have been historically underfunded for


years? She is reinforcing my point that the Government has to take


account for rising pupil numbers and this formula fails to do that and


the efficiency savings fail to do that so she wants to have a word


with the Secretary of State about that. What we cannot have is a


situation where there isn't enough money to go around to educate all


children well. And yet we in Wakefield will see a thousand more


children, thousands more people starting school in September and no


money allocated for that and we see the schools and the pupils missing


out. The Institute for Fiscal Studies so schools in England face


the steepest cuts to funding since the 1970s, despite the


circumstances, headteachers are doing excellent work on my


constituency. I urge the Secretary of State to


drop programmer school plans, revise this national funding formula and


made sure we can go back to the bad old days. I had to pay ?12 for my


own level physics textbook and we didn't have a teacher but to years


in the good old days of the 1984 teaching budgets. We don't want to


go back to those days. This is welcome news for Lincolnshire


schools as we are one of the lowest funded authorities in the country.


We have been campaigning for a fairer funding allocation for some


years because it can't be right that authorities in other parts of the


country get more money to pass on to schools due to historical


allegations. This is long overdue and we will be making a strong views


known in the consultation leading up to the changes. Those are the words


of councillor Patricia Bradwell, executive member for children's


services at Luke Shaw County Council. She is right. She knows


that rural areas can also be areas where deprivation, special needs,


the challenges of students whose first language is not English and a


host of other issues are just as common as they are in cities. The


government's proposed funding formula mixed huge strides in


writing that historic Miss Justice and I welcome it. This is a funding


formula in a consultation days so I hope the government will take the


opportunity to make it even better. The House of Commons library tells


me 29 of the 39 schools for which they have information will see the


funding rise by up to 2.9%. On current form, ten of those will see


a slight fall for the same overall total it would be perfectly possible


to see non-fall all. I would make a couple of please to the department.


At the same amount of money distributed fractionally differently


we could do even better. First, the government has rightly committed to


the expansion of grammar schools, engines for social mobility and find


institutions in Boston, Skegness and across Lincolnshire. In the fourth


lowest funded authority in the country these are not schools that


were overfunded in the past. A tweak to the formula could improve the


situation. Secondly, the issue of small, rural primary schools. These


are currently in many communities what binds together friends and


neighbours and keeps villages to scalable. If this formula is to have


a sparsity factor, but I can only be right to acknowledge that a county


such as Lincolnshire is about as fast as they come. Again, for no


overall increase, it could be done slightly better. One approach might


be to give local authorities greater powers to decide how spending might


be allocated. To close, linkage is on record welcoming a ?5 million


boost for schools across the county. It writes a historic wrong and will


go a long way to meeting genuine needs and ending the pretence that


urban areas have a monopoly on deprivation. Lincolnshire welcomes


the consultation as a way of making sure that the extra money that is so


welcome to be spent even more effectively after these very


promising proposals. I would like to declare an interest as I have two


children attending a local school that is affected by these cuts. My


wife is the Cabinet member for children and young people on our


local authority. My local council has an exceptional record for


education with over 90% of schools waited good or outstanding and not


one school is inadequate. All the good progress could be jeopardised


if the planned reductions to funding or implemented. The extent of the


reductions will remove ?7.9 million in Cheshire West and gesture. This


means a 2% cut across-the-board. 32 out of 33 schools in my constituency


will not maintain the per-pupil funding contrary to what was


promised by the government. With this in mind the will to local


schools are my constituency to ask them what they thought and I have


been worried by the responses I have had back. Ellesmere Port saw huge


improvements when it was placed in special measures in 2013. The


headteacher has worked incredibly hard to turn things around and they


were awarded a good rating in 2015. The chief inspector of state


referred to the school in a speech in November last year about schools


that have made remarkable transformation, saying that the


school now has almost three quarters of pupils getting five GCSEs. These


funding reductions will threaten the improvements they have made. This


will make the approved deficit reduction plan will be completely


unachievable. The headteacher told me we are already stretched to the


limit and it is a very bleak outlook. The government must invest


in schools for the sake of our children and future. Whitney high


school said they could face a ?110,000 funding reduction. They


could be facing a 10% real terms budget cut, the equivalent in


reductions of staffing of 17 if savings are not find elsewhere. At


the Sutton primary School the governor said they are worried about


the sustainability of the school following the new funding


arrangements. Another school said that they have had a real term


reduction of 4.4%, or ?65,000. It'll be back combined with wages


increases and inflation the reduction has been in excess of


?100,000. St Mary is have said that by 2019 there but it would be done


by ?90,000. This is a terrible situation for local schools and is


one headteacher said to me it does appear that the fairer funding model


being discussed is far from fair. When I met with headteachers in my


constituency campaigning for fairer funding in Nottinghamshire with my


parliamentary neighbour, he said to those gathered that the only two


people he has ever met who understood how these formulas worked


and one of them was dead the other had gone mad, so it gives me a lot


of pleasure to see my right honourable friend the Secretary of


State has grasped the nettle at long last and has tackled an issue which


he certainly said no Education Secretary would ever take on. This


was a manifestly unfair formula as many honourable members have said


already today. Nottinghamshire was one of the F 40 counties, so perhaps


of schools across my county I am delighted to welcome a modest


increase admittedly not by the present, but nonetheless an


increase. I think it is incredibly important that we take on difficult


issues and don't just kick the scans down the road. Time and time again


in politics we saw this with tax credits and other issues where it is


immensely difficult to take money away from people, even if the


reasons have been proven to be wrong, the formula is outdated and


the opposition considerable. This is an example of a government taking on


a difficult issue and not just kicking down the road. It also sends


out a signal that there is poverty in rural areas. No county


exemplifies that better than Nottinghamshire. I may be privileged


to represent the more affluent part of that county, but at least half of


it are made up of ex-Caulfield communities, places with deep rooted


social problems left to fester by the Labour Party. This formula will


not benefit my constituency. It will benefit those deprived parts of the


county of Nottinghamshire and I am proud that that is happening, even


if it is a difficult conversation with most of my own headteachers.


The last point is to say that there are parts of this country that have


been well funded but that have produced appalling results and none


other than the city of Nottingham exemplifies that. Those schools, and


I'm sure we have heard from colleagues who represent that city


today, how disappointed that they are that the funding has fallen. I


feel sympathy for that, but those relatively well funded schools have


let down generations of students, and appalling local authority, pure


quality leadership and I look to the Secretary of State, as well as


increasing funding for my schools in Nottinghamshire, to find an answer,


a strategy for a city like Nottingham that desperately needs


it. In my first week as an MP I received a letter from a headteacher


of the school that my two children attend, and the school highlighted


some of the very real issues that the schools of my constituency are


going to be facing in the next few years. I realised when I got to the


end of that I wasn't receiving the letter because I was a newly elected


MP, I was receiving the letter because it was a parent and every


single parent received that letter. I thought to myself, this is surely


unprecedented, this is surely an indication of the deep level of


anxiety that is being felt by the headteacher of my children's school


and the other schools are my constituency at the future of


funding for those schools in my constituency. I spoke to the


headteacher of my children's school about the issue. The Secretary of


State refers to using staff more efficiently will stopping my


children's school my constituency that means cutting teaching


assistants. This will mean that the biggest impacts will be felt by


those pupils who need the most help, the special educational needs and


additional language -- language leads. This will increase the gaps


in entertainment and will limit opportunities for those who already


have the least opportunities available. I attended a meeting of


headteachers in Kingston and one of the things highlighted that seemed


extraordinary to me but was again confirmed to me by the headteacher


at my local school is that schools are having to pay an apprenticeship


levy and this is adding to the costs. It seems extraordinary to me


that schools are having to find money from their budgets, having to


take it from money that would otherwise be paid towards teaching


staff, to pay a penalty for not providing training. I find this an


extraordinary anomaly and the hope that the Secretary of State will


look into it as a matter of urgency because this seems an unnecessary


burden for schools in my constituency and elsewhere. I can


understand the motivation to ensure that distribution of funding is


evened out across the country and that for some people this will be


seen as fairer, but urged the Secretary of State to achieve this


by looking for ways to increase funding to those schools that


already are disadvantaged and not by taking it from schools that have


traditionally received more, because this will cause a great deal of


hardship not just for schools are my constituency but elsewhere. Of


course I commend the government's determination to build and you


schools funding formula but I am pleased that are still at the


consultation stage. Representing South Cambridgeshire, I can't do


that until 2015 was the lowest funded county in the country, I


understand only too well how underfunded schools have struggled.


The proposed new formula with laudable intentions to look on


deprivation does not yet recognised three critical factors. First,


consideration must be given when the school has been seriously


underfunded for decades. My schools have been mending and making do for


years. I do not exaggerate when I described to you broken window panes


and holes in roots. Teaching assistants for us a luxury and the


purchasing of textbooks and basic equipment is to ask of local


businesses the community. The link or a teacher vacancies is often not


possible. The government digital and appreciation of this when they


provided a welcome boost of interim funding last year and this year


also, but I'm afraid the reality is this. The money has been completely


absorbed in pension and National Insurance increases. Furthermore,


under the current funding proposals not only will this interim funding


not be maintained as a starting baseline, 27 of my school to be even


worst off, in real terms cut of about 4%. Every single one of my raw


primary schools with less than a pupils would lose money and some of


us today have spoken about spa city. May I please urged the Secretary of


State to recognise that the new formula cannot simply be


superimposed on a landscape of significant historical


underinvestment. Not up we expect them schools to survive, let alone


hold and closed the widening Free Schools meal attainment gap. In the


next four years will have open 24 new schools in Cambridgeshire since


2012 just a couple of basic need. It is not right that we subsidise that


in those early years with money from existing skills. For example, a


typical secondary school would contribute ?41,000 towards that out


of the annual budget. I understand that growth in the consultation is


open-ended, but we need to find a way of fixing that, perhaps a


separate fund. I would ask that we look at the cost-of-living. In


Cambridgeshire, average wages or house prices are around 16 times the


average weights and we need to look at how we can help with teacher


recruitment because budgets don't go that far. I believe genuinely there


is a sincere desire to offer this proposed model of the road testing


and that is what we're doing today, the tyres.


Unsurprisingly I'm here to speak for the children of older. The children


under these proposals who will be significantly affected by money


being taken away from the much-needed education. I have


interest, I have two young boys, both of whom will see, I will carry


on full-time, I'm conscious there are other people who want to speak,


both of whom will see real terms cut in their education provision in the


same way another 60,000 young people in the town will do too. Every


single one of old's 99 schools will see a cut, the average 9%. We are


meant to do an opportunity area, the pavement paved with education gold


if you listen to the Government benches. Recognised that there are


issues with a determination from the Government they say to turn that


around. We should welcome the investment of ?16 million.


Unfortunately the Government then took ?70 million away -- 17, so tell


me, tell the young people in Oldham and the parents and the teachers,


where is the new money? How can you turn round educational attainment


when it is so deep-rooted, when it is so unequal, where education


hasn't been valued, but is desperate to realise the opportunities that


those young people deserve for the future? Tell Oldham Howard has a


positive future when the wrong is being taken from under it. We have


seen in early years when money has been taken away, we sit in the sixth


form College where nearly ?1 million has been taken away, we see an old


college where ?3.5 million has been taken away. Money has been taken


away and I don't resent for one second any Member of the House


saying that their area needs more to provide for decent education. If you


represent the Tory shire then fantastic, make that case, I support


you, but not at the cost of children that have been let down and their


families let down for generations, who need the chance more than most.


The world is more complex than it has ever been, the skills that


people need are going to be more complex than ever. But they are


being set up to fail under this model so I make this plea. Next time


the Secretary of State has its old and my constituency, instead of just


giving a courtesy notice, why don't we attend a roundtable with the


headteachers and the governors, to really listen and understand on the


impact of these cuts. If the Government really does care, less


words, more action and more investment. Solihull is mentioned in


many service, not just one of the best places to live in the West


Midlands but in the UK itself. That is in no small part due to its


schools. My schools puts on a Herculean effort, they do more with


less. And they have embraced change and gained the benefits from so


doing. Despite they have lost out in the fairer funding formula for many


years. I welcome the Government's commitment to make the changes that


are necessary and although this is a consultation at the moment, I hope


they will take on the comments so that we can get this right and set


it for the future. While we do this we have to understand that in my


constituency, secondary schools do gain and I'm grateful for that but


primary schools don't. In some cases they lose up to 2.5%. In addition,


the unequal treatment of the schools compare to those of neighbouring


Birmingham is not yet fixed. Those in the city still enjoy a


substantial per-pupil advantage currently standing at 1300 year,


just to put this in a context in the real world for honourable members,


Birmingham schools can use this extra cash to offer more competitive


salaries and attract newly qualified teachers. Especially in mathematics


and science which hurt schools in neighbouring communities who don't


have the money to spare. They also have more funds to set aside for


facilities, extracurricular activities, school trips and all of


the other things which allow schools to provide a rich and well rounded


education. In a compact urban region like the West Midlands, even small


inequalities of this sort can have serious consequences for those left


out. They are also more visible. Local headteachers tell me that


parents regularly ask them why pupils in Birmingham are taken on


exciting school trips but not their own children. This unfairness is all


the worse because so many Birmingham children are actually educated in


Solihull. In some cases up to 40% of the children in some of our local


schools come from outside. But these peoples don't bring funding


advantages. I'm pleased the need for fairer funding in our schools is now


widely recognised and the Government is grasping the nettle. The current


proposals are an important first step. But they must go further to


end the unequal treatment. Thank you Mr Speaker. Teachers in the Borough


of Hounslow have achieved amazing results over the last ten years,


almost all of our schools are good or outstanding, value added is


positive in every school and this is in a borough were all of the schools


and all the classrooms have children with additional needs of some kind.


Children who arrive not speaking English, children with disabilities


and special educational needs, children who are homeless and keep


having to move on. All who sofa surfing with parents. And many other


needs, most of the schools suffer from severe aircraft noise as planes


approach Heathrow. The overall savings proposed by the Department


for Education in my constituency that they will face by 2018-19 with


a combination of the national funding formula proposed and the


wide cost measures 5.1 million which is 6.2% cuts. The overall cost


pressures include members mentioned here today, inflation, the


apprenticeship levy, pension and national insurance cost, independent


career advice, more special needs, like the Secretary of State's


constituency, those pressures that my headmasters have to face on the


whole, fewer teachers and fewer support, we have established that


for each of our secondary schools, they will have to lose between nine


and 18 teachers. For primary schools up to 11 fewer teachers. It will


mean fewer subjects taught at Key stage 4-5, fewer external physics,


fewer specialists to tell children about future jobs or staying safe or


other issues that we want children to learn in London it means less


individual support for children with individual needs or who are very


gifted. The agency costs for supply teachers as our headteachers phase


the recruitment and retention crisis that is affecting all subject areas.


That is leading again to the salary bill. And for the classrooms that


have children who have additional attention, the impact of the cuts


are there every day. More classes are being taught with only one


teacher, that is a cost that every car child. Those with additional


needs and those with not. The cuts mean less time improving material or


outdoor space which the curricula requires. I am grateful to catch


your eye. I commend the Secretary of State for tackling this issue


because it is clear from the debate that a modification of the Lincoln


dictum on this issue you could only play some of the people some of the


time. And inevitably where there is no more cash around, there will be


winners and losers but unfortunately my constituency is one of the big


losers. Having campaigned for over ten years, with the horizon, the son


on the horizon, when it has arrived at a consultation, to find that my


schools actually get less money, in Gloucestershire this year we will


get a .8% cash terms increase and in the Cotswolds it is a .3% cash terms


increase, two thirds of my schools get a cut and a third of my schools


get a very small increase. When you consider that in Gloucestershire the


schools were already very efficient, they amalgamated a lot of back


office functions and formed partnerships, the secondary schools


did everything they could and were one of the earliest secondary


schools in the country to become academy so Gloucestershire is a very


efficient county. Then to find that we have this cash terms cuts on top


of the Government having imposed increases above inflation for


funding teachers, funding minimum wage, funding pensions, finding


national insurance and funding procurement, on top of inflation and


to get a cash terms cut for over half my schools is a real squeeze on


education in Gloucestershire. I should at this point pay tribute to


my parents and governors in the schools because the vast majority of


them go well over the last mile to give my children the best of their


education and we have reasonable results given the funding. The


result of the concentration and the figures I've given puts


Gloucestershire down from 108th 216th in the league and that is


simply unacceptable because what it means some teacher posts will


definitely be lost. -- 108 two 116th. Thank you for giving way. I


wanted to ask the honourable gentleman if he would do what I


would do witches encourage my governors and parents to feed into


the consultation because I suspect there some anomalies. I would urge


all people in my position and I'm sure sitting next to my neighbour


here that many, not only all Gloucestershire MPs will feeding but


many of my grieved head teachers and parents and governors will also feed


on. Getting back to where was in my speech, I think it is inevitable we


will lose teacher training posts. It is inevitable some of our schools


will close and it is inevitable some of the secondary schools who face of


the largest cut will actually have to reduce the breadth of the


curriculum that they offer. Every child in the country on their school


should have roughly the same breath of curriculum and I expect in a


smaller school it is more difficult but as a result of government


policy, to find the choice of their A-level is no longer available, it


is difficult. I would simply say this to my honourable friend, I know


this is a consultation, but I want to see some radical ostentation, the


weighting of changes and other measures is too high. I think basic


people funding should under no circumstances be cut. Thank you Mr


Speaker. I want to pay tribute to the Shadow Secretary of State in


made a brilliant speech and as demonstrated that education matters


in our country. I have three brief points Mr Speaker. Firstly the


narrative of this discussion is completely wrong. It is typical Tory


divide and rule strategy. I do not believe that those who might gain


out of a change of the funding formula, though schools want to do


so at the expense of other children, other teachers and other schools. I


used this example, I know that they do not want to do so at the expense


of children and schools in Liverpool in Sefton and in the Wirral. They


don't want that. You don't need to divide people, we should be bringing


people together. Schools in Wirral looks set to lose hundreds of pounds


per pupil and this plays into another classic Tory narrative which


is you don't need money to get anywhere in life, you don't need


money to help in education, the Member for South Cambridgeshire said


money is not sufficient to drive achievement. Money may not be a


sufficient condition but it is a necessary condition and all the


evidence points that out and I'm sat next to my friend for West Derby who


led the London challenge and I know that he would say it was reform and


improvement, alongside decent funding that got those achievements.


That we are all proud of. Will see join me in welcoming one


element of the funding formula, the inclusion for the first time


vulnerability factor, and does she agree with me that it ought to be


larger than the knot .1% of the total allocated? I would say to my


honourable friend I have never disagreed with them yet and I don't


now. I would bring my speech to a close by saying this. As a member of


Parliament I am afraid of very little but I still get nervous when


I have to go and see local headteachers, so I just to finish by


giving the final words of my speech over to those headteachers. Mark


Whitehill, the head of data in primary he said a simple truth, if


education really is a priority we need the staff to deliver it, which


is agreed with by Katherine Kelly, another brilliant headteacher in my


area, he said that her job is about life chances but colleagues who she


respects it is fantastic educationalists are now talking


about leaving the profession because as headteachers they are not


focusing on the right things, having to balance the books and make ends


meet. They are invariably being set up to fail. She is frugal and if


they are overstaffed she knows it is a waste of the student's resources


and she would never make that happen. She says she is afraid the


government does not understand education, which I believe is true.


The last word to aggregate head from the Wirral, he says that the


fundamental issue is that there is not enough money in the system.


Teacher recruitment shortages and massive underfunding places


children's education and well-being at risk. This is creating a perfect


storm. I think those three headset that are better than I ever could


and I would ask the Secretary of State to learn the lessons of


schools in own constituency, that money is not all you need but you


can't do without it if you want to give kids a chance. Five more


speeches. Two minutes each will suffice. Colleagues can help each


other. Many parents are attracted to my constituency by the excellence of


our schools and I look forward to visiting Oakfield primary this


coming Friday. We have a broad range, including bilateral school


which gives cool Education Bill grammar school places and is


incredibly popular and oversubscribed. In Warwickshire, it


will remain one of the lowest kind piece at ?4293 per pupil, amongst


the lowest figures we have heard discussed today. It is a credit to


the heads and staff of the schools are my constituency that they are


able to achieve such excellence with this particular sum. We will see a


1.1% total increase which is very welcome, and that will affect 29


schools are my constituency, mostly rural primary is. At nine or less of


my schools will receive the same rather less. In many cases these are


the excellent secondaries I just preferred to, one of which will lose


?90,000 a year. Many of these schools have six forms they face a


particular challenge what they have smaller classes, often the very


A-Levels that lead onto the qualifications that our country so


badly needs. Since coming to office this government has been steadfast


in its commitment to ensure that all children get a world-class


education. This level is the system out. It is fairer system. The front


bench speaker on the other side was talking about cuts, but there are no


cuts. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the overall


budget remains the same. This is about ensuring that we allocate the


funds of the nervous system fairly and to make sure we have a level


playing field between pupils from across our country. Briefly, in the


two minutes I have, I would like to welcome the government's commitment


to this and I would like to commend the Secretary of State for tackling


something that isn't difficult. The honourable member for Wirral spoke


about fairness. Fairness to me is the fact that the honourable member


for Ashton underlined currently receives ?178 per pupil more than my


children in Suffolk. After this she will receive 219 pounds per pupil


more. That is why I would like the consultation just to look and iron


out these anomalies. We are really grateful in Suffolk with the uplift


but I have campaigned for a fairer funding and my children deserve to


be treated equally. It is too complex to do in one go, I


appreciate that, because it would mean we walloped some schools harder


than others. So we need to be gentle with this trajectory, but we must


not stand back and not grasp it because it has gone on too long,


that our children particularly in rural areas, we are all underfunded


in those areas. We have had to play second fiddle to large metropolitan


areas whose children don't deserve more life chances, they deserve the


same life chances. I have areas of deprivation, I have children who


could do with more money being spent on their education. This is the


right way to continue. This morning I had a roundtable of businesses and


educationalists from across the region. They are talking about


skills. Please let's contribute a bit on early years. In Suffolk we


are losing more than we currently spend on it and we provide this


outstanding education. Please look at rural England and don't assume


that we have everything, we didn't. Please, when we consult... I will


try to be short and pithy and to the point. I am a school governor of St


Andrews primary school in a very deprived community. I have to tell


the Secretary of State and the Minister that there is an 11 to 12


year life expectancy difference from the north-east to the south-west of


my constituency. I was the agent to the then Minister of the Department


for Education in the 1980s when we introduce local management of


schools and the National Curriculum and things like that. Let me put


this straight and say I am very grateful to the government for


having a look at the fresh formula of funding and my constituency has


done quite well. We have 4% increase in the amount of money that will be


given to schools. For my prospective, that is incredibly good


news. The one issue which is concerning that is what happens to


the grammar schools and I'm incredibly grateful to my honourable


friend the schools minister who has agreed to meet with my grammar


schools to talk about how they could try and improve that position. We


have a very good education offer in my constituency, not only three


grammar schools, but as UDC and I creative arts school. I am very


grateful to the government, both the Coalition Government that this


government, for that. Please don't let anybody down. I was proud to


stand on an election platform for this government had delivered 1.4


million good and outstanding school places over the last six years. That


this was delivered in the most challenging financial circumstances


as to the credit of this government and to the teachers across the


country. I am also conscious that the government is spending record


amounts of money, ?40 billion, in our schools protecting the budget. I


also recognise that other laudable policies from this government to


invest in on -- in our workers and give our workers pay rise are eating


into this budget and it is a budget that is largely spent on employees.


I had hoped that the school funding formula would address some of the


shortfalls in my constituency, but unfortunately, whilst getting a 1.5%


increase over all the constituency, 16 of my schools will receive an


increase, but 23 will receive funding drop. That causes me concern


as I very much hope that the consultation will see some of those


concerns I died. I recognise that the opposition have a job to oppose,


but it is fine to be long on talk and say the right things, but


delivering new ideas and policies to make things better quite frankly was


an appalling act this afternoon. On that note can I suggest three


matters that may help without impacting our wish to eradicate the


deficit. Firstly, schools and education has to be the number one


priority for increasing productivity. We have a ?23 -- 20 ?3


billion productivity fun to set up, can we tap into that? Secondly, is


there a way to find schools not to be included within the


apprenticeship levy. Our schools are looking after mental health, can we


find some way to tap into that funding? I am fully supportive that


every school should be funded the same way creating a level playing


field. In 2010 the Labour government tried to implement a funding formula


but at that time it was ?4000 and much of the gas -- and most of that


was in PFI. We have the highest amount in our history going into


education, and we should be positive. We should not have a


system where some areas they get less money per pupil. For too long


the disparity of funding between areas of the country for no real


reason has been ignored and I am proud to have stood on a manifesto


that pledged to change that. I have run... The figures which have been


formulated and been quoted in the chamber had been plucked out of thin


air. Money over an area divided by Maxima money to be claimed per


school but never is, they're not taking into account the number of


pupils. This website that information published about areas


and schools before the department even announced any figures. I am fed


up of unions politicising children are my constituency. We have heads


in my areas unionising the kids. Surprise surprise, those kids did


worst in the area. To wrap up, respectfully, I think this is a very


good move and I hope that the government implemented sooner rather


than later to give all of our children of there fighting chance.


So, for the first time in a generation schools will face higher


spending cut in the budgets. The Secretary of State right out of the


gate chanters. In her authority area that equates to a 15% cut, with ?13


million, not pure schools budget by 2020, so I look forward to


campaigning in her constituency on this. The department expects schools


to find ?3 billion worth of savings in this Parliament to counteract the


cost pressures including pay rises, the National Living Wage, higher


employer contributions, National Insurance, the teachers pension


scheme and the apprenticeship levy. This was well pointed out that the


members of Kingston and Surbiton. He was unhappy with the national


funding formula. Overall, in this Parliament, he will receive a 12%.


It was rightly pointed out about those pressures from my honourable


colleague behind me. This equates to an 8% terms reduction per pupil


funding in this Parliament. The department regularly compiles a list


of future policy changes, things that will affect schools, but has no


plans to assess the financial implications for schools of these


changes. We have no assurances that these policies are affordable within


current spending plans without adversely affecting educational


outcomes. Government is leaving schools and trusts to manage the


consequences individually. The department has not clearly


communicated to schools the scale and pace of the savings needed to


meet the expected cost pressures. The proportion of maintained and


secondary school spending more of their income increased last year


from 33% to 59%. This government, no matter what the member for Devon


says, has racked up a ?1.7 trillion debt on its watch and now wants to


pass on part of bad debt to our school system. The Department expect


much of the savings to come from procurement and the introduction of


shared services. Change to procurement and shared services


requires strong leadership, clear plans for achieving savings,


effective risk management and support from stakeholders.


Leadership clearly lacking from the benches opposite. The Minister


himself said he is confident that pages of guidance on the Department


website will provide enough support for schools in this task. It will


not. School leaders without support our


as the National Audit Office address, likely to make decisions


that will make teacher retention crisis worse. The audit office went


on to say and I quote, the department 's approach to managing


risks at school, financial sustainability, cannot be judged to


give value for money currently. It is important to recognise the impact


that this will have on staff. We expect already unsustainable


workload pressures will eventually start to bite, additionally the


amount in savings will lead to worse educational outcomes and this will


have the biggest impact on those from the most deprived areas and


those with special needs. We know that staff costs represent the


largest single expenditure of any school, 74% of schools budgets go on


staff so it's not hard to see in order to save money, schools will


inevitably end up cutting back more staff and this will have a knock-on


effect on workload, morale, class sizes, the breadth of the curriculum


that schools can offer and all of this is happening at a time and we


are expecting a 3% increase. We have a bad situation compounded by the


National funding formula, some MPs opposite and they have really missed


the point here he had been expecting jam tomorrow from their manifesto


commitment are waking up to the reality that the schools in their


constituency will not benefit from the introduction. Hardly any area in


the country is left unscathed. That they were excellent speeches that


point about the funding formula is not appointed, it's the cuts and


pressures that the schools face. I asked the Member for South Cambridge


to speak to her college from South East Cambridgeshire who completely


missed the point and the House will be astonished at the slap in the


face to Northern teachers that they are not ambitious enough for the


people. This from a government that introduced the worry reports... I


give way. I'm grateful and if you listen to my speech carefully he


would have understood that I was quoting the Ofsted report of 2016,


they were not my words, they were the words of Ofsted. A slap in the


face and her authority in Cambridgeshire will face a 4% cuts


from all pressures that are going on. In conclusion what I would say


is this. The Tories are failing our children. They are overseeing the


first real term cuts in decade since the 1970s by their own preferred


measure on standards, they have declined in the world rankings which


they define themselves. The Minister will stand in a minute and talking


about 1.8 million children or symphonic, however that was because


labour identified those schools and Ofsted came back to reassessment and


there are more children in the Cesc them and they are in the primary


system so finally this dire system is one which will only continue to


worsen with the cuts in place by this government and their new


funding formula. But of course the students tested in 2015 spend the


primary years educated under a Labour government, not under the


reforms implemented by this government. This has been an


important debate with excellent contributions by nonmembers on all


sides at a time when the Government is consulting on details and


weightings on the factor that will make up the new funding formula. The


honourable Member in front of the launched our debate today with her


joke of robbing Peter breath to play pool. Alas her facts are as weak as


her joke because Peterborough will see a rise of 2.7%, an increase and


pool will see a rise of somewhat 1.1% under the formula. What we have


learned today is that Labour don't support the principle of equal


funding. Half of the members opposite will see a net gain in


funding as a result of the new formula including the honourable


Member for Oldham were finding will increase by ?1.7 million with an


extra ?1.2 million in the constituency. My Member for


Stroud... I won't give way, I honourable Member for Stroud asked


us to look again at the deprivation. The proportion of the formula we


have applied for deprivation reflects the local authorities are


already doing across the country. The Member for Liverpool West Derby


asked about high needs funding. Liverpool is due to gain 14.4% in


high needs funding under the formula with increases at 3%. My honourable


friend for Louth and Horncastle was right to say that the new National


funding formula is resulting in the cake being cut a little more fairly.


My honourable friend for Mid Dorset and North Poole was right to point


out the flaw and a Labour motion. The Government is not cutting school


spending, it is at an all-time high. I welcome supportive speeches...


Rugby, Bury St Edmunds, Plymouth, Basildon, Morecambe and Lonsdale. In


our manifesto we promised to remedy the unfair act realistic funding


system that no longer worked. Rather than the make-up of the student


population today. An outdated system, fixed in amber where people


in Brighton and hopes secure at ?1600 more than the people in East


Sussex with countless examples of unfairness up and down the country.


The Government has rarely consulted a set of principles that should


drive this formula. It basic unit of funding, one for primary schools,


won the Key stage three secondary people someone for Key stage for


secondary pupils, this figure would make up the vast bulk of the formula


and would be the same figure for every school in England. On top of


this, there is a factor for deprivation. Ensuring that schools


are able to close the educational and filly attainment gap. A factor


for ensuring schools can help children who start school


educationally behind peers. Factor. City and addressing cost pressures


unique to rural schools. Mobility factors for school that that


routinely take people's part way through the year and a lump sum to


help address the fixed costs that disproportionately affects more


schools and the fact that takes into factor high employment costs in


London and some other areas. These are the right factors as responses


to the first stage of the consultation confirmed, they are the


right factors because they will help drive education reforms the school


which already resulting in higher academic standards and raised


expectations. They will further drive the determination that all


children regardless of background or ability can become fluent readers by


the age of six, 81% of six-year-olds are now compare to just 58% five


years ago. They are the factors Mr Deputy Speaker that will help


further drive the introduction of new academic demanding


knowledge-based GCSE is putting our public exams in qualifications on


par with the best in the world. As part of the consultation, we wanted


to be transparent of the effects of the new formula on every school in


every local authority on the basis of this year 's figures. 54% of


schools will gain under the new formula. With any new formula, there


will be winners and losers. Even within local authority areas which


gain overall, some schools with fewer factors which drive additional


funding will see small losses in income, that is the nature of any


new formula built on whatever basis or weightings, unless of course the


new formula maintains the status quo. But accepting that a new


formula by definition produces winners and losers, and accepting


that we are ensuring losing schools lose no more than 1.5% per pupil in


any year and no more than 3% in total, and accepting that gaining


schools will see gains expedited by up to 3% and by up to 2.5% in


2019-20 and accepting in principle that factors of deprivation and low


prior attainment of right. What is left is the question of whether the


weightings are right. These are weightings crafted to jive social


mobility. These are weightings calculated to help children who are


falling behind in school. They are weightings by our desire to do more


for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Mr Deputy Speaker, the


National funding formula is not about the issue of the overall level


of funding or the cost pressures that schools are facing over the


three years from 2016 - 19, the National funding formula is about


creating a nationally delivered and fair funding system. We want to


grasp the nettle, and metal that previous governments have


assiduously avoided and introduce a funding formula ending the postcode


lottery and ensuring over time they have a much fairer funding system.


An essential task if we are to continue the high levels of


employment and the employment opportunities for young people.


Despite that pressure, we have managed to protect core school


spending in real terms. In 2015-16, we added a further ?319 million and


there will be a further ?200 million in the next two years to expedite


the gains for those historically underfunded schools. Despite this,


we know schools are facing cost pressures and as a result of the


introduction of the national living wage. Or increases to teaching


pensions and the apprenticeship levy. Similar pressures are being


faced across the public sector and indeed in the private sector and


they are addressed by increased efficiencies and better


procurements. It is important to note that some of these pressures


have already materialised. The 8% that people refer to is not an


estimate of pressure still to come, schools have dealt with pressures


averaging 3.1% for peoples and over the next years 's per-pupil pressure


will average higher. And to tackle these pressures, the Department is


providing high quality advice and guidance for schools about their


budget management and are helping to introduce national buying schemes


for products and services such as IT. Were listening to the responses


of the consultation and to the concerns raised by my honourable


friend and honourable members opposite, the Secretary of State and


I've heard representations on some life funded authorities of whether


there is a limited level to fun secondary schools needs. In


circumstances where fewer peoples have additional needs funding. We


will look at this as we will all the other concerns of honourable and


their other concerns raised. This government 's Mr Deputy Speaker is


taking the bold decision and the right decision, we are acting to


right the wrongs of a seemingly arbitrary and fair funding system.


Whilst fixing the economy, the Government has transformed the


education system, we have ended and brought confidence back into exams,


effective teaching methods and systematic phonics are


revolutionising the way primary pupils are being taught. More pupils


are being taught core academic subjects that facilitate study at


this country's world leading universities. More peoples are


judged by Ofsted. The attainment gap disadvantaged 16-year-olds INAUDIBLE


The question is, the question now be put. Mr Gul! I think you need to


calm a little. A little peppermint tea might help the rest of us. He is


on the naughty step. The question is that the question I be put. I'm


macro? The ayes have it. Division! Clear the lobbies!


The question is, many of that opinion is a aye. To the contrary,


no. Order! Order. The ayes to the right,


178. The noes to the left, 285. The ayes to the right, 178. The noes to


the left, 285. The noes have it, the noes have it. Unlock. The question


is that the proposed words... The ayes have it. I declare the question


as amended be agreed to. Order, order, the debate stands adjourned.


We are now coming to the petition. I call upon Claire Perry. Thank you,


Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to present the Justice for James petition on


behalf of more than 14,000 residents of the United Kingdom who have


signed this and similar online petitions. The petitioners request


that members of the House of Commons urge the government to change the


law, so that sentencing for death caused by the most extreme forms of


dangerous driving should carry a charge of manslaughter.


Petition sentence for death but dangerous driving.


I beg to move that this house does not adjourn.


-- now. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I secured this debate following the


experience of one of my constituents, former Rifleman Lee


Bagley of number five two of the company of the two rifles battalion.


Former Rifleman Lee Bagley had his right leg amputated the knee in


September 2012 following an incident which took place on the night of the


24th on the 25th of February 2000 and ten. His experience during the


31 months between the date of the incident and the amputation


highlight issues of duty of care which he and I believe need to be


examined. And lessons learnt to ensure that no servicemen in the


future has to go through the experience that my constituents


endured. Rifleman Lee Bagley returned from a tour of Afghanistan


towards the end of 2009. Subsequently underwent further


training in Northern Ireland. On the 24th of February 2010, the platoon


were accommodated by the School of infantry at Brecon to rendezvous


with new platoon commanders before flying to Belize at 5pm on the 25th.


To undergo jungle training. On the afternoon of the 24th of February,


the platoon commander ordered the platoon to attend a night out in


Brecon town as a means of reward for having completed an intensive


training package in preparation for the forthcoming exercise and to


benefit from some team bonding, particularly for those new members


of the platoon who had just completed a strenuous tour in


Afghanistan. On the morning of the 25th of February at approximately


2am, the platoon was leaving a bar and getting in to taxis to head back


to the local barracks. One of the Batu members was then seriously


assaulted by 10-12 civilian personnel. Along with fellow members


of the platoon, Lee Bagley rushed to the aid of his comrade and was also


assaulted. In trying to rescue his comrades, a number of the attackers


jumped on Lee's leg. The original victim of the assaults went


immediately to accident and emergency bitterly himself returned


to his camp. He did not receive any immediate medical treatment and it


was only later that day that he started to complain of pain and


swelling in his leg to his platoon commander who then took him to the


accident and emergency en route to visiting his colleague ready. The


platoon subsequently flew out without a Lee and he was flown to


Northern Ireland where he had to visit Downpatrick hospital as


requested by the Chief Medical Officer at the camp. From February


the 25th to October the 27th 2010 in Northern Ireland, he received


physiotherapy but failed to make any progress. He attended the


rehabilitation unit and received an MRI scan on the 22nd. I did request


just beforehand, did the members agree a duty of care as he


exemplified for the soldier in place also exists for those who fought


under operation Banner in Northern Ireland where some 30,000 British


soldiers were deployed and 1442 died in relation to combat, to see


honourable Member field the MoD needs to have greater awareness on


the duty of care in future operations were soldiers are putting


more in compromising situations to offer assistance, whether legally


emotionally or physically. Can I thank the intervention, I think my


subsequent remarks will make it quite clear that I do agree. Can I


now just quote from the British Army website. It states all wounded


injured and six soldiers will be assigned a personnel recovery


officer, PRI, either from their unit all through the personnel recovery


unit for more serious injuries. The role is to assist the soldier in the


recovery by coordinating all of the support needed from agencies such as


the Ministry of Defence, Army primary health care services,


service personnel veterans cup, housing contacts and specialist


charities. The PR oh will visit the soldier if they are on recovery duty


at home or arrange an appointment with them at the personal recovery


unit at regular intervals to monitor their progress and update individual


recovery plan as well as the records on the wounded injured and sick


management information system. The frequency of visits will depend on


the needs of the individual but at a minimum, soldiers will be visited


once every 14 days with their recovery plan and needs access every


28 days. Surely, after a couple of months of treatment, it should have


been obvious that his injuries required the assignment of personal


recovery officer, this did not happen. On October the 27th 2010, he


was sent home on sick leave for the next five months. He was in his own


words sofa surfing with his mum or partner's family or at their homes


in other relatives in the Black Country. During this time he had


great difficulty accessing information about his future


treatment. Some of his telephone calls to his unit in Northern


Ireland went unanswered. When he did get through, he was told that he


would be informed in due course and after three months he was contacted


to return to Northern Ireland for 24 hours because his sick at home


grading was due to expire and he was then returned home. When he


eventually did obtain an appointment at the defence medical


rehabilitation centre at Headley Court in Surrey for February the


4th, 2011, he did not actually receive correspondence and therefore


missed it. He eventually had a revised appointment on February the


25th. So from October 27, 2010 - February the 25th 2011, he was at


his home waiting for this appointment. I believe its raises a


significant issue. Lee Bagley had complex injuries which were not


obviously responders filly responding to treatment. Why was he


sent home without access to specialist support for this length


of time? Every day in the NHS we hear tales of people unable to leave


hospital because of an adequate care, but here we have an example of


a soldier who was sent home without fixed abode and with no access to


specialist support which is condition warranted. It appears to


be a complete contravention of the advice given in the army general


administrative, chapter three, commanding care of wounded and sick


personnel. Section 99, 1118. The quote. Soldier at home all resident


at address, the first recovery visit must be completed by the end of day


seven. No more than 14 days may elapse between subsequent visits.


Again this clearly did not take place. And again on the Army


website, it is outlined that in these we done to soldiers with


long-term injuries and I quote. Soldiers who are likely to need more


than 56 days to recover will be graded as temporarily non-affected,


TNT. At this point units can apply for the soldier to be transferred to


a recovery unit were soldiers can receive dedicated recovery support


rather than remaining in their home unit strength. Surely he should have


been classed as tea an E by October the 27th. And an application should


have been made to be approved. This did not actually happen until the


following year until November the 14th 2011 when he was assigned to


the proved at 143 a brigade in Telford. Lee Bagley eventually had


his amputation nearly a year later on the 28th of September, he


subsequently had one month at Ewood house and then another further


admission at Headley Court. He was discharged from the Army in 2014


after a year of complex trauma admissions prosthetic care. I must


make it quite clear that his criticisms of his treatment do not


extend to the period post-November the 14th when he was allocated to


the Pru and his subsequent discharge. He has nothing but praise


for the exercise of the duty of care which she received once he had been


admitted on the state. However he does feel, for six months he was a


forgotten man. This is someone who was injured who was coming to the


rescue of a comrade who was assaulted. If it happened in


theatre, he would have been praised and possibly had a formal


commendation. He went back to his barracks and received no attention


at all and obviously needed to go to hospital. Subsequently it took


nearly a year both in hospital and at home on sick leave before he was


admitted to Headley Court. And then another six months before their


personal recovery unit. It seems unbelievable that there was such a


delay for injuries that were serious enough to justify amputation.


Whether the delays and admission contributed to the amputation is a


matter of clinical judgment. But even if it did not, any soldier


going through this experience is entitled to believe that the Army


exercise its GEC of care with the utmost professionalism and diligent


and that everything possible was done to Provost of other loss of his


limb. Lee Bagley's experience from October the 27th 2010- November 14,


2011 has left him with severe doubts that this is so. He is entitled to


know why was he not appointed a personal recovery officer earlier in


his treatment. Why was he sent home without any support. Why did he find


it so difficult to obtain information money was a time? Why do


not receive dedicated personnel support he was entitled to receive?


And why did it take so long for the duty of care to be transferred to


the proved. Lee Bagley deserves to be answered. I I'm sure that


everybody recognises that our young people who joined the armed services


expose themselves to dangerous in order to protect us, deserve and


have the right to expect the right possible medical care whether in


theatre or in other circumstances. Every soldier injured, whether in


battle or another should be able to have confidence that the medical


response will be exercise with the utmost professionalism and diligent


and that everything possible would be done. That is why I have secured


the debate.


Download Subtitles