27/06/2017 House of Commons

Order. We are about to hear the first urgent question of the

Parliament, I think it right to remind the House and particularly

the front benches of the conventions on time limits. Colleagues will

understand why do so because they have not been adhered to with any

religiosity in recent times. For urgent questions, the Minister may

speak for up to three minutes. The person asking the urgent question

and the official spokesperson, where different, a maximum of two minutes

each. And the third party spokesperson, a maximum of one

minute. For all statements, the Minister is usually limited to ten

minutes, the official opposition spokesperson to five minutes --

oral. The third party spokesperson, two minutes. Members wishing to take

part must be in the Chamber in accordance with very long

established convention before they begin and colleagues should not

expect to be called to ask a question if they are not in their

place as the statement, the urgent question or business questions

begin. In a moment, I shall call Jonathan Ashworth. It might be

helpful if I indicate to the House that as there are not far short of

70 members wishing to take part in the continued debate on the Queen's

Speech, I would like the exchanges on this question not to on much

beyond half an hour. Mr Jonathan Ashworth. I am grateful. To ask the

Secretary of State to make a statement on NHS shared business

services. The Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt. As the House

knows, on the 24th of March 2016, I was informed of a serious incident

with a large backlog of unprocessed NHS patient correspondence by the

company contracted to deliver it to GP surgeries, NHS shared business

services or SBS. The backlog arose from the primary care services GP

mail redirection service that SPS was contracted to run. No documents

were lost. But my agent concern was patient safety being compromised by

the delay in forwarding correspondent. -- my immediate

concern. A rapid process was started to determine if anyone was put at

risk. We established an incident team, all of the documentation has

now been sent on to the relevant GP surgery where it is possible to do

so following an initial clinical assessment of where any patient risk

may live. 200,000 pieces were temporary residence forms and many

were assessed as low risk. At first triage identified 2508 with a higher

risk of harm of which the vast majority have now been assessed by a

GP. Of those 84% were confirmed as no harm the patients. 9% needed a

further clinical review. To date, no harm has been confirmed to any

patients as a result of the incident. Today Bosman National

Audit Office report confirms patient safety was the department and NHS

England primary's concern. -- today the National Audit Office.

Transparency with the public and the House has been my priority. I was

advised by my officials not to make the issue public last March until an

assessment of the risks to patient safety had been completed and all

relevant GP surgeries informed. I accepted that advice for the simple

reason publicising the issue would have meant GP surgeries being

inundated with inquiries from worried patients which would have

prevented them doing the most important work, namely investigated

the name patients who were potentially at risk. They practice

statement about what had happened was not recommended by my department

in July for the same reasons. The process was not complete. However,

as I explained to the House in February, on balance, I decided it

was important for the House to know what had happened before we broke

the recess so I overruled that advice and placed a written

statement on the 21st of July. Since then, the PAC has been kept readily

informed, most recently being updated by my Permanent Secretary in

February, the Information Commissioner was updated in August,

I committed in July, 2016, to keeping the House updated once the

investigations were complete and more was known and I will continue

to do so. I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Is it not an

absolute scandal 709,000 letters including blood test results, cancer

screening appointments, child protection notes, they were failed

to be delivered, left in an unknown warehouse and many were destroyed

and does not the NAA revealed today a shambolic catalogue of failures

which took place on the Secretary of State's watch? As of four weeks ago,

1700 cases of potential harm the patients have been identified with

the number set to rise, a third of GPs have yet to respond on whether

unprocessed item sent to them indicate potential harmful patients,

does the Health Secretary not agree this delay is an acceptable and when

will all outstanding items be reviewed and processed? He talks of

transparency, but it came to this House in February because we

summoned him to the House and in February, he told us he first

situation on the 24th of March, 2016. The NAA report makes clear the

department for help was informed of the issues on the 17th of March,

2016. In fact, NHS England set up the incident team on the 23rd of

March, before he was informed, despite him implying he set up the

incident team. Can he clear up these discrepancies over the time lines

between what he told the house and what was reported?

He is a board member show aired services and many honourable members

have warned him of delays with the transfers of records with shared

business services, not least my right honourable friend from Exeter.

Nominees were on the record, why did he not insist on stronger oversight

of this contract and the cost of this tobacco could be at least 6.6

million administration alone. That is the equivalent of the average

national salary of 230 nurses. Cani Health Secretary say how these costs

are going to be met and that he expect these costs on to escalate?

Finally, does he agree with NAO that there is a conflict of interest

between his role as Secretary of State and his role as a board

member? Further to that is, can he explain why his predecessor as Brett

Secretary of State sold on the 1st of January one a share from the

Department to stereo, leaving the Secretary of State as a minority

stake owner in the company and never informed Parliament and never

reported in the Department of Health's final report. Order. We are

immensely grateful to the honourable gentleman that sooner or later the

discipline of sticking to two minutes has to take it here. I'm

afraid it is as simple as that. Sorry, but you have had two other

half. We are grateful to him. Let me respond to those points. First of

all, what happened at SBS was totally unacceptable. It was

incompetent and they should never have allowed that backlog to develop

but before he gets on his high horse, can I remind him that SBS was

set up and the governance arrangements concerning SBS was set

up in 2008 at a time when a Labour Government was rather keen on

contracting with the private sector. I know things have changed, but the

fact of the matter is that in all this process, our priority has been

to keep patients are safe and transparency is nearly always the

right thing to do. I am the Secretary of State to introduce to

transparency over standards of care in hospitals...

LAUGHTER Well, I am interested that they are

laughing after being the party responsible for sitting on what

happened and staffs for four years when nothing was done. Transparency

is incredibly important, but it is not an absolute virtue and in this

case, there was a very specific reason why if we had informed the

public and the House immediately, GPs surgeries would have been

overwhelmed, 709,000 pieces of patient data we're talking about,

and they would not have been able to get on as quickly as we needed them

to do with identifying risk and that was the priority and that is what

this report today confirms, that patient safety was the priority of

the department and NHS England. I just put it to the honourable

gentleman that if he was in my shoes and he was faced with advice that

said that it was the wrong thing to go public straightaway because that

would compromise the very important work GPs had to do to keep patients

say, he would have followed the very same advice. That is why while I

completely recognise that with the Government arrangements there is a

potential conflict of interest, I do not accept there was an actual

conflict of interest because patient safety concerns always overrode any

interest that we had as a shareholder in their bag. Finally,

let me say to him this, the NHS is a large organisation with a huge

number of contracts with both the public and the private sector. No

Government on any side can ever guarantee there will be absolutely

no breach of contract, but what we can do is make sure we reacts

quickly when that happens which happened on this occasion but we can

also make sure that we have better assurance that we had on this

occasion and I can assure the House that the appropriate lessons will be

learned. Bus members from across the House will be relieved that so far

no patients are identified as having been harmed by this appalling

incident, can the Secretary of State set out what steps he is taking to

ensure that can never happen again? Absolutely, I think there is a

short-term and long-term lesson in this. The short-term point is that

it is unlikely that this would happen again because this was about

paper correspondence and we are increasingly moving all the transfer

of correspondence to electronic systems, but I think the longer term

point is exactly that. Someone mentioned cyber attacks on the

opposite side of the how's and they are absolutely right to do so

because of course you have different risks and what this very clearly

indicates is that you have to have better checks in place so that when

you are trusting an independent contractor with very important work

we know that the job is actually being done and that did not happen

on this occasion. The first night's findings are concerning for the

families of patients cover up in the shambolic shambles. For those in the

public, it will worsen the trust and misgivings we have in how the Tories

are running the NHS and we can be happy that they're not in charge of

Scotland. Freight company partly owned by the Department of Health to

fail to deliver half a million NHS letters many of which contained

information critical to patient care is simply astonishing. Not only were

1700 people potentially at harm, but think of the thousands of other

people who are potentially put at risk. Was this SBS contract properly

scrutinised by the Secretary of State and does he know if patient

care or cost-cutting was at the forefront of that decision on why

did he Health Secretary only publish a bagel written statement in July

2016 when he actually knew what was going on for months prior? Splendid,

the honourable gentleman was within his time! He gets an additional

grounding point. I say to the honourable gentleman that it is

totally inappropriate to try and make political capital from this

particular incident when you look at the facts of the case which is that

today the National Audit Office published a report that patient

safety was the primary concern of both the Department of Health and

NHS England throughout. I civilly say to him that there were some

problems with the assurance of that contract but that the contract and

the relationship with the SBS in particular dates back 2008 and on

all sides of the House, we need to learn the lessons of properly

assuring NHS contracts and I dare say the same is true in Scotland. I

support the Secretary of State's actions which I felt were quite

right in difficult circumstances. Can he tell us what action will be

taken about the executives who presided over this shambles and is

any enforcement mechanism under the contract against the owner of the

company? I can tell my right honourable friend that the company

has been stripped of that contract. It was actually relieved of the

contract back in 2015 and we are very clear that they will have two

fulfil all their contractual requirements including paying their

fair share of the costs which have been incurred as a result of this

wholly regrettable incident. Patient confidentiality and safety must be

treated with the utmost seriousness at all times. The NHS fails if it

loses the trust of its patients. How did the Secretary of State for

Health and the conclusion that risked more 1700 patients was merely

due to an issue of e-mail distribution? I didn't come to that

conclusion she is right as a doctor to say that patient trust in the way

we hold their record is very important. In this case, the

correspondence written concerning patients was not forwarded but it

wasn't lost either, it was held securely zonal patient data was put

at risk but it should have been forwarded on to another part of the

NHS and it was not, it was effectively stockpiled and that is

what caused the concerns and we have been going through the high-priority

cases. So far, the vast majority of cases have had a two clinical

reviews and the ones that we are still concerned about are having a

third clinical reviews we are taking this extremely severe sleep.

Speaker, the Secretary of State mentioned Staffordshire and also

patient safety which is critical but can I just point out that the county

Hospital in Stafford now has an excellent record, is currently

seeing 27 patients in a knee with a waiting time of not more than one

hour according to the output I have on my phone. Can you confirm that

the situation has been transformed usually fantastic work of the staff

in a hospital? I am happy to confirm that and I am also happy to say that

the problems that we had in the old mid Staffs which I'm afraid we had

in many parts of the NHS are being addressed much much more quickly

because of an independent oversight regime, the new sea QC inspection

regime. And independent in the law assessor that the party to try to

put down. Recommends the haves the debate I secured on November 2011 in

which I warned in terms of the Government about the very poor

record of SBS and I urged them not to part privatise what had been an

excellent NHS service. Ministers said at the time the new contracts

would save ?250 million. Will he now tell the House how much this scandal

has cost rather than save the taxpayer and will he apologise to

both the staff and the patients affected? Well, the costs are in it

excess of six million and we are trying to recover as much of that as

we possibly can from the company involved. Can I do say to him, I

know that the regime in his party has changed, but to try and turn

this into an issue about privatisation when his own party and

indeed his all that time is Health Secretary we had problems at Mid

Staffs which were firmly in the public sector is wholly

inappropriate. This is about proper assurance of what is going on in the

NHS and all sides of the House need to learn their lessons. In order to

reassure my constituents, please can my right honourable friend confirmed

that NHS SBS no longer provides that this direction service and that all

correspondence that have been backlogged has now been delivered to

the relevant GPs' surgeries for filing annual patient harm has been

found in this case? My honourable friend is exactly right. Of course,

we welcome the fact that there has been no patient harm identified to

date. We have to wait until the process of... Of third clinical

reviews are completed on the at risk patients' records which will happen

by the end of December, but she is absolutely right to say that SBS is

no longer performing this contract. It has been taken in-house. Other

parts of the SBS contract is not related to what we are discussing

today have been given to another supplier. Does the Secretary of

State is not agree with me that this is a very straightforward case. It

shows a lack of transparency. A good example of why so many of us have

concerns about too much private sector involvement in the NHS and

bluntly, a frank conflict of interest for the Secretary of State.

I acknowledged in my statement that there was a... There is a potential

or there was a potential conflict of interest when the contract with SBS

was in operation and that is something that the National Audit

Office talk about today, but in reality as the National Audit Office

confirmed, patient safety was always our overriding priority in terms of

all the decisions we took. I would suggest to him as with the Shadow

Health Secretary that he would have taken exactly the same decisions had

he been in my shoes. He has confirmed that the contract has now

been taken in-house. Cani confirmed that this is a totally different

operation and that other people are actually involved in making the

decisions and are now involved in making the decisions on the current

service? I can absolutely confirm that. Mr Speaker, I am pleased that

the Secretary of State at least acknowledges the its incompetent but

crucially, does this not run deeper? Questions were first raised in

January 2014, then again internally by the administrator in June of

2015. He only found out Secretary of State for Health in March last year

and we only found out and were only able to look at this in September

because it was released on the final day that Parliament sat last summer.

He talks about transparency but does he not think that there are deeper

lessons to be learned here about transparency but also about how the

NHS supports whistle-blowers? I think the two big lessons that we

need to learn is first of all why the company 's internal systems sat

on the flak that this mail was building up into a backlogged really

from 2011 on words and there were no internal systems in that company so

that according to be NAO report today, it didn't get escalated to

the chief executive's the end of 2015 and that is wholly

unacceptable. But I also think that it is unacceptable that we didn't

have the assurance systems in place so that we didn't know that know

that that backlog was building up and that is why it is so important

that lessons are learned. Who drew up the contract for the

redirection service which omitted any key performance indicators? The

original contracts with SBS went back to 2008, when they started

they were renewed in 2011. That is they were renewed in 2011. That

why I think it is happening on both why I think it is happening on both

sides of the House we need to sides of the House we need

reflect on. 700,000 pieces of medical evidence went missing, over

a five-year period without being discovered, gross incompetence, I

would say. Can I ask what has been done to set right this wrong

especially for those families left behind and affected by this very

worrying incident? A huge operation has happened to deal with this, as

he knows, there were 709,000 pieces of correspondence, so we did an

initial clinical triage to identify which ones were low risk, things

like change of address, and which were higher risk, things like test

results, and we identify 2500 word there was a high priority, and of

those, so far 84% have been identified as no clinical risk but

we are doing more cynical research. I'm sure the Secretary of State will

be aware that for many patients created by the media is that

documents have been lost. Can he confirmed it was kept in secure

conditions on NHS premises or insecure archive facilities? I am

happy to confirm that. -- in secure archive facilities. What happened

was unacceptable but no patient data was lost. He says that no patients

were harmed and the documents were stored, but 35 sacks of male were

destroyed, how does he made the right call in every situation? Just

to be clear, to date, there is no evidence of any patients being

harmed, but the process of proper clinical review with

multidisciplinary teams will take until the end of this year. We have

to do it properly. We hope it remains the case that no patients

are harmed but we will not know until the end of this year. But we

have throughout the process been prioritising the highest risk cases

and making sure they get the most urgent attention. Following this

failure, I welcome the decisive action taken by the Secretary of

State to bring in the national incident team. How will we learn the

lessons going forward and share the best practice as discovered by the

national incident team? I thank my honourable friend for his question.

I think the NHS is extremely good at responding to a crisis and

emergencies as tragically we have found out in the last few months and

this was an example where the NHS did a very good job when they

realised the scale of the problem. For me, the lessons that need to be

learned not about the response to the issue, but about the assurance

processes that allowed the problem to happen in first place. The

National Audit Office say the review of the backlog of correspondence has

found 1788 cases of potential harm the patients so can the Secretary of

State tell us what action he is taking to support those patients? I

can. In all of those Cases, they will have been looked at by two

clinicians already, and on the basis of reviews so far, no patient harm

has been identified. Because we want to be absolutely sure, we are having

a third even more thorough clinical review with potentially more than

one set of clinicians so that we can absolutely get to the bottom and

find out. I understand the inquiry has focused upon patient risk,

however, has any analysis been undertaken on the impact on patient

waiting times? That can also be extremely important in terms of

patient care. How many patients exactly have waited longer than they

should for treatment needed? She is right, that is one of the most

critical question is when it comes critical question is when it comes

to trying to understand whether there was any actual patient harm,

if someone was waiting for a test result that did not arrive at the GP

surgery, ordinarily, what would be likely to happen is the GP would

chase that test result and get a copy of it and there would be no

delay to a patient's treatment. But only by looking at the patient's

notes can you understand whether any harm is likely to have happened. So

far, we have not identified any but we will continue to look. Can the

Secretary of State tell the house in February and has repeated today that

all correspondence was kept safe and secure, so when did he know that 35

sacks of male had been destroyed by staff and why has he not mentioned

that since? I was informed, and she knows, at the end of March, in 2016,

but the issue around the correspondence that was destroyed

relates to procedures around what it is legitimate to do when patients

have been dead for ten years. We are not aware at the moment of any

specific risk to patients as a result of those sacks of mail being

destroyed but we will look at the issue very closely. The Secretary of

State was made aware of the failings of this contract in the House in

2011. He was warned about the dangers of this contract. Yet he

went on and did not take up two places on the board of the company.

Wouldn't it have added to the overall scrutiny of this contract

and isn't he guilty of being asleep at the wheel? I have been Health

Secretary for a long time, but not as far back as 2011, so I wasn't

Health Secretary at that particular time. But the question he raises is

important and let me tell him, it is true that the Department of Health

was entitled to three seats on the board of SBS and we only took up

one. But I do not believe it would have made a difference because the

role of the board directors was to be shareholders, to represent the

Department of Health as shareholders of SBS. What we needed was better

assurance of the implementation of the contract, that needed to happen

with the NHS as a contractor to SBS and that is the lesson that needs to

be learned. The Secretary of State talks about the need to learn

lessons but we have seen a pattern across government, not just in the

Department of Health, but in work and pensions where contracts are

awarded to companies and they fail miserably, Home Office too. They

have the contract taken away but then they are awarded another

government contract. Some companies simply not fit for purpose when it

comes to delivering public services. I would say to the honourable lady

that we do need to be robust when people fail on the contracts they

have with the public sector, I do not say this is only something that

affects private sector companies, I think we contract with people in the

public sector and we are let down and equally we need to be robust

when the right things do not happen. The lesson from what happened with

SBS is we need to understand much more quickly when things are going

wrong so we can nip the problem in the bud. That did not happen this

time. Dennis Skinner. How many more times as the Secretary of State

going to come to this House like he has done on countless occasions and

he personally is at the centre of the controversy? Even a cat only has

nine lives. You seem to have far too many. I am not sure I have as many

lives as he does. My honourable friend from tooting is absolutely

right when she suggests the Secretary of State is trying to

downgrade 1700 cases of potential harm and the potential conflict of

interest as no more than an administrative error by a contracted

out service. In my own constituency, a tender for cancer care was ended

prematurely costing millions of pounds to the taxpayer and are these

not examples of where the ideological agenda of the party

opposite to contract out our NHS services is failing and as a result

patients are suffering? Quite the opposite. Because what those

examples show is that when the private sector lets us down, we take

the contracts off the private sector. That is what happened in the

case that raised and that is what happened with SBS as well. Services

in my constituency saved ?120 million in four years. When it was

privatised, it lost ?4 million and it goes on being inefficient. Can

the Government escape from this paralysis but is costing the country

so much about everything private is good and everything public is bad?

Would they look not to outsourcing but to in sourcing services from the

inefficient private sector back to the wonderful efficient civil

service we have? Let me gently remind him the last government in

this country that had an active policy of increasing private sector

market share in the NHS was the last Labour government and it was this

government, this government, that legislated to stop the Government

nationally prioritising the private sector and make it a decision of

individual doctors at a local level. As a doctor myself, I understand the

importance of ensuring results and letters are viewed in a timely

manner. In any system relying on bits of paper being sent around,

there will always be the opportunity for error. It is why in hospital

such as Peterborough where I have worked they provide results

electronically which is quicker, as well as in back up paper form which

provides for patient safety. Can the Secretary of State reassure us good

practice such as this is being rolled out? Absolutely. She is right

to point out that we are in a different world to the world we were

in in 2011. The future is to transport patient records securely

over Alec on its systems. It is much quicker and there is much less room

for error. -- over electronic systems. I wrote for the Secretary

of State on behalf of a GP practice, there are concerns about the

potential impact on staff. I raise this again four months ago when we

had the urgent question previously. He promised to look into the impact

on staff. Could he report back to the House today? Well, I will relook

at the situation in his particular surgery. I will make sure that we

are learning any lessons that need to be learned. What I would say to

him is that this is a complex process, there have already been in

the vast majority of the high-risk cases two clinical reviews and we

wanted a third one to establish whether there was any actual patient

harm. That takes clinician time and that is one of the reasons why we

are not able to have completed the process by today and it will take

until Christmas to do that because we have to balance the other

responsibilities clinicians have in their daily work. Earlier the

Secretary of State assure the House individual directors responsible for

this catastrophe are no longer in a position to cause similar damage. Is

he aware that through companies house records, it shows the same

three or four names associated with SBS come up time and time again?

There is a group of companies, most of which advertise the fact they do

a lot of work for the NHS. One of them including titled NHS Shared

Employee Services Limited which suggests that far from having been

removed from influence, the individual directors legally

responsible for this disaster are still very much in a position to

make money for themselves and preside over similar disasters in

the future. I note his comments but he also understands I am not in a

position to pass judgment at the dispatch box on the behaviour of

individuals. The Department of Business has very respected and well

established systems in place to make sure people who are not fit and

proper to be company directors are not able to continue with their

duties. My constituents are served not by the tab when contract but by

the Capital project. They are incapable of logging and following

through with complaints. Why isn't this contract which is clearly fake

tee failing not taken back in-house by the Government? -- why isn't this

contract which is clearly failing. I know she worked very hard with my

department to try to get with problems with capita, I understand

the situation is improving but I will happily look into the

individual situation she raises. Just picking up on the Secretary of

State's comment that it takes time and if I heard correctly, the one

third of GPs have failed to respond, what steps is he taking to make sure

patient care is not being compromised by the extra admin

burden for already overworked GPs? We are paying money to GP surgeries

for the extra admin time this is taking and that is designed to make

sure that where necessary, they can buy in extra resources to deal with

the extra admin involved. She is right to say we have to make sure

the call work GPs do is not compromised by this issue.

As someone who used to work in the NHS as a clinical scientist, I know

all too well the potential harm that could be caused by a nonarrival of a

test result. If a diagnostic test is performed and the result goes

nowhere and is not seen by clinicians as was the case here, it

is the same health outcome as if the test were not done at all. What a

Secretary of State stop time to downplay this situation and all up

to the seriousness of this scandal? I don't think anyone listening

objectively could possibly say that on the side of the House I or any of

us our downplaying what is a very serious situation. What we have

instituted since the issue came to light is a review of the 709,000

pieces of patients correspondence. We have identified the high priority

once, 2508. There have been too and sometimes three clinical tests are

done on all of them and to date, no patient harm has been identified but

we are not complacent and we will continue that process until we have

been through every single patient record with that thoroughness. I too

want to mention the capital project -- contract because this is not a

nice latest case. There is a pattern occurring with the Government is

failing in its governance over patient records. Will the Secretary

of State is now reviewed at governance and bring that back

in-house? It is so urgent that we oversee safety of patients first. I

did to confirm to her honourable friends at that I will look into the

outstanding issues with the capita contracts with GPs which are not

related to the delivery of patient records. My understanding is that

things have got better, but we were very unhappy with the initial

performance that we got from R. In a moment, to ask for a debate very

matter which requires urgent debate, I shall call the honourable member

Mr Peter Wishart. The honourable gentleman has up to three minutes in

which to make his application. Mr Pete Wishart. This thank you, Mr

Speaker. I propose that they have should debate a specific and

important matter for urgent consideration, namely the

Government's confidence and supply deal with the Democratic Unionist

Party and its associated funding arrangements. Accordingly,

therefore, I would like to apply for an emergency debate understanding

order number 24. Mr Speaker, yesterday morning, the Government

confirmed a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic

Unionist Party to secure a working majority in this Parliament. The

central part of this deal involves a funding arrangements that would see

Northern Ireland benefit with over ?1 billion of extra investment over

other nations of the United Kingdom who were to secure next to nothing.

The full details of this deal must be fully debated and all the issues

properly scrutinised as quickly as possible, certainly ahead of

Thursday's votes on the humble address. Mr Speaker, yesterday,

there was an hour-long statement with little notice from the first

secretary though he took questions from honourable and Right Honourable

members. This cannot be considered satisfactory given the significance

and importance of this deal and members must be given a chance to

fully debate all the issues. Mr Speaker, the normal arrangements for

the funding of the nations of the United Kingdom have been turned on

their heads with the disregard for the Barnett Formula. At the Barnett

Formula be applied, Scotland would be entitled to nearly ?2.9 billion

of additional funding and Wales an extra 1.7 billion. The first

secretary yesterday claimed that this deal was to be compared to

allocations made under city deals. This is not the case and that

assertion must be tested. In Scotland, city deals are match

funded by the Scottish Government and local authority partners. Mr

Speaker, Northern Ireland is not a city! Are also questions about the

role of the Scotland Office in all of this. On Sunday, the Secretary of

State for Scotland is noted that he would not support any funding which,

I called, is deliberately sought to subvert the Barnett rules. This

clearly does. This deal failed that test. We need to know if the

Scotland Office and made representations to be Prime Minister

in advance of this deal being announced and if he did, did

anything at all and all the new Scottish members of Parliament, did

anything to protect Scotland's vital funding interests in this field. Mr

Speaker, while we welcome the increased funding for Northern

Ireland, we believe that there are serious questions regarding the

relevance of the Barnett Formula in the light of this new deal. If this

of ideological austerity, all regions and nations should benefit

to. I believe this matter requires more attention from a house and I

humbly request and current debates to get the answers this House and

this country needs. The honourable member asks leave to have an urgent

debate, namely the DUP funding deal. I have listened carefully. It was my

decision to allocate to the honourable gentleman three minutes

and wished Mrs case to the application from the honourable

member. I am not convinced this is to be discussed under order 24. I

understand that will disappoint the honourable gentleman, but he is a

persistent terrier and I feel sure that he and other members from his

benches will raise this matter in all sorts of ways in days to come

and they will not be deterred in any way by default that they might be

repeating themselves. LAUGHTER

They were very properly return to this matter and as and when they

wish, preferably when they are on their feet rather than as

exemplified by the honourable member from the comfort of his seat. We

will leave it there for now. Point of order, Mr Andrew Gwynne. Got a

point of order, yesterday I raise the lack of clarity from the

Communities Secretary on the Government's plans to introduce

local retention of business rates to replace the revenue support grant to

local authorities. In reply, the Secretary of State indicated that

today's Queen 's speech debate may be an opportunity to raise the

matter. Has the Secretary of State given you, sir, are any indication

that he intends to make an oral statement on these matters during

the forthcoming debate and how might members with an interest in this

matter adequately question him if they have not put in to speak in the

debate? Well, I am grateful to the

honourable gentleman for his point of order. The relevant minister

will, I think, be making a speaks to the House. That does not constitute

a statement as such, but it is nevertheless a full treatment of the

issues of which the minister wishes to treat. In answer to the

honourable gentleman's second inquiry, how do members probably

minister if they haven't put in to make a speech, the short answer to

that is by intervention and it's not for me to try to set myself up as an

executive coach and the honourable gentleman wouldn't wish me to do so,

but of course, the idea of members proceeding collectively with the

same line of inquiry is not entirely a novel idea and if the label

gentleman wishes to encourage his colleagues to focus on a particular

theme or point and keep repeating that theme more point until they are

satisfied, it is perfectly open to him to do so. I feel sure the

honourable gentleman's followers or disciples will listen to his advice

with the very closest interest and at all times. We will leave it there

for now. A separate and unrelated point of order from Mr Paul Flynn.

With your prodigious memory, you may recall that the final point of order

at the last parliament was a worry that the electoral system in this

country is more open to corruption than at any time since 1880 and it

is possible now to buy an election. I do not know if you saw the Channel

4 programme about the activities in Wales of a call centre that was

employed by the Conservative Party throughout the election to

concentrate on my constituency amongst others and it wasn't giving

a market researcher carrying out any kind of market research, it was

being used to give information that was damaging to the Labour Party to

as many voters as possible. 100 people employed doing that, paid to

do it and the allegation was also made, and I can confirm it, from my

constituency that canvassing was done from this call centre on

polling day as well. And I had many complaints about people getting

repeated calls. We have an electoral system that is not fit for purpose.

We are in an age now where the Electoral Commission or the

information commission can handle the election to restore the

integrity to our electoral system, we need major reforms and I'm sure

you will use your office to ensure that that is accelerated. I am

grateful to the honourable gentleman for his point of order. He invests

me with housing influence that I may not currently possess, but I am very

grateful to the honourable gentleman for encouraging an increase in said

influences. As it happens, I recall the last point of order of the last

Parliament and it is very reasonable of the honourable gentleman to draw

my attention to it. My pithy advice is that if the honourable gentleman

has ongoing concerns about what might constitute an offence, he

should notify both the Electoral Commission and, indeed, the police.

I did not see the Channel 4 documentary to which the honourable

gentleman refers, although I have a feeling that he will exalt me to

view it sooner rather than later, what I would say is that if there

had been egregious activities taking place in his own constituency, I

don't suggest that this invalidates his concern because it doesn't, but

manifestly, those activities have not been successful if they were

directed against the honourable gentleman. But I think that that

isn't altogether surprising as the honourable gentleman has been a

consistent presence in this House for three decades and he might not

yet averagely halfway mark in his parliamentary career at 1020 on

ruble member for Bolsover, but he is getting a bit nearer to it. We will

leave it there perhaps for now. If there are no further points of

order, the clerk will now proceed to beat the orders of the day. Queen 's

speech, motion for an address, adjourned debate. The question is

that a humble address should be presented to Her Majesty as on the

order paper. I call the Secretary of State, Justine Greening. Thank you,

Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to open up this Queen's speech

debate this afternoon. Mr Speaker, this 2010, this Government has been

focused on the pursuit of higher standards in education. Higher

standards in our schools, higher standards in our universities and

higher standards in technical education. In fact, higher standards

across the border to unlock the talent in every single one of our

young people. And we have made significant progress thanks to the

energy of our greatest teachers and leaders, now nine out of ten schools

are good are outstanding. With 1.8 million more children in those

places that since 2010. Thanks to the energy of our thriving

universities, more young people are going to university than ever

before, including more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Thanks to the energy of businesses, we are well on our way to achieving

our target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. Perhaps

more than most apartments, the legislation that we need to drive up

education standards and opportunity is already in place. And in the last

parliamentary session alone, we passed the technical and further

education act, creating the Institute for apprenticeships and

technical education to oversee our bold new reforms. We passed the

higher education and research act, the most significant legislative

reform of the past 25 years for higher education to give students

better value, more choice and information and more opportunity.

And we passed the children and social work act to better protect

and safeguard the most vulnerable children in our society. I will give

way. Can I thank my right honourable friend for giving way. She mentioned

the children and social work Bill and an important provision that the

Government predicts that Bill was making relationship and sex

education compulsory. I wonder if she could just say how progress is

going in terms of bringing that into force? Yes, I'm very grateful for

the cross-party support that we had in order to be able to do that and

we are determined to now push on with that in Government and we will

be setting out our plans shortly in terms of how we take that review

forward and how we make sure we continue to get the overall support

that we need to really make sure that relationships and sex education

in secondary schools and relationship, age-appropriate

education in primary schools is to children growing up in a very

different Britain than most of us grew up in. If I can make a little

progress, that would be appreciated and I'm sure there are plenty more

opportunities for interventions. As I was saying, we are... Sorry, I

have a fly buzzing around here. We are determined, Mr Speaker, that we

will build on the strong platform of success to build an education system

that works for all of our children and all of our young people.

Equality of opportunity, wherever they are, whatever their background,

it is only unlocked by education. I give way. The North Shore academy is

facing a spending cut of several hundred thousand pounds. It serves

one of the areas she is talking about, an area of high deprivation.

How can it be fair funding in an area of high deprivation? I will

come onto funding later on. Suffice to say, it is important we make sure

all of the schools are fairly funded, it is a challenge recognised

across the House, clearly there are also difficulties in doing that, but

I will come onto that later. I will give way. I wonder if she feels the

education local services in England would be helped in any way by the

large part of ?30 billion which should be the Barnett consequential

given what was said about the North Academy? As part of our manifesto,

we pledged to increase funding in education and I think the challenge

certainly that is facing the UK is standards lagging behind England

now. If I can make some progress, Mr Speaker. We want to see equality of

opportunity for everyone and in her speech, Her Majesty the Queen set

out we would work to ensure every child has a good school place and no

young person will be left behind, in part by making sure this country

possesses world beating technical education and of course maintaining

our world-class higher education. I will give way. A near neighbour. And

I thank her regarding a good place for every child, as the Secretary of

State will be aware, in our area, there are proposals the local mental

health trust will no longer diagnose children with autism. Without a

diagnosis, she knows there is no chance of a plan, without a plan,

there is no opportunity for a good school place for a child with

autism. Will she personally intervened to stop this? Certainly,

work on making sure that children can be in mainstream schools has

been a key focus for this government and it is why we have brought

forward the holistic plans to make sure children do not just get

educational needs assessed, broader health needs are assessed. I am

always happy to look at specific issues. It is exceptionally

important our education system works for all children, whatever their

challenges, not just the majority of children. I will make a little bit

of progress, if that works, Mr Speaker? Of course, we are

determined that no person or community or group should be left

behind with our education reforms, that is because in reality no person

or community or group has a monopoly on talent, it is spread across our

country and this government will create an education system to unlock

the talent in everyone, in all parts of the country. It is how we will

succeed in finally shifting the dial on improving social mobility in the

UK. I will give way to the honourable member. One of the

proposals in her manifesto was to introduce primary school breakfast

clubs and given the commission by the education endowment foundation

and the IFS showed good nutritious breakfast can improve educational

attainment by two months in a given year, can I urge her to stick to

that part of the Conservative manifesto and make sure it is fully

funded soap all children can go to school without being too hungry to

learn? We already had plans to scale up the sort of programmes fantastic

charities like Magic Breakfast do. We all recognise the benefits

especially for disadvantaged children who get in earlier and get

the time to settle and start their classes ready to concentrate and

learn. Mr Deputy Speaker... Mr Speaker, in the election, of course,

people were faced with choices and indeed the opposition set out their

alternative plan during the election. It was very big on

rhetoric. The question is, what will it actually mean in reality? We do

not have to go far to find out. It is clear what Labour would mean for

standards in education. We only have to go across to Wales to see the

performance on education deer where instead of high standards for

children in schools, Welsh children face low standards -- the

performance of education there. According to the OECD, it is the

lowest performing country in the UK, the one that is run and overseen by

the Labour Party. It is significantly below England now. In

maths, reading and science. And that is Labour's legacy for Welsh

children that they would import the English children if they ever get

the chance. I will give way. The Welsh Government are quite open

about the fact we need to get better schools in terms of the results, but

what I will not have from the Secretary of State is the way yet

again that Tory government are trying to demonise Wales. They did

it before on health, the line between life and death. It is a

disgrace. Will she not apologise to the people of Wales? Well, I think

her comments shows the reality which is that what Labour need to pull

together is a strategy in Wales to improve education in the same way we

have had a strategy in England through reform to improve standards

here. It has not been easy, but it has been something dodged by Labour

in Wales and I think they will never be credible to parents in England

until Labour sets out why it feels it is failing children in Wales and

failing children an opportunity. I will give way. And then I will make

more progress. The honourable lady quite rightly talks about

credibility in the eyes of parents for the Government strategy. What

credibility does she think our government has with parents when

schools are sending home letters requesting donations so they can

afford to buy books and computer equipment so their children can have

an education? I think what parents are most interested in is the fact

that when we have independent inspections in schools from Ofsted,

they are saying nearly nine out of ten schools in this country are now

good or outstanding. I think the intervention by the honourable

gentleman shows very clearly the difference between these two sides

of the House. On one side, a genuine intent to see standards raised. On

the other side of the House, it is all about politics. It is not about

outcomes for children on the ground. We just heard that when we were

intervened on by a Welsh Labour MP who had nothing to say about the

standards in Wales, other than somebody shouting across the

Chamber, apologise, for raising the issue of falling standards for Welsh

children. That is a disgraceful response from a party in government

in Wales. Mr Speaker, I will make more progress because this was not

the only area where the Labour Party brought forward proposals because on

university funding, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said the plan had

a ?2 billion black hole on higher education funding. In fact, the

estimates suggest this could cost as much as ?13 billion by 2020. Now,

inevitably, this Labour higher education black hole would mean

cutbacks for universities, it would mean lower teaching standards, or

and emergency cap being introduced on student numbers. In fact, if you

look at how the 2 billion black hole would be plugged, it would be the

equivalent of cutting 40,000 lecturers. It would be the

equivalent of having a cap that meant 160,000 fewer students able to

go to university, if you look at the average grant that students have in

terms of fees and maintenance loans. Because there just would not be the

money. In fact, we know that if a cap was reintroduced because of the

black hole in our higher education funding, it would be

disproportionately likely to fit students from the most disadvantaged

backgrounds -- to hit students. For universities with lower student

numbers, Labour's higher education black hole could force them into

significant financial trouble. On equality, where is the evidence?

That no tuition fees means more disadvantaged children being able to

go to university? We do not have to go far to find the evidence. Look at

Scotland. The policy of no tuition fees there is side-by-side with

lower equality of opportunity for disadvantaged young people to be

able to go to university. That is because this policy benefits

children who are more likely to go to university but who is more likely

to go to university? Children from better off families. We all know

this. It is not a surprise to the party opposite. What benefits

disadvantaged children is having more places at university for them

overall. That means the imperative is not having a cap on the numbers.

In Scotland, there are no fees. In England, there is no cap. Which

country has the more disadvantaged young people going to university? I

am grateful for the Secretary of State for again giving way. Clearly

her party had no offer whatsoever to students and young people at this

election so perhaps she might like to reflect on the terrible mistake

made in the previous parliament where grants targeted nonrepayable

grants of the poorest students, strapped by her government. Isn't it

time to deal with the real funding crisis facing students which is the

one in their pockets? I notice he did not answer my question. The

reality is... The reality is... SHOUTING

Mr Speaker, there will be plenty more time to dig into the Labour

proposals for higher education and what they will mean for the most

disadvantaged children in our country. But what we do know...

Order. It is a point of order, I hope, rather than a point of

frustration. For front bench government spokespeople to ask

backbench people records, they are there to defend their record, it is

not them. It is not in that sense and are just the Question Time.

Question Time I have now and again said the ministers, it is not for

ministers to ask questions, they are there to answer questions. The

debate is a more seamless enterprise, as I think the

honourable gentleman who is an experienced denizen of this House.

It is Beverley in order for a minister to pose a question just as

it is perfectly in order for it to be disregarded -- it is perfectly in

order. I would be delighted to give way. I thank the Secretary of State

for very kindly giving way. Isn't it right there has been no falling

numbers of students going to university since fees have had to be

paid and I have two daughters who have recently completed university,

both paid fees, on the different rates, they both agree it was right

that they paid fees for this advantage they have gained because

they should earn more money than somebody not going? Is it right that

somebody not going to university should fund those who are going to

have the benefit of learning potentially more money? She raises

some important questions, not just about equality of opportunity, but

about equality more generally in terms of why we are prioritising

technical education. And of course, the approach we have in England has

benefited students from disadvantaged backgrounds. They are

now going to university at a record rate. In 2009, the rate was 13.6%.

Now it is 19.5%. I will give way. I'm very grateful to the... I am

very grateful to the Secretary of State. I listened very carefully to

what the honourable gentleman for Ilford North said. He said, what did

we have to offer young people? I will tell him. It would have been

better if we had mentioned it in the election campaign. It is this.

Unemployment for young people in this country is now six percentage

points lower than it was in 2010, whereas in the Eurozone, it remains

at 20%. Young people under this government have a very good chance

of getting a job which is an excellent route into prosperity.

That is what we have to offer. My honourable friend is right. Under

the Labour governments, youth unemployment went up by just under

50%. And it wasn't just young people from lower income backgrounds coming

out of our education system often without the basic skills, it was

graduates. They came out of the system and were unable to find a

job. Frankly, we are determined to make sure that never again is there

a lost generation of young people in our country coming out wanting a

career but is not even being able to find a job. I will give way to my

honourable friend. I congratulate the Secretary of State for giving

way to me. LAUGHTER

May I also commend her for the increase in standards in education

and in order to improve those standards still further, the current

funding formula is unfair and depends on a lottery code. Does she

agree that every pupil in this country at every school deserves a

minimum funding? As he knows, we are absolutely committed to make sure

that we have their funding across our schools. We had an extensive

consultation that had 25,000 responses to it which we have now

gone through and are pulling together what it means for the right

way forward, but he is rightly point out that for many schools in his

local community, they have been systematically underfunded. And is

simply not tenable in a country where we want to see all children

having consistent investment and having a consistent opportunity to

make the most of themselves and we are determined to bring forward our

plans to ensure that schools are fairly funded in our country

wherever they are. I am going to make a little bit more progress, Mr

Speaker, because I was pursuing an argument is that I think it's hugely

important in relation to how we drive social mobility in our country

which was access to higher education. Labour have been

proposing a policy that will actually lead to more inequality in

our country. It will actually benefits the young people who are

most likely to do well, in other words, university students from

better off, richer backgrounds but paid for by everyone including the

lower income workers, pensioners,. The ISS have said that of Labour's

policy, quote, this does not seem an effective use of 11.5-13.5 billion

if the aim of the policy is in part to aid social mobility and monks to

be most disadvantaged students. I am not sure what the Labour Party

thought its raison d'etre was, but clearly it is no longer... Longueurs

lifting up the children growing up in our most disadvantaged

communities that are furthest away from having a level playing field on

opportunity. I will give way to him one last time. Given the incredibly

important role that primary education plays in the preparation

of young people for secondary and further education, can she explain

how the proposed funding cut in Sandwell which will amount to nearly

600 pounds per pupil over the next few years and lead to a reduction in

seven teachers per school is going to help that process in one of the

more socially deprived areas? I have been clear that actually we are

bringing forward some proposals of their funding. There is record

funding already in our schools. We set out ideas to put forward further

in our manifesto will bring them forward shortly. As if I can finish

higher education, the 2 billion higher education black hole is going

to mean an emergency cap on student numbers. It will mean young people

missing out on university. These young people will almost certainly

be from disadvantaged backgrounds, young people hoping to be the first

in their family to get the chance to do a degree as I was, literally a

cap on aspiration and Labour are not being honest and upfront with young

people in our country about the implications of their proposals on

higher education funding. It is simply snake oil populism. We've got

more seats than you on the side! This it is vital that we ensure that

higher education remains accessible, is affordable and is value for

money. We need to listen to the voices of young people from the last

election and we are committed to doing that but the approach must

reduce inequality and the lack of access of the Leeds for

disadvantaged young people, not increase it as the parties policy

opposite would do. I will give way. Can I remind her that in the last

Labour Government, we expanded higher education and has a cap on

fees? And she talks about 1 million young people being unemployed was up

in the first Parliament under the Tory governments, unemployment was

at 1 million, youth unemployment, and the work programme was a

disaster wasting billions of pounds. Can I ask to reverse the 3 billion

education cuts that her Government is proposing that will devastate

aspiration in our schools around the country? It is time to act,

Secretary of State, not attack the opposition when you in power, deal

with the cap on aspiration now. Hear, hear! I can set out to the

honourable lady exactly what we have been doing. We have been reforming

our education system and standards have gone up. We have taken a way a

cap on student is going to university which is why more and a

higher percentage of disadvantaged young people are going to university

than ever before and, of course, our economic policy has led to 2.8

million jobs being created in our economy which has provided

opportunity for young people who would have otherwise been sat at

home getting unemployment benefits seeing their careers on hold until

they were able to actually get it kick-started. That is what we have

been doing and aside from that, the final thing we had been doing is

actually tackling these huge, huge deficit that the Labour Party left

when it left office that they are bored of hearing about. Bored of

hearing about. Because clearly... And sorry the opposition is sold in

fraud around being reminded that when we came into power, we were

living ?151 billion EU are beyond our means, borrowing that was due to

be passed on to young people and is clearly the Labour Party has learned

nothing from this at all and it is only answer to every single question

faced in every policy area is spend more money. But don't worry about

where it comes from because we will... Order, order! There is a

cacophony of noise. I have told the honourable gentleman before that he

should not yell from a sedentary position. I had great aspirations

for him to attain the level of a statesman, but his apprenticeship, I

think, has some distance to run if he will conduct himself in that

manner. The Secretary of State must be heard and the same goes for

everybody else in the chamber. Secretary of State. Let me come on

to another area, Mr Speaker, where we have particularly focused to help

to raise social mobility levels and to level up opportunity for people

who don't have it. That is where we have focused, that is why we have

made prioritising investment in technical education a priority as

Her Majesty set out in the Queen's speech. For too long, Mr Speaker,

there has not been parity of esteem between technical and academic

groups in education. And, Mr Speaker, this has cost our country

dearly. It has also created inequality. Between those that do go

to our world-renowned universities and those young people that didn't

have the chance to do that and that inequality stretches across

communities and regions and it has cost us dearly in last human

capital, in lost productivity that a high skilled people in a high

skilled economy can provide and we are determined, as I said Mr

Speaker, to continue our work, to recover that legacy of Labour's lost

generation of young, unemployed, and skilled people coming into the

labour force. Young people who have been let down... The Secretary of

State can't hear that her friend is seeking to intervene. I was offering

a helping hand, it is her decision. I thank my right honourable friend

for giving way and I would like to congratulate the Government for the

?500 million annual increase in technical education in my

constituency of Copeland, a practical skills community, this is

essential to continue the legacy of world-class trades if we are to

deliver modern industrial strategy. Hear, hear. Absolutely right, we

have two opportunities here that are critical to make sure we take

advantage. One is the kinds of businesses and industries in her

area that are creating jobs and opportunities. The second is a

generation of young people who want opportunity and want a career and we

should be investing in generating our home-grown talents to take

advantage of those opportunities that we all see around our local

communities. I think that exiting the European Union really provides a

new on focusing on developing our home-grown talent. I will give way

to the honourable gentleman and then make progress. He referred to

world-class universities. We are proud of them in this country but

one important thing about them is that they are able to attract

students from all around the world. Why does the Government consistently

persist with this ludicrous idea that we must cut net migration to

tens of thousands including cutting the number of international students

coming to stay in this country. They pay their own way, they improve

their relationship with this country and when they go back home, they

want to continue doing business with us. It is ludicrous. He will be

delighted to know he is entirely misinformed because we do not have a

cap on the number of international students, so that will save him from

having to ask that question again. We want to make sure that our

university sector remains open to the best and brightest talent around

the world. We are really determined to do that and he can scare monger

and raise fake issues all he likes, but it will not change... It will

not change the actual position on what I would say, Mr Speaker is that

the much bigger threat to universities lies in decimating the

funding going into them and that is the biggest challenge they will face

if they end up having be kind of higher education funding black hole

that the party opposite would present them with. I want to make

progress on technical education, Mr Speaker. We are shaping the

curriculum of children and young people going into technical

education into 15 technical routes, each culminating in a so-called teen

level which will become the gold standard qualification for technical

excellence and this reform is matched by investment as the

Chancellor announced in the March budget. A budget that the CBI called

a breakthrough budget for skills. That investment would be at risk

under a Labour Government because of the black in post-16 funding on

higher education and, of course, our new Institute of technology will

also provide a path to develop excellence in higher technical

skills. We know that one of the problems we have had with technical

education is that there has not been that ladder of steadily more

challenging qualifications for our young people to get to better

themselves. I will give way. I am very grateful to my right honourable

friend. I was wondering if she could outline how these technical

qualifications will deliver the needs of employers because after

all, we need to ensure that the skills being developed meet business

requirements. A plan with it dad in the manifesto was to establish

something we call skills advisory panels, in other words local

employers in the region is really looking forward about what their

skills pipeline needs are, looking as those in relation to these 15

different skills routes that we set out and then understanding how that

maps onto the kind of provision coming through the education system

locally. It's exactly the kind of thing that we will need across our

country to make sure we have the right number of people coming

through with the right skills in the right places and that we also have

an understanding of what is needed in the years ahead and the risks

around provisions so we can tackle Bulls early. This is common sense,

Mr Speaker, and I think it will make a significant step change in our

ability to be able to have a successful industrial strategy that

really benefits young people. I am going to make a little bit of

progress because I know so many other colleagues will want to speak

in this debate once I have sat down. The Government is also committed to

having the best lifelong learning for adults in the developed world

which we will achieve through setting up a national retraining

scheme. Our love these reforms represent real support for people

across this country, real opportunity, real ways to tackle

inequality that recognise that access and equality of opportunity,

social mobility, is what matters. That is what is going to lift our

country, not some kind of snake oil populism from the party across that

is backed up with a fiscal black hole that will mean cuts in the very

areas that are most important to improving opportunity. And through

these reforms, we will work hand in glove with British businesses

relying on their expertise, their knowledge and leadership, businesses

that the party opposite continually castigates as part of the problem

that our country faces as they see it. We see businesses as critical in

driving opportunity and social mobility. Now, on schools, we know

that good schools are the engines of social mobility and they are not

just about individual success. Schools are at the centre of every

single community. I visited the Kensington Aldridge

Academy and I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to the

teachers and the staff of all the schools in the area and indeed in

Manchester after the Ariana Grande concert, who met a terrible

situation, but helped young people caught up in it with absolute

professionalism. I believe leaders, head teachers and teachers in these

areas have been the unsung heroes alongside our emergency services

over recent weeks and I wanted to put on record once again, my thanks

to them for all of the work they have done to make sure our children

can be back in school and also getting the support they need to

deal with what they have had to deal with. And we need to make sure that

support stays, often when the cameras have gone, to help their

students do with the experiences they have been through. I will give

way. 95 tower blocks have been found to fail the cladding test. Not just

in Camden but in other local education authorities, hundreds of

children will experience the disruption of being moved out of

their home. Will she stated what her department will do to help those

schools where this level of disruption is occurring? We have

been clear in making sure we do get in is touch with schools where we

know they are being affected by these sorts of challenges. We did a

huge amount of work in response to the Manchester atrocities, that

stretched far beyond Manchester into the broader north-west region.

Similarly in response to Grenfell Tower. One of the things the

government will have in place is a better, more systematic

understanding on how quickly to respond, make sure the right links

are there, not just with my department, but also how we then, in

a streamlined fashion work with local NHS services and indeed

educational psychologists. All of these things have worked

effectively, but we have had to make sure we've worked hard to identify

problems when they have been emerging and then quickly tackle

them. I would like to take this opportunity to say a big thank you

to the mental health professionals who came from all over the country

in support of the Manchester attacks in particular. It was much

appreciated and enabled us to deal with the children affected by the

tragedy in a much more effective way than otherwise we could have done. I

think those responses provide the blueprint around which we can't

develop emergency response within government. Mr Speaker, the Queen's

Speech was clear, this government is determined to also, as I said, offer

a fairer distribution of funding for schools. We will set out those plans

shortly, but in our manifesto we will outline no school has its

budget cut as a result of the new formula. We have given record

amounts of funding through our schools and made a commitment to

increase funding further. Now the consultation has finished we will

explain our plans for the fair funding of schools shortly. More

broadly, School improvements and great teaching and teachers are in

practice. I had the chance to meet many inspirational teachers and

leaders at the Times educational supplement awards last Friday. It

was a fantastic evening and it emphasised to me, in reality

teaching deserves to be thought of as a high status profession. So we

will continue to work hard on cracking down on unnecessary

workloads. We will ramp up the quality of continued, professional

development, centred around a new college of teaching. It is a

profession we will continue to invest to attract the best people.

Alongside with continuing reforms on academies and free schools, we are

making sure headteachers get the support they need to improve their

schools through the ?140 million strategic school funds. I welcome

the commitment she has given that no school will see any reduction in

funding because of the government's fairer funding from formula which

will be extremely welcome. Will she condemn the propaganda still going

out from schools and from the unions claiming there will be vast

reductions in expenditure on a per-pupil basis? I think what all

parents expect is for teachers and headteachers to behave

professionally. I think there is a space for an important political

debate. But I would question in the way it has been pursued by some

teachers, as being the right weight in relation to the profession, which

is how I see teaching and maintaining the high status of that

profession in the public's mine. There is a place for debate on the

funding going into schools and indeed the reform strategy to see

standards get better. But I agree with him, it was absolutely con

surname we saw, what, too many people, political messages, being

put out inappropriately. We are also committed to ensure the whole

education system including independent schools and universities

work together to drive standards up for all children. The government's

12 opportunity areas are there to deal with complex and entrenched

challenges in areas like Blackpool and Norwich. We are backing local

leaders, teachers, businesses, civil society, local society to come

together and find solutions to long-standing problems and planning

future skills needs together, to make sure those home-grown talents,

and they will be plugging the skills gap. We need a powerful alliance to

confront this challenge. Employers, civil society, government, working

hand in every single corner of our country. I welcome the huge number

of businesses, charities and ordinary people stepping forward to

help us to do better for our young people. I will give way. Whilst we

all recognise the need to address deprivation, will she recognise the

need to address the historic injustices to underfunded areas and

confirm she will increase the pupil block enough people formula and

reduce the costs are some schools are facing perhaps through the

apprenticeship levy? We are committed to ensure we introduced

their funding. It is right, we hold all schools to the same standards

and the same accountability framework and it makes sense we

should make sure children are funded comparably, wherever they are in the

country where they have comparable needs. I will set out the details

how we will take that forward following the consultation shortly.

If I can just finish... In many respects, I was just getting

started but I am sure that can wait. This government has also done

sterling work narrowing the gender pay gap and advocating for more

women on boards. But these efforts should be stepped up and we will be

bringing forward new approaches to supporting women in the workplace,

help with childcare and pilots to explore new ways to support

overwhelmingly mothers to get back into work. We know from some of the

work underway how powerful they can be. Inequality is not just confined

to gender and this government will bring a renewed focus to the

ethnicity gap in our workplaces. In conclusion, this government has an

ambitious agenda for this parliament, creating world-class

technical education, ensuring there is a good school place for every

single child where ever they are growing up. Tackling inequality in

education and opportunity in all its forms and to achieve these goals we

will be resolute in our pursuit of high standards. But we are building

on a firm foundation, although there is more to do and more to deliver.

Our young people deserve nothing less. This nation contains a wealth

of talent waiting to be unlocked, to create opportunity and success for

individuals and create a strong and prosperous country that can take on

and succeed with any challenge. Angela Rayner. Mr Speaker, welcome

back to the chair and the many new members who are new to the chamber

in this debate. I am sure we are looking forward to hearing some

excellent maiden speeches. I also welcome the Secretary of State back

to her place and her new ministers to theirs. I suspect she may have

found herself debating education issues a lot during the campaign,

not least in her own constituency, but a lot has changed in those short

few weeks, so today's debate might be different. In fact, the Secretary

of State concentrated more on the Labour Party than her own government

and the Queen's Speech. There are over 2500 words about education in

the manifesto but barely 50 in the speech we heard last week, maybe

that is why she concentrated so much on the Labour Party manifesto. It is

not so much a programme, but a post-it note. Although I listened

carefully to the honourable lady's opening marks, I don't think we know

much more about her policy now than before she stood up. Let's start

with the obvious points. The centrepiece of the new education

policy was meant to be new grammar schools. I won't rehearse the

arguments, but I will put this observation on record. When people

talk about grammar school issue, I never get people asking the

question, why don't you bring back the secondary modern? Most children

would go to a secondary modern school if we brought back selection.

Of course, it's not an original observation, Mr Speaker. In this

case, it is the argument made for the Minister for schools Honourable

member for Bognor regis and a little and the and when explaining why he

opposed grammar schools under the last Prime Minister. I don't think

it was said in this election campaign, so let me be the first to

say, hash tag I agree with Nick. Perhaps the Honourable Lady can

explain what hash tag means to her Home Secretary. I agreed with him

when he went on to say, now our job is to improve the standards in the

3000 comprehensive schools in this country and I believe it's not

getting rid of grammar schools that was the issue. I will give way. I

thank the Shadow Secretary of State. Perhaps she could add a little light

to her own policy on a question that is asked and most of the sessions

but never properly answered, would a Labour government abolish existing

grammar schools? I think I have been quite clear, we would concentrate on

standards and not structures, unlike this government that are obsessing

idea logically obsessing and wasting billions of pounds. Not my words,

the National Audit Office, on their fixations. The question is, whether

now the government will get on with the job and does the Prime Minister

now also agree with Nick? Will the Secretary of State make it clear,

there will be no attempts to lift the ban on new selective schools?

Will she finally concentrate on solving the real problem is what we

are hearing time and time again, what we heard throughout the whole

of the general election, the crisis in funding and in the teacher

workforce, instead of creating more problems for herself? I will give

way. I am grateful. Her party's manifesto did state a lot of funding

for many areas, but does she recognise if you make unfunded

promises and put in a huge amount of funding into the system... There is

an impact on the economy and an impact on schools. And one school

went bankrupt and 8500 teachers lost their jobs. Well, I am absolutely

astonished. When you see what has happened over the last 24 hours and

their magic money tree has been found for a coalition pay off, I

will take no lectures from the party opposite when the only numbers in

their manifesto was the one that gave you the page number you were

reading. The Prime Minister threatened to end universal free

school meals during the general election. My hope the government

will now confirmed that policy has been abandoned as part of their

full-scale retreat on their own manifesto. Ministers claimed free

breakfast would be more cost effective during the election. Their

costings left a bid to be desired, the original plan would have allowed

only 7p per breakfast. I remember when Labour was in government, we

got the school meal recipes from Jamie Oliver. They must be getting

theirs from Oliver twist! Even then, the new costings were based on

take-up of just 20%. I look forward to hearing the full explanation of

their policy on school meals. Bhogle one thing that the Secretary

of State has announced today is the Goverment's new policy on mental

health first aid training. They said they were trained the first 3000

staff for ?200,000. ?66 per member of staff. At the same time, the

charity delivering the policies said it would cost at least ?170.25 per

thousand. So the Secretary of State's figures were out -- per

person. But only by about ?150,000. Having realised her numbers don't

add up, the Secretary of State has now rushed out another U-turn,

saying that the ?200,000 is only for the first year of the policy. So,

can ministers finally tell us how much this policy will cost per year?

How many teachers will be trained each year? And how she managed to

get the policy announcement so badly wrong's it seems a long time ago

that they were talking about strong and stable leadership, only one day

after the deal of the coalition Chaos is signed and this Government

is even weaker and more wobbly than ever before. Now, Mr Speaker, let me

turn to the words of the Secretary of State did get into the Queen's

speech, which promised reform of technical education. But she already

legislated for reform to technical education earlier this year in the

technical and further education act. So can ministers tell us if there

will be another new Bill on technical education on this session,

or is the reality that this Government has come to the House

with such a threadbare programme that they have been reduced to

announcing bills that they have already passed in the last

Parliament? And of course they have nothing to say on higher education.

No wonder they wanted to talk about our policies. It's just weeks since

they used a statutory instrument to sneak through their latest rise in

tuition fees whilst freezing the threshold at which graduates begin

to repay their debts. The election came before the scheduled debate and

vote on that rise. So I hope the Government will now provide time for

that debate on the floor. Nor did they have anything to say on the

even more critical issues of early years education and childcare. At

the end of the last Parliament, they left early years education and

childcare in disarray. They promised early years workforce strategy, but

have given no indication of how they will implement it. Providers across

the country have told them time and time again that the funding they are

providing is inadequate. And hundreds of thousands of working

parents have been denied the service that they were promised. And how

many words on it in the Queen's speech? Non-whatsoever. Let me also

touch on another issue that is perhaps more important than any

other this week as Mac the safety of our school buildings. The Government

have been planning to change the regulations on fire safety in

schools contained in the building bulletin 100. Oddly enough, those

proposed changes have now been removed from the DfE website. But

luckily, we have a paper copy. The proposed new draft no longer

included an expectation that most new school buildings will be fitted

with sprinklers on the basis that school buildings do not need to be

sprinkled a protected to achieve a reasonable standard of life safety.

-- sprinkler protected. Perhaps the Communities Secretary could use the

opportunity to confirm that these proposed changes have now been

abandoned for good? I thank my honourable friend for giving way.

Does she agree it is absolutely important that there is a thorough

and comprehensive check about the fire safety in every school building

in the country? The safety of our children, we can't put too high a

price on it. Therefore recognising the likely so much like the course

that could arise, does she believe that the Government should that the

Government should set up a contingency fund to cover as a

matter of urgency all of those costs, so that local authorities

don't have to find the money to do the necessary work? Absolutely,

absolutely agree with my honourable friend. I was going to come to that

later in my speech. I really do hope that the Secretary of State does

take on board the comment that my honourable friend has just made. We

know that local government in particular has been hit by their

so-called austerity agenda. The cuts that our local authority have faced

that needs need to be looked at. Yesterday, the Secretary of State

told by House that Government had ordered safety checks to ensure that

flammable cladding was not used on school buildings. Can he update the

House on the results of that survey as soon as possible? And if there

are schools that use flammable cladding, can she get a clear

assurance that the cost will be covered by the Government, as my

honourable friend has asked? It would also be helpful to know what

action is being taken on student halls of residence. Can the

Communities Secretary confirmed that these are classed as other

residential buildings, and therefore subject to weaker requirements for

sprinklers? If so, will they look at closing the loophole? And what

action will the Government take to ensure that both university and

private Halls are checked for flammable cladding? Now, Mr Speaker,

I would like to come onto school funding. Of course, Mr Speaker, the

first Secretary of State came to the House yesterday to announce their

deal with the DUP. Fortunately for them, they seem to have located the

magic money tree. We heard so much about it during the general

election. The package included ?50 million. To address immediate

pressures. -- for schools. That is ?150 for every pupil in Northern

Ireland. Of course I welcome direct knowledge that they were not

properly funded schools in Northern Ireland and the money is to address

it. But can the Secretary of State explain why our schools face

billions of pounds of cuts in her government and they are doing

nothing to address the immediate pressures on schools in England? The

Conservative Party manifesto said that the new funding formula would

be introduced and that no school would lose funding as a result. In

fact, the Secretary of State said it has solved. Achieving this requires

an increase in school funding over and above current plans. So, again,

it is time for clarity. When will her department publish a response to

the second stage of the consultation on the fair funding formula? And

when will the new funding formula be introduced? And will she provide now

today a cast-iron guarantee that no school will be worse off in real

terms? If the Secretary of State has been talking to parents and teachers

in her own constituency, let alone across the country, she will know

that schools are facing severe cost pressures and head teachers are

being left with impossible choices. And I absolutely agree with the

Secretary of State's comments that she made earlier towards the staff

and the workforce within our schools and public services. But I have to

say to the Secretary of State, they need more than words. Even with the

money they found by scrapping school meals, the Institute for Fiscal

Studies, which she likes to quote a lot, has found that the Government's

plans for schools bending would be a real terms cut per-pupil funding of

nearly 3% -- for school spending. They spoke of a highly skilled

workforce in high wage jobs and in-work poverty is at a record high,

and the UK has the second lowest wage growth in the OECD says 2010.

The only country where wage growth is lower is increase. That is a

direct result of the failure of this Government. The failure to invest in

education will lead to a generation of children not getting the

education they deserve and not getting on in life. And we see the

same... I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Shadow

Secretary of State! Give us a couple of months! She talked about the

failure of a generation. Does she know about the University of Chester

Academy in Ellesmere Port, where the generation of schoolchildren are

being failed because of a second failed Ofsted inspection, the second

in four years. We heard nothing from the Secretary of State about what

she intends to do to improve performances in academies. Well, I

had the honour and privilege of joining the general election

campaign and visiting my honourable friend's constituency. He's

absolutely right, those concerns are real. We saw that played out in the

general election, we saw the way young people came to the Labour

Party because we had an for young people, and we also saw the

weight... If members wish to ask a question, the First Minister will

take questions at the end of the statement so she can do

interventions and interruptions until then. I call on the First

Minister. Presiding Officer, like other countries, Scotland faces big

challenges. Some of those challenges, like Brexit, are not of

our choosing. But we must always remember that Scotland is one of the

richest countries in the world, with resources and talent in abundance.

Our task is to make the most of our great potential, and build the kind

of country we want to be. A fair, prosperous, open and tolerant

country. And working towards that goal, my responsibility as First

Minister is to build as much unity and consensus as possible. And that