UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Stella Creasy – 2023 Speech on the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

    Stella Creasy – 2023 Speech on the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

    The speech made by Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2023.

    I rise as the person who tabled the original amendments in Committee that prefigured new clause 1, to recognise this as the best of Parliament. When we come together to write legislation we believe will make a positive and constructive difference to people, listening to each other’s concerns and recognising the positive pare that scrutiny can play in the process, it can bear fruits that we can all support. I welcome and support new clause 1 as a recognition that there was a concern and an issue with the concept of reasonableness being at the heart of public order offences. Let me clarify what I mean by that.

    Let me clarify what I mean by that: this legislation is about harassment, and other forms of harassment legislation have always had within them a test that someone’s behaviour cannot be considered reasonable if general opinion would be that their behaviour was unreasonable. In layman’s terms, when it comes to the harassment that we are talking about, if someone were being followed down the street and shouted at—particularly about their sex or presumed sex—even if that person were to claim it was reasonable, a magistrate should be able to say that it was patently not. The person responsible should not be able to evade prosecution under this legislation. However, this Bill was originally based on public order offences legislation, which does not include that distinction about whether somebody ought to know that their behaviour was unreasonable.

    It is very welcome that the Government have listened and agreed to put out guidance to consider that point. I hope that setting out what I believe that guidance should cover will be a helpful guide to the Government, and perhaps will answer the genuine queries from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about whether there can be involvement in it. For many of us, getting this issue right goes to the heart of how this legislation will deliver the effective freedom that we hope for particularly, but not exclusively, for women, as it is women who are overwhelmingly reporting the kind of incidents that we are talking about in this legislation.

    One of the challenges will be the initial decision as to whether someone has committed an offence. Many of us are extremely used to the idea that the challenge is our reaction to someone’s provocation, rather than the provocation. I hope that new clause 1 will recognise that, consistent with other forms of harassment legislation, a defendant arguing that their behaviour is reasonable should not be a reason not to proceed with a charge. I want to be clear about that, because I understand why people would be concerned. No one is suggesting that the reasonableness defence should not remain; we are arguing that it should for the courts or the magistrates to decide whether the behaviour was reasonable, rather than the defendant. In setting out the guidance, I hope that the Government will give weight to the idea that the presentation of a reasonableness defence, which is quite frequent in harassment cases but not necessarily in public order offences, should not deter the CPS or the police from seeking to proceed with a prosecution. In that sense, it would be consistent with the guidance on the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    In reference to some of the amendments tabled, agree with the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) about the importance of consistency in the law. I add my support to his argument about retaining the provision on presumed sex within the Bill. The most important thing about this legislation is that it turns the lens from the behaviour of victims—women in particular, because although this legislation covers both men and women, and male and female perpetrators, women will particularly benefit from our clarifying that street-based harassment is unacceptable and is illegal already, and therefore carries a higher penalty if it is targeted in this way. Too often, the victim’s behaviour has been called into question in decisions whether to prosecute. It important that the legislation is written in such a way to turn our attention back to the perpetrator. Were we to have loopholes, whether around reasonableness or the status of the victim, we could inadvertently undermine the capacity of the police and the CPS to secure that outcome.

    I recognise the attempts from the hon. Member for Christchurch to test the legislation. If he read the scrutiny of the legislation in Committee, he would appreciate that, because that is where new clause 1 has derived from. I hope he will understand that many of us feel that the changes he suggests would undermine the Bill, because it would not be as clear that our sole concern is the people who harass, intimidate and abuse other people in public because they are focused on the sex or presumed sex of the victim. The important message that we want to send by passing this legislation is that the existing crimes should not be diminished, ignored and seen as part of everyday life, and that we should address them.

    That is what I wanted to say, as the person who originally drafted the amendment that has led to new clause 1. I also recognise the cross-party working to get this legislation right. I hope that those who had concerns about new clause 1 or other parts of the legislation will see the benefit of having had these discussions, and that the Bill will benefit many of our constituents as a result.

  • Greg Clark – 2023 Statement on the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

    Greg Clark – 2023 Statement on the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

    The statement made by Greg Clark, the Conservative MP for Tunbridge Wells, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2023.

    In line with your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will address my new clause and the amendment in my name specifically, and I will also touch on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I will not rehearse the reasons for the Bill. We have had a substantial debate on Second Reading and in Committee, and I hope it may be possible to say more on Third Reading.

    New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police about the new offence proposed in the Bill, and that guidance must include, but is not limited to, guidance on the defence of reasonable conduct that is already contained in the Public Order Act 1986.

    During our debate in Committee, some Members were understandably concerned that the perpetrator of an act of deliberate harassment of a person on the grounds of their sex could escape the consequences of their actions by asserting that they thought their behaviour was reasonable. Some Members thought there was a risk that the police might be put off from taking the offence seriously, because of that potential defence. In fact, in the Public Order Act, reasonableness is not in the eye of the accused. Simply saying that behaviour that was intentionally designed to cause alarm or distress was reasonable does not provide a “get out of jail” card. Having clear guidance on this point would ensure that the matter is crystal clear to the police and all the authorities.

    The proposed requirement for statutory guidance therefore provides that clarity, but it is not limited to that; the guidance can include other matters, should that prove desirable in future. The guidance would be addressed to the police, as is obvious from the terms of the new clause, but in practice its use would be wider than that, and would include the Crown Prosecution Service. That is because statutory guidance, once issued, is in practice taken by all parties to be authoritative. Indeed, there is no point in having separate guidance for the police, the CPS and any other body.

    This is far from the only occasion when guidance is formally issued and addressed to one particular audience, rather than being proliferated to multiple actors. For example, statutory guidance within the Stalking Protection Act 2019 is formally issued to the police, but was drawn up in consultation with other statutory partners, including the Crown Prosecution Service. I envisage and hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the same approach will be taken in this case, and that the CPS would be involved in drawing up the guidance to which my new clause refers.

    It seems to me, reflecting on the debate we had in Committee, that an amendment that guidance must be issued and must include, inter alia, statutory requirements on the interpretation of reasonable conduct, is a pragmatic and practical way of responding to the points made in the debate. I am delighted that new clause 1 has attracted widespread support, including that of the Government, whose assistance in drafting it I grateful acknowledge.

    Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)

    How long does my right hon. Friend expect it to take for this guidance to be produced? The guidance requested last year on the draft code of practice on the recording and retention of personal data for non-crime hate incidents took more than one year to produce. Does he envisage a similarly long period? To what extent does he expect the House to have a say on the content of the guidance?

    Greg Clark

    I would be very dismayed if it took a year to draw up such guidance, and my hon. Friend gives a cautionary warning. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope he might undertake to produce the guidance with dispatch. I said a few moments ago that it is right and appropriate that guidance is drawn up in conjunction with the CPS, which also has regard to it, and that will take some time. I hope, however, that it will be a matter of weeks rather than a large number of months. The Minister and I are experienced in office, and we know that only the Minister can give an assurance as to how long it will take, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend shares my impatience to get on with it.

    Sir Christopher Chope

    What about the ability of the House to comment on the guidance when it is produced, or during its preparation?

    Greg Clark

    As my hon. Friend knows, guidance is issued by the Government of the day. It is not a statutory instrument, and we are not proposing that it should be. I think it would be desirable for such guidance to be shared not just with the House but in public. Guidance that is important should enjoy the confidence and wisdom of those who intend to use it.

    Sir Christopher Chope

    Finally, does my right hon. Friend envisage that the guidance should first be produced in draft form, so that there is an opportunity for people to be consulted publicly on it?

    Greg Clark

    Again, that is a matter for the Minister, but I would not only be content with that but think it a desirable route to take.

    On the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend, he is right to seek to ensure that legislation in this House is properly scrutinised and debated, and the points he has raised—including those he just made—are pertinent and valuable. As I hope he might expect, I have studied his amendments carefully, so let me deal with them in turn.

    Amendments 3 to 5 prefer the words “due to” to “because of”. Precise language is important—he and I share that view—but I do not think that the preference on his part signifies any difference in interpretation. The expression “because of” is extensively used in existing legislation. For example, section 66(4) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 refers to circumstances in which someone suffers loss or damage

    “because of the dangerous state of the premises”

    That is “because of” rather than “due to”. With perhaps more immediate relevance to our discussions, the Equality Act 2010 uses “because of” rather than “due to”. For example, paragraph 3(5) of schedule 11, on school admissions, refers to circumstances in which a school

    “does not admit a person as a pupil because of the person’s sex”,

    rather than “due to” it. It may well be that my hon. Friend’s use of language is more elegant than that contained in the laws already on the statute book, but I hope he will agree that there is some virtue in linguistic consistency in the law. That is the reason behind that choice of words.

    My hon. Friend’s amendment 4 clarifies that it does not matter if person (A) specified in the Bill—the perpetrator of the offence in question—is a man or a woman. Although the majority of reports of public sex- based harassment have been by men towards women, the Bill applies totally equally to both sexes, and at no point does the Bill mention anyone’s sex. There is no ambiguity in the Bill on that point. If my hon. Friend is concerned that this may not be clearly understood in practice, such as by the police, it may be a candidate for inclusion in the statutory guidance to which we have already referred. As he will recall, the guidance specifies interpretation of reasonable conduct but is not limited to that. If, perhaps after taking soundings from the public, there turns out to be some ambiguity in people’s minds—if not in the Bill—there is the opportunity to address that.

    Amendments 2 and 6 would introduce a concept of subsidiarity and primacy. In other words, an offence would be committed only if the sex-based harassment was the primary motivation or aspect of the behaviour, rather than one of a number of aspects. I completely understand the point my hon. Friend puts forward, but I will say two things in response. First, one of the purposes of the Bill is to bring harassment on the grounds of sex in line with the existing law as it affects other protected characteristics, such as race. To take race as an example, to be guilty of the aggravated offence of public harassment on the grounds of race does not require the racial elements to be the primary element of a torrent of abuse that one person might direct at another. Nor is public racial harassment defensible on the grounds that racist harassment was merely a secondary aspect of the behaviour in question.

    Indeed, not only is there the argument of consistency, which the Bill seeks to address, but, in this case, it is right that it is framed in this way because racist abuse should not happen at all. The law should be clear on that, and that applies equally to harassment on the grounds of someone’s sex. For reasons of consistency with the established law elsewhere and, in my view, what is right, we should not introduce a special filter for primacy on the grounds of sex that does not already apply to race and other offences that already have this protection.

    Amendments 7 and 6 would delete references to “(or presumed sex)”. The current treatment in the Bill is, again, drafted to be consistent with the Bill as it applies in other contexts, particularly to protected characteristics. To use the example of racial harassment again, section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes it clear that an offence is racially aggravated if the offender demonstrates hostility

    “based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership)”

    of a racial group. It is not always possible with 100% accuracy to determine a person’s race or sex in a public place. Indeed, Shakespeare would have been robbed of many a dramatic plotline were it otherwise. But that does not mean it should be acceptable to hurl abuse intentionally at someone who turns out not to be of the sex that was assumed, any more than it would be acceptable to scream racial abuse in public at someone who turned out not to be of the race that the perpetrator presumed them to be. Therefore, again, for reasons for consistency with the existing law and for reasons of justice, I think the drafting of the Bill has it right.

    In amendment 9, my hon. Friend, as presaged in his earlier intervention, seeks to specify a commencement date of 1 August this year for the legislation to come into effect. I am very grateful to him for his impatience to get on with changing the law. He is quite right, in all seriousness, that if Parliament passes legislation, that signals the intention of Parliament that the law should change and the Government should not act as a brake on the law being changed in practice. Indeed, it would be unconscionable for the Bill to sit on the statute book uncommenced and therefore unusable to the police and courts. Those who might be watching these proceedings, or reading reports of it, will have a legitimate expectation that if the Bill passes, the law has been changed or will change shortly.

    Should the Bill be approved by the House today, as all colleagues know, it would then need to go to the House of Lords, whose procedures and timings are not always clear to at least this Member of this House. If my new clause 1, requiring statutory guidance to be issued, is inserted by the House, that will, as we discussed a few moments ago, take some time, especially if we provide an opportunity to take soundings on it before it is adopted. So I fear that 1 August may be a little too specific and early to be in the Bill as the date by which commencement must be made. I do not want in any way to separate myself from my hon. Friend’s motivation—quite the reverse. Should the Bill attract the favour of the House and the other place, I hope that he will join me in pressing the Government today to commit in seriousness to commencing the legislation as soon as is practically possible. Should that commitment turn out not to be enacted in practice, I hope he will bolster my efforts in harrying the Government at every opportunity, and relentlessly—given his considerable experience, and indeed success, in that—until the legislation is commenced.

    In conclusion, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and apposite amendments. I hope he can tell that I have seriously considered their effects. In no case am I antipathetic to the quite reasonable questions he raises about them, but I do think they have answers in the current drafting of the Bill, with the new clause I am moving today, so I hope that at the end of the debate he will feel able not to press amendments and, should circumstances arrive, to join me in continuing a campaign for great dispatch on the part of the Government.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Speech on Ending Preventable Deaths

    Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Speech on Ending Preventable Deaths

    The speech made by Andrew Mitchell, the UK Ministerial Champion for Ending Preventable Deaths of Mothers, Babies and Children, in Washington DC, USA, on 21 March 2023.

    Thank you to all partners here for energising the global fight against child and maternal deaths.

    Despite global goals and widespread efforts, a pregnant woman, newborn baby or child dies every 6 seconds.

    The UK government – and I as the UK’s Ending Preventable Deaths Ministerial Champion – remain committed to working with everyone who shares our wish to end preventable deaths. Progress has been blown off course by the pandemic and Putin’s war. But solutions are all around us. We must sharpen our focus on three things:

    First, equity.

    We know these preventable deaths disproportionately affect poor and marginalised groups, and are fuelled by conflict and instability.

    We must listen to and champion the needs of marginalised communities. We must support them to hold their leaders to account, so that regardless of where people live, they can access and afford the health services they need.

    Our second focus must be quality.

    Approximately 5 million deaths each year are as a result of poor quality healthcare.

    We must push for high quality services, including services that are kind and respect the rights of women, girls and other marginalised groups. We must give communities a voice in decisions about their health services, and support trained, paid and motivated health workers, who have access to the equipment and drugs they need.

    Our third focus must be integration.

    To save a mother and a baby requires almost every part of the health system to be working well.

    So we must strengthen the ‘backbone’ of the health systems, including community and primary care, supply chains, midwifery, health financing and vaccines. We have to focus on every contributor to child and maternal health – everything from good nutrition to hygiene and sanitation. From clean water and air, to supporting people, especially women and girls, to make healthy choices.

    I am happy to announce that we will launch a new UK EPD programme to provide technical and strategic support to a set of flagship countries who want to partner with us and where the need for UK support is greatest.

    The central component to all these efforts is partnership… governments, donors, health professionals and people working together for better services and better outcomes.

    We know that we can achieve more together than we can alone. So let’s continue to bring people together, focus on solutions and innovation, and halt the preventable deaths of more mothers, babies and children.

    Thank you.

  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2023 Statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2023 Statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

    The statement made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    The UK is intensely focused on, and concerned by, the increasing violence on the west bank. The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Israeli counterpart, Eli Cohen, on Tuesday to emphasise the importance of Israeli de-escalation ahead of the convergence of Easter, Passover and Ramadan. As the Foreign Secretary set out to this House on 14 March, he has also urged the Palestinian leadership to take steps to avoid a cycle of violence. While the security situation remains fragile, I welcome Israeli and Palestinian engagement in the meetings in Aqaba on 26 February and Sharm el-Sheikh on 19 March. It is critical that both parties abide by the commitments made there publicly and take forward the confidence-building measures that they have promised.

    The UK wants to see three steps that would demonstrate commitment to de-escalating the worrying situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. First, the Palestinian Authority must resume security co-operation with Israel, fight against terror and incitement of violence, and improve the security situation in area A of the west bank. Too many Israelis have been killed in terror attacks in Israel and the west bank this year. Such targeted attacks against civilians are unlawful, unjustifiable and repugnant.

    Secondly, Israel must do more to tackle unacceptable settler violence such as that perpetrated against innocent Palestinians in Huwara. The UK has consistently urged Israeli security forces to provide appropriate protection to the Palestinian civilian population, bring to justice perpetrators of settler violence and end the culture of impunity. The UK condemned the Israeli Finance Minister’s comments calling for the Palestinian village of Huwara to be “wiped out” and his recent comments that deny the existence of the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination and their history and culture.

    Thirdly, Israel must also cease its unilateral steps that push parties further from dialogue and reduce the possibility of meaningful negotiations. Those steps include stopping approval of settlements, legalisation of outposts and evictions of Palestinians in occupied territory, particularly in east Jerusalem. The Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about the speculation of settlement building on the E1 site in the OPTs and we are pleased that there has now been a moratorium on that expansion. However, we are deeply concerned at the recent repeal of the 2005 Disengagement Plan Implementation Law by the Knesset. That decision is another unilateral measure that damages any renewed efforts at de-escalation and risks further undermining a two-state solution.

    All Israelis and Palestinians deserve peace and security, not just through the upcoming festivals of Easter, Passover and Ramadan this spring, but for the long term. That will require political will, good faith, strong co-operation and meaningful actions by both Israelis and Palestinians. The UK remains resolute in its commitment to a two-state solution based on 1967 lines.

  • Jim McMahon – 2023 Speech on Food Price Inflation

    Jim McMahon – 2023 Speech on Food Price Inflation

    The speech made by Jim McMahon, the Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    I thank the Minister of State for his response, but this is a cost of living crisis driven in large part by the cost of food, so where is the Secretary of State? She seems to spend more time in the departure lounge than in her own Department at times. Mr Speaker, I feel like I am shadowing a shadow. Where is the Secretary of State on the most important issue at this point in her brief?

    Once again, we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in which food inflation is playing a large part. If inflation overall is not curbed, the danger is that that will have an impact on the ability of people to pay their mortgages and we could see further interest rate rises as a result. There are serious questions about the Government’s approach to the cost of food and our food security. Some producers are reducing production and some are exiting completely. There are now 7,000 fewer food producers in agriculture than in 2019. Food inflation is up 18.2%, which is the highest in 45 years, and import costs to February are up 12.7%. The Minister knows—he is in the business—that those import costs today will be felt for months to come.

    There has been warning after warning. Thanks to you, Mr Speaker, this is the second urgent question on food security, but where are the Government on farming payments, on labour shortages, on energy costs, on the costs of feed and fertiliser and on the impact of avian flu? Last time the Secretary of State was here, her advice to the nation was a call to arms to go out and buy turnips —those were her words of wisdom. That just does not wash. When will the Government realise that this is a crisis of their making and they need to take action now?

    Mark Spencer

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and statements—there were not many questions in there. I can tell him that the Government wholly recognise the challenge that inflation brings to the economy. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out a number of measures to curb inflation and to manage the economy in a way that he will struggle to understand.

    I would also say that huge pressures in the global economy, following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on the back of a global pandemic, are being felt all around the world. Global energy prices have driven huge spikes, for example in the cost of fertiliser, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned: ammonium nitrate went from circa £250 a tonne to in excess of £1,000 a tonne for a short period. The good news is that global gas prices are easing back and coming back under control into a more affordable price range. That will take time to feed through to some of the cost pressures that are being put on our primary producers, but the Government are continuing to talk—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman mentions labour. That is why the Government increased the number of seasonal agricultural worker visas to 45,000.

    Jim McMahon

    We need 90,000.

    Mark Spencer

    So the hon. Gentleman says, but there are an extra 10,000 visas available should the industry request it and require it. That request has not come to the Government, because we still have enough people in the supply chain with the 45,000 visas that are available. We continue to work and co-operate with retailers, processors and the food sector on continuing to supply good-quality food to our consumers.

  • Mark Spencer – 2023 Statement on Food Price Inflation

    Mark Spencer – 2023 Statement on Food Price Inflation

    The statement made by Mark Spencer, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    I will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    We recognise that food prices have gone up. The recent increase in food price inflation was driven by upward price movements in eight of the 11 food categories. The three most significant price increases since February 2022 are oils and fats, at 32.1%; milk, cheese and eggs, at 30.8%; and non-classified food products, at 28.9%. While recent unseasonable weather in Morocco has also created some temporary supply disruption to fruit and vegetables, domestic retailers have held prices comparatively low compared with the rest of Europe, where increased demand led to some cases of 300% rises in the price of some vegetables.

    A number of media outlets have reported that the recent shortage of some salad and vegetables has been the driver for the increase in food inflation in February, but that is not the case. The overall inflation rate increases have been caused by several factors. There are other categories where price increases have been greater than that of vegetables over the past year.

    These high overall inflation rates are driven by high utility prices and pressures on global supply chains that are being felt across Europe and beyond. Commentators expect the rate of inflation both across the economy and for food and drink to be near its peak. The Government have put in place a number of measures to support households with prices, including committing £37 billion to support households with the cost of living; £1 billion of that has already gone towards help with the cost of household essentials.

    Looking forward to April, the Government will be uprating benefit rates and state pensions by 10.1%. The benefit cap levels will also be increasing by the same amount in order to increase the number of households that can benefit from those uprating decisions. In addition, for 2023-24, households on eligible means-tested benefits will get up to £900 in cost of living payments. That will be split into three payments of around £300 each across the 2023-24 financial year. A separate £300 payment will be made to pensioner households on top of their winter fuel payments, and individuals in receipt of eligible disability benefits will receive a £150 payment.

    Free school meal eligibility is being permanently extended to children from all families with no recourse to public funds. The Government have extended free school meals to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half century. We remain committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged children continue to be supported.

    We are also working closely with retailers to explore the range of measures they can take to ensure the availability and affordability of food, so while we recognise that this is a challenging time for consumers, we are taking a large number of steps to support people with the cost of living and I have great faith in the food supply chain, which has proven itself to be extremely resilient over the past few years.

  • Miriam Cates – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Miriam Cates – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Miriam Cates, the Conservative MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    I am delighted that the Chancellor has set aside £4 billion to help families with young children. I am less delighted with how he is choosing to spend it. I am referring to the massive expansion of the 30-hour childcare scheme to include babies from the age of nine months. The stated aim of this policy is to get parents back into work and to grow the economy, but unfortunately it will probably fail on both counts. It will not get parents back into work, and the evidence of that comes from the current 30-hour offer for three and four-year-olds, which has had limited success, with only 40% of eligible families using their full entitlement. That is not surprising, because it is not free and it is inflexible, being restricted to only 38 weeks a year and between 9 am and 3 pm—not many jobs fit those requirements.

    Polling shows that a great many parents would understandably prefer to look after their children themselves. A recent IFS study showed that free childcare does not have a significant impact on parents’ childcare and work decisions. If these are the problems with the three to four-year-old offer, they will be even more acute with the nine months to two years offer. We are also forgetting that families in this country keep so little of what they earn that it is often not worth going back to work even if the childcare is cheaper.

    The Treasury and others keep repeating the mantra that British parents face the highest childcare costs in the western world. That is not actually true. The absolute costs of childcare in the UK are similar to those in other countries. The problem is that British families’ childcare costs are a higher proportion of families’ net income than in comparable countries. So the problem is not the childcare costs; it is the low net income. That is the result of taking so much money off parents in tax, in comparison with other countries, combined with meagre child benefits, also in comparison with other countries.

    The root of this problem is our unique individual taxation system, which does not recognise households with children and results in British families paying three, four, five, or even 10 times the amount of tax as families in other countries. It particularly penalises single-earner households or households with a large difference in earnings between the two partners. Under this policy, for example, a mother might return to work because the childcare costs are now reduced. She might earn a £20,000 gross salary, out of which she has to pay taxation, national insurance, pension contributions, student loan repayments and travel costs, while her universal credit and childcare top-ups could be withdrawn. Out of her gross salary of a little under £1,700 a month, she will be lucky to keep £290. That is an effective tax rate of nearly 80%. Some people will return to work for that, but many will not because of what they are losing in time with their children, so I do not expect take-up to be high.

    Will this policy grow the economy? It might increase GDP if more people return to the employment market, but what does it mean in real terms for real people’s lives? Will GDP per capita grow? I think that is highly unlikely, because when mothers return to work it creates more low-paying jobs in childcare and elderly care—important but low-paying jobs—which increases the gender pay gap. This has happened in Denmark, for example, which has three times the gender pay gap that we have here in the UK.

    I do not believe the policy will see mums flooding back to work and I do not think it will grow the economy in meaningful terms, but even if I am wrong, I still believe it is the wrong policy because it is the wrong policy for children. What is best for baby in the early years? The bond between mother and child is probably the strongest human relationship there is. This is not just a soppy feeling; it is a highly evolved survival mechanism, and strong attachment in the early years pays dividends in later life. There are many great people in the childcare sector, but no one replaces mummy.

    It is heartbreaking when mothers feel they have no choice but to leave their babies in childcare from a very young age because of the financial imperative. Yes, there is a cost of living problem, and many women want to work for all sorts of reasons and should absolutely be supported to do so, but the issue for many families is not the cost of childcare per se, any more than it is the cost of food or energy; it is the inability to live on one income when children are young. This is what separates many women from their children: not choice, but tragic necessity.

    The Treasury thinks the answer to our financial challenges is to send more mothers to work. I think the answer is to support all families in the early years to give parents a choice. We have £4 billion for this new policy and £4 billion for existing policies, so why not use this to fund a move to household taxation and to increase child benefits? Why not spend that £6,500 a year per child in a different way, to give parents the choice of how they spend it, perhaps on formal childcare, on informal childcare or on spending fewer hours in the workplace?

    Elite feminism might say that motherhood is drudgery and inferior to paid work outside the home, but that is only true if we believe that status and meaning derive principally from our salary and status in the workplace. “I wish I’d spent more time in the office instead of with my small children”, said no one on their deathbed ever. Those making these policies think of women with high-flying, highly paid careers, and of course those women should be supported to stay in work and maintain their careers, but that is not most women. Most women have jobs, not careers. As Dan Hitchens wrote in UnHerd last week, those advocating for these policies

    “assume that taking your little one to Wriggle and Rhyme at the public library is an unutterable burden, whereas stacking shelves or updating spreadsheets is a liberation of the human spirit.”

    It is fundamentally un-Conservative to spend £4 billion separating parents from their babies in the pursuit of marginal gains to GDP. We offer tax breaks and incentives to reduce costs for companies investing in the economy. Why not offer the same to families nurturing the source of our future economic success? I commend the amount of money being spent on the early years, but please can it be used to offer parents a choice and babies the best start in life?

  • Amanda Spielman – 2023 Statement on the Death of Ruth Perry

    Amanda Spielman – 2023 Statement on the Death of Ruth Perry

    The statement made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, on 24 March 2023.

    Ruth Perry’s death was a tragedy. Our thoughts remain with Ruth’s family, friends and the school community at Caversham Primary. I am deeply sorry for their loss.

    Ahead of the coroner’s inquest, it would not be right to say too much. But I will say that the news of Ruth’s death was met with great sadness at Ofsted. We know that inspections can be challenging and we always aim to carry them out with sensitivity as well as professionalism. Our school inspectors are all former or serving school leaders. They understand the vital work headteachers do, and the pressures they are under. For so many colleagues, this was profoundly upsetting news to hear.

    This is unquestionably a difficult time to be a headteacher. School leaders worked hard during the pandemic to keep schools open and give the best education they could, while keeping vulnerable children safe. Since then, some children and families have struggled to readjust to normal life, and schools have had to respond with care and determination. School absence is high, mental health problems have increased, and external support services are unable to meet increased demand.

    The sad news about Ruth has led to an understandable outpouring of grief and anger from many people in education. There have been suggestions about refusing to co-operate with inspections, and union calls to halt them entirely.

    I don’t believe that stopping or preventing inspections would be in children’s best interests. Our aim is to raise standards, so that all children get a great education. It is an aim we share with every teacher in every school.

    Inspection plays an important part. Among other things, it looks at what children are being taught, assesses how well behaviour is being taught and managed, and checks that teachers know what to do if children are being abused or harmed. We help parents understand how their child’s school is doing and we help schools understand their strengths and areas for improvement. It’s important for that work to continue.

    The broader debate about reforming inspections to remove grades is a legitimate one, but it shouldn’t lose sight of how grades are currently used. They give parents a simple and accessible summary of a school’s strengths and weaknesses. They are also now used to guide government decisions about when to intervene in struggling schools. Any changes to the current system would have to meet the needs both of parents and of government.

    The right and proper outcome of Ofsted’s work is a better education system for our children. To that end, we aim to do good as we go – and to make inspections as collaborative and constructive as we can. We will keep our focus on how inspections feel for school staff and on how we can further improve the way we work with schools. I am always pleased when we hear from schools that their inspection ‘felt done with, not done to’. That is the kind of feedback I want to hear in every case.

    As teachers, school leaders and inspectors, we all work together in the best interests of children – and I’m sure that principle will frame all discussions about the future of inspection.

  • Robert Halfon – 2023 Speech to Holex Spring Network Event

    Robert Halfon – 2023 Speech to Holex Spring Network Event

    The speech made by Robert Halfon, the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, on 23 March 2023.

    Hello everyone. I’m sorry that I can’t be with you today as planned, as I’m in Parliament for the Lifelong Loan Entitlement Bill.

    Please accept my apologies – because I couldn’t be more enthusiastic about the brilliant work you do. I talk a lot about the Ladder of Opportunity. It’s a framework to support everyone, but especially disadvantaged people, to gain valuable skills and qualifications to enter good employment. Such progression should be a widely held aspiration. But low attainment and lack of confidence often hold people back from making a start. You are doing the real groundwork, helping those at the very bottom of the ladder take their first steps to build their capabilities.

    And this is alongside supporting 1000s more to gain essential skills for life, work and further learning.

    All progression is good progression – whether a person aspires to an apprenticeship, better reading ability, or improved mental health and community participation. All of these outcomes hold tremendous value, for society and the individual. You help to bring them about.

    For me Adult learning has 5 pillars: Community Learning, Careers, Adult learning for Jobs, the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, and Skills Devolution.

    I’ll talk about our offer to those who complete your courses and want to do more. But I will return to the intrinsic social value of your work, and how we’ll protect it in our future plans for adult education.

    Community Learning and basic skills

    Firstly, I want to acknowledge your dedication to the communities you serve.

    One area of your work, Community Learning, plays a vital role in helping adults of all ages and backgrounds gain skills, confidence and motivation. Getting reluctant people to step forward to enrol is not easy, particularly if they struggled in school or employment, or don’t speak good English. Your enthusiasm welcomes them in and persuades them to stay. Social justice, a key part of the Ladder framework, is about bringing opportunities to the people who need them most. I want to thank you for everything you do to help change people’s minds about what they can accomplish. I have seen this in practice in my own constituency of Harlow, where community education was moved to the local library, which became a state-of-the-art centre for adult learning.

    Alongside its social value, your work provides a vital stepping-stone to further learning, training and employment. This includes the delivery of the English, maths and digital skills that everyone needs to navigate adult life – a key demonstration of the value of Adult Community Learning in combatting unseen disadvantage.

    National Careers Service

    A lot of your work is about building people’s confidence, helping them to realise their potential, and signposting them on where to go next. I’m sure many of you have close links with your local National Careers Service advisers, who are based in jobcentres and other community settings.

    A quick reminder of what the Service offers! It is relevant to many of the adults on your courses. Anyone can use National Careers Service online, but this in-person support is specifically for adults with recognised barriers to finding work – such as those with special educational needs and disabilities, single parents or the low skilled. These career advisors are trained to work with adults; they are skilled at identifying their potential and motivating them to succeed. They help customers to build a career and skills action plan for their short, medium and long term goals.  Your learners may have already been referred, but it’s always worth asking if they’ve heard of the service or considered using it.

    The National Careers Service celebrated supporting one million adults into a job or learning outcome in 2022. I’m really keen that it lives out its purpose to connect disadvantaged adults with the skills and jobs they need to succeed. We are currently considering its future focus, and there will be opportunities for you to share your views on how the Service can effectively provide appropriate support.

    Adult Learning for Jobs – Free Courses for Jobs & Skills Bootcamps

    The Multiply numeracy programme, announced in 2021, has so far reached almost 10,000 learners. We know the need is out there, and we want to reach far more, which is why we’ve boosted funding up to £559 million over this parliament. I am grateful for your response since the launch, and your crucial role in bringing learners to schemes like this – helping them take their first steps in skills that most of us take for granted.

    It’s really important to me that when people want to change career or boost their earning power, there’s a broad eco system of learning options available, offering clear rewards.

    Free Courses for Jobs is an initiative to provide adult learners with valuable skills to fill jobs-market gaps. They do exactly as the name suggests, providing Level 3 qualifications that lead to higher wages and better work. They have proved popular, with over 35,000 enrolments between April 2021 and October 2022, significantly increasing the number of adults taking these Level 3 qualifications. We invested £95 million in these courses last financial year (2021-22), with further investment via the National Skills Fund announced at the Spending Review.

    We’ve now expanded eligibility to include all unemployed adults, and those earning less than the National Living Wage. The qualifications available were chosen for their strong wage outcomes and key skills in high demand. The programme also includes shorter options to help workers progress in the labour market. If any of your learners are looking to upskill, retrain or switch sectors, please nudge them towards the Free Courses for Jobs qualifications list – it’s been handpicked with them in mind.

    Another thing I must flag are Skills Bootcamps – specialised training that links learners directly to their chosen industry. These free, flexible courses of sector-specific skills last up to 4 months, with a job interview offered on completion. In the financial year 2021-22 (latest available data) 16,120 people participated in Skills Bootcamps. We hope to further expand these opportunities through the skills devolution measures announced in the Budget last week.

    Skills Bootcamps have the potential to transform the skills landscape for employers seeking  career-changers. Once again, demand has been strong. There are now over 900 Bootcamps, including training in construction, logistics, digital skills, and those that support the green economy – such as heat pump engineering. We will continue to expand Skills Bootcamps, with up to       £550 million funding over 2022-25. Again, my message to you is that this could be the perfect opportunity for those ready to step towards a new career – particularly if they know their abilities but lack confidence at interview.

    Lifelong Loan entitlement

    Also, I want to mention the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, the vital fourth pillar of Adult Education, which I’m very excited about. This will unify Higher and Further education finance under a single system. From 2025, financial support equivalent to 4 years post-18 education (£37,000 in today’s fees) will be available for individuals to use over their working lives.

    Now, a new student finance system might seem rather distant from the needs of your learners. But it will enable access in a way that hasn’t been possible before. Learning and paying by module will present new opportunities for those unable to commit to a long course. Unifying education finance under one banner will create a cultural shift in how vocational courses are perceived and accessed. Each learner’s personal account will display their remaining education finance balance, but also act as a portal to information to guide their learning pathway.  Like getting on and off a train, they’ll be able to alight and board their post-school education when it suits then, rather than being confined to a single ticket.

    Our broader vision is to fully integrate the skills education our economy is crying-out for, into the formal systems that direct people towards and through the jobs market. Our eventual aim is a one-stop-shop, where all can explore their career and training options at any point in their lives

    Devolving Adult Skills & learning

    We don’t want to stand in the way of local leaders commissioning the adult education that’s needed in their area. That’s why we’ve already devolved approximately 60% of the Adult Education Budget to 9 Mayoral Combined Authorities and the Mayor of London. These authorities are now responsible for the provision of AEB-funded adult education for their residents, and allocation of the AEB to providers. We are committed to devolving further from 2025-26, and are already working with new areas to support their devolution deals.

    And you’ll know from last week’s Budget that we’re putting Mayors at the heart of economic growth in their regions. We announced two Trailblazer devolution deals with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. These Combined Authorities will work closely with government, FE providers and colleges, using all available levers to align their local skills offer with local needs. Further Education voices, such as yourselves, will be central in shaping this strategy – with a focus on sufficiency, capacity and clear curriculum pathways for learners.

    Conclusion

    I want to end by thanking Holex and everyone here for your continued advocacy for adult education, and your engagement with the Department. Dr Sue Pember has been a consistent champion of this important work – whether in the classroom or in local government, leading policy in my department or for you.

    I’m particularly grateful for your responses to our consultation on funding and accountability. Funding reform necessarily includes looking at provision that does not result in a qualification. We recognise that individual learner journeys are different, and that a formal qualification is not always best for those furthest from the labour market. But we want to ensure this provision is the right choice for learners, and that it provides value for money and contributes to wider skills and employment needs.

    We’ve listened carefully to the views of the sector. The core aim of the Skills Fund will remain progression to further learning and employment. But I hope I’ve made clear that we also recognise the wider benefits of adult learning – such as health and wellbeing, and stronger communities. The Skills fund will continue to support these aims, with more detail in our full consultation response later this year.

    I hope you enjoy the rest of your day at this networking event. I look forward to continuing to work with you all to shine a spotlight on the transformative power of community education.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2023 Comments Calling Commons Committee “Marsupials”

    Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2023 Comments Calling Commons Committee “Marsupials”

    The comments made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative MP for North East Somerset, on Twitter on 22 March 2023 during the Commons committee investigating whether Boris Johnson had deliberately lied to Parliament.

    Boris is doing very well against the marsupials.