Tag: Lucy Powell

  • Lucy Powell – 2024 Speech at Labour Party Conference

    Lucy Powell – 2024 Speech at Labour Party Conference

    The speech made by Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, on 22 September 2024.

    I’m thrilled to be here speaking as the first Labour Leader of the House of Commons in 15 years.

    But what on earth does the Leader actually do apart from carrying swords in Coronations?

    My job is two-fold: restore trust and respect in politics, and ensure we deliver our bold and ambitious legislative agenda.

    Both are vital and connected and much needed.

    Populism and extremism feeds from a belief that nothing ever changes, and that all politicians are the same.

    The easy answers, lies and conspiracy theories too readily sought when the status quo fails to change and improve ordinary lives.

    Progressive politics needs and must show the opposite.

    That politics is a force for good.

    That it can bring about change.

    That it does work in the interest of the many, not the few.

    That democracy, not hate and fear, can deliver change.

    And after an era of false promises, misspent hope, money wasted, long-running injustices, denied, broken public services, economic folly which cost us all, a country which doesn’t work, it’s no wonder people have lost hope.

    That’s why our drive to a government of service is so important.

    Rebuilding trust and delivering what we said we would.

    And let’s be honest, Conference, some want to paint a picture that nothing will change, that we are just the same.

    I totally refute that.

    First, conduct matters.

    That’s why one of the first things I did as Leader was to pass a motion to limit MP’s second jobs.

    And we will go further.

    I’ve set up the House Modernisation Committee to drive up standards, tackle bad culture and make Parliament more effective.

    Transparency matters too and it’s not always easy.

    But the question is ‘are we delivering on our promises, without fear or favour?’

    And judge us by our actions. We are on the side of fans, passengers, consumers, and workers.

    This couldn’t be more different from the recent past.

    Instead of strengthening the rules for MPs, when one of theirs was found in serious breach for lobbying Tory MPs voted to get him off the hook.

    And what about their fast lane for mates, billions of tax-payers cash spent on crony COVID contracts?

    And let’s never forget they changed the law so we couldn’t socialise, while secretly partying themselves and then lying to Parliament about it for months.

    So, don’t let anyone tell you we are all the same, Conference, because we are not.

    The most important thing to rebuild trust, is doing what we said we would, bringing about the real change people voted for.

    It sounds basic, but it is the bedrock.

    In Parliament that change has begun. I was so proud to be at the heart of shaping our first legislative programme for government in 15 years – a Kings Speech that is bold, big and it’s Labour.

    It’s the most ambitious of any new incoming Government for a very long time.

    And look what we’ve done already.

    The Fiscal Responsibility Act – our first new law – so that Liz Truss can never happen again.

    A first Bill to take our railways back into public ownership.

    Legislation to set up Great British Energy.

    A Bill that puts water bosses on notice to clean up our rivers.

    We’ve introduced the renters rights Bill, finally ending no fault evictions.

    House of Lords reform.

    And conference, we are working at pace to meet our manifesto commitment, to introduce the Employment Rights Bill within 100 days.

    All this in a short time, using the Parliamentary majority we all fought so hard for.

    That’s what change looks like.

    We’ve done more to improve lives in 14 weeks than the Conservatives did in 14 years.

    But that’s not all.

    Some of the promises we made go deeper. To those who’ve faced injustices and been let down before.

    We are determined to show we are different.

    It’s why we’ve moved so quickly on the Infected Blood Compensation and Post Office Redress schemes.

    And it’s why we’ve introduced Martyn’s Law. A promise we made to Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett, to help keep venues safe.

    And Conference, I am so proud that it is our Labour Government that will finally enact Hillsborough Law.

    That’s the change a Labour Government brings.

    And there’s lots more to come, I can tell you.

    That’s what a government of service means.

    Power with a purpose, in service of the many, not the few.

    Restoring a belief that politics really can change people’s lives.

    It’s the only antidote we have to cynicism and populism.

    We have a chance now to prove it.

    It’s a big responsibility, so let’s get on with it.

  • Lucy Powell – 2024 Statement on the Government’s Legislative Programme

    Lucy Powell – 2024 Statement on the Government’s Legislative Programme

    The statement made by Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons, in the House on 18 July 2024.

    Following the state opening of Parliament, it is customary for the Leader of the House of Commons to list the formal titles of Bills to be introduced.

    Other measures will be laid before the House in the usual way. The programme will also include Finance Bills to implement budget policy decisions and estimates for public services. The list does not include draft Bills.

    Arbitration Bill

    Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

    Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill

    Better Buses Bill

    Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

    Budget Responsibility Bill

    Children’s Wellbeing Bill

    Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill

    Crime and Policing Bill

    Cyber Security and Resilience Bill

    Digital Information and Smart Data Bill

    Employment Rights Bill

    English Devolution Bill

    Football Governance Bill

    Great British Energy Bill

    High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester) Bill

    Hillsborough Law

    Holocaust Memorial Bill

    House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

    Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill

    Mental Health Bill

    National Wealth Fund Bill

    Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

    Pension Schemes Bill

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    Product Safety and Metrology Bill

    Rail Reform Bill

    Renters Reform Bill

    Skills England Bill

    Sustainable Aviation Fuel (Revenue Support Mechanism) Bill

    Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

    The Crown Estate Bill

    Tobacco and Vapes Bill

    Victims, Courts and Public Protection Bill

    Water (Special Measures) Bill

    Detailed information about each of these Bills can be accessed from the gov.uk website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/kings-speech-2024-background-briefing-notes

  • Lucy Powell – 2023 Comments on the Resignation of Richard Sharp

    Lucy Powell – 2023 Comments on the Resignation of Richard Sharp

    The comments made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Culture Secretary, on 28 April 2023.

    I have this morning received the report of the investigation into Richard Sharp which Labour instigated. The report is clear: Mr Sharp breached the rules expected of candidates by failing to disclose his involvement in a personal loan to the then PM.

    As a result, this breach has caused untold damage to the reputation of the BBC and seriously undermined its independence as a result of the Conservatives’ sleaze and cronyism.

    This comes after 13 years of the Tories doing everything they can to defend themselves and their mates. From Owen Patterson to Dominic Raab, and now Richard Sharp, instead of doing what’s best for the country the Prime Minister was more interested in defending his old banking boss. The Prime Minister should have sacked him weeks ago. Instead it took this investigation, called by Labour, to make him resign.

    Rishi Sunak should urgently establish a truly independent and robust process to replace Sharp to help restore the esteem of the BBC after his government has tarnished it so much.

  • Lucy Powell – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Lucy Powell – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Lucy Powell, the Labour MP for Manchester Central, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    It is a pleasure to open the debate on science and technology, as one of the few Members in this place probably with a science degree. You might be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I studied chemistry at Somerville, like another well-known female politician very popular on the Government Benches. I hope that is where the similarities end, although we both have a reputation for, how shall I put it, getting our own way.

    Science, technology and innovation are close to my heart. I welcome the new focus—not before time—on these issues, which I will come to. Even with the new Department and a few mentions in the Budget, we are still miles behind where we need to be in exploiting the potential of the UK as a science and tech superpower.

    First, let me address the Budget overall. Having had a few days to digest and analyse, the verdict on the Budget is in. It is not a

    “sustainable plan for long-term economic expansion”.

    Those are not my words but those of The Daily Telegraph. The Federation of Small Businesses was no more complimentary, saying that its members would feel “short-changed” by the “meagre” Budget. The Institute for Fiscal Studies labelled Britain a high-tax economy, with households feeling “continuing pain”.

    The public view is that it is a Budget not for them, but for a tiny few—a growing theme after 13 years in office. No wonder most now trust Labour over the Conservatives when it comes to the economy. That is the verdict, because this is a Budget divorced from most people’s reality—or as we have just heard, from anybody’s reality. There was no mention in the Chancellor’s speech that this Parliament is set to see the biggest fall in living standards ever recorded—the biggest fall by a country mile, according to the Resolution Foundation. That means families worse off and prices going through the roof, as wages fall through the floor.

    New research for the BBC, out today, shows that the average British worker is now £11,000 a year worse off than they should be, after 13 years of a Conservative Government. That is the reality for most people. The reason for that cannot be passed off as global forces, as it is relative too—middle-income Britons are now 10% worse off than the French and 20% worse off than their German equivalents. When holidaying Brits return to the continent in force this summer, they will feel like the poor man of Europe once again. That is the record of this Government; no wonder they hardly mentioned it.

    It was a Budget divorced from the realities of most businesses, too. Nothing for them on their unaffordable, rising costs; nothing on business rate reform; and very little to boost their immediate workforce challenges either. Small businesses were offered thin gruel. Perhaps that was what the former Prime Minister meant when he said something quite unparliamentary about business.

    It was a Budget utterly divorced from the realities facing our public services too, with hardly even a mention of the NHS or care. Yet we have 7 million patients stuck on waiting lists, A&E waiting times at an all-time high, social care in crisis, putting extra pressure our hospitals, and a chronic workforce emergency.

    Dr Luke Evans

    Does the hon. Lady welcome the statement by the British Medical Association about the changes to pensions, which will get senior doctors back to work? The chair of the BMA pensions committee said in the media that the changes had the immediate effect of getting people back to work, which means the NHS workforce will be strengthened.

    Lucy Powell

    I will come on to say something about that, but as my husband is an A&E consultant I am all too familiar with these issues. As the IFS said, it was a golden

    “sledgehammer to crack a very small nut”.

    The realities facing our public services are not addressed in this Budget.

    It is another Tory Budget so divorced from reality that it exposes, once again, who the party in government is really for—tax cuts for the wealthiest, tax hikes for the rest. The last Tory Budget had a cut to the 45p top rate of tax; this Budget has a pension tax cut for the top 1%. Government Members might groan and wail, but that is the reality.

    Wealth managers already see the Budget as a bonanza, and not only a huge tax break for the super-wealthy but an inheritance tax wheeze for the super-rich too, with one wealth adviser describing it as

    “a great opportunity for tax-free growth.”

    Tim Loughton

    The hon. Lady has been quoting experts and the newspapers. Will she now admit that the figures that her colleague, the shadow Chancellor, gave about the benefit that the pension changes will bring was grossly miscalculated? A quote that appeared in the Financial Times said it was

    “based on a muddled understanding of how the pension tax rules operate”.

    Will she apologise for the calculations in the Labour press release or are they just muddled?

    Lucy Powell

    I will not apologise for those figures, and in the next part of my speech I will explain that the figures are perhaps worse than previously thought. There are issues for doctors, but only 16% of those who will benefit from this massive boon are doctors, and that is before all the speculators dive into this new wheeze. That is the political choice that this Chancellor and this Government have made—trickle-down economics, and tax perks for the tiny few. That is the record that they just will not be able to dodge.

    Dr Luke Evans

    On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

    Lucy Powell

    I will not give way again. Government Members have plenty of time to give speeches.

    It is a Budget divorced from the reality of who caused this economic crisis. It was the Conservative party that crashed the economy, sending markets into freefall and interest rates sky high, resulting in a Tory mortgage penalty for millions of homeowners. The Government want to blame others, but their record is falling living standards, a stagnant economy, falling house prices and the worst growth forecast in the G7—all stats the Chancellor failed to mention.

    Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)

    The hon. Lady is very unhappy about this Government’s pension changes. Would a future Labour Government reverse them immediately?

    Lucy Powell

    We have already said that we will, but we will make sure that there is a fix for doctors who need it.

    Let us move on to the realities in science, tech and innovation. Technology is moving at breakneck speed and changing the way we live, work and play in ways that we cannot even imagine yet. Not only can we search the entire world’s knowledge from devices in our back pockets or communicate with anyone anywhere at any time, but AI and computer programmes can increasingly perform roles better than humans. An AI bot could probably have written me a better speech than the one I have made today—perhaps the Secretary of State might want to look at that the next time she is giving a speech.

    The choice facing countries, companies and citizens is either to harness those changes and keep up with them or to fall behind. That is why a huge global race is going on to develop and adopt the technologies of the future and seize the opportunities of the digital revolution. The UK has led industrial revolutions before, and we can lead this one. We have world-leading universities and research, a global appeal with the English language, and digitally savvy consumers. We have a competitive advantage in life sciences, professional and financial services, healthcare and creative industries, all helping to attract fintech and the best talent.

    However, there are also some worrying signs. Our universities and research are not translating enough into commercial success for UK companies. We have a productivity problem because not enough of the economy is adopting the latest technologies. We have been slow to bring in digital regulation, so our world-leading position is being lost. Our public services could be cutting-edge and more efficient, but they have not seized the data and digital opportunities. Companies start up in the UK but do not scale up to compete in a global market: Arm’s recent decision to be listed in the US, not the UK, gave us yet more evidence of that. That is the story of Britain: we invented the silicon chip, but not silicon valley. That is why we need a Government who are up to the challenge of the tech revolution, not a slow-moving analogue Government divorced from the reality of what it takes to win the race.

    The announcements in the Budget pale in comparison with some of our international competitors. The Government announced new money for AI research, but we are already lagging far behind Canada, the US, France, Italy and others. For context, the EU is looking at a £7 billion project to support computer innovation across Europe. Even when the Government’s new supercomputer to support AI is up and running, it will have capacity equivalent to only 10% of what a single American company already has today. That does not sound like winning the global race to me, although I do think the Government showed excellent judgment in choosing the name of the new AI research challenge—“Manchester”, for those who were not watching.

    It is the same story with 5G infrastructure, which is so critical to the digital revolution: while the Government have invested £200 million in early-stage trials, Germany is investing billions and South Korea has already got a third of the country on 5G. The quantum strategy and funding are welcome, but Germany, which until recently was governed by a quantum chemist, invested the same amount over half the time and started two years ago, again putting Britain behind in the race.

    It is not just about investment. The UK should be at the forefront of regulation around new technologies, making sure that we are the first to set the rules of the game and are helping to attract businesses looking for certainty and a supportive regulatory framework, so that it is our values shaping how new technology develops, rather than those choices being made in China or elsewhere. The mess over TikTok was just the latest example of the Government dragging their feet. We saw the same thing with Huawei: the Government failed to invest in our sovereign capabilities and then failed to predict the security concerns, resulting in a chaotic and expensive unpicking of Huawei’s role in our national infrastructure.

    We now have a chance to get ahead of the curve in technologies and to help to secure our national resilience, so where is the regulation of digital markets that has been promised for years? Where is the semiconductor strategy? Where is the media Bill to protect and promote British broadcasters in the streaming age? Where is the commitment on Horizon? It is the elephant in the room. The ongoing uncertainty is costing collaboration opportunities, research projects and jobs across the country.

    While the Budget featured at least nods in the direction of the most advanced companies and technologies—in which regard we are already doing relatively well—there was nothing at all to bring up the long tail and answer the UK’s great productivity challenge. No wonder growth forecasts were down. This is another case of trickle-down thinking and a Government divorced from what constitutes the real problem.

    Technology should be a great leveller, but that will not happen by accident. We need to plan to ensure that the benefits of the digital economy are not concentrated only in London and the south-east, and that we take advantage of our great potential ingenuity and creativity in the rest of the UK. We need to boost tech adoption. We have one of the worst long tails of companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, that are not taking advantage of digitalisation and the latest technologies, and their productivity is suffering.

    We need to harness data for the public good. Proposals in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill are nothing more than tinkering with the General Data Protection Regulation, while the huge potential for data to transform our public services, empower citizens and put the UK at the forefront of open data is being left on the table. We need serious action on skills so that young people are not just endangered by social media but have the entrepreneurial and creative skills that the AI economy will need, and the current workforce are not made redundant by robots but are able to secure the new jobs of the future. We need to boost our digital infrastructure so that everyone has fast, reliable and affordable connections and we are at the leading edge of industrial 5G and the next generation of connectivity.

    It is Labour that is leading the way in tackling the big challenges that our country faces. Because of our ambitious plans for skills, start-ups, growth, industrial strategy, the digital economy and devolution, businesses are flocking to Labour. [Hon. Members: “No they’re not.”] Oh yes, they are. John Allan, the chairman of Tesco, said recently that Labour was

    “the only team on the field”

    when it came to growth. Kasim Kutay, of the life sciences firm Novo, says that Labour is the only party that has

    “demonstrated an understanding of the challenges facing the UK”.

    Apparently, however, it is not just business leaders who like Labour’s plans. We have proposed GB Energy, and the Conservatives have proposed GB Nuclear. We said “windfall tax”, and they said “energy profits levy”. We said, “We need a bold plan to fix childcare”, and they seemed to like that one too. Where Labour leads, the Conservatives follow. They do say, do they not, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? But the truth is that the Conservatives are not up to the job. They are divorced from reality. They crashed the economy, they are responsible for the biggest fall in living standards that we have ever seen, and they are losing the global race for jobs of the future. They are out of road and out of ideas, so instead of pinching our ideas, why do they not just make way?

  • Lucy Powell – 2023 Speech on BBC and the Government Role in Impartiality

    Lucy Powell – 2023 Speech on BBC and the Government Role in Impartiality

    The speech made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Culture Secretary, in the House of Commons on 14 March 2023.

    This week’s whole sorry saga has raised serious questions about the Government’s role in upholding BBC impartiality. They have their fingerprints all over it. It is no wonder the Secretary of State has gone AWOL. First, it exposed how susceptible the BBC leadership is to Government pressure. After days of holding off, the BBC capitulated to a Tory cancel campaign, orchestrated by Ministers and Conservative Members with their friends in the press, and took Mr Lineker off air. These are the same voices, by the way, who claim to be the champions of free speech. What changed? Can the Minister tell us what contact she or any member of the Government had with any BBC executives or board members during this time? What does she think it looks like to the outside world when a much-loved sports presenter is taken off air for tweeting something that the Government do not like? It sounds more like Putin’s Russia to me.

    Secondly, the Government have seriously damaged the BBC’s reputation by appointing a chair who is embroiled in the personal finances of the Prime Minister who gave him the job. No doubt the Minister will tell the House that that is under investigation, but it is an investigation that I instigated, not her. Her boss is the only person with any power to fire the BBC chair. Does she agree that he is now completely unable to carry out his role of providing confidence, credibility and independence? What is she doing to put this right?

    Finally, the Government have pursued a deliberate strategy of undermining the BBC in order to keep it over a barrel to get themselves more favourable coverage. That was on full display overnight and I am sure it will be on full display here today. They threaten the licence fee, cut the BBC’s funding and undermine its credibility, all in pursuit of keeping their foot on the BBC’s throat. Will the Minister today finally call off the dogs behind her and stand up for the BBC’s independence from the Government?

    Julia Lopez

    I thank the hon. Lady for her spirited questions. I have watched her valiant attempts to kick this political football across the weekend and into this week. As Politico notes, we are now on Lineker day 8. She shouts about a political campaign to undermine the BBC that is akin to Putin’s Russia. She professes that she is the shield trying to protect the BBC from political interference, but all the while demanding that the PM gets more stuck in and telling the BBC that it is in the wrong. Forgive the bewildered licence fee payer for wondering why W1A and SW1A are still focusing on this individual case—one that the Government have consistently made clear is for the BBC to resolve internally, which we note it has now done.

    As the hon. Lady knows full well from the Secretary of State’s reply to her correspondence over the weekend, our Department regularly engages with the BBC on a range of issues. At no time have any of us as Ministers sought to influence the BBC’s decision on this case in any way. The events of last week are rightly a matter for the corporation’s determination, and we as a Government do not seek to interfere. I have not added, and do not intend to add, my views on this specific case in response to this urgent question. In response to assertions yesterday that he bowed to political pressure from the Government, the BBC director-general, Tim Davie, said:

    “That is a convenient narrative. It’s not true.”

    The hon. Lady has sought to make the BBC chairman, Richard Sharp, the ultimate arbiter of such matters. In fact, the BBC charter is clear that it is the director- general, as editor-in-chief of the BBC, not the chairman of the board, who has final responsibility for individual decisions on the BBC’s editorial matters. On the issue of Mr Sharp, she will be aware that previous Governments have appointed people to senior positions in the BBC who have declared political activity. That is not prohibited under the rules. Once appointed, however, all board members are required to adhere to the code of conduct for public body board members. She will know that there are separate independent inquiries into Mr Sharp’s appointment process, and they must be left to conclude. When it comes to the timetable of that, the Government are also awaiting the outcome, and it is right for the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the investigator that it has appointed to determine the timetable for that process, not the Government.

    The hon. Lady said that the Tory Government had long wanted to undermine the BBC. Not true. This is an organisation with a near-guaranteed licence fee income of £3.8 billion per annum until the next charter review in 2027. We back the BBC. We want it to survive as a thriving cultural, creative and democratic engine for many years to come. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced just this week that it is giving an extra £20 million to support the BBC World Service over two years, building on the additional support that we gave it for its Ukraine and Russia reporting operations.

    The social compact that underpins the BBC’s funding arrangement depends fundamentally on the broadcaster maintaining the trust and confidence of viewers. The BBC’s currency in a world of misinformation and “shout the loudest” public discourse is truth, impartiality, accuracy and editorial integrity. It remains our priority as a Government to work with the regulator, Ofcom, to deliver an effective and proportionate framework that holds the BBC to account in its duties, including to impartiality. In May 2020 we launched the mid-term review, a key focus of which was impartiality, and we will assess Ofcom’s regulation in ensuring that the BBC meets the high standards that licence fee payers expect of it.

  • Lucy Powell – 2023 Speech on Channel 4

    Lucy Powell – 2023 Speech on Channel 4

    The speech made by Lucy Powell, the Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    First, I want to congratulate the Secretary of State on her happy news and to thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is extraordinary that this matter of huge interest to Members across the House was leaked to the media during the recess with no attempt to make an oral statement. Of course I welcome this decision, having campaigned against this terrible Tory plan since it was announced. The Secretary of State has at least reached the conclusion that was staring her in the face: that the plans for the sell-off were bad for Britain, bad for our creative industries and bad for British broadcasters and advertisers. The plans would have likely seen this treasured institution, which has been responsible for some of Britain’s best-loved films and exports, sold to a US media giant.

    What a total waste of time and money this has been. At least £2 million has been spent, and there has been a huge opportunity cost not just for Channel 4, but across the creative industries, with the plans sucking the life out of all the important work that Ministers should have been getting on with. MPs on both sides of the House knew that the privatisation of Channel 4 was an act of cultural vandalism from a Government who simply did not like its news coverage. Can the Secretary of State give us her estimate of how much pursuing this flawed policy has cost the taxpayer, Channel 4 and our public sector broadcasters in lost opportunity?

    This is the second time in six years that the Government have proposed this privatisation. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give that privatisation is off the agenda for good? How is she going to ensure future financial sustainability without damaging our vibrant independent sector? Prominence reform is key to that, so when will she bring forward the long overdue media Bill? Does she agree that these plans have been a massive distraction and have already led to British broadcasters losing out to the global streaming giants?

    Finally, is it not the truth that after 13 years, this tired Government have run out of road and run out of ideas? They have no plan for growth to support our world-renowned creative economy; just infighting, time-wasting and petty vendettas.

    Michelle Donelan

    As the hon. Lady will know, we have outlined, including in today’s written ministerial statement, an ambitious plan to secure and safeguard the sustainability of Channel 4 so that it can thrive and survive. It is completely wrong to suggest that we are not doing anything, or that the money we have invested in looking at this proposal has been wasted.

    In fact, as I have already stated, Channel 4 has now committed to doubling its investment in skills across the country to £10 million. This is a new package, and the money we have invested in considering Channel 4’s sustainability is very clear and on the public record. It is important that we now work together to secure the future of Channel 4 and of our independent sector. As I outlined in my opening remarks, we will particularly safeguard small, innovative independents.

  • Lucy Powell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lucy Powell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Powell on 2015-10-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how long officials in her Department spent considering proposals for an annexe to the Weald of Kent Grammar School.

    Edward Timpson

    The Weald of Kent School has set out its plans in expansion proposals. Pupils at the Sevenoaks annexe will attend the Tonbridge site at least once a week to attend a whole school assembly and additional lessons. The school will also operate a house system across the expanded school, regularly bringing students together on a range of curriculum projects. The length of the school day is a matter for the academy trust.

    The newly expanded school will better meet the needs of parents in the community that the school currently serves. Over 41% of pupils at the Tonbridge site already travel from the Sevenoaks area. The travel arrangements between the sites will use existing bus companies to transport pupils who live in Sevenoaks to the Tonbridge site. The proposal indicates that the journey time is approximately 17 minutes and no additional funding is being provided to the academy to cover the costs.

    The decision issued on 15 October 2015 was in respect of a proposal received on 14 September 2015. The Department can comment on the costs of external legal advice once we have the final costs bill.

    The school would not have the required capital funding to expand on this scale at the existing site.

  • Lucy Powell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lucy Powell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Powell on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many primary school children in each academic year have been eligible for the pupil premium in each year since it was introduced; and how much the Government has spent on pupil premium for primary age pupils in each year group in each academic year to date.

    Edward Timpson

    Information on the overall number of pupils eligible for the deprivation pupil premium in primary and secondary schools and the associated funding allocated is available in the school-level pupil premium allocations, which are published on the department’s website. Data for service child, looked after, and post-looked after pupil premium are also included, but are not broken down by school phase. Links to the data for each year since the pupil premium was introduced are provided below.[1] The information is available by region and local authority, but the pupil premium is not calculated by year group.

    [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-conditions-of-grant-2016-to-2017 – click on ‘Pupil premium final allocations 2016 to 2017 by local authority area and region in England’

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-2015-to-2016-allocations#history

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-2014-to-2015-final-allocations

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-2013-to-2014-final-allocation-tables

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-funding-tables-2012-to-2013

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123124929/http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/schoolsrevenuefunding/settlement2012pupilpremium/a0070267/dsg-and-pupil-premium-allocations-for-2011-12

  • Lucy Powell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lucy Powell – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Powell on 2015-10-28.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many (a) applications and (b) requests for decisions in principle her Department has received on proposals for expansions of grammar schools on new sites in the last five years; and when each was received by her Department.

    Edward Timpson

    Local authorities are the decision makers when a maintained school proposes to expand onto an additional site. Local authorities, rather than the Department, would therefore hold the records for such proposals.

    Since April 2012, when the Education Funding Agency was established, the Department has received applications from two schools for expansion on to an additional site. These were both initially received in July 2013.

  • Lucy Powell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Lucy Powell – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lucy Powell on 2016-10-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many primary school pupils in each year group in each (a) region and (b) local authority receive the pupil premium.

    Edward Timpson

    Information on the overall number of pupils eligible for the deprivation pupil premium in primary and secondary schools and the associated funding allocated is available in the school-level pupil premium allocations, which are published on the department’s website. Data for service child, looked after, and post-looked after pupil premium are also included, but are not broken down by school phase. Links to the data for each year since the pupil premium was introduced are provided below.[1] The information is available by region and local authority, but the pupil premium is not calculated by year group.

    [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-conditions-of-grant-2016-to-2017 – click on ‘Pupil premium final allocations 2016 to 2017 by local authority area and region in England’

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-2015-to-2016-allocations#history

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-2014-to-2015-final-allocations

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-2013-to-2014-final-allocation-tables

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pupil-premium-funding-tables-2012-to-2013

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123124929/http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/adminandfinance/financialmanagement/schoolsrevenuefunding/settlement2012pupilpremium/a0070267/dsg-and-pupil-premium-allocations-for-2011-12