Graham Stuart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman have sympathy with parents who feel that they have been let down by the local authority on support for their child with special educational needs, who recognise the historical primacy of parents in determining the education of their child, and who are now seeing a piece of legislation that removes that right and says that the state, not the parent, decides whether a child can be taken out of school? We all accept that where there are safeguarding issues, action should be taken, but is the hon. Gentleman really comfortable with changing the approach for the ordinary parent after decades of it being the other way around?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my hope that Government Members will follow the example of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and put the Bill under genuine scrutiny?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Lady set out exactly in what way the amendment, which I think is entirely constructive—it accepts the safeguarding element, but challenges the educational vandalism that is being undertaken by the Government—is so objectionable?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend will be aware that although many home-educated children with autism are known to local authorities, there is very poor support for them. How will this burdensome, expensive register—it will be even more expensive if he has his way—transform the support that children need, rather than being just another bureaucratic exercise that continues the current woeful level of support?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ministers must set out how failing schools will be tackled? We cannot have a system in which children are left in schools that let them down without immediate action. That is what the academies programme sought to address.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has mentioned pay and power. I think they lie behind the Bill, because the education unions opposed at every step under the last Labour Government and under the last Conservative Government. The dinosaur tendency, which we just heard from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), shows that the Government viscerally dislike the freedom of academies, and they turn their face against the transformation of educational outcomes—not least for the poorest—because of ideology rather than a genuine commitment to the child.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I may not believe that of the Labour party generally, but I would believe it to be possible of the hon. Gentleman.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No one can be against the principle of breakfast clubs and efforts to make sure that families do not have excessive charges imposed on them by schools, although we need to look at the specifics. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. I ask the hon. Gentleman, and indeed other Labour Members, to reflect on the speech made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). I chaired the Education Committee from 2010 to 2015, and she and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is on the Front Bench, were distinguished members of that Committee.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Member give a single case of a home-educated child being harmed who was not already known to social services? Again and again, it is a failure of social services when notified, not the absence of a burdensome register for parents, who often home-educate their children out of desperation.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  She was being abused anyway.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As was my right hon. Friend, of course. I do not think that anyone with whom I have been in this House over the last 20 years has a more personal and visceral record of fighting for change in their constituency than the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. Colleagues should consider that before they go into Committee and have the opportunity to reflect on the changes in this legislation, because she knows of what she speaks. She has been heroic in championing the improvement in education in her area, and she has delivered it.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has mentioned previous generations of politicians, and all of us in this House must recognise that we follow in the footsteps of giants. Tony Blair, Lord Adonis and others created the academy system that was built on under the last Conservative Government and brought about a transformation of English education. Why does the Secretary of State want to dismantle decades of work by Members across this House and bring about a gross socialist uniformity that will destroy the progress that has been made?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. Let me begin with the question of the need for a national inquiry into the rape grooming gangs. Given what has been said so far, I challenge colleagues who have opposed the inquiry to name a single proposal from the Jay report that cannot be implemented if we go ahead with it. It really is a matter of “and”. Notwithstanding the political theatre that Labour Members have tried to bring to the debate, the fact that both the Prime Minister and the safeguarding Minister have said that they are open-minded suggests that—sensibly, from a policy point of view and politically—the Labour party may move to the correct position. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), this is a Bill in two parts, which could probably most usefully have been two separate Bills. The first half concerns safeguarding, and, for the most part, my party and I support it; the second concerns schools, and that we most certainly cannot support. Rather than accusing our amendment of being a wrecking amendment, as the Liberal Democrats have rather disappointingly done, they should recognise that the second half of the Bill—the schools element—is the wrecking element, because it makes the important safeguarding improvements part of a Bill that cannot be genuinely supported in this House. There is a troubling theme; a misguided notion that the bureaucrat knows best, as colleagues have suggested—for instance, the proposal to strip academies of the flexibility to set competitive pay for their staff. If the Government were genuinely interested in the levelling up that has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith), why not, as Sir Dan Moynihan, perhaps the nation’s most successful headteacher and trust runner, said at lunch time today, give those academy freedoms to maintained schools? Why rip away the elements that have been used by academies to produce schools such as Michaela which are the best in the country? We have an ideologically driven Labour Government—that certainly applies to those on the Front Bench; I would not want to daub everyone behind the Front Bench with the same description—who cannot even bring themselves to congratulate a school that has been the best in the country for three years in a row. The Government are signalling that they do not trust schools to attract and retain the best teachers, and trust only the Secretary of State to do so. In advocating for new schools to be opened and controlled by local authorities, they remove the contestability. Notwithstanding some of the contradictions in the Secretary of State’s speech, she did describe competition as “harmful”. I represent Beverley and Holderness, and for many years I looked at schools in Hull, where there was a view, expressed sotto voce, that “It is the people here who are the problem”. Generation after generation was failed, and when the academies programme was expanded in 2010, what happened? We saw primary schools leave local authority control en masse. We saw that it was no longer acceptable for a local authority to use its democratic mandate to give a substandard education to the local population. We saw a transformation. We saw academy groups opening up, and teachers and communities seizing that. I cannot believe that Labour Members really want to tear this away when the evidence is crystal clear from the OECD PISA tables. On any measure, English education has become immensely better.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that issue?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that issue, will the Secretary of State give way?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. We can see from the attendance on one side of the Chamber how important charities are to Opposition parties of all sorts. We are united in opposing the change, not least because those who are the most vulnerable, such as users of Citizens Advice, are likely to see services cut. There is an £88,000 impact just on the Citizens Advice service in Hull and East Riding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to go back to her colleagues and change direction? No one voted for a Labour Government to attack charities and the most vulnerable.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that if it turns out that it will cost the NHS more to bring in the changes than it will gain, as colleagues from across the House fear, then it would be worth reviewing them? I know that she is not personally responsible for the initiative.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Health and Adult Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said that 12,000 patients had to stay in hospital beds because of a lack of social care, yet we have it kicked down the road once again. What will Louise Casey tell us that we do not already know about the tough political trade-offs that have led successive Governments to fail to create a truly coherent health and social care system, and what will he do to make sure that we meet needs today, as he exemplified in November?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner: Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have said that part of their inspiration for the Armed Forces Commissioner was such a role in Germany, yet Germany has a parliamentary armed forces commissioner. Why is there that difference and why, in line with what the Minister said in an earlier answer, can we trust the independence of this new appointment?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I talked about the need for fiscal discipline, one element of which is taking at least £12 billion of savings out of the benefits system, because we cannot continue with more and more of us out of work and out of the workforce. Most importantly, I also said that we have to grow the economy first, because that is the only way to sustain it. This Budget had the opposite effect, as the OBR has laid out.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who I am pleased to say honoured his words at the beginning of his speech, quite rightly. I think that is because he has been in this House for some time and knows the difference between legislative intent and legislative outcome. No one believes that the Minister on the Front Bench or other Ministers wilfully want to damage GPs and hospices —how could anyone reasonably want to do that? However, that is the effect of this Budget of broken promises overall, and of the particular measure on national insurance contributions that we are debating today. No one has really explored where this measure came from, but the genesis of it was actually a desire, in the pre-election period, to reassure those with long memories who thought that Labour was not a party of growth. In trying to reassure the nation that Labour was on the side of business, it was saying, “Economic growth is mission No. 1, so if you are an entrepreneur, you can relax, because we are on your side.” The other big fear about Labour Governments over time is that they will come along and raise people’s taxes. Labour therefore came out with very specific pledges and oft-repeated promises again and again, saying that it would not raise an array of taxes, including of course national insurance contributions. That is why Paul Johnson, who is an independent commentator, said that he thought this measure was an absolutely clear breach of that pledge. On coming into power, the Government said there was this £22 billion black hole, and Labour Members have mentioned it again today. I think the hon. Gentleman was notable in not doing so, because he knows there is no substance to it.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given the competition on the Labour Benches, the hon. Gentleman is one of the more honest and up-front Members in addressing some of the issues. Does he regret the exclusion of the various groups we have heard of today, from hospices to social care and childcare? Will he urge Ministers to look at whether they can create a more coherent and joined-up approach, so that the £22 billion—or whatever it is—going into the NHS actually works to improve the healthcare of the nation?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. She rightly highlights interest rates and mortgage payments. Was she disappointed when the OBR’s assessment of the Budget suggested that interest rates were going to stay higher for longer as a result of these measures? I invite her to discuss the topic under discussion today, rather than the past Conservative Government. We can have debates on that, but what we are trying to drill into today are the actions of this Government and their real-world impact on those who can least afford it.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Back Benchers need to speak to their Ministers? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) suggested, the Government cannot have meant to do this deliberately. They could accept our amendments today or move some of the funds for the NHS—the £22 billion or £25 billion, whatever it is—across to this, because the NHS depends on social care and other services. At the moment, the Government risk turning something that could be a triumph for them into a disaster, both for the NHS and, more importantly, for patients and those most in need.