MPs unite to slam cuts to winter fuel payments

Posted on September 23, 2024 by ianchisnall

Today is the second day of the Labour Party conference in Liverpool and last week in Brighton the Liberal Democrats held their conference. Alison Bennett, the Liberal Democrat MP for Mid Sussex, introduced the “Opening of Conference” and commented

“With 72 MPs, we’re committed to reforming social care, supporting carers, fixing the sewage crisis, and improving lives across the UK.”

She also made a reference to Ed Davey’s enjoyment of visiting the Sussex Village of Ditchling to build a new stile with volunteers of ‘The Monday Group’.

On the 10th September Parliament discussed at length the “Winter Fuel Payment”. The significance of that session was that it was the first time that all of the Political Parties took part in the voting since the new Parliament was created. The first vote was focussed “Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 (SI, 2024, No. 869): motion to annul” which obtained 227 MPs in favour and only Labour rejections of 348. The second and final was “Opposition Day, Winter Fuel Payment”, with 213 in favour and 335 rejecting. Nearly all of the Sussex MPs have taken part but Beccy Cooper the Labour MP for Worthing West did not vote or discuss and neither did Nusrat Ghani the Conservative for Sussex Weald. Along with Nusrat there were a few other Sussex MPs that did speak before the two sessions were Andrew Griffith, Mims Davies, Kieran Mullan and Alison Griffith for Conservatives. There was also Helena Dollimore for Labour and Jessica Brown-Fuller for Liberal Democrat.

The result showed 52 MPs had no vote recorded, including some ministers. It is not yet known how many of those were abstaining, as some MPs may have been absent for another reason. Some news items included comment from some pensioners expressing they did not require the winter fuel payment. However, in Parliament MP’s expressed views from their constituents.

Andrew Griffith, Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs said

“My hon. Friend is making a powerful, emotive speech and quite rightly talking about some of the impacts on pensioners. Does she agree that those are exactly the impacts that should be captured in an impact assessment and brought before the House so that we can make an informed decision and that my 25,000 constituents in Arundel and South Downs, who may face a loss if the motion is not agreed to, are increasingly talking about Rachel Reeves as “Reckless Rachel” in proceeding with this measure?”

Mims Davies, Conservative MP for East Grinsted and Uckfield said

“Government Members will troop through the Lobby again, as fodder for an out-of-touch Prime Minister, or they may abstain to avoid the eyes of the Chancellor, deep in the hope that spraying billions of pounds on gimmicks like a shell company called GB Energy will be worth it. They must be aware that they will have to face people in their communities who will want to understand why a few millionaires were worth the attack on millions. Let us take June. She told the BBC that she will struggle to stay warm this winter. She is already planning her jumpers, cardigans and candles. My constituent Valerie from East Grinstead wrote to me—one of almost 20,000 affected—and said: “I am 80 years old and live on a State Pension of less than £11k, not the…£13k that I keep reading about… I don’t know who gets that much but I certainly don’t!” She goes on to say that it will be “a long, cold winter… please do what you can to get this dreadful decision reversed.” Labour Members could join us in the Lobby to back pensioners like Valerie.”

Kieran Mullan, Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle said

“We, in partnership with the Liberal Democrats, managed to keep winter fuel payments in those circumstances. I rise to express my strong opposition to the Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners, a move that will strip vital financial support from thousands of my constituents—people who have contributed to our country and helped to build it. The impact in Bexhill and Battle will be profound: Age UK estimates that more than 25,000 pensioners will lose their winter fuel payment as a result of this decision. I hope the Government understand just how significant their decision is in constituencies such as mine.”

Jessica Brown-Fuller, Liberal Democrat MP for Chichester, described,

“In Chichester, we have 24,000 pensioners who are not receiving pension credits, many of whom sit just above the threshold—constituents such as Sherry, who is 80 and registered disabled. She has to maintain an even living temperature to deal with conditions while living in a 100-year-old cottage with poor insulation. Roy and his wife are in their late 80s and have burned through their meagre savings covering their rising energy bills during this cost of living crisis. Vicky writes to me about having to choose between eating and heating in the current winter months because she will not be able to afford to do both… Cutting the winter fuel allowance in the midst of a cost of living crisis will leave thousands of elderly individuals across Chichester and millions across the UK without the financial support they need to stay warm and healthy this winter. With the price cap due to rise in October, it could be argued that the winter fuel allowance is needed this winter more than ever.”

Posted in Parliament and Democracy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Parliament discussed the Murder of Patrick Finucane

Posted on September 22, 2024 by ianchisnall

There was a debate about ‘Patrick Finucane Murder’ a couple of days before the closure of Parliament on September 11th organised by Hilary Benn, Labour ‘The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’ and the MP for Leeds South. Along with his comment there were several other MPs including one from Sussex, James MacCleary Liberal Democrat the Lewes MP.  All of the discussion obtained, from here and the beginning of the session from Hilary was as follows:

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the death of Patrick Finucane. Patrick Finucane was a human rights lawyer. On 12 February 1989, he was brutally murdered in his home in north Belfast by loyalist paramilitary group the Ulster Defence Association, in front of his wife, Geraldine, who was wounded, and his three children, one of whom is now John Finucane. From that day onwards, Mrs Finucane and her family have campaigned tirelessly in search of answers about the killing of their loved one.

Several other MPs spoke and he responded. Here is the comment from James MacCleary and the response from Hilary:

James MacCleary: The murder of Patrick Finucane remains a shocking crime even now, 35 years on, and even in the context of so many tragedies that took place during the troubles in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the thoughts of everyone in the House are with the family of Patrick Finucane, as mine are. They have suffered for so long waiting for answers after that terrible day, and I hope that the independent inquiry announced by the Secretary of State will go some way towards bringing at least some closure for the family after all these decades.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his announcement of the independent inquiry, but does he agree that there is a need to acknowledge the wider need for truth and justice in Northern Ireland? In contrast to the shadow Secretary of State, Alex Burghart, I ask him whether he will come to the House with a wider statement on repealing the legacy and reconciliation Act, which of course the Liberal Democrats opposed in the last Parliament, and talk more widely about the role of legacy in Northern Ireland, which of course is so important. Can I also ask the Secretary of State to clarify the ability of this inquiry to compel documents and witnesses, and like others, can I ask about the timescales of the inquiry? I am sure he agrees that Patrick Finucane’s family have waited long enough already.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the inquiry, and I am very happy to give him and all Members of the House an assurance that as we develop our proposals, I am in the process of talking to lots of people about how to give effect to the “repeal and replace” commitment that was in the Gracious Speech. I will, of course, come back to the House with proposals in due course and keep it informed. The honest answer to the question he and other Members have put is that I want to get on with this inquiry as soon as possible, but I have certain duties that I have to undertake in order to give effect to it. However, after this long period of time, let us get going with this inquiry as soon as we possibly can.

Posted in Parliament and Democracy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Canterbury Archbishop and Bishop spoke about Sudan

Posted on September 21, 2024 by ianchisnall

On Friday 13th of September, in the House of Lords there was a discussion about the “Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]” The Bill was introduced by Baroness Northover, read a first time and ordered to be printed.” This was followed by “Sudan – Motion to Take Note” and it then states “That this House takes note of the situation in Sudan.”

Ray Collins, a Labour Minister, named Baron Collins of Highbury, organised the discussion about Sudan and his words along with a number of others can be seen here:

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to have an in-depth debate about the crisis in Sudan, one of the most pressing humanitarian emergencies of our time. It is clear from their presence here today that noble Lords share my concerns over the gravity of the situation. The world is not paying enough attention, and we must keep it in the spotlight in order to galvanise further international action and support.

The contributions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and the Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines can be shown below:

Archbishop of Canterbury is from here:

I too am grateful to the Minister for arranging this debate, in which we are hearing extraordinary expertise—with some exceptions. In particular, there are former Ministers for Africa. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has had an extraordinarily distinguished career, and I look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. The speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was truly remarkable.

It is noticeable in what we have heard so far that the history of Sudan has been very present to us. I echo the words we have heard more than once: that this is not simply a conflict between two major power groups seeking power in Sudan. It is based in the fragility of a society that has seen war more than it has seen peace since Sudan became independent—both in what is now South Sudan and in Sudan itself.

Sudan is already a human catastrophe on an extraordinary scale. It is using vast quantities of humanitarian aid and, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that leads only to the most temporary of solutions. In Sudan and elsewhere, crisis follows crisis, and countries like our own are caught between the equally atrocious options of sticking plasters or ignoring the crises. We often have warnings. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Leeds spoke about his visit in June to Khartoum and the extraordinary Archbishop Ezekiel Kondo, with whom I spoke about a month before the war broke out. He said, “We sit in Khartoum with two armed groups looking at each other over the sights of their guns, and imminently, there is going to be trouble”. It was not a surprise.

In that context, I want to acknowledge and welcome the cross-party support, the very hard work of the FCDO, and the Minister’s clear speech. I start with one word of caution. The Minister rightly said that we must return to proper, democratic civilian rule, but as we have seen elsewhere, peace with an authoritarian Government is better than no peace at all. I hope that that is not so much of a red line that we will not work to establish the ceasefire and stability that will enable civilians to take over.

We cannot, and do not, abandon victims of war to famine. However, beyond the cause of humanitarian aid, there lie deeper questions for this debate. How can we anticipate such disasters, and what means are there to prevent them or cure them once they happen, whether in Sudan or elsewhere? I think especially of the DRC. How do we wage peace—be those to whom Jesus refers in the Beatitudes as blessed, and known as children of God?

The security and defence review, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, presents an important and welcome opportunity to build a new pillar in the way we structure our defence and security operations. It was a pillar notably absent from the two integrated reviews, an issue I will come back to in a moment. A peacebuilding option, well developed and acting in areas of fragility, would extend our influence, protect our interests and, as has been said several times, guard against fresh waves of migration. I already hear anecdotally from within the diocese of Canterbury that I serve, and its south coast, that those meeting people landing in boats find that a very high proportion are coming from Sudan.

The problem in Sudan is historically driven. It goes right back to the 1950s and to the settlement made by the Government of that time, which Churchill described as Munich on the Nile. The horrors of a long civil war have led to the division of the country once and its incapacity to avoid further divisions as we go forward. Therefore, I want to suggest to the Minister that we need to invest longer term in broader reconciliation resources, specifically designed with partners to find peaceful solutions.

In other words, the strategic defence review should be full spectrum, preparing this nation not only to wage war but to wage peace as well. I fear that may not be the case, but even if it does not happen in the SDR, I hope very much that the Government, in particular the FCDO, will look very carefully at putting such mechanisms in place—not least, in our current times in this country, for reasons of economy. Stopping conflict before it happens via peaceful political solutions should be central to any root and branch redesign of security and defence.

Our influence in sub-Saharan Africa remains enormous. Our expertise is very considerable, both in civil society among the Churches, where, for example, the Anglican Communion has its largest percentage of members, and through government and the long experience we have of understanding issues there. The work of peacebuilding not only saves lives but saves vast amounts of taxpayers’ money for defence, for migration control and from humanitarian aid. It can be used expertly in contexts where our military would, rightly, never operate in force, yet where strategic foreign policy must work, such as in the context of securing critical minerals for the global transition to renewable energies from countries such as the DRC. Reducing the need for emergency funding, reducing destruction and reducing the dangers of vastly increased immigration are in our interests.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, made a very powerful point when she spoke of seeing Wagner in Khartoum. We are engaged in supporting Ukraine and, as a global power, we must look globally in the offshoots of that conflict, which we are seeking to diminish. The recent creation of the FCDO’s negotiations and peace process support team is an attempt at this, but it is, frankly, underfunded, understaffed and held within a limited FCDO remit. Thus, as my last comment, I suggest that we should see the creation of a joint reconciliation unit, staffed by intelligence, conflict analysts and military, civilian and trade specialists, complemented by experienced international negotiators and underpinned by relations with NGOs and faith groups, for most of these conflicts are in areas of high levels of belief. It should report to the National Security Council, because it is a matter of security. Crises happen, and they will go on, but we can do far better to be more effective and secure our own interests in the long term.

Bishop of Leeds is from here

My Lords, it is always a daunting honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the previous speakers. Like them, I have some considerable experience of Sudan, having been there a number of times and had dealings not just at the political level but on the ground, among very real and ordinary communities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this debate.

Behind the statistics, there are human beings and stories; 25 million people going hungry could be just a number until you look individuals in the eye. Dig a little deeper and the whole situation in Sudan is much more complicated than simply two generals having a scrap. What we can say with confidence is this: military violence, including the bombing of children, women and ordinary civilians, is appalling. It is often indiscriminate, especially when unleashed by the RSF in what increasingly looks like deliberate and intentional genocide in parts of Sudan. A humanitarian catastrophe has exploded in plain sight of the world and its Governments, with food shortages; the closing down of access for humanitarian aid from neighbouring countries; famine; malnutrition; and a generation of children who are being starved, made homeless and given no medical care or education.

As the director of the World Food Programme told us at the APPG, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton:

“Avoidable famine is no longer a threat—it is a reality now”.

Future harvests are now in serious doubt. What will the consequences of that be? Do not be surprised if masses of Sudanese seek refuge through irregular immigration in this and other countries if the UK seeks to address the current crisis without addressing the consequent implications for a destabilised region: the wider corruption of civil society in Sudan and neighbouring countries; challenges in establishing future legitimate government with civil society engagement in a now-destroyed nation; and, one day, the challenge of reconstruction.

It is evident that elements associated with the RSF are seeking to kill Sudanese history, culture and identity in order to replace it with a different narrative, although there is not time to explain what I am referring to here. There are no simple or simply achievable solutions. We cannot urge action in this place to salve our consciences if our messaging, however well intentioned and humane, does not change anything on the ground for those both with and without power.

Against government advice but with deep respect to the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad—he has been completely supportive and honourable in my engagement with Sudan; I note that the consul from the Sudanese embassy is present in the Chamber for this morning’s debate—I visited Port Sudan in June with a colleague, the Bishop of Bradford. The diocese of Leeds has nearly half a century of strong relationships with the Episcopal Church in Sudan. Like the Church of England here, the Church in Sudan exists not for its own sake but for the sake of the people of Sudan. Despite massive threat and displacement, the bishops and clergy have largely stayed in situ. The Archbishop of Sudan, Ezekiel Kondo, saw everything in Khartoum destroyed by the RSF and escaped only with his life and the clothes he stood up in. Now based in Port Sudan, he runs the province from a small desk in the corner of his bedroom in a tiny, basic rented house.

While in Port Sudan, the Bishop of Bradford and I visited a camp for displaced people. Around 2,000 people live in a derelict school. Because they were internally displaced and are therefore not refugees, they receive no support for health, education or food—just a few tents from UNICEF. The night after we visited, a delegation came to see us and told us that at least one woman had been raped by soldiers in the early hours after we had left. We met a pastor, now also living in exile from Khartoum. His home was attacked by the RSF, and all he had had been destroyed. He was beaten a number of times before being asked, “How do you want to die?” He was rescued by a Muslim neighbour who hid him until he could escape and get to Port Sudan, mostly on foot.

We had time there with the director of central intelligence, who said that there was no restriction on what I could report of our conversation in my diocese or in this House. His narrative is one with which I am very familiar: the conflict is not a conflict of equals. The SAF and the Government are seeking to secure the future of Sudan. The RSF are rebels who seek their own gain, deploy violent mercenaries from other countries and kill indiscriminately, with a clear suggestion that they will settle for the possible division of the country. It was put to me that, when people need sanctuary, they do not flee to the open arms of the RSF or their controlled areas but to places controlled by the SAF. That is just a fact.

The case put by the current Sudanese Government is clear. The international community—especially the UK, as pen holder of the UN, along with our deep connections with Sudan over decades—must work to stop the flow of arms and money to the RSF, particularly from the United Arab Emirates. However, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Russia and others are also involved in this tragedy. Someone is profiting from the arms flow, and it is not the starving, suffering people of Sudan. Governments must apply pressure via sanctions and co-ordinated action—by a reinvigorated troika, for example—to cut off the flow. Surely the priority of a ceasefire, urged by many involved parties, is only possible once that arms flow has been stopped.

When a ceasefire becomes possible, who is going to lead the mediation? Many countries that wish to are directly involved on one side or the other. Calling for a ceasefire sounds noble until we dig into the pragmatics of how to make it happen. Also, if a ceasefire simply freezes the divisions that are there now on the ground and both sides keep the territory they control at that point, where do we go from there?

We cannot simply wait for the conflict to end or be ended. The international community must press hard now for protected access points to be opened across the country in order that millions of lives can be saved and a viable future for the children of Sudan can be opened up. Children must be prioritised if the seeds of the next several generations of violence, power struggles and poverty are not to be watered so freely in the blood-soaked violence of now.

The UK Government and partners must leverage all their resources and political power to cut off the arms flow and create the conditions where any credible ceasefire might create the space for negotiation. Failure to address this catastrophe now will only lead to increasingly uncontrollable consequences elsewhere, with further destabilisation of an already fragile region. For example, oil gelling in the pipelines will diminish South Sudan’s economy and add to economic and humanitarian challenges. Mass irregular migration will be a consequence, and so on. So I agree with the call for all diplomatic means, as the Minister said. It is essential that the new special envoy must physically get into Sudan. I have to say that Port Sudan, when I was there, was safer than London. We need a physical, visible presence, even if it is only on a regular visit. Other ambassadors and envoys are doing this.

The Church of England’s love for our sisters and brothers in Sudan will not diminish. We will continue not only to pray but to act, caring for the Sudanese expat community here and those in Sudan whom we can reach. We might justify the UK government advice again and visit the people we love. For us in the Christian Church, faith is incarnational: fleshed, physical and material. I urge the Minister in his response to give assurances that Sudan will gain in focus and not be left on the “too complicated” pile. I hope that the Minister will be willing to meet with me and others to pursue this further engagement.

Posted in Church Teaching, Parliament and Democracy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Bishop of Norwich speaks for Infants and Parents

Posted on September 20, 2024 by ianchisnall

On Friday 6th September in the House of Lords there was a discussion about the “Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL] – Second Reading” Lord Michael Farmer, the Conservative member of the House of Lords and several other people corresponded including the Bishop of Norwich, Graham Usher.

His contribution is included below. All of the other comments are available from here.

My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for speaking in the gap. I did not expect to contribute today, but listening to the contributions so far, I was struck by the crossover with work underway by the Church and the Mothers’ Union, particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned the role of churches and faith communities.

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the right honourable Dame Andrea Leadsom on their work on this issue. Churches across the country offer support to new families and parents, providing spaces for parents to meet, share experiences and be directed to support, if needed. They provide child development services through toddler and children groups, which are essential for the formation of children before they start nursery or reception classes in school. Through Messy Church and these toddler groups, hundreds of churches are already implementing many of The Best Start for Life recommendations. Churches are delivering perhaps more than 18 of the 24 recommendations and are often partnering with local authorities to develop joint working on issues that affect all our communities.

I have seen work such as the project “Who Let the Dads Out?”. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, mentioned his attendance at antenatal classes, which brought back many memories for me, although I imagine that my wife would say that they were not much use. How we support dads to be good dads is an important area for a national conversation. We must enable good role models, where being a good dad is about love, support, patience and commitment, all aspects that are very important in fatherhood. That was identified in the Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households report Love Matters and the recommendations it raises. A copy of that report is in the Library. It recognised that we must value families in all their diversity, that we need to support relationships throughout life, that we need to honour singleness and single person households, that we need to empower children and young people and that we must build a kinder, fairer and more forgiving society.

The noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke about the scourge of poverty. In my own diocese, in Dersingham in the west of Norfolk, a wonderful charity, Baby Basics, fills Moses baskets with all the essentials for those first few weeks of being a parent. An incredible group of volunteers does that work. Its referrals have increased hugely from 49 in 2019 to around 400 last year, supporting some of the poorest young families in west Norfolk.

There is much to be commended in this Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on bringing it forward, and I give it my support.

Posted in Church Teaching, Parliament and Democracy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Conservative references Labour conference in Brighton

Posted on September 19, 2024 by ianchisnall

On Friday 6th September in the House of Lords there was a discussion about “Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL] – Second Reading. Lord Farmer, Michael Farmer, is a Conservative who has been part of the House of Lords for nearly ten years. He published the article making an initial statement followed by the Labour Lord Blunkett, David Blunkett, the MP for Sheffield from 1987-2015, he became a member of the House of Lords on October 2015.  Michael Farmer closed the discussion by saying “I thank all noble Lords. I was very honoured by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, saying that it was a granddaughter of Sure Start. I should mention that I once attended a Labour conference in Brighton on a very blustery day.” Here is this link and the whole of the text from Michael Farmer.

My Lords, I should start by welcoming my right honourable friend Dame Andrea Leadsom. I was not aware that she was on the steps of the Throne, and I welcome her here today to hear this debate. Obviously, I am saddened and disappointed by the Government’s response. However, I want to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has been wide-ranging; a lot of deep thought has been put into it and there has been agreement from all sides of the House on this matter.

In answer to the Government, we are talking about information. I understand the Government’s argument that they are working on a comprehensive plan for families and children for addressing poverty among children, but this is just a small point about getting information out, and information can deal with a lot of problems quite quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked about poverty, and we have heard from other people. I have found throughout my life that poverty is caused by a lack of information. When we learn something, it helps us to deal with it. I ask the Government, if they are not supporting this Bill, that they might nevertheless instruct departments to encourage councils to improve information given to families on what services are available for the whole natal area—prenatal, perinatal and antenatal. It seems to me that it would not be that difficult without a statute to get departments of government to see this as important, because lack of information is causing so many problems—I come back to the poverty issue as well.

I thank all noble Lords. I was very honoured by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, saying that it was a granddaughter of Sure Start. I should mention that I once attended a Labour conference in Brighton on a very blustery day. I was placarding a meeting about family hubs. I was being blown about all over the place and all of a sudden I heard, “Lord Farmer, what are you doing in enemy territory?”. I turned around and there was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I said, “Family hubs, family hubs. Building on Labour’s Sure Start centres.” That is what family hubs are doing, so I really press that point.

I thank noble Lords for some very good contributions; I hope that the Government will pay attention to them and move quickly, even in this area. I would be very happy to work with the Minister. I thank her for the meeting and the advice. Obviously, it is disappointing—this is a simple Bill that could be enacted quite quickly and would bring immediate benefit—but things are as they are. With thanks to all noble Lords who contributed, I would still like to press on.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Posted in Brighton & Hove, Parliament and Democracy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Sheffield Bishop questions Education Arts & Humanities

Posted on September 18, 2024 by ianchisnall

Back on the 1st May 2024 the House of Lords focused on a session called “Higher Education: Arts and Humanities – Question“. The Earl of Clancarty, Nicholas Trench, opened the discussion and several people contributed to it including The Bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox. The Conservative Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities), Baroness Barran, Diana Barran responded. The whole discussion is placed here

The initial comment from Nicholas Trench was:

Nicholas Trench: To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent announcements of proposed university staff cuts, what steps they are taking to support the study of the arts and humanities in higher education.

Diana Barran: My Lords, we recognise the importance of the creative and performing arts to our economy. While some higher education providers have seen decreases in arts and humanities staff, academic staff numbers across England rose by 1.9% between 2019-20 and 2022-23 to 21,640.

A few moments later the Bishop of Sheffield contributed:

Pete Wilcox: My Lords, almost every armed conflict in the world at present has a religious dimension, making informed and respectful dialogue increasingly critical for international peace and security. In that context, the steady decline in the numbers of those studying religion, theology and ethics in our higher education institutions is a cause for real concern. Given the dearth of graduates in these subjects at present, can the Minister tell us how the Government will nurture the necessary religious literacy of our public life in the coming years?

Diana Barran: This is a very important subject and, I may say, goes wider in terms of critical thinking and understanding the information that we receive both in reality and online. I do not have the specific figures for religious studies on their own, but historical, philosophical and religious studies have declined over the last three years, as the right reverend Prelate said, but only by 5%. Multiple issues impact on that, but I think we also see young people seeking debate, and the moves that we have made as a Government on free speech within our universities are critical to underpinning that.

Posted in Church Teaching, Education, Parliament and Democracy, Youth Issues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

MPs vote on changes to Budget body bill

Posted on September 17, 2024 by ianchisnall

The Party conferences continue until 2nd October but earlier in September voting took place in Parliament for two Bills. Wednesday, the 4th of September was the Budget Responsibility Bill with two amendments listed as 2 and 9, Nusrat Ghani from Sussex Weald explained amendment 2 as

“(2A) In any case where the Office has acted in accordance with subsection (2), it may notify the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests of the circumstances in any case where it considers those circumstances may be relevant to— (a) the Ministerial Code, or (b) the functions of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.”

Amendment 9 was explained by the Shadow Financial Secretary (Treasury) Nigel Huddleston from Droitwich and Evesham who states “(c) or any changes to the government’s fiscal targets.” Many comments formed the discussion before the voting occurred. Andrew Griffith the Arundel and South Downs MP spoke

“My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech on the importance of being responsible with our public finances. Much of the Bill is concerned with responsibility and transparency. Does he know whether the Government published an impact assessment when they took away the winter fuel allowance?”

When voting took place, both amendments were rejected by Labour MPs including all six Sussex Labour MPs. Amendment 2 was endorsed by the Liberal Democrats including all of the Sussex Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru with no Conservative support. However, Amendment 9 was supported by the Conservative, including most of the Sussex Conservatives and several DUP’s. On Thursday 5th of September, a focused debate on the “Great British Energy Bill” with two amendments. The first amendment named “Great British Energy Bill: Reasoned Amendment to Second Reading” was endorsed by Conservatives including all of the Sussex Conservatives MPs and a DUP MP. Labour and Green MPs voted ‘No’ but Chris Ward, the Labour MP from Brighton Kemptown, did not vote at all. The second vote was “Great British Energy Bill: Second Reading” with Labour and Greens approving the amendment and the Conservatives and a DUP opposing. It was clear that the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru and SNPs did not vote for either of them! It was fascinating to read Nusrat Ghani’s ‘mini speech’ during the debate as she referred to how MPs need to follow the process of “bobbing”, meaning to ‘catch the eye of the Speaker’, during questions in Parliament. She said

“I thought I would offer some tips to colleagues in the Chamber. If you are bobbing, you will be called. If you are on the list, but are not bobbing, you are indicating to the Chair or the Speaker that you no longer wish to be called, so if you hope to be called, bob throughout the debate. If you are on the list and committed to bobbing, but leave the Chamber, you are indicating to the Chair or the Speaker that you no longer wish to be a priority on the list. However, you can speak to the Chair or the Speaker and ask permission to leave and return, and you will then remain where you were in the priority list. Unless Members stand, I do not know whether they wish to contribute to the debate, so who wishes to bob?”

Today is the third day of the Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference here in Brighton with their final day tomorrow. Their conference describes

“Join us to catch-up with friends, participate in discussions, hear from the experts, vote on motions, ask questions, visit the exhibition and get world class training – there’s something for everyone.”

Hopefully next week we can read some of their words. Last weekend the Green Party had their Autumn Conference in Manchester and Paul Corry took the opportunity to make a speech in recognition of their recent achievements.

“We couldn’t celebrate the party’s success without offering our heartfelt thanks to the UK’s first ever Green MP – Caroline Lucas. A trail blazer whose integrity, grace, passion, intelligence and courage is the embodiment of a better politics.  Caroline, we stand on your shoulders, and we have learned so much from you. What ambition looks like, how to inspire others, and how to articulate a positive vision that fills people with hope. Your achievements are legendary and we will be paying tribute to them more fully a little later but for now, on behalf of all the new Green MPs, and everyone in our party – thank you.  So, it just leaves me to say my biggest thank you – thank you to everyone who is on this journey with us – in this room today and right across the country. Whether you were a first time Green voter or have voted Green every time you had the opportunity. Whether you knocked on hundreds of doors or chatted to your neighbours over the garden fence, or your family at Sunday lunch.  Whether this is your fiftieth conference, or your first – I’m told there are hundreds of you in the room joining us for the first time.  Whether you opened up your home and hosted an action day or just (just) opened up your hearts to our message of hope. Thank you. Together we can keep on making history, keep on doing politics better and keep on delivering a brighter, fairer future. The ambitious, positive, inspiring future you have all helped demonstrate it’s possible to choose. This is what real change looks like – it looks like you.”  

Posted in Parliament and Democracy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Deborah Bull asked Arts and Cultural Heritage question

Posted on September 15, 2024 by ianchisnall

Deborah Bull, also known as Baroness Bull entered the House of Lords in 2018 and she asks many questions and statements. She is described as an English dancer, writer, broadcaster and former creative director of the Royal Opera House and joined King’s College London as Director, Cultural Partnerships in 2012.

The Labour Party politician, Fiona Twycross, referred as Baroness Twycross in the House of Lords, responded to her question on 2nd August. The detail of the question and response is here  So far two people have referred expressed that the question has been answered. Here are the details.

Deborah Bull: To ask His Majesty’s Government how the creative industries, arts, and heritage sectors will be represented in Government, and how the interests of these sectors will be protected.

Fiona Twycross: We are in the early stages of the new Government and Ministers are considering the full range of policy options to support the creative industries, arts and heritage sectors to thrive and meet our manifesto commitments. These sectors play a central part in providing good jobs and wages in every part of our country and will be a key part of delivering on the government’s missions. They are a key driver of economic growth, they help shape our national identity and they bring enjoyment and fulfilment to many millions every week. They are a key sector and we are conscious that we cannot help them thrive without engaging directly with them at every stage of developing our economic and industrial strategy.

Along with this question, Deborah referred to a statement on 5th September for “Independent Schools: VAT Exemption – Motion to Take Note” that can be found here and she is listed as the Deputy Chairman of Committee, Deputy Speaker (Lords).

My Lords, the disparity of outcomes between private and state school pupils is well evidenced, and I welcome the commitment to equalise opportunities by rebalancing investment, but I hope Ministers will heed calls for more nuance in how proposed changes are applied.

As we have heard, “private schools” is a catch-all term, encompassing both schools paid for by choice and schools providing specialist education for pupils whose needs cannot be met in the state sector. I share concerns already expressed in relation to special educational needs, but I will use my time to expand on the concerns that the draft legislation inadvertently captures a small number of schools providing education for another group of children whose needs cannot be met by the state sector—by which I mean schools providing world-class music and dance vocational training to exceptionally talented children, regardless of background or ability to pay.

Successive Governments since the 1970s have recognised that if gifted dancers and musicians are to achieve their potential, they need a level and intensity of training that is impossible to achieve within the structure of a standard curriculum. In 1973, the Yehudi Menuhin and Royal Ballet Schools became direct grant aided, with means-tested DfE support for talented children from low-income families.

I declare an interest here, as I was one of those children. I joined the Royal Ballet School in 1974. The fees were well beyond my parents’ means, but they had no choice, because professional ballet training must start young if a dancer is going to compete in a global marketplace. It takes 10 years of daily practice under expert tuition to achieve the flexibility, speed and strength that characterise world-class performance, and those 10 years must take place before puberty sets in.

DfE’s music and dance scheme was established in 1981 as the successor to direct grant aid. The nine designated schools in England and Scotland have little in common with typical private schools. They recruit on talent first, and the majority of parents would not, in other circumstances, choose private education. At non-specialist private schools, around 7% of students receive a bursary or means-tested support. At music and dance scheme schools, it is 90%. The schools are costly to run, requiring specialist, world-class teachers, equipment, studios and theatre spaces, but there is no wealthy parent body, no large endowments and no eligibility for government building maintenance grants.

Earlier this year, the now Prime Minister spoke of the country’s

“huge talent … waiting to be unlocked”, promising that people from every background and every region would have the opportunities they deserve. The Music and Dance Scheme is pivotal to this ambition, removing barriers to entry and allowing children from diverse backgrounds to dream of a career at the highest level. But 12 years of funding freeze mean the schools are already operating at full stretch. Further financial pressure will impact on quality of training, reduce diversity in the student body and severely impact the UK’s ability to produce the home-grown, world-class talent for which it is renowned.

This legislation aims to break down barriers to opportunity, but including these specialist schools in its scope will have the opposite effect. Prodigiously gifted children with the potential to become world-class artists need specialist education from a very early age, education that will never be possible in the standard curriculum. Raising barriers to entry will mean that only the most advantaged children will be able to access the training fundamental to career success. I would not have become a ballet dancer.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, in asking the Minister: will she convene a round table with interested parties and experts to explore how this legislation can avoid irreparably damaging the schools that underpin the UK’s success on the world stage?

Posted in Parliament and Democracy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Southwark Bishop focused on Independent Schools

Posted on September 10, 2024 by ianchisnall

On Thursday 5th September a debate took place in the House of Lords that was listed as “Independent Schools: VAT Exemption – Motion to Take Note“. The session was opened by Lord Lexden, a Conservative member of the House of Lords based in Essex. He began with;

“Moved by Lord Lexden That this House takes note of the contribution of independent schools, and any potential effects that changes to the VAT exemption for independent school fees could have.”

A number of people took part in the session including The Bishop of Southwark who is also referred as Christopher Chessun. His contribution and the rest of the session can be seen here and his comment is listed below:

My Lords, the Government’s intention to levy value added tax in this area was a manifesto commitment at the general election. The Government entertain a well-evidenced belief that parents purchase an economic and social benefit for their children’s future through private schooling. Whatever the experience any of your Lordships have had of such schooling, the undoubted premium placed on forming character or the excellence in pastoral care that some of these schools exhibit, the Government nevertheless have a mandate for change. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, underlined the pressing need for more teachers in our state schools.

However, who will and who will not be affected by this change is a worthy subject of debate. I am happy to say that both the boys’ and girls’ choirs at Southwark Cathedral are almost entirely drawn from state schools, and are consequently unaffected by the VAT change. Furthermore, a number of schools in my diocese offering provision for special educational needs and disabilities have their places funded by the local authorities. But there are cathedral and choir schools, and private schools, with provision for special educational needs that will be severely affected by the change that the Government intend. Many of these are small schools, and therefore the impact will be disproportionately severe.

The briefing provided by the House of Lords Library refers to some 20% of pupils in this sector receiving provision for SEND, which is of undoubted public benefit, but of these, only 6.9% have an education, health and care plan. This suggests that there is a significant element of special needs provision that is currently covered by private funding, and which cannot be absorbed by local education authority budgets if private places become unaffordable. Furthermore, if some small and medium-sized schools that provide SEND then become unviable, the general SEND capacity in the country, already overstretched, becomes yet smaller. A question, therefore, needs to be asked—and I ask it of the Minister—as to the appropriateness of removing the exemption at such short notice in January 2025, as other noble Peers have already said, with little time to adjust budgets.

Finally, there is the distinctive yet gloriously diverse world of cathedral and choir schools, which continue to safeguard and feed the English choral tradition. They are intimately bound up with their localities, drawing choristers from a wide social background, and have a very significant impact on the choral and musical life of this nation. I will cite some detail from one of them: a 100% bursary fee remission for local children who are very talented musically but whose parents cannot afford any fees, with numerous other pupils who are in receipt of 75% or more remission—the focus now being on remitting fees, rather than on awarding scholarships, to increase social inclusion.

I am a grammar school boy and I could not sing the “Eton Boating Song” if you paid me, yet I am deeply concerned about the adverse and unintended consequences which this manifesto commitment will have unless it is applied with much greater sensitivity—and possibly also phased in—affecting, as this does, the enormous variety of private school provision, about which we have heard and which is committed to public benefit.

Posted in Church Teaching, Education, Youth Issues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Winter fuel allowance remains a hot topic

Posted on September 9, 2024 by ianchisnall

This week is a short in Parliament as it closes this Thursday and it won’t open again until Monday 7th October. One of the significant themes from last week included the creation of some new Early Day Motions. Dr Beccy Cooper, the Labour Worthing West MP, published one on the 2nd of September. Peter Lamb, representing Crawley has endorsed it although two Labour MPs, one Green and one DUP MP have signed. The subject is

“Gambling regulations: That this House notes with concern that the most recent regulations on gambling are from the Gambling Act 2005; considers the need for further affordability checks, levies and advertising limits following the rise of online gambling since 2005; and calls on the Government to act swiftly to implement the recommendations of the Gambling Reform White Paper 2023.”

Rishi Sunak raised an EDM, presented in Parliament as a

‘Prayer’ “Social Security: That a humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 (S.I., 2024, No. 869), dated 22 August 2024, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 August 2024, be annulled.”

So far on 3rd September, 71 signatures, all Conservatives apart from one Independent and one DUP member signed. Kieran Mullan, Bexhill and Battle and Mims Davies for East Grinstead and Uckfield signed. Sussex Liberal Democrat MP Jess Brown-Fuller endorsed an EDM from her colleague in Scotland one on 2nd September was

“Withdrawal of the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024: That this House calls on the Government to withdraw the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024.”

Along with Jess the other four Sussex Liberal Democrats endorsed it and four Green MPs including Sian Berry. At least 77 people signed it in the first two days. A “Technology in Public Services” debate was introduced by Sussex Labour Minister, Peter Kyle. Alison Griffiths, the Bognor Regis and Littlehampton Conservative spoke; ‘Does the Minister agree that it is important to use AI to save taxpayers’ money by doing the basics, such as setting up an automated online booking system for hospital appointments rather than sending out letters that we all fail to respond to?’ The “Passenger Railway Services Bill (Public Ownership)” debate took place on Tuesday followed by votes for three Amendments. The Amendment, number 14, reflects that Public Sector Contracts have a duty to

“to consider the needs of—(a) passengers; (b) residents of rural areas; (c) residents of areas underserved by the rail network; and (d) the wider rail network when considering making changes to existing service levels.”

Amendment number 17 states the importance of an

“Independent body to advise on pay and terms and conditions of employment for employees of public sector companies (1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the coming into force of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, establish an independent body with responsibility for— (a) providing advice to Government on the— (i) remuneration, and (ii) terms and conditions of employment of employees of the public sector companies providing passenger railway services under a contract awarded in accordance with section 30(1A); (b) advising the Government on value for money during the negotiation of the terms and conditions of employment of employees of the public sector companies providing passenger railway services under a contract awarded in accordance with section 30(1A); and (c) preparing an annual report to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State on the terms and conditions of employment of employees of the public sector companies providing passenger railway services under a contract awarded in accordance with section 30(1A). (2) Advice provided in accordance with subsections (1)(a) and (b) shall be based on annual investigations of working practices conducted by the independent body and consider— (a) value for money; (b) affordability; (c) domestic and international comparators; (d) the future of the rail network, including the modernisation of working practices. (3) Advice provided in accordance with subsection (1)(b) shall include advice on whether any conflicts of interest exist between any Government Minister and any union involved in the negotiation of the terms and conditions of employment, and how any such conflicts should be managed. (4) An annual report under subsection (1)(c) shall include a comparison with the terms and conditions of employment under the franchise which provided the relevant passenger railway services prior to the awarding of a contract in accordance with section 30(1A). (5) The first annual report under subsection (1)(c) must be laid before Parliament within twelve months of the first award of a public sector contract in accordance with section 30(1A).”

Amendment, number 21, advised a

“Annual report on ticketing effects of public service contracts to include (a) ticket pricing, (b) tap-in, tap-out options, (c) single-leg pricing, (d) digital season tickets, (e) compensation for delays and cancellations, (f) ticketing interoperability with (i) other train operators, and (ii) bus and light rail system operators.   recommended that The Secretary of State shall consult other franchising authorities before finalising a report”.

Labour voted ‘No’ to all Amendments, there was support for 14 and 17, secured by the Conservatives. Amendment 21 was approved by all Sussex Liberal Democrat MPs. Sian approved it as did Plaid Cymru and the DUP. The Greens were opposed to Amendment 17 and ignored 14. Helena Dollimore as Labour Sussex did not vote against 21. Andrew Griffith and Nusrat Ghani did not vote at all.

Posted in Parliament and Democracy | Tagged , | Leave a comment