Representations: Backbench Debates
Tuesday 12 February 2019
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 12 February 2019.
Watch the meeting
Members present: Bob Blackman (Chair); Patricia Gibson; Nigel Mills; Alex Sobel; Mr William Wragg.
Questions 1-8
Witnesses
I: Gareth Thomas
II: Mr William Wragg
Written evidence from witnesses:
– [Add names of witnesses and hyperlink to submissions]
Gareth Thomas made representations.
Q1 Chair: The elected Chair of the Committee, Ian Mearns, has had to attend the funeral of a close friend in his constituency. He has asked me to chair the Committee in his absence, and the Committee has kindly consented.
We have two applications to consider. The first is from Gareth Thomas on the future funding of Catholic sixth-form colleges.
Gareth Thomas: Thank you, Mr Blackman, and I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present this application. There are 17 Catholic sixth-form colleges in England, which would be the focus of the debate. Members of the Committee will be aware of the worsening financial situation facing post-16 colleges, and the financial incentives that many principals of sixth-form colleges and further education colleges have explored as a result of academy status being on offer. There is a growing campaign to increase funding for sixth-form education.
I want to bring forward the particular plight of Catholic sixth-form colleges, because they certainly want to see an increase in their funding, but the route of conversion to an academy is not open to them. Unlike for Catholic schools, the existing legislative arrangements do not protect the religious character of a converting Catholic sixth-form college. As a result, the Catholic community has essentially instructed the trustees of Catholic sixth-form colleges not to pursue the academy route. That means that the VAT advantages of academy status and access to the teachers’ pay grant that is on offer to academies and to schools is not on offer to Catholic sixth-form colleges.
Catholic sixth-form colleges cannot reclaim VAT, as other competitor colleges that have converted to academies can. They cannot access Department for Education assistance on insurance premiums or, potentially, in some cases, on pension liabilities. They certainly support the growing campaign to increase funding for sixth-form education, which I want to raise as well, but I want to explore the particular disadvantages facing Catholic sixth-form colleges. They face, in effect, a double discrimination. They cannot convert, and are effectively seeing competitor colleges having increased budgets that they cannot access.
Q2 Chair: Thank you for the presentation. May I clarify what Department you would expect to answer? That might sound fairly obvious, but my understanding is that there are Treasury concerns. This could also fall under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy as well as the Department for Education. The Treasury concerns obviously relate to VAT and other financial possibilities. Can you just be clear, so that we can allocate the debate in the right way?
Gareth Thomas: I think it would have to be the Department for Education, which has overall responsibility for all sixth-form colleges and for further education. I know that it is already aware of some of the problems, so hopefully the Minister will come briefed to offer a more useful explanation of the potential way forward for such colleges.
Q3 Chair: The two possibilities are either Tuesday 19 February or Tuesday 5 March.
Gareth Thomas: Tuesday 5 March would be particularly attractive.
Chair: Okay. Are there any questions from colleagues? Everyone is content. Thank you very much, Mr Thomas. The Clerks will be in touch with you once we have reached our conclusions.
Mr William Wragg made representations.
Q4 Chair: I should explain, for the benefit of anyone watching, that Will Wragg is, of course, a member of the Committee. He will not take any part in the consideration of his application after he has made his presentation.
Mr Wragg: Thank you, Chair, and may I congratulate you heartily on your promotion today? The application I am placing for the Committee’s esteemed consideration is entitled “The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.” It might seem an obscure topic at this time, but in Greater Manchester it is the thing that is talked about most at the moment. It is to do with the allocation of land for housing, business and commerce. The most contentious aspect is the section on green belt release, which, as I am sure hon. Members know, is very important in our constituencies.
The application comes in the light of the draft being revised and being put out again for consultation. It is worth noting that the original consultation exercise was one of the largest ever undertaken, with one of the highest response rates from individual members of the public.
I am asking for a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall. It has a range of cross-party support. In Greater Manchester we are but 26 constituencies, four of which are Conservative—mine is one—and the other 22 are Labour, so it has got a flavour of cross-party support.
I pre-empt one of the questions that might come from your rigorous examination of the application, which is that the application is perhaps a bit sparse on Members. The Opposition have the privilege of drawing from the ranks of the Labour Members for Greater Manchester for many of their Opposition spokespersons, so they are unable to put their names to the application but may well be willing to speak in the debate. Thank you.
Q5 Chair: Thank you. Can we just be clear that the answering Department will presumably be the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government?
Mr Wragg: Indeed.
Q6 Chair: Fine. We could allocate time for the debate on 21 February. If you were offered that date, would you be able to accept it?
Mr Wragg: I certainly would.
Q7 Alex Sobel: To follow up on your final point, although 16 of the 22 Labour Members in Greater Manchester are on the Front Bench, there are still a few additional ones, who actually exceed the number of Conservative Members in Greater Manchester. It would be useful if we could see those names.
Mr Wragg: I will tease out as many as I can.
Q8 Alex Sobel: Have you had some private indications from shadow Front Benchers from Greater Manchester that they might be inclined to speak in the debate?
Mr Wragg: I have indeed. I can inform you, Mr Sobel, that my constituency neighbour is none other than the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. We have together, in an unholy alliance, organised a petition on this very issue, so he may well be willing to turn up himself.
Alex Sobel: Thank you.
Chair: Are there any further questions? Thank you for your presentation. It will be attended to shortly.