Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Social Care Services
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I look forward to serving under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate this important subject, which is being discussed more widely around the country by families and individuals who fear for their future.
The Government will try to boast that they are providing extra cash for social care, but that is not how people out there see things. “Hardest hit”—that is how the thousands of disabled people who marched in the streets outside this place last week described themselves. One woman from Billingham in my constituency, who has been blind since the age of 18, was among those who made the long trek to Westminster, and she told me about her anxieties and the effect that the cuts will have on her life. She and the other demonstrators had every right to be angry; they will be the hardest hit by the Government’s proposed cuts to disability benefits and the hardest hit by the swingeing cuts to council services that began this year, with more to come over the next three years. That means four years of anxiety and dread for families and individuals whose way of life depends on services with an uncertain future.
Last year, adult social care services helped 1.7 million adults to do things that most of us take for granted. Those 1.7 million adults remember the Chancellor speaking of his £6 billion cuts to local government grants and saying:
“Not a single penny will come from the frontline services that people depend on.”
How hollow those words ring today. I am sure the Minister intends to refer to the £1 billion that the Government are giving councils over four years to spend on social care services and to the £1 billion that doomed primary care trusts are supposed to spend on them over the same period—cash they are expected to take directly from the health budget, which the Prime Minister claims to be so protective of.
The trouble is that even the Conservative-led Local Government Association calculates that £4.6 billion is needed just to stand still and to maintain services as they are today. The reality is that the £530 million of additional funding that the Government have provided for social care in their first year is dwarfed by the £3 billion that councils have had to cut. According to the Financial Times and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, £1 billion of that has been cut from adult social care.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Adult social care accounts for £1 in every £4 that my local authority in Nottingham city spends. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is inevitable that social care services will be affected when a local authority’s budget is cut by more than 16% in just one year, as Nottingham’s has been?
Alex Cunningham
It most certainly is. My hon. Friend says that social care accounts for £1 in every £4, and a 16% cut represents a considerable reduction in the amount available to spend on social care.
ADASS also concludes:
“savings on this scale simply cannot be achieved through doing the same things more efficiently or by trimming management costs”.
As for the money that has gone to PCTs, can the Minister tell us, hand on heart, that he has any idea how much of it will be spent on social care this year? Given the revolution unleashed by the Health and Social Care Bill, PCTs have had other issues on their mind as they have sought to protect services during a transition period that will see them abolished. More importantly, this transition period threatens to reverse the progress made on health and social care over the past few decades. I just wonder what guarantees there can be that we will have properly commissioned and funded care once PCTs have gone and have been replaced by consortia that do not have the expertise and understanding of our community’s wider health and social care needs.
Media reports just this weekend outlined the profits that some think can be made from the health and social care system, effectively taking hard cash from the front line. The Prime Minister’s senior adviser, Mark Britnell, told a New York conference attended by the giant private health care providers that dominate in north America that the changes over the next two years will provide a “big opportunity” for the profit-making sector. As I am sure hon. Members will know, no one can make profits without taking cash out of the system. I look forward to hearing what reassurance the Minister can give those who will be hardest hit. What is his guarantee that profiteers will not have their way with the NHS and related social care services?
I know that Ministers get fed up with MPs from the north highlighting the divisions in our country, but the BBC is highlighting them now. In a survey released last week, it identified a new north-south divide, with social care spending this year falling in the north while actually rising in the south, although I will question the value of that so-called rise later. The BBC’s findings reflect the differential impact of the cuts, with councils in the midlands and the north more reliant on central grants and thus hardest hit. The findings may also reflect demographic differences and the effect of falling property values on people’s ability to self-fund.
In the north, spending will fall by 4.7% in the current financial year alone. Then there are deprivation factors to be taken into consideration. Local authorities in the most deprived areas—many are in the north, but they are elsewhere as well—have the worst mortality figures and the highest incidence of long-term ill health, but they are suffering the deepest cuts in spending power. Front-loading the cuts means that huge changes must be brought in quickly, giving little time for consultation with staff and service users over the best way to minimise the impact on front-line services. That said, I would not like anyone to get the impression that things are rosy in the south. The 2.7% increase in spending in the south is about half the rate of inflation and does not keep pace with need. Nor will it be enough to prevent real people from losing real support—support that, in the Chancellor’s words, they depend on.
My main purpose in securing the debate, however, is to consider the human impact of social care cuts, not just to debate dry spending figures.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about funding. He briefly mentioned the issue of commissioners and quality, which is clearly as important as funding. Does he share my concern that the changing role of the Care Quality Commission, which will now monitor providers rather than commissioners, will mean that there is a gap and therefore a risk that commissioners will not be held to account and provide good-quality care?
Alex Cunningham
Yes, I agree that there is a considerable risk. I should say that I have been much impressed by the role played by local authorities in health scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will answer the hon. Lady’s question directly later.
The successful judicial review against Birmingham city council’s adult social care cuts looks set to be hugely significant. The Minister might be tempted to hide behind a carefully drawn veil of localism, but does he really consider it acceptable that Birmingham should seek to withdraw support from 5,000 people? Many of those people could be in a situation where abuse or neglect have occurred, or will occur, or they could be unable to carry out the majority of their personal care or domestic routines. They will be the real losers in all this.
Does the Minister consider it acceptable that 2,145 elderly and vulnerable people in Lancashire will have all care and support removed, as part of cuts that are the subject of another judicial review? Does he consider it acceptable that desperate families are being forced to go to the High Court to try to prevent devastating damage to their quality of life or that of family members?
In West Sussex, the “Don’t Cut Us Out” campaign has brought people together to campaign against eligibility cuts. If Members visit its website, they can read testimony from Tony, who has limited mobility. He must carry an oxygen cylinder wherever he goes and he is susceptible to blackouts and periods of deep depression. He will lose all the benefits and support currently provided by West Sussex county council. He says:
“My current care package...provides for 13 hours of care support each week and has kept me out of hospital for much of the last two years, saving the Country hundreds of thousands of pounds. Before, I was in hospital for six months at a time, and once discharged was being re-admitted every two weeks or so. I can’t imagine what my life will be like without this support.”
Back in the north, local people, service users and staff have been campaigning to halt the closure of Leeds crisis centre and the threat to mental health day services in Armley and Hunslet. At a packed campaign meeting organised by Unison, a campaigning trade union of which I am proud to be a member, a service user said, “I am saving the council money by using these services; when living in London, where there weren’t these services, I had many hospital admissions; I have had none since living in Leeds.”
Mencap provided me with a graphic example of what the cuts mean for George and his daughter, who are from Rotherham. George’s daughter has profound and multiple learning disabilities. Due to her disability, she is doubly incontinent and requires the use of many disposable items of medical equipment. She lives with her dad, and as part of her care package, the council picks up all body and medical waste from the household. The waste includes faeces, urine, blood and vomit. Mencap says that Rotherham council has gone from collecting the hazardous waste once a week to once every 14 days and has reduced the amount that it picks up by 50%. The council has also stopped providing specialist waste bags for the disposal of the waste, leaving the family to cover the additional cost themselves. That bodily waste now goes into black bin bags mixed with household waste, which are sent to landfill. These stories illustrate the fundamental truth: these cuts are a false economy with devastating human, social and economic costs.
In a recent national survey by a group of charities, including Carers UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, half the respondents said that increased charges for care meant that they could no longer afford essentials such as food and heating, and more than half said that their health had suffered as a result. We must consider the services run by voluntary organisations—dare I say it?, the big society—that offer early help for people who do not necessarily qualify for assessed council support. Day care centres, meals on wheels, support groups and drop-in centres are being cut because they are losing grant funding.
Jackie Dray used to run four support groups called “Elders with Attitude”—I love that name—in Birmingham, but she was told in March that her £30,000 council grant was to be cut altogether. She now runs only one group and is desperately looking for alternative funding. She said:
“They are cutting luncheon clubs or groups like mine that could make a difference between somebody remaining in the community or sinking into clinical depression and residential care. For a small amount of money, you could delay the point at which people have to go into hospital. I see a lot of clinical depression in carers and cared-for alike. People are teetering on the brink. There’s a lot of frustration, worry, lack of sleep.”
Before we can consider the future of social care services, we have to consider the consequences fully.
While we await the Dilnot commission report on long-term funding and the Government’s response to the Law Commission review, the Government are, in effect, already re-engineering the infrastructure of care and support. As services are razed, my fear is that capacity is being lost, services are being withdrawn and staff are being lost—capacity and skills that cannot easily be recreated. The Government are seeking to soften people up and lower their expectations, to get them to accept a return to reliance on family and buying from the open market with their own funds, or a patchwork of precarious charitable provision from a third sector suffering its own cuts and challenges.
I want to turn to the ideal, which I thought all the parties shared, of personalisation in adult social care. I fear that that ideal is being lost. The cuts mean that the policy, which promised much, is fatally undermined. Social workers and care managers tell their union that they are being expected to reassess personal budgets with a view to cutting them. I know that they need to consider value for money for all care packages, but they believe that they are expected to make cuts to get the budgets down.
A forthcoming report on a survey that Unison conducted with Community Care will highlight the fact that the paperwork and bureaucracy associated with personal budgets is excessive and inaccessible for service users. I question the Minister’s decision to prescribe from Whitehall that personal budgets be provided in the form of direct payments. That appears to be at odds with his claim to be a champion of local determination and removes choice from people who wish to have a managed budget. It appears to be linked to the aim of completely withdrawing state provision. Individuals will be expected to navigate the market or take on what many will see as the onerous and stressful responsibility of becoming an employer. I urge him to reconsider the prescription of direct payments, as there is evidence that it will restrict choice, but more importantly, distress some of our most vulnerable people, who already have enough challenges in life.
As we contemplate the future of adult social care services, there can be no under-estimating the scale of the challenges that we face as a society: by 2041, the number of adults with learning disabilities, we are told, will have risen by 21%; the numbers of young people with physical or sensory impairments by 17%; and disabled older people by a massive 108%. We all know that the number of dependent older people is set to increase hugely. The Association of British Insurers says that currently 20% of men and 30% of women will require long-term care at some point. If we add to that the challenges of the increasing number of young adults with complex needs who will need very expensive care packages for decades; the 170,000 people with a learning disability who Mencap tell us live with parents and carers who are already over 70 years old; the growth in the number of people with dementia, which the Alzheimer’s Society says is set to soar by a third to 1 million people by 2025; the costs facing authorities due to alcohol misuse; and the number of people with obesity-related problems, then we can see that the Government’s proposals are destined to fall well short of what is needed.
The director of children, education and social care for Stockton-on-Tees borough council, which serves people in my constituency, says that we have to be mindful of the knock-on effect of the reduction in other funding streams that impact on adults—the independent living fund, the Supporting People programme and affordable housing funding. She tells me that some of the funding streams that have historically been linked with it are being reduced or ceasing, while her department works to maximise people’s independence.
Lilian Greenwood
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that these cuts come alongside the cuts to disability benefits outlined in the Welfare Reform Bill, in which Ministers talk about targeting those in greatest need? Is not there a danger that disabled people with moderate needs could lose all support and face isolation and a loss of independence?
Alex Cunningham
That is very much the case. A stream of people have come to our surgeries or to see us in Parliament, and there seem to be so many attacks—left, right and centre—on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. As my hon. Friend says, something needs to be done if we are to arrest this situation.
The director of children, education and social care for Stockton-on-Tees borough council says that the result of the cuts, if we have limited extra care and supported living options, will be a further over-reliance on residential provision. An integrated health and social care facility and extra care scheme in Billingham in my constituency was an important part of my council’s strategy for supporting people, but the Government refused the private finance initiative credits to make it happen. Would the Minister prefer his granny, mother or other elderly relative to be forced into residential care when they could have been supported in their own home or an extra care facility and had the independence that I know most older people want?
Another area of concern is the shortfall in funding to support carers. Yes, I know that the Government allocated a welcome £400 million for carers’ breaks, but other funding managed by PCTs to support adults and their carers is not ring-fenced in any way, and although some flexibility is needed, carers, who are often seen as the poor relation, could end up all the poorer.
The sector skills body estimates that the social care work force needs to double by 2025, yet it is a sector characterised by labour shortages, low pay, poor prospects and a poor image. Some 60% of care workers hold no care qualifications, and only 20% have a national vocational qualification level 2; only 10 % have an NVQ level 3. Before anyone intervenes on that point, I should say that I believe that previous Governments, including our own Labour Government, could have done more to address that issue. However, it is not just Governments’ responsibility; other organisations, including service providers, should play their part in driving up qualification standards and meeting the costs.
Is the provision made by such organisations being properly managed or being left to the market? In Stockton, we have over-provision of residential care places, some of which are under financial pressure, including those owned by Southern Cross, which is seeking £100 million from investors to secure its future. Surely we need some kind of controlled management or strategic planning to get this right and ensure that standards are maintained.
We must look to the future of adult social care. We need immediate action to lay the groundwork for genuine reforms to flourish. The Chancellor said that his cuts would not touch front-line services; he should be prepared to say that he got it wrong. There is an urgent need for a new plan that looks again at the local government settlement and works with local authorities to ensure that front-line services are funded to meet need. Everybody agrees that we must do more to give early help because it prevents dependence and saves money on acute care, and yet those services are first in line for the chop. Will the Minister genuinely and strenuously consider the recommendation of a duty to provide early help for adult services such as that which Professor Munro made for children’s services?
The Minister must reconsider the equation of personalisation with the transaction of receiving direct payment. Personalisation is not about ticking boxes and having the right number of people receive direct payment. Trying to make it work in the context of the cuts requires him to spend time talking to practitioners and service users about what is happening on the ground and what they think the priorities should be. We need to get it right for individuals.
We need an improved and comprehensive work-force strategy covering training, development and qualification standards as a condition of provider registration and a commitment to working towards a living wage for all care workers. We must work with work-force representatives to boost the autonomy and confidence of practitioners. I am sure that the Minister will welcome, as work-force regulators have, Unison’s duty of care handbook for health and social care staff. The handbook aims to promote awareness among workers of their duty of care and other professional duties, and of how to raise concerns about poor practice.
Costs, too, need to be addressed urgently. The Association of British Insurers says that the average cost of care in residential homes in the UK is approaching £25,000 a year, with people in England spending an estimated £420 million a year on private home care. This question was not sensibly debated during the general election. We need cross-party co-operation to reach a long-term sustainable solution to the problem.
Anne Marie Morris
The hon. Gentleman raises a question about care homes and fees. Does he agree that one way to solve the problem would be to introduce a standard contract? At the moment, there are great differences in provision; there is no consistency in standards, which means that one person’s care can be very different from another’s.
Alex Cunningham
During my time I have visited many care homes, and I have seen many variations in quality and standards. I have seen some places where elderly people were highly motivated and excitedly engaged in activities and others where people were sitting in seats glued to the television—at least, I think that they were glued to the television; they certainly seemed to be in another world. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need a solution of exactly the sort that she outlines.
There is an overwhelming desire to end the postcode lottery for care. It is important that when people move around the country, they should receive the same standard of care without their cases being constantly reassessed. Recommendations made by the Law Commission for national eligibility criteria and carer assessments are a start in plotting a way forward. We must end the cost-shunting and turf wars between health and social care over continuing care assessment and funding. Do the Government still intend to allow the Law Commission to draft a Bill to simplify the legislation, and if not why not?
When Dilnot reports, we need to hear from Ministers a genuine commitment to cross-party engagement on long-term funding. The Minister must realise that a voluntary insurance market, like that described by the Prime Minister’s senior adviser this weekend, will not be acceptable to a public worried about the workings of the discredited financial services sector.
As well as a new funding system, we need to review the quality standards of service regulation, with greater emphasis being placed on the importance of providers having a stable, highly skilled and confident work force. The quality of care is all about the quality of relationships, but for as long as we have a 25% turnover of care staff we are letting down the hardest hit, who deserve much better.
The future of social care and its funding is not a matter only for this generation or this Government. We all have a responsibility. I hope that the Minister accepts that the Government should not go it alone, but should work with everyone involved to find the kind of long-term solution that will help to ease the anxieties of an increasing number of disabled and elderly people.
I end with a question for the Minister. If we are all in this together, why is it that adult social care is the hardest hit? Is it not the case that the most vulnerable are taking a disproportionate hit? I hope that the Minister will accept my points and other constructive points made during this debate, and that he will answer our specific questions. He should reflect on the unfairness of what is going on. He should realise that despite all the statements, funding is not meeting today’s needs and that current plans will not address the increased demands of the future. I hope that he will tell all those who receive adult social care services that he will make changes to current and future plans to ensure that the most vulnerable have a quality of life that most of us take for granted.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Brady, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this morning’s debate, which concerns an incredibly challenging and complex matter.
I am concerned that few Government Members are here today, so I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) on attending. That makes me think that we are not all in this together, and it seems that only Opposition Members wish to represent their constituents on this matter.
I wish to contribute to this debate specifically on the standard of care being provided to vulnerable elderly people. I recently participated in a series of hard-hitting reports by Tyne Tees Television’s “North East Tonight” programme. Tyne Tees’s findings on the standard of care provided in some care homes in the north-east were distressing and disturbing, and I am pleased to have the opportunity today—again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate—to highlight some of those concerns and present them directly to the Minister.
I must point out that there are some fantastic care homes in the north-east and that they have some dedicated staff and carers. However, the “North East Tonight” reports were timely, being broadcast in the same week that a paper by Newcastle university’s institute for ageing and health predicted a care home crisis unless there is major investment in the care system to support the rapidly increasing number of elderly people.
In 2010, there were 2.6 million people aged over 80, but by 2030 that figure is expected almost to double to 4.8 million, with one in five needing regular care. The Newcastle university paper predicted that there will be an 82% increase in the number of care home places needed—that is 630,000 extra places between now and 2030 just to cope with the demands of an increasingly older population.
In its investigations, Tyne Tees uncovered reports of former care-home workers who were forced to leave their jobs. Those workers were given bad references, which make future employment in the sector difficult, because they had blown the whistle on the unacceptably poor standards of care. That included lifting the lid on cases of dangerously poor hygiene, of residents not being fed properly, of a lack of interaction between staff and residents and of a total lack of stimulus for the people living there. The investigation also uncovered cases of appalling neglect of vulnerable care-home residents—according to relatives, it was often because there were simply insufficient staff on duty to ensure that their loved ones’ needs could be properly taken care of.
Tyne Tees also reported that many relatives were afraid of reporting concerns about the quality of care being provided, because they thought that it might put their loved ones in greater danger. It is understandably difficult to complain about the poor standard of care being provided for a relative when, in the first instance, the complaint has to be made to the people who are providing it.
Tyne Tees invited me to view its findings. What immediately struck me, as a mother of young children, was the contrast between the standard of care provided to young children in child care settings and the standard of care provided to vulnerable elderly people in care homes. If Tyne Tees had uncovered similar cases of neglect and fear of whistleblowing in nurseries in the north-east, I am sure that there would have been a national outrage, and rightly so, yet the treatment of older people is too often shamefully brushed under the carpet.
The Tyne Tees series of reports received unprecedented feedback through e-mails and Facebook comments, and people wrote to Tyne Tees to back up its findings and report similar concerns. That shows the level of concern across the north-east—and, I am sure, across the country—about the situation.
I recently had to intervene in support of a family seeking help for Jessie Wiseman, an elderly constituent. She is 91 and blind, and she was found living in squalor after ambulance workers paid a routine visit to her property. Despite concerns having been raised by her GP and her son about Jessie’s deteriorating condition, social care workers failed or act and she rapidly declined. That is why I welcome the recommendations in the recently published Law Commission report to introduce a set of statutory principles, a statutory basis for adult safeguarding boards and a duty on councils to assess carers and investigate adult safeguarding cases.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the failings in adult care have gone on for a long time, because, unlike child care, it has never had a statutory basis? In arguing for such a basis to be put in place, we may find that the Government say that this is just more red tape and bureaucracy.
Catherine McKinnell
I agree that that is a great concern, which is why the Minister must take on board the deep concerns that are being expressed today. In any event, reforming the law will still not be enough.
I am pleased that, as a result of the Tyne Tees investigation, the Care Quality Commission has agreed to review its reports and to conduct unannounced assessments on the homes in question. However, I am concerned that it appears to have required a television programme to spur the Care Quality Commission into action. By placing their loved ones in residential care, people are putting huge amounts of trust in a service. They rightly expect that the Care Quality Commission is adequately monitoring, regulating and inspecting all care homes on a frequent basis.
Anne Marie Morris
The hon. Lady has made some extraordinarily good points, and the Care Quality Commission certainly needs more help to do an effective job. Now that we have an outcome-based set of performance criteria, homes need to be given guidance on how to comply with them. In my meetings with the Care Quality Commission, it says that it no longer gives advice, which means that it is an uphill battle for any home to ensure that it provides the quality of care that is needed and that it complies with the new criteria.
Catherine McKinnell
I agree that the Care Quality Commission should take a proactive approach to improving the quality of care in our adult services.
Another worrying statistic is that on-site inspections in care homes have fallen by 70% since the Care Quality Commission was introduced in October 2010. That must worry anyone who lives in a care home or who has a loved one in a care home.
Will the Minister consider the following issues because they are crucial to the future provision of social care services? What further steps can the Government take to ensure a much greater level of protection and safeguarding for vulnerable elderly people in residential care? What measures will he take to ensure that the culture of fear that was spoken about by people participating in the Tyne Tees reports is broken down, so that care workers, relatives and residents feel confident and safe in raising concerns about the standard of care? What steps is he taking to improve the status, pay and training of care home staff, who are doing an incredibly difficult and important job? How will he ensure that the swingeing cuts to local authority budgets over the coming years do not detrimentally impact further on the quality of social care being provided to elderly people, particularly at a time of ever-increasing demand?
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate, which is timely not just because of the demonstrations that we saw outside this place last week, but because we are in the pause before the Health and Social Care Bill comes back to Parliament. This debate is also a matter of great personal passion. In 1989, thanks to the behaviour of a previous Tory Government, I lost my job in the coal industry and had to take up a job in care. Although I ended up in that sector almost by mistake, it was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I met some fantastic people who were dedicated to taking care of the frail and vulnerable people in the city that my hon. Friend represents. Sadly, in the early 1990s, a lot of that care, commitment and dedication was lost. A series of cuts from the national Government decimated the care services across the whole country, and we see the same happening today.
I hope that the Health and Social Care Bill will be withdrawn in its entirety. Despite what they say, it is clear that the Government are leading us to a privatised NHS. The experience of social care should show us what happens when we put services out to the private sector. We are told that the White Paper has been delayed. There may be some last-minute qualms from the Government about how far they can go against public and professional opinion. I am surprised that the pause has happened now, because public and professional opinion has always been against this Bill, even when it was first announced. Perhaps that opinion took a while to sink into the minds of the Government; it certainly did not immediately sink into the minds of the Liberal Democrat members. It clearly has now, and thank God for that. I hope that the Minister, along with his colleagues in his party, will work with other people across society to ensure that the Bill does not go any further and that we do not see the same damage to the health service that we have seen to the social care services.
Research carried out by Unison suggests that, if recent trends continue, the last council-run residential care homes will have closed in 15 years’ time and there will be no local authority-employed home care staff left by 2020. That is part and parcel of this Government’s drive not just to boost the private sector but to deconstruct public sector provision and give councils less and less responsibility. The anti-public sector phalanx in the Cabinet will, I am sure, be happy to see that happen and it will celebrate the disappearance of council-run services. It will argue that the private sector always performs better, despite the fact that that has not been shown to be the case.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend is talking specifically about local authority provision of care homes. Is it not more important that we invest in extra care facilities and that we work with elderly people so that they can live in their own homes, because that is what the vast majority of them want to do?
Mr Anderson
I agree with my hon. Friend. My own personal experience was in a purpose-built site that did just that. We took in people for a week at a time for respite and we also provided day care, but the individuals all lived in their own homes. Although that was cost-intensive in labour terms, the quality of care was good. We took care of not just the individual but the needs of the family, and we built very close working relationships with them. If we want to have quality care in this country, we must bite the bullet and accept the fact that we have to pay for it. The previous Government accepted that if we wanted quality health care, we had to increase the public payment into it.
Catherine McKinnell
In my contribution, I highlighted the worrying case in my constituency of Jessie Wiseman whose care at home was contracted out to a private care provider. Some 15 visits took place over eight weeks before she was discovered in an appalling state. However, the local authority took no responsibility for it. This story feeds into the debate on the worrying trends that can take place when services of this nature are put out to the private sector.
Mr Anderson
The privatisation of home care services in this country has been a complete failure and a nightmare. I have represented home care workers for many years and have seen the service deteriorate. We had a dedicated work force who had a set list of clients whom they went to see day in, day out. They built a relationship with that person and their family. When those jobs were contracted out, it was said, “We will send worker A on this day and worker B on that day.” The home care worker lost that direct link with not just the family but the wider team within the authority. That team would work together and take a holistic view and work better for the person concerned. It is clear that services are being contracted out to save money. If we save money, services will not be as good.
It is clear that we will see problems being stored up if we lose public sector capacity in home care services. At the moment, some 31,000 residents are being taken care of by Southern Cross Healthcare. Their homes now hang in the balance as a result of reckless business practices and local commissioning, which has allowed the organisation to become so dominant in the market. Southern Cross and Four Seasons—the big two in residential care—have operated casino-style finances, and both are now teetering on the brink of collapse. A toxic cloud, formed by irresponsible borrowing, weakening demand, council cuts, the slump in care home property values and the collapse of favourable credit facilities, now hangs over the heads of frail elderly people and their families at a time of insecurity and when they need real security.
How has it come to this? How has RBS, a state-owned bank, become the biggest shareholder in Four Seasons in exchange for writing off debts of £300 million? Would taxpayers’ money not be better spent directly on care homes run by democratically accountable councils, rather than being tied up in byzantine financing arrangements?
Across the social care market, research by Community Care suggests that one in five providers expect to go out of business in the next financial year. The regulator describes the home care market as a cottage industry of small, often barely viable providers alongside a few giants such as Care UK, whose chairman kindly provided £21,000 to fund the personal office of the Secretary of State for Health—perhaps that is one reason Care UK is doing so well.
If Southern Cross, Four Seasons or indeed local providers collapse, how will local authorities find new homes for people when they no longer run them? When home care providers default, as they often have and might in future, how will local authorities fill the gap if they have scrapped their own home care teams, which is happening up and down the country?
What about the quality? Care Quality Commission data show that privately provided care services are less likely to be rated “good” or “excellent” and five times more likely to be rated “poor”. I know that the Government do not like targets or standards, but when their own commission is saying such things its message should be listened to. Private providers consistently score lower on a range of indicators of quality and safety. When we look at the employment practices of some providers, we cannot be surprised that home care workers do not stay in their job. They are not paid for their travel time between visits, and they have to provide their own mobile phones and pay for their uniforms. They suffer from underpayments; they often have zero-hour contracts; and they sometimes have to pay towards the cost of administering their own time sheets. No wonder people do not see it as a job for the future or a career that it is worth investing their time and talents in. We need real regulation of employers to stamp out employment practices that have impacted so badly on home care users and, through them, on staff.
Where are we today? We have a Government who want more from staff for less; who want more work by fewer staff, because they are making 500,000 public sector workers unemployed; who want more pension contributions from less pay and for poorer pension provision; and who want people to spend more time at work by making, in particular, women work until they are 66 years old, with less time at home and in retirement.
What did we get last week? The Chancellor has a new red tape initiative. What is he going to do when people are losing their jobs? If there is a chance of redundancies being managed sensibly, what does he talk about? He wants more chances of people being sacked, with less chance of real support by limiting the time to consult. People will have more chance of being made redundant and less legal support to challenge decisions taken by their employer.
The CQC sees a vacuum in regulation and in the checking of safety and quality of care. The CQC’s risk-based approach is resulting in a dramatic drop in inspections. A freedom of information request by Community Care found a 70% drop in CQC site inspections in the past year alone, at a time when more people are in need of care.
Anne Marie Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. The statistics are interesting, but care homes in my constituency of Newton Abbot complain that more visits are being made. I spoke to the CQC just this week and it said that it was making on-site visits to every home within its purview in the south-west. There might be a regional difference, but in the south-west, where there are a huge number of elderly people, the number of visits is going up, not down.
Mr Anderson
I thank the hon. Lady for that. More inspections are good: we want inspections that work; otherwise, we will get into the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned.
Staff and service users fear that there is an over-reliance on provider self-assessment and secondary sources rather than direct inspections. There are fewer indicators and data sources for adult social care providers than there are for NHS providers, yet the methodology is common. Alongside a “lighter touch” approach from the regulator, local authorities are cutting quality assurance departments, which, as Community Care showed, means fewer local checks on the quality and safety of care being provided.
Some of the changes that the unions and workers at the CQC would like to see, which I agree require serious and urgent consideration, include reinstating and strengthening the requirements on the types of incidents and issues that must be reported to the regulator. These should again include medication errors, significant injuries, accident and emergency admissions, safeguarding referrals, matters where staff are subject to disciplinary action or dismissal and unusually high staff turnover. Those are all indicators of things that might be going wrong, but they are not being recorded as they should be. A minimum frequency should be set for how often a service is visited.
I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is correct about the experience in the south-west, but it should be replicated across the country because it would give people greater confidence that things were being done properly. There should be a greater range of tools so that service users and employees can make their concerns known to people who can affect outcomes. We want to encourage people who want to blow the whistle where necessary, and give people whose relatives are in care confidence that, if they make a genuine complaint, the care will not be reduced.
I hope the Minister will look at my points, provide answers on the failures of private adult social care providers and say whether anything can be done to make the CQC more representative. For years, adult social services have been regarded as the Cinderella service, which is a disgrace. People are in care not because they want to be but because they have to be, so I hope we will work together to try to make adult social care something this country can be proud of.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate on an issue of huge importance to many of our constituents, who are among the most vulnerable in society, including older people, disabled people and carers—people for whom adult social care services are an essential source of support in their daily lives.
My hon. Friends have eloquently and passionately articulated the real and serious concerns about adult social care services, but I want to focus on the importance of the social work profession in building adult social care services fit for the future.
Labour Members are pleased that the Government have proceeded with the work that Labour started on reforming the social work profession, and I welcome the Government’s decision to continue to support the work of the Social Work Reform Board. As a consequence of cuts to budgets for adult social care services, it now feels as though the very future of social work with adults is under threat. Councils across the country are proposing deep cuts to the number of registered social workers they employ, to be replaced with a range of staff employed in roles such as care co-ordinators and support workers. I know that the staff are committed and caring, but, like my hon. Friends, my concern is that this restructuring is prompted not by seeking to improve the quality of care but by the need to reduce spending on salaries. Like my hon. Friends, I am fearful of the consequences of this loss of capacity. It represents a serious loss of skill and expertise in the work force, at a time when people’s physical, mental and emotional needs and family dynamics are becoming ever-more complex.
It is hard to escape the impression that social workers in adult services are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, the Cinderella service—the poor relations. The media attention given to tragic deaths of children as a result of abuse has served to sharpen public focus on children’s social work, but the consequences of social workers in adult services being poorly managed, supported, valued, trained and developed are just as critical, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) pointed out. Excessive case loads, defective IT systems and too much paperwork are also facets of adult social workers’ daily lives, and they get in the way of those workers’ ability to practise effectively.
The Government have said that they have given the Children’s Workforce Development Council £79.9 million for social work initiatives in 2011 and 2012. There is work to develop an advanced professional status in children’s social work to enhance the development of those who want to progress in front-line practice rather than in management, and the Munro review of barriers to direct social work with children and families has come up with some excellent recommendations—all to be welcomed. Does the Minister understand, however, that the lack of similar investment and activity in adult social work is leaving practitioners feeling overlooked, and has knock-on consequences for morale and future recruitment and retention? What plans does he have to address those concerns?
My trade union, Unison, represents 40,000 social workers and has developed a 10-point plan for social work within adult services. I support its call for a “clear political commitment” through “policy and regulation channels”:
“to strengthen the role of social work in adult services”
covering the
“central importance of social work in care and support of adults, and…halting the development of ‘social work on the cheap’.”
Is the Minister willing to give such a commitment?
A survey last year of social workers in adult services found that two thirds of respondents felt that the time they had available to spend with each service user was not sufficient to meet their needs, and that nearly a quarter felt that the time available was very insufficient. An overwhelming 96% of respondents believed that too much of their time was spent on paperwork, and only a third believed that joint working with the NHS was effective in their area. They reported structural difficulties, such as remote management, the marginalisation of social work and the duplication of paperwork required because of incompatible IT systems. Although only 3.5% of social workers in England are directly employed by the NHS, many more are seconded to the service from councils, but the status, standing and representation of social work in the NHS is virtually invisible.
Social work plays a vital role in mental health services, addressing the social needs and safeguarding the rights of patients, and hospital social work is essential in enabling rehabilitation and preventing readmissions. A recent survey by Counsel and Care stated:
“Hospital social workers are being bypassed by health professionals, who in some cases are dealing directly with the family rather than using the social worker service to plan discharge...The hospital teams can sometimes function as ‘brokers’, trying to discharge older people in to care homes themselves without proper assessments being undertaken by social workers.”
Does the Minister agree that NHS trusts should ensure that social work is represented in their management and governance structures to prevent such practices? Health employers need to engage much more closely with the social work reform agenda, accepting responsibility for playing their part in its implementation.
Adult social care services are vital and will be increasingly needed in the future, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. Social work faces a number of serious and pressing issues, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to address them.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this debate on an incredibly important issue. It is a great cause for celebration that people now live longer, but it brings new challenges. Our society—and our Government—should be judged on how we look after our most vulnerable people, and I want to focus my contribution on the care of the group of people who tend to be the most vulnerable: the elderly.
My hon. Friend said that there is a large, sustained increase in the percentage of people needing long-term care, and the projection is that the figure will continue to rise. As has been pointed out, the standards of care in care homes vary greatly, not only across the country but within regions and sometimes within cities—there is even variation across my constituency of Wolverhampton North East. My grandma is in a great care home in neighbouring Staffordshire, which provides wonderful care, and I want to pay tribute to the care workers there, and to those across the country in good care homes. We know, however, that that is more the exception than the rule.
I am very concerned about the drop in the number of inspections of care homes by the Care Quality Commission. I echo the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) about how the Government can guarantee that care home standards across the country are at least good—not poor—and how they can stop those who seem to want to make a quick buck out of the industry and ensure that care home staff are given basic protection rights and paid properly.
I want to turn to the pressing issue of the financing of care, which the previous Labour Government tried to deal with perhaps a little too late. Thousands of people across the country have to sell their homes to fund long-term care, and the cross-party talks regrettably broke down before the general election, with the Conservatives preferring to score political points and publish posters about a “death tax” rather than engage seriously with this most important issue. However, I congratulate the Liberal Democrats, in particular their then health spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who stayed in the talks and was willing to reach some kind of consensus.
I know that the Minister will not want to answer some of my questions because the Government are awaiting the outcome of the Dilnot commission, but I urge him to consider the shortcomings of a voluntary contribution model. Experts in the insurance industry have pointed out that people are unlikely to take out insurance 30 years before they might need the care, and international evidence suggests that such a system is unworkable. France has the largest voluntary insurance market for long-term care but there is only a 15% take-up, so if the Government go for that option, which was in the Conservative manifesto—I am waiting to see what the coalition will do—it is almost as good as doing nothing. If we introduced the model and people did not take up the care, we might as well have done nothing at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said in his closing remarks that this is a matter for generations to come, and it is most pressing that we have a system that enables the Government to provide care for the elderly in the years to come. I said at the start of my speech that this is a great cause for celebration, but it brings a new challenge, and I urge the Minister to consider the value of making this a cross-party issue and ensuring cross-party consensus on the financing of long-term care for the elderly.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I do not believe I have served under your chairmanship before, Mr Brady, and it is a pleasure to do so.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing the debate, and on his excellent contribution and the moving examples that he put before us. The truth is that not enough time is spent in the House on this fundamental issue, which is vitally important to many of our constituents; but we have had a very good debate today.
There seem to be two issues here: the structural problems and the cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) touched on standards of care and on ensuring proper status for social care workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made a very important political analysis of the ongoing problems, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) demonstrated her great expertise in this area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) yet again raised the importance of ensuring a long-term solution and expressed our continued regret that this issue was essentially bombed before the last election by the Conservative party, which decided that it was better to make cheap political points than for us all to work together. I assure the Minister that when the Dilnot commission reports we will not be emulating the behaviour of the Opposition at that time and that we will approach the matter with an open mind. We need a fair and sustainable solution, and we want to be able to work together on that. In the end, the issue is more important than party politics, and we must work together not just to find a solution but to implement it.
During the comprehensive spending review, the Government flourished the fact that they were giving an additional £2 billion for social care, but a few months later, local authority budgets were slashed by 8%. Given that social care is top-tier councils’ biggest area of discretionary spending, it was simply inconceivable that it would not be hit.
The Local Government Group and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services both raised concerns about the implications for social care of the CSR local government settlement, warning that the extra £2 billion was simply not enough to meet demand. They argued that the spending gap during the period was likely to be between £3.5 billion and £4 billion due to increasing demand from our ageing population, which will add another 4% a year to social care costs in upcoming years.
Of course, some efficiency savings can be made, but they will never be enough to meet the shortfall. Personalised budgets and various reforms might be able to save some money, but the Minister should listen to those who know, such as ADASS and the Local Government Group, when they say that they will be billions of pounds short when it comes to social care. In those circumstances, they will not be able to protect the most vulnerable in our society. The much-vaunted £2 billion is simply not enough, especially as it is not ring-fenced. Will the Minister tell us whether the whole £2 billion, half of it or a quarter will be spent on social care? Can he do anything if not all of it is? Furthermore, can he confirm that he does not know whether it will be spent or not?
Not only are the Government cutting back on social care through local authorities under the cloak of localism, they are no longer doing centralised assessment of adult social care provision. In other words, they simply do not know what is going on. It is extraordinary that unprecedented cuts are being made at a time when local authority provision of social care is no longer being monitored, yet the Government steadfastly maintain that there need be no cuts to front-line services.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said that
“cutting front line jobs and hitting front line services isn’t inevitable—it doesn’t have to be an option at all”,
and the Minister said:
“It is wrong to scare people about cuts. The coalition Government has prioritised social care—the spending review announced significant extra funding for social care for each of the next four years, increasing to an extra £2 billion investment in 2014-15…This extra money means no councils need to reduce access to social care”.
It is simply not good enough for the Minister to put his fingers in his ears and sing “La la la.” The truth is that cuts in social care are being made now. Although he might not know about them, I can tell him, because ADASS, the BBC and I have done surveys. Last month, I surveyed directors of adult social care in England and got 61 replies, representing a 40% response. I appreciate the detailed responses by 27 Conservative councils, 29 Labour councils and four Liberal Democrat councils; that was, obviously, before the last local elections. The responses showed that 88% were increasing their charges, 16% were increasing eligibility criteria and 7% were considering charging more in the longer term. Many were closing day centres and care homes, 54% were cutting the voluntary sector and a further 24% were considering it for the future.
As predicted by everyone who knows, cuts are happening. Councils have not been able to meet increasing demographic pressure, which ADASS believes amounts to £425 million in 2011-12 alone due to the rising number of older people and people with learning disabilities needing substantial support. The ADASS survey shows that, far from increasing spending to meet rising needs, local authorities in England have cut adult social care spending by £1 billion.
We have heard in this debate about the terrible consequences of cuts to front-line services for the most vulnerable in our community. The fact of the matter is that as a result, an elderly woman might no longer get up at breakfast time but at lunch. She might not have an advocate, but we have a duty to ensure that such people are protected. It is not good enough for the Minister to remain in Whitehall saying that there need be no cuts to front-line services. He must listen to the reality of what is going on. Not to address the funding shortages in local authority social care is reckless and wrong.
Funding cuts also mean that local authorities cannot invest in preventive services, so the cuts being made now will have knock-on effects in the long term. If someone does not have a regular visit—if their shopping is not done for them, or if they are not got up in the morning on time—they are more likely to go downhill faster and to end up in hospital. Some 52% of respondents to my survey said that the cuts adversely affected the development of new preventive services. Services that could reduce the need for long-term care and promote independence are among the first to go, but that only increases the strain on health and social care services in the long run.
It is irresponsible of the Minister to continue to say that no cuts need be made to front-line services. Will he admit that he was wrong not to listen to the warnings and to say that front-line services would not be cut? Will he also admit that efficiency savings alone cannot deliver the huge cuts being forced on local authorities? What is he doing to increase the provision of social care now that he has heard the truth about what is going on?
The holy grail, as we all agree, is integration of social care and health, but the difficulty is that the Government are, on one hand, cutting local authorities extensively and, on the other, taking the health service by the ankles, turning it upside down and shaking it hard. Those are not ideal circumstances for the two bodies to integrate properly. The Bill calls itself the Health and Social Care Bill, but it contains precious little social care. There is a great deal of talk about integration, but words are not enough.
When it released the results of its survey recently, ADASS recommended that, as the Government are pausing to reconsider the Health and Social Care Bill, perhaps they might pause long enough to hear the results of the Dilnot inquiry and radically reconsider their plans for long-term care. If they want to be radical on health and social care, that is the area of need. We do not need the fundamentally misguided Health and Social Care Bill as it is drafted. We do not need competition driven into the heart of the NHS. What we need is co-operation and collaboration. We need health and social care to work more closely together.
If the Government are to pause, let them pause and think about that. Let them pause and ensure that, for example, we can keep the elderly out of hospital for as long as possible by allowing social services to provide proper social care, and that once someone is in hospital, they can get out quickly. That is the only fair way to treat people. Frankly, it also saves a great deal of money. If the Government spent more time, energy and resources on solving such issues and a little less on introducing competition into the national health service, we would all be a lot better off. I know that in his heart, the Minister agrees, but he has unfortunately found himself in the difficult position of having to defend this extraordinarily awful Bill.
I may have argued those points when the Bill was discussed in Committee, and I am glad to hear that ADASS now agrees with me in general. I am also glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell), never one to allow a bandwagon to pass him by, said that the legislation should be rethought:
“A clear commitment should be written into the Bill to achieve full institutional and managerial integration of the NHS and adult social care in England.”
The Select Committee Chair agrees with us as well.
I ask the Minister to reconsider funding and the reality and to give us an undertaking that he will no longer make false claims that there need be no cuts to front-line services and that he will do something about the matter. I also ask that the Health and Social Care Bill be worthy of its name, if it is not killed off completely. It needs major change so that social care can be integrated properly into health care. Worthy words are simply not enough to achieve that.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on his luck in securing the debate and on his choice of subject.
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on one point at least, which is that social care is not debated and discussed in this House anywhere near enough. I speak with the experience of 13 years in opposition and as one of the few who has carried the candle for social care and advanced the arguments, which I have heard others make today, on the need to focus on quality and to make sure that we do well by and develop the work force. I shall return to some of those points.
I agree that the long-term reform of our social care system should no longer be deferred to the long term. It requires our full attention now. We need to make sure that, during the life of this Parliament and, I hope, with the assistance of people of good will from all sides, we can secure lasting reform of both the law and the funding arrangements for social care. Our constituents expect no less of us at this time.
The hon. Member for Stockton North began by referring to last week’s march and lobby. A number of constituents lobbied me, and I met several of them at my surgery last weekend to discuss their issues. They have real concerns, to which the Government are listening and want to respond properly. We share a common goal, which is to maximise personal independence to allow people of all abilities to fulfil their potential. That has to be the common goal of both our benefits system and our social care system. It is certainly this Government’s ambition to achieve that.
I do not belittle in any way, shape or form the stories of the lives of individuals and the impacts of decisions made about spending in different parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman has rightly set out those individual and personal impacts. However, I will offer him a reflection on the past 13 years and, indeed, before that. The stories that he has told could have been told and have been told over the past 13 years, during which time we have seen a gradual tightening of eligibility criteria. Indeed, in 2008 the Learning Disability Coalition published a survey that showed that 72% of what were Labour authorities at that time anticipated—indeed, they were budgeting for this—tightening their eligibility criteria for access to services from “moderate” need to “substantial” need or even to “critical” need. I will discuss the reality in a moment.
Although the hon. Gentleman has rehearsed some important points, what I did not hear was a scintilla of humility, a suggestion of any doubt, or a slight recognition that we are where we are at least in part because of actions taken over the past 13 years. It would have been good to hear just a little indication that we are where we are because of what has already happened.
Paul Burstow
In a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will let me make my point, I will be happy for him to attempt to rebut it. There are things that did not happen over the past 13 years. We did not get to a position where we had a clear statutory basis for adult safeguarding. We did not get to a position where we had consistency of regulation, because the regulator was constantly being abolished and reformed. Funding has been inadequate for many years, and we have seen a failure, for various reasons over 13 years, to find a way forward that has secured consent for funding.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister said that I did not show any humility, but I specifically said that the previous Government and others before them could have done much more on social care. I specifically said that, and it is important that that remains on the record. In the past 20 or 30 years, no Government have addressed the fact that so many more older people and so many more young disabled people will require tremendous support. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we all need to do this together.
Paul Burstow
Yes; we can build on that point. The Government recognise the importance of social care and the fact that it lets people live independently, which is what it should be about. It should be about enabling people to live well, to be safe, to continue to do things that we take for granted and to be active participants in civic life.
As has been rehearsed in this debate, there are big challenges. There are demographic challenges and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has outlined some of those facts. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) has rightly said that, while we should be concerned about the challenge, we should not be so concerned as to forget to celebrate the fact that we have an ageing population—a population that is living for longer and, in many cases, living healthily for longer as well. We also have changing societal expectations and a greater expectation of being able to make choices for oneself, to be in control of one’s own life and to be able to have high standards of support to facilitate that. We have financial challenges. We have a structural deficit. For every £4 that this Government spend today, £1 is borrowed, and we are spending £120 million every day on interest charges.
Reference has been made to the survey by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for the BBC. I have to say that, of the many surveys that have been produced, including that of the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury, it is probably the least robust of the lot. There we go—I give the hon. Lady credit that her survey must be more robust than that of CIPFA, which did not provide a great deal of detail and did not ask the right questions. Indeed, those who answered the questions were not all social services authorities, and they included things in their figures that are not part of social care. Even the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has criticised that piece of work.
On attempting to address and mitigate the impact of the reductions that the Government have had to make in formula grant over the past year, we have strived to mitigate it in those areas with the greatest needs to make sure that we have increased the support in those areas, relative to others.
The hon. Member for Stockton North talked about high mortality figures in constituencies such as his own. Again, we have to dwell on why that is still the case after so many years, why we still have that legacy, why we have to continue to address those challenges, and why this Government, through their commitments in public health and elsewhere, are determined to make progress.
Despite the deficit legacy, we have taken some decisions. Members have forecast that I would refer to them, and I make no apology for that. We set out in the spending review in October how we would ensure sufficient resource in the system to allow decision makers at a local authority level to protect social care, if they decide that that is their priority. We have a good settlement in that context. An additional £2 billion will come to social care by 2014-15, and that money is getting through. In January, £162 million was put into social care via the national health service, which is something that we were asked to do and which we have done to ensure that social care gets additional support. Moreover, there is £648 million of additional funding from April this year. That money is going to social services departments and is being transferred by the NHS for that very purpose. A further £1.3 billion is supporting the transfer of funding for the commissioning of learning disabilities.
Those sums constitute the biggest transfer of hard cash from the NHS to social care ever. It is not only about supporting social care, but about breaking out of silos. It is about using cash to get people to start having those dialogues that are so important to achieve the collaborative behaviour and integration that are essential to delivering better services for our citizens.
On top of that is the £530 million that will come through the formula grant. I will not micro-manage, from this Chamber or my desk in Whitehall, every single social services authority and tell them how to use that money. It must be their decision, based on need, and they are accountable for such decisions.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister has anticipated what I am about to say. First, if money is being transferred from the health service to social care, I presume that it is being done by primary care trusts, which are at the same time being abolished. Is he confident, therefore, that that money is properly accounted for by the Department of Health, given the current chaos reigning within the health service? Secondly, will he tell us how much of the money given to local authorities is actually being spent on social care in the way in which it is supposed to be?
Paul Burstow
The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that I will write to the hon. Lady with further detail. However, it is certainly the case that money is being agreed between the NHS and social services for the provision of social care services that support health and underpin prevention.
I would also like to refer to the work of the King’s Fund, which is reputable body that is often cited by Opposition Members. It has confirmed that, if we take into account efficiency savings, there is no funding gap for social care during the spending review period. Of course, the grounds on which some councils have made their budget judgments mean that some have acted to protect social care through innovation and the redesign of services. Other councils have decided to change their eligibility or charging policies.
Reference has been made to the ADASS survey, which shows that social care spending as a share of council spending has increased. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury has referred to savings that local authorities are making. For every pound of savings that will be made from social care this year, 70p is a result of efficiency and doing things differently and only 20p—this is still something that I regret—is a result of actual reductions in service.
Yes, eligibility has been tightened, but that is not new. As I have mentioned, a survey carried out by the Learning Disability Coalition shows that those tightenings in eligibility criteria have been part and parcel of local government decisions for many years. Indeed, the ADASS survey shows that, when this Government came into office last year, 101 local authorities were already limiting eligibility to services to those with “substantial” need. Twelve months later, 116 local authorities are using “substantial” need and just six are using “critical” need. It is worth looking behind those headlines, because some councils are changing the eligibility criteria, but they are reinvesting the savings they make from that decision into preventive services, such as telecare and giving people personal budgets. For example, Southwark council has reviewed the needs of people with learning disabilities and is changing its services through the introduction of personal budgets, supported living and providing more control and dignity. It is saving resources, but it is also giving people a better quality of life.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North described the unacceptable quality of care in some care homes and the inquiry that was carried out by a local broadcaster. She is right to describe some of the shocking stories that she has heard and to decry how older people all too often get relegated in the headlines compared with scandals over the care of children. She talked about the Care Quality Commission and the fact that it has changed its inspection model. I respectfully suggest that the basis for the legislation that introduced essential standards and has led to a more risk-based model for inspection was debated in the House not under this Administration, but under the previous one. We have not abandoned the changes the previous Government started or thrown the whole regulatory framework up in the air yet again and caused chaos, as often happened in the past 13 years. We are trying to ensure that that model delivers.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North asked about skills and training. Those issues were also touched on by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). The Government are working with Skills for Care, which will produce work force, retention and personal assistance strategies to address the sorts of concerns that the hon. Lady and others have mentioned. I will publish those shortly.
Catherine McKinnell
I want to reassert the point that, regardless of the changes put in place during the past 13 years under the previous Administration, we are moving into unprecedented territory in terms of the funding given to local authorities for supporting social care within the community. That is the context in which some of the changes that we are demanding and requesting today need to be considered.
Paul Burstow
I have rehearsed some of the findings from the ADASS survey, which shows that although the changes are tough, they are not as unprecedented as the past 13 years of experience would suggest.
The hon. Member for Blaydon talked about the mixed economy of provision in social care and lamented the passing of a time when a public service offer was the almost exclusive way in which social care was provided. He harked back to a golden age that has passed and that may never have truly existed. I am not certain whether I heard him describe a solution or route map that would get us back to the past that he hankers after. If he has one, perhaps he would share it on another occasion. He also talked about Southern Cross. As a Minister, I am, of course, only too well aware of the issues with which that company is currently grappling. Above all else, I am concerned to safeguard the interests of the residents who live in those homes. That should be on our minds whenever we talk about Southern Cross and its prospects. We need to ensure that we secure its future for its residents.
Mr Anderson
I agree with the Minister entirely. I also agree that the previous Government did by no means get things right for 13 years, which is also true of other previous Governments. My worry is that we are being railroaded by a cuts-led agenda. In the past, we at least had a safety net of council provision, but that will no longer exist. Therefore, when organisations such as Southern Cross go belly up, there will be no one to pick up the pieces.
Paul Burstow
My point is that when we came into office, 101 local authorities were already limiting access to services on the basis of “substantial” need. We should not pretend that some overarching change is now happening.
Let me move briefly to the question of the future, which was also a key part of the debate. I am under no illusion that although the settlement that we secured for social care is good, it is only a bridge and a sticking plaster in terms of the future. The social care system needs radical reconstruction surgery, and its funding needs be seen as what it is—a big issue. My ministerial mailbag shows that it is one of the biggest matters about which people write to their MPs, who in turn write to me. There is a real and understandable grievance out there about paying for social care. People feel shock and bewilderment, and they are appalled by the current system because, after paying taxes all their lives, they have to pay for care. That leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of both those who use the services and, in many cases, their families.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton North that we need to change. That is why the Dilnot commission, which this Government established last year, offers us hope and a way forward. It has been asked to consider whether there should be a fair partnership between the state and the citizen. The prize that we could grasp is peace of mind and a sustainable system for the future. I will ensure that the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East are passed on to the commission, so that they form part of its considerations. It is not sufficient to reform funding alone, because we also need a modern statute founded on 21st-century principles of self-determination, reciprocity and responsibility. The current law is a mess: it is confusing; it lacks coherence; and it is hard to understand.
Emily Thornberry
On the issue of confusion, the Minister spoke earlier about the King’s Fund and said that its view is that cuts will not be made to social care. I have just checked that, and I believe that the King’s Fund has said that there will be a shortfall of £1.2 billion by 2014-15.
Paul Burstow
The King’s Fund has stated that but, if one reads on, the document concerned states that if efficiencies of 3.5% are made, there is no need for a funding gap to open up.
On social care law reform, our current legislation is the product of 60 years of piecemeal legislation that looks back to 19th-century poor law principles. A Law Commission report makes 76 recommendations and provides a firm foundation on which we can build. The Government intend to publish a White Paper later this year and to introduce a Bill in the second parliamentary Session.
Our intentions are clear. During the life of this Parliament, we want both the law on social care and its funding to be reformed. We want that reform to be based on a vision in which there is a greater personalisation of social services, a more preventive focus on how those services are provided and a real attempt to deliver around outcomes. We want services that are more innovative and that are based around growth, telecare and involving other providers. There also needs to be a partnership between the individual, the state and health and social care providers. That is how we can secure the future of social care and make a real difference for every one of our constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton North for initiating the debate, and I hope that we will have more debates about social care than have taken place during the past 13 years.
Religious Education
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I am privileged to raise the role of religious education in schools under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. A number of colleagues have joined me for today’s debate; I thank them.
First, may I state that I know that the Secretary of State for Education takes very seriously the issue of enabling every child—whatever their background—to achieve their full potential by promoting the highest quality of educational standards? He is doing a sterling job in that regard and I thank him for that.
I turn specifically to religious education in schools. Hon. Members will all be aware that RE in schools is, and has long been, a compulsory subject. The Government do not intend to change that. That is good. If RE is important enough to be compulsory, why not include it in the English baccalaureate? In late 2010, the Secretary of State announced that the new E-bac certificate will be awarded to students who achieve grades A* to C in English, maths, science, a foreign language and a humanity. Of the humanities, the choice is history or geography. Why not add RE to the humanities choices?
In response to that question, the Secretary of State has answered:
“because it is already a compulsory subject. One intention of the English baccalaureate is to encourage wider take-up of geography and history in addition to, rather than instead of, compulsory RE.” —[Official Report, 7 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 10.]
That sounds laudable, but there are serious concerns that that will produce unintended consequences. Since school league tables will now take into account the percentage of students awarded the certificate, the E-bac is increasingly being emphasised as the primary qualification for 16-year-olds, and the teaching of RE in schools risks being undermined. Indeed, according to new research by the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, one in three schools, in a survey of nearly 800, say that they will significantly reduce the amount of resources and numbers of teachers dedicated to teaching RE in the approaching academic year. In a recent joint letter published in The Daily Telegraph, leading academics revealed that 45% of university teacher training places in RE have been cut. Therefore, non-specialist teachers will be left to teach the subject.
One reason for varying quality in RE provision in the past—less so today—has been the lack of RE teachers who are subject specialists. There has been considerable progress in increasing their numbers, due in part to the popularity of the subject at GCSE and A-level. If that progress is reversed, the overall quality of RE teaching, even as a compulsory subject, could suffer. The status of the E-bac means that, already, fewer pupils are opting to study RE, as discussions that I have had in my constituency have shown.
Why is RE so important that so many people are asking for a reconsideration and for its inclusion as a core E-bac humanities subject? Before I explore that question, I should say that the many people I refer to include 100 MPs, who have signed an early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), calling for just that. That was doubtless prompted in large part, as I have been myself, by constituents’ letters, representations from local schools and a public petition signed by more than 115,000 members of the public. That petition was promoted by the REACT campaign, which stands for putting religious education at the heart of humanities, and it has successfully united religious leaders from a number of faith groups, including Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs.
Why is RE important? It is important because it is a subject taught distinctly from other humanities subjects. It is quite different from the RE, or scripture, that many of us of a certain age may have studied by learning passages from the Bible by rote. Admittedly, that sometimes produced unintended consequences—some humorous, such as the answer in an exam paper that an RE teacher told me about. In response to the question, “Who was most disappointed at the return of the prodigal son?”, a pupil wrote, “the fatted calf”.
Today’s RE has moved on, as I know from closely looking at the subject with one of my sons, who is a GCSE RE student. Today’s RE is not about promoting one religion, but about understanding many and understanding many other aspects of life from a faith perspective. My son tells me that RE includes topics such as environmental issues, discrimination, law and punishment. It also includes an understanding of the cultural and religious values of different peoples and faiths. One sixth former, who recently studied GCSE RE along with total of nine GCSEs, told me:
“it was the only subject in which I got to discuss current affairs and responses to them.”
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Perhaps RE has become so wishy-washy that it is not worth preserving.
Fiona Bruce
I dispute that. My hon. Friend would, I think, respect my view, on which I shall elaborate now.
Religious issues are frequently at the top of any news agenda. Today’s RE helps young people make sense of that and wider world affairs. It also promotes community cohesion, as it allows young people, who are growing up in a diverse society, to discuss and understand the views and opinions of people whose beliefs and values differ from their own, in the safety of the classroom environment. One RE student told me:
“many societies and cultures have strong religious foundations and understanding their methodology and thought was very helpful. I thoroughly enjoyed it.”
Enjoyment is key to learning well. We all learn better when we enjoy it, and GCSE RE is popular. In the past 15 years, the number of students taking GCSE RE has quadrupled from 113,000 to approximately 460,000. The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, has said:
“In an increasingly confusing world, Religious Studies gives young people perhaps their only opportunity to engage seriously not only with the most profound philosophical questions concerning human existence and the nature of reality, but also with the most fundamental ethical dilemmas of our day”.
Where else will our young people obtain that? To put it more grittily, I cite a real life example from a teacher of almost 30 years’ standing, who has taught near where I have lived for much of my life. She has been a deputy head teacher with management responsibility for developing spiritual, moral, social and cultural values policy in schools. She recalls:
“On the day after 9/11, a 12-year-old Muslim girl ran to me in tears saying that she had been taunted, chased and threatened on her way to school. Other pupils and youngsters, many older than her were accusing her of being responsible for the destruction of the twin towers and multiple murders. She was identifiable because of the colour of her skin and she wore a scarf. Up until that day, there was no evidence of…any problem. She had received interest and questioning, but she never experienced hatred. Overnight, the media’s coverage and the need to find someone to blame meant that she became a target. She was the only Muslim child in a mostly white school. There had to be an immediate response to identify the main bullies, but for many weeks, through RE, there was specific teaching about Islam and Islamophobia. The outcome was positive, with the girl being accepted and becoming a senior prefect who was respected and valued by others.”
Cultural diversity is explored through teaching RE. Pupils are able to share their beliefs, arrange church visits, demonstrate how a turban is worn, demonstrate how others pray, bring in homemade food for festivals and share the meaning of specific rituals. As well as promoting community cohesion and giving young people an insight into their own and other cultures and heritage, RE also supports pupils in articulating moral judgments and dealing with misfortune, death, loss, and issues in their neighbourhoods and workplaces. It prepares them for adult life.
As one teacher told me:
“good RE teaching can promote positive values for young people and society.”
She cited the example of James Delaney, a twelve-year-old boy from a Traveller family, who was murdered in Ellesmere Port in Cheshire. She speaks from a close perspective, with experience of teaching in the boy’s area. She said:
“Traveller children often have strong religious views…however, if they move into communities, there can be hostility…often their children in school…are exposed to bullying in response to what they may hear their parents and other adults saying. Getting pupils to empathise and ‘step into the shoes’ of a family whose 12-year-old son was murdered…because he was a traveller, proved to be a powerful way of challenging perceptions and wrongly held views, as children should not be held to blame for things their parents do.”
RE lessons also develop transferrable skills such as critical analysis, essay structure and general written and verbal language skills. Those benefit other subjects as pupils learn how to express and articulate their views and, equally importantly, to respect those of others. Questioning, reasoning, empathy, philosophy, values and insight are all highly valuable skills fostered within RE learning. One student told me:
“It focused my thinking on areas of abstract thought, it improved and developed my analytical skills and logical reasoning”—
quite powerful points, in his own words, from a student who has recently studied GCSE RE. Another pupil told me how each essay is commented on according to the qualities of K, U and E——knowledge, understanding and evaluation—which appeared in the margin of all his essays and had to be demonstrated.
Research among 1,000 16 to 23-year-olds has found that 83% felt that RE could promote understanding of different religions and beliefs, while more than half agreed that it had had a positive influence on them. So what would be the negative results, however unintended, of excluding RE from the E-bac as proposed?
Currently, most state secondary schools arrange their timetables with a humanities bloc of geography, history and RE. An experienced teacher told me that
“under the new system if RE is not part of the E-bacc, I can foresee that schools will no longer want to pay exam fees as it will not be acknowledged in the new targets or E-bacc. Pupils will be forced to study either geography or history and will not have space on their timetable to study a full GCSE in RE. Whilst RE remains a compulsory subject, it will have to be taught, but it will be relegated and in pupils, parents and many teachers’ eyes, it will soon become the Cinderella subject it was many years ago.”
RE, even as a compulsory subject, might be increasingly merged with PSHE—personal, social and health education—and citizenship at key stage 4, something I understand Ofsted does not appear unduly concerned about. If those subjects are merged, to overcome a timetable or time issue, staff might not be specialist RE teachers, and the more media-focused or sensational topics within PSHE and citizenship might dominate. Scaling back might also affect the post of RE adviser, a role that ensures that appropriate importance is given to the content of the RE syllabus in response to the needs of a local community, taking into account such factors as the numbers of a particular religious or ethnic group.
RE might not be taught or advised on by specialists to the standard of other subjects, and fewer students and teachers might be able to understand and communicate the impact of religion on culture, society and current affairs. Without that guidance, young people might find it more difficult to cope with the more difficult moral, philosophical or cultural challenges that they find today; to form good relationships with others, especially those of a different cultural background; or to maintain secure values and beliefs enabling them to make good rather than bad choices, in particular in early adulthood. It is also argued that without RE, the influence of simplistic or extreme sources of information on religion could increase, at the risk of greater stereotyping and prejudice; a less tolerant society might ensue.
If faith schools continued to prioritise GCSE RE, they might fall down the school league tables. Some schools might even stop offering GCSE RE as a separate subject or course, putting resources into priority E-bac subjects to raise or maintain the school ranking. Students who devoted time to study GCSE RE could be penalised, as it does not qualify as an E-bac subject.
What am I asking the Minister to do? Primarily to protect, support and sustain the increasing improvement of religious education in our schools, ideally by including the GCSE full course on religious studies as one of the humanities choices in the E-bac, in addition to geography and history. Students could be able to opt for any one of them, or, under a changed specification, to take two of the subjects, so that history and geography retained the same status as currently proposed under the E-bac. Whether or not the Minister responds favourably to that request, which, as I mentioned at the outset, has huge public support, RE will remain a compulsory subject for all school students, even if they do not study GCSE RE, so I ask the Minister to consider my next points as well.
It is critical that RE should not be unintentionally downgraded, that the teaching of RE as a compulsory subject, quite separately from the teaching of GCSE RE, should be accorded the priority it merits, and that appropriate signals should be sent out to such effect from the highest level. Will the Minister kindly consider how the Government can ensure that the appropriate resources are applied to the teaching of RE in schools and that an appropriately robust approach is taken regarding the nature of such teaching and of the Ofsted inspections for the provision and quality of RE? That would reaffirm the important role of RE in schools and its vital contribution to the whole school curriculum. It would recognise RE’s importance to pupils as a preparation for the character that they will require in adulthood, as well as throughout the whole of a child’s school life.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Brady.
I have been contacted by a wide number of constituents, local schools and educationlists who are concerned about the Government decision not to include RE as a humanities subject in the new English baccalaureate, or E-bac. I cannot express those concerns better than by quoting a few of the individuals directly, beginning with a recent communication from Mrs Robson, head teacher of Archbishop Runcie Church of England first school in Gosforth, in my constituency:
“students qualifying with GCSE full course in RS are young people who demonstrate knowledge and understanding of a variety of contemporary world views and who have demonstrated skills of discernment and evaluation of religious and philosophical issues and arguments, qualities much needed in today’s world.”
She continued that the consequence of not including RE as a humanities option
“would be disastrous for many schools and students and for the future expertise required to teach the subject…The unintended consequence of not including GCSE Religious Studies as an option in the E-Bacc is that many schools will cease to offer RE at GCSE altogether; this in turn will have a very negative impact on the number of students taking RE at A-Level, and therefore on the applications for theology and religious studies at degree level. This means that there will be a corresponding decline in candidates for teacher training and so on teacher supply for RE, a subject which is already lacking in specialist teachers.”
Alison Miller, head teacher at St Mark’s Roman Catholic primary school in Westerhope, expressed her concerns about the Government’s decision, stating that it would be a “retrograde step” to exclude RE from the E-bac, in particular in light of
“the excellent progress that has been made in the teaching of RE at GCSE level over recent years”.
I share my constituents’ concerns. We seriously lag behind the rest of Europe in our approach to education and our ability, through our schooling, to analyse issues and problems from a deeper philosophical perspective. I am concerned that the decision to exclude RE from the E-bac will reinforce that trend, when a better understanding and respect for different faiths, regardless of one’s own faith or practice, would be beneficial.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
At this particular time in our history, when there is so much conflict still in the world, many teachers and parents believe a spiritual literacy and understanding of religion is hugely important and must continue in Britain. Does my hon. Friend recognise fears that that will be diminished at the local level?
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with my right hon. Friend and thank him for reinforcing that important point. Religious education should not in effect be downgraded in this way, as a good understanding of all religions is essential to a well rounded education.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education on behalf of my constituents, urging him to rethink the Government’s decision. However, I received a very disappointing response from the Schools Minister, which simply reiterated the position that RE is not to be included because it is already a compulsory subject, “throughout a pupil’s schooling”. That argument has been demolished by Mrs Robson, the head teacher at Archbishop Runcie school, who pointed out the difference between statutory or core provision of religious education and the option for students to take religious studies as a full course to GCSE level.
The Minister’s response simply does not address the concern that his decision will lead to a downgrading of the importance of RE, because achievement in designated E-bac subjects will, understandably, become the overriding concern of schools, pupils and parents. Like me, many of my constituents and people throughout the north-east are dissatisfied with the Minister’s responses, and his apparent refusal to reconsider his decision. They include Mrs Pat Wager, head teacher at Sacred Heart Catholic high school in Fenham, which is my old school. She said:
“RS cannot be excluded from a domain entitled ‘Humanity’—RS is the pre-eminent humanity and yet it has no place.”
That is dispiriting for Catholic schools, which contribute so much to performance nationally. Whenever a Minister addresses us, we are told how wonderful we are and our exceptional achievements are celebrated, yet we are being treated disdainfully over this matter, which is so important to us.
For all the reasons outlined so articulately and persuasively by Mrs Wager, Mrs Robson, Ms Miller and the many other constituents who have contacted me about this important issue, I urge the Minister to stop or to pause, and to reconsider his decision not to include RE as a humanity in the English baccalaureate. We would all welcome that U-turn.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I agree with everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). As at least 12 hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate, I shall be brief.
I am sure the Minister needs no persuasion of the need for religious education in the syllabus, so I suspect that the issues are essentially practical. I am also sure that the damaging and ongoing domino effect on religious education of being left out of the 2010 E-bac list has been explained to him on many occasions, as has been clearly confirmed by the survey by the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education.
My understanding is that the Minister’s concern is a practical issue and not about RE, because he wants to reverse the decline in history and geography, but that should not be done by undermining RE. Perhaps he will consider having at least a two-out-of-three option, which would add only 5% of time to the syllabus and could be easily managed. I hope that when he replies to the debate, he will not dig in but will start by saying that he has heard the mood of the Chamber, and that he will ask his officials to explore a two-out-of-three option, and return to him.
That is all the more important because under the review of the national curriculum, RE is not part of it. There is a distinction between the basic curriculum and the national curriculum. RE is the odd subject out, which does not help. As we move towards a greater number of academies—I think the Government’s perception of them is that they should be “independent” schools—we will not see RE written back into primary legislation for academies. If we are not careful, all that will undermine the position of RE.
RE teacher training has been hit by nearly 50% because of schools responding to the change in its position. I appreciate that the Minister is sympathetic regarding the question of RE in the E-bac, but I hope he will be able to square the circle because that is his ministerial task. Only religious education provides students with the opportunity to question and study spiritual and moral beliefs in a spiritual context.
I conclude by sharing with the House what I think is the clear and undisputed view of the Church of England, and which is clearly supported by other Churches. That was made clear to me when I went to the consecration of St Joseph the Worker Roman Catholic church in my constituency on Sunday. The Church of England
“is deeply concerned at the exclusion of Religious Education from the list of Humanities qualifications that are acceptable for the English Baccalaureate. It is already clear that schools are removing RE from the GCSE options for students as a direct result of this.”
I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the Chamber today, and heed its collective voice.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I apologise to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for not giving her notice of my desire to contribute to this debate. I am here as a lay person, a practising Catholic and a great friend of Jane Savill, who runs the master’s degree course in religious education at the Institute of Education in London.
It strikes me that a poor excuse for excluding religion from the humanities topics in the baccalaureate is that we want to promote geography and history, because that is doing to RE what we did to geography and history. As most people know, when Ofsted comes into a school, it has a whole-school programme approach and will not notice the decline in RE as a topic until it is too late and it is in the same state as history and geography. Knowing that, and understanding the history, why would we want to replicate our current problems?
For me, religious education, far from being wishy-washy, provides an understanding of our place in society and of others’ views in society. In my suburban south London constituency, many people are new to our area and have different faiths, values and attitudes, and the study of religious education is important for our understanding not only of other people’s views, but of our own place in the world. Sometimes, the religious education that young people receive outside the classroom may be a cause for concern, and for radicalism, but that may be challenged in schools in an environment where people feel safe to challenge the views of others.
I implore the Minister to look at the matter again. What big society topic can be greater than religious education? It is a subject that makes us understand the basis of our constitution, society, history and values. If we want people to look outwards, to see their place in the world and to show responsibility towards others, religious education is the very basis of that action and those values. When people ask me why I joined the Labour party and why I became an MP, it is often difficult to answer because there are so many reasons for all of us. My faith is part of the basis of that, not because I am as understanding of my faith intellectually as some hon. Members on the Government Benches, but because I am a cradle Catholic and understand my values through my education.
I suggest that the problem for religious education will not be in the Catholic schools, because they will continue to have a core understanding that the teaching of religious education is imperative to pupils’ development. It is other schools that may have a significant problem, and I ask the Minister to think about that, because of the topic’s academic value, its value to individual development and its benefit to wider society in understanding not only our own history but others’.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her debate. Obviously, hon. Members are speaking with considerable passion. I acknowledge that, of a number of things I have done in life for which I am barely qualified and have no genuine talent, one has been teaching RE. I taught it for quite a long time to bright adolescent boys, so I know a little about the matter.
Religious education is not an attempt to make people religious, and that must be clearly stated. It is not an attempt to instruct people on what they should believe. Religious education and religion are misunderstood and widely misrepresented.
It seems to me that a person adopts a religion because that provides a framework within which they try to understand their existence; they abandon that religion if and when it fails to provide that meaningful framework. A religion or faith is tested as one’s existence is played out day by day—religion is caught, not taught. Some people get by without using any traditional religious concepts to clarify their life and existence, and such people are called secularists. Most hon. Members present in the Chamber appear to be religious, but in general, people who are not religious are frankly indifferent to those who are. There are, however, an increasing number of angry and aggressive secularists who are filled with what can be described only as missionary zeal to ensure that people are as unreligious as possible. Some people make no attempt to apply a framework to their existence and live an unreflective life.
Within our existence we do a range of things—we study science and history, make moral decisions, listen to music. We join political parties, fall in and out of love, make speeches in Westminster Hall, get ourselves elected and so on. Those things are part of our existence, but they do not entail a particular view of what existence is about. We struggle; we sometimes wonder what we are all doing here. Happily or unhappily, most cultures have a particular view of how we should understand our existence. We call those views religions, and in a sense they come from the groundwork carried out by our forebears. The merits, strength and weaknesses of religions are discovered by those who adopt and try to live out such explanations for their existence.
We cannot teach a religion in a classroom, but we can teach about it and that is what religious education involves. RE may include a number of elements such as the history of religion to explain what people of a particular religion have done, how that religion began, how it spread and so on. The sociology behind religion may be taught to identify a religion’s social effects and the factors that influenced its growth. There may be elements of psychology in identifying traits that may—or may not—incline one towards a particular religion, and the effects of religious belief on a person. RE is not philosophy; its principal job is to clarify how religions, which exist all around us, endeavour to explain our existence and how adherents of a religion live their lives and are likely to act.
Religious education has historically been taught in a narrow way that simply explained the Christian framework. More recently we have had more of a Cook’s tour approach—I am sure that would disgust the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh)—and a whole range of religions are covered with a fairly light-touch approach. It is a hard subject to teach in a totally fair and scrupulous way.
Only once we understand how people view their lives will we know how to engage with them properly, which, I suggest, is what life is about. Therefore, understanding people’s religions is at least as important as understanding their history or geography. Arguably, it is more important than knowing about one’s own past or locale, although there is considerable benefit in understanding one’s culture, background and habitation. History, geography and religious education are all equally important subjects, and there is no convincing case for excluding one and including the others in the English baccalaureate. The reason given by the Secretary of State is that RE is a compulsory subject under law, but the grounds for that curious legal status are obscure and not explained. It is not clear—it seems a straight non-sequitur—why making a subject compulsory in the syllabus means that it does not need to be optional and given more intensive study in the baccalaureate. The blessings of compulsory status are mixed. In the average British school, subjects with compulsory status are often ignored or not explained, and even good schools feel licensed to provide minimal or poor-quality teaching, simply to comply with the law. The compulsory status of RE in this country has done little to stimulate genuine religious belief or interest. In the United States, where teaching religion in schools is absolutely forbidden, church attendance is higher and there are greater levels of belief.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Given the decline in attendance at church services across the United Kingdom and particularly in England, is there not a greater need for religious education and study in schools, so that the benefits of that will be felt by those families who do not have the chance to attend church on Sunday?
John Pugh
Given that people do not necessarily have an adequate understanding of what religions represent and involve, there is a case for teaching more about them in schools. I will go that far, but one cannot argue that it is the job of schools to make the nation religious. RE was made compulsory in schools due to a Victorian belief that an irreligious proletariat would be difficult to handle.
Whether or not RE is legally compulsory should not affect its inclusion as a humanities subject in the baccalaureate. The most interesting thing about humanity—we are discussing humanities—is not that we live, breathe, procreate and die, but that we seek to grasp what our existence is about and live accordingly. We are all religious in some sense or other. To make RE a statutory obligation risks diminishing its status, narrowing its scope and lessening its quality. It is a poor argument to suggest that, just because a subject is compulsory in one context, it cannot be optional in another.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I apologise for arriving late, Mr Brady, and I shall not delay hon. Members for long. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) will not mind my saying this, but he gave the driest version of what religious education might involve that I have ever heard. His speech included a lot of sentences that could have ended with the word “discuss” in an essay title.
I have four brief points. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), I am not a layperson. I was ordained in 1986 in the Church of England, and that remains with me although I resigned my orders prior to entering the House. I believe strongly that the most important place where people catch faith—to use the words of the hon. Member for Southport—is in the home; the best faith education happens in the home, in a family setting.
Last night, however, I sat next to a woman who told me that although she was a strong member of her local United Reform church, and in her words a very liberal Christian, one of her sons is now an ardent evangelical who believes that she will be going into the fiery pit, and her other son is a militant atheist. None the less, she felt that she had done a good job of religious education in the home.
The question of RE in schools is vital. The subject is not an add-on; it is essential to understanding so many other subjects. Few works of English literature—apart, perhaps, from that written in the past 20 years—can be properly understood without an understanding of Christianity. It is difficult to understand many modern British novels without knowing something about Islam. Most British music—indeed, most European music from the past 800 years—is dominated by religious themes. How can one understand the history of Parliament without some reference to the religious debates that started with rows about the Lollards and went through to the disestablishment of the Church in Wales in the early 20th century?
If we wish to respond to some of the challenges of militant religion, we should perhaps be better at discussing religion in the main Chamber. Some elements of geography cannot be understood without a knowledge of religion. The relationship of Istanbul—once Constantinople—with Europe cannot be understood as a geographical entity without consideration of the religious aspect. Few modern languages do not require an understanding of religion.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that without an understanding of religion, we are left only with labels, which is a huge problem for society?
Chris Bryant
I was coming to that point. However, before I do, I want to say as an article of faith—and I am not a fundamentalist, either in religion or politics—that I think spirituality is a river that one cannot dam. There are hundreds of different forms of spirituality, but any education worth its salt in this country needs to give young people an opportunity to understand and develop that spirituality, so that it is fully grown and mature, not naive.
The hon. Member for Congleton referred to “a tolerant society”. I hate that term. I do not want to live in a tolerant society, because it smells of people saying, “I am prepared to put up with you.” I would much prefer to live in a respectful society. If anything, the danger of the liberal—small “l”—Britain of the past 100 years is that we have been tolerant of other religions, but never learned enough about them to be truly respectful.
In addition, we have never learned enough about Islam, or any other religion, to be able to challenge bad religion. Heaven knows, there is plenty of bad religion in society today. It is not just the British attitude that one cannot possibly talk about politics or religion at a dinner party; it is that all too often we are fundamentally ignorant about the basis of most religions. I would include in that the fact that many young people are extremely ignorant about Christianity.
My experience of Catholic teaching in many Catholic schools is that sometimes it is good and sometimes it is appalling. There is one thing that I particularly dislike: I have heard Catholic teachers refer to “Christians and Catholics”, as if non-Catholics were not Christians. I always believed the word Catholic to extend beyond. I hope all that has moved on, but I think that in some cases it has not.
I want to refer to one final matter. I happen, bizarrely, to be an external adviser on the Oxford theology degree. One of my concerns is that the number of people applying to do theology at university is dwindling. In part, that may be due to social issues, but it may also be due to the respect with which religious education is treated in the curriculum in England, Wales and Scotland. I wish it would be accorded further respect, not least because the big danger is that otherwise the courses will end up just being vocational. In other words, somebody training to be a priest goes to read theology at university and is merely trained in that narrow, prescriptive way, and does not learn about other religions or extend the course. That is a vicious circle because fewer people who have an interest in religion itself, rather than a desire to go for ordination, will take it forward.
I wholly agree with what the hon. Member for Congleton said, and I congratulate her. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the value that he places on religious education in schools.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. I am mindful that many Members wish to speak. I would like to say that, although many of us have a religious persuasion, the issue is not about “God squad” people wishing to keep God in schools. I had a very interesting discussion with Juliette Lyle, deputy director of the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education. She came to speak to me, as a teacher in St Albans schools. We agreed that this taxing and pressing subject ought to be considered by people of faith and no faith.
“Religious education” is a misnomer, and that worries me. It is like calling maths, “sums”; it diminishes the subject. Some of the great studies throughout recorded history have been theological. Some of our greatest and most beautiful pieces of writing have come through the theological route. To diminish it by calling it “RE, and everybody does it” takes away the rigour of its study.
People have also queried its use and the good of studying it. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, it could be vocational. I could also question the good of some complex mathematical theorems that one might have studied at 14 or 15. I used to be a teacher and, as a Member of Parliament, I have found my religious education O-level to be of far more use than the maths that I was pretty rubbish at. If nothing else, it has helped me to understand some of the faiths and backgrounds of people I serve in my community. My constituency is a proud cathedral city, but also has a 10% ethnic minority community, the largest of which is Bangladeshi. For all of us, even if we take it no further as a rigorous study, RE helps us in our lives to understand other people. That point has been well made today.
I hotly disagree with the opinion that the subject is wishy-washy. If it is wishy-washy in some schools, some rigour ought to be put back into it. By leaving it out of the baccalaureate as an option, we are continuing to give it a “sums” title of study. We should be saying that the subject is one of the pinnacles of university study, but it is increasingly not a university course of choice. With that comes the shuttered approach that we get in many of our town centres. Once a town centre is diminished, once there are no longer shops that people go to, people stop going there. If we do not give the subject the place that it truly deserves within the curriculum, as a rigorous option among the humanities courses, people will stop choosing it. Young people will stop seeing it as something worth doing, parents will not encourage them to do it and it will die a slow death.
Mindful that many others are speaking today, I would like to say that I supported the early-day motion and I also wrote to the Minister. I urge the Minister to listen to our voices. It is not just because people want to see us doing religion in schools. Religion, as many have said, is something that one catches or may never catch, and having it is not easy. This is about a rigorous approach, about testing values. Should we bar people from wearing religious symbols? Should we legislate for that as they do in France? Do we condemn the sectarian attacks on goalkeepers because some teams are seen as having a particular religious persuasion? Do we look at some great pieces of literature and say that the roots are echoed in modern literature? As other hon. Members have said, people might not even understand the literature without understanding the references. There are many aspects of the subject that could be studied intensely, which would contribute enormously to a young person’s education and life skills.
The claim that there is a logistical problem should not prevent RE from being an option in the baccalaureate. I urge the Minister to consider a way round that, so that schools that wish to approach the subject in the rigorous way that I would like have the option of doing so. To say that the subject is done all through the school year diminishes it and is used as a reason not to include it. I would rather it were not made a legal requirement in schools, if that means it is then excluded. Most schools, particularly faith schools, would teach it anyway.
If one can opt out of religious studies, we have more of an argument for removing that legal protection, rather than using it as an excuse to exclude it from the baccalaureate. There is strong support in the country to see this subject as an option. I urge the Minister to listen to that support.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing such an important debate. As has already been noted, it is not actually a religious debate. It is also not just about a religious lobby wanting to fight its own corner; I always think that God is big enough to fight his own corner, on this issue as well as others. Nor is the debate about imparting faith. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, the best place for that is often the home.
This is a debate about humanities. The Government are keen, quite properly, to ensure that we return the rigour and the study in humanities, especially given the declining numbers studying geography. This is an issue of humanities, geography, history and culture. Religion, particularly Christianity, has shaped our buildings—not just the building we walk in, but those all around. Religion has shaped literature in our libraries, paintings in our galleries and relationships with our neighbours. The debate has looked beyond the classroom, and that is right.
However, we need to recognise what has been going on in our classrooms. There is a freeze on consultants, so I would like to help the Minister with a SWOT analysis—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. First, there are the strengths that one sees around in relation to religious education. Yes, there has been an increase in provision and quality since the mid-1990s. RE is also much more popular. Gone is the caricature of RE lessons as simply being the soft option, where pupils can have an easy ride, go to sleep or cause trouble for the teacher. There is now properly recognised specialist training for RE, and that is reflected in the fact that four times as many students take it up at A-level than was the case 15 years ago.
The statutory curriculum is a strength, and we need to look at it in more detail. In that respect, there is leadership from the Minister and the Secretary of State—including in communications that I have received, which have been more positive than hon. Members have suggested. In them, there has been a commitment to the importance of religious education and to continuing to safeguard its position in the curriculum. They have also made it clear that there are no plans to change the current legal requirement for a daily act of collective worship.
Another strength, which has not been mentioned, is standing advisory councils for religious education at the local level. Local agreed syllabus conferences provide good-quality religious education, and one fine example is Birmingham, where people are being brought together to determine what is best for their community.
However, there are weaknesses, which we need to recognise. Despite a legacy of improvements, we face a difficult time, even leaving aside the concerns about the E-bac. Last year’s Ofsted report “Transforming religious education”—it did not receive a response from the previous Government, and I question whether there will be a formal response from this Government—recognised that there was a lack of systemic monitoring by Ofsted of statutory compliance. It also recognised the inadequacy of professional development and the fact that the quality of religious education is still patchy. That was particularly true—this is the key point—where teachers were non-specialists and there were short GCSE courses. The concern is whether that weakness will predominate around the country with the result that the strengths that have been built up over the years are lost.
However, there are opportunities, as I have mentioned. The Government are quite properly committed to local determination as regards religious education. I could also mention this debate, the 115,000 people who have signed petitions and the people who have lobbied us. It is important to harness that debate and interest to ensure that communities fight the corner of religious education locally so that it is in our schools. We must also ensure that funding streams continue for the religious education advisers who are under threat. There is also greater freedom in the curriculum, and that, too, provides opportunities.
The threats involved in RE’s not being part of the E-bac have been mentioned, and I will not repeat them.
Mr Lammy
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman mentioned the British Humanist Association, but does he recognise that although we would not generally agree with some of the things that it says, it is also concerned about the loss of religious education in our schools? The association believes that it is important for people who are not of faith—atheists or agnostics—to understand religious views and to hear them put across in schools.
Mr Burrowes
I do indeed recognise that. Many associations take part in the local agreed syllabus conferences.
The rebuttal to the concerns about RE’s not being part of the E-bac is that schools still have the time in their curriculums to allow pupils to take RE as a GCSE option. I see that as an option for pupils at successful schools, which have the necessary capacity and time, but it may not be an option for less successful schools and for pupils who are more challenging, who will inevitably go for just the core requirements in the curriculum. The unintended consequence of such an approach could be that RE is not taken up as an option. The concern then is that we would go back to having a lack of specialist RE teachers.
There is a concern that the freedoms set out in the funding agreements for academies and free schools may entail a lower take-up of RE in some areas. There is also a concern that the current statutory requirement is not being followed through to implementation. As has been said, where is the true rigour in inspections? The limited focus on maintaining the statutory requirement in future inspections may have a negative effect on the curriculum. I recognise that the national curriculum review does not include religious education, but one should not ignore the crossover and the links between the basic curriculum and the national curriculum in terms of the whole life of a school and exam options.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to walk carefully and cautiously in considering the possible impact of not having RE as part of the E-bac. I ask him to recognise the strength of the crucial argument that if RE is important enough to be required by law, it is important enough for us to include it as an exam subject in the English baccalaureate. That would be just one simple and practical way of acknowledging the importance of religious literacy and a proper understanding of our humanity.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to speak, Mr Brady. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on arranging this important debate.
I welcome the Department’s dialogue with universities to ascertain which GCSEs will give young people the best chance to get into the best universities. I have supported the E-bac for many years, so I am greatly encouraged that the coalition Government are moving forward with it. However, I have obvious concerns about the fact that the humanities exclude RE, so let me say a little about the importance of RE, which all my colleagues have dealt with very well.
In simple terms, there are so many different messages for our young people in the modern world that the very idea of their not receiving education from experienced RE teachers fills me with horror. There are so many dysfunctional messages out there that if young people do not have the opportunity to hear about religion in the round from experienced teachers, they will, as sure as night follows day, be more prone to taking up some of the more dangerous, outrageous and cruel messages about aspects of religion, which would do them a disservice. I therefore urge the Minister to think carefully about this.
On some more specific points, I was privileged to sponsor early-day motion 1375, and I am absolutely delighted that more than 100 Members from all parties in the House have supported it and signed it, just as many tens of thousands of members of the public have signed petitions. Indeed, if I could wave a magic wand and explain the importance of RE in schools to all 60 million-plus people in this country, No. 10 Downing street would have a petition with about 30 million signatures.
The Minister and the Department recognise that this is an issue of serious and profound concern for many people. Given that the Minister is with us today, however, I want to ask for a number of commitments. First, there is no getting away from the fact that not making RE an option in the humanities section of the E-bac will lead to reductions in RE-trained and experienced staff; in fact, I am already receiving anecdotal evidence that that is happening. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that possible trend is halted? I fear that the redundancies that will inevitably come from the Department’s proposed changes will lead to a fall in standards, less focus on RE as part of a compulsory key stage 4 curriculum and, importantly, a lack of trained resource for the future, which our children and schools will ultimately regret deeply—I certainly would, and all my colleagues in the Chamber would, too.
Secondly, when the Minister speaks at the end—I am not trying to read his mind, but I have been in constant discussion with his Department, so I am pretty sure that this is accurate—he will state that RE does not need to be included as an option in the E-bac because it is a compulsory part of the key stage 4 curriculum, but that is not the case for academies. Will he therefore clarify the situation on academies and tell us what he will do about the fact that take-up in academies is—I have heard this anecdotally—beginning to decline? That is even more relevant when we consider that academies are far more prevalent in areas where there is more deprivation and where children grow up in a range of different religions. In a way, that makes it even more important that academies have the trained, experienced RE teachers to teach children in a balanced way.
Thirdly, I suspect that the Minister will state that the number of students studying RE has risen from 16% in 1995 to 28% in 2010 and that the take-up of history and geography has declined over that period. I agree with him and accept that that is an issue. I welcome the E-Bac, but does the Minister accept not only that the increased take-up of RE is a good thing, but that excluding it from the E-bac will perhaps lead to an even more dramatic decline in take-up than geography has experienced over the past 16 years—from 45% to 26%? What will he do to address that? I would like him to commit to revisiting and reviewing the role of RE, should take-up decline.
[Dr William McCrae in the Chair]
Essentially, I and many of my colleagues—on both sides of the House, and of all beliefs and none—along with hundreds of thousands of members of the public, profoundly believe that the changes could lead to a diminution for our children of RE teaching by trained and experienced teachers. I urge the Minister to reconsider the Department’s direction of travel, to listen to us and to the public, and to not do a U-turn but change his mind as the facts change.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. I suspect that this is one of those subjects on which, as Kipling said,
“never the twain shall meet”.
Those who regard religious teaching in our schools, or any religious instruction, as brainwashing will not be convinced otherwise, and, yes, those who passionately favour the continuation of RE lessons as an essential part of our young people’s education tend to feel equally passionate.
I am a Christian and, although I favour the continuation of RE teaching in our schools, I hope that I have been able to step back and look objectively at the arguments on both sides. I agree with my hon. Friend when she stresses how important it is that RE not be downgraded, to use her phrase. The argument is not about the continuation of “brainwashing”, but about providing an essential background to our culture and identity as a nation. Our history centres around monarchy, Parliament and Church, and although all those institutions have passed through turbulent times, they have, in the end, brought stability and the freedom to enjoy the benefits of religion—or, indeed, the freedom not to practise any faith.
Like many children of the 1950s, I attended Sunday school until I was of an age when my father, who regularly attended that most beautiful of Anglican services, evensong, decided that I, too, was old enough to go with him and appreciate it. Of course, at that time there was a daily assembly in school. I realise that there are many difficulties in delivering such an assembly nowadays, but many of our schools quite simply do not try hard enough—where there is a will, there is indeed a way.
Children who miss out on adequate RE lessons as part of their schooling miss out not only on the opportunity to learn the benefits that faith can bring to an individual and how faith can inspire, but on the opportunity of the shared experience that our churches bring when our communities celebrate the rites of passage or an occasion of thanksgiving. Until two or three years ago, I served for five years as a churchwarden, and it was a privilege to be on duty at, for example, a baptism; but I was always saddened by the fact that many people were not fully able to share the whole experience because they could not recite the Lord’s prayer or understand many of the symbols and traditions that are instinctive to my generation.
It is good that some of our other organisations cater for young people to some extent and fill the gap, on some occasions, that schools have left. On Sunday, I attended Grimsby minster for the somewhat delayed annual St George’s day service of the Grimsby and Cleethorpes scout association. There were a few hundred young people parading and saluting their flag, promising to serve God, Queen and country and to help their fellow men and women, and all in the setting of an act of collective worship and thanksgiving.
Our country is the poorer in that, nowadays, we provide our young people with little opportunity to take part in collective worship and to learn the basic teachings of our major religions; love, respect and tolerance are at their heart and we should treasure those teachings. I readily admit that it is possible to value those precepts and to pass them on to future generations without a faith, but those generations will miss the opportunity to learn about religions and to weigh up for themselves whether to accept their teachings.
The then head teacher at my daughter’s junior school, David Thomas, when questioned at a parents’ evening on the role of RE, said that its role in his school was to bring the pupils to the “threshold of belief”. That phrase has stuck with me; it is valuable and the ideal at which schools should aim. It saddens me that at times there seems to be an acceptance—certainly among some mainstream Christian Churches—that it is all a little too difficult and we must be even-handed, but if the will exists, we can ensure that the valuable tradition of RE in our schools continues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) spoke earlier about a general indifference to RE among people. To some extent that is correct. People are not constantly thinking about it as they go about their daily business, but we should not assume that the great majority of British people are quite that indifferent to it. Only a few weeks ago, someone approached me—ironically enough, as I left a Grimsby Town football match. He had obviously been idling away his time looking at the Parliament website and had spotted that I supported an early-day motion on RE in schools. He congratulated me and said, “I am sure the people are behind you”, which was encouraging and important.
RE in our schools is vital if we are to make people aware of faith and to contribute to the rounded development of our young people, so that they can appreciate our rich cultural history. I hope the Minister will give a robust defence of RE in our schools and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said, ensure that the resources for it will be available. I hope the Minister will reassure me that the Government will play their full part; that is particularly important, given what has been said on academies. North East Lincolnshire local education authority has been a trailblazer for academies, so it is particularly important that the role of RE in those schools be maintained. I apologise to the Minister: I will have to slip out a few minutes before the end of his summing-up speech, but tomorrow I will eagerly read what he has said in Hansard.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Order. There are still a number of people who want to speak, and I am sorry but we will not be able to fit everyone in. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at about 10 past 12.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It has been an interesting debate and I hope that I will not, as so often happens, be the grit in the oyster. I value religion as much as anybody in the House—I have written a book on the decline of religion and how it affects society—but I believe that we owe the Minister a careful hearing, because the whole point of the E-bac is to bring rigor back into academic education. I support RE more than anybody, but too many schools have climbed up the league tables by, frankly, cheating by providing Mickey Mouse courses. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on performing a great service with this debate. I have a son at the London Oratory, which is a Catholic school, and I value that fact. It will do very well out of the E-bac, because a rigorous academic school, which will continue to promote faith studies, will benefit in the league tables by concentrating on rigorous academic subjects such as maths and English.
I intervened on my hon. Friend earlier because those of us who support RE must argue based on what it is. Has it been so degraded in how it is taught that it is no longer an academic subject? Of course we should support other religions and value people of other religions—that goes without saying—but my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) says that we need to understand and to debate whether it is right for people to wear the burqa or the cross. That is fine as a subject of public debate, but should it be part of a rigorous academic subject?
Mr Leigh
No, I am not. I am saying that a close study of the Talmud is as valuable and rigorous, and in my view as academic, as a close study of the Koran or the Christian Bible.
If we are to restore religious education as an academic subject, we may have to restore it as an academic study. Otherwise, it will continue to be an easy cop-out. One cannot defend an academic subject on the ground of good citizenship—we should all be good citizens, we should all value other people and we should all be kind and nice to others, but that is not an academic subject.
I hope the Minister will assure us that the exclusion of religious education is not a prejudice against religion. I am sure he will want to assure us about academies, which is an important point. However, I hope that he will also give a hint to those of us who organise religious education—there is no point in denying that it was a bad Ofsted report—that it has to return to its history as a rigorous academic subject.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate, which has been most interesting. The hon. Lady acknowledged the considerable progress on religious education that was made under the previous Government; as she has said, the numbers have quadrupled. She made an extremely thoughtful speech on the teaching of religious education, with particular emphasis on the E-bac.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her speech. I also congratulate her on getting a timely reply to her letter from the Secretary of State for Education, which is a rare thing. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) called for a two-out-of-three option on the E-bac. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a passionate speech about her Catholic religious background. As ever, the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) was donnish and scholarly in his observations. He seemed to be putting forward a case for the compulsory teaching of philosophy rather than of religion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) reminded us that the Church is disestablished in Wales, but he admirably resisted the temptation to use the word “antidisestablishmentarianism”, which showed a great deal of restraint, which I do not possess. My hon. Friend preached respect rather than tolerance, which is an interesting distinction.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), a former teacher, spoke with passion. Incidentally, my school—St Alban’s RC comprehensive school at Pontypool —is obviously named after the same martyr as her city. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) acknowledged the progress made under the previous Labour Government, saying that four times as many are now studying RE at A-level. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) urged the Minister to repent on the matter of E-bac. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is obviously a man of great faith; he must be to support Grimsby Town football club.
Finally, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) accused schools of cheating. It was slightly over the top, even for him, to say of schools that enter pupils for exams that are available and properly set out by the examination boards that they are cheating. I would be interested to know which schools in his constituency he thinks are cheats, and which teachers and head teachers. I am sure that he will list them all later.
It is right for me to say something about what the previous Government did to improve RE teaching in our schools. We invested £1 million in an RE action plan during our last three years. We wanted to improve the quality of teaching and learning of religious education, with revised guidance and a review of resources, support and materials for teachers. We wanted to strengthen the role of RE in the curriculum, and we worked closely with the key stakeholders to deliver that plan. The previous Government, like this Government, were supportive of religious education being taught in our schools, and we were supportive of it being broadly Christian in character. However, it is extremely important that pupils should be taught about different religions, not least in the multi-faith world which we live in and which is reflected in so many of our constituencies.
The previous Labour Government were right to do that, and I do not think that there has been any particular deliberate change in emphasis by the present Government. However, a number of Members spoke about the impact of the English baccalaureate on the teaching of RE. That policy comes under the famous “nudge” theory. I have said it before, and I shall say it again, but if we nudge people with a loaded gun the consequences are obvious. The consequence of the loaded gun of the English baccalaureate for the teaching of RE in schools is becoming clear.
I wonder what the Secretary of State thought would happen to the teaching of RE when he announced the English baccalaureate. It was done in a rush, without consultation and without deep thought being given to it. Was he emphasising the importance of teaching the core academic subjects? Was he setting his own exam test that he could not fail? He knows that in a few years’ time the impact of nudging people in that way—of saying that schools will be judged on how they do in the E-bac—would be a rush, a diversion, of schools’ resources into the teaching of those subjects. The inevitable consequence, which he desires, is that he would be able to say at the end of his parliamentary term, “I have succeeded, because more people are studying the subjects that I have decided are important.”
What will be the consequences for RE? As the hon. Member for St Albans has said, The Times Educational Supplement of 4 February 2011 published a survey by the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, which had gathered 800 responses from state and independent schools. It was reported that the survey had
“found planned cuts to both short and full-course GCSEs in religious studies from this September. In some cases schools are reported to be ignoring their statutory duty to offer RE at all.”
That was the result of the rushed and ill-considered introduction of the English baccalaureate by the Secretary of State.
Kevin Brennan
Because the hon. Gentleman did not speak earlier, I shall give way.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. For the last two decades we have seen that schools will always teach to whatever they are measured on. The real risk of the English baccalaureate being drawn so narrowly is as the hon. Gentleman says. It is happening in my constituency; head teachers tell me that they are doing exactly that—rushing resources to the subjects that contribute to the E-bac to the detriment of all other subjects.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman, like me, is an ex-teacher and speaks from experience. He knows the impact of directives, missives or advice from the Department for Education.
The Times Educational Supplement of 13 May—last Friday—stated in its magazine:
“Even though RE is a statutory subject, the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education…has warned that some headteachers are allocating less, or no, time to RE. A poll of nearly 800 schools in January found that 30 per cent have cut time for RE. With less time devoted to their subject, and potentially fewer pupils and funding, there are fears about job losses in non-EBac subjects.”
That, of course, includes RE. The article then states:
“With RE, the DfE argues that because it is a statutory subject, it will be protected. In the past, Mr Gove has said that ‘high-quality religious education is a characteristic of the very best schools; faith schools and non-faith schools’. But the RE community is not convinced. Mike Castelli, who sits on the RE Council of England and Wales and is principal lecturer in education at Roehampton University, is under no illusions that the statutory nature of the subject will protect its importance in school. ‘What secured it was Ofsted inspections, but Ofsted now doesn't report on the curriculum in detail,’ he says. ‘Therefore there’s no comeback to headteachers who decide they don’t want to put RE on at GCSE level. The fact that RE is statutory is not doing what the Government thinks it is doing.”
I could go on, but there is not enough time. I say to the Schools Minister that the situation is the result of ill-considered, non-evidence-based policy being introduced without consultation. The Government should drop this approach to making education policy. The Minister is not malevolent, but misguided. He will have to do a U-turn, and he is lucky that he will have to do it with regard to RE, because he knows that, in this case, for sinners redemption is available.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing this debate and on her opening speech, which set out the argument extremely well. This issue has engendered a large volume of correspondence from hon. Members and the Churches. We believe that religious education is an important subject. In fact, it is the only subject that has been a compulsory part of the school curriculum since 1944. The Education Reform Act 1988 made religious education a fundamental part of the basic curriculum, as opposed to the national curriculum, in all maintained schools. Its unique status signifies the special position that religious education holds in reflecting the traditions and beliefs that underpin contemporary society.
RE is central to the aim of the school curriculum, which is to promote the spiritual, moral and cultural development of children and young people and to help prepare them for the responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) appeared to be proposing the ending of compulsory RE in the curriculum, which is an argument that we will resist. As a Government, we are committed to retaining RE as a compulsory subject to the age of 16, notwithstanding the increasing volume of the secular lobby. Unlike the previous Government, this Administration are committed to faith schools. We value the enormous contribution that they make to our education system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has acknowledged.
I agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who said that RE helps to promote community cohesion. RE, as part of a broad and balanced curriculum, should be relevant to all pupils’ background and beliefs. Crucially, the content of the RE syllabus is determined by the locally agreed syllabus conferences, which are appointed by the local standing advisory councils for religious education. Those councils know their communities and understand their needs. It is important that they have the freedom to design an RE curriculum that is relevant and valued by their community.
Less prescription in the curriculum will achieve better teaching. It will enable teachers to do what only they can, which is to engage and inspire their pupils. The national curriculum review aims to prescribe only the essential knowledge and concepts that children should know and be taught, and to leave the professionals to determine how to teach them. We must get away from the mentality that says that, just because a topic or subject is important, it has to be specified in the national curriculum. Moreover, just because something is not in the national curriculum does not mean that it is not important. That same principle applies to what is or is not incorporated into the English baccalaureate.
RE has a locally developed syllabus, which is based on the minimum prescription established in law, and we do not intend to change that. We want schools to have greater freedom because central prescription and the uniformity that it implies do not necessarily produce the best outcomes.
I can assure my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) that academies and free schools are required to teach RE as a condition of their funding agreement, which reflects the importance that the Government attach to the subject.
Mr Gibb
I will come on to why we have included history and geography in a moment, which relates to significant drops in the proportion of the cohort taking both history and geography.
I recognise that there are many concerns about the fact that the non-inclusion of religious studies in the humanities component of the English baccalaureate could have an adverse impact on the study of the subject. The E-bac recognises those pupils and those schools that succeed in securing achievement in the core subjects of English language, mathematics, the sciences, a language and history or geography, which reflects what happens in other high-performing countries. Singapore, for example, has compulsory O-levels in English language, mother tongue, maths, combined humanities and science. In France, the brevet is made up of exams in French, maths, history, geography and civics. In Japan, all students at the end of junior high school at the age of 15 are tested in Japanese, social studies, maths, science and English, depending on the prefecture. In Alberta, there are compulsory tests at 15 in maths, science, social studies, English and French. In Poland, 16-year-olds are tested in humanities, Polish, maths, science and a foreign language.
We deliberately kept the English baccalaureate small enough to enable pupils to study other subjects, such as music, art, RE, economics or vocational subjects. My concern is that the core academic subjects of the English baccalaureate—English, maths, science, a language, history or geography—are being denied to too many pupils, especially the more disadvantaged. In 2010, only 8% of pupils eligible for free school meals were entered for the English baccalaureate subjects, with only 4% achieving them. Of the 24% of non-free school meal pupils who took the E-bac, 17% achieved it.
In 719 maintained mainstream schools, no pupil entered any of the single award science GCSEs. No pupil was entered for French in 169 secondary schools. No pupil was entered for geography in 137 schools and no pupil was entered for history in 70 schools.
John Pugh
May I disabuse the Minister of his view that I was arguing for a change in the legal status of RE? I was trying to explore whether there are good arguments that he could give that are rationales for making the subject compulsory, which would not be good arguments for making it an option within the baccalaureate.
Mr Gibb
The arguments would be the same except that it is unnecessary to make RE a component of the English baccalaureate, because it is already compulsory by law. That is the reasoning behind our decision not to include RE in the humanities component.
RE is clearly a popular and successful subject. Judging by the increasing proportion of students who take a GCSE, it is one that is taught to an academically rigorous standard. There has been an increase in RE GCSEs from 16% of the cohort in 2000 to 28% in 2010. In addition, 36% of the cohort was entered for the short course GCSE in religious studies. By contrast, there has been a decline in the numbers entered for GCSE in history, geography and languages.
Mr Gibb
I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am running out of time.
The proportion of young people attempting geography GCSE dropped from 37% in 2000 to 26% last year. Modern languages dropped from 79% in 2000 to 43% in 2010. Of course 79% of pupils in the independent sector attempted at least one foreign language in 2010. We are determined to close the attainment gap between those from wealthier and poorer backgrounds, and this is one tool in our toolbox to achieve that.
Our hope and expectation is that the English baccalaureate will encourage more students to study history, geography and languages. As it is compulsory to study RE until the age of 16, students will continue to take RS GCSEs in addition to the English baccalaureate subjects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) proposed having a humanity component of two out of three options, including RE, in the humanities block. We have considered that, and we will continue to review it. The concern is that that will extend the size of the E-bac to seven or eight GCSEs, making it less small and therefore restricting the space for vocational education, music and the arts and for those who do not want to study RE to GCSE.
Forensic Science Service
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I am also pleased to secure this debate on the future of the Forensic Science Service.
My interest in this subject began with a visit from one of my constituents, who works as a senior forensic scientist at the northern firearms unit in Manchester. It was at his invitation that I was able to visit that facility, which is part of the wider FSS. I intend to say a little more about the unit later in my speech, but first I want to say that my constituency owes a wider debt to the work of the FSS.
I am sure that Members are familiar with the crimes of Dr Harold Shipman. He was a trusted family doctor in my constituency who murdered more than 200 of his patients in what remains this country’s worst case of a serial killer. Without the detailed toxicology evidence that the FSS offered to the courts, it is questionable whether the extent of his killings would ever have been proven. This single example is a powerful reminder of the capacity that the FSS gives to our law enforcement agencies.
The 1,100 highly trained staff in the FSS have the skills and expertise to identify an offender or unravel the chain of events that led to a crime, often from studying no more than a pattern of blood, a strand of hair or the tread-markings left by a shoe. Their unrivalled range of expertise includes the analysis of documents, mobile phones, toxicology, marks and traces, DNA, firearms, fibres and hair. Their analysis has helped to secure convictions in 220 so-called “cold cases”, and a further 600 cases are actively under review. Among their groundbreaking achievements was the establishment of the world’s first national DNA database. The FSS is now based in four laboratories across the country and it deals with up to 120,000 cases a year, regardless of their complexity. The quality of its meticulous work has earned the FSS the respect of experts from around the globe.
In December 2010, the Government announced that the FSS will close by the end of March 2012. As I understand it, the Government hope that the closure of the FSS will increase competition. They believe that the vacuum created by its absence will immediately be filled by private providers and in-house police force provision, and they hope that by creating a more commercial market prices will be driven down and turnaround times improved.
I have real fears, however, that the absence of the FSS will impact on the quality of justice in the courts. I know that no Member would want to back proposals that would directly result in our losing the ability to carry out this kind of work. I hope that raising these concerns today will lead the Government to take a second look at their plans.
Any changes to the FSS must have the integrity of our judicial system at their core. There are still too many questions about the scope and quality of the provision that will be available following the closure of the FSS. In my remarks today, I will consider whether the high standards, impartiality and scope of the current provision will survive under the Government’s proposals; I will question the financial argument being put by the Government; and I will ask whether the Minister is willing to risk serious damage to the quality of justice by implementing these reforms.
As I mentioned previously, my concern about this issue began when I recently visited the northern firearms unit, which is part of the FSS. My visit was at the invitation of a constituent who has worked in this sector for more than 24 years and is deeply concerned by the Government’s plans. He is one of several specialists at the unit who are called on to support the police at scenes of shootings around the clock, 365 days a year. Their laboratory analysis can shed important light on the circumstances surrounding a crime. By looking at wounds, blood patterns and bullet casings, they can determine how a person was shot, the number of weapons involved and even if the same gun has been involved in other shootings. The unit has played a major role in solving a number of high-profile gun crimes and in achieving the subsequent convictions.
The unit’s success relies, however, on the flexibility to devote the time necessary to each investigation. Staff at the unit fear that many of their successes might not have been possible within the financial constraints of a more commercial market. They also fear that private providers are unlikely to offer the guaranteed on-call service that is required. I am sure that private companies will bid for the work of the FSS, but the risk is that they will cherry-pick the quickest, least labour-intensive and most profitable parts, which could have a serious impact on the quality of justice delivered by our court system.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and I agree with the points that he is making. Does he agree that another factor to consider is that the FSS, which I have also visited, keeps an awful lot of DNA samples taken from crime scenes, and that it seems that the Government have not given much thought to what will happen to all those samples when the FSS closes? The work done by the FSS is far too important for us simply to hope that something will be put in its place. The Government need to ensure that something is in place before they go ahead with the closure of the FSS.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I absolutely agree with him. I will address the point he makes later in my speech.
I visited the firearms archive in Manchester, which is truly something to be seen. It is important not only for cross-referencing crimes with other crimes but for the expertise that goes with that work. Using the archive properly is absolutely crucial, but I understand that the Government have not yet decided what will happen to it. The future of the archive is very important.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I will be cautious in my remarks because I am Chair of the Science and Technology Committee and we are in the middle of an inquiry into this issue. I am pleased to see that two of my assiduous colleagues on the Committee—the hon. Members for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe)—are in Westminster Hall for this debate; they both play an important role on the Committee.
One strand of evidence given by many people is about the Birmingham archive for the FSS, which is the central records store of the FSS operation. Everyone is arguing that the archive needs to be kept intact and protected and made accessible for the investigations that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) has referred to. Following his own research, does he agree that protecting the Birmingham archive is a necessary part of the process?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree absolutely and I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, and indeed other members of the Select Committee for attending today. I have read through much of the evidence they have received. Given the limited time for this debate, it is not possible to go through all the evidence, but my hon. Friend’s point about the Birmingham archive is particularly important and I hope the Minister will be able to offer us some assurance about the archive.
The northern firearms unit, which I visited, is just one of many disciplines offered by the FSS. It is a small but significant cog in a much larger wheel. No private provider is currently able to offer the same breadth of forensic services and expertise as the FSS, whose holistic approach is a clear benefit to our judicial system. By offering such a comprehensive range of services, it is in an unrivalled position to determine what is required from a crime scene and to provide the data.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The FSS has a range of responsibilities and inputs. Does he agree that, given the unfortunate potential for a rise in terrorist offences—or at least the threat of terrorist offences—as well as the more regular criminal activity that the FSS deals with as part of the justice system, there are concerns about resilience in dealing with terror?
Jonathan Reynolds
I agree. Our capacity to deal with an incident such as a major terrorist incident is one of the most pressing problems that we face. I think that we would all agree that, whatever the costs involved, we simply cannot be without the capacity to respond to such incidents appropriately.
By working across a range of services, the FSS offers a holistic approach that allows its specialists to evaluate the relative importance of any crime scene before a case goes to court. Without that holistic approach, the danger is that analysis of a crime scene would have to be delivered piecemeal by different providers. That would introduce unnecessary confusion and possibly compromise justice.
In addition, there is the challenge of maintaining standards if the FSS is closed. The ability to determine that current levels of accuracy are maintained will be crucial. At present, members of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes, such as the FSS, must be accredited. However, with the exception of those dealing with DNA, there are no statutory requirements for forensic science companies or in-house police departments to comply with any published standards. Few of us would think that these plans to close the FSS could come into force until stronger requirements were in place to ensure that all providers must meet minimum standards.
Moreover, that step would have financial implications of its own. I understand that the Government have already made it clear that additional funds would not be available for police forces that wished to increase their own laboratory capacity. If the police choose to increase their in-house provision of forensic services, they will also have to address the issue of impartiality. We are well aware of the importance of justice being seen to be done as well as being done, but where the police are both the forensic science provider and customer, questions are bound to be asked. Of course, among the incidents that are likely to cause concern are those involving police officers themselves.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the police have already taken a great deal of forensic science in-house, and that the trend in the marketplace, which perhaps has led to some of the current problems, has been caused by the police doing that and leaving less and less for people to fight over?
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise that point. The statistics show that income from the sector has decreased as functions have been taken in-house. A point that I would like to address later in my speech is that some functions can be taken in-house but others cannot, and we must maintain that capacity.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time in giving way. Further to the point my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has just made, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, although the Government have to take some action because of the FSS’s financial situation, the market that their strategy seeks to create is being diminished each year by the increasing level of police in-house provision?
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes. The hon. Gentleman’s point is crucial because, if the market is not rigorous and robust, there will be nothing there to fill the gap created by the absence of the FSS.
As well as being active in the immediate aftermath of a crime, the FSS also secures convictions in so-called cold cases. Over many years, it has built up archives of more than 1.5 million case files and a vast number of retained materials, including DNA, fibres and recovered debris. The application of advanced forensic techniques to archive material by FSS scientists has helped to secure convictions for more than 220 historical crimes. That work would not be possible without the archives, but we do not know what will happen to them when the FSS is closed. Other Members have made that point, and the Government dearly need to address it. In addition, we do not know what will happen to the unrivalled collection of firearms currently in the FSS’s possession.
The dissolution of the FSS will clearly require something to emerge to fill its place and continue its important work. The Government have claimed that there is no reason to think that the private sector would be unable to meet the demand for forensic services; but where, Minister—as the FSS itself might ask—is the evidence? As uncertainty continues to surround the provision of forensic science services in the UK, significant numbers of scientists are taking up jobs overseas or choosing to move on to other careers, and the coverage offered by the current private forensic science providers is broad in neither scope nor geography. I am told, for instance, that not one provider in the south of England specialises in firearms. Following the reduction in the market, questions have been asked about the financial stability of a number of accredited private providers. Can the Minister tell us what safeguards there will be to ensure that all the required forensic specialisms are available in the new marketplace?
We also need to ask what will happen in the wake of a major terrorist incident. In the immediate aftermath of the bombings and attempted bombings of 7 and 21 July, more than 100 FSS scientists were called on to analyse 4,500 items. Drawing on those experts in DNA, document examination, mobile phone analysis, toxicology, and marks and traces, it was possible to determine what had happened. Thankfully, such incidents are not commonplace, but the warning this week reminds us that we never know when the next incident might be—we know only that there is likely to be one.
The FSS is the only UK organisation with forensic experience of terrorist attacks. Without it, who would have the capability and capacity to provide the vital evidence that our judicial system requires? It is not acceptable to leave the UK unable to deal with the aftermath of a major terrorist attack, and if the Government cannot prove that their plans have the rigour to cope, they should withdraw them immediately and think again.
When there are so many unanswered questions and so many risks attached, I wonder why the Government have started down this path. I fear that they have made a mistake in reaching their decision to close the FSS, and that they will soon regret it. They have repeatedly insisted that the FSS—currently a Government-owned company—makes monthly losses of about £2 million, and I understand that they hope that a more commercial market will drive prices down and improve turnaround times. The Government’s plans, however, do not seem to add up.
In recent months, the FSS has closed down three laboratory sites and shed 750 staff as part of a drive to make itself more competitive. It is believed to be on track to make the required savings, yet the Government themselves admit that the £2 million figure they repeatedly use to justify their plans takes no account of the significant savings made by the restructuring programme.
We know that the service provided by the FSS is exceptionally good. I can say without hesitation that its work has made my city, my constituency and my community safer, and the same is true for other Members. I hope, therefore, that the Minister understands how concerned many of us are about the possibility of losing the FSS and is able to offer me some solid assurances in his response today.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I echo other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing this debate. I am aware of the importance of this issue and the sensitivities that surround it. Forensic science is clearly a vital tool of the criminal justice system and one which deserves proper consideration by this House.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Harold Shipman case, which is just one of the most dramatic—in many ways terrible, obviously—of the many cases in which forensic science plays a vital role. The Forensic Science Service has had a proud tradition of providing an excellent, professional service to the whole criminal justice system, but its financial circumstances meant that decisive action was needed to maintain the continuity of supply of forensic services to that system. In the end, I think that what all our constituents will most care about is that the system continues in an efficient fashion.
Let me go through why the announcement has had to be made and answer some of the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman and by other Members on both sides of the House. The situation that led to the Government’s announcement to manage the closure of the FSS last December is clear: the challenging forensics market put the FSS in serious financial difficulty. As the hon. Gentleman said, the FSS had monthly operating losses of about £2 million and faced the prospect of further shrinkage in demand for forensic services. The Government have invested significant amounts of money in recent years in restructuring the FSS, but the downturn in the forensics market unfortunately meant that further investment in restructuring the company was no longer a viable option.
We considered three options to resolve the financial difficulties faced by the FSS: uncontrolled administration, further restructuring of the company, and a managed wind-down. Without the prospect of further financial help, the FSS board would have been forced to place the company into administration in early 2011. Uncontrolled administration would have seriously damaged the forensics capability available to the criminal justice system, and we were not prepared to take that risk. From everything that the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, I imagine he would agree that such a risk should not have been countenanced in any way. Although further restructuring would have had less impact on the criminal justice system than losing the FSS overnight, it would not have solved the key underlying problem of reduced customer demand. The FSS had already received a £50 million grant for restructuring, and although it has significantly reduced the size of its business, the market has continued to contract. The FSS’s share of the market has also shrunk as other competent companies have won police contracts through the police procurement process. That, combined with EU state aid and competition law constraints, meant that further restructuring was simply no longer viable.
I strongly believe that the managed wind-down of the FSS is the right choice, both financially and for the criminal justice system. Several Members have asked about the attitude of other people within the criminal justice system. We consulted key partners across the system before making this decision, and their collective view is that a managed closure is in the best interests of the system as a whole.
Andrew Miller
I would be the first to acknowledge that the GovCo process had not been as successful as was hoped. What worries me about the position taken by the Minister and his colleagues is that no one can tell us what the economic facts are. Simply talking about the FSS’s expenditure is not adequate; we need to know the capital expenditure on forensic science—programmes past and present—of every police authority, but neither the Home Office nor the Association of Chief Police Officers can provide that information. Until that information is available, I am afraid that the Minister will have a hard job convincing people of what might be a meritorious case.
Damian Green
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I have read the evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), a few weeks ago. He was pressed for that information, and undertook to go away and find it out. The hon. Gentleman said that he requires the full economic case. The starkest economic point is simply that the FSS is draining money away. Money has been put into restructuring, and it has not worked. As he said, the previous Government set up a GovCo in an attempt to solve the problem, but sadly, that has not worked. We knew that we could not carry on as before. The Government were faced with a set of options, and I am trying to explain why we chose what we did.
Andrew Miller
I understand where the Minister is coming from, and we have been told today that the Home Office cannot provide that information because it is impossible to calculate, but the starkest economic fact is that we do not know how we are managing public money that has been spent on forensic science. Surely it must be the Minister’s highest priority to work out that conundrum.
Damian Green
It is certainly a priority, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the operational expenditure of individual police forces is a matter for chief constables. [Interruption.] He makes a gesture, but it would be wrong for Home Office Ministers to try to detail every piece of expenditure by every police force in the country. By going down that route, we have over-managed police forces and other public services, to their detriment. I am afraid he will have to bite the bullet: allowing the police operational independence is an important way to improve the service.
Philip Davies
On the operational independence of the police, the Minister will be aware that some of the fiercest criticism of the closure of the FSS has come from police chief constables, including the chief constable of South Yorkshire, who said that it would
“have a ‘disproportionate effect’ on forces in Yorkshire and the North East because they are more reliant on the service than constabularies elsewhere.”
If the views of the police are so important, will he bear in mind their views on the closure of the FSS?
Damian Green
Absolutely. My hon. Friend leads me neatly into what I was about to say. The Association of Chief Police Officers, in particular, is clear that the forensic markets can cope with the managed wind-down of the FSS, and ACPO has been closely involved in the process being carried out by the Government.
To address the fears about uncertainty, the managed wind-down of the FSS will allow time for the restructuring of the timetable for tendering new contracts, for the re-tendering of existing FSS contracts and for other forensic suppliers to develop their capacity to meet any additional requirements. That approach will also enable the FSS’s business and assets to be transferred in order to build a healthy market around other existing forensic suppliers, which already account for about 35% of the forensics market. That is clearly a significant point. Some may think that there is no one out there and this is a leap in the dark, but more than one third of the market is already in the hands of other operators.
Jonathan Reynolds
Does the Minister accept that many of the prices currently offered by private sector providers are the result of competition with the FSS? If that is taken away, there is a chance that the marketplace could consolidate or prices could rise, which would not be in our interests. Further to that, many of the people in that specialist area have been trained by the FSS. As I understand it, private sector providers’ prices do not take into account the increased cost base of training their own people to be as skilled as they need to be to cover all the specialisms currently being covered.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that competition drives prices down and makes industries more efficient. That is a universal truth. However, a competitive market exists, and the managed wind-down of the FSS will enable the individual players in that market to become more competitive and the market itself to become a more effective area of competition.
The Government want the UK’s forensic science industry to operate as a genuine market, with private sector providers competing to provide innovative services at the lowest cost. That will, inter alia, preserve police resources and maximise the positive impact that forensic sciences can have on tackling crime. A competitive market can help drive down prices and improve turnaround times, meaning that serious crimes can be cleared up more quickly and efficiently. Ultimately, I am sure that that is what we all want.
Research and development in forensic science is essential to ensure the continued availability of a high-quality, efficient forensic science capability for the criminal justice system. Historically, such research has been undertaken by a wide range of organisations, including the private sector, Government-owned laboratories and academia.
Our decision took into account the need to manage the impact on forensic science research and development in the UK. Unfortunately, the FSS’s financial position had already limited the capacity for research and development for which it had become renowned. During the managed wind-down, we are working closely with the police, the FSS, the Crown Prosecution Service and other forensic providers to consider how the industry can build on existing expertise and continue the UK’s renowned research and innovation.
Gavin Barwell
The Minister outlined the options that the Government considered when taking the decision. Did they consider restricting the police’s ability to provide in-house forensic services? That might have given the FSS a larger market in which to compete. As he will know if he has studied the evidence received by the Select Committee, many private sector suppliers have expressed concerns about their ability to invest in the future in a declining market if police provision continues to increase.
Damian Green
I am aware of the evidence given to the Select Committee. Perhaps this is a good time for me to address directly the question of how objective the advice given to police forces on forensic science will be if the service is provided in-house. The evidential value and integrity of forensic exhibits is tested under the intense scrutiny of the courts—from the point of collection, through analysis to interpretation and reporting. Each step in the process must be able to withstand such critical review, not least because the first body that the police must convince in any prosecution is the CPS. That is now an independent function. Fears that something untoward will happen if an individual police force does its own forensics in-house can be overstated.
Keeping one eye on the clock, I will deal directly with one or two other points raised in the debate. On the question of what will happen to the FSS’s archives, the Government obviously recognise their importance in academic terms and, perhaps even more importantly, to the investigation of cold cases. The forensic transition board has set up an archiving project board with members from the Home Office, the FSS, ACPO and key partners across the criminal justice system to recommend options for the handling and retention of FSS records so that historical data remain available to the criminal justice system. As part of that, we will seek to ensure that the necessary expertise remains to work on the data and mine them in the future.
Doubt was expressed about whether private providers will be able to cope, particularly with a major incident such as 7/7. As I mentioned, ACPO has made it clear that the forensics market can cope with the managed wind-down of the FSS. An orderly wind-down, which is what we are managing, will allow adequate time for the current forensics framework to be restructured, for existing FSS contracts to be re-tendered and for other suppliers to increase their capability. We are reviewing the FSS functions as part of the process of managed closure. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who is the Minister responsible for crime and security, has kept Members informed of the Government’s plans so far and will continue to do so, particularly those Members who have forensic science sites in their constituencies.
The Government are aware that the decision to manage the closure of the FSS has put employees and their families in a difficult position. My hon. Friend has personally—
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
Order. We must move on to the next debate.
Problem Gambling
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.
The gambling sector is a highly successful industry in this country, employing more than 100,000 people and contributing more than £1.4 billion to the Exchequer in betting and gambling duty alone. A large majority of the British public enjoy gambling as a leisure activity, with 73% of the UK population participating last year alone, which is an increase of 5% from 2007. In his excellent book, “Gambling: A Healthy Bet”, Patrick Basham finds that gamblers tend to participate more in community and social activities than non-gamblers and donate more to charity. However, for a small proportion—0.9%, according to the latest prevalent study—gambling can develop into a problem that negatively affects their lives.
What we must bear in mind, however, is that 0.9% is a very small amount. Many experts in the field have concluded that the small rise in the number of those with problem gambling in the latest prevalent study may not be a true representation of an increase in problem gambling; it may well be that problem gambling is both better reported and more socially acceptable today and that its true extent is now, therefore, becoming more apparent. Nevertheless, it is difficult to think of any other policy area in which 0.9% of the population affects Government policy as markedly as seems to be the case with gambling.
As with all other forms of addiction, there will always be a proportion of the population who are addicted to gambling. It is impossible to eliminate addiction, no matter how much money, how many programmes or how much treatment is provided. The blame for an addiction should not be placed at the industry’s door, because it is not the industry itself that makes people addicts—it merely offers a service—but the individuals themselves. We should therefore treat the problem, which is the person concerned, and stop attacking the product.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that bookmakers in particular are saturating many of our high streets, particularly in London? Although a few shops might satisfy demand, a proliferation of them and an increase to nine or 10 shops on one stretch of high road can, frankly, only promote gambling and addictive behaviour among the poorest.
Philip Davies
No, I am not. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a bee in his bonnet about this issue, but I do not share his concern. I believe in the free market and the market of supply and demand. If there is not enough demand to meet the supply of those shops, they will close down. I am sure that he would prefer high streets to have betting shops rather than shops that have been boarded over and are ripe for vandalism. I certainly welcome betting shops moving on to the high street when other shops will not.
It is for the reason that I have outlined that I disagree with the premise that the gambling industry should be compelled to fund the treatment of problem gambling. It seems absurd, especially as fast-food companies such as Burger King and Krispy Kreme do not fund research into and the treatment of obesity. I used to work for Asda and I cannot remember anybody saying that Asda was expected to fund treatment of obesity just because we happened to sell cream cakes down one of our aisles. It seems that gambling is treated on a completely different basis from those other industries.
Discussion of the issue also strikes me as disproportionate. The gambling industry’s funding target is set at £6 million for 2011 and £7 million for 2012. In contrast, the Portman Group, another highly regarded organisation, raised £6.3 million between 2007 and 2009 for their trust’s education and campaigning work. Given that the UK alcoholic drinks industry is valued at more than £30 billion, the demands on the gambling sector seem less than fair or consistent, to say the least.
Nevertheless, we are where we are for the time being. Given that the industry is pouring so much money into the issue, and given that it has the greatest vested interest of all in the money being spent wisely and in being successful in reducing problem gambling, does the Minister not agree that it would be fairer and make more sense if it had a greater role in how the money that it gives is spent?
In October 2008, the Gambling Commission recommended the establishment of a new structure to raise and distribute funding for gambling research, education and treatment. The previous Labour Government insisted that if a voluntary agreement was not reached, they would intervene and ensure that a statutory levy was installed. I am interested to hear the Minister’s definition of “voluntary”, because that certainly is not what I understand the term to mean.
As a result, new bodies were created. The GREaT Foundation—Gambling Research, Education and Treatment —raises funds for research, education and treatment of problem gambling by collecting voluntary donations from the gambling industry. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board advises Ministers and the Gambling Commission on priorities of funding, and the Responsible Gambling Fund is an independent charity that was set up to distribute the money raised. In addition, there are three expert advisory panels. Can the Minister explain why we need all of those? Why can the body that raises the money not be trusted also to allocate it? In short, we appear to have a bureaucratic nightmare—not to mention the cost. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board costs about £250,000 a year just to run, which does not give any benefit to those suffering from problem gambling.
Almost half the funding last year was given to a charity called GamCare, which is the leading provider of information, advice, support and free counselling for the prevention and treatment of problem gambling. GamCare has established a responsible gambling code of practice and certification process that have been adopted by many of the successful betting companies. The 11-point code consists of an age verification-parental supervision process, encourages a balanced advertising and promotional message for gambling companies, and allows customers to set a daily, weekly or monthly deposit limit on their gambling accounts.
Other initiatives include a self-exclusion policy whereby customers can close their accounts for six months, after which they must present a written case for why they should be allowed to use their accounts again. Customers can also limit their session times for games or events that have no natural end, which provides them with greater control over their gambling. Employees in gambling companies also receive responsible gambling awareness training, which assists them in identifying the triggers and causes of problem gambling and raises awareness of the relevant support agencies and the policies, processes and regulatory requirements that surround the gambling industry.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman see a role for educationlists or schools in helping to educate young people about the danger of gambling addiction?
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I encourage him to read Patrick Basham’s book, “Gambling: A Healthy Bet”, which talks about how developing an understanding of risk at an earlier age is good for people in terms of not just gambling, but their skills for the rest of their lives. I certainly think that there is much merit in what Patrick Basham writes in his book.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that there is currently no GamCare treatment provider available on Merseyside? The closest is in Manchester. Does he know whether that will be addressed?
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is, as ever, on the ball with what is happening in her area. She has quickly established a reputation for herself as a champion of her constituents and her area. She is absolutely right that Merseyside currently lacks a GamCare treatment facility. It is not GamCare’s fault; its provider had funding from other agencies taken away, so it has closed down. I know that GamCare shares my hon. Friend’s concern that there should be a provider on Merseyside, and I hope that it will be able to find a replacement provider soon for the benefit of her constituents.
GamCare has established a national helpline with an international reputation and an infrastructure delivering counselling to 70% of the country. The helpline, including a net-line live chat service and forum, provides a service for gamblers and others affected by gambling. The helpline receives about 1,000 calls a week. It offers help and support to people in crisis, some of them suicidal. GamCare’s professionally trained advisers explore the best way to support the caller by signposting them to debt advice, family therapy, self-exclusion or further counselling.
In 2010-11, GamCare provided sustained confidential counselling for some 2,500 people, which is 20% more than the previous year. GamCare also worked closely with the National Problem Gambling clinic in London to provide the best treatment for customers. And it works; some two thirds of the problem gamblers it treats are no longer problem gamblers at the end of their treatment. At the beginning of counselling, 88% of GamCare’s clients are assessed as problem gamblers; by the end of treatment, that figure is 28%.
GamCare has calculated the cost-benefit analysis of its treatment. It has estimated that each problem gambler costs the state about £8,000 a year. With 450,000 problem gamblers in the UK, that could mean an annual bill of about £3.5 billion. By contrast, GamCare has estimated that, on average, it costs just £650 to treat each individual. With two-thirds of clients successfully ceasing to be problem gamblers at the end of their treatment, that produces a return on investment that is greater than 8:1—compared with the treatment for drug users, where the return is estimated at just 2.5:1. That surely highlights that the money is well spent and that expanding the service should be a priority.
GamCare has recently launched a new e-learning package, with the aim of helping more companies to improve their standards of player protection. Considering that there are 127,500 people under the age of 24 with a gambling problem in the UK, GamCare is ready to introduce education into schools and for parents and to open the communication lines with GPs. That is all ready to go if the funding is in place. However, at a time when more money than ever is available—a funding target of £6 million this year and £7 million next year—the industry is seeing more and more of it swept up into burgeoning bureaucracy.
In particular, the Responsible Gambling Fund established under the previous Government is crippling front-line services, which is where the money is needed most. In 2009-10, the RGF spent almost £500,000 on staff costs and overheads, including £51,000 on consultancy. Even more interestingly, it is estimated that those costs will have risen by 10% for the year 2010-11. In an age of austerity, such an attempt at empire building is extremely worrying, and it is vital that we guard against the growth of a monster that constantly calls for more and more money, bigger and bigger budgets and more and more employees to deal with a problem that is being tackled effectively by organisations such as GamCare.
On top of that, the RGF is funding eight PhD studentships at an average of £20,000 a year to widen participation in gambling-related research as a means of informing public policy. That is a prime example of the unfocused nature of its research. In addition, the RGF has done very little on education for adolescents, while GamCare has already researched and outlined a fully costed actionable programme to implement. Can the Minister enlighten us about what research commissioned by the RGF has led to a major policy implementation that has made a real difference to reducing problem gambling? If he can do that, he is doing better than I can.
The people on the front line desperately need that money to fund treatment and to launch education and prevention programmes. By contrast, GamCare’s funding for 2010-11 has been frozen, which makes it difficult even to maintain existing services, let alone develop new ones. Furthermore, the RGF has decided that GamCare’s helpline should become a national problem gambling telephone helpline, thus throwing away the industry’s investment over many years in an established and successful service and brand.
GamCare is currently basing its programmes on interim funding on a month-by-month basis, when what it really needs is a strategic three-year funding programme. In fact, with the correct funding, GamCare could provide the treatment, education and prevention services—either itself or with the appropriate partners—for an annual cost of around £3.5 million a year. The Government should concentrate on ensuring that the money is well spent, rather than just ensuring that more and more money is being pumped into a situation where it is being badly spent. The structure that was put in place nearly three years ago is just not working. There has been time for it to prove itself and, sadly, it has failed. Most of the people involved in the industry would recognise that.
The answer to this conundrum is threefold: strip away the unnecessary levels of bureaucracy; let those experts on the front line, who know how to help people in trouble, get on with delivering and expanding their existing services; and put proper programmes quickly in place to educate those most in need.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport appeared before the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, of which I am a member, and expressed his concern about problem gambling and the importance that the Government attach to dealing with the matter. It is therefore the Government’s responsibility to ensure that there is a coherent strategy for education, prevention and treatment. The industry needs an effective body that makes good strategic decisions about risks and takes proportionate measures in terms of allocating funding to deal with problem gambling. The majority of the research should go to treatment providers and there is no justifiable reason why GamCare should not remain as the principal treatment provider and operator of the national helpline.
The industry, working directly with the charities, can step up to the plate and sort out the issue of problem gambling, but it would find it easier if it knew that it had the Minister’s support in stripping away bureaucracy, getting the money quickly to the front line and trusting the experts. I hope that the Minister will give me his assurance today that that is what the Government will do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr McCrea.
I will endeavour to respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in order, if I possibly can. I am delighted that he has taken the trouble to air this important and potentially tremendously troubling issue in Parliament. It is a topic that does not get enough balanced and careful debate, and I therefore pay tribute to him for raising it. Some of the issues surrounding the problem deserve a fuller and more careful exploration and I welcome his initiative in seeking to do so.
I also welcome my hon. Friend’s opening comments. He is absolutely right to say that, for the vast majority of people, gambling is fine if it is done carefully and in moderation. In many cases, gambling causes no problems and is a source of innocent fun and enjoyment. It is the same as enjoying an occasional glass of wine or pint of beer—it causes no problem for anybody. He also rightly went on to say that, sadly, that is not the case for a small but real minority of people. I am sure that everybody here regrets and is concerned about the current figure of 0.9% of people who gamble turning into problem gamblers. In focusing on those unfortunate people and what we can do for them, however, we should not lose sight of the fact that, for the vast majority of people who participate in gambling, it is a harmless and enjoyable source of fun. He is absolutely right to put the matter in context and to lay out that framework before we get into the detail.
I must confess that I was a little concerned when my hon. Friend started to make the point that he is not sure whether gambling companies should be funding research and help for problem gambling. He then moderated his point a bit and said that it is entirely reasonable—he gave the example of the Portman Group in the drinks industry and in doing so seemed to accept the principle—for companies involved in these kinds of industries to contribute something. His point is not that it is wrong in principle; rather he is arguing about the level of contribution. It is important we accept that principle and that all hon. Members agree that companies involved in such an industry, whether we are talking about alcohol or gambling, accept that they have a broader social duty to act and behave responsibly towards the small minority of people whom their products potentially harm.
Mr Lammy
The Minister has paid some attention to the small proportion of problem gamblers, as has the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Does he recognise that the prevalence study also reveals that there has been a 50% increase in gambling in society since 2007? That is significant and of concern.
John Penrose
I completely accept what I think is the right hon. Gentleman’s underlying point: that one figure—it was just into the area of statistical significance, although it was right at the borderline—in the recent gambling prevalence survey shows that there has been an increase in the number of problem gamblers. That figure has partly been driven by the fact that more people are gambling, many of whom create no problem at all. However, the fact that the total number of gamblers has increased and that a proportion of those are problem gamblers means that there has been a statistically significant increase. He is absolutely right to point that out. I hope that I struck the right balance in my earlier remarks about the need to put that into context. We are not doing too badly internationally and, relatively speaking, other countries have higher proportions of people who are problem gamblers, but I am sure he agrees that that is absolutely no cause for either complacency or relaxation. We need to ensure that we remain alive to the matter, so I am glad that he made that intervention.
To return to the earlier comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, I am delighted that he accepts the principle that it is right for companies involved in this kind of industry to contribute and to remain responsible. To be fair, almost without exception, the vast majority of people I have met in the gambling and gaming industries are keen to ensure that they recognise and live up to that duty. They are delighted to let it be known that they want to do that. There is an acceptance in the industry, and I think in society as a whole, that that is appropriate for companies involved in the industry. There may be an argument about the level of collaboration and involvement, which is entirely appropriate, but there is a broad cross-party consensus.
I accept my hon. Friend’s point, however, that it is not only up to the industry. Clearly, Government and public health have a role. Organisations are starting to move into and participate in this area—the NHS has been participating for some time. It is interesting to note that—if I can call it this—the medicalisation of problem gambling is far less advanced than the medicalisation of other kinds of addiction. The treatment provided in the NHS for other kinds of addiction—for example, substance abuse—has been longer established than that provided for gambling addiction. There are moves in the NHS to do more, but he is right to say that there has to be a partnership between the industry and publicly-funded bodies to address the issue.
My hon. Friend has discussed the current arrangements. He is right to say that they have been in place for not quite two years. They stem from a report in 2008 and were implemented in 2009. I must confess that when I began my current role as Minister with responsibility for this issue, just under a year into the new arrangements, I looked at the history. It is true to say that there was a series of different attempts before the current arrangements were set up. I think that this is either the second or the third set of institutional architecture that has been imposed in this area. While there were people who made the precisely the same points as my hon. Friend on the concerns about the bureaucracy and cost in the current structure, a third or fourth reorganisation would have been something that both the industry, and to be fair problem gamblers, probably needed like a hole in the head at that point. He is, however, right to make the fundamental point. It is always correct for everybody to want to get the maximum possible value for money from any funds put towards treating an addiction problem, such as problem gambling. It is therefore sensible for us to look periodically at whether we are getting the best possible value for money.
The small caveat that I add to my hon. Friend’s remarks is that, yes, the Government need to be comfortable with this, but we also need to bear in mind that the organisations that he talked about are overwhelmingly—exclusively, in this case—funded by the industry itself. This is industry money, not public money. We are not talking about a public bureaucracy, or an executive agency of either my Department, the Department of Health or any other branch of Government. Those organisations are, rightly in my view, funded and organised by the industry, and they include people who are involved in treating and dealing with gambling addiction. They share a very heavy proportion of the burden of trying to ensure that the maximum possible value for money is achieved.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that the new arrangements have been in place for nearly two years, so there is beginning to be enough of a track record to evaluate whether they are effective. In the course of the coming 12 months, that track record will be well bedded-in, and it will be sensible to start evaluating whether the value for money that everyone wants to see is being achieved. He is enunciating a very sensible principle. The plea that I would make, and the principle that I want us to establish, is that while Government clearly have an interest, we would expect the charities concerned and the industry to take a leading role as well.
Philip Davies
I welcome the comments that the Minister has made so far, and I agree with what he has just said. The industry needs to play a leading role. Will he accept, therefore, that it would be far better if the gambling industry, which funds all this, had much more of a say in how the money is spent to ensure that it is spent effectively? The industry pays the money, but it often has very little say in how it is actually spent.
John Penrose
That is a fair point, although it has a practical limit. It is perfectly reasonable for the gambling industry to be a force for good and to expect it to want to ensure that the money that it is donating is spent in an appropriate way. Other stakeholders will, none the less, want to be convinced that the gambling industry would not—I am sure that it would not, but this is the fear—give money and then direct the research into areas that were comfortable for the gambling industry, but not necessarily in the best interests of the wider issue of problem gambling. The gambling industry needs to push forward an agenda of value for money and the effective use of the cash that it is donating, but the gambling industry will need other stakeholders to create the right level of credibility in deciding where the money goes in the same way that the Government currently give money for academic research, but research funding councils decide which research projects are selected. That is correct, because otherwise there would always be the fear that the Government were funding academic research, in any area, into pet projects—politically convenient projects—rather than the ones that were academically pure. The same argument applies here.
Mr Lammy
The Minister makes a very good point. Is he concerned about the prevalence of fixed-odds betting terminals, particularly in bookmakers? That is a concern in other parts of the gambling industry. We also have two bookmakers currently paying their tax overseas. That is a concern, if we are talking about the overall quantum available for treating problem gamblers.
John Penrose
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I think goes back to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley: are there any examples of public policy research, funded by the Responsible Gambling Fund, that have made an impact on any of my decisions, or those of my predecessors?
One issue that I have raised with the RGF is that I am concerned that there is no significant research into establishing the kind of causal links, which I think the right hon. Gentleman suspects that there may be, between particular kinds of gambling and problem gambling. For example, many people believe that fixed-odds betting terminals are more likely to contribute to problem gambling than other kinds of gambling. The difficulty for someone in my position is that, while that is a widespread suspicion, there is no academically solid underpinning as yet to justify it. From my point of view, therefore, it is extremely difficult for any Gambling Minister to take effective decisions about whether particular kinds of gambling should be expanded or reduced, because there is not an adequate evidential basis on which to build a proper business case, or a proper political consensus. Into that vacuum rushes everybody with their favourite prejudice. Everybody has an answer about the reasons why we have this amount of problem gambling here and that amount of problem gambling there, but nobody has enough facts to form a solid evidential basis on which to build a reason for changing the law. I have therefore asked the various bodies to prioritise research that will provide that kind of evidential basis, and they have agreed to do so. Clearly, they must then decide what that will be—it needs to be at arm’s length from Government to be credible. In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, it is vital that we have that kind of evidential basis for the benefit of sensible and objective fact-based public policy making in future.
Philip Davies
Will the Minister also bear in mind the common-sense point that the number of machines in a particular shop cannot hinder problem gambling on the basis that somebody can only play on one at a time? That is like saying that if a pub has four different beers, and decides to extend that to 10, there will be an increase in alcoholism. That would clearly be nonsense, and I hope that the Minister will not let common sense fly out of the window when he looks at the research.
John Penrose
I am always happy to apply common sense. The particular example that my hon. Friend has chosen is perhaps unfortunate, because with the advent of the switch from £2 stakes to £1 stakes, there have been examples of people playing two machines at once, because they like playing with £2 stakes. I take his general point, however.
My hon. Friend has said, rightly, that he wants the industry to step up to the plate and take a lead in trying to sort out issues around problem gambling that cause concern. I share his view, and it is essential that both the industry and the other stakeholders do precisely that. The Government will certainly support any of their efforts to bring this issue under control.
Public Sector Jobs (Grimsby)
(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to raise the issue of the transfer of between 20 and 30 compliance staff in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and 20 Valuation Office Agency staff out of Grimsby, where they are happily living and working. Grimsby is a very good place to live and work, but they are being transferred away, reluctantly in most cases. I raise the issue because the Treasury is responding this week, and the responsibility is HMRC’s.
The numbers are small, it is true. HMRC states in its impact assessment that they are
“less than 1% of those employed within the local authority area. It is therefore reasonable to infer that the local economy is not dependent on the HMRC presence at this office.”
That is true, but they are simply part of a wider exodus from Grimsby and other smaller centres produced by the concentration policy, designed to concentrate Government services in larger centres and so to dispose of property and to produce efficiency savings.
In the context of that wider problem, Dame Lesley Strathie, the chief executive of HMRC, is the new Moses—leading her people not into the promised land but out of it, because Grimsby is surely the promised land and the best place for those people to be. She is leading them instead into some traffic-jammed wasteland of a bigger city, where they do not want to be. That is counterproductive, expensive and wrong. They will all have to drive for well over an hour, at enormous expense, to a destination where they do not want to work or be. I apologise to the Minister, because he is dealing not only with the issue of HMRC staff but with the policy of concentration and its impact on Grimsby and other small centres.
The impact is damaging, and Grimsby has higher unemployment than most of the country, in common with a lot of other one-industry towns in which the industry has declined. Grimsby needs jobs—public sector jobs: 21% of employment in Grimsby is in the public sector, compared with 9% in a place such as Wokingham in the prosperous south. Any transfer or loss of public sector jobs, therefore, has a disproportionate effect in Grimsby.
We have a higher proportion of the work force in manual jobs in north-east Lincolnshire than in most of the rest of the country, and fewer people in white collar and managerial jobs. According to the figures, 20% of the work force are classified under the categories of managers, senior officials and professionals, as opposed to 30% for Great Britain overall.
It is a great shame that the founders or forefathers of Grimsby did not take the trouble to invent a Grimsby building society or a Grimsby insurance company, such as the Norwich or the Halifax, which can continue to give employment to local people. We have not got that. We need more white collar and professional jobs in the employment mix, not only to leaven the lump—I should not describe it as that—but to widen employment prospects, providing more diversity and a better choice of careers for young people growing up in Grimsby. Those are the very jobs being taken away from us, however, by transfers based on what I see as a series of wrong decisions—by an act of folly.
Let me turn to specifics and, in particular, to the HMRC tax compliance staff, who are widely praised. In our deliberations on the Public Accounts Committee, we praised them for their achievement in recouping tax and for their great service. They have been praised by HMRC itself. Twenty-nine of them work in Heritage house, which is available to them until 2021—I think it was built to house Government departments and services, and it is certainly co-owned by Mapeley Estates, of glorious memory.
I cannot see why there is a rush to leave Heritage house. Why the exodus? The heads of the Valuation Office Agency and the chief executive of HMRC give different reasons for moving out of Heritage house, which will still be available. People from other departments, notably the Crown Prosecution Service, are also fleeing. That is part of the wider problem. The exodus involves not only HMRC, the Valuation Office Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service, but VAT staff and, we now hear, Jobcentre Plus and Department for Work and Pensions staff. All of them are moving out of Grimsby. Why the exodus from Heritage house? What is the effect on Heritage house?
Those people do not need to leave Grimsby at all. The HMRC staff could certainly be transferred to Imperial house, which also houses Inland Revenue staff. Thanks to the reduction in the Revenue staff employed in Grimsby, the fourth floor is now vacant. HMRC has to hang on to it—the fourth floor cannot be lopped off and turned into an entertainment centre, disco or whatever, to alleviate the problems of the staff. If the staff have to be transferred from Heritage house, why can they not be transferred to the fourth floor of Imperial house, to work with the other tax staff?
They are not being offered that, however, and nor are they being offered the opportunity to work from home, which they told me they could do. Instead, the proposal is to transfer them to Hull or to Cromwell house in Lincoln. The chief executive of HMRC told me that the policy was to
“consolidate its teams into fewer sites and place more location-specific work into larger, more efficient teams in urban centres.”
That will be costly, because both Hull and Lincoln are more than an hour and a quarter’s drive away. If people are transferred to Hull rather than Lincoln, they will have to pay £30 a week in toll charges on the Humber bridge—an expensive business which, incidentally, was not mentioned in the impact survey.
If staff who are transferred must travel for more than an hour—these people will be travelling for well over an hour and a quarter—their travelling expenses must be paid for five years and not only for three years. The department’s calculations are made on the basis of three years’ payment of travelling expenses, for 27 staff I think, at a total cost of £492,000. I think it would be a higher figure than that to transfer those staff to Lincoln: probably £600,000 or more, because they have to be paid for five years given the distance involved. That is deemed by the Treasury to be taxable income. We are taking on a major expense for a minimal service, and shuffling expenditure from the property portfolio to continuous travel expenses. If staff are transferred to Cromwell house, they will arrive there knackered. The drive is not pleasant—I do it quite often—and the drive to Halton is even worse. I like going to Lincoln, but it is unpleasant driving there, particularly at peak travel time.
I am not sure whether it is HMRC’s intention that compliance staff should arrive at Lincoln after an hour-and-a-half drive exhausted and bad tempered, so that they will be more aggressive with the claims they deal with and produce an even greater return. I hope that is not the intention, but it will certainly be the effect. The work done by HMRC staff is not local but non-specific; however, that done by VOA staff is largely local. In the recent fracas about retrospective property valuations, VOA did not have enough staff to complete them. They should have been done from 2006 onwards, but there were not finished until 2010 because of staff shortages arising from efficiency decisions. Yet it is proposed to move staff.
The problem varies in each department, but the overall transfer of not only HMRC staff but staff in other departments is damaging to the employment mix in Grimsby and the recruitment prospects of young Grimbarians, and is unnecessary. I am sorry to say that it will also be damaging to the work, morale and lives of the staff who will be shuttled around willy-nilly, because they do not want to go. They like living and working in Grimsby, which is understandable; I do, too. Why must they move when it would be cheaper for them to continue working in Grimsby, it is expensive to move them to Lincoln, and there is existing office space in Grimsby?
The policy is short-sighted and wrong. It is yesterday’s policy from the mid-noughties, and it is being forced on today’s work force at a time when unemployment is higher than when the policy was arrived at. I have been arguing and have had extensive correspondence with the chief executive of HMRC, who is a courteous and place-worthy lady, and the chief executive of VOA, but it is like arguing with a speak-your-weight machine. Their replies are about a policy that was forced on them when they took over their jobs. The correspondence has not been satisfactory, and their letters always end, “I hope you find this helpful.” Frankly, I do not, because they do not respond to my points. The policy is dictated by the need for economy and efficiency savings, but it will work against both because staff will not be more efficient after an hour-and-a-half drive to work, and it will not be economic to pay them £200,000 a year in travel expenses to do so.
The answer is not to take staff from Grimsby, but to transfer them to Grimsby. It is a good place to live and work. Office expenses are low, and rents per square foot are much lower than in the big centres where it is proposed staff should be transferred. Staff like being there, and do not want to leave. Why pursue at this late stage an expensive policy of concentration when staff who must be transferred could come to Grimsby, where office rents are lower, where staff can live more cheaply in the real world, and where they prefer to be? The problem with Grimsby is its name—I did not give it its name—and it is anything but grim as a place to live. That should be recognised, because people can live there more economically and have a more satisfactory life in a smaller urban centre than in a big city. It is time to reverse the priorities and to bring functions and staff to Grimsby, which is cheaper, instead of driving people out as a result of the policy of concentration in larger centres.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) on securing this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain and to discuss the Government’s policy on people and estate issues, and its impact on public sector jobs in HMRC and the Valuation Office Agency in Grimsby.
I recognise and appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s passion for his constituency—perhaps we should all call it the promised land—and the fact that he wants to retain as many local services, jobs and employment opportunities for the area as possible. He set out with great knowledge and understanding some of the challenges facing Grimsby, because the private sector is not as strong as he and I would like it to be.
The issue before us is that the main department, HMRC, and its agency, VOA, like others, have been going through a transformation to ensure that they operate in the most efficient and cost-effective way. That process has been taking place for some years, and further efficiencies are required under the spending review settlement. For HMRC, that also provides for reinvestment of more than £900 million to combat tax avoidance, evasion and fraud in return for a reduction in the tax gap of £7 billion a year by 2014-15. That will lead to increased opportunities in enforcement and compliance, but by 2015 HMRC overall will be operating with around 13,000 fewer staff than in 2010.
For both organisations, having the right mix of people and skills in the right-sized teams and locations is important to ensure that they can deliver the services that their customers need. Balancing the need to retain a national network of offices with consistency across operations, while building capability to handle different areas of work, is core to maintaining customer service. Both HMRC and VOA have been carrying out good housekeeping of their estates for a number of years to utilise existing space to the maximum, and that has realised significant savings. For example, VOA has reduced its estate by 25%, saving in excess of £5 million in running costs a year since 2008. HMRC has made cumulative estate savings of £239 million since 2006.
The core efficiency agenda is key to deficit reduction, and managing Government property can contribute to that. The Government’s £370 billion estate costs around £25 billion per annum to run. The highly diverse estate has substantial scope for efficiency improvement, and the Government are the UK’s largest landowner and largest tenant, so it is important to achieve clarity on what is expected from property and how it is to be achieved.
The Government’s property unit leads the property strategy and is responsible for delivering the targeted savings, as well improving the building environment and promoting economic growth where possible. The decisions made by HMRC and VOA working together in a co-ordinated, cross-departmental way on their estates have identified savings to be made, as well as opportunities for work to remain in Grimsby. In December 2008, as part of HMRC’s earlier restructuring programme, the decision on HMRC’s offices in Grimsby was announced. It was decided to vacate Heritage house and retain Imperial house, the larger of the two offices. Heritage house is occupied by HMRC under a memorandum of terms of occupation with the VOA. The VOA now wishes to terminate that memorandum, and HMRC and the VOA will vacate the office by 31 March 2012. HMRC staff in Heritage house were informed of that decision on 24 March 2011.
The office closures will have an immediate impact on people in those locations, and I understand that that is a big concern for the hon. Gentleman. There are around 200 HMRC staff in Grimsby—15 at Heritage house and the remainder at Imperial house. As the hon. Gentleman has said, Imperial house has sufficient space to accommodate all HMRC staff when Heritage house is vacated. The vast majority of staff—167 people—work in the VAT directorate, and about 25 people work in the local compliance department. Local compliance work is being consolidated in Lincoln and Hull where there are established teams.
Austin Mitchell
The Minister has still not said why Heritage house is being disposed of. It is as if the place needs fumigating—there is a mass exodus. Staff from the VOA and HMRC are going, and those from the Crown Prosecution Service have fled to Hull. The building was designed to provide office accommodation for public administration staff. It is beautifully situated; there is parking; and there is a wonderful fish and chip shop nearby. Why the exodus from Heritage house? Why do the Government want to get rid of it?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman has described a somewhat idyllic scene for Heritage house, and the proximity of an excellent fish and chip shop cannot be entirely ignored. Nevertheless, HMRC has to find savings in its estate and, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Imperial house has the capacity to take in additional staff. HMRC needs to find savings to be more efficient and to ensure that it is as effective as possible at collecting taxes. Together with the VOA, it has taken the view that Heritage house is surplus to requirements.
The long-term strategy for local compliance is to consolidate teams in fewer sites and place non-specific work in larger teams in urban centres. The local compliance department carries out a risk assessment of location specific work, and it assessed that there is no need for a longer-term compliance presence in Grimsby. It has stretching targets for performance improvement and must deliver those with a reduced work force. The aim is to achieve that by setting up co-located teams that will provide greater opportunity to share skills and experience. That has been happening for some years, and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of recent improvements in the compliance yield obtained by HMRC.
There are similar issues for the 20 VOA staff located in Heritage house. The VOA is working towards having fewer locations nationally, each with a critical mass of staff to enable the sharing of knowledge and skills and improve efficiency. Discussions are taking place between VOA staff and their managers before a formal preference exercise in June. The consideration for HMRC is whether or not the 25 local compliance staff are able to travel to Lincoln or Hull, and they have been asked to express their favoured options by the end of May. The focus at present is on supporting HMRC and VOA staff through that change, while ensuring the continuity of service required for customers—the taxpayer or ratepayer—and in the case of VOA, delivery partners such as billing authorities.
HMRC and the VOA are seeking to avoid any job losses, and the staff consultation will enable them to explore all available options. HMRC staff unable to relocate to Lincoln or Hull will continue to undertake compliance-related work for the foreseeable future, based at Imperial house. No one who lives further away than a distance of reasonable daily travel will be forced to move. The 20 VOA staff, many of whom live in and cover properties in the Grimsby area, may be based elsewhere as a result of those decisions. It is not, however, uncommon for VOA property inspectors to start or end their day from home, if that is more effective and efficient. In addition, the VOA has made provision—subject to business need—for home working, which staff may opt for in the preference exercise. The local impacts of the change will be minimal.
The policy for both HMRC and the VOA is to avoid compulsory redundancies. They will do everything possible to help staff find a suitable role, which may be at the closest neighbouring offices or elsewhere. The VOA will continue to carry out property valuations and assessments locally, and many local staff will continue to carry out that work for Grimsby, so that local knowledge of the area and conditions will not be affected. The specific issue of ports will require specialist expertise, but it should not be disrupted by the changes.
Decisions to inspect specific properties or areas are not necessarily determined by the office location; understanding the area and having the right supporting information is key. In all cases, the decision to inspect a property or locality is made after other avenues have been exhausted and when the information required can be gleaned only by a visit.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of increased travel costs as a consequence of the changes. Travel costs may increase, but HMRC and the VOA believe that those increases will be significantly outweighed by savings on accommodation. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that costs are greater in Hull and Lincoln, but as far as the VOA is concerned, accommodation in those places is considerably cheaper than it is in Grimsby. The issue affects many areas, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it today and defending the interests of his constituents with such passion. Nevertheless, HMRC and the VOA must make a contribution to clearing the fiscal deficit.
Austin Mitchell
This is the second survey that staff have received—the first must have been inconclusive. This time HMRC staff are not signing the option forms, because they feel that there are no alternative jobs in the tax system in north-east Lincolnshire or in other areas. The Minister has not answered the question about why jobs should not be transferred to Grimsby. It would be a cheaper centre from which to carry out non-locational work. If the work can be done from anywhere, why not Grimsby?
Mr Gauke
As I understand it, the view taken by HMRC and the VOA is that the options presented by Hull and Lincoln were more financially persuasive. Accommodation in Lincoln and Hull for the VOA is considerably cheaper than in Grimsby, and decisions were taken for those reasons and on the basis of good estate management. I know that will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is important that HMRC and the VOA take a businesslike approach to the issue and ensure that assets are distributed in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
Question put and agreed to.