Death of a Member

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Mr Speaker

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Alan Keen, Member for Feltham and Heston. For a number of years, Alan was the chairman of the all-party group on football, and before entering this House in 1992 he was for 18 years a scout for Middlesbrough football club. I am sure that Members from all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to his wife, Ann, and to his family and friends.

House of Commons

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Monday 14 November 2011

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the creation of a post of chief coroner to oversee the inquest system in relation to deaths of armed forces personnel.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the late Private Matthew Thornton, who was killed in Afghanistan last Wednesday, from 4th Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment. He was a brave young man, serving his country, and I am sure that the whole House will wish to send its condolences and sympathy to his family.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent discussions with ministerial colleagues on the creation of a chief coroner’s post. The post is entirely a matter for the Ministry of Justice, although we have of course provided it with every assistance regarding the impact of the issue on military bereaved families, and we have engaged with the Ministry of Justice and with the Cabinet Office on the matter.

[Jessica Morden]

I should like to associate myself with the Minister’s opening remarks and with yours, Mr Speaker.

The Royal British Legion thanked hon. Members from all parties for their cross-party support when the post of chief coroner was agreed just two years ago. Does the Minister agree that the issue should unite, not divide, this House, and that appointing a chief coroner in line with the revised proposals from the Royal British Legion and Inquest would send a wonderful message to service families at this particularly special time?

[Mr Robathan]

I am afraid that I do not entirely agree. The important thing is the results that bereaved families receive at inquests, with which there have been problems in the past, and that is why the Ministry of Defence is, for instance, laying on specific events and continuing familiarisation with military inquests for coroners. We are also ensuring that they are properly trained with regard to bereaved families. People seem to have become hung up on the office of a chief coroner, but it is a Ministry of Justice matter, as I have said. What is important is that bereaved families receive an excellent service from coroners, and we are working very hard to ensure that that happens.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

To what extent does my right hon. Friend believe that the undoubted success in years gone by of the Wiltshire coroner, David Masters, and the Oxfordshire coroner, Andrew Walker, in improving the welfare and safety of troops has been down to their independence and to the fact that they have not had a potentially bureaucratic official standing over them?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. and gallant Friend makes a very interesting point, and again the issue is that we do not have a bureaucratic official standing over coroners. Inquests in the past, as the Opposition know, were not always as sympathetic towards military families as they might have been, and indeed they were not particularly good with the bereaved, so we are allowing the Lord Chief Justice to set mandatory training requirements for coroners and their officers, including training in respect of military inquests, and we think that that is the right way forward.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last month I asked the former Secretary of State whether he had reviewed the Royal British Legion’s proposals to deliver a reformed coronial system at significantly lower cost than the Government estimate. He did not answer the question. May I once again give the Minister, under the direction of a new Secretary of State, the opportunity to put on the record his views about scrapping the office of chief coroner? Will the Minister support the Royal British Legion’s campaign?

[Mr Robathan]

I think that I am still a member of the Royal British Legion; I certainly have been, and I think that I paid my subscription this year.

I am a great supporter of the Legion. It is a fantastic organisation with fantastic people, but that does not mean that it is right about everything, and on this campaign it has rather overstated its case. It said in its briefing, which I have with me, that when asked in the street two thirds of people thought that a chief coroner was essential, but I ask all Members, “How many of their constituents do they think have heard of the chief coroner?” The answer is not two thirds of the population, I can promise you that much.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on operations in Libya of the unavailability of an aircraft carrier.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on operations in Libya of the unavailability of an aircraft carrier.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Thanks to our overseas basing rights, the unavailability of a UK aircraft carrier had no significant effect on the UK’s participation in military operations over Libya. That was clearly demonstrated by the outstanding performance of our armed forces over and off the coast of Libya, and by the civilian and military staffs that supported them.

Difficult decisions had to be made by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), to whom I pay tribute, in order to deal with the black hole that we inherited from the previous Government. The decisions made in relation to carrier capability were painful, but they were the right ones in Britain’s long-term interests.

[Mary Macleod]

On my visits to RAF bases as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, air service personnel have raised concerns about the lack of availability of an aircraft carrier. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British contribution to the no-fly zone in Libya has demonstrated that we can still project air power effectively, despite having to accept a break in our carrier strike capability?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The performance of British forces in Operation Ellamy precisely demonstrated that we retain such a capability and, indeed, that the aircraft deployed were capable of carrying weapons such as Storm Shadow and the dual-mode Brimstone, which allowed us to deliver a precision response in Libya. That greatly reduced collateral damage and civilian casualties.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that carrier strike force is a fundamental capability that we must regenerate as it will provide future Governments with both a powerful deterrent and the flexibility to respond to any situation in the most efficient and effective way?

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend suggests, the decision to regenerate the carrier capability at the end of the decade will give the United Kingdom a formidable capability in addition to the other capabilities it currently has to project force in areas of the world where basing and overflight rights may not be available. That will be a very welcome and important addition to our overall capability.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that Rosyth in my constituency does the refitting for the current carriers and that it is expected to do the refitting for future carriers that may be used in Libya-style operations. Will he confirm that, if there was a separate Scotland, the Ministry of Defence would have to look again at the long-term refitting options for our aircraft carriers?

[Mr Hammond]

I was not quite sure where that was going. The hon. Gentleman is of course right: it is unlikely Her Majesty’s forces would wish to use facilities in a fully independent Scotland in the way they would wish to use them within a United Kingdom.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Military action in Libya was, of course, supported in a non-partisan manner right across the House, but there will have been concern about the fact that, over the weekend, there were reports of military incidents in Libya. Will the Secretary of State give us an indication of the scale and extent of those incidents?

[Mr Hammond]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed report on the weekend’s news stories, but I can say that having provided the cover that allowed the Libyan people to liberate themselves from a brutal dictatorship that has tyrannised them for the best part of four decades, it is very much in our interests and it is our moral responsibility to help them to make the best of the opportunity they have created. We will be watching very carefully as the situation develops. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be keeping a very close eye on the situation, with a view to assisting in any way we can to ensure a satisfactory long-term outcome for the people of Libya.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the difference—the important distinction—between mounting a no-fly zone and mounting long-range bombing raids in active intervention in a civil war? The latter is what we did in the Libya campaign, and no one would have doubted we could do that from land bases. However, does he not appreciate that a no-fly zone, which involves lengthy routine patrols and the suppression of air defences over a long period, would have been far better mounted from aircraft carriers? It is very important that we do not draw the wrong conclusions from the slightly triumphalist tone that both he and the Prime Minister have adopted in this matter.

[Mr Hammond]

I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend because I know he is very knowledgeable about these matters and I am still a fair way down a steep learning curve. However, I have to say to him that, in the early phases of the Libya campaign, Typhoon operations were mounted in support of the no-fly zone with a view to potentially having to engage in air-to-air operations. From the briefing I have had, my understanding is that it is perfectly possible to mount such an operation from a base that is the distance that Gioia del Colle was from Libyan airspace. Clearly, my hon. Friend is right: if we were seeking to mount an air exclusion operation in a location that was much further away from friendly bases, there would be greater difficulties.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As we have a base in Gibraltar, the use of a NATO base in southern Italy, and Cyprus, of course we can handle Libya from fixed bases. If we have a crisis anywhere else, such as a new Sierra Leone or a new Indonesia, where Royal Navy aircraft carriers went down to protect British forces, we would not be able to do that. Will the Secretary of State simply say that for the next 10 years we are no longer a maritime power in terms of air projection?

[Mr Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman is overstating the case. The Government have been very clear that taking the tough decisions that have had to be taken to clear up the fantasy defence procurement programme we were left will leave us with some limitations in capability in the short to medium term. That is to be regretted, but it was necessary to put our defences on a stable and secure basis in the long term.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

3. What the timetable is for the next terms of business agreement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The terms of business agreements are unique to the maritime sector and reflect our collaborative work with industry to transform the surface ship build and support, and submarine support, areas. The Department has separate TOBAs with BAE Systems Surface Ships and Babcock Marine, both of which are performing well and currently delivering savings in excess of their targeted benefits. These are 15-year agreements and we have not decided whether or how they will be replaced.

[Oliver Colvile]

I presume that, under those conditions, the Secretary of State has not had an opportunity to speak to any of the defence industries.

[Peter Luff]

We have not yet had any discussions with industry about how these arrangements will be carried forward in future—in some 14 years’ time. However, the TOBAs are performing very well and delivering savings in excess of their expected benefits. I promise my hon. Friend that we will talk very carefully to all those involved, including Plymouth city council and him, about any future arrangements when the time comes, but that is not quite yet, I fear.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

4. If he will make it his policy to oppose the creation of an EU operational headquarters.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

10. If he will make it his policy to oppose the creation of an EU operational headquarters.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

It is the policy of this Government that NATO remain the cornerstone of UK defence. We see no justification whatsoever for a permanent EU military operational headquarters, and we will continue to oppose it. We have been clear that the establishment of a permanent operational headquarters would be a duplication of existing capability provided by NATO, would permanently dissociate the EU from NATO, and would be an unnecessary and unjustified use of resources.

[Stephen Hammond]

The lesson from recent military operations is that our operations with joint and existing allies have enabled military objectives to be achieved. The Secretary of State is clearly right that the proposal to create an EU headquarters would be a duplication, but would it not also curtail the involvement of some of our existing allies in military objectives that we may wish to undertake?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It would duplicate and undermine arrangements we have in place that have been demonstrated to be perfectly adequate.

[Jason McCartney]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that spending money that the EU does not have on these headquarters is an absurd waste that would also cause confusion in the military chain of command in terms of duplication of effort?

[Mr Hammond]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is something that we do not need and cannot afford, and that would be damaging to our overall military capability.

[Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Anglo-French defence accord has been a success, but let us not forget that it was largely negotiated under the previous Government. May I ask this Government whether other agreements are being discussed with other member states of the European Union?

[Mr Hammond]

On Wednesday I am going to meet my Nordic and Baltic counterparts, and I have already had discussions with my Italian counterpart. It will be the Government’s policy to seek bilateral arrangements with other European allies where it is appropriate and in the interests of both parties to collaborate.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I realise that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth), who is responsible for NATO matters, is not here, but I am sure that the Secretary of State can respond. I agree with response he gave to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). The Secretary of State is aware that Holland has withdrawn its main battle tank fleet and that Denmark is cutting its navy and ground-based air defences. These are just two examples of defence cuts among our European allies. As a nation, we are part of a European collective, but will he detail what work he and his ministerial colleagues are undertaking to ensure that NATO maintains a coherent capability?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reiterating that there is cross-party support for resisting the temptation or blandishments for an EU operational headquarters. On ensuring that the European part of NATO remains effective, I again pay tribute to my predecessor, who never tired of exhorting our NATO allies to do their bit to maintain NATO effectiveness. I shall certainly continue in his footsteps.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

6. What steps the Royal Navy is taking to tackle piracy off the horn of Africa.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

13. What role he expects UK armed forces to play in the protection of naval vessels against piracy.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The UK takes seriously efforts to tackle piracy off the horn of Africa and makes a direct contribution to a number of international efforts to counter piracy. We provide the operational headquarters and operational commander to the EU’s Operation Atalanta, we provide the deputy commander and HMS Somerset to the US-led combined maritime forces operation, and RFA Fort Victoria is currently under the command of NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield. Successful naval efforts must be complemented by proactive measures by commercial shippers.

[Mel Stride]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring that our commercial vessels can carry armed guards. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that that will in no way diminish the assets of the Royal Navy that are applied to tracking down those involved in piracy?

[Nick Harvey]

Yes, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that this move is in no way intended to be a substitute for action by the Royal Navy; it is an additional measure. No matter what degree of resource navies from around the world put into the counter-piracy effort, it would not be possible for there always to be a naval presence on hand when a ship is attacked. No ships that have had any sort of security or that have followed best practice have been pirated.

[Mr Cunningham]

Following the point made by the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), has the Minister had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport on the arming of commercial vessels? Will he tell us a little more about that, because it should not be a substitute for the duties of the British Navy?

[Nick Harvey]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been a lot of discussion between the Home Office, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. Companies can apply for authorisation to carry firearms on ships. The Home Office will shortly issue guidance. Types of weapons will be considered on a case-by-case basis, but they will have to be appropriate and proportionate. Vessel owners will have a responsibility to ensure that guidance is followed, and necessary safeguards will have to be implemented.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

When were the rules of engagement for royal naval ships off the horn of Africa last reviewed, and when will they next be reviewed? Can we ensure that we are not tying the arms of our armed forces personnel behind their backs when they are fighting piracy?

[Nick Harvey]

I assure my hon. Friend that the rules of engagement are kept permanently under review. Having looked closely at this issue, I am confident that we are not in any sense causing our people to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. The rules of engagement are, in my view, entirely appropriate to the task that they are being asked to perform.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said that the Prime Minister stated two weeks ago that there would be draft regulations on proposals for arming British merchant-registered ships. Will the Minister confirm what the legal status of those individuals will be, what the rules of engagement will be and, more important, how they will interface with UK personnel who are already deployed off the horn of Africa?

[Nick Harvey]

I say again that the details of how this policy will work are a matter for the Home Office. It will shortly issue guidance that will cover some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The Home Office has taken a view on the legality of the policy and it is satisfied that it is legal within existing legislation. On the interface with the armed forces, the armed guards who might be carried on ships—that is a matter for the owners to decide—are there in a preventive capacity. The Royal Navy and other navies will continue to patrol the entire area. The focus of the military effort is to deter and disrupt. As I said a moment ago, it would not be possible, no matter how much resource navies were to deploy, always to have somebody there in a preventive capacity. All ships that have taken the necessary precautions have successfully prevented themselves from being pirated.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

To follow up the question on rules of engagement, will the Minister ensure that ours are as robust as possible and allow people defending ships to engage the enemy, or the pirates, at the maximum distance possible, to give those ships more time to take evasive action?

[Nick Harvey]

I say again that I am perfectly satisfied that the rules of engagement provide the armed forces with as much flexibility as they need to deal effectively with the situations that we expect them to find. I have to say that the UK has been pressing international allies for a bolder set of tactics, and we continue to press them to agree to that.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Afghanistan.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I have just returned from my first visit to Afghanistan as Secretary of State for Defence. The visit allowed me to see at first hand the fantastic job that our armed forces are doing on behalf of our country, and the progress that they are making both in reversing the momentum of the insurgency and in training the Afghan security forces to defend their own country. I assess that the security situation in central Helmand has improved, and that good progress is being made in both the number and capability of the Afghan national security forces.

[Mr Bain]

Given this morning’s disturbing report that the Taliban are attempting to procure the security arrangements for the forthcoming Loya Jirga, what assistance will the international security assistance force be able to provide to the Afghan security forces to ensure that those participating in that important event can do so free from attack and intimidation by the Taliban?

[Mr Hammond]

The Loya Jirga will take place in Kabul, and of course ISAF has considerable resources deployed there in support of the Afghan security forces. Also, many ISAF contributing nations have special forces operating in Afghanistan, working in collaboration with the Afghan special forces and special police. All those arrangements will help to ensure the security of the Loya Jirga.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend pay an especially warm tribute to the soldiers of the British Army, and those in other parts of the services, who are contributing so much to the training of Afghan forces? Has he decided in which particular areas we will specialise in training Afghans after 2015?

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to British servicemen and women for their work in training and mentoring Afghan national security forces on the job. Looking forward, the Prime Minister has made a commitment that Britain will take the lead role in the Afghan national officer training academy, which will be established just outside Kabul and will train the bulk of officer recruits to the Afghan national security forces.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

The progress at the operational level in central Helmand that the Secretary of State reports has been achieved by the bravery of troops, yes, but also by the fact that in the past year or so they have had sufficient troop density in the area of operations to carry out an effective counter-insurgency operation. Is he now taking decisions that will effectively widen the area of responsibility, but with the same number of troops? That will surely have an impact on force density, which will potentially undermine their ability to succeed in the way they have in the past couple of years.

[Mr Hammond]

The simple answer to the right hon. Gentleman is no. I understand very well the concern that he expresses. He is referring, I think, to stories about the level and speed of US Marine Corps withdrawal from central Helmand, and indeed from the wider Helmand area. We are very clear that it is the increased force density that has secured the success of the British mission, and we have no intention of allowing that force density to be diluted in a way that damages our future prospects of success.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Over recent years the Afghan national police have been regarded as a threat by the local population second only to the Taliban. Can my right hon. Friend say whether significant progress has been made in bringing the quality of the police up to that of the Afghan national army?

[Mr Hammond]

I believe that progress has been made. The composition of the Afghan national police is different from that of the Afghan national army in terms of the distribution of locally raised forces. There is a greater affinity between ANP forces and local people than between the army and local people, but there is still further work to do, and I fully recognise what my right hon. Friend says.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

We remain committed to the Afghan mission, and we now want to see military might matched by substantial political progress. The Secretary of State will know that reservists will play a bigger role in Afghanistan and beyond, which may require additional mandatory training. At a time when many reservists have lost their full-time jobs, the benefits system might be unintentionally penalising them and hindering their freedom to take on extra reservist training or allowances. It would be a disgrace if a single reservist lost a penny in benefits because of their service. Will the Secretary of State undertake a wider piece of work with the rest of Government and conduct an urgent review to ensure that our welfare state does not punish a single reservist?

[Mr Hammond]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for again reasserting the cross-party support for the Afghan campaign, and he is right that reservists are playing an important part in it. Sadly, one of those killed in action most recently was a reservist serving his country.

My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces tells me that the problem the right hon. Gentleman raises is one that we are acutely alert to and aware of. There is work being done across Government to look at the problem and ensure that the concerns that he has raised are dealt with.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to prevent the desecration of war memorials.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

War memorials provide a lasting and poignant reminder of all those who have served and died in the service of our country. Most right hon. and hon. Members will have attended a war memorial yesterday to pay their respects to the fallen, both in the first and second world wars and subsequently. It is shocking that memorials are being violated and vandalised in the manner that we have all read about. I support any plan to protect memorials, and I know that the Home Office and local authorities are committed to dealing with the problem.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

At this solemn time of year, when we remember those who fell to protect our freedoms, there is a small, despicable group of people who go round stealing metal from war memorials. What action are my right hon. Friend and his colleagues across Government taking to bring the full force of the law to bear on those individuals?

[Mr Robathan]

For myself—I should say that I am not sure that this is Government policy—if they were caught, I would ensure that they received exemplary sentences, but that is a matter for my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. In the Ministry of Defence, the sponsored cadet forces are being encouraged to participate in project In Memoriam 2014. The project involves locating and logging the thousands of war memorials across the United Kingdom and marking them with SmartWater, a commercial product that should enable the metal components of war memorials to be forensically traced if they are stolen.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

The desecration of war memorials is an appalling crime, condemned by Members in all parts of the House. Would the Minister be willing to meet representatives from SmartWater, which is based in my constituency? It is doing a tremendous job protecting metal on war memorials, as part of its wider social obligation to our communities. Would he be willing to meet SmartWater representatives to see what more we can do to protect memorials? All parts of the House would support such initiatives.

[Mr Robathan]

I would be very happy to hear their submission. I should point out that the something like 100,000 marvellous war memorials in this country are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The War Memorials Trust is doing excellent work on this, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, we shall see whether we can have a meeting, perhaps with one or two of the people responsible for the matter.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on (a) the Army and (b) UK industry of the capability sustainment programme for the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The £1 billion upgrade to the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle is an important step towards meeting the requirements for Future Force 2020. Warrior will remain the backbone of the infantry for the next 30 years. The upgrade represents a step change in capability, ensuring that our forces are equipped to counter the threats of the future. UK industry will benefit from the creation and sustainment of some 600 British jobs within prime contractor Lockheed Martin UK and its supply chain, sustaining both skills and capability within the UK’s armoured vehicle sector.

[Jack Lopresti]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his answer and to welcome the announced upgrade that will provide our forces with state-of-the-art firepower for the next 25 or 30 years, but will he also ensure that our troops have the kit they need when they need it to do their job as effectively and as safely as possible?

[Peter Luff]

I am certainly happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I pay tribute to his constituents for playing their part in ensuring that that is achieved both at Thales, which is making the battle group thermal imager for the upgrade and at Defence Equipment and Support itself. I met many staff at Ampthill a week or so ago to celebrate the great success of the Warrior upgrade programme.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

14. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the UK’s operations in Libya.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Our estimate on 12 October was that the net additional cost of operations in Libya would be £160 million. Our estimate at the same date of the cost of replenishing munitions used in Libya was £140 million. That estimate assumed that operations would continue until the end of December. We are currently calculating a new estimate based on the actual end of operations on 31 October, and I expect to make a further statement in early December. I expect the new estimate to be lower than the one previously given.

[Andrew Selous]

Given Libya’s vast oil wealth, does the Secretary of State think it might be appropriate in due course for Libya to make some form of compensatory payment to the United Kingdom for those costs incurred?

[Mr Hammond]

The UK’s motivation in intervening and playing a leading role in the Libya campaign was not based on an expectation of financial reimbursement; it was to prevent a humanitarian disaster and to protect the vital interests of this country. The Libyan situation, as hon. Members have already pointed out, remains fragile and our first priority is to assist the Libyan people and the Libyan Government in stabilising the situation. Seeking financial reimbursement is not a current priority.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of equipment supplied to troops in Afghanistan.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The provision of equipment for our forces in Afghanistan is regularly reviewed, with new equipment and capabilities being developed and delivered in response to emerging requirements. The military assessment is that our forces are now being provided with the equipment they need to undertake the tasks they are doing and that no missions are being compromised by the inadequacy or unavailability of equipment. Having met both 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade after their respective tours in Afghanistan, I know that that view is shared by those on the front line who actually use the equipment.

[Margot James]

I thank the Minister for his response. There has been much criticism of the kit supplied to front-line troops, particularly those on foot patrol in Afghanistan. Will he advise us of any improvements made specifically for those troops on foot patrol to mitigate these threats?

[Peter Luff]

As I said in my original answer, constant improvements are being made. One of the two that I would highlight has already happened—tier 1 and tier 2 pelvic protection against blast, which is being well received by our own armed services and is now being emulated by the Americans. Secondly, for the future, there is the provision of the light protected patrol vehicle, Foxhound, which will come into service in the early part of next year.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

What proposals does the Minister have to improve the equipment that will reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries among British troops dealing with improvised explosive devices and bombs?

[Peter Luff]

I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the third layer of pelvic protection—the tier 3 protection—does precisely that. I can reassure him that work is being done constantly to ensure that those very brave operatives have access to the best possible equipment to do their important task. It is important that they are allowed to disassemble IEDs because they provide vital clues about the tactics of the enemy, which helps prevent further deaths among the widest number of forces serving in Afghanistan.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

16. How many children received support through the additional pupil premium for children of service families in the latest period for which figures are available.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Some 45,000 service children have been recorded as eligible for the service child pupil premium in 2011-12. We are working to encourage service families to complete the annual school census so that their children and their schools can benefit from this additional payment to recognise the uniqueness of service life.

[Stephen Mosley]

There are currently 134 children from 1st Battalion The Royal Welsh in eight Chester schools, but parents and teachers seem unsure about the purpose and use of the pupil premium in their schools. What has the Minister done to raise awareness of the actions that the Government have taken to support service children?

[Mr Robathan]

This is a new initiative. We want to raise awareness, and anything that my hon. Friend can do to help in that regard will be very welcome. We have set aside £9 million this year for the pupil premium, and have also set aside £3 million specifically for schools that take a large number of service pupils and may be experiencing problems. We have invited them to apply for the money, but may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that they look up the details on the Department for Education’s website and then apply?

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to support strategically important defence manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The Ministry of Defence’s first responsibility when procuring equipment is to provide the armed forces with the capabilities that they require when they need them, in an affordable and sustainable way. The forthcoming White Paper will set out our approach to acquiring technology, equipment and support for our armed forces, and will explain how we will take action to protect our operational advantages and freedom of action where that is essential for national security.

[Diana Johnson]

I think that all Members will recognise the vital strategic importance of having defence production lines in the United Kingdom, as well as the importance of rebalancing the economy through modern manufacturing jobs, private sector jobs and jobs in the regions. What is the Minister doing to protect the skilled jobs and apprenticeships that are likely to go at BAE Systems in Brough? Those workers will find out on Boxing day whether their jobs are going to disappear. What is the Minister doing about it?

[Peter Luff]

I have to disappoint the hon. Lady, because decisions about where redundancies fall must be made by defence companies and not by Ministers. I understand her concern about what has happened at Brough, and she will understand what BAE Systems said, in public, about the underlying reasons for the changes. [Interruption.] I can answer the sedentary question from those on the Opposition Front Bench by saying that the White Paper, which will set out our approach in more detail and will help hon. Lady to understand the issues more fully, will be published next month.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I fully understand the difficult balance that my hon. Friend is trying to strike between securing the best value for our forces and protecting key capabilities, but may I urge him to look carefully at French industrial strategy? When we are collaborating with a country that has an activist industrial policy, there is a real danger that our procurement policy will end up following French industrial strategy unless we are fully aware of what is happening on the other side.

[Peter Luff]

Some Members may well find themselves in considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. Let me simply say that when I engage in discussions with my French opposite numbers, such issues are always at the forefront of my mind, and they will continue to be so—for instance, at the summit that is to be held in December.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the global financial crisis is causing a number of nations to take defence work back in-house, partly in order to protect their own work forces. Others, such as Italy, are seeking to renegotiate contracts, which is leaving UK firms of all sizes open to potential job losses. The Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) provided no reassurance that the Government were doing everything that should be done to protect British business overseas. In fact, what we heard was far from reassuring: it was about passing the buck back to industry. Will the Minister please reassure us that he will do all that can be done to support British industry?

[Peter Luff]

With respect, the hon. Lady’s question is rather different from the one asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). When it comes to helping British businesses overseas, I think that this Government’s track record compares very favourably indeed with that of the lot opposite when they were in power, and I am happy to tell them that the reason the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth)—the Minister responsible for international security strategy—is not present today is that he is at the Dubai air show doing precisely that. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in Japan a couple of weeks ago, making the case for the Eurofighter Typhoon. We are doing a very good job speaking up for British industry overseas: a damn sight better job than the Opposition did.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

One of the most important defence manufacturing businesses in the UK is BAE Systems in Warton, which is in my constituency and is the home of the Typhoon. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s efforts to support that world-leading product?

[Peter Luff]

We are working strenuously to support the product, although I think that in many senses it speaks for itself. What we are doing is ensuring that the wider world recognises the outstanding performance of the Eurofighter Typhoon in the activities over Libya, where it has shown itself to be superior in all respects to every other aircraft in the world today. That is the message that we are taking to India and Japan, and that we are delivering in our many other export campaigns. I am hopeful that we will achieve success in many of them, for the aircraft certainly deserves that success.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking in co-operation with other countries to develop future defence initiatives against Iran and to prevent the build-up of that country's nuclear weapons technology.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

The MOD conducts contingency planning for numerous possible scenarios around the world. However, the UK continues to work with other countries to achieve a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We want a negotiated solution, not a military one, but all options should be kept on the table.

[Mr Hollobone]

Do the recent visits by the Chief of the Defence Staff to Tel Aviv and the Israeli Defence Minister to London suggest that Her Majesty’s Government are seeking a closer defence relationship with Israel, with Iran at the top of the agenda?

[Nick Harvey]

The recent visit to Israel by the Chief of the Defence Staff was part of his long-standing programme of visits. He visited both Israel and the occupied west bank, he was able to speak to both the Israeli chief of staff and the Palestinian Prime Minister, and he assessed for himself the security concerns at first hand and urged the two sides to resume direct talks. I have no doubt that during his visit he also discussed the wider security implications in the region.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended, now and in the future; that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks; and that we honour our armed forces covenant. In order to discharge those responsibilities, it is necessary to ensure that the Department has a properly balanced budget and a programme that is affordable and sustainable in the medium to long term.

[Mr Cunningham]

What progress has been made with the Indian Government on the Typhoon deal?

[Mr Hammond]

As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), just said, UK Ministers have been assiduous over the past few weeks in promoting the case for the Typhoon in India and in other countries that are considering the purchase of new fast jets. We understand that there is likely to be an announcement in the next few weeks on the decision made by the Indian Government.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T2. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deeply irresponsible for certain elements of the press to print untrue scaremongering stories about the future treatment of our armed forces personnel, especially over the Remembrance day weekend?

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The story that has been running this weekend has been deeply unhelpful to morale in our armed forces, and is based on untruths and misconceptions. There has been no change in the Government’s position on the number of Army posts that will go over the remainder of the decade and no change in the procedure for exempting those recovering from injuries incurred on active service from the redundancy process.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

We fully understand why the dedicated international security Minister is not with us today, but can the Secretary of State not come to a conclusion where he makes this temporary absence permanent and cuts the number of Ministers at the MOD? This is nothing personal against the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth)—he is a good man, he works hard and I am not suggesting that he should be sacked in his absence. However, the Levene review recommended a head count reduction in MOD Ministers and, at a time when the Army is being cut by almost by 20,000 and the Air Force and the Navy by almost 5,000 each, why is it that the only place in the MOD exempt from head count reduction is the ministerial offices?

[Mr Hammond]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the appointment of Ministers is a matter for the Prime Minister. But I cannot help noticing that the Leader of the Opposition does not appear to have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman’s self-denying recommendations.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

T3. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about the need for sustainability. Will he therefore confirm to the House that he will continue the good work of his predecessor in implementing the whole of the Levene recommendations?

[Mr Hammond]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have been through the body of recommendations that Lord Levene made and that were endorsed by my predecessor. I am happy with them as a whole and I will pursue their implementation.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

T8. The British Legion’s money advice service helped more than 3,000 service families with unsecured-loan problems last year. Today’s Daily Mirror reports that firms such as QuickQuid are targeting military personnel and charging annual rates of more than 1,000%. According to the Daily Mirror, the Minister has never heard of payday loans, so how will he stop those get-rich-quick merchants ripping off our service families?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

May I counsel the hon. Gentleman? In no circumstances should he believe everything that he reads in the Daily Mirror. However, in response to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who referred to payday loans on Thursday, I made the point that the issue had never been raised with me.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

You said that you had never heard of them.

[Mr Robathan]

I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would be quiet. I had indeed never heard of them, because the issue is not something that has come across my desk. However, I deprecate these ridiculous, high-interest loans, which are appalling. They are not something that we find in the chain of command. It is true that the Royal British Legion does an excellent job in helping families and, indeed, ex-service personnel when they get into trouble with debt.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

T4. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many force elements at readiness the joint Harrier force had at the time of the strategic defence and security review, and what his assessment was of the number of trained pilots and the force’s ability to conduct strike operations?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

At the time of the SDSR, there were eight qualified Harrier pilots trained to operate off an aircraft carrier, only one of whom was trained to do so under night-flying conditions. The previous Government envisaged that the Harrier force would be worked up to support a small-scale contingent operation by the end of 2011. The Harrier force did not have the ability to have conducted both the Afghanistan and the Libya commitments at the same time. Indeed, my advice is that it would have taken 18 months to regenerate the Harrier force to support operations in Afghanistan alone.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

In recent weeks, BAE Systems has made it absolutely clear that the reason that there are 3,000 job losses is the slow-down in the Eurofighter order. In the light of that, can the Secretary of State clarify the Chancellor’s comments to the House on 1 November? When asked about job losses by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who is in his place, he replied that the job losses reflect the fact that

“the US defence budget had an impact on BAE Systems.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 758.]

Will the Secretary of State clarify which UK-US defence cuts the Chancellor was referring to?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The F-35 joint strike fighter slow-down.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

T5. There are reports that the Department’s medal review has been stopped and that an independent review will now commence. Can the Minister assure me that that will not cause further delays to veterans, such as those of the Arctic convoys, in getting a decision and that no service personnel facing redundancy will miss out on the diamond jubilee medal?

[Mr Robathan]

Two questions for the price of one. A review of medals is indeed ongoing. It has not yet been finalised. When it is finalised, it will be put before the House in the normal way. No one who is eligible for the diamond jubilee medal on the correct date, which is, I think, 6 February this coming year, will be affected by compulsory redundancy because the qualification date will be before anyone is made compulsorily redundant, although, of course, if they have not done five years on that date, they will not qualify for the medal.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Concern has been expressed about Army recruitment in Swansea because Territorial Army pay is taken off the benefits of Territorial Army personnel, thus undermining demand from those people who are not working to join the Territorial Army. Will the Minister talk to the other Departments involved to try to reconcile that problem?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman was dozing earlier, but the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) asked precisely that question, and I was able to reassure him, first, that we are very much aware of the issue and, secondly, that a piece of cross-departmental work is going on to ensure that the negative effects that he suggests do not in fact materialise.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T6. Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to allow councils to give council tax discounts to servicemen returning from duty? At the moment, although that is possible, it is very difficult for them to do so.

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. It is within the powers of any local authority to give a discount on council tax, should it wish to do so. I would welcome that if it improves the lot of our service personnel returning from operations.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

If, in the near future, Members of the other place decide once again to remove the chief coroner from the Public Bodies Bill, the Government will clearly have to think again. In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State stand up for the bereaved families of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and encourage the Justice Secretary to adopt the affordable alternative put forward by the Royal British Legion?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was not here or was dozing earlier, but I answered the question—[Interruption.] What I can say to him is that we absolutely care for the bereaved families. That is one of our highest priorities, and rightly so. We wish to ensure that they get decent services inquests, and that is what we are doing. I point out gently to him that it was under the previous Administration that there were problems with inquests.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

T7. My family, like many other fans of the Red Arrows, were deeply saddened by the recent tragic loss of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to investigate that tragic incident fully and to ensure that similar tragedies are avoided in the future?

[Nick Harvey]

I can assure my hon. Friend that in addition to a service inquiry, the Military Aviation Authority is conducting a detailed analysis of what went wrong. In the meantime, we have grounded aircraft using the same ejector system, but not those that are currently on front-line operations.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

What specific new powers are to be given to local authorities to provide affordable accommodation for service families?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman raised the matter on Thursday. Only last night the Minister for Housing and Local Government was on television making the point that we are very keen that people returning from operations or from abroad and moving into their home area where they have not lived for some time should have priority in council housing. That is, of course, the responsibility of local authorities, but we are working hard with them to get them to take note that somebody who has been away for six years may be a resident of Islwyn, even if he has been living somewhere else for the past six years.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

This is the first chance I have had to welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his post, which I do with the greatest pleasure and the utmost confidence. Since the Atlanta games there has been an internationally accepted minimal level of protection for the Olympics. Will he confirm to the House that there will be a full range of multilayered defence and deterrence for the London games, including ground-to-air missiles in London?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his generous words. I can assure him that all necessary measures to ensure the security and safety of the London Olympic games will be taken, including—if the advice of the military is that it is required—appropriate ground-to-air defences.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to have raised the consciousness of the Minister about payday loans in our debate last Thursday, and I am pleased to hear his words of condemnation today. May I press him to go a little further? Will he write to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to back calls for a cap on the cost of credit to protect our forces families, so that he can turn his outrage into action?

[Mr Robathan]

As I said to the hon. Lady on Thursday, I am already investigating the matter, although I make the point again that it has not been raised with me in the past 18 months that this is an issue with service personnel. I think it is an issue, obviously, because the hon. Lady raised it. It is not my responsibility to write to BIS, but if, in the course of investigations, it appears that that is affecting service personnel, I shall certainly take it up with BIS, as I agree with her—surprisingly—that the rates of interest are ridiculously high and should be capped.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does the Minister understand that any satisfaction there may be in Scotland about the announcement of Army units to be deployed at RAF Kinloss is more than tempered by severe disappointment in my constituency that no such similar announcements have been made in respect of RAF Leuchars? Promises have been made. Is it not time we were told how these promises are to be implemented and some guarantees were given?

[Nick Harvey]

The announcement in the House on 19 July explained the broad strategic direction that will be taken on rebasing. As far as the particulars of RAF Leuchars or any other base are concerned, further work is currently under way on the detailed site-by-site analysis, but there is a further complication, as the Army is currently conducting a large piece of work on its future shape and structure, so we will not come to any final decisions on basing until that work is concluded, which we expect to be early next year.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The full unit establishment total at RAF Kinloss was about 1,500 posts and the annual gross wage contribution to the local economy was £54.5 million. The planned relocation of 930 Army engineers to Kinloss is welcome, but what economic assessment has been made of their relocation?

[Nick Harvey]

The decision to move Army units to Kinloss was taken on the basis of military efficiency. I acknowledge that the number of personnel will be slightly smaller than the number who were there previously, but the fact is that the decision was dictated by military considerations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will welcome the Army into their community and be grateful for the contribution they make to the local economy

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I remind the House of my interests. In the light of the proposed future utilisation of reserves, does the Minister anticipate any need to change their terms and conditions of service?

[Mr Robathan]

May I first pay tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend, who continues to serve in the Territorial Army, for which I am grateful? As he knows, there are concerns following the Future Reserve 2020 study, which we are concentrating on, such as the under-recruitment of young officers into the TA, which is extremely important. We are yet to decide on changes to terms and conditions. People join initially for patriotic reasons of service, and secondly, quite rightly, for adventure, excitement and such reasons, but we must of course get the terms and conditions right because finance is also important. We are looking at that closely.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I return to the issue of housing? Two weeks ago I was visited by a soldier who is to be invalided out of the Army. He has served in Afghanistan and elsewhere and has local relatives, yet the London borough of Hillingdon is contesting its responsibility to house him. I ask the Minister to liaise with the Minister for Housing and Local Government to get specific advice or instructions on local connection rapidly to local authorities so that they cannot use it to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

[Mr Robathan]

I am sorry to hear about that case. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about it, I will certainly take it up with the London borough of Hillingdon. It is a great pity—I put it no more strongly—that some local authorities do not take sufficient care in their responsibility towards the armed forces. We are setting up community covenants, which many local authorities are taking up. They are about local authorities liaising with the military so that they take in people such as his constituent and give them priority when they need it.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

A recent ActionAid survey found that 86% of Afghan women worry about the return of a Taliban-style Government when international troops leave. What will the Ministry of Defence do in the lead-up to the planned withdrawal of troops in 2014 to ensure that we leave as a legacy an Afghanistan where there is safety and security for women as well as for men?

[Mr Philip Hammond]

It is absolutely clear that for Afghanistan to have a stable and sustainable future there must be an inclusive political settlement, and that is this Government’s policy. That means including all the ethnic groups within Afghanistan and ensuring the participation of women in Afghani society. That is the direction of the Government’s policy that we will pursue vigorously.

Swansea Coastguard Station

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): I would like to present this petition, which I strongly support, to save Swansea coastguard station. It has been signed by more than 160 constituents of Blaenau Gwent and is supported by the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton).

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the constituency of Blaenau Gwent,

Declares that there is a fierce reaction to the wholly unexpected proposed closure of the Swansea Coastguard Station, which will affect 28 staff, and declares that the Petitioners fear that lives will be put at risk if the proposal goes ahead, as the Petitioners are unconvinced that new technology would be an adequate substitute for close proximity between the coastguard and other emergency services.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to reconsider the decision to close Swansea Coastguard Station and ensure that a coastguard station remains at Swansea.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000975]

Legal Aid for Gypsies and Travellers

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): I am very pleased to present a petition that is strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). He wanted to present it, but I am doing it on his behalf and on behalf of the Community Law Partnership. The petition concerns the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and complements a similar petition of 1,000 signatures that was delivered to the Prime Minister last week. We believe that the Bill is having a disastrous effect on the provision of advice and representation to Gypsies and Travellers on accommodation issues. The petition has my full support and has been signed by 25 members of the Community Law Partnership.

The petition states:

The Petition of the Community Law Partnership on behalf of Gypsies and Travellers,

Declares that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, if brought into force, will have disastrous effects on the provision of advice and representation to Gypsies and Travellers on accommodation issues. Gypsies and Travellers are one of the most disadvantaged groups in the United Kingdom. The bill denies them access to the legal advice and assistance which is available to any other group. It is due to the failures of successive central and local Governments to ensure adequate site provision that some 25% of the Gypsy and Traveller population who live in caravans are on unauthorised encampments and unauthorised developments. This is through no fault of their own.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that Legal Aid in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is available for Gypsies and Travellers to defend evictions from unauthorised encampments and to be advised and represented in the County Court and High Court planning matters.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000982]

Points of Order

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

15:33

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I bring to your attention the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—I have notified them in advance—and seek your guidance on whether a breach of the code of conduct might have occurred during the passage of the Pensions Bill? This follows—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his purported point of order, a welcome courtesy that might not have helped his cause. If, as I believe to be the case, he wishes to raise a matter relating to the code of conduct—

[Mr Burley]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful for his nod of assent. He should raise such a matter with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and not—I underline not—as I have had occasion to say before, as a point of order for me.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister both asserted on more than one occasion in the House that their relaxation of border controls had not meant that any passengers arriving in the United Kingdom were at any point waved through without even rudimentary checks. However, I have incontrovertible new evidence that that is precisely what happened under a new general aviation policy that started earlier this year. Not only were passports not swiped and the warnings index not checked, but passengers were passed through without even being seen. I have also seen new evidence that the Government have statistics on how often—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced Member, and he will know that matters of genuine contention and debate cannot be matters on which the Chair will rule. If he wants to avail himself of the mechanisms available to him through the Table Office and the other means by which he can draw his concerns to the attention of the House and seek to probe Ministers, I think that it would be best for him to do that first. In this case, I do not have the advantage of prior knowledge of the detailed content of his point of order—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I am not complaining about that; the hon. Gentleman is not guilty of any impropriety. It is no good people going “Ah!” as though I have made some dramatic disclosure. However, I have to make a judgment as to whether this matter warrants the further attention of the House now, and on the basis of the information available to me, my judgment is that it does not.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Various journalists were sent an e-mail from the Ministry of Defence last Wednesday at 6.13 pm informing them of the details of the planned troop deployment to the Kinloss base in Moray. The 930 Army engineering posts at Kinloss, although about 41% lower than the full RAF unit establishment total, will be welcome, but the Ministry of Defence first informed me, as a constituency Member, of the decision in a letter from the Armed Forces Minister via an e-mail some 15 hours later, at 9.06 on Thursday morning. Despite my e-mailing him back immediately to ask why the media had been informed some 15 hours in advance, I have yet to have a reply. Mr Speaker, do you agree that it is totally unacceptable for the MOD to operate in this way?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that I can provide the hon. Gentleman with the satisfaction he seeks on the basis of what I have heard. He has taken this opportunity to put his concern on record, and I do not think that I need to take the matter further—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is gesticulating at those on the Treasury Bench, using fulsome hand gestures in the process, but the Minister is under no obligation to respond. I would say, for the benefit of those who are interested in our proceedings, that this is not an occasion for debate. These are narrow matters of points of order for the Chair, and that is why I have ruled as I have done.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Please could the House have your ruling on the implications of the Information Commissioner’s ruling that the Department of Health has twice unlawfully withheld key risk indicators relating to the Government’s health reforms and to the Health and Social Care Bill? Can you advise the House on whether the Department’s action was unlawful, as stated by the Information Commissioner, and whether it should also be treated as contempt of Parliament, given that the information was sought through written questions from right hon. and hon. Members, and was withheld during the First, Second and Third Readings of the Bill in this House as well as during its unprecedented two Committee stages?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On his first question about the action being unlawful, I will not respond, as it is not the job of the Speaker to rule on such matters. On his second point on the issue of contempt, this is in effect a complaint relating to privilege, which cannot be raised first on the Floor of the House. He should write to me if he wishes to pursue the matter. On the question of any further scrutiny, that is very much dependent on proceedings in the Lords, on which the Public Bill Office can advise. I think that I shall leave the matter there for today.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Procedure Committee is very willing to consider references to it of questions that have not been answered. Perhaps hon. Members will wish to know that no such references have been made recently and that we are looking forward to receiving them.

[Mr Speaker]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman has proved to be most helpful. His enthusiasm for consideration of these matters is widely known in all parts of the House.



EDUCATION BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),



That the following provisions shall apply to the Education Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 February 2011 (Education Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 pm at this day’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Gibb.)

Question agreed to.

Education Bill

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Speaker]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 16, 23, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41 and 43.

Clause 8

Functions of Secretary of State in relation to teachers

15:41

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 18.

Lords amendment 19, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 20 to 22.

Lords amendment 23, and amendment (b) thereto.

Lords amendment 24, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 25 and 26.

Lords amendment 27, and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Lords amendments 30 to 35, 37, 38, 40 to 42, 44 to 46 and 72 to 98.

[Mr Gibb]

It is with great pleasure that I bring the Education Bill back before the House. It received detailed scrutiny here in the spring, in the course of 22 Committee sittings, before it went off to the other place. Their lordships have given it the full benefit of their diligence and expertise and I am pleased to say that its core content is as it was when it left this House. Before I address the amendments, it might be helpful if I briefly remind the House of the core content. Its main purpose is to give legislative effect to the proposals in the education White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, published last November. It also contains some measures from the Department for Business Innovations and Skills, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will discuss in due course.

The Bill has four main themes. First, it seeks to give teachers and head teachers greater freedom and flexibility to use their judgment and expertise to get the best results for their pupils. International evidence shows that greater school autonomy characterises the best performing education systems. The Bill seeks to remove unnecessary legislative duties from schools and extends the benefits of the academies programme to 16 to 19-year-old pupils and vulnerable pupils in need of alternative provision.

Secondly, the Bill seeks to strengthen the powers and authority of teachers in relation to classroom discipline. We want all children to be educated in a safe environment that is free from disruption and we want all teachers and prospective teachers to feel confident that they have society’s backing in tackling poor behaviour. The Bill will allow same-day after-school detentions and will provide a power to search pupils for any item likely to cause harm or injury. It will also give teachers pre-charge anonymity when faced with an allegation by a pupil that they have committed an offence.

Thirdly, the Bill matches the increased autonomy it seeks to introduce with sharpened accountability and seeks to focus Ofsted inspections on the four most important aspects of a school’s work. It will require Ofqual, the independent regulator, to secure that the standards of English qualifications are comparable with the best in the world, and it will strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in poorly performing schools. It will abolish five arm’s length bodies to reduce wasteful duplication and will ensure that there is accountability to Parliament, through the Secretary of State, for functions that need to be carried out nationally.

Fourthly, the Bill seeks to promote greater fairness in the context of current fiscal constraints. It will give disadvantaged two-year-olds an entitlement to free early-years provision, and for new higher education students it will enable the new student finance arrangements to come into force.

There have been a relatively small number of technical and drafting amendments, but their Lordships have also made a number of substantive amendments to improve the Bill, and I shall now explain them.

15:45

The first four of the amendments made in the other place were all made at the request of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a new power to make interim prohibition orders. That power was always intended for use in the very rare cases where it is in the public interest to bar an individual from teaching while investigation into their conduct is under way, prior to a final decision. Lords amendments 1 to 4 insert into the Bill the planned safeguards for the use of this power. Therefore, regulations would require the Secretary of State to make an interim prohibition order only where he or she considers it necessary in the public interest to do so. The regulations would also require the Secretary of State to review the order every six months if the teacher concerned applies for such a review.

The teacher anonymity provisions in clause 13 are important and sensitive measures. They give teachers protection against the damage to their lives and careers that can result from pre-charge publicity about allegations made by pupils against them. They are one part of the Government’s proposals to back teachers’ authority in the classroom.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Were the Government able to provide any further evidence in the Lords as to the prevalence of such allegations and what proportion of them were found to be malicious?

[Mr Gibb]

I thought the hon. Gentleman supported these proposals. He will be aware that the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT have compiled figures on such allegations against teachers. The NUT estimates there are about 200 a year, and we gave evidence to the Lords of at least 15 cases in the last few years where there were damaging local reports and publicity about the allegations before charges were brought.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is right that the Opposition have supported these proposals, but they must also be carefully scrutinised for any possible unforeseen consequences. That has been done very effectively in the Commons in Committee and also in the Lords. Is it correct that in the Lords the Government accepted that about 2% of such allegations had turned out to be malicious?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, of course, but we are talking about the effect on individuals, and if there is just one case of someone suffering such publicity about what turns out to be a false allegation, that is one case too many, as such allegations can have devastating consequences on teachers both socially and career-wise. The publicity that just one such case receives also reverberates throughout the teaching profession, undermining teachers’ morale and making them unduly cautious about maintaining discipline in our classrooms. If we are interested in the welfare of pupils in our schools, we have to make sure they are taught in ordered and safe environments, free from bullying and other disruptive activities.

I thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman was concerned in Committee less about the prevalence of such allegations and more about the question of whether these provisions should be extended to other sectors of the workforce. We have proceeded extremely cautiously, taking into account the fact that we must preserve press freedom as well as the integrity of teachers and their being innocent until proven otherwise.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am sympathetic to the Government’s intentions in this regard as well, but I am concerned about press freedom and I would be grateful if he could set out the case for teachers alone being given this exemption from publicity. Such allegations could be equally devastating to members of a different profession. Might this provision prove to be the thin end of the wedge in that there could be a great deal more press censorship and the public will not be able to know about allegations made against people in their local community?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Education Committee, makes a good point, but teachers are very much on the front line of maintaining discipline in the classroom. We conducted a survey of 116 local authority designated officers—LADOs—and its findings support the view that teachers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations. Some 23% of allegations against staff in all sectors were made against teachers, and almost half of those were found to be unsubstantiated, malicious or unfounded. The proportion that related to other staff in schools was significantly low: from recollection I think that it was about 14%, compared with the 23% that applied to teachers.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may recall that in the previous Parliament the Committee looked intensively at that very area, and I support much of what he says, but in that context we made a range of recommendations to ensure that teachers were protected from false allegations, and that head teachers knew what they were doing. Few head teachers confront the situation very often, but very often they suspend people unnecessarily and start the problem running in the first place. We recommended that a code of conduct should be at the heart of the change.

[Mr Gibb]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the excellent work that he carried out when he was the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee and the Children, Schools and Families Committee in the previous Parliament. We have looked at the whole process of investigating teachers when they are subject to such allegations, and we are changing the guidance so that there is not a default position of automatic suspension once an accusation is made. We have also been speaking to the Association of Chief Police Officers about the speed of investigations, because we cannot have teachers waiting months or years before allegations are investigated and settled. We want to speed up the process, to remove the automatic and default position of suspension and to enable teachers to continue to have a connection with the school during the course of any allegation, so that they do not feel isolated while the process is under way.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is it not a fact, however, that the current Chairman of the Education Committee might have a much rosier view of the British press than I do? Anyone who listened to Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning will have heard one of The Sun newspaper’s most senior journalists say that there should be no reform of British press regulation. If the hon. Gentleman has that rosy view of the press, I certainly want to put it on the record that I do not share it.

[Mr Gibb]

I really do not want to intervene or interfere in this debate between two such august hon. Gentlemen, but we have been careful to tread warily between the two interests: the interest of protecting teachers from the full force of false allegations before they are proven or charges are brought, and from the publicity that might accompany them, and the important interest of protecting press freedom. We are treading cautiously, and that is why we have not extended the measure to other parts of the children’s work force. We want to see how it works in the first instance before making any further decisions.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) made the case for providing protection to groups other than teachers, but he accepted our cautious and targeted approach and suspected that the clause, even in its narrow form, might attract the close attention of, as he put it,

“people more erudite and noble than ourselves”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 557.]

He has been proven correct, but I am pleased to say that the substance of the provision returns to the House intact and with three important improvements. First, through amendment 5, the clause now makes it clear that tentative allegations that a teacher may be guilty of an offence should be treated in the same way as firmer allegations that they are guilty. That was always our intention because even—or, indeed, especially—tentative allegations can have a damaging effect on the teachers involved.

Secondly, through amendment 7, the clause now makes it clear that a judge who is considering an application for reporting restrictions to be lifted should take account of the welfare of both the teacher who is the subject of the allegation and the pupil or pupils who are the alleged victims. We will ensure through amendment 11 that where a teacher decides to identify himself or herself publicly as the subject of an allegation, reporting restrictions are lifted altogether. It is right that if a teacher effectively waives their right to anonymity by, for instance, writing in a newspaper about an allegation, others can also join the public debate.

The noble Lords echoed this House’s concern about clause 30, which would have removed schools and colleges from the duty to co-operate with local partners. My noble Friend Lord Hill met a number of peers during the summer to discuss the matter further and he then discussed the outcome of those conversations with me and the Secretary of State. We accept that retaining the duty would provide continuity while we implement the proposals of the Green Paper, “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability.” That point was made forcefully in Committee. In another place, Lord Hill introduced amendments 18, 19 and 42 to remove from the Bill clause 30 and the related clause 31.

[Kevin Brennan]

When we were in Committee, I recall the Minister saying that he regarded the duty to co-operate as an “unnecessary prescription” on schools—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is the Secretary of State ringing up his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) to give him the answer. In Committee, the Minister also said:

“It is not appropriate to delay removing that burden”—

that unnecessary prescription—

from schools.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 29 March 2011; c. 729.]

What points did Lord Hill make in the Lords that were different from those made in the Commons and how did that persuade the Minister to change his mind? Secondly, is this a temporary conversion or does he intend to remove the duty to co-operate at some further stage?

[Mr Gibb]

We were never against co-operation. It is very important that schools, academies and free schools continue to co-operate with other state bodies, locally and nationally, that affect children. That was our reason for removing the prescriptive duty. A number of changes are happening in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill and the SEN Green Paper and, having considered the matter further and reflected upon it, it is better to maintain the duty until deliberations over those measures are complete and until decisions about the SEN Green Paper have been taken.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Although some of us are very focused on the duty of schools to co-operate with the local authority, some of us are focused on local authorities’ duty to co-operate with academies and free schools. Will my hon. Friend advise me what in the Bill will enable us to be sure that local authorities provide the same extent of co-operation to free schools and academies as they do to maintained schools?

[Mr Speaker]

In responding to his hon. Friend, I know that the Minister will not wish to be led astray and that he will have at the forefront of his mind the fact that he should focus on the merits or otherwise not of the Bill as a whole, but of Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Co-operation is important, whether it is with children’s trust boards or from local authorities with other elements of the education world, such as free schools and academies. Local authorities that undermine or try to undermine the establishment of new schools that are demanded by parents in that local authority will find their opinions and actions challenged at election time. For a school to be approved by the Secretary of State as a new free school, it has to demonstrate parental demand. It is not in the interests of a local authority not to co-operate when a group of parents, a group of teachers or others are seeking to establish a free school in its area.

15:59

I know that Labour Members wish to raise a particular concern about admissions, but I thought that it would be useful at this stage for me to explain changes made in the other place. Since we last met, the consultation on the revised admissions codes has closed. The new codes keep protections for those with special educational needs and vulnerable groups. We have expanded on this for children who were in public care—looked after—and have since been adopted. When they are adopted, they will retain their priority status in the admissions arrangements. We are also going to make things simpler for all parents by having a national offer day for primary schools.

The changes we are making on admissions are modest, and the changes made in the other place have been correspondingly so. First, under amendments 21 and 22, local authorities’ annual reports will continue to go to the schools adjudicator in addition to being published locally. Secondly, under amendment 23, a new clause will allow anyone—absolutely anyone—to object to the adjudicator about school admission arrangements. This builds on our decision to bring complaints about admission arrangements at academies and free schools into the remit of the schools adjudicator—a popular move in this House when we last discussed it. My noble Friend Lord Hill made a further commitment that will be of interest to this House. In Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff West expressed concern about the possible side effects on the admissions system of an increase in the number of academies, which set their own admission arrangements. Lord Hill has now made a commitment that the chief schools adjudicator will include consideration of this issue in her next annual report.

The provisions in clause 37 seek to give maintained school governing bodies greater freedom to appoint governors on the basis of their skills. When we discussed those provisions in Committee, I was persuaded, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), that we should amend them to ensure a continuing role for a staff governor and a local authority governor on all maintained school governing bodies. Lords amendment 24 does precisely that. Of course, governing bodies will be free to appoint additional governors from among the staff of their school if they think that that will help them to work effectively.

In the other place, there was full discussion of the inspection clauses. That led to a number of changes, outside the Bill, to strengthen the proposed arrangements, including enhanced risk assessment procedures for schools and further education providers that will qualify them for exemption from routine inspection. We will debate in due course the Opposition amendments on parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations exempting institutions from inspections.

In relation to academies, the Bill retains important measures to facilitate—

[Kevin Brennan]

In the light of what the Prime Minister has said today about the dangers of schools coasting, is the Minister content, prior to the discussion of our amendment, that the Government’s position on this will not make matters worse, given the potential for schools that have been found to be outstanding to coast and then not to be inspected, with it being difficult to trigger an inspection for them in future?

[Mr Gibb]

The Prime Minister made some very important points about coasting schools in his article in The Daily Telegraph today. We want to see standards rise throughout the education system. There has been a concentration on failing schools, but we must also concentrate on the schools in the leafy suburbs that are not challenging their pupils as well as they should. All schools will now be subject to our scrutiny to make sure that they raise standards. The new performance tables will identify how schools perform in relation to children of high academic ability, as well as how they perform in relation to children of a lower academic ability. We will reflect on some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but outstanding schools are, by their nature, not necessarily to be regarded as coasting if they have been graded by Ofsted as outstanding. The arrangements I talked about are to do with using risk assessment strategies to pick up on problems, even in outstanding schools. Those risk assessments are what will trigger Ofsted to carry out an inspection in an outstanding school.

[Kevin Brennan]

My concern is that the exemption from inspection is almost an invitation to coast. There is a danger of that. Does the Minister not accept that it might be worth cogitating on that a little further in the light of what the Prime Minister has said?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to think further about those issues. However, the point of the proposal is that it is difficult for schools to achieve from Ofsted the accolade of outstanding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) have visited schools that are categorised by Ofsted as outstanding. It is clear why those schools have been so categorised. I was at a school last week in Wiltshire that had been categorised by Ofsted as outstanding in all 27 categories. I believe that it was the first school to be given such a grading.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The Minister is absolutely right to have proportionate inspection. We need to be careful to ensure that outstanding schools that may end up coasting or dropping their standards are picked up. If the shadow Minister is suggesting that it would be a better policy to inspect every school, however outstanding, all the time, he is completely wrong. A proportionate approach with the right safeguards and triggers in place and with constant review of those triggers is the right way to go. The Government are right on this issue.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right that one has to be proportionate in these issues. Ultimately, this is a matter for the chief inspector of schools. If the results of an outstanding school start to decline, as was hinted at by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, it will be picked up in the risk assessment. He has made important points and we will, of course, reflect on them in the usual way.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will intervene one final time on this issue because I do not want to detain the House. The Chairman of the Select Committee knows that what he described was not what the Opposition proposed in Committee. We proposed triggers for inspection that would be appropriate for schools that had been ruled outstanding but may have slipped. Is that not exactly what the new chief inspector of schools, who was just appointed by the Government, has said in relation to checking whether outstanding schools remain outstanding? After all, when outstanding leaders leave outstanding schools, that can often lead to a big change in the performance of those institutions.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. When a new head teacher comes into a school it can have important effects, and not necessarily beneficial ones if the school has been led by a very effective leader. That would be a risk assessment issue. I know that it is an issue that the new chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is concerned about. We will reflect on those points in due course. The principle of having proportionate inspection and targeting the limited resources on schools that have the most pressing need is important. However, we must take it into account if a school that is graded as outstanding is not graded as outstanding in teaching, for instance.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I agree with what the Minister and the shadow Minister say about proportionality in inspection. However, it is important that outstanding schools are inspected by Ofsted as part of the ongoing learning of other schools. I hope that the Minister will ensure that Ofsted continues to do that to spread good practice in the system.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Ofsted inspectors need to learn what an outstanding school looks like. That always was the case. Even when schools are exempted from inspection, inspectors will still see outstanding schools in themed inspections, which might look at how religious education or maths is taught. On those occasions, inspectors will still experience outstanding schools.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the way to deal with coasting schools is not so much through the inspection process, but through the publication of contextual value added evidence from schools?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Performance tables are an important piece of the jigsaw of measures that holds publicly funded schools to account. We are not going to pursue the contextual value added measure, because of its flaws, not least of which is the fact that it tends to entrench low expectations for certain sections of society, which we do not believe is right. All children, from all backgrounds, should be expected to reach the best of their academic ability at school, and schools should deliver a high quality of education to all young people. However, there are other important progress measures, such as how a child performs at the end of key stage 2 compared with how they perform in their GCSEs.

As I said earlier, in the performance tables to be published in January, we intend to have separate columns indicating how well a school performs in relation to children who enter secondary school with a level 5 at key stage 2 and those who enter with a level 3.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the Minister that I know he is making full efforts to satisfy his audience, and in one sense that is appreciated—if this were a seminar it would be an extremely therapeutic and informative one—but it is important that we tend to the specifics of the amendments with which we are dealing. For the benefit of colleagues who might labour under a misapprehension to the contrary, this is not a Second Reading debate on coasting schools. We are attending to narrow and particular amendments, to the consideration of which I know the Minister will now return.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful for that ruling, Mr Speaker, and I will press on by turning to academies.

The Bill retains important measures to facilitate the Government’s ambitious plan to extend the proven benefits of the academy programme to a much greater number of pupils. One of those measures is the extension of the academy model to alternative provision and the 16-to-19 sector. Lords amendments 72 to 81 are consequential on the creation of those new types of academy, and the Government tabled them in line with a commitment that I gave in Committee to put more such consequential amendments into the Bill. In addition, Lords amendment 89 reduces the reach of the powers given to the Secretary of State by schedule 14 in the case of private land leased to new academies.

In addition, three new clauses were added to the Bill in the other place, the first of which is in Lords amendment 34. Under section 6(2) of the Academies Act 2010, a local authority must cease to maintain—that is, cover all the costs of—a school once it converts to academy status. Some banks and local authorities have asked whether that prohibition on maintenance might prevent a local authority from making payments under private finance initiative or other contracts in relation to schools that have converted into academies.

Local authorities have always been able to use their own resources to provide assistance, including financial assistance, to academies, and to enter into contractual commitments and incur liabilities on their behalf. We are clear that their continuing to do those things would not have been prevented by the wording of section 6(2) of the Academies Act, and that was not the intention behind the Act. All academies are, and will continue to be, maintained by the Secretary of State under funding arrangements entered into under section 1 of that Act. Any assistance that local authorities provide to academies, whether financial or otherwise, will only ever be a proportion of the total expense of running an academy. Lords amendment 34 therefore confirms that local authorities can continue to make payments for academies under PFI and other contracts.

[Richard Fuller]

This is a slightly specific question, Mr Speaker, but it does relate to the Lords amendments.

In circumstances in which a local authority had already made an undertaking for capital provision to a federation of schools, and a school that was part of the federation wished to become an academy, would the local authority be able to advise that school’s governors that they would no longer be entitled to the capital aid expenditure promised for schools in that pyramid? Could the local authority make that funding consequential upon a school staying maintained or moving to academy status, or do the Lords amendments prohibit that possibility?

[Mr Gibb]

I know what my hon. Friend refers to, but I would prefer to get the technical answer to his question absolutely right and will therefore write to him, so that he can be clear when he raises this issue with his local authority that he has a proper analysis of the legal position and not something that I have spoken from memory.

In response to concerns raised in Committee in the House of Lords, the Government introduced an amendment to give Ofqual the power to fine awarding organisations in certain circumstances. Our intention is to ensure that Ofqual has a full range of effective and proportionate powers to use to carry out its duties and responsibilities.

16:15

[Mr Graham Stuart]

In the Lords, the Government accepted various amendments to limit the impact of such fines on global companies, which is welcome, but the measure was introduced with very little consultation. What is the evidence that we need fines to get awarding bodies to comply with Ofqual? What is the evidence that there is a problem to which fines provide an answer?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend will have seen over the summer some of the errors in the exams. They are unacceptable. We believe that the awarding organisations should not make the quantum and seriousness of those errors again. Other regulators have such powers, and if he bears with me, I will try to set out why we introduced those provisions.

The provisions in Lords amendments 16 and 17 are broadly consistent with the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. As many hon. Members will know, including my hon. Friend, the Act provides many other regulators with a toolkit of sanctions that are risk based, consistent, proportionate and effective. Ofqual currently has only two types of sanction available to it: the power to direct an awarding organisation; and the dramatic, nuclear option of partial or full withdrawal of recognition. In addition, before Ofqual can use its current enforcement powers, it must be the case that an awarding organisation’s failure to comply with a condition has prejudiced, or is likely to prejudice, either the proper award of a qualification or students who might reasonably be expected to seek to obtain such a qualification awarded by that organisation.

The Government believe that those tests unnecessarily limit Ofqual’s powers and could reduce its capacity to take timely and proportionate enforcement action. Removing the tests and giving Ofqual a power to fine will help to prevent the kind of mistakes in exam papers that we saw last summer, which undermine the hard work of the pupils who sat them. That is the purpose of Lords amendment 16, and Lords amendment 17 confers similar powers on Welsh Ministers as the regulators of Welsh qualifications.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s thinking, but I am not entirely persuaded. The currency on which awarding bodies trade is their reputation. Notwithstanding the problems this summer, they needed no fine or massive regulatory hammer to bring them to book. All awarding bodies would immediately seek to improve their systems following such errors—I believe they did so. It feels as if we are introducing sanctions that are unnecessary for the workings of that market. The Government have pledged to eschew unnecessary regulations unless there is an overwhelming case, but I am not sure that the errors last summer make that overwhelming case.

[Mr Gibb]

I must disagree with my hon. Friend, because the seriousness of the errors was not just in their number—I believe there were 13 errors in exam papers this summer. What was particularly serious was the fact that when we asked awarding bodies to check that there were no further errors, they affirmed that they had done so or that they would do so, but then new errors appeared. That is why what happened this summer was so serious rather than the initial errors in the papers.

On reputation and the market, all the main awarding bodies had errors, so there is no market mechanism—no one of them could say, “We had no errors but the others did.” My third argument is that all regulators have such powers. We cannot rely on the nuclear option of ending accreditation.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

There are considerable costs for schools when they switch from one awarding body to another. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the idea of a market operating in the normal way does not quite apply?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. All kinds of other factors will determine which awarding organisations schools use and why, and there is a “stickiness” compared with the fluidity that might exist in another market situation.

Lords amendment 37 would give the Secretary of State the power to pilot the use of direct payments in education for children with special educational needs. In the Green Paper on special educational needs and disability, we committed to give every child with a statement of SEN or a new education, health and care plan the option of a personal budget by 2014. One element of a personal budget can be a direct payment to a family to buy support for their child. Direct payments are already being used in health and social care, and we want to test how the greater choice and control they give to families can be effectively achieved in education too.

With those brief remarks, I commend the Bill and these amendments to the House.

[Kevin Brennan]

In this debate on Lords amendment 1 and all the amendments that it is highly convenient—for the Government, anyway—to group with it, I note that the Bill returns to us from the Lords without any non-Government amendments. Perhaps that is a reflection of changing times and the new, rigid hegemony in the other place, whereby amendments are rarely passed there without the Government’s say-so.

[Mr Gibb]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be a little more generous about the powers of persuasion of my hon. Friend Lord Hill.

[Kevin Brennan]

I was indeed going to be generous—about the powers of persuasion of our Front Benchers in the House of Lords. They persuaded the Government—more effectively than my hon. Friends and I in the Commons did—to change their mind on one or two issues, which I shall come to in a moment.

The Minister has taken the trouble to talk us through the Lords amendments, as he said he would, but some questions emerge from what he said that, if he has the leave of the House to speak later in the debate, I hope he will answer. Lords amendments 1 to 4 relate to clause 8 and the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to teachers. The Bill abolishes the General Teaching Council for England. I note that some criticisms have been made of its operations. One year after the publication of the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, in which the Secretary of State said—I agree with him about this—that there was

“no calling more noble, no profession more vital and no service more important than teaching,”

it is significant that he has taken the opportunity to abolish the professional body.

The Bill transfers some of the General Teaching Council’s functions to the Secretary of State, among which is the power to prohibit a teacher from teaching. In Committee in this House, we debated an Opposition amendment—which, surprisingly, was not successful—that would have required the Secretary of State to keep a list of persons prohibited from teaching. I note that Lord Hill confirmed in the other place that the Government believe that a database of teachers prohibited from teaching will be established. We tabled amendments here and in the other place to require the Secretary of State to keep a register of qualified teachers—again, to our surprise, without success—but Lord Hill indicated that he would consider the matter, saying,

“we have been persuaded by concerns raised in this House and elsewhere that there is a genuine need for the Government to help schools to know who has qualified teacher status and who has passed induction.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 257.]

That is welcome. He went on to confirm that there would be an online database from 2012.

Another concern is the proposal to give employers discretion over which cases of misconduct—those that might lead to the prohibition of a teacher—to refer to the Secretary of State. Again, colleagues in both Houses raised concerns about transparency and consistency. I welcome Lord Hill’s notification to Baroness Jones that the Government are developing advice on the new system to help professional conduct hearing panels determine when a teacher should be prohibited from the profession and that such advice will be available publicly.

Lords amendments 1 to 4 would enable the Secretary of State to issue interim prohibition orders—quickly imposed orders that prevent a teacher from undertaking work while the Secretary of State is considering their case—where he considers it in the public interest to do so, and they must be reviewed every six months. The amendments were tabled in Grand Committee in the House of Lords, but I do not think they were debated there. Their rationale was not given, so when the Minister replies he might like to emphasise what the rationale was, what the amendments will achieve, why they are so important and perhaps why they were not included in the first draft.

Lords amendments 5 to 15 relate to restrictions on the reporting of alleged offences by teachers, about which we had an exchange earlier. We have supported the Government’s intention to help protect teachers from malicious allegations, but we have also been keen to ensure that the provisions are properly scrutinised, as there is a possibility of unintended consequences.

The Lords amendments would extend the reach of clause 13 to cover tentative allegations against teachers. As the Minister rightly pointed out, following advice from the trade unions and others, we argued that the clause’s reach could be extended so that the restrictions apply not only to teachers in schools but to other school staff. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—I am sure it is only a matter of time before he becomes a right hon. Gentleman—mentioned this earlier. In our view, other school staff and staff in further education colleges should be included. The impact of a publicly reported unproven allegation, which the Minister eloquently described, applies to those people, too, and is potentially equally damaging. I understand the Government’s general desire to limit the number of people on whom the provisions will have an impact, but I do not understand why teachers in FE colleges should not be covered when teachers dealing with young people of the same age group in sixth forms—quite possibly teaching exactly the same subjects—are covered. This seems to be an inconsistency in the Bill.

I note what the Minister said about extending the provisions to cover tentative allegations. I make it clear that we do not object to that, but we ask him to be absolutely clear about his motives for including the amendments at this stage. Does he have any further thoughts on the desirability of extending the scope to include non-teaching staff and all staff in FE colleges? If he has any compelling reasons why those staff should be excluded, we would like to hear them. Having listened to him earlier, I am not sure what his evidence is for excluding these staff from the scope of the provisions. I understand why he might want to limit the number of people covered—perhaps that is why he has put a ring fence around teachers—but I do not understand the rationale for failing to include the other staff.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman talks about extending the provision to other staff in schools. Do he and his party believe that it should be extended further to other workers? For example, a social worker dealing with children at risk could be equally devastated by publicity surrounding allegations against them—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was that, interesting though it was, it bore no relation to the amendment we are discussing.

16:30

[Kevin Brennan]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful point but, as you have confirmed, Mr Speaker, it unfortunately falls outside the scope of the Bill.

Lords amendments 16 and 17 deal with Ofqual’s enforcement powers, which the Minister mentioned earlier. The Labour Government began the reform of the examination system in 2007 with the “Confidence in Standards” White Paper. It proposed the establishment of an independent regulator, Ofqual, which would be separate from the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and would be able to fine exam bodies. Currently, the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 allows Ofqual only to direct an examination board to change its practices and, as the Minister said, to withdraw recognition.

I agree that it would be helpful for Ofqual to have more sanctions at its disposal to ensure that examination boards minimise their errors, but to an extent I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness. This proposal has appeared at a late stage. I know that Christmas is approaching, but, as I am sure the Government Whips will confirm, using Bills as Christmas trees on which to hang whatever a Government wish to hang on them is not always a good way of legislating, and I had thought the Government had pledged not to do that.

[Mr Stuart]

As I debated the abolition of independent schools only a couple of weeks ago with the hon. Gentleman, who supported the motion, it is a pleasure to find something on which we can agree. He is right: we need to hear more from the Government to justify the measure. It is like the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Legislating instantly following an incident in the summer, rather than checking and thinking through the principles behind the proposed legislation, could be a mistake.

[Kevin Brennan]

Let us hope that this will not be another Dangerous Dogs Act.

I am not going to suggest that Labour has not been guilty in the past of hanging proposals on to Bills as they progress through Parliament, and, as a former Government Whip, I am not going to suggest that I have not occasionally tried to lecture Ministers about the practice, but it often causes problems further down the line. We can understand how it happens.

On 22 June 2011, a newspaper headline announced “Cameron promises ‘tough action’ over GCSE and A-level exam blunders”, and a sub-headline added “Prime minister says mistakes are unacceptable and assures Ofqual will rectify system to prevent further errors”. That was converted into a panic in Government, which rippled into the Department for Education, and the Secretary of State said that the Prime Minister was exercised about the issue. “What can we do? Oh, we have a Bill going through Parliament: perhaps we can dream up a few clauses to put into it. Wasn’t there a proposal at some stage to introduce fines? Let us use that: it is already half written.” However, the proposal was never properly scrutinised. It should have been subjected to proper pre-legislative scrutiny.

As I have said, we are not going to oppose the amendments, but I want to record our concern that something that the Government said they would not do is happening now, before our very eyes.

[Mr Gibb]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the previous Administration, of which he was part, considered extending the fining power to Ofqual. Indeed, Kathleen Tattersall lobbied Members of Parliament for it to be introduced during the Committee stage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill before the election. Ofqual will launch a consultation when it begins to set out the circumstances in which the new power will be used, and the consultation will last 12 weeks in the normal way.

[Kevin Brennan]

Not only am I aware of that, but I actually said about two minutes ago that it had originally been in the White Paper that the Labour Government introduced. That does not alter the fact that had the Government intended to do this, they could have consulted on it originally, rather than hang it as a bauble on a Christmas tree Bill and react to newspaper headlines. It seems that these proposals have been rushed. I welcome the fact that there is to be a proper consultation, but consultations should happen before proposals are enacted rather than after.

Lords amendments 18 and 19 remove clauses 30 and 31, which repeal the duties to co-operate with a local authority and to have regard to the children and young people’s plans. We welcome the Government’s support for reinstating the duty to co-operate by removing clauses 30 and 31. Labour Members on the Public Bill Committee voted that clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill, but Government Members defeated us. Baroness Hughes co-signed the amendments to leave out clauses 30 and 31, so we strongly support their removal. Had they remained part of the Bill, the Government would be putting the reduction of alleged bureaucracy ahead of the safeguarding needs of some of our most vulnerable children. In their professed zeal for cutting as many processes, systems and guidance as possible, the Government were in danger of throwing out things that raise standards and improve safeguards for our children. These duties are examples of the latter.

As I said in an intervention, in Committee the Minister characterised the duty to co-operate as an unnecessary prescription and went on to say that it was not appropriate to delay the removal of that burden on schools. In the Lords, Lord Laming spoke eloquently and convincingly to expose the irresponsibility of the Government’s position:

“In every inquiry that has followed a tragedy to a child with which I am familiar, two key messages have permeated every report like the lettering through a stick of rock. The first is that in future each service, including education, must greatly fulfil its particular responsibilities to promote the safety and well-being of each child. The second is that each service must develop the skills to work successfully across organisational boundaries and share information at an early stage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. GC268.]

I can understand why the Government might have listened to Lord Laming more readily than they listened to us in the Commons, but they were fully aware of the views of Lord Laming and others on these matters.

Lord Laming went on to say:

“The development of children’s plans and children’s trusts under the Children Act 2004 were designed specifically to place the well-being and the promotion of care of children in this wider context. In the letter which the Minister sent to me, he said that the Bill simply reverts to the earlier position.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. GC268-269.]

So that was what the Government wanted to do: to revert to the earlier position—the one pre-Laming—using this Bill. By including these clauses, they originally showed their disdain for the services and processes that have since been put in place to keep our children safe. It is abhorrent that any Government, not least one who said at one time that they wanted to be the most family friendly ever, should be willing to risk the safety of our vulnerable children just so that they can reduce prescription.

I am glad that the Government have got it, albeit late in the day, but I am concerned that this is a temporary change of mind. I was not assured by what the Minister said in reply to my intervention, because Lord Hill’s letter to Baroness Hughes on 12 October said:

“We are persuaded that the duty in itself provides schools, colleges and others with sufficient freedom to determine the arrangements that work best for them”.

In a letter of 6 October 2011 to Baroness Hughes, he said that the reason for the Government’s change of mind was that this was a temporary measure while they worked through how to achieve better collaboration in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services.

I welcome the Lords amendments, but we want to strengthen them slightly. We have tabled an amendment that would ensure that schools must in all cases have regard to children and young people’s plans created by children’s trust boards, whether or not they are made under section 17 of the Children Act 2004. I should like an assurance from the Minister. Are the Government committed long term to a wide-ranging, overarching duty on schools to co-operate with local authorities and other local partners, which include health and police bodies, to promote the well-being of children? Is that a long-term commitment of the Government, or do they intend to water down or attempt once again to abolish the duty in the future?

[Mr Gibb]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by quoting my noble Friend Lord Hill, who said in another place that he accepted the point made by our noble Friend Lady Walmsley that

“at a time when the Government have recently announced pathfinders to test and work through our SEN Green Paper proposals, which seek to encourage greater partnership working, we should not risk sending…any confusing messages about the importance of partnerships. I took their advice and decided that the simplest thing to do was to delete the relevant clauses.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 634.]

[Kevin Brennan]

The interesting thing is that one reason why the Government became confused or were in danger of sending out confusing messages was the interminable delay in the publication of the Green Paper on SEN, which we were promised well before the consideration of the Bill in Committee and which finally turned up extremely late. Had it been published on time, perhaps the Government would not have been in danger of sending out confused messages, but I simply reiterate that we are concerned that the Government do not appear to have a long-term commitment to give schools an overarching duty to co-operate. We await confirmation from the Government that they believe that such an overarching duty to co-operate is important and should be retained in the long term.

Labour’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 19 would require maintained schools to have regard to children and young people’s plans produced by children’s trust boards whether or not that is prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We voted in the Commons that clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill. Our amendment to delete clause 31 and insert another clause is intended to extend that opportunity for that omission to be retained.

The Government’s suggested changes to the law on the arrangements to admit pupils to school have been debated throughout the Bill’s passage through Parliament. On two occasions—on Report in the Commons and Lords—the Government have introduced amendments that have responded to some if not all the points made by the Opposition. The whole point about admissions is fairness and how we can have a system that gives children fair access to local schools in accordance with their parents’ wishes. In the centrally managed schools system that the Government are creating, it is regrettable that the Government have resisted placing a clear and unequivocal duty on the Secretary of State to work towards fair access to education.

We welcome the reinstatement of the duty on local authorities to send reports to the adjudicator, which is the effect of amendments 21 and 22. The fact that the reports will not now receive the special treatment for such reports, which is removed by amendment 20, is regrettable, although I hope that it does not lessen their importance and that the contents will still receive the full attention of the adjudicator. I trust that that is what will happen.

16:45

A greater problem is the evidence that the reports contain about local authority action to ensure that admission arrangements are compliant with the law and the admissions code. The chief adjudicator himself has been lukewarm about the quality of such local authority reports, indicating that local authorities have been happy to confirm that admissions arrangements are code-compliant when, after investigation by the adjudicator, that has been found not to be the case. He noted in his recent annual report:

“If LAs are truly going to focus on being the champions of children and parents, then they really must put more effort into their ‘policing’ role.”

The amendments, which collectively allow anybody to refer admissions arrangements to the adjudicator, are welcome, although that will be subject to regulations.

There is one area where we believe we can improve on the Lords amendments, in particular amendment 23 and new subsection (7) on objections to admissions arrangements. The subsection adds

“any other person or body”

to the list of persons who must comply with a binding decision, which will include the objector. It does not state the time in which the admissions arrangements must be made compliant. This was debated on Report in the Commons when the Schools Minister seemed interested in the idea of quick compliance, although he described the Labour proposals at that time as

“a mere two weeks’ grace”

in which to allow schools the freedom to implement decisions. The Minister noted:

“Admissions policies must be locally consulted on for at least eight weeks to allow all parties to consider proposals or amendments”—[Official Report, 11 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1236-7.]

However, surely there cannot be any need for consultation where there is a straight matter of making the admissions arrangements comply with the law and the admissions code.

The draft code and regulations that were published last week seem to confirm that the Minister wishes to allow schools to take as long as they want to ensure compliance with a binding judgment. We believe that justice delayed is justice denied, so our amendment to Lords amendment 23 is about the timely righting of wrongs for the benefit of parents and children.

[Richard Fuller]

On the hon. Gentleman’s observations on Lords amendments regarding schools admissions policies, one of the objections put about by some of those who oppose free schools and academies is their fear that admissions policies will somehow be discriminatory. Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that the amendments suggested by the Lords put to bed that lie?

[Kevin Brennan]

The Government made it clear during the Commons stage that they wished the academies to be subject to the admissions code. We welcomed that at the time and I am happy to welcome it now, because any state school should have a fair admissions policy. Any school funded by the taxpayer should admit pupils on a fair basis in accordance with the code. We therefore welcome the extension of the code to academies and the clarification of that by the Government, rather than relying on funding agreements in order to achieve that.

One of the innovations of the Bill that we debated is the change to the powers of the schools adjudicator. Currently, when an admissions authority is found to be in breach of the code, the adjudicator can rectify any flaws with immediate effect, but following the passage of the Bill, the adjudicator will be able to make only “binding” decisions, which the admissions authority will be obliged to implement. Ministers have already made it clear that the purpose of that change is to emphasise the importance of schools taking responsibility for their own actions, but it should not allow them the scope to avoid those responsibilities or to frustrate parents who have made a successful complaint and have a legitimate expectation that matters will be put right promptly.

The draft version of the admissions code was pretty clear. Paragraph 3.1 stated:

“The admission authority must revise their admission arrangements immediately to give effect to the Adjudicator’s decision.”

That was the original version of the code issued by the Minister, which was pretty clear and unambiguous, as it should be. However, I was dismayed to read in the revised version of the draft code, published 10 days ago, that paragraph 3.1 has been changed. It now states:

“The admission authority must where necessary revise their admission arrangements as quickly as possible and no later than 15 April following the decisions (i.e. the deadline for determination of admission arrangements) to give effect to the Adjudicator’s decision.”

It is not clear from reading out those two sentences, but there is an important difference in their visual presentation. In the first sentence the word “must” is rendered in bold, whereas in the second sentence it is in plain text and “15 April” appears in bold. The proper sense of urgency and compulsion seems to have been replaced by one of contingency and delay. Although the second sentence states “as quickly as possible”, which is a weaker statement, the eye is drawn to “15 April”. Bearing in mind that the deadline for objections has been brought forward by a month to 30 June—a sensible change that we support—that means that there could be a delay of 10 months or more before a decision is implemented, which is simply unacceptable.

It is not necessarily for the legislation or the new code to undermine the effectiveness of the office of the adjudicator in a wholly unnecessary attempt to provide for circumstances that have not proved problematic under previous arrangements, so our amendment would put it beyond doubt that, where changes are required in response to valid objections, they must be implemented in time to benefit those who made them.

On constituting governing bodies, to which the Minister referred, it might be helpful if he offered some clarification. Our amendment was intended to make it absolutely clear what the Government’s amendments mean in relation to staff on governing bodies. In Committee, the Minister said:

“I am cautious about prescribing centrally the basis on which governing bodies should appoint people.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 31 March 2011; c. 811.]

Having had time to consider the matter, the Government and the Minister appear to have changed their minds completely. If that is the case, we welcome it. Will the Minister confirm that he now thinks that more than one member of staff could be a member of a governing body, which might help us in relation to our amendment? If he does so now, he might not need to later.

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to confirm that we want to reduce the amount of prescription on how to constitute a governing body. After deliberation and discussions with Members of this House and in another place, we have said that we will prescribe one staff member and one local authority representative, but that does not remove the discretion of governing bodies to appoint others; it is merely stating that there should be one staff member and one local authority member.

[Kevin Brennan]

That is extremely helpful. The Minister’s words will probably satisfy us so that we need not press that amendment to a vote later.

The chief inspector and the question of whether schools can be exempted from inspection were the subject of our earlier debate and of some interventions by me, the Chair of the Education Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his place—I almost said Grimsby, but it is important to get the right part of Lincolnshire. Those remarks, and what the Prime Minister said earlier today about coasting schools, bring the issue more clearly into focus. As it stands, the clause removes the requirement for Ofsted—in other words, the chief inspector—to inspect and issue a report on each school in England, at a frequency set out in regulations, that rates the overall quality of the school and sets out its areas for improvement. Clause 41 will have a similar effect on further education institutions, which will be debated in the second group of amendments.

In effect, the provisions would exempt certain schools from section 5 inspections. Furthermore, the exemption would not be for a fixed number of years, and neither would a school be exempt only until something indicated that standards needed to be re-checked, such as a complaint from parents or pupils, a change of head, or concern being expressed by the local authority. It is possible that, under the clause, some schools could be exempt from inspections almost in perpetuity unless they wanted to pay for one.

It was pointed out earlier that a school could still be inspected under the chief inspector’s programme of surveys of curriculum subjects and thematic reviews, during which time the chief inspector may elect to treat the inspection as a partial section 5 inspection. However, that does not mean that every school would be inspected—far from it. In the case of the curriculum and thematic reviews, only parts of the school’s performance would be looked at.

The Prime Minister said earlier today that he was concerned that comprehensives in wealthy villages and market towns were sometimes coasting, although I do not know why he picked out comprehensives; that could apply equally to grammar schools in some parts of the country. He said that the fact that their

“respectable results and a decent local reputation”

hid the fact that their pupils could be performing much better. We know how quickly schools can move, for a variety of reasons, from being outstanding to what the Prime Minister describes as “coasting”. The Opposition’s proposals to provide more triggers for inspections when real concerns arise should have been accepted by the Government.

When Sir Michael Wilshaw gave evidence to the Select Committee on 1 November 2011, during his pre-appointment hearing before taking on his role as the new chief inspector of Ofsted, he said:

“Ofsted is about raising standards and it seems to me that there are only two levers for raising standards; one is Government and regulation, and the other is Ofsted.”

He later went on to correct himself, saying that he meant “two main levers”, stating:

“In terms of accountability, Government and Ofsted are the two main levers.”

In relation to the amendments, will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the new chief inspector of schools in that regard?

[Damian Hinds]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the theoretical possibility of a school not being inspected for a very long time is not at all the same as that being likely? Does he also accept that the total basket of performance indicators that will be available under the new system will give much more richness, and a greater ability to identify the appropriate times to make such interventions?

[Kevin Brennan]

There are lots of indicators now, but we need triggers to make inspections happen at the appropriate time. We have sought to achieve that throughout the Bill. Given the seriousness of the step that the Government are taking, and the lack of consultation on this proposal, it should at least be the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure the first time that it is put in place. To that effect, we have tabled amendment (a) and the related amendment (b) to Lords amendment 27. We feel very strongly that if the Secretary of State is not going to provide us with any more triggers at this stage, he should at least have to come forward with an affirmative resolution the first time such a provision is enacted. We also think there should be a time limit on the provision. Amendment (b) to Lords amendment 27 would mean that exemptions could hold for only seven years, so the Government would be required to renew regulations at least every seven years.

17:00

I do not want to detain the House for much longer, but let me make a few quick points about some of the other amendments that the Government made in the Lords, particularly regarding direct payments for persons with special educational needs. On Lords amendment 37, which inserts measures after clause 71, can the Minister explain why the Government are bringing in direct payments in that way? We are generally supportive of the approach, but will he set out how parents can be helped to navigate the system and make the best choices for their children’s needs? Can he guarantee that the introduction of direct payments is not a smokescreen for cuts in services to persons and pupils with SEN? There is a great deal of concern across the House about making sure that pupils and young people with SEN are protected and that direct payments are not used as a smokescreen for cuts when they are introduced.

On academies and issues relating to land, some of the amendments show the complexities of land issues in education. No doubt, the Government will have to amend the legislation in a year or so as more problems are thrown up, especially with the conversion policy, as more and more land that has hitherto been owned or managed for an institution that was established by a local authority is transferred out of public ownership and management. It is likely that where public resources have gone into developing and enhancing land, resources might fall permanently into the private sector. In effect, amendments 89 to 91 seem to mean that if an academy is established on private land, any public money that goes into the land or buildings on the land will remain in the private sector. Will the Minister confirm whether that interpretation is correct and will he explain to the House the effect of those amendments and why they are being introduced? Will he also explain the complexities regarding private finance initiatives and academies?

[Mr Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate and to see so many members of the Bill Committee present. I know that a lot of effort has gone into improving the Bill and I am delighted that their noble lordships have made many constructive contributions. I am also delighted that Ministers have been prepared to listen—as, to be fair, they have throughout the process—and have made amendments accordingly.

One issue that I raised in Committee concerned schools’ discretionary referral of teachers who have been sacked for misconduct. In the other place, Lord Hill said that we could be assured that all the most serious cases would be referred, and I would be grateful if the Minister could help me to understand how that will necessarily be the case if discretion lies with the school. I am happy to take an intervention now if he is able to give me that information, but if he is not I shall move on.

Interim immediate barring orders will be in the hands of the Secretary of State for cases in which the concern is sufficiently great, and where someone can be referred, we are talking about a great sanction. Such sanctions are probably appropriate for teachers who have been, or who are suspected of having been, guilty of gross misconduct, but how do we ensure consistency? One can imagine a case in which two teachers have behaved in exactly the same way but in which one of them is let go by the school and that is it—they go off and their CV is doubtless marked and harmed but fundamentally they can carry on with their career—whereas another is referred upwards into the national machinery, which Ministers themselves accept is cumbersome and comes with heavy sanction. I am not yet entirely satisfied that there will be justice and equality of treatment in such circumstances, and I ask the Minister to respond to that point later.

In respect of reporting restrictions, the shadow schools Minister is right to say that all of us who have focused on the provision have worried about its possible unintended consequences. We all recognise the vulnerability of teachers to malicious allegations, which can spread from chatter around the school yard to chatter around the community. If an allegation is formally made and appears in a newspaper, that can have a devastating effect on a teacher who might have dedicated their life to supporting and educating young people. All Committee members, and everyone to whom I have spoken on this issue, sympathise with the Government’s approach, but questions remain. The Newspaper Society submission may not have caused my views to undergo a complete U-turn, but it raised a lot of questions as to where this protection should stop. The Opposition suggested it should be extended to other teachers, and I have mentioned social workers. I have yet to grasp the point of principle that justifies limiting this provision to teachers alone, rather than its covering many other professions as well, which might result in the public losing their right to know what is going on.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even if such allegations are not reported in the media, they may get out into the community and may influence head teachers when they make decisions about appointments? The operation of these provisions will therefore need to be examined after they are put in place.

[Mr Stuart]

I agree that we will have to keep a close eye on the provision, but I hope it does the job it is intended to do in a fair and just way, and we can give Ministers a great deal of credit for having listened to the debate in the Lords and for having come forward with amendments to ensure that it does, indeed, work in the fairest possible way.

In respect of exemptions, there is an anomaly which I highlighted through an amendment in Committee. Further education lecturers and teachers in sixth-form colleges, who come under the same administrative banding of FE for these purposes, do not receive the same level of protection as schoolteachers. To reiterate the point made by the shadow Minister, a lecturer and a schoolteacher might be teaching the same people the same subject in the same kind of classroom, yet the lecturer will not have this protection while the schoolteacher will.

[Kevin Brennan]

Further, a school student might be attending an FE college as part of their school sixth-form studies, and the regulations would be different in those two institutions.

[Mr Stuart]

Yes, and Alison Wolf suggested in her report that more 14 to 16-year-olds should attend FE colleges, so this provision would affect them as well as 17 to 18-year-olds, for whom the provision might be less relevant. I hope Ministers will think about this anomaly and find a way of equalising the situation.

The Government make what seems like a very reasonable case on strengthening Ofqual’s enforcement powers. Ofqual does not have as wide-ranging powers as other regulators, and there is a very quick step from its making requirements on awarding bodies to the nuclear option of removing their ability to provide awards at all. It therefore seems reasonable to have more moderate powers in the middle, such as the power to make fines, but this Government are committed not to following such easy logic unless there is a very strong—nay, an overwhelming—case for giving new powers to some non-governmental, unelected quango, such as Ofqual, so in an intervention I asked the Minister to make the case. He made a brave effort, as he always does, being a highly esteemed colleague and an excellent schools Minister, but he really did not make the case.

We did not hear about the number of times that awarding bodies have deliberately flouted Ofqual’s requirements—that OCR, when required to do something by Ofqual, just ignored it, left it as long as possible and did it only if it felt like it; or that the lack of anything other than a nuclear button meant that OCR did not want to comply.

Following this summer’s examination paper errors fiasco, no one was more embarrassed and determined to put it right than the awarding bodies. They collectively and individually felt that it was embarrassing, and they wanted to put it right as quickly as they could. The numbers were somewhat higher than in previous years, but the attention paid to them this year was rather greater than the increase in problems, and I know at least one case in which there was only one error in 100,000 questions.

I want to see all such errors eliminated and to know that those bodies are straining every sinew to put the situation right, but I am not yet convinced that a fining regime, however conveniently it may fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to do something about the situation, is the right approach.

[Mr Gibb]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

rose—

[Mr Stuart]

I give way to the Minister.

[Mr Gibb]

The measure is about incentives. If a not-for-profit or commercial operation seeks to ensure that there are no errors, the exponential cost of ensuring that there are zero errors is a cost to that organisation, so the fining powers provide an equal and opposite cost to the organisations that do not incur those costs to do their best to eliminate errors. That is the purpose of the fining provisions.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. Perhaps he did mean what he just said, and it may be possible to create an examinations regime in which there are zero—no—mistakes, but the cost of examinations, which this Government inherited from the previous one, is already entirely outwith the value that those qualifications bring to this country. Our system is already over-reliant on examinations, and aspiring to zero errors—ever, in any examination question—will have a deleterious impact on their quality.

Awarding bodies may seek to change the questions that they ask to make it less likely that they ever include an error, and, if the measure suggests that it is unacceptable for them ever to include an error in any examination question, it will be extraordinarily expensive and impact in all sorts of unintended ways.

As Chairman of the Education Committee, I am not yet convinced that awarding bodies are so careless of quality, whatever the errors this summer, that we need such an incentive to make them improve. We need a balanced and proportionate approach, but I fear that the Minister’s words, suggesting that there should be zero errors ever, will lead to something quite different.

[Damian Hinds]

I wonder what level of error Japan, or the other strongest education systems in the world, are targeting. However, notwithstanding my hon. Friend’s point about the relatively small number of errors in this country, I wonder also whether he agrees that following those errors there is a problem with public confidence in examining bodies, and that, when it comes to qualifications, trust and confidence are absolutely all.

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me: public confidence, particularly as far as a political party in power and a Prime Minister who wants to be seen to be doing something are concerned, is all, so they have come forward, as the previous Government did all too often, with a legislative response to something that needs no such response, and on the basis of no proper or considered analysis of the situation. We had 13 years of vast increase in legislative provision, but very little increase in public confidence, so I say, “Don’t stick it in a law because it looks good in this week’s papers; actually think for the long term.” If we had done so, we might not have introduced this provision.

[Richard Fuller]

Many of us have strained to have zero errors in exams. I note you achieved that on many occasions, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is a strain for the rest of us. We therefore understand the difficulties faced by the bodies that are setting exams in reaching that accomplishment. However, I am listening intently to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Lords amendments could have an inverse consequence? If we set a cost for the errors made, we will essentially replace a self-correcting mechanism whereby bodies seek to achieve the highest levels because of the risk to their reputation, with a mechanism whereby the errors made are considered to be a part of the cost of doing business. That stick will end up with someone saying, “Well, if we make three or four errors, we can afford it—we’ll get away with it.” However, nothing can reimburse an organisation that has lost its reputation.

17:15

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making my point both more succinctly and fluently that I was.

The Government may not necessarily be wrong, but we have not heard the argument. There are many awarding bodies in this country, and perhaps some have flouted and ignored Ofqual’s requirements because they can afford to do so as a cost of doing business. If there is such a case, we need to introduce the sanctions to bring those bodies into line and ensure that public confidence and quality is delivered. However, I have not heard that argument; I have only heard arguments about public confidence. As I say, that does not seem a good reason to legislate.

The explanatory notes state:

“Subsection (5) of the new clause would insert into ASCLA 2009”—

the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act—

“new sections 152A to 152C which confer on Ofqual the power to require a recognised body on which a sanction has been imposed to pay the costs incurred by Ofqual in relation to imposing the sanction.”

So those bodies have to pay not only the sanction, but the costs related to the sanction. I may be a bit of a cynic about quangos, but if they see a way of buttressing their income, their number of employees and their powers, and they can get someone else to pay for it, I suggest that they will be more inclined to go down that road. I do not want such bodies doing overstretch.

The explanatory notes go on to state:

“The costs concerned would include the costs of carrying out an investigation”—

ooh! you can’t be too careful there—and doubtless those bodies would want to get quite a lot of people involved. The explanatory notes then refer to “relevant administration costs”—load on a bit more for that—

“and the costs of obtaining expert advice.”

This is an open, blank cheque to Ofqual to impose charges on awarding bodies if it sees fit to do so. Personally, I would like non-elected quangos kept on a fairly strict and short rein unless it is appropriate to do otherwise.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend has already alerted the House to the risk that the Lords amendments will result in the examination bodies treating accuracy as a cost of doing business. He is now alerting us to the risk that that may be an open-ended cost of doing business. Does he agree that the risk of the amendments is that we are replacing a self-correcting mechanism with a bureaucratic structure that has unlimited costs to the examination bodies?

[Mr Stuart]

The measures seem terribly redolent of provisions I saw in the House during the previous Parliament. I had hoped to see fewer such measures in this Parliament. My hon. Friend is right: we believe in creating the right framework and allowing the incentives within that to do their work. As far as awarding bodies are concerned, those incentives are correctly framed and their incentive to do the right thing is right. If Ofqual feels in the future that those bodies are paying insufficient attention to reducing errors in examinations, it will be able to say so. If awarding bodies then fail to comply with the direction suggested by Ofqual, that is the time to come here and discuss the matter. Ministers would be able to give instance after instance where awarding bodies had failed to act on the very clear and reasonable directions given to it by Ofqual.

[Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)]

I am fascinated by my hon. Friend’s speech. I understand that he feels zero errors is too high a threshold, but will he tell the House if he thinks there is an acceptable level of errors that Ofqual might be able to specify, or is he uncomfortable with labelling any level of errors as unacceptable?

[Mr Stuart]

Conservative Members have found that artificial targets led to precisely the kind of mechanistic, cost-of-business approach that my hon. Friend speaks about so well. That is why we set up a body of experts such as Ofqual to work within a framework, also established, of different awarding bodies wherein together they come up with the right approach. I am not sure that it is necessarily right to set a percentage. If there were a consistent period in which the awarding bodies showed themselves to be careless, or if we found on international comparison that ours were not up to scratch compared with those elsewhere—whatever the aspiration of the Japanese examination system, I doubt that it delivers 100% accuracy in all exams—it would be better if we trusted Ofqual to work with the bodies without necessarily bringing more bureaucratic sanctions into the process. Given the terms of subsection (5) of the new clause, there seems to be little incentive for Ofqual to control the costs of this, and it may simply add further to the expense of our qualifications system.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

These awarding bodies are very large businesses; I believe that the largest is worth about a quarter of a billion pounds. Does my hon. Friend agree that they no doubt have legal insurance that would meet the cost of these interventions?

[Mr Stuart]

That may well be the case, but if they do have such insurance, the premium will reflect the cost of doing businesses. In all contexts, whenever anyone suggests that having insurance somehow means that there is not a problem, it usually means that there is a broad raising of costs across the piece, which is something that we should minimise. One of the changes that was made in the Lords and has now come before us recognises that some education awarding bodies are part of educational companies globally, that there should be a cap on how much they can be fined, and that that cap should be relevant to the amount of business that that organisation does in this country rather than in global operations. That is welcome.

We now have a repeal of the repeal of the duty to co-operate. The shadow Minister was right to say that we are glad to hear confirmation that this partnership working can continue. I am also glad to hear from the Minister, citing his noble Friend Lord Hill, that the Government are committed to that form of partnership. In all the high-profile cases, and others, of children who are found to be neglected, it turns out that people at the agencies have not talked to each other, and we need to ensure that they do. It may be possible that a particular duty to co-operate in a certain way leads to a mechanistic response. If there is another way of framing the whole conversation that encourages it without there being a bureaucratic or legislative solution, that is something that I would be open to, but until we have a convincing argument as to how the overall picture will work, it is a good thing that schools co-operate with the other bodies.

On admissions, we have the change whereby anyone can refer a case to the regulator. I assume that the impact assessment has taken account of this, but I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that. If anyone can refer to the regulator on admissions, how many more referrals do we expect? If other hon. Members’ caseloads are anything like mine, they will know that an awful lot of parents are concerned about admission arrangements and many of them go through the appeals process. I wonder how many would seek to question and make complaints to the admissions regulator using the power in the Bill.

Again referring back to the remarks of the shadow Minister, can the Minister give the House a reassurance on the time frame for an admissions body to correct itself? Is it really possible that we could have a 10-month delay? One of the dangers in this place is that so many Members are so high-minded. The Minister is one of the most high-minded, and there is a tendency to assume that all others in the system share his ethics, commitment and fairness. Perhaps I have led the wrong life, but I have met many people who are capable of spite. It would seem to me a mistake to have a system that allowed somebody who had appealed and won to be thwarted in an act of spite by a school because it could use the rules to avoid acting in time to provide justice to the person who had brought the complaint.

On Ofsted inspections, as I said earlier, I welcome the Government’s proportionate approach. I would be grateful if the Minister talked us through the implications of the reduction in Ofsted’s budget. Perhaps surprisingly for some Government Members, the previous Government brought in pretty strong reductions in Ofsted’s budget. It is greatly to the credit of the then chief inspector that Ofsted coped with that without a discernible drop in quality. The budget is now going down even further—from well over £200 million, it is dropping to about £143 million, from memory. I am interested to know how that will impact on Ofsted’s ability to provide inspections.

The noble Lord Hill said in the other place that 72 outstanding schools had had inspections triggered by Ofsted’s risk assessment process. That meant that about 2% of outstanding schools had been inspected in the period. He said that it had been agreed with Ofsted that the aim should be to inspect at least 5% of outstanding schools. I wonder how able Ofsted will be to deliver that 250% increase in workload just in the area of outstanding schools.

In winding up, the Minister might also like to comment on primary schools, because all schools are not the same. It has always been of concern to me, when talking about greater autonomy and academies, that primary schools are fundamentally more fragile than secondaries. The departure of a head or a chair of governors, both of whom might contribute to a school being outstanding, can lead very quickly to a school’s standards falling. I would like a reassurance that there are different approaches for primaries and secondaries, for example in the speed of reaction and the attention given to certain factors, such as a change of head at a primary school being given greater weight and being seen as more of a trigger to get Ofsted to come in and check that all is well.

With those remarks, I will leave it there. I hope that the Minister will respond in due course.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

I will speak to Lords amendments 18 and 19 on the duty of schools to co-operate.

It is important that we have a framework that delivers competition and choice in rural areas. There have been many examples of innovation in my constituency in which schools have co-operated to provide a better service across disparate and sparse rural areas. Methwold high school in my constituency operates a vertically integrated model with Hockwold primary school. It has been able to save on administration costs and to run the school more efficiently. It offers GCSEs in subjects such as maths to local adults, thereby lowering its costs and offering a wider service. It also collaborates with further education and higher education establishments to offer local people degrees and other qualifications that they would not normally be able to access in such a remote area.

Another school in my constituency, Swaffham Hamond’s high school, was regrettably unable to continue to offer A-levels last year due to the lack of local demand. Unfortunately, students from that school were obliged to travel for up to 45 minutes on local buses to go to King’s Lynn to study their A-level choices. Since then, a local collaboration programme has been developed with Dereham school, which has been able to offer its A-levels at Swaffham Hamond’s, ensuring that specialist teaching staff are used in the best way possible.

17:30

The raw economics of life in a very sparsely populated area mean that it is often more efficient and effective for specialist teachers to travel between schools than for students to travel vast distances from one school to another. That is what the head teachers of Swaffham and Dereham have achieved. They have ensured that the best sixth-form provision is available across a network of rural schools. That was a highly rational decision, but to get to the point of being able to offer that service they had to go through a whole load of bureaucracy. I know that the county council was involved in trying to sort that out, but ultimately the school from Dereham that offered its provision to Swaffham, a good 20-minute drive away, had to take a huge risk due to how the Young People’s Learning Agency funding worked. A very innovative offering was available in a rural area, but schools struggled to put it in place because the funding models were more suited to large conurbations.

I am a huge supporter of academies and free schools, and I was very grateful to the Secretary of State for visiting Thetford academy, in my constituency, a couple of weeks ago. At present, however, the model delivers better for larger conurbations than for disparate areas. We need to find a way of making the funding more flexible, so that it can apply in remote rural areas and so that there is some pressure on failure and success in areas where it is very difficult for students to travel a long distance to a different school. We need to find a way of ensuring that failures are dealt with quickly and that success is rewarded, so that bad provision can be replaced and good provision can expand not just within a geographical location but elsewhere locally.

Norfolk schools are showing how collaboration should be done, but we need a way in which competition and collaboration can work alongside each other to ensure that we get the best economic models, that we use our teaching resources in the best possible ways and that we see innovation within the current environment.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Lords amendments. I welcome the fact that in their lordships’ overall assessment, the main thrust of the Bill should pass through to Royal Assent. It is most welcome that the core objectives of what the Government are trying to achieve will make it into law. That will be welcomed in rural constituencies, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) mentioned, and in others. However, the Lords have made some suggestions, which my hon. Friend the Minister indicated that the Government would support. I would like to draw his attention to a couple of those suggestions with which I concur wholeheartedly, and others with which I concur partly.

My first point is about the Lords’ reinstatement of the duty on schools to co-operate with local authorities, which is specifically related to the well-being of children. That relates to the broader issue of how the new schools that are envisaged, and the ones that are already in place across the country, will co-operate with local authorities. Much attention has been given in the Bill’s earlier stages in the Commons to the responsibilities of schools with regard to local authorities, but as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I often look at the matter through the other end of the lens and ask what is the responsibility of the local authority to co-operate with our schools.

I, and I think many Government Members, hoped that when the noble Lords considered that duty to co-operate, they might send the Bill back to this House with amendments that were somewhat more creative than simply placing into the Bill the original duty as it already stands.

Throughout our country, we are seeing a radical change in the relationship between local authorities and schools. Schools are gathering greater freedoms to operate independently. Those relate to not only financial status, but areas of operations, one of the most important being admissions policies, which I will come to. That liberalisation of the market for schools—if I can call it a market for schools—is very welcome, but as a consequence of those freedoms, new issues come up, such as how schools work together on behalf of their local community, and how in doing so, both as individual schools, in pyramids of schools or chain academies, they interact with local authorities, which are the democratically elected bodies in those areas.

In many cases, those relationships have been conducted positively in the past, but there is sometimes a contradiction between the schools’ best interests and those of local authorities. In that respect, it is a shame that the noble Lords have not sought to move the debate on the duty to co-operate forward to take us to the next stage of understanding. When the control over the education of our children is in the hands of such independent bodies, what will be the duty to co-operate between local authorities and schools?

[Kevin Brennan]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the duty to co-operate is not about the interests of schools or local authorities, but about the paramount interests of the child, which remain whatever school structures this Government put in place?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman is, as he has been throughout this process, a source of extreme insight and has expanded my knowledge. He is absolutely right that that is the key aspect. As he knows from deliberations in Committee, all Members on both sides of the House have sought to achieve that.

To the extent that it is not the structure that matters but the education of children, the hon. Gentleman is correct. However, the Bill is not a nudge along for the structure of our educational institutions but a more substantial change. I am therefore expressing the retrospective wish that their noble Lords had been somewhat more adventurous in defining some of the new scopes for duties to co-operate in their amendments. Had they done so, the goal of focusing on the education of our children, which the hon. Gentleman and I share with other hon. Members, including the Minister, could have been moved forward a little. My current concern is that there could be turf battles about who is responsible for what in the duty to co-operate.

[Stephen McPartland]

Can my hon. Friend give us examples of the local authority paying lip service to co-operating with the school when it did not want to co-operate in practice?

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the incentive that my hon. Friend gives me to talk about local issues—there are examples in the borough of Bedford and more generally—but he recognises that the duty to co-operate involves questions such as the ownership of land and buildings. In addition, my local authority has a somewhat confused educational structure. There is a mix of two tier and three tier, and sometimes there is both in the same place at the same time. In those circumstances, when schools wish to pursue becoming an academy, there is potential for a difference of opinion on the best interests of children. A school being subject to a requirement to co-operate with the local authority on the basis of the local authority’s responsibilities does not facilitate the growing liberalisation of schools to determine their futures that we wish to see. There is potential for conflict, but I hope that those examples have helped my hon. Friend.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some local authorities, such as Norfolk county council, have taken a positive approach towards academies, and are helping schools to become academies and to link up? Local authorities can play a positive role if they have the right attitude towards what that role should be.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, although with respect, I will stick tightly to the Lords amendments on this issue. She gives another example of how the duty on schools and local authorities to co-operate has evolved. Given that their noble Lords went so far in putting that duty back in the Bill, may I encourage the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to think further and more deeply about the evolving landscape and what that is likely to mean over the coming years?

I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for his comments about school admissions, which many of us share, and I thank the Minister for the changes that have been proposed or made. If we wish to see a substantial change and more liberalisation of schools in terms of where the authority lies, we should be aware that most families and parents want schools’ admissions policies to be clear and fair in their communities. That does not necessarily mean that they have to be uniform, although many of us would indeed hope to see uniform entrance policies, particularly with free schools, because that would reinforce the success of this new idea and new policy. I therefore very much welcome Lords amendments 20 and 21. I have listened to different points of view on free schools, and I know that support for this radical idea among Opposition Members has been “on again/off again”. Indeed, it would be interesting to know whether those on the Opposition Front Bench are “on” today or “off”.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Which one is on and which one is off?

[Richard Fuller]

Indeed. I will happily listen to the hon. Member for Cardiff West if he wishes to—[Interruption.] I can see that those on the Opposition Front Bench are not quite sure whether they are on or off, or on the fence.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

That is not within the scope of this debate.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, although I am sure that you would rule on whether it was within the scope of this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Whatever the Opposition’s position, Government Members fully support the moves towards free schools. However, for the idea to bed in and become successful, schools’ admissions policies need to be clearly defined, otherwise they will potentially be an Achilles heel. Organisations opposed to free schools—some have honourable intent, although some are the dinosaurs of an old regime—have pointed to admissions policies, saying that they will somehow be unfair. Those criticisms, from those organisations, have often flown in the face of the facts. Those facts show that admissions policies have often been just cut and pasted from other local schools. These Lords amendments will give reassurance on those criticisms, so that the reformist voices on the Opposition Benches can be encouraged further to recognise that there is a path forward and that this can be part of the most reforming legislation for some of the most disadvantaged children in our country. Therefore, Lords amendments 20 and 21 are most welcome.

I would like to talk about some of the comments made about direct, individual budgets for children with special educational needs, a topic of great interest in Committee when it came to ensuring that the reforms moved forward the provision of education for some of the most vulnerable children and young adults in our communities. Although in principle I am a supporter of individual budgets, both in this area and in others, I am somewhat sceptical about full implementation. It is interesting to note two parts of what Lord Hill said in the debate on the amendments dealing with personal budgets in the other place, when he referred, first, to

“control over the support they receive and better access to and greater satisfaction with services.”

I want to return to better access later. Secondly, he said:

“In those individual budget pilots, nearly two-thirds of families opted to have a direct payment as part of their personal budget.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1195.]

People’s attention rightly focuses on those two thirds, who comprise the earlier adopters and those who can be encouraged relatively easily to follow on.

17:45

For this policy to work effectively, however, the concentration of hon. Members here should not be on the two thirds who accepted but on the reasons why one third did not. What is holding back these individuals from taking on the responsibilities of individual budgets? The benefits have been extolled quite broadly and it would be interesting to understand why those one third of individuals have not taken that view. My guess is that there will be more of an issue with this policy from people who are reluctant adopters and we will need to work through how to enable them to have the benefits from individual budgets.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am perhaps more optimistic than my hon. Friend. Historically, we have not had direct budgets in this area. As more people receive direct budgets, those who provide in response to them will grow in their sophistication and capability, so they will be able better to sell, communicate and market what they do for families, who will then see that they can take on a budget without having to try to commission those services from scratch themselves. My hon. Friend is right—although things might develop over time—that this might never be appropriate for some people and we must ensure that we look after their interests. However, for perhaps even more than 75%, direct budgets might prove to be the way forward.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. As Chairman of the Select Committee, he is very knowledgeable in this area, and I look forward to discussing the issue with him further. Let me add a couple of additional concerns. Although we agree on the overall direction of travel, we might also reach some concordance over concerns.

The proposal in Lords amendment 37 is to deal with this issue through setting up pilot schemes in some areas. I am in favour of that. What will be the benefit for children with special educational needs? Their parents already put an enormous amount of effort into supporting their children. We call on them not only to go out and work hard, but to provide that support at home and that takes up an enormous amount of time. To place on top of that the burden of an individual budget—however it is implemented—places significant additional burdens. Let me explain a couple of them.

I have spoken to parents of children with special educational needs in my constituency. Overall, they are enthusiastic about some of the proposals in the Government’s Green Paper, but they strongly voiced their concern about the complexity of placing additional burdens on parents. They want these responsibilities, but the complexity involved is significant.

[Mr Gibb]

It will not be compulsory to have a direct payment. It will be an option that parents can take up if they wish. The fears that my hon. Friend expresses should not come to pass.

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate the Minister’s intervention, which reassures me somewhat, but Lords amendment 37, on setting up pilot schemes, reassures me more significantly. I think we will find that more significant issues arise here. It is not sufficient, from my point of view, to say that because two thirds will accept it, it must be fine. Two thirds might well accept it, but that does not mean that the administrative problems and complexities will not have made their lives more complicated. People might say, “Yes, I will accept it”, but it is not a straight choice leading to the accrual of untold benefits. There are costs and consequences from the decision made.

As I was saying, I spoke to some parents in my constituency and they told me that they wanted a system that was easy to administer and wanted to ensure that support was available. They wanted to ensure, too—this was a point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff West and others—that this was not an avenue to cost cutting. They wanted to make sure that Ministers understood the complexities of handling different panels, facing different options on statementing and having to look for disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and so forth. Those are costs placed on individuals. Two thirds might well say, “This is what we want to do”. That, however, with respect to the Minister, is not the point. The point is to make the system so simple and easy to do that everyone wishes to do it. I am not sure that we are at that point yet, which is why I welcome the proposal for the pilot schemes in Lords amendment 37.

My other reason for welcoming the amendment is that, as I have said, I do not want a measure that constitutes an avenue to cost-cutting. I accept that the Minister and his colleagues in the Department are absolutely committed to maintaining support and funding for the most vulnerable children, but in the present environment, every good policy can be open to talk of cuts and reductions. We hear such talk almost hourly from Opposition Members, in relation to a range of topics. Some may have valid points to make, but it is generally understood that those who have borrowed too much money and are living beyond their means have to make cuts in certain areas.

It would be devastating for the Government if the strong reforms that they want to make in regard to special educational needs, building on what the last Government did, became part of the debate about cuts. We can learn from a pilot scheme, and it will enable us to create a better system. Its mission should be to relieve parents of the burden of additional complexity. We should focus not on the take-up rate, but on reducing the cost to parents of individual budgets. That will help to ensure that the changes that are made bed down for the long term.

Having commented on those three issues—the duty to co-operate in a changing environment, the need to ensure that school admissions do not become the Achilles heel of the move towards new academies and free schools, and the need to reduce the complexity of special educational needs individual budgets for the benefit of parents—I offer my support for the amendments.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I want to talk about five aspects of the amendments. The first is the question of Ofqual. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Education Committee, about the fines. [Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] He is fairly used to disagreements, and always accepts them cheerfully, as he has just demonstrated.

The Government are right to think in terms of fines. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) put his finger on it when he noted that it was difficult to change examination boards in a timely manner if there were mistakes. There must be no mistakes in the preparation of exams.

The real problem, it seems to me, is that we have far too many examination boards, and I believe that the Education Committee will consider that in due course. We need accurate examinations so that students can feel confident that they are taking tests that are fair, proper and competent, and fines should be applied when those priorities are not honoured.

There is the important question of whether Ofsted should inspect outstanding schools. We must ensure that it concentrates on schools that are failing or coasting: as the Prime Minister rightly says, we must never fail to recognise that some schools are not doing a good enough job at present, and that they require our full attention. An Ofsted report is, of course, a snapshot of the situation that the Ofsted inspectors found during their visit, and is likely to convey contradictory messages. What I frequently find in my constituency, and certainly found when I was involved in education as a governor, is that such reports may not tell the story that other statistical evidence might tell.

I raised the problem when the Education Committee was considering Ofsted and its future. I asked witnesses what should be done when a school that is able to brandish very good exam results—five passes graded between A-star and C—receives an Ofsted report that tells a different tale. I know of two schools in my constituency that have been able to counter one bit of evidence with another, and both cases involved Ofsted reports. I therefore think that the Government are right to use the tool of Ofsted to focus more on the schools that are failing or coasting.

There are many different ways of measuring performance. We must enable parents to see, from year to year, that things are moving in the right direction in the schools that they choose—or may choose in the future—for their children. An annual assessment will be helped by effective league tables and the right kind of evidence presented in the right way.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Is my hon. Friend comfortable with the idea that some schools might not be inspected for 10 or 12 years?

[Neil Carmichael]

I would certainly be willing to see schools go without an Ofsted inspection for some time if they are consistently performing effectively and efficiently. Several years might elapse before an inspection, but I do not believe that we are talking of decades.

We must bear it in mind that there are other accountability mechanisms: the choice that parents make; the measurements that league tables offer; and the role of governors. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is not going to press the issue to a Division, but I consider it very important, and I think that the Government are right to be less prescriptive than they have been in the past. It is critical that we focus on what governing bodies should be, and on the role that they should have.

I have been involved in the establishment of an all-party parliamentary group on school governors, because I think that the issue has been overlooked for far too long. One of the key themes that the APPG is developing is the need to focus on skills rather than representatives of governing bodies, and it is reflected in both the Bill and the amendment. It is obvious to me, and, I believe, to most people—it was certainly obvious to all who were involved in the formation of the APPG—that a great many skills are required. It is a good idea to ensure that a local authority appoints a governor in consultation with the governing body, so that together they can come up with the right person to fill the skills gap. The school will then have a governing body that reflects its priorities and has the appropriate skills. I am glad that the Bill mentions the crucial role of governors, on whom I think we should turn the spotlight when we think about accountability.

That brings me to the question of reporting restrictions. Over 20 years, I have been involved in situations in which members of the teaching profession have had to undergo disciplinary procedures. Ironically, none has been connected with pupils, and I am pleased about that, but I could have done with a few reporting restrictions in one instance in particular. It is very difficult to manage such situations when they are being second-guessed by the press, which may investigate or discuss them in ways that are not helpful to the requirement that evidence is presented fairly and honourably so that people who are not involved in a case can make proper judgments and reach an unbiased conclusion. I discovered that if someone wants to get something published, they should simply mark it “private and confidential” and away it will go. It is right that the Bill examines this issue, because we have to ensure that our processes can be properly managed and controlled so that investigations can be undertaken and judgments made consistent with justice and good practice.

18:00

Finally, I wish to talk about the key duty to co-operate. In the Localism Bill the Government readily accept that authorities should co-operate with each other on a wide range of subjects. That is the right approach, because planning decisions, highway construction and so on are more effective when people co-operate, and the same applies to local authorities. To be consistent, the same must apply in dealing with schools and local authorities, although perhaps we need to be even more focused on the need to co-operate because schools benefit from co-operating on a host of things. As we move towards academies, free schools and choice, we should talk not about a federal structure for schools but about encouraging feeder schools to get more involved with secondary schools and providing similar support for special educational needs. As the shadow Minister rightly noted, the key is to think about pupils and their best interests. We should try to engineer a system under which there is an overall desire to co-operate, where co-operation takes place and where schools feel comfortable co-operating with each other. In broad terms—and in absolute terms, because I cannot think of any criticism I am really making here—I support the amendments, as the Government have expressed them.

I wish to emphasise some key points. First, we need to acknowledge and celebrate the work of governors and the importance of school governance. If we get that right, accountability will be appropriate and understood, and parents will feel increasingly comfortable with the overall structure of school leadership and management.

I have not mentioned the second point, but it is crucial. When money starts to go to schools not necessarily through local authorities but directly from the Department for Education, we will have an even more flexible, fluid way of dealing with schools that will produce excellent schools. But we can never take our foot off the accelerator in the drive to ensure that all our schools do the best they can for their pupils and that their pupils thrive. That is our message, and that is what we must do. The Bill will go a long way towards helping that to happen.

[Damian Hinds]

I wish briefly to discuss a couple of aspects of the amendments, touching on Ofsted and outstanding schools, the anonymity of teachers and Ofqual. I wish to start where my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) so eloquently left off: on the duty to co-operate. I agree wholeheartedly that we should celebrate co-operation, teamwork, playing to strengths and so on. I accept that the Government think it necessary to retain the duty to co-operate, as was, but I hope the Minister will agree that it is not always best to systematise and design processes; free co-operation can frequently be more effective.

In a different but closely connected arena, the Select Committee, on which I sit and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) is Chair, is examining the broader issue of child protection. In that area, the number of flow charts, systems, fall-back plans and required times by which something must happen provide what appears to be a very impressive system, but in many ways more questions are created than are answered.

There is much to be gained from schools co-operating, so that we get more than the sum of the parts. The education improvement partnership in my constituency brings together all 44 schools—nobody forced them, and it was not the result of any duty—to work on a range of things, including the gifted and talented programmes; the provision of pupil referral units; nurture for primary children at risk of exclusion; and training for emotional literacy support assistants. That makes the biggest difference.

The second thing I wish to talk about is Ofsted, outstanding schools and triggers. I accept that there is an honest and reasonable difference between the parties on this, which reflects a difference that we see on lots of subjects. Labour Members would like codified exactly what will trigger the re-inspection of a school previously judged to be outstanding, whereas Ministers are keen to think of a range of things that might make that happen but do not wish to be quite so specific and accept that, to an extent, the system is organic. The Select Committee closely examined whether a change of head should automatically trigger a re-inspection. I think that there is a strong argument to say that such a big personnel change, perhaps when combined with one or two other changes, might be a good reason for so doing, but there might be counterbalancing arguments against.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I am glad to say that Lord Hill said that he and Sir Michael Wilshaw—I think he specifically named him—believed that changing a head would not automatically trigger an inspection but would trigger consideration. The Government and Ofsted are aligned with my hon. Friend on this requirement.

[Damian Hinds]

That highlights the point about having people running organisations whom we trust and who can make professional judgments, and about their weighing all the evidence and not being hidebound by particular formulae.

In an earlier intervention, I mentioned that we will have much richer data than ever before in the schools system. That is not unique to this country, because a revolution is going on in the education world, as was reported a few weeks ago in a good article in The Economist. We know much more about schools and can therefore do much more predictive modelling than was possible before.

In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) argued in favour of contextual value added. The Government will not use CVA—and thank God for that; I have yet to meet anyone who understands it. I have served on the Education Committee for 18 months and we are still waiting for our first teacher, head teacher, pupil, local authority officer or anyone else from the education establishment to talk voluntarily about CVA as a measure of school performance. Instead, we have what most people would understand as a value-added measure—progress from key stage 2 to key stage 4—which will do most of that job without the extra complexity and formulaic high jinks that the contextual bit introduces. Of course, it is only one of a large basket of measures and indicators that can be used.

I am sure that it is not in the minds of Ministers or the leadership of Ofsted that any school should go a long time without inspection. I would be amazed if any head teacher wanted to go long without his school being inspected. Many of the indicators are what we might call “digital indicators”, but Ofsted produces an analogue report with much richer evaluation and comment than some of those measures. I am sure that many parents will want to know that there is a relatively recent report informing them about some of the things that they cannot necessarily read in league tables, but I do not think that any of that calls necessarily for the formulaic approach of automatic triggers that Labour Members suggest.

The next area I want to touch on is the anonymity of teachers. Reasonable questions have been asked about why schoolteachers should enjoy special treatment, and why those who work in further education colleges are treated differently. I accept that that is an anomaly, although it is hardly the first anomaly to arise between secondary schools and sixth-form colleges.

[Mr Stuart]

The Government listened and used the Bill to correct an anomaly and allow FE teachers to teach in schools. I led a debate in January and am delighted that Ministers listened to that appeal and are seeking other ways of levelling the playing field for FE and sixth-form colleges and schools.

[Damian Hinds]

Indeed. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a pertinent point.

Teachers are unique—there is something special about them, as opposed even to other people working with children, although I accept the arguments about them—as they have to stand before a class, in a position of authority, and keep discipline. Most of us will have been struck by the number of teachers whom we know who strongly approve of the change introducing anonymity. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that those teachers would never in a million years get up to the sort of no good that we want to avoid. There is something symbolic in saying that we understand their difficult position in keeping order in their little community and that they deserve our support and this type of anonymity.

Ofqual has already stimulated some fascinating exchanges. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who chairs the Committee on which I serve, I wondered what level of defect the Japanese would look for. I specifically picked Japan, rather than Shanghai, Finland or any of the popular examples because of my experience of joining the Manchester and Merseyside branch of IBM as a tender 17-year-old. The story new starters were told might have been apocryphal, but it was that that IBM specified a 99.99% success rate in the contract with its Japanese microchip supplier. The Japanese were a bit confused, but dutifully smashed one in every 10,000 chips to ensure that they complied with the rate. The point is that other systems do things better than ours does and that people with other systems accept nothing but the best. Following that experience, IBM adopted the principle that is known in business as zero defects.

[Mr Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Hinds]

Only if my hon. Friend will speak in Japanese.

[Mr Stuart]

Double Dutch perhaps, but not Japanese.

My hon. Friend asserts that other areas do better than we do—in the accuracy of their examination questions, I assume —but does he have any evidence to back that up? The paucity of such evidence from Ministers makes me question whether we have made the case to introduce such measures.

[Damian Hinds]

I suspect that my hon. Friend knows that my point was a more general one about other people doing better than we do and about their tolerance of failure and imperfection. I recognise that humanity is ultimately susceptible to failure, but I worry about what we should accept.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons the Japanese do so well in business is not sticks and penalties but their cultural acceptance of what they need to do?

[Damian Hinds]

I thoroughly accept that point, but we need to ensure that our education system strives to be as good as the best in the world. Ministers are effectively leading the education system in that mission.

I said earlier that public confidence is everything. I accept that the brand equity that examination bodies want to protect is the single biggest motivator to be as good as they can be, but it is worth reiterating that this is not a simple market in which they lose customers if they get something wrong. First, the number of exam-awarding bodies is limited—people do not have limitless choice. Secondly, schools that switch examination bodies face major costs, inconvenience and difficulty in changing curriculums. Thirdly, given the costs and difficulties involved, changes might not be as easy as they appear for schools and colleges.

18:15

Instead of thinking about whether there are one in 1,000, one in 10,000 or one in 100,000 defects, we should think about the time a student sitting a exam might waste in trying to answer a question that is impossible to answer correctly. That exam, although one of the 10 subjects they are studying, might be fundamental to their future.

It is reasonable to set a fine with a cap of 10%—a pretty standard benchmark—applying only to the part of the operation that Ofqual regulates, not to the international fees. Of course, it will be subject to a 12-week consultation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said that such fines could add, either directly or via insurance premiums, to the costs of examination bodies and, therefore, to schools. We must address the fact that the costs of examinations to schools have risen dramatically. In 2002-03, the average maintained secondary school spent £44,000 on public examinations. By 2008-09, the figure had increased to £85,000—all but doubling in a mere six years. I think that it increased to £96,000 in 2009-10. Those massive increases are nothing to do with having to pay fines for getting the questions wrong; they are to do with the number of resits, retakes and AS-levels and all the additional stuff that goes into our examination system.

I am pleased that the Education Committee will consider how the examination board system works, but, as the Minister said, there is an ever-greater cost to getting 99.99% accuracy up to 100%. We shall create the incentive to go the extra mile by ensuring that, if people fail, there is a counterbalancing cost. It is absolutely right that that is being done. I am happy to support the Lords amendments.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I rise to support a number of the Lords amendments that were made in another place at the prompting of the Government, although as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, a number of the issues were explored in Committee before the Bill passed to the other end of the building.

I am pleased that the Government have reconsidered the duty to co-operate. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) talked about the analogue process of inspection. Well, coalition government is an analogue process as well, and my noble Friends, along with Lord Laming, were keen that the issue, especially with regard to safeguarding, should remain on the statute book, because of the emerging relationship between local authorities and schools that will follow the transition in some parts of the country when large schools to take up the opportunities of the academies programme. The Secretary of State for Education has spoken in the past about the need to consider how local authorities and schools will work in that context. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in a speech in September that local authorities needed a new role in considering the education environment.

Of course, fewer academy conversions have taken place in some parts of the country than in others. The process will take different forms in different parts of the country, but that is right and in accord with the principles of localism, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) said in his contribution. There will be opportunities to revisit the discussion about how schools and local authorities co-operate with regard to the objectives for wider community development and for education—of course, the key priority for schools—but it is clear that the Government, having considered the issue, wanted there to be no doubt at all about the message that goes out about safeguarding. On that key duty to operate on those issues, the Government have responded to the points made by Lord Laming and others, and I welcome that.

On admissions, the debate in another place focused on the duty of the Secretary of State to provide fair access in all circumstances. Clearly, the Secretary of State has that duty, supported by the schools adjudicator, so that should set minds at rest. Where there have been anomalies, some are anecdotal. We hear, for example, that in the original academies lower numbers of pupils were on free school meals than at other schools in the area. That requires exploration. The pupil premium will have the effect of showing that all schools will benefit hugely from bringing in pupils from across the community and having the resources to provide any extra support that might be necessary early on in a student’s school career, to ensure that they get the benefit that everybody else enjoys as they move through the education system.

I am grateful to the Minister and his noble Friend for the changes that they have made to the original proposals on school governance. The hon. Member for Stroud is no longer in his place. I should take the opportunity to attend his all-party group, which I have not done thus far. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are a little more convinced of the benefits of the stakeholder model. I entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying with regard to skills. The model advanced by the Minister through the amendments made in another place provides the opportunity for co-option and for discussion with the local authority about the sort of person who would be appropriate for the governing body of a school, to ensure that the skills profile is met and the new responsibilities—

[Richard Fuller]

I am listening with great interest to what my hon. Friend is saying. His party obviously has a slightly different perspective on issues from the other party in the coalition, and that is to be welcomed. Two minds can often be better than one. How, from his party’s point of view, does he see the role of a local authority governor evolving as local authorities move towards the role of commissioner for school budgets? Does he believe that local authority governors will be able to wear the two hats effectively, as they have in the past?

[Dan Rogerson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In Bedford, people very much have two minds elected to represent them—their excellent elected mayor, Dave Hodgson, alongside the hon. Gentleman working hard for constituents there. I agree that issues arising from commissioning need to be examined—not just questions about how much money each school should receive, but wider questions, such as how that relationship can evolve and deliver for the local community.

To return to the topic of governance, the amendment tabled in another place allows staff and the local authority to have a voice in the discussions that take place within a governing body, but there is plenty of scope for skills that are needed on that body to be provided through co-option and for those put forward as local authority governors to respond to the need for skills.

On inspection, Liberal Democrats have long said that we want to remove the burden of bureaucracy from schools, and colleagues in the Conservative party have expressed similar views. The more risk-based approach to Ofsted inspection responds to that aim. As Members of Parliament we hear of other instances in our constituencies where local businesses, for example, would welcome a response from Government when risks and problems have been highlighted, but not when that is not seen to be necessary. As we have heard, other forms of data are available so that people can make up their own mind. There are opportunities for inspections to be triggered, should that be necessary. One such example concerning a change of head teacher was provided by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who is no longer in his place.

As I understand it, Ofsted will continue to undertake thematic surveys—for example, on safeguarding, to which I referred earlier. Such surveys would include outstanding schools which may not have undergone a full Ofsted inspection for a year or so. I am pleased that the Government have listened and responded to debates. The coalition Government have produced a Bill, as amended in the other place, in which people can have confidence. I hope it will unlock further the potential in the education system to deliver for our young people.

[Stephen McPartland]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute on this group of amendments. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is not at present in his place, I broadly support the amendments but would like to push the Government to go a little further in some respects. One of my key themes is that the Bill seems to be written very much with secondary schools in mind, as opposed to primary schools. Although there are some elements of the Bill that focus on primary schools, it could go much further.

Members in all parts of the House have welcomed the fact that teachers will have anonymity from false accusations. If the individual is charged, the police will not be prevented from investigating, but the teacher will be protected. That is good news, but Members on all sides are concerned that it does not go far enough. One of my worries is that in a primary school setting, where teaching assistants are often given responsibility for dealing with the most difficult children, sometimes the most difficult families, and work in a room with just one or two of those children, they are at severe risk from such accusations.

I welcome the amendments from another place relating to an application in a court for a judge to lift reporting restrictions. The welfare of the teacher who is the subject of the allegation is taken into account, as is the welfare of the pupil or pupils who are the alleged victims. However, the Government could go a little further and think about staff in specific situations. For example, I know of schools around the country where teaching assistants are often put in charge of classrooms, essentially acting as teachers. Under the Bill, they will not have the same protection as a teacher in the next classroom who is dealing with the same key stage group. I urge the Government to look into such situations and respond accordingly.

On the admissions code, I welcome many of the changes, particularly the fact that adopted children who were looked after before they were adopted will still have the same priority for places as looked-after children. That is extremely important, as it could benefit 3,000 children each year. I have an example in my constituency of a child who was adopted for many of the best reasons—I know that across all parties there is a big push to ensure that children are adopted much faster, instead of being looked after—yet simply because they did not remain a looked-after child, 17 different funding streams that had been providing support within the school were lost.

From an educational point of view, it might seem that it would have been in the child’s interest to continue to be looked after, as opposed to being adopted, whereas from the point of view of their social development, it is much better for the child to have been adopted and become part of a more stable family. I welcome the provision, which is important in setting a precedent for considering in the round the priorities in such a situation. Those children still have the same problems securing a place in a school that is right for them, and it is important for the family who have adopted the child to be given access to the necessary services.

18:20

I note that there is to be a national offer day for primary schools and I welcome it, but with some trepidation. It was recommended that it would be on 1 March and be similar to what parents are used to for secondary schools. I welcome the proposal, but I worry that many parents might put pressure on their children at age three or four in the way many do when their children are 10 or 11. I would like to hear a little more from the Minister on how the national offer day for primary schools would work, because it is something that interests me and a large number of my constituents. The reason behind it is that there are different dates by which children are admitted to primary schools in different local authorities, which can cause great confusion for parents. I know from my constituency postbag that often a large number of parents are concerned that they cannot get their children into the nearest one of two schools simply because they have missed the date by which they were to apply for admission. I welcome the proposal, but I would like to know a little more about how it will work in practice.

We had a robust debate on Ofqual, which was fascinating to listen to. I certainly agree that a regulator should be able to fine an organisation 10%—my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford looks up sharply—because I am concerned that awarding organisations regard Ofqual as having no teeth. Much of the focus was on the fact that there were 12 or 13 mistakes in exam papers this year, which affected 140,000 children, creating great confusion for them, their families and their teachers. That can be heartbreaking, because it is not the child’s fault.

I mentioned in an intervention the possibility of legal insurance offsetting some of the costs, but the Conservative in me is concerned about giving another quango more powers to intervene. I am conflicted on the amendment, but I will support it because on the whole I believe that it is important that regulators have teeth. When we look at the size of some of the awarding organisations, we see that the largest has a turnover of £250 million, and the assessment market is worth £1 billion, so we must have some kind of control over it.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not wish to detain the House too long on this point, because we have heard many aspects of it. My hon. Friend points out that the organisations are very substantial and that some have turnovers of £250 million or more. Does not that simply point to the fact that for those organisations the reputational risk will be far greater than any penalty that could be imposed? Does not the size of those organisations support the suggestion made by the Chair of the Education Committee, rather than the proposals in their lordships’ amendments?

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, but I must stop myself agreeing with him. I believe that the reputational risk is only a very small part of the problem with Ofqual’s relationship with awarding organisations. The problem is that Ofqual has only the nuclear option, to which the Minister referred, of saying, “You are either in or out.” I imagine that causes a great deal of conflict in Ofqual when it investigates an organisation. My hon. Friend knows from his vast business experience that the cost of doing business is often factored into every meeting, and I have no doubt that the cost of engaging with Ofqual is included in every meeting.

[Mr Gibb]

I want to put on the record the fact that Ofqual will consult on the definition of turnover it will use for the 10% figure. Other regulators have always defined turnover in relation to regulated activities and not beyond them.

[Stephen McPartland]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. One of the little-known problems with Ofqual’s relationship with awarding organisations is that often when it requests information the organisations can ignore it—I am not saying they do so—because they know that Ofqual only really has the nuclear option; it can either engage with them or not engage. That becomes the organisations’ point of view on the relationship they want with the regulator, rather than the view of the regulator in trying to regulate the industry. We referred to the industry earlier as a market, and it is worth almost £1 billion a year in the UK. There are 182 awarding organisations.

[Damian Hinds]

On the question of reputational risk versus the power of a fine, does my hon. Friend accept that the two are not necessarily alternatives? Being fined or, in an extreme case, being given the highest fine the regulator can give will itself contribute to the costs of reputational risk, so the two can reinforce each other. Reputational risk appears to have been an insufficient deterrent hitherto. Otherwise, we would not have had the extent of problems we saw this summer.

[Stephen McPartland]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, because reputational risk is very important. The problem is simply that it comes back to reputational risk and the nuclear option, as many awarding organisations can take a chance and build into their business models the number of mistakes they can make before they appear in national headlines. I am not saying that that is what they are doing, but with Ofqual’s current position there is a very odd situation in which the awarding organisations can identify the relationship they want with the regulator, rather than the regulator regulating the industry.

Providing Ofqual with the ability to fine awarding organisations at 10% allows it to say, “If you don’t comply and engage with us, we can fine you up to 10%.” I agree with the Minister that there will no doubt be a sliding scale and that it will be introduced with consultation, but the key point, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) noted earlier, relates to the Japanese example of smashing one circuit in 1,000 to ensure that they comply. We do not want one mistake to ensure that Ofqual and the awarding organisations comply with one another; we want them to have a relationship based on trust and understanding and, as a last resort, for there to be the threat of fine if the awarding organisations do not engage with Ofqual. Reputational risk is important, but I think that we all understand that what affects people ultimately is the bottom line: what profit they are making and how they are engaging. That is what is important, because that is what they are employed to do. I broadly agree with the Ofqual situation. There is a bit of conflict, because it means giving a quango more powers, but in this situation I think that that is correct.

We also had a robust and prolonged debate on Ofsted, with many interventions. There was a suggestion that some schools would not be inspected for perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years, but in practice that is unrealistic. I was under the impression that when a new head teacher took over a school, particularly a primary school, traditionally that would trigger an Ofsted inspection within a couple of years. I understand that under the Bill’s provisions Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools will trial a new approach so that, when a new head teacher takes over, the inspector will contact the school to discuss the performance and the head teacher’s plans for the future, which I think is a much more effective way of working with outstanding schools.

Triggers have been mentioned. I understand that there will be a guaranteed minimum re-inspection rate of 5% and that governors, through the powers and freedoms we are allowing them—the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) spoke effectively about this in Committee on several occasions—will be able to say that they are losing confidence in how things are going. If parent governors in our constituencies believe that children are not getting access to the best education, they phone their MP or local authority straight away to demand the best for their children. That would also ensure that those schools will have the best from the new freedom to engage and not to be inspected every couple of years.

On a wider note, I am pleased that Ofsted will no longer give six or seven weeks’ notice of inspections. The notice period had meant that teaches would often work for 15 or 16 hours a day for six or seven weeks, including weekends, to try to ensure that their school is seen at its best. I do not believe that that is the best way of conducting inspections. What Ofsted is doing at the moment is giving a couple of days’ notice before turning up, which provides a much better reflection of the school. As the years go by, that will provide a much better snapshot of what is happening.

Also, the freedoms for academies in the Bill will lift education across every constituency and local education authority area. Competition is the wrong word to use in a debate on education, but those schools, head teachers and teachers will be seeking to attract the best children. It is important to focus on providing the children with the best schools. Many of the outstanding schools will not now be inspected as often as before, but they will be spending their time helping neighbouring schools that do not have the best procedures in place to move towards becoming outstanding. I welcome the Bill’s proposals in this area.

My final point relates to direct payments for special educational needs. The Minister said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that people would be able to opt into this process, and I am grateful to him for that, because I would have had great hesitation in supporting any kind of compulsory measure. Now that the Minister has clarified the position, however, I can support the proposal.

[Mr Gibb]

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to this interesting debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for their thoughtful contributions, and I shall respond to as many of their points as possible, in addition to speaking to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).

The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked me to say a little more about Lords amendments 1 to 4, which relate to interim prohibition orders. Since the Bill’s introduction, it has included a new power for the Secretary of State to make such orders. Many regulators have a power of that kind for use in the rare cases when it is in the public interest to bar an individual while an investigation is under way, prior to a final decision being made. When the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee scrutinised the Bill, it asked about the safeguards that were going to be put in place. As a matter of policy, we intended the issue of interim suspension orders to be possible only when it was in the public interest, and subject to regular six-monthly reviews when requested. The Committee suggested that those quality safeguards be placed on the face of the Bill. The amendments were debated briefly in Grand Committee before being made in the other place.

On extending teacher anonymity, we have to proceed on the basis of evidence in restricting press freedom. I have already cited the findings of our survey. Teachers are much more likely to be the subject of allegations than other staff in schools. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the teachers of 16 to 19-year-olds in further education colleges, but the evidence from the survey shows that just 1% of allegations related to teachers in FE colleges, compared with 23% relating to school teachers. The NASUWT’s records show that, in the past 10 complete years, it has provided a solicitor in relation to 1,592 cases of allegations against teachers, of which 1,439 resulted in no further action being taken.

The survey related to local authority designated officers—LADOs—and the total number of allegations of abuse that were referred to LADOs in the 116 local authorities that responded to the survey was 12,086, of which 2,827, or 23%, related to teachers. Of those, allegations of abuse related to 0.6% of the teaching profession as a whole. That means that there are 1.5 times as many allegations against teachers as against support staff, which had a figure of 0.4% of the total non-teaching population.

On the basis of that survey, I believe that we have got this measure right. I say with all due respect to my hon. Friends that we must not let the best become the enemy of the good. I have heard Members on all sides of the debate today pushing to extend the measure to more staff, and not to extend it to teachers because of the effect that it has on them, but I think that we have got it just about right.

18:45

The hon. Member for Cardiff West cited the article by the Prime Minister in The Daily Telegraph today. I would like to quote it more fully. My right hon. Friend stated that

“we remain relentless about combating entrenched failure. We will soon have taken over more failing schools with new academies than in the whole eight years of the programme under Labour. But it’s just as important to tackle those all over the country content to muddle through—places where respectable results and a decent local reputation mask a failure to meet potential. Children who did well in primary school but who lose momentum. Early promise fades. This is the hidden crisis in our schools—in prosperous shires and market towns just as much as the inner cities.”

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right to quote the Prime Minister, who in turn is right to identify this issue. What practical steps can be taken under the current regime to target those schools that are above the floor targets for five good GCSEs and that have limited resources for Ofsted? How will it be possible to ensure that they get the focus that the Prime Minister, the Minister and I would like to see?

[Mr Gibb]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure that the Minister will ensure that his response is relevant to the amendments that we are discussing.

[Mr Gibb]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of your ruling, I will make just one point to my hon. Friend which is relevant to the amendments. The performance tables will identify the results and show how well children did at primary school. There will be a column for children who achieve level 5 at key stage 2, and another column for those who achieve level 3 at key stage 2. There will also be columns for those with special educational needs and those with disabilities. That will help to identify those schools that are coasting, and we will then take action against those schools or help them to improve their results.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West also talked about triggers for inspections. That is a matter for Her Majesty’s chief inspector, but I can confirm that there will be annual risk assessment for outstanding schools, which will normally commence three years after the last inspection. Where there is a change of head teacher before that point, however, the chief inspector has agreed to bring forward the risk assessment, including an HMI review. Ultimately, however, we have to leave it to the professional judgment of the inspector to determine whether an inspection should be triggered. Factors to be taken into account might include: the performance data of a school that had previously been judged to be less than outstanding in achievement or teaching not showing signs of improvement since its last inspection; progress measures showing that pupils or students were not making good progress in comparison with similar groups nationally; or below-average attendances showing little sign of improvement. Many factors can act as a trigger for an inspection.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of admissions. I thank him for his attention to detail in scrutinising the codes, but I can assure him that they are statutory. “Must” means “must” in those codes; they have the full force of the law. On his wider point, the vast majority of the changes can be implemented quickly, but there are cases in which they might take longer than 14 days, at which point 15 April will form an ultimate backstop. The key point in paragraph 3.1 of the code states that the adjudicator’s direction should be implemented as quickly as possible.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Would he be prepared to put it on the record that going right up to 15 April should happen only on very rare occasions, rather than in the majority or a large minority of cases?

[Mr Gibb]

What I will put on the record are the words used in paragraph 3.1 of the code, which states that admission authorities must where necessary revise their admission arrangements as quickly as possible, and no later than 15 April, following the decisions to give effect to the adjudicator’s decision. It goes on:

“An Adjudicator’s determination is binding and enforceable.”

I will come back to that point when I address the hon. Gentleman’s amendments in more detail.

On Ofqual, the power to fine would be used only where that was the most proportionate response to an incident of non-compliance with its conditions. As I have said, Ofqual will consult on the use of its power and will publish a full statement as part of its qualifications regulatory framework setting out how and under what circumstances the power will be used. That will make clear Ofqual’s expectation that only serious or persistent breaches will lead to a fine. Of course, it will allow 12 weeks for responses to that consultation.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Can my hon. Friend give examples of instances in which such a measure might have been triggered in the past?

[Mr Gibb]

The incidents I would cite are those from this summer when there were persistent errors. The persistence came, in particular, after we had asked the awarding organisations to check that there were no further errors. They did those checks and confirmed that there were none, but then further errors were discovered and damage was caused. That is an example of persistence in the errors we are trying to eliminate from the system.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked for an explanation regarding Lords amendments 89 to 91 about land. The Bill introduces new powers to transfer the publicly funded land of foundation and voluntary schools and academies to free schools and academies when those schools close or the land is to be otherwise disposed of. Lords amendments 89 to 91 reduce the reach of those new powers so that they do not apply to land that is leased to a new academy by a private landlord. Where we are engaging in commercial negotiations with private landlords for the lease of land to new free schools, we think it is more appropriate to protect any public investment in that land by contractual means rather than in statute.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the PFI issue and I am happy to restate the purpose of amendment 34. Under section 6(2) of the Academies Act 2010, a local authority “must cease to maintain” a school once it converts to academy status. Some banks and local authorities have asked whether that prohibition on maintenance might prevent a local authority from making a payment under PFI or other contracts. Our view is that local authorities have always been able to use their own resources to provide assistance, including financial assistance, to academies and to enter into contractual commitments and incur liabilities on their behalf. We are clear that section 6(2) of the Academies Act does not prevent the continuation of those activities. All academies are and will continue to be maintained by the Secretary of State under funding arrangements entered into under section 1 of the Academies Act, and any assistance provided by local authorities to academies, whether financial or otherwise, will only ever be a proportion of the total expense. Amendment 34 therefore confirms that local authorities can continue to make payments for academies under PFI and other contracts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Cardiff West raised the issue of direct payment pilots. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children and families, wrote to peers in the other place explaining the importance of introducing this new clause and consulted on the text of the draft clause, including in relation to special educational needs and disability organisations as well as local government interests. The principles behind the clause—greater choice and control for the families of children with SEN—are shared across the House. Indeed, the clause is modelled on legislation on the direct payment health pilots that were introduced by the previous Government. Let me reassure hon. Members that the orders needed to give practical effect to the clauses are subject to the affirmative procedure. These are, after all, powers concerning pilots rather than a national scheme and the clause has a sunset provision of four years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness asked about anyone being able to refer complaints to the adjudicator. We do not believe this change will lead to many more complaints. The regulations on which we are currently consulting will ensure that repetitive, vexatious or anonymous complaints cannot be made. I hope that will provide him with some reassurance. On the issue of spite, which he also raised, “anyone” does mean anyone, so it could be a school or a charity. The only proviso is that they must be willing to put their name to objections and to refer matters that are new or substantially new to the adjudicator.

My hon. Friend asked about consistency in the referral of misconduct cases by schools to the regulator. Evidence suggests that there is already variation in referrals despite the blanket duty on employers to refer all cases, and this duty has not been affected. Employers will know when a case of misconduct is serious enough potentially to require a referral from the profession, and they can use the draft prohibition guidance, which I can send to my hon. Friend, to help them make this decision. If a member of the public is not happy with the decision, they can refer a complaint to the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend also asked about Ofsted’s capacity to deliver more rigorous assessments. We have discussed and agreed the more rigorous risk assessment, and Ofsted has the resources necessary within its budget to achieve this. Every organisation has to prioritise its resources in the current economic climate and Ofsted is no different.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford for his continued and vocal support for academies and free schools. I assure him that it is right that admissions at academies and free schools must comply with the admissions code as set out in their funding agreements. As with all other state-funded schools, complaints about admissions will now go to the adjudicator.

My hon. Friend also raised concerns about particular families who do not adopt personal budgets—one third is the figure he cited—and the support they require. He argues for having pilots, and that is what the new clause does. I share his concerns about the possible burdens on families. That is why the pilots will look at the support available to families and how the system can be as straightforward as possible to use, as well as at which families take up those payments and which do not. On the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West made, cost-cutting is not a driver for this policy—it is about having greater choice and control.

On the issue of Ofqual and how the Conservatives could support a regime of fining by a regulator, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire set out the reasons why the qualifications market needs to be regulated. I should like to make it clear that turnover will be determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State and that Ofqual will consult on how the fining regime is to operate.

I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford and for Stevenage about primary schools. Primary national offer day will be 16 April. The idea is to co-ordinate the date rather than to put any new pressure on parents to get their children into certain primary schools. It merely makes things easier and less stressful for parents rather than more stressful.

Let me deal briefly with some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. He will know that we have listened carefully to the concerns expressed in this House and in the other place in response to our original intention to withdraw schools and colleges from the duty to co-operate. The evidence of that engagement is clear in these Lords amendments. We have removed the “duty to co-operate” clause as well as the clause that the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend regarding the children and young people’s plan.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23 relates to our plans to allow anyone to refer an objection to the schools adjudicator about the admissions arrangements at any state-funded school in the country. The amendment would require admissions authorities and others to comply with the adjudicator’s decision within 14 days of receiving written notice of that decision. Current legislation in this area, which was introduced by the Labour party, requires compliance to be forthwith. Let me assure the House once more that our changes to admissions do not affect the adjudicator’s power to consider and decide on the matter put to him and other matters as he sees fit, or to make binding decisions as a consequence. The amendment would impose a stringent national timetable for the implementation of such decisions. It is based on two false assumptions—first that schools do not wish to put things right, which they do, and secondly that all situations are the same, which they are not. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a Division.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for those comments, but can he firm up what he has said by making it clear from the Dispatch Box that he sees no reason why, in the vast majority of cases, the schools adjudicator’s ruling should not be implemented if not forthwith, then within a very short period of time and certainly not at the last possible moment?

19:00

[Mr Gibb]

I have already responded to the hon. Gentleman’s point by quoting paragraph 3.1 of the admissions code. That makes it very clear that these changes should be made as soon as possible and that they are binding.

On school governing bodies, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for speaking up for the key role governors play in schools and for the important work he is undertaking in establishing the all-party group on school governors. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) for his helpful intervention on staff and local authority governors and for his welcome for the amendments he has inspired. We have made concessions on staff and local authority governors, and I therefore hope the amendment in question will not be pressed.

Lords amendment 27 on the regulations specifying which schools are to be exempt from routine inspection was made because of a specific concern raised by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: that regulations made through the negative procedure could be extended beyond outstanding schools to whole categories of school—such as all academies or all faith schools—regardless of their inspection history, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. To provide reassurance on that, the Government propose that any subsequent changes to the first set of regulations, which have been made available to Members as indicative regulations since March, would require approval through the affirmative procedure. The amendment made in the other place will allow for appropriate scrutiny by Parliament. It is not necessary for the first set of regulations to be subject to that because it has been fully consulted on. We shall reflect on the points raised both in this debate and elsewhere before finalising those regulations.

I hope the amendments to the Lords amendments will not be pressed to a Division, and I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 26 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 16 and 23.

Clause 39

School inspections: exempt schools

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 27.—(Kevin Brennan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:03

Division 395

Ayes: 196

---

Labour: 191
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 284

---

Conservative: 237
Liberal Democrat: 46

Lords amendment 27 agreed to.

Clause 41

Inspection of further education institutions: exempt institutions

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 28.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient—

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

If the Minister could just hold himself back for a second, with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 29, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 36, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 39, 43, 47 to 71, 99 and 100.

[Mr Hayes]

My enthusiasm to rise to speak to the amendments is indicative of the thorough scrutiny that the Bill has enjoyed here and in the other place, and of the spirit in which that scrutiny has taken place.

If I may, I shall speak first to Lords amendments 47 to 71, which make important changes to schedule 12 and further strengthen the provisions that strip away unnecessary central controls over the governance and dissolution arrangements of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges.

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your usual assiduity, will have seen those provisions in the context of the Education Act 1944. In bringing that legislation to the House, the then President of the Board of Education as he was known, Rab Butler, said that it is not possible

“to start colleges ‘out of the blue,’… It is essential that the House should realise that direction by the State from the top is not the right way to administer this vast matter. What is wanted is to encourage the desires, appetites and feelings of those who wish for different forms of adult education and then to try to meet them as far as possible. As long as we follow that line, I can tell the House that it is our desire to reform and bring up to date the adult education system and to make a great stride forward in this regard.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1944; Vol. 399, c. 2261.]

Just as a stride forward was made then, so a stride forward is being made now, although I would not claim to be as great as that very noble and distinguished gentleman, Mr Butler.

In speaking to these amendments, however, the important thing to make clear is the Government’s absolute unwavering and unabridged commitment to the creation of a freer, more responsive further education and skills system—one that is based upon the principles of fairness, shared responsibility and freedom from central Government controls.

I say that not for any doctrinaire reason, but simply because of this enduring truth: unless we make the system sufficiently nimble to respond to dynamic demand, it will not be fit for purpose. Through the Bill, and in that spirit, we propose to remove a raft of unnecessary and prescriptive duties and to reduce the control of the Government and their agencies over the affairs of colleges.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I have written a letter to the Minister on what he has been saying about apprenticeships and supply and demand for apprenticeship places. I am not talking about funding because we have had the debate about the Government providing funding; I am talking about employment opportunities. Is he aware that a training provider called the Liverpool Construction Academy in my constituency is due to close its doors on 25 November, with the loss of hundreds of apprenticeship opportunities and the jobs that go with them?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of apprenticeships, having been an apprentice himself. He understands the value of apprenticeships in providing people with the skills not only to get a job, but to lead more fulfilled lives. I hear what he says about his particular constituency interest and he will expect me to respond in a similar spirit by saying that I am more than happy to meet him to discuss that matter in some detail. However, I am sure he understands that you will not allow me to go into great detail about that tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I applaud what my hon. Friend has said so far. Does he appreciate that there is an ongoing demand for apprenticeships, particularly in the historic vehicle restoration movement, where expertise is needed? Any burning of red tape in that industry that would lead people to take on more apprenticeships would be most welcome.

[Mr Hayes]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a valued, wise and richly-coloured contribution to our affairs. His expertise in that field is unparalleled in this House and, of course, I take his recommendation seriously; indeed, he has raised the issue with me already. As he knows, I can tell the House that I am taking up the matter with an assiduity that is a mere token compared with his diligence, which has brought him such prowess in this place and elsewhere.

[Mr Knight]

Although I am delighted at what the Minister has said about me, I suppose he and I ought to declare an interest because we both may need the services of future apprentices in maintaining our historic vehicles.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right. We ought to declare that we share an interest in that topic and that we might have some personal interest in ensuring that there are sufficient craft skills to maintain our historic vehicles—although his demands in those terms are considerably more numerous than mine.

The sector has welcomed the proposals to offer colleges more freedom. Colleges have long called for such an approach. In the long years that I spent in the shadows before the electorate elevated me to the light, I remember hearing from colleges across the country that they hoped, wished and longed for a Government who would recognise that power is best vested in the hands of those closest to where it is exercised. Colleges should be able to respond to their learners and employers in the way the Bill facilitates. It is therefore unsurprising that, in the public evidence sessions of the Bill, the Association of Colleges said in written evidence that the legislative requirements removed by the Bill,

“will strengthen rather than diminish the historic community role of Colleges and strengthen the importance of strong governance”.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Lords amendments 47 to 71, changes which I recognise were made late in the Bill’s passage through the other place, have been made in the context of a changed further education landscape. In October 2010, the Office for National Statistics announced its decision to reclassify FE colleges to the public sector for the purposes of the national accounts. That decision exposes colleges to the full rigours of the Government expenditure regime and means that they will lose the flexibility to phase expenditure between different financial years and that they will need to work within a financial year that does not line up with their academic year. Such a decision also makes it likely that the very freedoms that were introduced to enable them to borrow without seeking permission will need to be taken away from them, and that even tighter constraints will need to be introduced.

I would like to thank Baroness Sharp for raising those issues in the context of the sterling work she is doing as chair of the inquiry into colleges in their communities. In debating these important amendments, it is vital for me to emphasise the significance of the ONS decision. We were already well on the way to freeing the sector from some of the diktats, bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation that had so hampered and inhibited people from exercising their long-cherished desire to respond proactively to the interests of learners in the way I have described. Nevertheless, the ONS’s reclassification has turned our desire into an imperative and we are working closely to try to persuade it to rethink that classification, because it will have profound effects on the FE sector. The late changes made in the other place, which we are debating for the first time in this House today, were made because of that ONS classification. Those and other controls would all act as significant barriers to college growth and would stifle innovation and creativity in our further education sector. As I said, it is our intention to make the necessary legislative and administrative changes to encourage the ONS to reclassify colleges back to the private sector which, as my noble friend Lord Hill said in the other place, is where successive Governments have wished them to be.

I want to mention the ability that Lords amendments 49, 58 and 69 will give colleges to modify or replace their instruments and articles of governance. In the world I have described—the picture I have painted—the additional freedoms that colleges will enjoy necessitate a new approach to governance. We need colleges to rise to the occasion. I am confident that they will, but it is partly a case of rethinking how colleges are governed. Colleges will continue to be required to comply with a statutory governance framework, but that has been significantly simplified to allow colleges the freedom to decide how best to shape their governance arrangements to meet the needs of their learners, employers and the local community.

May I say a word about the work that the Association of Colleges is doing in that regard? The association is working on a set of model instruments and articles that are framed in the new environment of greater discretion and freedom. There is immense human capital in colleges but, too often, it has been locked up because of the approach taken by previous Governments. There was a view that it was best to dictate, predict and provide from the centre. That is not this Government’s view. For example, as a result of the amendments, colleges will no longer have to seek the Government’s permission to add more members to their governing body or to determine whether a job vacancy should be advertised nationally.

Those are important aspects of a college’s governance, but they are not things in which the state should be involved. The use of that power will not be compulsory. If colleges are content that their existing arrangements support them to meet the needs of local learners and employers, they will not have to change them. The benefit of the changes is that the decision over when and how colleges exercise those powers sits firmly with them. I mentioned that such measures have been welcomed by colleges themselves. They were, for the most part, also warmly welcomed in the other place.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The Minister is making an excellent speech on the amendments. Will he tell us whether the Lords amendments will make it easier for colleges to work in partnership with schools or to offer and perhaps enrol pupils themselves at secondary level? He may know about a college in my area that wanted to enrol pupils but could not do so unless it went through the pupil referral unit route and they were classed as excluded. Will these changes make it easier for a college to work in partnership with schools in the local area?

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that these changes will enable colleges to form new kinds of partnerships and collaborations with other institutions in the sector and beyond, with businesses, and with a whole range of community-based organisations. I see this as an opportunity for a more eclectic system that is as different as the needs of each locality. I do not want to see a vanilla-flavoured product dictated from the centre; I do not want that kind of ugly ubiquity to characterise our further education system.

19:30

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Hayes]

On the point of ugly ubiquity, I happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Bob Stewart]

In my constituency we have Bromley college, and I have been speaking to people there. Will these changes allow Bromley college to control more properly the fees that it has to charge? At the moment, it is affiliated to Greenwich university and is being forced to charge fees that it does not want to charge, which is very much against the spirit of what we are trying to do. Can it have the freedom to seek other partnerships in the way that we have been discussing—for ordinary degrees, for example? There must be some way in which colleges, which we all want to charge the minimum fees, can actually charge those minimum fees rather than be forced to raise them.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is the very antithesis of both ugliness and ubiquity; indeed, he is known for his integrity and truthfulness. As Keats understood, and Shaftesbury in the other place later, truth and beauty are intrinsically linked, and so my hon. Friend’s truthfulness has an aesthetic all of its own. On the specific point that he raises, the way in which colleges have, over time, been dictated to and controlled from the centre has largely been about funding mechanisms. Colleges have danced to a tune set around funding. He is absolutely right to say that greater freedom means being more flexible about funding. It means allowing colleges to devise the kind of offer that is right for their locality in the kinds of partnerships that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) described, and funding needs to reflect that.

We are on a journey, and not all of it can be done overnight. When I came into the job, I was able to put in place a number of important changes that stripped away some of the central control. Since that time, we have done more, and these amendments go a step further. But this is not the end of the journey. The destination we seek is what I began to describe a moment ago—a more eclectic, more responsive and more dynamic system. I am not, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, one to overstate my virtues, but I would go so far as to say that what we are doing in further education is a model of public service reform: a deregulated system that is free to respond to local circumstances; dynamic and innovative; flexible and, in my judgment, imaginative—I make no apology for using that word—about exactly what it does and how it does it; and uses funding to feed that kind of new beginning. As I said, though, I do not want to overstate the case.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hayes]

Once more, and then I must return to my notes.

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend could see one of the reasons for the need for flexibility if he came to visit Beverley, as I have frequently invited him to do, where our excitement grows with each delay until he does so. He would see the area where the new East Riding college was to have been built but, because of the mess that was made of FE capital funding under the previous Administration, it looks like a bomb site in the middle of Beverley. As we move forward with these freedoms and with the excellent leadership that we have at East Riding college, I hope that we will see the college on that site in the near future.

[Mr Hayes]

Every day a new invitation for me to visit a different part of the country arrives, each one more seductive than the last, but none more attractive than the overtures of my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee. Tonight I will do what I rarely do in the House: I commit, from the Dispatch Box, to visit his college, because he has made this case so frequently and persuasively that I feel that I have been less than generous in my response thus far. I will certainly come to look at the specific circumstances that he described in his—as usual—pithy and well-informed intervention.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way once more to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole and then I must return to my text.

[Andrew Percy]

Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) has seduced the Minister into visiting East Riding, can he, while he is there, show us a bit of ankle and come to visit Goole as well?

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Perhaps I may help the Minister by saying that if he returns to his notes, his diary might not get so full.

[Mr Hayes]

That is wise advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is taken in the spirit in which it is given.

[Mr Knight]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

No, I will make a little progress, if I may, and then I will give way again.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I have made it clear that I am not going to give way at this juncture, because I fear that my right hon. Friend is trying to encourage me to stray, but I will give way to him in a few moments when I have made a little more progress.

There was a debate in the other place on the importance of staff and student governors in colleges. Ensuring strong staff and student representation on a governing body is of importance to me. During the passage of the Bill, I have had positive discussions with the National Union of Students and the University and College Union on this subject, as has my noble Friend Lord Hill. We were anxious to ensure that staff and student involvement helped not only to inform good practice in colleges but to shape the offer in those colleges. As a result of those discussions, we continue to require colleges to have such governors on their boards. The House will want to be reminded that this requirement was warmly supported by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who was

“pleased…that this commitment”

was

“honoured in both spirit and practice in the amendment”

that was brought before the Lords and that we are discussing this evening. In fact, Baroness Jones went further and acknowledged that our amendment

“is indeed better than that tabled by those on our own Benches on this issue”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 332.]

How often does one receive a tribute as generous, but as deserved, as that?

I now happily give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight).

[Mr Knight]

I am most grateful to the Minister, who is being very generous in giving way. He spoke earlier about taking us on a journey, and even earlier he quoted Rab Butler. May I remind him of what Rab Butler said about journeys—that it is best to get off the train before it hits the buffers? With the light-touch approach that the Minister is suggesting, is there not a danger that some colleges may move assets overseas, to the detriment of the British taxpayer?

[Mr Hayes]

It is true, of course, that as we free up the system, some of the controls that have previously been in place—some of the levers that the Government could pull—will no longer be there. Frankly, however, I have to say to my right hon. Friend, to whose assiduity, eloquence and wisdom I have previously paid tribute, that if the price of freedom is that loss of control, it is a price worth paying for the benefit it brings in the kind of innovation, exercise of imagination, responsiveness and dynamism to which I drew the House’s attention earlier. That was certainly the view of the other place and, in general terms, the view of the Committee as we went through the Bill. There is growing cross-party acknowledgement that we can no longer predict and provide—that we do indeed need to create a more responsive system. I say that because the character of our economy is changing. Economic need is increasingly dynamic, and a system that is controlled from the centre would never be sufficiently nimble to respond to that commercial need. That is now widely acknowledged. The difference is that we are going about this with purpose, energy and enthusiasm.

Let me return to staff and student representation. It is important that we see the statutory requirement that I have described merely as a baseline. There are all kinds of other good things that we can do in terms of staff and student representation, but representation on governing bodies, it was argued persuasively, should be a baseline. Lords amendment 51 extends those changes to institutions that are not college corporations, but that have been designated by legislation to receive public money for the provision of further education. It would come into effect should they decide to change their existing instruments and articles.

Lords amendments 50 and 58 give colleges the power to close themselves, which is known as dissolution. Currently, only the Secretary of State can dissolve a college. The amendments remove that power from the Secretary of State and give colleges control over their own dissolution. Colleges will also have the ability to transfer their property, rights and liabilities to another person or body for the purposes of education. These amendments and the regulations that will be laid in support of them include a number of safeguards to ensure that any dissolution decision is taken only when all those affected—staff, students and the local community —have been properly consulted, and that the process will be transparent, recognising that colleges are providers of an important public service.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who is not in his place, but who was a diligent member of the Committee, raised questions about the likelihood that colleges would fail with these new freedoms. There is no evidence to suggest that the extra freedoms will increase the risk of failure. Notwithstanding what I said about the growing understanding of the need to allow colleges to be more locally responsive, it is worrying that there are those who believe that colleges will not rise to the challenge of the new freedoms and who believe that only through central Government control can we give the necessary protection to the common interest, which I have no doubt was in the heart of the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he is right. Colleges have shown time and again that when they are given the opportunity to be their best, unrestricted, they can be so.

I am keen to address that point in more detail in relation to the amendments. Further education is a high-performing sector, with more than 95% of colleges judged satisfactory or better. Sometimes further education has been treated as what Sir Andrew Foster described as the “neglected middle child” of education, somewhere between schools and higher education. I see it more as the prodigal son, and not just that, but the prodigal son grown up. I want further education to be a favoured part of our education system because of the difference it makes to so many lives. The important thing is to ensure that where problems occur, there are robust monitoring and support systems so that colleges are given the opportunity and help to recover. It is right that we have in place the proper protections from failure because, as I have described, public interest is involved. A great deal of taxpayers’ money is involved too. However, we should not get to the point of creating an immense infrastructure to manage the college sector.

I think that it is correct to say, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, that after incorporation and the freedoms that colleges enjoyed as a result, we responded in a heavy handed way to the occasional, rare incidents of failure. It is reasonable to conclude that the advent and actuality of the Learning and Skills Council was an overreaction to the challenges associated with the new freedoms.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the Minister explain in more detail the process for consulting the local community, if a college fails or chooses to dissolve itself? I know he has said that that will be set out in regulations, but will he give us some idea of the robustness of the consultation that he has in mind?

[Mr Hayes]

In those exceptional circumstances, I would expect the consultation to be as full as possible. By that I mean that the views of all parties with a direct interest in the college’s affairs, including the local businesses engaged with the college, local learners and the wider community—the family associated with the college—should be sought fully over a proper timetable. Whatever means are necessary should be used to access those opinions.

19:45

Those circumstances will be rare, but I give an absolute assurance that the consultation will be full, fair and frank; that no action will be taken that would endanger the interests of the people whom I have described; and that the Government will play their part in ensuring that that takes place. As I have said, further details will be available to the House when regulations are laid.

As I have said, 95% of colleges improve after receiving support, but in the rare cases where recovery is not achieved and there is evidence of significant mismanagement, legislation gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene as a matter of last resort. I hope that that assures my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that the protection of students and public investment is of fundamental importance. Although we are creating a very different regime for colleges, we will not neglect our duties in that regard.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I would like to take the Minister back to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). In East Yorkshire, the Harrier was developed with a lot of taxpayers’ money and then shipped abroad to become an American aeroplane. We rather fear that the Hawk will follow. Will the Minister reassure us, in more specific terms than he used in response to my right hon. Friend, that a college will not be so free that it can leave the country with its assets, if it suits the organisation rather than the needs of the taxpayers?

[Mr Hayes]

As I have said, where public interest is in jeopardy, the Secretary of State will retain powers under the Bill to intervene as necessary. I paid tribute to my hon. Friend a few moments ago for his patient endurance in respect of my forthcoming visit to Beverley. It was Ruskin who said,

“Endurance is nobler than strength, and patience than beauty.”

We can therefore take it that my hon. Friend is a patient endurer, more noble than strength and beauty. It is likely that the circumstance he describes would happen only rarely, but it is important that when a college wishes to transfer its property, rights and liabilities to another provider, the Secretary of State retains the kind of powers that he requested.

Lords amendments 53, 56 and 62 reinstate statutory safeguards relating to the specific governance and constitutional arrangements of voluntary sixth-form colleges that were inadvertently removed by the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act. It was the previous Government’s view that legislation should reflect the distinct constitutional position of voluntary sixth-form colleges, and they confirmed that they would look to reinstate those protections through legislation. We agree with that view, and it is what the amendments do. The new provisions cover what was afforded by previous legislation or Secretary of State directions.

As Members know, I am a keen advocate of freeing colleges from central prescription, direction and control. Such things inhibit a college’s ability to become the master of its own destiny and stifle innovation and growth in our further education sector. The changes in the Bill will enable the Government to present the best case possible to encourage the Office for National Statistics to review its decision to reclassify colleges into the public sector. However, we are not merely responding to the ONS; we began this programme of reform long before we knew about the ONS reclassification. Indeed, it was one of the first things that I set out when I became a Minister. The changes that we have made in the Bill, including the ones that we have introduced at a later stage, are entirely in the spirit of the policy direction set out in the skills strategy which I published, following extensive consultation, last autumn. Indeed, they are in the spirit of the further consultation in which we were involved over the summer, which will lead to the publication of “New Challenges, New Chances”.

The truth is that the ONS reclassification has been a further spur to us, but has not caused us to change direction. If anything, it has cemented our determination to consider every aspect of college management and every means by which we could free colleges from bureaucracy and direction. That fresh thinking has inspired the changes that have been made to the Bill.

As I have said, the changes, and our efforts to secure the private sector reclassification of colleges, have been welcomed, not least by the Association of Colleges. It considers that they will provide colleges with additional flexibility, allowing them to respond effectively to their local community and economy. I should like to place on record my gratitude to the Association of Colleges for its guidance and support, and indeed for how it has challenged us, in helping the Government develop this impressive legislation.

Lords amendments 28, 29 and 39 concern the business of colleges and inspection. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, the report that the previous Government commissioned from Sir Andrew Foster. I have a copy of the summary here. They asked him to examine the potential of further education, and he concluded that the landscape that it faced was

“crowded with organisations charged with inspection, improvement or regulatory functions. There is unnecessary complexity and duplication of effort and further rationalisation is required.”

He also recognised, I think, that we needed to rethink how colleges were gauged, inspected and monitored. Knowing that we had some outstanding further education colleges in this country, we decided that the time was right to look afresh at inspection and regulation.

In that context, some of the comments that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), made about schools pertain to colleges too. He dealt with the issue of the inspection of schools earlier this evening, and some of the same principles apply to colleges. In my visits to colleges across the country, I have continually been impressed by the quality of teaching, the standard of learning and the innovative systems that colleges put in place to maximise learners’ potential.

Lords amendments 28 to 30 provide for greater parliamentary scrutiny of regulations exempting further education colleges from inspections, by requiring that all regulations except the first set be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that both Houses can be assured that a full debate will happen before further colleges are exempted. We decided very early on that we wanted to limit the inspection of further education colleges, as we did in the case of schools. However, it is important that that exemption is qualified in the way that I have described. The Prime Minister spoke today of coasting schools, and nor do we want to see any coasting colleges. Although there is little evidence of them, it is important that the House can debate the matter as further exemptions take root.

I turn to Lords amendments 36, 43 and 100, which put the legal framework for apprenticeships on a more sustainable and realistic footing. I need not regale the House at length with how passionately I support apprenticeships—at least, not for more than a few minutes. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have championed apprenticeships both in opposition and in government, and the Government have turned our rhetoric into action by delivering the biggest growth in apprenticeships in modern times. I have said before, and I am happy to say now, that there is more work to be done. As we make that growth sustainable, we will need to consider bureaucracy and the quality and age spread of apprenticeships. It is absolutely right that we should do that, but let us not understate the growth that we have seen—29% growth in under-19 apprenticeships and 64% growth in 19-to-24 apprenticeships over two years, and a big jump in post-25 apprenticeships.

It is important to say that the previous Government had the same aims. Many times, previous Ministers, including the previous Prime Minister, estimated the likely jump in the number of apprenticeships and the number that would be necessary to fill skills gaps. However, this Government are actually delivering. We are making more opportunities available to more people to add to their skills, which will increase their chances of getting, keeping and progressing in jobs. We know from independent research that someone who has a level 2 apprenticeship is likely to earn £70,000 more over their earning lifetime than somebody who has not, and that somebody with a level 3 apprenticeship is likely to earn more than £100,000 more. That is roughly equivalent to a degree.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the amazing increase in apprenticeships that he has outlined. I met my local college, Stourbridge college, and other colleges last week, and they reported a huge increase in apprenticeships over the past six months. Is he aware of another route into apprenticeships, which emerged during a meeting that I had the previous week with Stourbridge jobcentre? It reported that among 18 to 24-year-olds a route in was via two-week work experience placements. In many cases, they were being converted into apprenticeships.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. It is very interesting to hear of the extensive commitment that the Minister has personally to apprenticeships, and indeed to hear the point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) has made, but we are discussing Lords amendments. Although Lords amendment 36 is about securing the provision of apprenticeships in certain regulations, the debate is going a little wide of that. Perhaps the Minister could relate his comments to the amendments.

[Mr Hayes]

I was not going to be encouraged to speak lyrically about work experience, although I could, but I hear and value what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) says.

Amendments 36, 43 and 100 deal specifically with the so-called apprenticeship offer. As I said, apprenticeships play a key role in promoting growth and prosperity in British business and give renewed hope and purpose to our young people, who are so affected by the present climate. Through the Bill, we are redefining the apprenticeship offer. We are moving away from what I regard as an unrealistic guarantee that sought to require the Government to tell employers whom they should and should not employ. The previous Government took the view that the House could place a duty on the chief executive of skills funding to fund apprenticeships for anyone who wanted them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) intervenes from a sedentary position, but he knows that in practice, the previous offer was undeliverable. There was much discussion of this matter in the other place. I pay tribute in particular to Lord Layard, who made this case forcefully and with whom I have enjoyed many discussions. He also writes persuasively about happiness —I read a recent essay from him on that subject. Happiness is all of our aims, is it not, individually and communally?

20:03

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hayes]

Is this about happiness?

[Mr Stuart]

I am always focused on happiness. I thought I could increase the Minister’s sense of contentment if I attempted to correct him. Under the previous situation, there was an obligation not to fund an apprenticeship for anyone who wanted it but to provide one, outwith any ability necessarily to ensure that an employer came forward. That is why the Minister and the Government were right to make that alteration, not withstanding the complaints of Opposition Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman got his point on the record, but we are not debating the previous Government’s record or apprenticeships generally; we are debating amendments on quite narrow points in the Bill. I know the Minister is really eager to come back to that.

[Mr Hayes]

As you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are debating the character of the apprenticeship offer. This Government take the view that we need further to refine the legal framework for apprenticeships. The debate on this subject in the other place was on the character of that duty. Lords amendment 36 places a new duty on the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to make reasonable efforts to secure employer involvement in apprenticeships. That is so important because we have changed assumptions of the nature of apprenticeships. We take the view that apprenticeships should intrinsically involve employment—making an offer separate from employment seemed nonsensical.

I make that point because until relatively recently, some apprenticeships—programme-led apprenticeships, for example—were not tied to employment in quite the same way. Lords amendment 36 was the outcome of a great deal of hard work and good will, as I have described. The overtures made to me by Lords Layard, Wakeham, Willis and Sutherland persuaded the Government and my noble Friends to devise an amendment that satisfies the wishes of those who want to place a clear duty in the Bill, but not one that the Government think is undeliverable.

Although I know some feel that I have summarised the Lords amendments all too briefly, those amendments put apprenticeships, the freedoms about which I have spoken, the changed inspection regime, the different role for the Government, the new emphasis on skills, and the mantra—I decidedly and deliberately put it that clearly—of freedom, flexibility, innovation and dynamism, at the very heart of this legislation. I think they improve the Bill significantly and I look forward to hearing whether the Opposition think so too.

[Stephen Twigg]

It is always a great pleasure to speak opposite the Minister in such important debates. This is my first opportunity to do so from the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister reminded us that my noble Friend Lord Layard has written about happiness, about which he is an international expert, alongside my constituent Ken Dodd, who has been writing and singing about such matters for a very long time.

The Opposition have serious wider concerns about the Bill, some of which, including on schools, were addressed in the debate on the previous group of amendments. Other concerns, including those on information, advice, guidance and the careers service, are outside the scope of today’s debate. I should like to focus on inspection, governance and apprenticeships. I echo many of the things the Minister said, and in particular his positive comments on the role of the Association of Colleges, and I look forward to attending its conference in Birmingham later this week.

I also echo what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said about the importance of partnerships between further education colleges and the wider education system, including schools. In the debate on the previous group, we discussed the importance of co-operation and collaboration alongside autonomy and competition. We often discuss school-to-school and college-to-college co-operation and collaboration, but there is great scope for further co-operation and collaboration between schools and the further education sector.

Let me address the inspection of further education institutions. All hon. Members are seeking to strike a balance between autonomy and inspection—this is a similar debate to the one on schools, as the Minister said. Lords amendments 28 and 29 have much the same effect as Lords amendments 26 and 27. The former relate to further education institutions and the latter to schools.

The Opposition have a number of concerns that echo those we raised about schools, although they are not exactly the same. I should like briefly to put some of them on the record; they have been raised in previous stages both in this House and in the other place. We are concerned that exempting certain further education colleges from inspection will undermine the campaign for high standards in those institutions, and in particular we fear that the Government’s approach is simply to rely on a market effect, which could let down, for example, students who are currently studying. Their institution could struggle and yet nothing will be done, and there is no trigger for them to make an inspection happen. It is possible—we debated this with respect to schools—for a further education institution that at one time was high performing to slip for some reason. The lack of an inspection regime in such a situation could be a major challenge.

The new Ofsted chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was quoted in the previous debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). The chief executive’s point was about schools, but it applies to further education colleges as well—the principle is much the same. The conditions that would render a further education institution exempt from inspection are not clear. If the Minister has the opportunity, with the leave of the House later, I should like him to clarify the Government’s thinking on when a further education college will be deemed exempt.

I understand that that thinking will be set out in regulations, but Lords amendments 28 and 29 mean that all regulations apart from the first set made under section (5) of the Education Act 2005 must be subject to the affirmative procedure. There is no requirement for an affirmative resolution the very first time the exemption criteria are outlined. I invite the Minister to explain his reasoning for that and to assure us that the measure is not simply being rushed through because of Ofsted’s budget situation. Given the seriousness of the step that is being taken, and the lack of public consultation on it, the Opposition believe that there should be an affirmative resolution the first time as well as on subsequent occasions, and have tabled an amendment to that effect.

The Minister referred to issues of governance. As Lord Hill acknowledged on Report in the Lords, Labour peers, led by my noble Friend from the Labour Front Bench, Baroness Jones, made important arguments on this issue. Labour Front Benchers in the other place tabled an amendment to reinstate the rights of students and staff to be represented on further education colleges’ governing bodies. As the Minister outlined, the Government brought forward an amendment on Third Reading in the other place to guarantee governing body places for staff and students. Lord Hill said:

“It may help if I inform noble Lords of discussions between the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my honourable friend, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning”—

the Minister—on her amendment to

“retain requirements for staff and student governors…The Government have brought forward these changes to support our case for the private sector classification for colleges, in accordance with the policy of successive Governments. It was not our intention to encourage colleges to remove staff or student governors from college governance arrangements. I know that colleges greatly value the contribution that those governors make.

Having listened to the arguments that were put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones…my honourable friend”—

the Minister—

“and I have spoken further. We have decided that the Government will return at Third Reading with their own amendment, which will give effect to what the noble Baroness's amendment seeks to achieve.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1135.]

Let me thank the Minister for his generous tribute to my noble Friend and also echo her thanks and appreciation to him and his colleagues in the Department for this important change to the legislation. Participation in the governance of FE colleges is an important part of student citizenship, as well as contributing to good governance. I would like also to put on the record our appreciation to the National Union of Students for its excellent work on ensuring that the relevant amendments were agreed.

Nobody in this House could doubt the Minister’s personal commitment to apprenticeships. We welcome the amendments that impose a duty on the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to make reasonable efforts to secure employers’ participation in apprenticeship training for all young people in the specified groups covered by the redefined offer—that is, 16 to 18-year-olds and 19 to 24-year-olds with a disability or learning difficulty assessment, as well as young care leavers. Without those amendments, the Bill would have simply taken opportunities away from our young people. The Minister mentioned the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) in Committee, where he said that the clause in question represented a wholesale degrading in the value the Government place on apprenticeships; that it is a retrospective step, stopping the duty to create apprenticeships for suitably qualified people; and that instead of creating jobs, transferring skills to young people, and boosting the economy, this clause does the exact opposite.

Lords amendment 36 is a significant improvement, but we believe that there is scope to go further. As the Minister has set out, under the legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government, the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency had a duty to secure an apprenticeship place for every suitably qualified person within certain specified categories. The previous Labour Government’s policy was that the agency was under a duty to find an apprenticeship for every qualified young person who wanted one. They had to be given two choices about the sector that they wished to enter. That was removed in the original draft of the Bill, but as the Minister has said, a cross-party group of peers, led my noble Friend Lord Layard, achieved an important Government concession that required the agency to make reasonable efforts to involve employers in apprenticeship training, which has led to Lords amendment 36, which we welcome.

The amendment was a cross-party amendment, tabled in the names of Lord Layard, Lord Wakeham, Lord Willis of Knaresborough and Lord Sutherland. Lord Layard said in the other place:

“If you look at the situation in our country, it is clear that academic young people are offered a clear route to a skill and a useful role in society. They can see where they are going. That is not the case for less academic young people. There is no clear route that they can see they are entitled to go down. The result is low levels of skills and a degree of alienation…If you look at this from a young person’s point of view, we are raising the education participation age. It is quite difficult to see how we are going to be able to do that in a way that is acceptable to young people unless these apprenticeship places are available to them. We need legislation that states the main aims of our education system. For that 16 to 19 year-old group, we have a lacuna. We cannot fill it by ministerial statements and assurances, as Ministers come and go. We expect the basic structure of our educational system to be reflected in the laws of the country.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2011; Vol. 731, c. GC274.]

20:15

I make no apology for quoting Lord Layard at some length, because he set out a challenge for us all, in all parts of the House, to address the issue—it is not a new issue, but one that none of us has got right in decades of trying—of how we provide a high quality route for those who will not necessarily follow the route into higher education. Through our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 36, we would like to strengthen the slightly moderate language used in the Government’s nevertheless important concession. My concern is about what will count as “reasonable efforts”. In particular, what rights of redress will young people have when they cannot get an apprenticeship and do not think that reasonable efforts have been made?

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend has outlined the move in emphasis away from securing employment for every qualified person and towards involvement with employers. Will he join me in congratulating Liverpool city council, for instance, which has decided to use an innovative model to create 2,000 new apprentices?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in congratulating Liverpool city council, which, despite one of the worst funding settlements from central Government, has been able to create a new programme. I thank him for that opportunity, although I am in grave danger of moving beyond the scope of this debate, so I shall return to my speech.

Our amendment would change the term “reasonable” in Lords amendment 36 to “best”. In contract law, making a “best effort” requires a higher level of commitment than making a “reasonable effort”. Our amendment would place a greater duty on the chief executive to secure employer participation in apprenticeships for the specified groups and would reintroduce, in part, the previous Government’s commitment, which placed a duty on the chief executive to find an apprenticeship for all who wanted one.

This is a major challenge for us all. In a recent speech, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set out a new policy on apprenticeships, giving a commitment that in future all major Government contracts should

“go to firms who commit to training the next generation with decent apprenticeships,”

and that none should

“go to those who don’t.”

I invite the Minister today to consider making a similar commitment on behalf of the Government. I seek assurances from him about how the new clause proposed by Lords amendment 36 will be implemented in the context of the Government’s broader approach to apprenticeships. For example, concerns have been raised about Train to Gain places being replaced or rebadged as apprenticeships. Today we have seen early coverage in the media of a report—to which I understand the Minister has contributed—by the Institute for Public Policy Research, due to be published later this week, setting out concerns that younger people are not getting a fair share of the increase in apprenticeships. I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck, and we very much welcome older workers having the opportunity to take up apprenticeships, but with youth unemployment almost certainly set to hit 1 million this week, we need to maintain the important focus on young people and the opportunity that is provided by having an apprenticeship place.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a thoughtful speech. In light of his amendment (a) to Lords amendment 36, which seeks to ensure that the chief executive should try to make reasonable efforts to secure employers’ participation, does he agree that we would not wish this or any other Government to get on the hook over the numbers? We must maximise the numbers, but also ensure that we have quality. If we have apprenticeships that do not lead to a major improvement in the earning potential of the young people in question, we will have betrayed them. If courses do not last long enough to give them the skills to raise their value in the market place, we will have betrayed them. It is important not only to provide opportunities, but to ensure that they are valuable opportunities that deliver lifelong benefits.

[Stephen Twigg]

I found myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Gentleman had to say in the earlier debate on schools, as I do with what he has just said. He makes a critical point, which enables me to bring my remarks to a close. Clearly, with 1 million young people unemployed, having high-quality apprenticeships is going to be a vital part of a strategy to address that problem, but it must not become simply a numbers game. I would like apprenticeships to become the gold standard of vocational education. I attended an Edge Foundation event a few weeks ago and made the point that it would be wonderful if the parents of a 17 or 18-year-old who gets an apprenticeship were as proud of their daughter or son getting that apprenticeship as they would have been of them getting into higher education. That should be what we aspire towards, and at the heart of that is quality, as the hon. Gentleman said.

[Mr Stuart]

In the light of the requirement to try to secure places, does the hon. Gentleman agree that apprenticeships need to be for a decent period and that an important part of making them work for employers—thus being provided and sustained in the long term—is that the rate of pay should not be too high? The aim should be to make the ticket at the end the valuable part; that is when the benefit comes. Keeping the rate of pay relatively low and ensuring that it lasts for a decent long time will mean that the apprenticeship will work for the company and that at the other end the young person will earn considerably more money.

[Stephen Twigg]

I might be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me say that the quality of the education and training elements of the apprenticeship are vital. What we must not do, however, is allow apprenticeships to become a form of exploitation. A balance has to be struck. Clearly, an apprenticeship should be first and foremost about quality education and training, but with a decent amount of pay, too, for those who are apprentices.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. These are very important issues. I do not believe that any Opposition Member doubts the personal commitment of the Minister, particularly on apprenticeships. We have concerns that we have expressed previously about the impact of other changes—the abolition of the education maintenance allowance and the trebling of tuition fees—and we would be very concerned if there was any weakening of the apprenticeship brand. Let us perhaps forge a cross-party national consensus to the effect that we want apprenticeships to increase in number, but more importantly we want to see them as a high-quality gold standard for those young people who follow a vocational route of education.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) raised a number of points, which I shall try to address in my closing remarks. I would like to speak first to amendment (a) to Lords Amendment 29, under which the first as well as any subsequent regulations exempting certain providers from Ofsted inspection in particular circumstances would be subject to the affirmative procedure. The hon. Gentleman asked me particularly to address those matters.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has already spoken about a related amendment to the schools inspection exemption. The same intentions lay behind the exemption for further education providers and our plan, in essence, is to exempt outstanding colleges. I will listen, however, to the points raised. I do not have a dogmatic view on this matter, and as we move to a lighter-touch inspection regime, it is important to do so with appropriate caution.

I would like to deal with one particular concern. Where students feel that an outstanding institution is not maintaining high standards, Ofsted will take very seriously any comments students might make as part of the risk assessment, which could trigger an inspection. My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about the risk assessment process, and it is important that it is tied closely to the view of students about the quality of teaching and learning in an institution.

I spoke to the National Union of Students today about representation on college governing bodies, which we discussed when we dealt with the amendments to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby also referred. As I described earlier, we view such representation as a baseline. Representation on governing bodies does not provide the whole answer for learner or staff engagement. Learners and staff should be engaged at a policy level in plotting the strategic direction of a college. As we move to a more freed-up system, so learner choice and learner judgment will play an increasingly critical role in how colleges evolve. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the process. We are moving ahead boldly, but cautiously. At this juncture, it is probably best for me to leave that there.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 36 would require the chief executive of skills funding to make “best” efforts rather than “reasonable” efforts in respect of apprenticeships. Of course I understand the intention to strengthen the focus on the delivery of this important objective. It is crucial to maintain and, indeed, improve the quality of apprenticeships while we grow their number. When something grows rapidly, it obviously creates a pressure on quality. Inevitably, the momentum will lead to more employers and more providers becoming involved and more individuals becoming apprentices—including people who might not have done so if the system was smaller. I believe that places an extra responsibility on us to ensure that the integrity of the brand is retained by an appropriate emphasis on quality, and as I said on the Floor of the House a few days ago in a different debate on a different subject, we will do that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is right to say that this amendment, and his argument about it, draws attention to the issue of quality. The debate in the other place and the discussions to which he referred—I pay tribute once again to Lord Layard and others—helped us to concentrate our thinking on maintaining and improving the quality of the apprenticeships offered.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of apprenticeships going on to level 3 is a big indicator of quality and that we want more apprentices getting to level 2 to go on to level 3? Has he given any more thought to providing a more flexible level 3 offer for 16 and 17-year-olds who often find that, if they want to go on to level 3 after completing level 2, the funding gets cut in the current system?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby spoke a little about the age spread of apprenticeships in arguing for his amendment. Although he did not deal particularly with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) just raised, this is not the first time that my hon. Friend has mentioned it. It is important to devise a system that maximises the prospect of progression, in the way that he describes.

The good news is that the biggest proportion of growth in the numbers that were drawn to the House’s attention a week or so ago was in level 3 apprenticeships. I think that that rather frustrated the critics who had assumed that the biggest proportionate growth would be at level 2. In proportional terms, the number of level 3 apprenticeships has grown at the fastest rate over the last year. I can also inform my hon. Friend of a fact that has not been in the public domain until now: indications suggest that the length of apprenticeships among those aged over 25 is increasing. That is also rather counter-intuitive for those who listen to the critics from the bourgeois left, the glitterati and chatterati who look down their noses at practical learning in a way in which you and I do not, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend was, however, right to draw our attention to other measures that we might take in respect of progression. I know that one of his suggestions is that we should look at ways of helping people to undertake parts of a level in which they were otherwise already competent. There may be ways in which we can adopt a more modular approach to progression. I do not intend to discuss that at length now, because it is not entirely pertinent to the amendment, but it is relevant to what has been said by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who also made a point about the age spread of apprenticeships.

20:30

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In other regions of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, education, including further education, is devolved. In Northern Ireland it is possible to obtain gold-plated apprenticeships that can accompany the education and training that are also needed. Have the Government considered similar action to help apprentices to secure better final qualifications?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman has made a useful comment. The way in which apprenticeships are perceived, and the experience of the apprentices themselves, are critical to whether apprentices are likely to make progress. Those who have had a good experience of the early stages of apprenticeship may well progress to a higher level, perhaps in the companies that have taken them on, which will be good for both the business and the individual.

Paragraphs 30 and 31 of Lord Leitch’s report, which was commissioned by the last Government, state:

“Improving the skills of young people, while essential, cannot be the sole solution to achieving world class skills. Improvements in attainment of young people can only deliver a small part of what is necessary because they comprise a small proportion of the overall workforce. Demographic change means that there will be smaller numbers of young people flowing into the workforce towards 2020.

More than 70 per cent of the 2020 working age population are already over the age of 16.”

Lord Leitch concluded that unless we upskill and reskill the existing work force, we will never catch up with our competitors.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is right to say that we should not think in terms of two alternatives. This is not about providing a valued and valuable route to practical learning through apprenticeships for younger people but not doing so for people in their 20s or 30s who want to upskill or reskill, such as the level 3 apprentices whom I met recently at Jaguar Land Rover in Halewood, near Liverpool, not a million miles from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Both those things can be achieved through an apprenticeship offer of the right kind.

[Stephen Twigg]

I entirely agree that we are not talking about two alternatives, but does the Minister share my concern about the fact that, according to the IPPR report, there is a large growth in the number of apprenticeships for those over 25, a pretty large growth in the number for those aged 19 to 24, but a much smaller growth in the number for 16-to-18-year-olds?

[Mr Hayes]

I think that we need to calibrate the system to ensure that there is a good age spread. I probably should have emphasised to an even greater degree—you know what I am for understatement, Mr Deputy Speaker—the need to make growth sustainable. If it is to be sustainable, it will be necessary to address issues such as those that have been raised tonight. By “sustainable growth”, I mean growth that offers older learners the opportunities to upskill and progress that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness—opportunities to create a vocational pathway of the quality that we both seek, the “gold standard” for apprenticeships. I had used that term myself, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby may have read it, imbibed it subliminally and repeated it. I know that he would normally have attributed it; perhaps it was by accident that he did not.

We also need to be constantly vigilant about the quality of the offer. Let me set out some of the things we are doing in that respect. I have made it very clear to the National Apprenticeship Service that poor provision should be eliminated. We have to be very tough on any provision reported to us that we investigate and find not to be of sufficient quality.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one key measure of the success of apprenticeships—this certainly applies to levels 2 and 3, and is consistent with his views about economic growth, sustainability and so on—is what happens in manufacturing and engineering? Does he agree that all the measures that we should be thinking of in terms of developing that sector should be implemented?

[Mr Hayes]

Another bit of good news when we saw the figures from the statistical release was the substantial growth in manufacturing and engineering apprenticeships; the number of starts was 47,000, which was an increase of 20% on the 2009-10 figure. So we had very strong growth in the very apprenticeships that my hon. Friend rightly identifies as crucial to our future prospects. Interestingly, the figures clearly show that there is growth across the system. Again rather counter-intuitively from the perspective of the critics, there has been growth in sectors where employment more generally has either slowed or declined. So apprenticeships seem to be bucking the trend in areas such as manufacturing and engineering. Even in construction, where there has been a very sharp decline in employment, apprenticeship numbers have held up. That suggests that businesses are investing in training and in their future, and that apprenticeships are succeeding. This is a flagship policy, devised in opposition and delivered in government.

[Bob Stewart]

Has the Minister considered—I am sure that he has—the thought that a great number of high-quality individuals have had considerable technical training in the armed forces? Could they come in at level 2, with this possibly leading on to level 3? Is that part of the system he envisages?

[Mr Hayes]

This weekend, I was looking at a submission that suggested that we might ask the National Apprenticeship Service to look specifically at people who have left the armed forces. I am particularly concerned about those who have left the armed forces with a disability. One of the challenges that the previous Government faced and that we face too is in ensuring that the apprenticeship system is accessible to as many people as possible, and I do not think we do well enough by disabled potential apprentices. I asked, at the very early stages of my distinguished ministerial career, for the NAS to examine that area closely, but I want it to re-examine it. I particularly want the NAS to examine what we can do for disabled ex-servicemen.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to my hon. Friend, who is a great expert on these things.

[Bob Stewart]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me, because he has almost made the point I was going to make, which is that we could involve disabled ex-servicemen as part of this system. That would be a superb way of helping them to get into decent employment in civilian life.

[Mr Hayes]

I am glad that I anticipated my hon. Friend’s point. Foresight is not essential for a Minister, but it is a great advantage, particularly when it can be displayed on the Floor of the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) mentioned growth and others have talked about progression, so in dealing with the remark made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby about happiness, I wish to draw his attention to Yeats. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), the shadow Minister sitting next to him, is a fan of Yeats. Lord Layard did such good work on this particular amendment, so I shall cite the following from Yeats:

“Happiness is neither virtue nor pleasure nor this thing nor that but simply growth, We are happy when we are growing.”

When apprenticeships are growing, I am particularly happy because it is testament to the success of our policies.

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

We are going to hear some more Yeats from the hon. Gentleman and I am happy to give way to him.

[Kevin Brennan]

He also said:

“No likely end could bring them loss

Or leave them happier than before.”

We look forward to the Minister’s end this evening.

[Mr Hayes]

Perhaps we will see the end of this speech, but not the end of my career, not the end of this Government and not the end of my time here, which I see stretching a great long distance into the future.

Let me return to the points made by the shadow Secretary of State for Education in respect of the Lords amendment and particularly the apprenticeship offer. He implored us to go further. Indeed, his amendment to the Lords amendment asks us to do so. He asks us to strengthen the offer, having acknowledged with typical generosity, the progress that we have made in this respect. I will again take seriously his remarks about how we market this. An important part of what we do with apprenticeships is selling the product. I have made it clear to the National Apprenticeship Service that its job is as a marketing and sales organisation. Its job is to get more companies to understand the value of apprenticeships, more individuals to understand the opportunities that they provide to them personally and more providers to rise to the challenge and to ensure that they are in the best place possible to deliver apprenticeships. As a result of his overtures, rather than accepting the amendment to the Lords amendment—he would hardly expect me to do that—I will look again at how we can market the renewed offer in the most effective way possible.

[Neil Carmichael]

On marketing apprenticeship schemes, does my hon. Friend agree that the key area that we should focus on is small and medium-sized enterprises, because they need to grasp the opportunities that apprenticeships can bring them and the apprentices?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. In opposition, of course, it was our policy to offer a financial incentive to support SMEs, which we felt would have a real and perceived risk associated with taking on apprentices, through the means of some kind of payment. We were unable to do that because of the financial constraints that affect the whole Government, but we can make more progress in respect of bureaucracy. We need to make the system accessible, straightforward and simple. We need to get rid of the bureaucracy that has sometimes inhibited small businesses from engaging in the apprenticeship programme. Yes, we will go further, and spurred on by my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm, I will make further announcements on reductions in bureaucracy, specifically for SMEs. He is right that their engagement in apprenticeships is critical, not least because if we are to spread apprenticeships and seed them into every community, village and town, we cannot simply rely on the excellent apprenticeship schemes of major businesses, such as BT, BAM, BAE, the Royal Navy, Ford Motor Company, EDF, the Royal Air Force, Sellafield, Bentley Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, GE Aerospace, Caterpillar, Honda and others. We need to have apprenticeships in smaller businesses and micro-businesses, too, such as those in my constituency—in the small villages and towns, where if we were to ask young people in particular to get an apprenticeship, they could only do so locally, because of travel and accessibility issues.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister has just spoken about micro-businesses. MPs are almost micro-businesses. I would like to know how many MPs have put their money where their mouths are and taken on apprentices. I am one of them. Other Government and Opposition Members have taken on apprentices, but a vast number of MPs have not done so. If we all took on just one apprentice, we could create 650 apprentices in the House.

[Mr Hayes]

I have written to colleagues to that effect. I make that plea once again. The hon. Gentleman is right to offer that clarion call to Members of Parliament to take on apprentices. I have one in my office. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State is thinking about taking on an apprentice. I know that he will do so speedily, following the words that he has heard from the Dispatch Box today.

The National Apprenticeship Service is already actively promoting apprenticeships with employers and ensuring that apprenticeships are highly prized by businesses and apprentices. It provides an online vacancy matching service for employers and prospective apprentices. It already has a dedicated employer-facing field force to recruit new employers in the way that I have described.

20:45

We have had a short but helpful debate. We have heard an interesting appraisal of some of the issues already considered carefully in the House of Lords. I feel that the Government have illustrated that we listen and learn during the passage of legislation. Sometimes there are those who say that our scrutiny of legislation in this place and the other place is imperfect, but as a Conservative I take a conservative view of institutions. I am proud of this House and this Parliament. The Bill is a good example of Opposition and Government contributing to scrutiny in a way that has improved legislation. The other House and this House have interacted, both formally and informally, to make the Bill even better than it was when it started. It is important legislation which does important things in respect of apprenticeships, further education and, as we have already heard from the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, schools. The whole House can support the Bill with a degree of confidence in the scrutiny that it has received, and a degree of excitement about the difference that it will make to individuals and communities across our nation.

Lords amendment 28 agreed to.

Lords amendments 25 to 27 and 29 to 35 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of amendment 34.

After Clause 67

Securing the provision of apprenticeship training

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 36. —(Stephen Twigg.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

20:46

Division 396

Ayes: 191

---

Labour: 189
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 285

---

Conservative: 235
Liberal Democrat: 44
Democratic Unionist Party: 4

Lords amendment 36 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived..

Lords amendments 37 to 100 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 37, 40, 41 and 43.

Business without Debate

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Delegated legislation

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Criminal Law

That the draft Al-Qaida (Asset Freezing) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 11 October, be approved.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Tuesday 22 November, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c)(i) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), Opposition business may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Heath.)

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 23 November, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day.—(Mr Heath.)

Adminstration

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Bob Russell and Mr Shailesh Vara be discharged from the Administration Committee and Graham Evans, Mark Hunter and Simon Kirby be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Finance and Services

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Mr Brooks Newmark be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr Shailesh Vara be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

treasury

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Tom Blenkinsop and John Cryer be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr Pat McFadden and Teresa Pearce be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Green Investment Bank (Leeds)

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

21:04

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am delighted to have secured this debate on one of the Government’s flagship commitments: the establishment of the green investment bank. I shall focus in particular on the Leeds city region bid to host the bank’s headquarters.

As you are in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to point out that this coming Saturday the Leeds city region’s Elland Road ground will host the final of the four nations rugby league tournament, following the sensational performance by the England team against New Zealand in Hull in Yorkshire and the Humber, and I want to put it on the record that the Leeds Rhino players made a wonderful contribution to that victory.

The Leeds city region has an extremely strong case to be the home of the GIB. It is being established to provide an infrastructure for a green economy with sustainable long-term growth. That will involve unprecedented investment in green economics. Operating at arm’s length from the Government, it will bring together cross-sector financial, economic and environmental expertise with private capital and investment. The GIB is one of the most exciting policy ideas in the coalition agreement, but it must deliver on the bold vision laid out for it, including the task to innovate and to challenge—to do things differently.

The GIB is a big opportunity for the Leeds city region, and for Yorkshire and the Humber as a whole. It presents an opportunity to showcase the unique mix of expertise, infrastructure and communication links in the region. It is also an opportunity for the Government to show they are serious about innovating, regenerating and doing things differently.

The Deputy Prime Minister has said:

“For years, our prosperity has been pinned on financial wizardry in London’s square mile, with other sectors and other regions left behind. That imbalance left us hugely exposed when the banking crisis hit...It’s time to correct that imbalance. We need to spread growth across the whole country, and across all sectors.”

If that does not suggest that the GIB should be located not only outside London, but in a region where there is real power to harness, innovate and regenerate, I do not know what does.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and am delighted that he is talking about Yorkshire as a whole, rather than just Leeds, because there are many examples of community-led energy projects in my constituency, and throughout our region we have a phenomenal track record of delivering on green projects and investment.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I also thank the other Members representing constituencies in the region who are present. I shall be very happy to take interventions from any of them, in order to show that there is cross-party support on this issue, but I should also make it clear that I will only take interventions in support of the Leeds city region bid. Those supporting other regions and bids can get their own debate, just as I have this evening.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

rose—

[Greg Mulholland]

I must ask my right hon. Friend whether he wishes to comment in support of the Leeds bid.

[Simon Hughes]

Trust me.

[Greg Mulholland]

As it is my right hon. Friend who seeks to intervene, I shall give way.

[Simon Hughes]

As a London MP, I am very clear that the GIB should be located not in London, but in one of the other parts of the country. I hope my hon. Friend regards that as a helpful comment, although he must realise that I cannot be explicit as there are also other bids. It is definitely right that the GIB should not be located in London, however.

[Greg Mulholland]

That is very helpful, and I thank my right hon. Friend very warmly for his intervention. Whether it is as popular with his constituents as it will be with mine, I do not know, but I thank him for it and agree with his sentiment.

The vision for the green investment bank is admirable and exciting, and the case for its location in Leeds is similarly exciting and innovative. They seem to be an excellent match. The Leeds city region already has a mission to become a world-class, low-carbon economy, and at the same time, as we know, the Government have said that they want to be the greenest Government ever.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said, the Leeds city region is wide and diverse, covering the whole of west Yorkshire, parts of neighbouring north and south Yorkshire and the 10 local authority districts of Barnsley, Bradford, Calderdale, Craven, Harrogate, Kirklees, Leeds, Selby, Wakefield, and York. With close to 3 million people, a diverse resident work force of 1.5 million, 106,000 businesses and an economy worth £53 billion per year, it is a region to be taken seriously.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. He mentions Kirklees, my local council, and I shall add some more statistics from our part of the world. David Brown engineering in Lockwood, Huddersfield, has just received money from the regional growth fund for its offshore wind turbine gear technology; the transition town movement in the valleys of my constituency, Holmfirth, Slaithwaite and Marsden, is up and running; and on a more regional basis, in west Yorkshire and beyond, there is also co₂sense Yorkshire, an organisation leading the charge in Yorkshire for carbon capture and storage technology. Does he agree that it all adds up to a fantastic case for Yorkshire to secure the green investment bank?

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend lays out a key part of my speech: so much of what the green investment bank is determined to do is already happening in the Leeds city region. He also demonstrates powerfully that the bid is supported by the public sector, including those 10 local authorities, the private sector, the third sector and, indeed, by MPs from all over the city and Yorkshire and Humber regions.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on securing this debate. Does he accept and acknowledge that, under the control of all parties, Leeds city council has played a crucial role in pioneering environmental schemes over many years? Does he acknowledge also the efforts of a former Member, Paul Truswell, who was the first chair of the council’s environmental committee and undertook pioneering work way back in the 1980s? Leeds has a very good record, and it is one of the reasons why the bank should be situated there.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for that contribution. He correctly notes that wonderful and groundbreaking work has taken place at Leeds city council, and, as he knows, I am the green champion on Team Leeds, with which Leeds MPs specifically are involved. It is an initiative of the Leeds, North Yorkshire and York chamber of commerce, and I am happy to carry on that work and to do what I can to voice it on behalf of Leeds and all those other areas.

The Leeds city region has three fundamentally important things to offer as the location for the green investment bank: first, its location; secondly, its incredible talent in finance, business and the green economy; and, thirdly, its excellent value in allowing for the bank’s affordable establishment as quickly as possible.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Mulholland]

I said that I would take contributions from all hon. Members from the region. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is on its southern tip, so as long as he is supportive I will certainly take an intervention from him.

[John Healey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate. I wanted to add a fourth and a fifth point. Fourthly, Leeds is an established financial services centre; and, fifthly, our region, the Yorkshire region, is ahead of many others when it comes to environmental technologies and industries. Does he accept that even in south Yorkshire we recognise the case for Leeds to be the centre for the green investment bank? It has—unusually, from south Yorkshire—our full support for that move.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very warmly for that contribution. When the Leeds city region team established its bid, one crucial thing was to see whether Sheffield and south Yorkshire would come on board in support. That support is very important, and I hope that the Minister listened to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Of course, having the green investment bank based in Leeds would, indeed, be a bonus for south Yorkshire, as it would for the whole region.

We have excellent transport links in the Leeds city region to the north-west, to Scotland, to the north-east and, of course, to London. However, one thing that people perhaps do not understand is that the Leeds city region is the largest manufacturing centre in the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of that. Crucially, locating the green investment bank in the Leeds city region would place it closest to some of the UK’s most exciting low-carbon sustainable investment opportunities.

We already have a track record of such projects, including electric transport infrastructure, offshore energy, carbon capture and storage, biomass and renewable energy production. As has already been said, there is also a real commitment to green ideals in the Leeds city region. That comes from the public sector, but it also comes from the private and the third sectors. In April this year, the Leeds city region published a business survey which showed that, in respect of environmental innovation, 47% of businesses in the region reported that they had already taken significant action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That demonstrates that we are at the forefront of the transition to a low-carbon economy.

As I said to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), so much that the green investment bank wants to do and wants to invest in is already happening in the Leeds city region. We have to accept that decarbonising the industrial and manufacturing sectors will be one of the green investment bank’s biggest challenges. Our industrial past has left us with a huge challenge. Yorkshire and Humber as a whole is home to the UK’s largest cluster of industrial CO₂ emissions, equivalent to half the domestic emissions of the UK. Our three coal-fired power stations generate 17% of the UK’s energy alone. Drax power station in the region is already co-firing with biomass in a bid to achieve its aim to generate 12.5% of its electricity in that way. That makes it the largest project of its kind in the world. It has plans for three new dedicated biomass-fired plants, which would together add a further 900 MW to the UK’s energy generation.

The Leeds city region is also at the forefront of the development of carbon capture and storage. The project under construction at Ferrybridge will provide the technical evidence needed to underpin large-scale demonstration plants across Europe. The Leeds city region is also leading the way on the delivery of domestic retrofit. Since the feed-in tariff subsidy began, Leeds has had the second biggest take-up of microgeneration technologies in the UK. It is second only—this will certainly please the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)—to another of Yorkshire’s economic powerhouses: Sheffield.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley mentioned Kirklees. The Kirklees warm zone scheme is viewed as national best practice in funding and delivering domestic retrofit, and it has reduced fuel poverty in some of the most deprived wards in the country. Building on that experience, the Leeds city region is now establishing a city-wide retrofit programme and is advising the Department of Energy and Climate Change on the deployment of the green deal. And that is just in the Leeds City Region.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is making a very powerful case for the Leeds city region bid. As he is talking about homes, does he agree that it is important to have innovation in housing if we are to tackle the CO₂ challenge? For example, the pioneering greenhouse project in Beeston in my constituency has taken a derelict building and turned it into flats. At the last count, that project had won 27 or 28 awards and is producing heat from ground source heat pumps and recycling water. It is a living, breathing example of what can be done and a good illustration of the kind of innovation that can be found in the region. That is precisely why the bid from the Leeds city region should be successful.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, my other neighbour, for his support in this campaign. That is a strikingly innovative project. While we have the Minister here, we should suggest that he visit projects of that nature; the only thing is that he and his team will probably need about a week to see many of the wonderful things that are going on in the Leeds city region.

A little further afield, in East Yorkshire, we have offshore wind on the Humber—a project that has been developed with significant expertise from the Leeds city region across the financial, legal, manufacturing and engineering sectors. The region’s traditional sectors, such as manufacturing, will develop the low-carbon technologies of tomorrow, as in the case of David Brown, a company mentioned by the hon. Member for Colne Valley.

That leads to the second reason why Leeds city region should get the green investment bank: the incredible talent that we have. As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne has already said—he rather stole my thunder, but it needs to be repeated again and again, so I am happy that he has done so—Leeds is the leading UK centre for financial services outside London, with 120,000 people working in the sector and over 30 national and international banks based in the city. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this, but Leeds city region has the biggest financial sector outside London—bigger than any of the competitors currently bidding for the location of the green investment bank.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

As a Bradford MP, it pains me somewhat to say too much in favour of Leeds, but I hope that the Minister is catching the drift of this debate. We are aware of the rebalancing strategy from the south to the north regarding finance and manufacturing, but it is crucial to rebalance within regions too. The fact that so many MPs are here from so many parts of the region is testament to our belief that such a move would be good for the whole of the region, not just good for Leeds.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thank my hon. Friend. This debate does show the strength of support for the bid from all round the Leeds city region and, indeed, the Yorkshire and Humber region.

Let me say this one more time, because I have heard doubts cast on it: Leeds is the second biggest financial centre in the country—not Bristol and not Edinburgh. I will give some figures. Financial advisers in the Leeds city region were responsible for almost 200 deals in 2010, worth £10 billion to the economy. If that is not music to Ministers’ ears, I do not know what is.

[Jason McCartney]

I praise my hon. Friend for the positivity of his arguments. He is laying out a compelling case for the bank’s coming to Yorkshire. Does he agree that another big element is the certainty, unlike in some other potential locations, that there will not be a referendum on independence in Yorkshire—no matter how much I would like one, as a born Yorkshireman? We do not want to be negative about anywhere else, but Yorkshire does not have that uncertainty about potential referendums on independence.

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The show of unified support for this bid from all political parties is vital, and I am afraid that the political situation is different for some of the bids to which he refers.

In 2009, there was a 32% rise in the value of deals in the financial district in Leeds, despite the value of deals in the UK falling by 16% in the same period. Three banks and four building societies have already chosen to locate their headquarters in the Leeds city region, including the headquarters of the UK’s largest financial insurance provider and its investment function, responsible for £75 billion-worth of assets, as well as 10 private equity firms, including the UK’s leading mid-market equity house. We do not just have a big financial sector; we also have the right skills set to support the green investment bank’s products. The sector has direct and recent experience in establishing new financial institutions, with the financial service sector in the Leeds city region having been involved in the delivery of 19 of the past 21 building society mergers.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. Does he have any idea of the number of jobs that would be created in Yorkshire and in Leeds in particular if the green investment bank was won by the Leeds bid?

[Greg Mulholland]

Of course, the point of the green investment bank is not to deliver jobs itself—although a few hundred people will work in and around it—but to bring in investment through projects and the knock-on effects. Those projects will be not only in Yorkshire and the Humber, but all around the country. The Minister might be able to give some idea of the Government’s vision for delivering growth for the economy and employment all around the UK, delivered, crucially, from the Leeds city region.

[Julian Smith]

I refer back to the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the type of financial services that Leeds possesses. It is the home of mutual organisations and of a different kind of financial services than is seen in the City of London. That character, which he painted so eloquently, has to be part of the pitch for Leeds.

[Greg Mulholland]

That is an important point and it is right of the hon. Gentleman to reiterate it. We must all keep doing so again and again to Ministers. I apologise to the Minister for taking so many interventions. It is rather nice to have so many positive ones. It will, however, take me a little longer to make my contribution than I had originally thought because of that.

As well as the financial expertise and talent in the region, we have the professional and business services that would be integral to the success of any new banking institution. Five of the UK’s largest law firms and 150 accounting firms, including nine of the 10 largest UK practices, are based in the Leeds city region. Crucially, the professional and business services sector in the region has a strong record in supporting the delivery of low-carbon schemes. It is in demand for doing so across the UK, with a number of projects having been advised and structured by businesses from the Leeds city region. One example—and we will provide more to the Minister—which is from the other side of the Pennines, is the UK’s largest wind farm on Scout moor in Manchester. Top legal teams based in Leeds, such as Addleshaw Goddard, regularly advise on international green projects, such as the latest power project in Saudi Arabia and a solar project in South Korea. This expertise and talent is already delivering what the green investment bank wants to do not just in the UK, but around the world.

Finally on talent, the region also has the necessary environmental expertise. The region’s carbon capture and storage programme has been led by co₂sense. That is one of a number of Leeds-based expert organisations that drive innovation-led low-carbon projects in the Leeds city region and that would support the bank in its activities. It has been delivering the objectives of the green investment bank in the region for the past four years. It has invested in low-carbon infrastructure projects across the region.

We also have the Centre for Low Carbon Futures, which is a partnership of universities that has a track record in providing expert advice to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. It includes the centre for climate change economics and policy at the university of Leeds. We also have Science City York, which is a partnership company of academics and the private and public sectors that has expertise in bio-renewables. It has directly helped to establish more than 100 new technology companies.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Greg Mulholland]

I am able to be generous because of the time.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Given all that the hon. Gentleman has said, it is no surprise that one of the most innovative low-carbon, recycled fuel power stations was opened on the border between our two constituencies at Buslingthorpe Green just a month ago. I had the privilege to open it with the lord mayor of Leeds. It generates 2 MWe and is run on recycled cooking oil. I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is exactly the kind of project that the green investment bank could encourage throughout the country. Leeds has shown that it has the expertise to have the bank right in the heart of the city and the region. Does he agree that that is the sort of project that needs support?

[Greg Mulholland]

Absolutely, and if the hon. Gentleman invites me there as part of “Team Leeds”, I will be delighted to get my hard hat on and come and see it for myself.

Projects up and down the country are already being advised and structured by companies from the Leeds city region. The only biomethane project in the United Kingdom to be completed, in Didcot, was assisted by advice and structuring from the region. As the Minister has heard clearly—I hope the message has got out—the Leeds city region is involved in developing economically sustainable businesses in the green and low-carbon sectors not just in the region, or in the United Kingdom, but around the world.

The third and final key reason why the green investment bank should be based in the Leeds city region is one that I know is music to any Minister’s ears in the current economic climate. The region offers outstanding value for money, through available and affordable office space and competitive staffing, recruitment and location costs. It has a portfolio of high-quality, low-carbon buildings that could house the bank at excellent commercial value. Leeds has offered the best value for money office space among the major European business cities for the past three years, according to Cushman and Wakefield’s annual rankings, offering more competitive value than Bristol, Edinburgh and Manchester, the other cities bidding for the bank. The region also has more buildings that are rated excellent by the Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method—the world’s leading design and assessment method for sustainable buildings—than any of the other cities bidding.

Through existing organisations, the Leeds city region also already has the skill sets required to assess opportunities, make funding recommendations, save time and money on set-up costs and get the bank up and running as quickly as possible.

I want this to be a positive speech, but I have to put it on record that I, and other Members from the region, find it very frustrating that doubts have somehow been cast on some of those incredibly strong credentials of the Leeds city region. There are some strange misunderstandings, considering the very clear facts and the hugely strong case for the region. Some of us may feel that it is another example of something of a blind spot in parts of Westminster and Whitehall when it comes to our region. Perhaps we need to shout a little louder, and we shall. I hope that today, I have put the case forward and left little doubt in the minds of Ministers and others about the incredibly strong case for the region.

The Leeds city region and its surroundings have the specialist knowledge, skills, location and professional supply chain needed to support the green investment bank and its customers. As the House has heard, the potential for green investment in the Yorkshire and Humber region is huge, and the opportunity for the green investment bank in the Leeds city region is enormous.

The Minister knows that the green investment bank is hugely important for the UK, as a global leader on the environment, and the Leeds city region has the formula to make the bank deliver. As I said at the outset, the bank is an exciting and innovative vision, which I support, as I am sure do all right hon. and hon. Members who are in their places. We believe that it is an excellent fit with the innovation, expertise and infrastructure that already exist in the Leeds city region.

I know that the Government are serious about the green investment bank and the vision of what it can deliver towards a sustainable, greener economy. The message that I want to leave with the Minister, and with the team who will award a city the green investment bank, is that we in the Leeds city region are just as serious. We are serious not just about the bank being in Leeds, but about its succeeding, excelling and helping the UK to that more sustainable, greener economy.

19:59

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I begin by adding my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) on not only securing the debate but leading a remarkable song of harmony. He talked about music to my ears, and I must say—I say it with due care, as you are a professional Lancastrian, Mr Deputy Speaker—that I have not seen quite so many Yorkshiremen together and singing in such harmony, not just from west and north but from the south part of Yorkshire as well. It is very nice to see and hear. I hope that that same harmony can be maintained as proposals are put forward.

If I may say, my hon. Friend put his case very effectively. I might also congratulate him on his genius of having 57 different points as to why we should have the green investment bank in Leeds but under only three headings. That was a masterful performance.

Let me say from the start as someone who regularly goes to Leeds that I totally share the view that it is a first-class city with many advantages and a strong commitment to going green in our economy. I thank, for example, the local enterprise partnership and its partners for the comprehensive business case they have submitted for locating the green investment bank in the city. I was lucky enough to be in Leeds just a few weeks ago at the unveiling of the Yorkshire Post business club, when I heard first hand just how much support there is for this institution to be located in the city.

The green investment bank is a key component of this Government’s commitment to a transition to a sustainable low-carbon economy, which will complement other green policies, which I will touch on briefly later, to drive forward growth in the sector, which by 2009-10 was already worth some £116 billion.

As we have heard from several hon. Members, Leeds has a long and illustrious industrial history, often at the forefront of innovation. It is one of the UK’s largest manufacturing bases. We have heard that it is home to many international businesses. Leeds has also been able to make that difficult transition from industrial powerhouse to a thriving hub for financial services. It is true that outside the City of London, it is the largest financial centre in the UK.

As several hon. Members have pointed out, Leeds has a number of other important emerging strengths, including environmental sciences, bioscience, and even digital and creative industries. Even in these challenging times, growth can clearly be seen in the increase in exports not just from Leeds, but from the Yorkshire and Humber region, which grew to £3.8 billion in the first quarter of this year compared with last year. When I go to the city, I see a sense of confidence and optimism when I look, for example, at the investment of £350 million in the Trinity retail and leisure development, or at the £60 million investment in Leeds arena.

As several hon. Members have said, the green economy has become increasingly important, and the Leeds city region demonstrates its focus on a sustainable economy in several ways. I had the pleasure of attending the official launch of the Aire valley enterprise zone. Its focus is on low-carbon industries and it expects to create up to 9,500 new jobs by 2025, and to add something in the region of £550 million of economic output to the city region. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned, the enterprise zone in the nearby Humber region should generate nearly 5,000 jobs by 2015, particularly through its focus on offshore wind manufacturing.

When I went to the city, I was also struck—several right hon. and hon. Members mentioned this—that there is a genuine local commitment to going green in local initiatives, such as the better business environment forum or the Leeds climate change charter. Leeds is one of only four cities in the UK that is designated as an environment city. Local people recently celebrated the European year of volunteering environmental theme with projects including river cleaning, action mornings to maintain the Gledhow valley woods—I am getting a generous nod so I trust my pronunciation was correct—and a comprehensive scheme of planting bulbs and flowers in public places. That happens in other parts of the world regularly, but it is nevertheless part of that voluntary wish to recognise the value of a genuine sustainable community and economy.

I appreciate that there is a genuine commitment to a green, low-carbon future right across Leeds. Nationally, the Government are taking real action to try to put the whole economy on that path. Over the summer, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Energy and Climate Change published plans that map out the Government’s approach to building the green economy and show what that means in practice for business. The plans set out the range of policies we are using to support the transition to a green economy and the opportunities that we have created, but also the implications for some of those traditional businesses, which, as various right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, will need to change how they operate to develop in future.

We understand that to invest the substantial resources required in this area, business needs to be certain that the low-carbon sector is not a passing fad, as some sceptics might believe. That is why we are seeking to provide certainty and why, for example, we are committed by law to providing a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025. We have launched the world’s first incentive scheme for renewable heat, which should increase investment in green-heat technologies by £7.5 billion by 2020. We have also announced the green deal, under which householders, businesses and landlords will be able to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and buildings at no up-front cost. We have also introduced a carbon price floor, proposals on electricity market reform and a range of initiatives to encourage the roll-out of low-carbon vehicles.

To that end, good progress is being made on the green investment bank. It will be the first of its kind in the world, which is why it is one of this Government’s first priorities. Capitalised with £3 billion, the green investment bank will complement other green policies to help accelerate the leveraging in of additional private capital. The key is that the green investment bank must be a new but enduring institution, rather than a series of Government interventions, and an institution that addresses the areas of under-investment that have persisted in spite of the other measures that I have mentioned. Our green objectives are ambitious, and to achieve them we need tailored and targeted financial intervention to overcome under-investment in those key areas. The green investment bank will work towards the double bottom line of both achieving significant green impact and making financial returns.

As we have seen from this and other debates in the House, there is a real interest in the operation of the green investment bank and how it will be established, so let me turn to that. To assist us, we have appointed an advisory group, led by Sir Adrian Montague, to advise on a range of issues, including not just the institution’s strategic priorities, but the conditions and the market in which it will operate. The priorities will be decided by the Secretary of State and reviewed regularly by Ministers and the institution’s corporate board.

The question at the heart of this debate is the bank’s location. The location is critical to the bank’s success, and although it will not be a large institution, it is clear that people already see it as a valuable organisation—an asset, as I think one hon. Member described it—to wherever it is located. I can tell the House that we have received applications from 20 cities and towns, including Leeds. They have indicated that they would like to be considered as the location of the green investment bank. We intend to set out the details of the criteria and the process for determining the location of the green investment bank before Christmas, in just a few weeks, with a view to making the final decision in 2012. Our proposals for the green investment bank will need to be approved by the European Commission before we can establish it as a fully independent financial institution. We expect approval by mid-2013. In the interim, to accelerate our transition to a green economy, the Government will begin making early investments in green infrastructure from April 2012.

We are committed to taking action now to enable the transition to a green and growing economy, and we welcome Leeds’ active, positive and energetic contribution to this debate. We will continue to build on the progress that we have made, which is why we welcome the support from all the main political parties for the principle of an enduring and independent institution that will help to set the UK firmly on its course towards a green and growing economy.

To summarise briefly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West on raising this important issue and emphasise that no decisions have yet been made—if that is an assurance to him—on the location of the bank. We will ensure a fair and transparent process when we decide on the location. All interested parties will be given an equal opportunity to submit an expression of interest, so that due consideration can be given to all submissions to ensure a full and equitable process.

Question put and agreed to.

21:44

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 14th November 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 14 November 2011

Transport

Monday 14th November 2011 Ministerial Corrections

Topical Questions

The following is the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), to a question from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) during Transport Question Time on 10 November 2011.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T6. In Mildenhall, Brandon, Elveden and across Suffolk and East Anglia, people are thrilled that the Government are finally completing the dualling of the A11, but the questions they are now asking are when will it be finished, and when can they finally drive at an appropriate pace all the way up to Norfolk?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I hope those people will drive not only at an appropriate pace but at a safe pace within the law. As my hon. Friend knows, we started the project early and promised that we would be as fast as we possible could. We hope that it will be done in early 2014, but if it can be done earlier, we certainly will do it.

[Official Report, 10 November 2011, Vol. 535, c. 434.]

Letter of correction from Mike Penning:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 10 November 2011. The correct answer should have been:

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I hope those people will drive not only at an appropriate pace but at a safe pace within the law. As my hon. Friend knows, we started the project early and promised that we would be as fast as we possible could. It is programmed to finish by early 2015, towards the end of the 2014-15 financial year, but if it can be done earlier, we certainly will do it.

Petition

Monday 14th November 2011 Petitions

Monday 14 November 2011

Wharfedale Hospital Ward 1 (Otley, West Yorkshire)

Monday 14th November 2011 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Leeds,

Declares that the Petitioners oppose the decision by Leeds University Teaching Hospitals Trust to close ward one at Wharfedale Hospital and oppose any further loss of services at the hospital.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Leeds University Teaching Hospitals Trust and NHS Leeds to commit to Wharfedale Hospital’s future as a genuine community NHS hospital.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Greg Mulholland, Official Report, 25 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 287.]

[P000971]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Health, received 11 November 2011:

We are aware that as part of an internal change project known as “Managing for Success”, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has centralised provision of older people’s services at St James’s University Hospital. We understand that this change has involved the closure of ward one at Wharfedale Hospital. Provision of health care services, including those provided from Wharfedale Hospital, is a matter for the local NHS. As such, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene or become involved. However, we are advised that the trust is committed to Wharfedale Hospital continuing to deliver safe, appropriate and sustainable care to patients.

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 14th November 2011 Written Statements

Monday 14 November 2011

Modernising the Personal Tax System

Monday 14th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government are committed to making the UK tax system simpler, more transparent and easier to use. As part of this, the Government have today set out further details on a number of initiatives aimed at modernising the personal tax system.

First, there is a discussion document seeking views on improving the transparency and accessibility of personal tax information: “Modernising the administration of the personal tax system: tax transparency for individuals”. The document is available on the HMRC website at:

www.hmrc.gov.uk/consultations/index.htm.

Secondly, there is a document describing the next phase of work to explore options for integrating the operation of income tax and national insurance contributions: “Integrating the operation of income tax and national insurance contributions: next steps”. The document is available on the HM Treasury website at:

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_income_nics.htm.

Thirdly, there are draft regulations for the introduction of real time information: amendments to the regulations for pay-as-you-earn, national insurance contributions and the construction industry scheme. The draft regulations, and an accompanying technical note, are available on the HMRC website at: www.hmrc.gov.uk/consultations/index.htm.

HM Treasury’s tax consultation tracker has been updated to reflect these publications. It is available on the HM Treasury website at:

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_updates.htm.

Council Tax

Monday 14th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

For 2011-12, the coalition Government offered a grant to English councils which froze their council tax. It was taken up by all councils. As promised in my written statement of 10 October, Official Report, column 2WS, I am now setting out the provisions for the new scheme that the Government are offering English local authorities which decide to freeze their council tax for 2012-13.

Council tax has more than doubled since 1997 and the freeze will offer real help to hard working families and those on fixed incomes such as pensioners. Compared to a rise of 5%, it could help save local taxpayers in England living in an average band D home up to £72 on top of the saving from this year’s freeze.

To help local authorities with their budget planning, my Department will today publish on its website an estimate of the grant each participating authority would receive. Grants will be finalised once authorities have reported, by March 2012, the tax base underpinning their calculation of council tax for 2012-13.

My officials will today write to local authorities with full details of how the scheme will operate. For the benefit of the House, the key elements are as follows:

a. The scheme will be voluntary; and will apply separately to each billing and major precepting authority in England (including police and fire and rescue authorities) rather than to each council tax bill issued. Local precepting authorities, such as town and parish councils, will not be included in the scheme, but I urge them to exercise restraint and help make sure no council taxpayer faces an increased bill.

b. Where an authority does not increase its basic amount of council tax in 2012-13 compared with 2011-12, it will be eligible to receive a grant equivalent:

i) for police authorities, and single purpose fire and rescue authorities, to a 3% increase in its 2011-12 band D figure multiplied by the authority’s 2012-13 tax base figure;

ii) for the City of London, to a 2.75% increase in its 2011-12 Band D figure multiplied by the authority’s 2012-13 tax base figure;

iii) for other principal authorities, to a 2.5% increase in its 2011-12 band D figure multiplied by the authority’s 2012-13 tax base figure.

Slightly different arrangements will apply for the Greater London Authority (based upon a combination of a 2.75% and a 3% increase) and for those authorities which restructured in 2009 (based upon a 2.5% increase), to reflect their unique circumstances.

c. The scheme for 2012-13 will comprise a one-off payment of grant, and is payable for one year only.

The Government hope all local authorities will sign up to the new scheme. When the provisions of the Localism Bill come into effect, local residents will of course have the power to veto excessive council tax rises in the future.

The arrangements for funding the 2011-12 council tax freeze are unaffected by this new offer from Government. The intention remains that authorities will receive grant in relation to the 2011-12 freeze in each of the remaining years of the spending review.

Operations in Afghanistan

Monday 14th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

With the expiry of the call-out order made on 11 November 2010, a new order has been made under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into service to support operations in Afghanistan. The new order is effective until 10 November 2012. Reservists continue to make a valuable contribution to operations in that country and some 1,000 reservists are currently called out and serving, of whom over 550 are deployed in Afghanistan.

New Schools

Monday 14th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

It is critically important for our nation’s future that we reform our schools system to provide a wide choice for all parents and children. The establishment of over 1,400 academies and 24 free schools has helped drive up standards and create more choice.

Therefore, I am pleased to confirm today that a further three special and five alternative provision free schools have been approved with a view to opening in September 2012.

Rosewood school, Southampton

City of Peterborough Academy special school, Peterborough

Lighthouse School, Leeds

Derby Pride Academy, Derby

Harmonize Academy, Liverpool

Stone Soup Learns, Nottingham

Everton in the Community Free School Trust, Liverpool

East Birmingham Network, Birmingham

I am committed to both increasing and improving the provision available to children with special educational needs and those that require alternative provision. I have approved the very strongest applications today. I fully expect some of the groups that are disappointed today to submit even stronger applications in the future and I encourage them to do so.

I am also releasing guidance on the application process to set up new free schools, university technical colleges and studio schools in 2013 and beyond. I want to particularly encourage groups to submit applications to set up new schools in areas of deprivation, or areas where the growth in the pupil population means there is a need for new school places.

Details of the application process and its deadlines can be found on the Department for Education’s website and I will place copies in the House Libraries.

I will make a further announcement on successful applications to set up studio schools in 2012 in due course.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Monday 14th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Monday 14 November, in Brussels. I shall represent the UK on agriculture matters, accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responsible for environment and fisheries my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) will be representing the United Kingdom on the fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neill MLA and Alun Davies AM will also attend.

The Council meeting will open in its fisheries formation with a discussion of the only substantive fisheries agenda item on external aspects of the proposals for common fisheries policy (CFP) reform. The debate will focus on engagement with regional fisheries management organisations and the EU’s external fisheries agreements.

On agricultural business, there is one item on the main agenda: discussion of the common agricultural policy reform proposal on direct payments. The presidency has posed questions about the overall structure of the direct payments proposals and explicitly on the proposed reallocations between member states.

There are four items under any other business. The first is an update from the Commission on compliance with the welfare of laying hens directive. It is not clear how much discussion is expected on this item. The second and third AoB items will see the presidency reports back on two recent forestry meetings (the forestry for climate and biodiversity conference and EU forestry and nature DGs meeting) and on the regular meeting of paying agency heads. And finally there is a request from the Hungarian presidency to discuss the prolongation of sugar regime to 2020.

Finally, there is a ministerial lunch scheduled during which heads of member state delegations will discuss the greening aspects of the CAP reform proposals.

Birth and Bereavement Service

Monday 14th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I am pleased to announce that the cross-Government “tell us once” service has begun to roll out nationally.

“Tell us once” provides a valuable service to citizens when having to report a birth or a death to central and local government. “Tell us once” enables citizens to inform Government of the event “just once” and have this information shared across the relevant Government services. This not only brings savings to the taxpayer but reduces the burden on citizens when the demands on their time are greatest.

A total of 96% of local authorities have committed to deliver the service and to date 134 local authorities are now offering the service to citizens with the remainder due to go live in this financial year. This level of voluntary take up is a testament to the excellent working relationships between central and local government and a mark of the value seen in this initiative.

The Department for Work and Pensions were considering using the same principles to develop a change of address service and had intended to pilot this in the summer of 2011. Given the immediate priorities of welfare reform that the Department must deliver, the decision has been taken not to pursue this work at the current time.

Grand Committee

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

Monday, 14 November 2011.

Arrangement of Business

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)]

The Grand Committee is in session. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn immediately and resume after 10 minutes.

Welfare Reform Bill

Monday 14th November 2011 Grand Committee

Committee (13th Day)

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.

15:31

Amendment 86ZZZFA

Moved by

[Lord Sassoon]

86ZZZFA: After Clause 74, insert the following new Clause—
“Calculation of working tax credit
(1) Step 5 in regulation 7(3) of the 2002 Regulations has effect in relation to awards of working tax credit for the whole or part of the relevant year as if from the beginning of the day on 6 April 2011 the percentage to be applied under step 5 in finding the amount of the reduction were 41% (instead of 39%).
(2) Anything done by the Commissioners before the coming into force of this section in relation to awards of working tax credit for the whole or part of the relevant year is to be treated as having been duly done, if it would have been duly done but for being done on the basis that from the beginning of the day on 6 April 2011 the percentage to be applied under step 5 was 41%.
(3) In this section—
“the 2002 Regulations” means the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2008);
“the Commissioners” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
“the relevant year” means the year beginning with 6 April 2011.”

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)]

My Lords, the purpose of the government amendments in this group is to correct an omission in secondary legislation which was made to implement changes to the working tax credit withdrawal rate announced as part of the June 2010 Budget. I apologise for the fact that these amendments are required.

Any award of working tax credit or child tax credit is reduced or withdrawn by a prescribed rate for every pound of income that a claimant has above a specified threshold. One of the changes announced in my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s June 2010 Budget in relation to tax credits was to amend the withdrawal rate for both child tax credit and working tax credit. The intention for the tax year 2011-12 was that the withdrawal rate would be set at 41 per cent, so that for every pound of income above the threshold, the amount of tax credits payable would be reduced by 41p. HMRC accordingly amended the tax credits IT system and since 6 April 2011 has implemented the increase in the withdrawal rates for both working tax credits and child tax credits and thus has applied a withdrawal rate of 41 per cent in relation to both tax credits for 2011-12 awards. Although the secondary legislation was amended correctly for the child tax credit withdrawal rate, unfortunately the working tax credit withdrawal rate was not. This new clause will correct the technical omission and will ensure that the withdrawal rate for working tax credit from 6 April 2011 is 41 per cent and not 39 per cent.

Let me be very clear for the record. HMRC is paying claimants the right amount of money as announced in the June 2010 Budget. It is applying the 41 per withdrawal rate and has been since 6 April 2011. In practical terms, the implementation of this correction will not impact tax credit claimants as it simply aligns the legislation with the announced and currently effective practice. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Does that mean that as a result we have been paying people less than they were entitled to by law and are retrospectively correcting that?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, claimants are being paid what they expected to be paid based on the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in the June 2010 Budget. If the legislation goes uncorrected, HMRC will be paying at a rate that is not covered by the law, so it is necessary to amend the legislation to bring into alignment the law and what claimants expected to receive and are receiving.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

So I think the answer to my question is yes. In other words, between April and December, HMRC has been withdrawing money at a taper that was not legitimised by legislation?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, there are a lot of things where HMRC starts in practice, and the law, whether primary or secondary legislation, comes afterwards. If the law does not come in, adjustments will subsequently have to be made. The result of doing this now is that there will be no adjustments and people will have been paid what it was intended they be paid.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I will not say that the noble Lord is wriggling—I am looking for a more courteous word—but it is something like that. He keeps saying, “If we didn’t do this, it would get worse”. That is quite right. However, will he not confirm that between April and December he has withdrawn money at a rate not approved, legitimised, permitted or allowed by legislation?

[Lord Sassoon]

Clearly—

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could we have a yes or no?

[Lord Sassoon]

As the law stands, HMRC is giving people less money than the law says that it should.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister could answer another question. It might be a bit pedantic, but in a litigious world things can happen. Can he assure us that the Government are not liable to be sued in the courts for behaving outwith the law?

[Lord Sassoon]

I do not believe that there is any question of the Government being sued. The matter is clearly regrettable. The error was not spotted by anybody either inside or outside HMRC until August, when a technician in HMRC spotted it. It was not spotted by any of the numerous parties who no doubt crawled over this technical area, and it is now being corrected at the earliest practical time. Therefore, there is no question of the Government being sued by anybody—but it is important that we correct the technical error.

[Lord Wigley]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I will pursue one point. He made the point that nobody spotted this—including, by implication, opposition Members. Nevertheless, it is not opposition Members who are running HMRC. Has any disciplinary action been implemented over this mistake?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, if the technician who spotted it was not part of the original drafting, he or she is to be congratulated. I was not making a point about the Opposition; I was merely pointing out that this is a highly technical area that escaped everybody's notice for a considerable amount of time. What is going on now is that HMRC has introduced new procedures to make sure that the checking process that it will go through for these things in future will mean that there will be a significantly reduced chance of anything like this slipping through again.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that people who had an entitlement under the law as it stood will be paid fully in accordance with the law as it stood, and that there is no question of a clawback coming through retrospective legislation?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It is worse than that. Money has been taken from people. The thrust of the noble Lord’s argument suggests that it should be repaid until it has been appropriately legitimised.

[Lord Sassoon]

It is certainly the case that if the law were not brought into line with what the Chancellor intended, at some point HMRC would have to make adjustments to the incorrect clawbacks that were calculated. We can discuss this for as long as we want. The fact is that there was a clear policy announcement. It should have gone through in the original statutory instrument—I think it was 2011/1035—and a claimant can at any stage ask for an appeal and ask to have their payments recalculated. However, clearly it would be pointless to do so if they expect that the amendment we are now debating will be agreed and will get the position back to where it ought to have been all along.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I am not clear on this. Are the Government saying that people who had money taken from them that should not have been taken are not going to have it given back to them? The Government have acted outside the law. People have been disadvantaged. Is it the Government’s intention to give back to these people the money that they were entitled to, as the law specifies?

[Lord Sassoon]

The technical position is that what is paid during the year is only an interim award. Of course, HMRC seeks to pay all entitlements on a correct basis. However, the final calculation is done at the end of the tax year. Therefore, at the moment HMRC is quite properly paying what it believes will be the position once we get the legislation lined up with the original policy intention.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, if the tax system changes half way through the year, we do not say that it is retrospectively applied to the previous six months and rely on an end-of-year adjustment, which is what the noble Lord seems to be doing. He has illegally underpaid people for something like nine months. The fact that tax credits are done at the end of the year and as an adjustment is neither here nor there. For that period he has illegally underpaid and he cannot retrospectively go back and claim money from them which he was not entitled to do.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, as I understand it that is not the position. The position for all taxpayers and claimants has to be finally calculated at the end of the year—and in many circumstances it can be done only then—because all sorts of circumstances may have changed. The issue is to get the legislation right in respect of this tax year. HMRC has calculated everything to date on the basis that there will be no further adjustments required at the end of the tax year once we get the legislation back into alignment with what was originally intended.

I appreciate the intention of noble Lords opposite to make hay out of this. It was a technical error in a statutory instrument that should not have happened. The amendment we are considering today is not to change anything midway through the year but to change the law with effect from 6 April 2011. There is going to be no unfairness and everything will be in line with exactly what my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced in the first place.

[Lord Touhig]

Make hay, my Lords? Some of the poorest people in this country have been denied the support they are entitled to. Is it true at 3.40 on a Monday afternoon we have a government Minister coming to Parliament and saying they are going to be denied the money that Parliament says they should have? Is that the case? Let us have a straight yes or no. Will these people get the money the law says they should have if we agree this amendment today?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, nobody is being misled because the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the position extremely clear in his original Budget Statement. People have had their calculations made on the basis of the Statement by the Chancellor. What we are doing today is part of the process of getting the law into alignment with that to make absolutely sure that people are paid precisely what was announced in the June 2010 Budget.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I was going to start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, to our Committee deliberations, which I now do a little belatedly. It seems to me that the proposition we are hearing today is that you collect the tax you want and then you align the legislation with it in due course. Does the Minister differentiate in his analysis between those who still have a claim that is continuing and those whose claim might have ceased during the course of the year for one reason or another?

I want to ask one or two further questions. In terms of the increase in the tax credit withdrawal rate, has any assessment been made of the impact of that on work incentives? Can the Minister also say something about the distributional impact of that reduction? It may seem just a small adjustment from 39 per cent to 41 per cent but the Red Book for the period shows that the impact in the first year would be £645 million increasing to more than £700 million throughout the rest of the CSR period. These are not small sums of money we are dealing with here in this rather retrospective manner.

In terms of the impact of those sums, the budget line sits on the same page as an item we are just about to discuss in relation to the disability living allowance. On the same line are the savings the Government are planning to make to a reform of the gateway which is something like double the savings they are making from these changes to the tax credits. Can the Minister perhaps just say something about that juxtaposition and the relative position of the two adjustments?

15:45

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

He is of course speaking for the whole Government.

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I always speak for the whole Government, of course. The first point is to re-emphasise that we are talking about an adjustment that will apply, as was always intended, from the beginning of this tax year—6 April 2011—so the issues of what happens to people whose circumstances change during the middle of the year are not relevant. The policy was announced as taking effect for the tax year 2011-12, which is precisely what the amendments are intended to achieve.

There is nothing magic about the amount of money and the juxtaposition. I know that June 2010 seems a while ago now but this was the emergency Budget in which we needed to do a number of things, not least set out a very clear plan to deal with the inherited deficit.

[Noble Lords]

Oh no!

[Lord Sassoon]

It is important that we are reminded of that. This change to the withdrawal rate was one of a significant number of changes that the Treasury and my right honourable friend the Chancellor had to make to start to get the books back into balance—the start of a five-year process to get us back into balance. That is where the change comes from, and it is part of a wider reform thrust, which is the subject of a lot of the wider debate in this Committee. It was part of the overall approach to dealing with the deficit in a fair and targeted way. The noble Lord asks about the distributional impact. Of course, with the June 2010 Budget it was the first time that the Government put into the documents a complete distributional impact of the tax changes. It would be wrong to pick out the distributional impact of an individual measure like this. For the first time the Budget document gave the overall distributional impact, of which this withdrawal is just one element. It should be considered alongside other changes in personal allowance, which will boost work incentives. Again, it would be wrong to take this in isolation but it is important to remember that this was part of a complex construct.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, will my noble friend reflect, in conjunction with our noble friend his colleague, that in a sense—I have enjoyed watching the passing scene on this matter—he has been rescued by the fact that the concept of income tax is a tax from year to year and has a defined period in which adjustments can be made? But I understand that under the universal credit, the payment period will be somewhat different and the ability to use that kind of argument, if there were a miscalculation of the taper rate in the future, would not be available? That is perhaps the moral that Ministers and officials will need to take into account in avoiding any slip-ups in the future.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, in the wording in proposed new subsection (2), all that comes close is in the regulations referring to capital being deemed to be income and income being deemed to be capital. Here we have something that has to be treated as being done is though it would have been done had it not been for the fact that it was not done. As a basis of legislation in future, I wonder whether the Minister would welcome such an approach from the Opposition.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, the members of the opposition party have been waxing lyrical in this particular case. With all the experience of his advisers behind him, can my noble friend say whether such an accident—and an accident it most certainly is—ever occurred during the course of the last Labour Government?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before the Minister responds to that, perhaps I may add to the list of questions. A moment ago he said that these were fair and targeted proposals, but can he expand on that proposition for us? The increase in the taper rate that affects some people runs to the tune of £780 million and the disability living allowance changes to the gateway amount to a withdrawal amounts to £1.4 billion from disabled people. How does he deal with that juxtaposition? How does he evaluate it? What is the basis for saying that those are fair and targeted? The Minister said it is always right to remind us about the inherited deficit. Perhaps I could say that it is always right to remind Members opposite that a financial crisis has hit every economy around the world—certainly all the major economies; when the last Government left office, the economy was growing and unemployment was going down.

[Lord Sassoon]

Perhaps it is worth saying that in future HM Treasury will be making a prospective provision for subsequent years by making new uprating regulations in time for the tax year 2012-13. So, just to be clear, this subsection will operate from the day it comes into force, but relates to this year; something different will happen next year. We will have the regulations in good time. I do not want to prolong things by discussing accidents that might have happened under the previous Government. I am sure there is a long list of things that went wrong; we know that there are significant things that have gone wrong in the administration of tax over the years. As for the distributional point, the critical thing is that with the entire package of tax decisions we took last year— and again it was repeated in the Budget document this year—we look at the effects of the measures quintile by quintile. The critical test here is that we have made sure that when all the measures and decisions taken by this Government are taken together, those who can afford to pay most pay most. So again—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Does the Minister reject the IFS analysis that the tax and benefit changes that this Government have introduced will lead to an increase in both absolute poverty and relative poverty—both in children and in adults?

[Lord Sassoon]

My Lords, I think we are going much further than this individual measure. This measure is part of a much wider construct, which is not the subject of the amendment today. The amendment today is merely to get the position in line with what the IFS, the OBR and all other commentators believe to be the position

Without prolonging the point about the IFS, the IFS absolutely confirms the point I was just making: it is the richest in our society who will be paying the most as a result of the measures that we have taken, both in the budgets and in the spending review.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I think we have pressed the Minister enough on this. We ought to let him go, but I do wish that he will return for some further deliberations before we finish this Committee stage.

Amendment 86ZZZFA agreed.

Clause 75 : Personal independence payment

Amendment 86ZZZG

Moved by

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

86ZZZG: Clause 75, page 55, line 5, leave out “personal independence payment” and insert “disability living costs allowance”

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. First, I should like to take a moment to explain that due to the number of amendments I have tabled for this Sitting, I will not have the lung capacity to give the detailed explanation that is required for all three. I have naturally called on an Olympian to help me out with such an Olympian feat. My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson has kindly offered her voice for this afternoon but, as permitted by the usual channels, she will also be allowed to speak separately on the amendments if she chooses.

I am really pleased to be kicking off the amendments on personal independence payments, which are known and valued as disability living allowance. I also declare an interest as a very long-term user of DLA and its predecessor, attendance allowance. This is a holy-grail area for disabled people and we should proceed with great caution. I feel an enormous sense of responsibility in proposing the first group of amendments as I know how very important this benefit is and has been to millions of disabled people in the UK.

So where better to start than with the entitlement intention, starting with its name. Naming ceremonies are very important because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, rightly said on day 1 in Grand Committee,

“the name is very important because it sends a signal about what the benefit is for. I am not seriously suggesting at this stage that we change the name, because I am sure that thousands of pounds have been paid to consultants to craft the artwork around universal credit”.

However, I am suggesting a name change, even if the artwork is outstanding.

Getting the name right for a state benefit is crucial for targeting and clarity purposes. Those disabled people who need to take advantage of its intent must clearly understand what it is for and who is entitled to it. The name should also prevent any media or general public misunderstanding about its purpose. I think that we have had quite enough of that over the weekend— I certainly have.

This amendment intends to do both of those things. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, suggested:

“It … occurred to me that ‘universal credit’ does not mean anything very much”.—[Official Report, 4/10/11; col. GC 326-27.]

However, the phrase “personal independence payments” does suggest something. Unfortunately, it does not suggest what the Government intend. Indeed, the term will create greater confusion than currently exists about disability living allowance. I attempt in this amendment to explain the conundrum and the complexities of the definition and intent.

At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.

Changing the name of disability living allowance to personal independence payment, I am sure, was a well-intentioned idea. It may have arisen from the Government’s independent living strategy 2008 or at least the principles that underpin it. The strategy sets out the aim that policies and services should enable disabled people to have choice and control over the support that they need to go about their daily lives. It is this definition of independent living or having choice and control over support that then informed the entire strategy.

While it must have seemed logical to use the term “independence” when reforming DLA, personal independence does not mean the same as independent living. If you ask the proverbial man in the street what “independence” means, he would say that it is doing things for yourself and not having to rely on others or on the state.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)]

My Lords, we have not heard the Division Bells but a Division is taking place in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.

15:59

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:08

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, my noble friend will continue.

At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.

In contrast, disability living allowance has always meant a recognition that because of impairment and disabling barriers, someone incurs extra costs and therefore needs extra help if they are to experience a level playing field in terms of choices and the opportunities they can aspire to. I believe that using the term “personal independence payment” will be confusing because of its similarity to “social care personal budgets”. It is inaccurate as the entitlement is supposed to address in a small way disabled people’s extra costs of living with impairment and disabling barriers. It is misleading because the entitlement is not about independence or doing things for yourself. The term “personal independence payment” will therefore create significant misunderstanding not only among assessors and disabled people alike, but also among the general public.

I am not alone in my scepticism. I decided to check out my misgivings with the experts—disabled people. First, I consulted those with a long history of campaigning for the right to independent living, people who designed and developed direct payments and independent living schemes. They shared my fears, reminding me that it has taken 30 years for disabled people to formulate their ideas about what conditions allow for independent living, those that enable disabled people to have choice and control in their lives. What is more, they agreed that disability living allowance does exactly what it says on the tin. It is a building block that seeks to address some of the financial costs of living with a disability in today’s society.

I then consulted more widely through various internet websites like “The Broken of Britain”, with the membership of the National Centre for Independent Living and with disabled people involved in the Government’s Equality 2025. They all agreed that the term “disability living allowance” is a far more accurate description of what the benefit is for. One woman from The Broken of Britain sent me an e-mail explaining that she was awarded DLA three years ago and had never been part of a disability group before, but thought she would apply for the allowance because disability was in the title. She was worried that other people like her who did not really have contact with disability organisations are those who might miss out on vital assistance.

A name is very important. Disability living allowance implies help for the disabled, while personal independence payment does not mention disability. It could be for single mums or anything like that. If it is aimed at the disabled, the wording will probably mean that it is payable to those who can achieve some sort of personal independence. “What if you think that you cannot be independent?”, asked the woman. During my consultations, it was also suggested that changing the name slightly to “disability living costs allowance” would even more accurately reflect what this entitlement was for.

The Government have stated that the new benefit is designed to help meet disabled people’s costs of living and the proposed amendment helps to deliver that aim. A key reason given for reforming DLA is, quoting from the Government’s consultation document, that many people,

“do not fully understand what the benefit is for”.

A crucial area of misunderstanding is the assumption held by many disabled people and by the public that, quoting again from the Government’s consultation document:

“DLA is an income replacement benefit for people who are unable to work due to disability”.

I agree entirely with the Minister for Disabled People in another place when she says:

“It is time that we had a disability benefit which is easier for individuals to understand”.

Yet the new term is likely to create even more confusion. It removes the association with disability and creates the idea that the payment is to enable people to do things for themselves rather than to help with the extra costs of support and daily living. The term therefore does not achieve what the Government are setting out to do. In contrast, the proposed term “disability living costs allowance” does precisely that. It makes clear that this is a benefit aimed at disabled people to help with the extra costs that they have in their daily lives so that they can aspire to choices and opportunities on a level playing field with non-disabled people.

I think we are all in agreement that it is time that DLA was reviewed and reformed. Some 16 national organisations led by the Disability Alliance advocated DLA reform in 2009, but feel that their ideas for changes have been ignored in what has emerged so far from the DWP. Renaming this benefit as the Government propose only hinders the reform process further, it certainly does not help. It is true that disabled people’s needs and aspirations have changed since this allowance was first conceived, but in the spirit of babies and bathwater, it is important to look at why this allowance has become one of the most important features of disabled people’s emancipation and empowerment.

At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed.

When thinking about the amendment and this part of the Welfare Reform Bill dedicated to DLA, I called up an old friend, Sir Bert Massie, who was then deputy chief executive of RADAR. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, who sadly is not with us today but who has enriched our discussions through these Committee sittings with his very long experience and knowledge of social security benefits, will definitely remember Sir Bert. I believe that they both spent many long hours over many strong whiskies negotiating and pioneering much of the disability income architecture, including DLA. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and his Government agree with Sir Bert, who reminded me that:

“Before DLA there was the Mobility Allowance and the Attendance Allowance. The first was designed to assist with Mobility Costs. The second, Attendance Allowance, was originally introduced to assist with the extra disability related costs that disabled people have”,

not just their care.

“I think it was in 1992 that they became DLA, which lifted thousands of disabled people out of disability related income poverty”.

It was a very important reminder from Bert about how DLA helped to pay the extra costs experienced by disabled people to allow them to participate in their communities and to work where social and economic barriers excluded them. The barriers still exist. Discrimination legislation has not wiped them away. It will take years before the transport infrastructure allows full access. This leaves many disabled people dependent on DLA mobility support.

16:15

At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.

There are some costs that, no matter how accessible the environment and how progressive society's attitudes, remain very high. I will give the example of a young man in Kingston with a progressive muscle-wasting impairment. He was recently asked to carry out a detailed disability-related costs assessment as part of his local authority's charging policy. The extra costs borne by this man came to a staggering £467.55 per week. The figure included long-term capital costs for his adapted car and building works not covered by his disabled facilities grant. Seeing is believing: I have a copy here for the Minister.

At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed.

There—it is yours.

At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.

The Minister will see that there are no luxuries contained therein—just basic costs incurred because of his impairment that non-disabled people never have to consider.

Another reason to call the benefit “disability living costs allowance” rather than “personal independence payment” is to prevent the confusion with personal budgets. The personalisation agenda in social care is about enabling people to have control over the support that they need through personal budgets and direct payments. Most developments in supporting disabled people to achieve independent living are derived from the social care agenda of the past 30 years. The legislative framework for the funding and delivery of these services is the remit of the Department of Health and is administered by social services departments. Therefore, adopting the personal independence payment is bound to cause confusion between the respective roles and responsibilities of our national social security system and our localised system of care and support.

The primary task of social security benefits is to ensure an adequate standard of living. DLA helps achieve this by recognising and mitigating the poverty that can arise from the extra costs of daily living faced by disabled people. In contrast, local authorities are engaged in providing practical assistance to disabled people assessed as requiring it against the criteria described in social care: law and guidance, which does not include the risk of poverty as a trigger for intervention.

At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed.

The term “personal independence payments” is— I am sorry—inaccurate and confusing, and does not reflect the purpose behind government proposals. I would like greater clarity from the Minister about the prime objective of personal independence payments. If PIP is to offset the significant extra costs of disability, enabling a person to live rather than simply survive, it would be far better to use phraseology that makes this clear and also provides a bridge from its predecessor. I beg to move.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I could not agree more strongly with these amendments. As ever, my noble friend Lady Campbell has nailed the issue and then hit it firmly on the head. The title of the Government’s proposed replacement benefit to disability living allowance is vague, confusing and misleading. As my noble friend Lady Campbell points out, it does not even mention disability. No doubt this is intentional, and sadly this Government have taught us to be fully justified in our cynicism. By removing any indication of PIP being a disability costs allowance the Government can manipulate entitlement to the benefit to their heart’s content.

I should declare my interest as someone who has received DLA and its predecessor benefits since the mid-1960s. Should I now expect screaming Daily Mail headlines spelling out the shocking amount this must total over the years? Of course, they will completely fail to mention that it was only this benefit that enabled me to be mobile, educated and employed, and so become a contributing taxpayer for the whole of my career. Now more than ever this week’s shocking press headlines vilifying disabled people as scroungers could not teach us more clearly that it is essential that the press and public know what this benefit is for; that they are given no excuse for the misinformation; and that the name spells out clearly what is in the tin. It is a disability living costs allowance.

The Minister has emphasised throughout this Committee stage that the Government’s whole purpose with this Bill is to change the country’s culture in people’s attitude to work. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed. I hope that they do. But sadly, what this Government have succeeded in doing is changing the public’s attitude to disabled people. It has become totally acceptable to depict disabled people as scroungers defrauding the benefits system. The Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, was quoted as saying on 11 November in the Daily Mail:

“At the moment hundreds of millions of pounds are paid out in disability benefits to people who have simply filled out a form. The vast majority are getting the benefit for life without regular checks to see if they are still eligible”.

He finished that sentence by saying,

“or if their condition has worsened and they need increased support”.

Of course, concern for those who are missing out was not the lead story.

Will the Minister say when we are going to see the Government move to rebut any of these wildly inaccurate press reports which are helping to stoke disability hate crime? The Government’s acceptance of this group of amendments would be a welcome indication of their intent and I feel sure that my noble friend Lady Campbell has made the Minister very aware of the importance of this issue.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton has very ably described the purpose of this amendment. I, too, declare an interest in that I am in receipt of DLA. Like my noble friend Lady Wilkins, it has helped me in terms of education and working throughout my life.

When I was doing my own research on what the title PIP meant, the most common response was, “Isn’t that something linked to pensions—a personal investment plan?”. The title should more accurately reflect what the benefit is and why support is required. Obviously, a name change on its own will not solve the issue but anything that clarifies why the benefit is necessary can only be helpful. Many disabled people are very frightened, partly by what will happen to their benefit but also about the change in the way in which they are viewed by society. It is not just in the recent media coverage over the weekend.

There has been a worrying change in how disability is reported in the media. The Strathclyde Centre for Disability Research in the media unit at Glasgow University has recently published a report, Bad News for Disabled People. It compared the coverage of five papers in 2005-06 and 2010-11 and found that there had been a decrease in stories presenting disabled people in a positive way and an increase in stories concentrating on benefit fraud. The focus groups in the same study all claimed that levels of fraud were much higher than they are in reality with some suggesting that up to 70 per cent of claimants were fraudulent. Participants justified these claims by reference to articles that they had read in newspapers. One of my concerns with the current name is that it possibly suggests that disabled people are getting a lot more money than they will actually receive. I also believe that there is an ongoing misconception over the purpose of DLA that we need to correct.

The DWP has highlighted in a press release the length of time many disabled people have received DLA as if people somehow do not need the benefit after a certain time. Again, this leads people to misunderstand the purpose of the benefit. Many people with congenital conditions, like myself, will continue to have higher costs of living throughout their lives. Of course, there need to be reviews as circumstances can change, but the fact that some people continue to qualify for these benefits in the long term is not on its own a signal that the system has gone wrong. A colleague frequently says to me that language is the dress of thought. Disability cost allowance is the right name to use.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I give my support to this amendment—the first in a long series that we are due to consider on this part of the Bill which deals with the personal independence payment. Like the noble Baronesses who have already spoken, I declare my interest as a recipient of disability living allowance since its inception in 1992. I hope that that can be taken as read throughout the rest of the amendments as we speak to them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has made a very full case. What has emerged is the iconic significance of DLA to disabled people. It was an enlightened measure introduced by a previous Conservative Government, when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, told us, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was Secretary of State—and, if I am not mistaken, Sir Nicholas Scott was Minister for Disabled People. It corrected many anomalies, as the quotation of Sir Bert Massie by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, reminded us.

Blind people were particularly grateful for the introduction of DLA. They had campaigned for many years for recognition of the extra costs attributable to blindness, but they were never officially acknowledged until the introduction of DLA. There were still anomalies; blind people were only eligible to apply for the mobility component at the lower rate—an anomaly that was only removed with the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2009. That reform was supported by the Conservative Party at the time. I very much hope that blind people will not find that that hard-fought gain is snatched from their grasp—just as it has been won—with the implementation of personal independence payments. That would surely leave a legacy of bitterness that the Government would find hard to overcome.

This brings us back to the iconic significance of DLA. For many people it is not only the means but the symbol of their independence. As we have heard, much apprehension has been caused among disabled people by the changes the Government are making to the benefit system. People are fearful that their independence will be undermined with the change from DLA to PIP, or personal independence payment.

As Ministers probably recognise, the Government have a gap in confidence to overcome as regards the reforms where disabled people are concerned. They may well feel, on reflection, that retaining the name, which has such significance for disabled people, would be a small price to pay for the changes that they wish to make to the benefit. As the noble Baroness has said, names are important, and many disabled people obviously feel that we would lose this one at our peril. I hope, after due consideration, the Minister will take the same view.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I would like to speak very briefly indeed in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I apologise that I cannot be here for all of our deliberations today.

The noble Baroness made a very strong case. I was struck by one thing she said when she talked about the signal sent out by this label. The Ministers are constantly telling us about wanting to send out signals with this Bill. It is one signal after another. The noble Baroness has said very clearly that disabled people are telling us that this is sending out the wrong signal. Disabled people are the experts here and we should be listening to them.

I want to add one further point. An additional reason why personal independence payment could be very confusing and give the wrong signal is that, unfortunately, the term “independence” in government speak has come to be equivalent to being in paid work. There is a real danger that disabled people will think it is only for those of them who are able to be in paid work or who are in paid work. I do not believe that that is what “independence” means, but it has become a kind of conventional wisdom. There is an opportunity here for the Government to send out the correct signal to ensure that this benefit is taken up by those for whom it is designed. I hope that we can take note of and support what the noble Baroness has said. I am sure that the artwork has not yet been done. The amendment will therefore be completely cost-free and the Government could take the credit simply by accepting it.

16:31

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. The proposal to amend Clause 75 by changing the name “personal independence payment” to “disability living costs allowance” is intended to clarify the purpose of the payment. However, it does not reflect the way in which understanding of that issue has been developed. “Personal independence payment” has come to suggest that the disabled person is or will become independent as a consequence of the payment. That will not happen. What will happen is that the person will be able to finance the inevitable additional costs that are consequential on their disability or disabilities and the various barriers which hinder full participation.

Independence is about not being reliant on others. The reality for those with disabilities is that they will always need assistance for a range of activities. The cost of that assistance is an additional resource which the disabled person needs. The DLA provides for those costs, and under these arrangements the payment of these additional costs will be enabled, not independence itself.

We are acutely aware of the extent to which people entitled to benefits are unable to claim because of lack of knowledge and understanding of their rights. That is a proven fact, despite the coverage to the contrary. It is most important that the name of this benefit does not have the capacity to add further confusion for the beneficiary. It has been recognised by government that people do not fully understand what DLA is for. It has also been recognised that disability benefit entitlement should be easier for people to understand. I therefore believe that the term “personal independence payment” is not adequate or appropriate.

The aim of the DLA was always to enable a disabled person to experience as full a life as possible and to provide for the additional costs. That approach recognised the reality that independence as others experience it is never going to be a reality for a person with a range of disabilities unless additional funding is made available to enable the access to education, to social and political life, to employment or, indeed, to membership of this House if that is what the person aspires to.

I travel regularly by plane, train, underground, bus and all forms of transport which are profoundly difficult and sometimes inaccessible for those with disabilities. Access to transport continues to be at a very low level, and therefore the use of taxis or cars involving significant additional costs is the only option available in many circumstances. Access to some buildings is still impossible for people with mobility problems. I share an office with someone who has a disability and so I am aware of the endless conversations that ensue on an invitation. Those questions include, “Can I get access to the building? Can I get into the event? How will I get up the steps?”. Other problems arise for those who suffer from deafness and learning disabilities in terms of access to the content of material. That has to be provided for and it costs money. Surely we should recognise this and make quite clear what the allowance is intended to enable: simply, the payment of additional costs.

[Lord Wigley]

I rise with some humility to follow the noble Baronesses who have moved and spoken to these amendments. Reference has been made to the battles that took place in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s to try to make progress on this issue. A number of noble Lords here today were involved in the various stages. I look across the Committee Room and see the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who was very much involved from the Government’s point of view and was there when progress was made. The battles were partly with regard to the substance and content of the legislation to ensure that resources were available for those in need. However, alongside that, there was a battle to ensure that the terminology was appropriate. We know that in so many areas of disability there have been changes in the conventional acceptance of terminology. To a very large extent that has been driven by those with disabilities themselves. Many of us have had to adapt to that terminology, coming to realise what it means. The terminology is important not only to disabled people themselves but to the rest of society because of the perception society has of the challenges of disability. One therefore wants to make sure not just that the terminology is neutral but that it works positively to help those most affected by it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred a moment ago to the fact that the amendment is not asking the Government to make an expensive provision. We have heard from the Minister speaking to many, many amendments in this Committee that the cost has to be a factor and we all understand that. In this instance, it does not appear that the cost has to be a factor and if the Minister can find some way to accommodate the terms of these amendments, I believe it would do an awful lot of good at very little cost.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I also do so with some humility because I have become mildly disabled in recent years and I can understand how many disabled people feel that the life-changing effect of disability is not always fully appreciated. Your life changes completely in all sorts of ways. You wonder whether you can accept an invitation. How will I get there? Will I be able to get back? What will it be like when I get there? Will I have to stand up?

This is with relatively mild disability—for people who have greater suffering it is much worse. I suppose it is one of the reasons I have received more articles and letters on this bit of the Bill than any other section. I recently had a letter from Scope, which is in support of these amendments, of course; it urges that they should be fully supported. It points out that a social-model-based assessment is required and a great deal more attention needs to be paid to the life-changing aspect of disability.

I thank the noble Lords who have brought this before us because it is quite important. If one is able-bodied, one does not realise exactly what it means to have no real mobility. It really is totally life-changing and I do not really think in setting the new arrangements in relation to the PIP this is entirely appreciated by the Government.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly in view of the fact that I arrived at exactly the moment the noble Lord, Lord Low, was making kindly references to me in his speech, although he will probably not have recognised it until a bit later. I was told subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, that she has also referred to me in reasonably friendly terms and I am duly grateful for that and also for what I understand were friendly references made towards the back end of last week by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and possibly also again by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

If you wonder why I have not been here it is not just because I am so busy but because I was frightened off by the phalanx of female Peers that fell on me the last time I was here for some entirely innocent remark. It has taken me a long while—believe it if you will—to regain my self-confidence. However, I am here and since I have not heard all the debate I am not going to attempt to comment in detail. Also, it would look a bit odd for me to defend the name or the precise detail of it or anything else that I and the late Nick Scott—who played a seminal part in all this and should be remembered in this context—put in place 22 years or so ago.

It is important to recognise from what has been said, even while I have been here, that it has captured the support of disabled people as a phrase, a concept and a purpose, and it would be a huge shame if—I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has used this phrase—we landed up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and losing some of what was gained with DLA, even if it is obviously right that at this stage, 20-plus years on, it should be reviewed and refreshed.

All my instinctive sympathy says that if this nomenclature is what disabled people themselves would like, are comfortable with and feel reflects their needs, I cannot see why we should die in a ditch to change it. That is my position, and I will leave it there with the Minister. I am looking forward to his usual—what was the word used about the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in the papers yesterday: silky?—silky and constructive reply.

[Lord Touhig]

What’s in a name? I come from south-east Wales where these things are important. We all call the Department for Work and Pensions the DWP, but in my part of Wales “dwp” is a word; it means “stupid”. It seems to me that if we are creating a new benefit, it ought to have some relation to the people it is supposed to support.

I am president of a group at home called Access. It campaigns on behalf of people with disabilities. Our members are middle-aged and militant. If they see cars parked on pavements, they stick stickers on them saying, “Pavements are for people. Shift it”, and they go back to check whether the cars have been moved. When the town centre was being redesigned, they persuaded two council officials to sit in wheelchairs and said, “You try to get into town and see the problems”. I talked to some members recently about this because they were asking about the new benefit and what a personal independence payment is. One, who I have known for many years, said to me, “I am not independent. I am wheelchair-bound and dependent on my husband, my family and my friends. Surely the benefit ought to reflect the fact that it is support for me as a disabled person”. So I have every sympathy with those who have tabled this amendment. It is important that the name reflects the people that it is to support and aid. It is quite reasonable to propose that “disability” should be in the name of this new benefit.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. I shall get my interest out of the way at the outset of this Committee stage as I, too, receive DLA. I shall be very brief. It is almost as though the Government want to airbrush the word “disability” out of the picture. I cannot think why, except that they want to signal a change of approach. It is this very fact that is making disabled people so worried that they may not qualify for the new benefit. Can my noble friend say why the words “personal independence payments” were used and whether it is too late to change things? This is not something I would die in a ditch over because there are so many other things in the Bill that may be in that category, but not having the word “disability” in the name is a terrible mistake, so I support this amendment.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I, too, have an interest to declare because, as a family carer, I have two adult disabled children who are both in receipt of disability living allowance. I have spent many unhappy hours trying to get my mind around what the various benefits they receive are and how to complete the various assessments they have been sent.

The purpose has to be reflected in the name in order to help people like me when I am trying to help my son or daughter make sense of what benefits they might be entitled to. I wonder whether there is an element of misguided political correctness in the change of the name. Terminology can be a barrier.

16:45

My son is one of the 1.5 million people with learning disabilities. He will never be independent but disability living allowance allows him the possibility of being included in society and of leading a fuller life. Social inclusion is so much more useful than ideas about independence which sit uncomfortably with many people. The extra costs that people have can vary. For example, some people with learning disabilities may need to employ someone to help them to keep their home clear, to manage their laundry or to trim their hair or beard so that when they go out and about they are appropriately attired. They may need help to take advantage of special offers in the supermarket, but often people with learning disabilities will use their local shops. They have to pay more for their food than others because they do not understand money in such a way that they can benefit from the discounts available from large supermarkets. They may have special clothing needs. That is what these benefits are about and a lot of it is about inclusion. The name of the benefit needs to reflect its purpose, as should the assessments and reassessments. The name must not create a further barrier to inclusion.

One worry put to me was, if it is called the personal independence payment, will it be easier for the benefit to be scrapped in the future than something with the word “disability” in it? Does that lie behind this? There is a lot of concern and suspicion about motivation for such a name. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, we have all been very moved by the speeches made by our disabled colleagues, particularly that made by my noble friend Lady Campbell, who put it so beautifully clearly. Perhaps one of the reasons is that quite a number of our colleagues in your Lordships’ House are getting older and are beginning to have some form of disability, which makes one a little more aware of the needs. I do not know whether this form of words is necessary but the more that I have listened to the fact that the word “disability” is missing from the description, the more worried I am, not least when you hear how the press is reacting and the effect that that may have.

On listening to noble Lords, I clearly recognised the detailed areas of their special needs. That was useful knowledge on which to play the rest of our approach to this Bill. I hope that the Minister will take back to his colleagues the sort of reasoning that has taken place during this debate. His colleagues are probably engaged in goodness only knows how many other debates around Parliament, but if they had been able to be here I hope that they would have been at least as moved as I was and would have changed their approach. I hope that he will be persuasive in getting them to do just that.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. I think particularly of people with fluctuating conditions which eventually become so bad that they are housebound, bedridden and almost unable to get out, and of the 25 per cent of people suffering from ME who are in this state. I should say that I am the chairman of Forward-ME. Every day I get letters from people who are terrified of what is going to happen when the PIP is brought in. However, I am grateful to the Minister and to the Deputy Chief Medical Officer at the Department for Work and Pensions for specifically asking for people with ME to be part of the pilot programme for the PIP. But the feedback I am getting is that the people who are examining them have no understanding at all of their illness. We are talking about a personal independence payment, which is the idea the examiners have in their mind, against a disability payment. However, these are severely disabled people—we have heard some very moving speeches from my noble friends and from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins—who cannot even get out of their houses. They must have help with their laundry, cleaning and shopping—with everything. To call it a personal independence payment does not help them, I fear, so I strongly support this amendment.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I apologise that this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. Something is occurring here which I have been aware of ever since the Government, of which I am a supporter, came to power. It is a fact that people are worried about what is going on when reading some of the language being used. Much of this anxiety is caused by things like getting rid of regulations, although I suspect that many of them were useless. The disability movement has in effect had a defence in depth of regulation. We have stuck extra regulations on which have given us a sense of security. I must remind the Committee that I am a dyslexic and therefore a disabled person, but not one who I think would be covered under the regulations here. That provides another example of how complicated the world is that we are stepping into. No two people who have spoken in the debate have the same problems.

In effect, the challenge the Minister faces today is to start to calm down these fears. If PIP is going to come in, what is required is a huge campaign to explain what it actually means. On reading the Bill, I do not think we have much to worry about, but the fear that there might be something there that does huge damage. Underclaiming is historically the biggest problem in this area. It means that we end up with on-costs in health, for instance, because people do not claim the right benefits. It is something that has had to be dealt with for a long time. If the Minister can start the process of dialogue, he will be doing himself a favour.

Would changing the words do anything? I suspect not, even if it made us feel better. I suspect that many of the problems we have in this area exist because we have done one or two too many things in Parliament, and, as I have said on other occasions, I take my share of the blame for that. But giving clarification of what is actually going on will help, and this would be a good place to start that process.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I support the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. I listened with particular interest to the analysis of the media representation of people who are disabled made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. What she said reminded me of the terrible force of envy. Perhaps it is not recognised enough, but envy is an enormously powerful motivator in human societies. To my mind, it seems to originate in early childhood. When new younger siblings arrive as babies into families, sometimes they are harmed by their older siblings who feel deeply envious of the intruder coming in. Envy can also arise out of feelings of competition between the love of the child for the mother and the father coming in. What I am suggesting is that these feelings of envy are laid down in us very early in our lives, and they can easily be stirred up again in adulthood. It is therefore an extremely important issue. Indeed, in an organisation one will often see those in one part of it seeking to starve those in another because they do not want to see that other part getting more than they get. In a family, the parent must send out clear signals to the child that they are still important and wanted, but that there is a new arrival to whom they have to give more attention for a while. Likewise, those in authority in society have to send out a signal to the wider society that some people need additional support and on some occasions resources, and that is the way it is. It worries me that signals appear to have been sent out indicating that a particular group is being over-favoured. That is quite wrong, and therefore this change of name might be important in that respect.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

I am sure that the eloquent and moving speeches we have heard today will cause my noble friend the Minister to think very hard indeed. I accept the need for a change in the name of the benefit. “Personal independence payment” is wrong for all the reasons that have been advocated. However, there is a problem. This is a totally new benefit for disabled people, but I believe that having “allowance” in its name is a mistake as it is too close to “disability living allowance”.

While listening to the arguments today, I came up with my own preferred formulation—“personal disability costs payment”. It is all of those things, and it is a payment. When my noble friend thinks about these issues—I am sure that he will not give us a plus or minus answer today; at least, I jolly well hope not—I hope that he will consider that suggestion.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the proposition before us today is that we change references to “personal independence payment” and replace them with “disability living costs allowance”. We have heard strong and compelling arguments to support that proposition and I am happy to give support from the opposition Front Bench. I do not propose to offer an alternative formulation, but I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was coming from. It seems that the reasons that have been articulated today are overwhelmingly right. They are about clarity; about sending out the right signals; about not conceding issues to the press; about not allowing the word “disability” to be airbrushed out of the system; and about trying to combat some of the fears about the way that the proposals have been brought forward.

The DLA has its origins in 1970 when attendance and mobility allowances were introduced for severely disabled people. It was introduced in 1992 under the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I am delighted that he is regaining his self-confidence—I cannot imagine him without it. It was introduced because the then system was not meeting the needs of some groups of disabled people; for example, people with learning disabilities and visual impairments. The noble Lord, Lord Low, described DLA as now having iconic significance.

As the impact assessment produced for this Bill indicates, DLA is a benefit which provides a cash contribution towards the extra costs of needs arising from an impairment or health condition. Because it is not practical to measure each individual’s expenditure and therefore entitlement, entitlement has to be based on proxies for extra costs, care and mobility. These proxies were used at the time because research showed that they were the greatest sources of extra cost. So a decision about whether an award is made is not on the basis of an individual’s cost, but on the severity of their care and mobility needs.

17:00

Whether the proxies and the assessment process have delivered the appropriate outcomes might be the subject of a debate that we will have shortly on other amendments. The clear intent of the policy is to make a cash contribution to the extra costs faced by disabled people. It does this for some 3.2 million people of whom presently over 1 million are over state pension age. Contrary to popular myths that everyone gets an indefinite award, analysis shows that in the 12 months up to November 2006, only 29 per cent had that outcome. The rights payment programme at the DWP routinely checks samples of awards for appropriateness.

We support the proposition that the aim of the benefit should be to provide support to help offset the costs in the widest sense for disabled people. What is the replacement of the DLA supposed to deliver? According to the June 2010 Budget Red Book, the purpose of reform is to ensure that support is targeted on those with the highest medical needs, although there has been some rowing back from this position. The introduction to the hot-off-the-press publication on November 11 of the second draft of the assessment criteria for personal independence payment refers to all the impressively extensive work that has gone into developing proposals for the assessment criteria. It states that the assessment will be on an individual’s ability to participate in society as a proxy for the impact of disability and the extra costs disabled people can face.

As a statement of intent, this seems entirely reasonable and indeed consistent with what the supporters of the amendment are seeking. To make an award on the basis of extra costs disabled people can face, assessed by reference to their individual circumstances, is something to be supported. But, of course, whether the stated desired outcome is achieved or achievable is something we will discuss—whether the descriptors and the weight given to them are appropriate, whether they are too medicalised, whether the process of face-to-face engagement is right, issues around use of aids—in essence, whether they truly capture the barriers that disabled people face in their everyday lives.

The process has not been helped by the introduction of the PIP or whatever else it might eventually be called, proceeding in the context of a 20 per cent cut in spending up to 2015-16. This is in addition to a raft of other benefit cuts to which people are being subjected. Although the formulation seems to be that this is simply a reduction in forecast working-age DLA expenditure and is not a real cut, the impact assessment undermines that. It says very clearly that the,

“net costs to individuals from reductions in benefit expenditure from focussing support on those with greatest needs”,

will amount to something like £1.4 billion a year by 2015-16. Perhaps the Minister can take this opportunity to describe for us, in dealing with the title of this benefit, the circumstances of those who will fall outside of the definition of those with the greatest need. The need for clarity on this should also be seen in the context of other assessments that will be going on at this time. The WCA will run on. There will be people who will be subjected to a WCA assessment as well as an assessment for this replacement of DLA. Having clarity about what the benefit is for is absolutely crucial, and making sure that the title is entirely appropriate and conveys that message is something for which a powerful case has been made, and which we support.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is seeking to replace the name “personal independence payment” with “disability living costs allowance”. We have also had my noble friend’s suggestion that we replace it with “personal disability costs payment”. I am very grateful for all the contributions on this genuinely important issue. Before dealing with the noble Baroness’s amendment, I should like to take the opportunity to talk about why we are reforming the disability living allowance and the Government’s policy intentions that underpin the personal independence payment. We believe that now is the right time to replace DLA by creating an affordable and sustainable system to support those disabled people who experience the greatest barriers to living full, active and independent lives. DLA has failed to keep pace with the changing approach to disability in society. It lacks consistency in the way it supports disabled people with similar needs, and we know from feedback received from claimants and their representatives that the application process is unduly complex.

Personal independence payment will be different from its predecessor. It will be a more dynamic, objectively assessed and transparent benefit based upon people’s daily living and/or mobility needs. It will consider the impact an individual’s impairment or health condition has on their daily life. It will take account of changes in individual circumstances and in the impact of underlying disabilities. It will reflect the wider changes in society that have taken place since 1992, when DLA was introduced, such as social attitudes, advances in aids and adaptations, and equality legislation. We will prioritise support on those individuals who face the greatest day-to-day challenges and who are therefore likely to experience higher costs.

The changes we are making through the introduction of personal independence payment will ensure that the benefit remains sustainable for the future. Currently, 3.2 million people receive DLA. This is an increase of around 30 per cent in the past eight years and it is important to note that for the DLA caseload overall only around one-third of that 30 per cent growth can be attributed to demographic factors. Personal independence payment will not be linked to an individual’s impairment, but will instead focus on the ability of an individual to carry out a range of activities necessary for everyday life and the extra costs arising because of their impairment. It will be payable to people who are in work as well as to those who are out of work.

I turn to the noble Baroness’s amendment, the name “personal independence payment” is intended to communicate the purpose of a benefit that continues to make a contribution to the extra costs that some disabled people face to help them to lead full, active and independent lives. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we have not yet incurred artwork costs for personal independence payment, nor, I need to confess, did we invest heavily in private sector consultants to come up with options for the change of name. I guess one can be excoriated and congratulated on both those facts.

Before announcing our plans for personal independence payment, we conducted a series of focus group sessions in which we were able to discuss the name of the new benefit. People felt that the word “disability”, although broadly understood and accepted as an umbrella term, was generally seen as relating to physical disability and was a more difficult term for mental health conditions. As noble Lords know, one of the big changes in personal independence payment is the swing in favour of people with mental health conditions. “Living” was felt simply to imply existing or surviving, and ‘allowance’ was deemed to be old-fashioned and paternalistic, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale suggested. It was because of these negative connotations that we decided, as part of the reform of DLA, to rename the benefit. Clearly, people will continue to have mixed views on the name “personal independence payment”, but it has found favour in many quarters. Through the DLA reform consultation, we received some positive comments on the new name for the benefit. I will quote one correspondent—if I do not, I suspect that no one else in the Committee will—who stated:

“I love the new name”,

and added that it seemed,

“more dignified than being given an ‘allowance’ for being disabled”.

We have always been clear that we will have greater regard for the social model when reforming DLA. The name “personal independence payment” reflects that intent rather than focusing on medical model terminology.

It is clear that noble Lords have differing views on the name of the benefit. I emphasise that our view is that “personal independence payment” reflects the principles and intention of the benefit. However, having heard the debate today, I am happy to take back noble Lords’ views, which were put very powerfully, to the Minister for Disabled People. I will ask her to consider how we might seek further feedback from disabled people on the proposed name. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

In responding to the debate, on a couple of occasions the Minister used the formulation “greatest barriers”, which carried the implication that people who face lesser barriers will fall outside the help of the new benefit. Could he be more specific about who is likely to fall into that category?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we have published the criteria and weightings but have not yet gone into any further definition of how the system might work in terms of thresholds. I will aim to bring some more definition around that by Report.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Could the noble Lord bring back not just definitions but examples? He talked about a “dynamic” version. I do not understand that, except that “dynamic” is a sexy word. Perhaps he could describe how the situation of somebody who is currently on middle-rate DLA would change under PIP.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will be happy to produce case studies for Report.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to the debate. Will the noble Lord respond to what I thought was the very important point about sending out a message? Many noble Lords talked about the name sending out a message, and the fact that the change should be understood in the right way. Disabled people are very fearful about the changes that are taking place. There is concern that removing the word “disability” from the title of the benefit might make it more comfortable for the Government for whatever reasons to abolish it in the future. That sentiment has been voiced in this debate. Will the Minister come back on the point?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the point is wrong in the following sense. What we are trying to do with funds that are inevitably limited is to make sure that we focus them on areas of real need and on where they should be focused. That is something that most people would agree with and it is the intention of the benefit. It is meant to be a more efficient way of getting money to the right people. So I do not agree at all with that concern. Some people express concern at the words we have used. As I have sought to describe, we have tried to get feedback and customer insight, and we have tried to get rid of some of the old medical stereotypes to move towards the social model. That is what we are trying to do with the name that we have suggested.

17:15

I can just imagine us sitting the opposite way around, having had the noble Lord, Lord Newton, introducing in 1992 the personal independence payment and everyone around this Committee saying, “This is the right word. You cannot change it. Your DLA is outrageous. How dare you use the word disability?”. I know that there is familiarity of title and that we are all rather conservative with a small “c”. Disentangling all that is rather hard. However, I have heard what Members have said; namely, that there is a concern about whether we have got exactly the right name. I will ask Maria Miller to have another look and we will put more work into making sure that we have got the right name.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I hope that the Deputy Chairman will not mind if I intervene from a sedentary position, which I think has been accepted in this Committee previously. I take the Minister’s point. We are all—I certainly can hardly deny even with a big “C”—being conservative with a small “c” on some points. Picking up from what the noble Baronesses on the Front Bench here, as it were, were saying earlier, we have to acknowledge a combination of things, which is nervousness among the disabled population about what is going on, accompanied by a change of name with which it feels comfortable. If the Minister could allay the concerns more clearly, it might be easier to change the name. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that at the moment they are trying to change a name which is aggravating the worries about the actual changes that are going on. That is the political point.

[Baroness Wilkins]

To follow up on that, perhaps I may press the Minister on press reports. Is his department, or are Ministers, ready to undertake some counteracting of what is going on in the press? On a previous day in Committee, he said that we do not control the press. Of course, the department does not control the press but there is a strong suspicion that stories such as the one that appeared last Friday in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph with the same words may have been leaked from the department to the right-wing press. If Ministers cannot control the press, it would ease the fears of disabled people immensely if they could come up with some very positive comments for the radio and television media where they have some control to counteract the appalling image that is being put across about disabled people.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am very sympathetic to that point. The trouble is that when I and my colleagues—and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the opposite side of the Chamber when it was in power—try to make positive stories, it is terribly hard to get any coverage at all. That is the trouble. The press is very hard to use in this way. I could use some emollient language here. I am genuinely concerned at the difficulties that we have as a department in getting a balanced view. Journalists tend to write unbalanced stories. I am conscious of and very concerned about that. I take it and I will try to get some counterspin, if you like, working. I think you are absolutely right that we are in danger of seeing the position of disabled people undermined by the media coverage and it behoves us to try to get that rebalanced. I accept the commission, if that is what it is, and will try to do something about it.

[The Countess of Mar]

Perhaps the Minister can put out some publicity about the very few people who claim this benefit fraudulently—it is less than 1 per cent, I believe.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the real trouble with the benefit is that it has been so loosely applied that it is impossible to take it fraudulently. I exaggerate slightly to make the point but that is the reason. The last time it was looked at in detail—I think it was 2004-05; I am plucking figures slightly from memory—I think there were overpayments of around £630 million and underpayments of around £250 million or £270 million. I am ahead of my team. It was around that figure. It was not because people were being fraudulent, it was just because it was no longer the right rate and you could not tell whether it had not been the right rate the day before or the day after. Fraud is not the issue with the DLA. The issue is the looseness of its application.

[The Countess of Mar]

The press go to town on people who are living in nice bungalows in Spain on their DLA. Yet, the very fact that it is loose is not the fault of the people who have been claiming the benefit but those who are administering it.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I cannot agree more. It has not been properly delivered. It has not been a proper gateway. It needs a new benefit and that is what we are trying to introduce.

Let me just get those figures correctly for you— it is £600 million overpayment and £190 million underpayment. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, am as concerned about the underpayment as the overpayment.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. In fact, I am quite overwhelmed—I did not expect such enthusiasm for this first amendment, although it is a very important one. I have to say again that this is not about a name; it is about intent. I believed, and I stand by it, the noble Lord, Lord Newton—who is now in this Room—when he said back in 1990 that the DLA was better assistance with the extra cost of being disabled. The DLA helps deliver that cost. I think it applied then and I am sorry it applies now. There is intent and it is important to get this name right.

I am so pleased that so many noble Lords have given their personal experiences and examples of the use of the DLA and that other noble Lords have talked about their experience of understanding the needs of other disabled people who may not be in this Room, such as people with hidden impairments and mental health conditions. Yes, we must reform the DLA so it meets the extra costs of all disabled people in this country not just those with physical impairments.

I do not know what focus groups the Minister was at when the name was discussed but it certainly was not with the disabled people that I have been talking to over the last couple of months. I do not want to boast, but I know rather a lot of disabled people. I have been working alongside disabled people for 30 years and I am tapped in to some of the biggest organisations for disabled people in this country which have a long history and authority in this area. So I trump the noble Lord when it comes to knowing what disabled people think about this amendment and its intent.

I am of course pleased that we might think of looking at the name again and I am thrilled that the Minister will be going back to the Minister for Disabled People in another place to discuss this. But I have to say that I rather like the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, of the “personal disability costs payment”. I am not crazy about the word “allowance” either, so I am happy to discard it and go with what disabled people feel comfortable with. Let us remember that it is what disabled people are most comfortable with that is most important. They have suffered from the most awful six months of media vitriol on disability allowance, and I know that for most of the people who use it, it is not about them. I feel really depressed when I open the Daily Mail in my mother’s house—I want to make that point—and I have to say that I feel a bit got at. But if I feel a bit depressed, think of what it is doing to hundreds of other disabled people.

I am glad that we have kicked off with a debate about the name because it has got all of us in the Room really focused on the issue, but having heard the debate, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86ZZZG withdrawn.

Amendment 86ZZZH not moved.

Clause 75 agreed.

Clause 76 : Daily living component

Amendment 86ZZZJ

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

86ZZZJ: Clause 76, page 55, line 15, at end insert—
“(A1) A person is entitled to the daily living component at the basic rate if—
(a) the person’s ability to carry out daily living activities is limited by the person’s physical or mental condition; and(b) the person meets the required period condition.”

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments tabled in my name in this grouping. These amendments identify what I believe to be a significant weakness in the current approach. When DLA was introduced it was to help with disabled people’s high living costs and to ensure that those who could not access alternative help were supported, as well as to maximise disabled people’s independence. However, since DLA was introduced, most councils have restricted access to care services. Around 80 per cent of local authorities in England now provide support only to people with needs assessed as being “critical” or “substantial”. People with low or moderate needs have been prevented from receiving support through care rationing. But the Government’s plans to end DLA and introduce PIP would abolish entirely the low-rate care DLA and deny help to many disabled people and their families least able to receive any kind of alternative support. The amendments have been proposed to ensure that some disabled people who need basic, but not a great deal of, support are still able to access help under the new benefit. I declare an interest in the level of support being targeted for total abolition.

We need to be aware of those who are at the greatest risk of losing help if the proposals progress as drafted. The amendments would secure some basic support for disabled people and would make a substantial difference between being cut off from support and receiving a little help towards high living costs. It would also ensure that some disabled people were able to manage health conditions and thus prevent the overuse of more expensive NHS treatments or inpatient care. I wonder if the Minister could say whether the Department of Health has provided costs for how it expects to see increases in NHS usage rise for this group of people.

The current support helps people manage health conditions and helps towards some of the costs of, for example, higher heating bills for people with conditions that require consistent home temperatures. To lose DLA would undermine the ability to manage and therefore enforce use of the NHS or reliance on formal care services.

17:30

In a recent survey for disability allowance, for example, roughly one in eight respondents identified higher health service use if DLA were reduced or rescinded. That was the case for low-rate care recipients and people with mental health conditions, who may end up in intensive and expensive psychiatric hospital care which the £19.55 per week currently helps prevent. The recent Dilnot review of care funding said that,

“universal disability benefits for people of all ages should continue as now”.

To remove support would exacerbate the care funding crisis as disabled people would not be able to manage—in particular those with low-level need. The Bill will end support for 652,000 working-age adults receiving low-rate care payments, with disabled children and older people set to follow. I believe that the amendment is essential to mitigate the risks to disabled people, their families, the NHS and councils. It would not simply carry over the same people and the same rules, however. I realise that the Government need space in regulations to ensure a new approach in-fitting their PIP plans. The amendment allows that approach. The Government would, of course, retain the right to establish the level of basic need at which disabled people would be entitled to support. They should work with disabled people and their representative organisations to ensure that people who genuinely need help can access some support.

I have two final questions. First, has the Department of Health provided a cost for the time and expenses of providing the 2 million medical notes for the working-age disabled people who will go through the new assessment process? Secondly, has the Department for Communities and Local Government provided an estimate of how much demand for council-funded care services is likely to change? I beg to move.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, the amendment asks the Government to think again about the proposal to have only two levels of the daily living component of PIP compared with the current three levels for the care component of DLA. While changing from three to two levels may seem attractive from the point of view of simplicity, it is likely to be achieved at the cost of creating unnecessary dependency and hardship among large numbers of people. As we have heard it could also result in greater pressure on health and social services.

I am sure that the Government are aware of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation inquiry, which found that,

“that little bit of help”,

was crucial in preventing greater needs developing, enabling older people to remain in their own homes, living active lives and saving unnecessary expenditure on health and social services. The same experience applies to disabled people below retirement age. In addition, for many disabled people it is that little bit of help that makes it possible for them to seek and retain employment. Currently the lower rate of DLA care component can make a major difference and, in the long run, save unnecessary expenditure.

As the DWP has acknowledged, many of those who responded to the consultation opposed the proposal that there should be only two rates of the daily living component and expressed a fear that it would result in many people who currently receive some much-needed help no longer getting it. As the Government’s own review of research on what DLA is used for shows, there is widespread evidence that current payment levels do not cover the real costs that disabled people incur. That includes those receiving the lower rate of the care component. Not only will the removal of assistance to this group mean that some—many—will make greater demands on health and social care services, it will deprive local authorities of the funds to enable them to do so. Currently local authorities take the whole of the care component when charging for community care services. Once more, local authorities will face higher demands with fewer funds.

I shall close by quoting two people who currently receive the lower rate DLA care component and who explain the difference that it makes to their lives. The first person said:

“My medical condition means I need a special diet if I am to remain out of hospital. I use my DLA to pay for this food, and also for the extra heating I need to keep warm”.

The second person said:

“In the early stages of my wife’s illness we got this small sum of money which did make a major difference to our lives. It helped to pay for someone to sit with her while I went out shopping, and it meant that our lives could carry on that bit longer before we asked for more help”.

It is hard to believe that abolishing the lower rate will do anything more than remove much needed help from large numbers of people. This may help the Government to reduce the DLA budget but the costs will undoubtedly turn up elsewhere in public expenditure, whether it is in the costs of increased health needs or in the implications for social services budgets.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I picked up two points in the course of this debate. First, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, indicated that she thought there were 655,000 potential losers from this. Is that right?

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

It is 652,000.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I got it nearly right, but it is still quite a lot of people. In that case, my question to the Minister is: what steps does he expect to take—it may be that this is already clear and I just do not know—to protect people who are already receiving DLA at the point of transition? We are talking about sums of money that, although not large to many of those in this Room, can be very large indeed to some of the people who are receiving them. One of the things that I always had in mind—I think at one stage my then Cabinet colleagues occasionally referred to it as “Newton’s law”—is that not giving somebody something is quite different from taking away from somebody something they already have. I would like to hear my noble friend’s comments on that.

The other thing is also, in a sense, a question directed to the Minister, although it may also have occurred to the noble Baronesses and others who are interested in this. It is the reference in the Bill and in this amendment, which follows the Bill, to a person’s ability to,

“carry out daily living activities”,

being limited by,

“the person’s physical or mental condition”.

I would like to say a word or two about how that is to be done. In my day, which some in the Room will remember, we had a benefit called the housewives non-contributory invalidity pension, which entailed a lot of tests, that were regarded as demeaning and humiliating in the extreme, about whether somebody could boil a kettle or take a tin off a shelf. I think there were others, to judge from the reaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, who will remember them. I would not want to get back into that. Indeed, I got rid of it. I hope that we may have a word that there will be a more civilised way of assessing the ability to carry out daily living activities than is revealed on the surface of the Bill.

[Lord Wigley]

If the Minister accepts the figure for those who will lose relatively small sums that are of critical importance to them, and if the services that they have been able to purchase or the benefits in their life that they have been able to obtain by virtue of having that money now have to be found through some other means, has some assessment been made of the additional cost that may be going elsewhere in order to ensure that they do not lose out on aspects of their lives that are critical for their day-to-day existence?

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, put his finger on the button in his first comments. It is people’s fear of what is going to happen when they have a medical examination. Many of them have already had experience of DWP medicals, and from the correspondence I have had they are extremely distressed about what is going to happen to them in the future. It may be that they are dramatising, in which case we would be very pleased to have our minds put at rest, but on the other hand, if we are making this 20 per cent cut in expenses, they are bound to be frightened because these are people at the bottom who are going to be chopped off, and they do not understand how the process in going to happen.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. In fact, it was down in my name, but when I saw how many amendments I was going to put down I thought I was being too greedy. My question to the Minister is very short. Has he had discussions with those in the Department of Health responsible for the prevention agenda with regard to closing the basic rate? It will have a massive impact on the prevention agenda, which is very much about giving a little bit of support and keeping people independent for a lot longer with a lot less cost for healthcare and social care services.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment. I will very briefly make clear my support for it. Most of the things that I intended to say have been said, but I will underscore them. My first point is very much the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. The proposal to eliminate the lowest rate of DLA care when introducing the daily living component of PIP at only two levels is one of the principal causes of the fear and apprehension on the part of disabled people that we talked about when discussing the earlier amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. As we heard, we are not talking about a small number of people but 652,000, or nearly three-quarters of a million. That is a substantial consideration of which the Government should be mindful.

My other point, which I do not think anybody has made, is that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, allows the Government room in regulations to reduce the number of disabled people receiving the lowest rate of the care component while still ensuring that some of those who currently access this level of help will not be cut adrift at a stroke from support when the new benefit is introduced. Now I come to think of it, this point is the same as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton; it is about transition and flexibility. If the Government, for cost considerations or for any other reason, feel it imperative to push ahead in this direction, I urge them to give serious thought to the question of phasing out and showing flexibility on the precise number who will be cut adrift from the benefit at a stroke. If we need to lose some people, perhaps consideration can be given to articulating the benefit in such a way that not all 652,000 people are affected at once.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I hope that by means of the Minister’s response to the amendments we will come to understand the Government’s thinking on why and how they will move from three levels of disability living allowance to two levels as part of what today I will call PIP, even though I hope that we may rename it.

PIP will have a daily living and mobility allowance, with the daily living component awarded according to an individual’s ability to carry out key activities so as to enable them to participate in everyday life. This is a fairly fundamental description of why it should be paid. However, I will ask four questions about the move to abolish one of the rates. First, what is the evidence base for this change? Clearly there is one; we know that the Minister is a good evidence-based policy developer. However, I am unclear about what it is. Will the two rates satisfactorily encompass the whole range of disability that we seek to help or will it be simply administratively easier and therefore quicker to administer and get help to people? What is the rationale?

Secondly, if neither of these two explanations is right, is it simply a device that has been selected by Government to help achieve the 20 per cent cut? Is it to be achieved by chopping out the bottom one-third of assessed needs? I am afraid that the Disability Alliance judges that this is the reason. It is particularly concerned that disabled people receiving the DLA low-care payments may lose support as a result of the scrapping of this bit of assistance and the Government’s stated aim of only helping those with the most severe needs.

17:45

The figure of 652,000 mean that if you remove the whole of those—we do not yet know of course whether that will be the impact—that would cut £663 million from expenditure. However, the 20 per cent cut needs more than that because the Government want to cut out £1.3 billion. To achieve the Government’s planned savings they are either going to have to remove even more disabled people than those already in the third group or cut payments to those who nevertheless do qualify. I know the Minister already understands why so many people are living in fear. It is a word that has been used a lot today, I think for the first time this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and since then a number of times. I am sure on reflection that the Minister would not want to repeat his own words when he talked about helping those with real needs. People receiving the lower level at the moment have real needs. They may not be the most severe but they are still very real.

Although I do not want to go over what my noble friend Lady Wilkins said about the press reporting I have to say, as maybe longer in the tooth than some people here and rather more involved with spin doctoring in my past, I find it really hard to believe that a number of stories appearing in a number of newspapers on the same day is by accident. Certainly when Alastair Campbell was doing some spinning for us, that would never have been the case. When the same stories were in the same papers on the same days we could normally work out whose sticky fingers were on them. Maybe a look by the Minister rather closer to home—not himself of course—may help find the source of those stories. Unless we rein in the attacks on disabled people, trust in the Government is going to be very hard to rebuild. For all sorts of reasons I may not like this Government, but I believe that in a democracy it is really serious if we lose trust in the Government. It is a situation I do not like to see.

The low-rate care aspect of the DLA may imply low-level needs. I give my thanks as ever to my noble friend Lady Hollis, who has to hand the definition of the lowest rate care components. You qualify only if you are so severely disabled physically or mentally that you,

“cannot prepare a cooked main meal for yourself if you have the ingredients”,

or you are so severely disabled physically or mentally that you,

“require in connection with your bodily functions attention from another person for a significant portion of the day (whether during a single period or a number of periods)”.

That to me feels like a real need, and a pretty substantial one. It is also the case, as has been referred to, that people receiving the lowest rate of the DLA are often unable to get support elsewhere. Cuts to these groups could remove vital preventative support, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and in the long term lead to increased pressures on social care or NHS budgets, causing the on-costs referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to her question on that. As the Dilnot commission, which has been referred to, acknowledges, meeting these lower-level needs is essential to ensure the prevention of later higher or even crisis-level needs.

The National Autistic Society has particular concerns that people with autism will lose out—people who are unable to access social care in part due to ever-tightening eligibility criteria. Low-level DLA is a key benefit that enables people with autism to live more independently. Since the announcement of the changes from DLA to PIP, the National Autistic Society has been inundated with e-mails and calls from people concerned that they may lose the support they rely on to complete everyday tasks such as getting to appointments or going shopping.

My third question concerns a crucial part of the jigsaw that we still await: how we will keep disabled people in the community and how the new PIP will passport carer’s allowance. Worryingly, there has been no impact assessment of the effect of the PIP changes on carers. We have no idea how many are due to lose out either as a result of the 20 per cent cut or from the change from three rates to two. If some of the current higher-rate people go into what will be the third rate that is then lost, and they may also lose their carer’s allowance. The Minister paid tribute in an earlier session to the role of carers. However, he should know that tributes will not suffice; cash will be needed to enable them to continue their vital role.

Fourthly, will the Minister outline how other passported benefits will be handled with just two rates of PIP? For many recipients free travel, taxis or blue badge parking enables them to live a more normal life. Perhaps he can tell us about any knock-on effects as some people are likely to fall out of eligibility after an assessment.

It was mentioned earlier that it was only at lunchtime on Friday that the Committee received the DWP’s revised draft assessment criteria, or descriptors. They give some indication of who might be entitled under the new scheme. We have not had time for detailed scrutiny of the criteria, although I know that a number of my colleagues spent a lot of the weekend trying to do just that. Most importantly, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie said, we have yet to see the proposed thresholds for entitlement under the points system. Without these, it is impossible to assess the impact of the criteria on entitlement, and therefore what the change from three levels to two means.

In answering an earlier question, the Minister said that we will have the proposed thresholds by Report. I was rather disappointed by that. It will not give us or, more importantly, people affected by the changes, much time to consider them. If it means getting them on the Friday before a Monday stage of Report, as happened with the last thing we received, it will not be a lot of help. It is absolutely crucial that we see the thresholds in good time. I would also be grateful if the Minister would tell us what further role disabled people and their organisations will play both in considering the thresholds and in continually reviewing and finessing the descriptors.

In relation to the amendments in this group, will the Minister clarify what consideration the Government have given to the needs of the third-level group of disabled people? Should they be excluded altogether from PIP? How will their vital support needs be met? The Opposition fully understand the need for reform. Static is rarely the right approach for any policy or mechanism. However, our problem is that it is impossible to assess the proposed reform with so little idea of who it will affect or how. We know that the department must have made assumptions about the characteristics of the groups that will be excluded. It will have made budgeting assumptions. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister would share those assumptions about the people who will drop out of eligibility after the move from three to two levels.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in her request. In order to have a sound evidence base, we are going to need stats about how the existing clients of DLA—if I can put it that way—will map on to the future ones proposed for PIP and the implications for carers. It is not a discrete thing: it has interactions with ESA; it has interactions with in-work conditionality; and it has interactions with other things, like housing benefit, extra rooms and the rest of it. It has tentacles right through the whole of the Bill.

I will make a serious proposal to the Minister. I will personally not be happy to go into a Report stage of this Bill unless we have had, at least three days before the first day of Report, all the information that we need on the proposed changes to DLA and the linking effect to carer’s allowance, because it interacts with so many other aspects of the Bill. I hope the Minister will agree that that is an acceptable position to hold.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, which I assume he is about to do, I will just chip in again. I do not have the up-to-date knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has from her more recent experience as a social security Minister, but I did once again prick up my ears at the reference to carers. There is obviously a link between disability living allowance with its three rates and the payment of carer’s allowance. This is not something that I have focused on, but I would much appreciate a word from the Minister about what the effects of that might be. That would be on top of the 652,000, as I understand it, and could mean that some households suffer what in conventional jargon would be called a double-whammy. We need to know something about that.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I would add to the noble Lord’s very helpful intervention that if someone who is currently getting carer’s allowance finds themselves disqualified in future, they will come within the whole remit of in-work conditionality and all the other issues that affect this Bill. It is not just a one-off enclosed issue; it has tentacles or effects or implications right across the Bill.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I can understand that; that is where the noble Baroness is more up to date than I am. The Minister must be the most up to date of all.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I apologise that the information about the second draft criteria was not available earlier and I apologise for ruining a lot of weekends. What is the reason? We had a large volume of feedback to our informal consultation and we have made a significant amount of changes. It took some time—rather longer than we hoped—to work through it all. It is crucial that we get this right. One of the reasons—as noble Lords have pointed out already—is that there is a lot of sensitivity around this. If we put things out that are not right, we will create concerns where we should not. Misleading impressions here are very dangerous.

As I said, we aim to have the thresholds available for the Report stage of our consideration of this—not before the whole of the Report stage, but in good time for when we reach these matters at Report.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords—if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene again—I am sorry, but that really will not do. Too much depends on how you align the two rates of disability allowance; the passporting of carer’s allowance will depend on it; and, in turn whole issues such as couple conditionality, in-work payments and the like will depend on that. We cannot deal with earlier sections of the Bill if we do not know what the implications of this are. It will not do to leave this until Report. We have to have it before we start the Report stage.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I regret to say that I am not in a position to say that we will have the implications for carers ready for Report as well as the threshold information, which is another roll-on. We will be discussing the carer’s element in a later amendment, so I shall deal with that more fully then. I am looking at the timings of the information that I have. There is a large amount of co-production going on in the development of PIP, where we are talking to disabled people and disabled groups. That is what is taking the time to get to where we need to get to.

18:00

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

This is obviously more a matter for the usual channels. Having just asked that discussions should happen with representatives of disabled people, the other way of meeting the major problem is by delaying Report and not starting it before Christmas. There are two reasons for that. The first is that we do not have the information and the second is the difficulty of trying to get disabled groups to give us the feedback that we need over Christmas when many offices close down. We will not be as informed as I know the Minister would want us to be. The possibility is that we should not start Report. I know that this is well beyond the Minister’s decision, but there are two ways of cracking it.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the proposition is that we need to have this locked down ahead of the rest of the Bill. Regrettably, we are not expecting to have the passporting elements of this ready for the time we consider it. I will go into some detail. The timing issue is that there would be no gain, if that is the real concern, in pulling this information earlier and hurrying the consideration process artificially.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I think that it would be very helpful if immediately following today’s sitting we have an update on what is and is not going to be ready because there are serious issues about consideration. Rather than prolong the process today, if the Minister would undertake to do that, it would be helpful.

[Lord Freud]

Perhaps I could undertake to do that ahead of Wednesday’s sitting and go through what we are expecting to have when.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If the Minister were able to say, for example, that carer’s allowance will be attached to both rates, whatever they may turn out to be in terms of eligibility, some of our concerns would be removed. If he cannot say even that, I think half of Chapter 1, nearly all of Chapter 2 and quite a fair amount of Chapter 3 are affected by the passporting decision for carers.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will give a full report on Wednesday, but I have already indicated where I am pretty sure we are. We are looking at passporting in a much wider way. We are having the SSAC report in January with its recommendations. There will undoubtedly be a lot of work around that. It would indeed be foolish to look at one aspect of passporting without taking the whole of passporting together. As noble Lords know, this is a framework Bill. There will be plenty of time to consider all these elements as we go through the regulations when we will be doing things in the fullest possible way. I imagine noble Lords in this Room will be taking a very full interest in all these aspects. Let me leave it that I will come back with the timetable at our next sitting.

These amendments seek to broaden the scope of PIP—I do not know whether my noble friend’s formulation of the personal disability costs payment has found favour, but I will stick with PIP, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the purposes of this—by introducing an additional tier to the daily living component. When we consulted on the overall framework to personal independence payment, we stated our intention to move to a structure that has two components paid at two rates. We decided on this structure for three key reasons: to simplify the overall structure by reducing possible award outcomes from 11 to eight; to make it easier to understand and administer; and to ensure that it reflects the range of individual needs and provides appropriate levels of support.

We also made it clear that the overall design of personal independence payment is intended to ensure that the benefit is fairer, more transparent and focused on the individuals who are least able to live independently. It also provides an affordable and sustainable platform of provision for the future.

In responding to our consultations, most organisations said that they supported the move to broader definitions for both components as they were a better reflection of the real experience of disabled people’s daily lives. Our view, therefore, is that a daily living component paid at one of two rates will enable us to better reflect the impact of impairment on an individual’s ability to participate. I appreciate the concerns of the noble Baroness that people will receive lower levels or no support under our reforms and that her amendments are intended to prevent that. However, that fails to deal with one of our fundamental aims, which is to give more consideration to whom we prioritise for support.

The Government have been clear here. We intend to protect those who are most in need and will prioritise support for individuals whose impairment has most impact on their ability to participate. That aim, and the way in which we intend to deliver it through the new assessment criteria, may necessarily result in shifts in provision. Some people will receive more support under our proposals; some the same; and some less. This is not an exercise in simply making arbitrary cuts to existing provision; it is about refocusing benefit provision so that it reflects disability impairments and barriers to participation in the 21st century.

[Lord Wigley]

The Minister mentioned a shift in provision. Did he look at the responsibility falling on other people? I am thinking particularly of it falling on social service departments of local authorities.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly an enormous amount of work has been done on this within both government and consumer organisations. When we refine the criteria—which is the process that we are going through—we look at all those aspects to ensure that we focus the money on where it will have most effect in supporting people to live independent lives.

On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on how we will assess people, the version of criteria that we published on Friday looked at a range of key, everyday activities. The main question is to look at what support an individual needs. It is much more holistic than the test described by my noble friend Lord Newton of how to boil a kettle. Our testing results through the summer demonstrated that our approach is both reliable and valid. On the question raised on the cost of getting evidence from GPs, we are discussing PIP plans with the Department of Health but have not yet made any estimate of the specific costs of obtaining evidence from GPs. However, evidence gathering will be a critical part of PIP and we recognise that disabled people will want to present information from a wide range of sources, not just GPs. We will ensure that they are able to do this.

Let me pick up the point made by the noble Baroness on the 652,000 so-called losers. That assumes that all the people currently receiving the lowest rate of DLA care would receive nothing under the PIP. We have not yet completed the detailed assessment of the impact of our changes on the current DLA caseload, and will do that on Report. It is likely that we will see significant movement in the new benefit. I suspect that some people will receive more support because of the improved assessment; some will receive broadly the same; some will receive less; and some will leave benefit altogether. The most important thing is that these results should accurately reflect the level of need of the individuals concerned so that the money will go where it is most needed. From what we have seen so far, the draft assessment is working to achieve this.

In the proposed criteria we have demonstrated that we have not simply removed the lowest rate of DLA. The concepts of needing assistance and how individuals prepare food, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, are very much part of the criteria. We are aiming to ensure that passports to provisions elsewhere, such as vehicle excise duty exemption and the blue badge scheme, continue. Where necessary, we are working with other government departments and the devolved Administrations to ensure that the new PIP arrangements match closely their arrangements to ensure continued support for disabled people. It is our intention that the personal independence payment will provide part of the gateway for receipt of carer’s allowance in the way that DLA currently does. I have dealt with the timing issue.

In conclusion, let me assure the noble Baroness that our proposals to move to a two-tier daily living component is not about reducing support or cutting costs. It is a principled move that will help us deliver a benefit that will focus on those least able to participate. It will do that in a way that will make it fairer, clearer for everyone to understand, simpler to administer, and affordable and sustainable into the future. The Government have spent a considerable time developing and consulting on the provisions that the noble Baroness wishes to amend. Our view is that they are the right way to progress our aims. I therefore cannot support the amendment and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, the second draft of the assessment regulations is very interesting but it does not help in the consideration of what we are talking about. It does not tell us the threshold, so we cannot assess how many points you would need in order to reach a level of having a limited ability to carry out daily living activities and so on. Will the Minister explain how we could use these to judge what he has just been talking about?

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

In an attempt to stop the Minister having to pop up and down, I think that I am right in saying that he has not responded to my concern about the effects of this proposal. Whatever the figures turn out to be, there appear to be some “losers”. What are the effects of this? What steps will be taken to protect or to provide transitional measures? We are talking about sums of money that are significant to people who have not got very much. We have to keep that in mind all the time. The Minister has obviously had his ears bashed enough and no one thinks that we will press the amendment, but we hope that he will think about it.

On carers, I listened with mounting horror to the fact that we shall not know what the effects will be by the time we return to this. If among those 652,000 so-called losers, or whatever number it is, there are a number who also lose carer’s allowance, we are talking about a number of households which will lose serious amounts of money in relation to their income. We need to know what is happening in order to make a judgment about these proposals. I do not expect the Minister to say anything else but he needs to know that this former Secretary of State recognises some concerns.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I, too, invite the Minister to expand further on the blue badge. Obviously, we have just had a very important discussion about passporting, carer’s allowance and so on. The Minister was almost seen to be giving me reassurance about blue badge and other mobility passporting issues. Perhaps he could expand on the discussions that he is having and on what he hopes the outcome of those discussions might be, and give me a little more hope on that matter.

18:15

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, let me start with the numbers. Large numbers are being thrown around about what is meant to be a 20 per cent cut. In practice, it is a cut from a projection because the benefit was rising very steeply, so measures were taken to get it under control. The whole caseload in 2009-10 was running at £3.1 million and now £3.2 million. In 2015-16 our projection is for it to run at more or less £3.1 million—£3.059 million. In terms of money, this is cash money. We are looking at a figure of £11.5 billion rising to £13.7 billion in 2015-16—and that is cash, not real. That was the projection we inherited and it is from that that we are cutting £1.3 billion. So from £13.6 billion we will take £1.3 billion, which will leave £12.3 billion.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am very interested in this point and it is exactly what I want to press the Minister on. Earlier he said that this was irrespective of—net of, if you like—demographic changes. Is he still saying that that is true for these figures? Certainly, all my assumptions based on his impact analysis and all the rest of it, and from what most of us know about this, are that people are getting their DLA and carrying it through into older age, and there is increased eligibility for attendance allowance by virtue of people living longer. So what one really wants to know is where he thinks the extra cost is coming from and whether, rather like pension costs, it reflects what is happening demographically and does not show any “looseness” in the financial gateways to the benefit.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I said earlier, the history of this is that only 30 per cent of the gain that we have seen in recent years has been due to demographics. The rest has been the result of a drive in demand. I do not think that there was any assumption of a huge change in expectation in the projection. I am sure that once she has gone through Hansard, the noble Baroness will work it out.

I shall take the question on transitional protection put by my noble friend Lord Newton that I failed to answer. He had to ask it again, and I apologise for that. We do not have any plans to introduce such protection for people who currently receive DLA and may not be entitled to PIP. While I accept that they may have been entitled to it for some time, it would be strange to continue to pay a benefit to people who no longer met the entitlement criteria. So there is no difference between this and the similar 2004-05 exercise where 12 per cent of people were found no longer to be entitled.

I turn now to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the difficulty of working out what the assessments we published on Friday mean. That was an exercise in showing the weightings and how the criteria might work to prioritise relative need. We know that there are strong views on these relative weightings. That is why we have published them: so that we can now discuss and fine-tune them to the extent that we need to. As I said, we will be able to move on this when we come to these clauses on Report, having done the exercise and worked out what it means in terms of entitlement thresholds.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Will the Minister explain whether the department, having done that, will put everyone on a list depending on the number of points they have and then say, “Right, we have a fixed amount of money so we will adjust the levels accordingly”? Or will the divisions be based on a real assessment of people and will the Government then find the money come what may if people meet the thresholds?

The Minister did not answer my earlier question about the assumptions the DWP must already have made about the number of people who are likely to lose out. He said some will gain, some will stay the same and some will get less. After all the modelling that the department has done, there must be an assumption about this. It may need changing in the light of the thresholds, but it would be useful for it to be shared.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will pick up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I have no figures on how many people may or may not lose, mainly because we have not yet locked down the thresholds. However, I assure her that this is a bottom-up exercise based on assessing people's real needs. We are working at it that way round rather than working to a budget. That is what some of the testing we did over the summer was about.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked about the work we have done on some passported benefits. We had detailed discussions with colleagues in the Department for Transport about passporting disabled people to the blue badge scheme. We will include key outcomes from the discussions in the updated impact assessment that we will publish in time for Report.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. I took over the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and I am responding as such. I absolutely understand the need to prioritise the money that is available, and the fact that choices have to be made. I understand that the Government want to support those most in need. I, too, want that. However, the people currently seen to be not in greatest need will become those in need because they will not be able to carry out the daily tasks that DLA enables them to do. We may be storing up trouble for later. I look forward to seeing the more detailed information that is required to understand what the new landscape may be; and I look forward to having many more weekends taken up with reading.

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the difficulty of assessments, and with those of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, on transition. The barriers are still significant to those who may not be considered so disabled in the wider context of disability.

I think of this in terms of sport—and specifically athletics, which I know well. If life as a disabled person is a race and the finish line is full integration into society where DLA is not required, disabled people are not at the start of the 100 metres but spread out at different points along the marathon course. Many disabled people are still in the warm-up area and a few were left on the bus. Of course, this should not stop our attempts to remove barriers, but we should be very careful about the choices that we make. I have concerns that we are simply pushing this issue into other areas and I look forward to continuing the discussion with the Minister, especially around the projection figures of the Department for Work and Pensions, of which I take a slightly different view. I will come back to this at a later stage. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86ZZZJ withdrawn.

Amendment 86ZZZK not moved.

Amendment 86ZZZL

Moved by

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

86ZZZL: Clause 76, page 55, line 18, after “condition” insert “and the social, practical and environmental barriers they face as a disabled person living with that condition”

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I tabled this amendment truly in the spirit of modernisation. The Minister and the Government have called for modernising this benefit and I am at one with that. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the assessment process used to determine eligibility for PIP will be based on the social model of disability. I was inspired to table this amendment by the document, The Future of PIP: A Social Model Based Approach. It was conducted by Scope and has sign-up from practically all the major disability organisations that you can think of.

I have therefore proposed inserting the words,

“and the social, practical and environmental barriers they face as a disabled person living with that condition”,

after,

“the person’s physical or mental condition’,

thereby changing the assessment originally proposed from purely a medical analysis of the barriers faced by the disabled person to a social model approach. This does not mean that the person’s medical condition will not be considered—quite the opposite.

The social model of disability is about recognising the,

“physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychological variations, which may cause individual functional limitation or impairments, but accepts they do not necessarily lead to disability, if society makes environmental, economic and attitudinal adjustments, which take account of and include people regardless of their individual differences (impairments)”.

That is a quote from Professor Colin Barnes, who has written some of the greatest books on the social model of disability.

This amendment therefore takes a modern approach to the assessment process required if a disabled person wishes to become eligible for PIP, or, I hope, DLCA or PIPO. I feel that the Government will want to welcome this amendment. The Minister will know that they have a robust commitment to the social model of disability by endorsing and adopting the 2005 life chances strategy when taking office. That strategy is entirely informed by the social model approach and the Government have said repeatedly that they want to help disabled people to overcome the barriers that they face to leading full and independent lives. They want to ensure that that support is focused on those with the greatest barriers and to more accurately assess who would benefit most from additional support, which is warmly welcomed. Yet despite these bold commitments, so far civil servants have largely designed a medical model test with a tweak of social model now and then that will not deliver these admirable aims. I have a sneaking feeling that the Minister will assure me and other Members of the Committee that the new draft assessment process has now been redesigned to take more account of the environmental and social barriers that get in the way of disabled people’s inclusion in society.

This is very good news and I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have at last begun the work co-productively with a small number of disabled people, and in particular members of their own advisory group on disability—Equality 2025—to redesign parts of the assessment process. However, I have very briefly read the new draft. I feel that it is only just a start and that in order to ensure the social model approach to assessment is maintained by those eventual assessors, who are unlikely to be steeped in the social model of disability, the Government really need to nail their colours to the mast. Where better than in the Bill?

18:30

At this point, Baroness Grey-Thompson continued the speech for Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.

They also need to reassure disabled people that they understand the nature of the barriers they face and that the new system will be based on this. This amendment does just that. I will give some background. Throughout this year as plans for the introduction of PIP have developed, disability organisations such as Scope, the National Centre for Independent Living and even the Government’s own advisory group, Equality 2025, expressed their concern to the Government on numerous occasions that the assessment they proposed until very recently did not show them the full picture of the barriers disabled people face in their everyday lives. I believe that the Government are now listening, but I and others are not convinced that the assessment process will alter as radically as it needs to in order to satisfy their pledge to target the benefit better.

Unless the assessment is clearly based on a social model approach, the system will not be able to accurately identify which people really need to receive support from PIP. Disabled people know that many of the barriers they face do not directly arise from their own bodies, their conditions and impairments but from social, environmental and practical barriers such as inaccessible transport, unsuitable housing or living in social isolation with nobody to support them. I know that the Government agree with this analysis and are equally keen to address such barriers, yet a failure to incorporate this approach properly into the Bill threatens to create a missed opportunity to deliver the Government’s aims.

Scope has been the lead charity working on this issue with a range of organisations, including disability organisations for and of disabled people, public services, academic institutions and think tanks to outline a blueprint for an alternative assessment process for PIP; namely, an assessment process that would ensure that the social model of disability was firmly at the heart of PIP/DLCA and the assessment for it, which I believe would deliver the Government’s aim of targeting the benefit effectively.

In October, Scope published its report entitled The Future of PIP: A Social Model Based Approach outlining this alternative assessment. The report received great support and has been endorsed by more than 20 organisations, including Citizens Advice, Disability Alliance, RADAR, NCIL, Mencap, Mind, the National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers, Guide Dogs, National Deaf Children’s Society, Voluntary Organisations Disability Group and the Papworth Trust.

The report strongly recommends the trial of an approach that: takes greater account of the social, practical and environmental barriers that an individual faces as part of their everyday life—and the costs that come with these—as well as how they manage their condition or impairment on a daily basis; is co-produced with the claimant, rather than being done “to” them, and which tries to avoid many of the same shortcomings evident in the work capability assessment; and is better designed to help disabled people overcome the barriers they face by ensuring that those facing significant external barriers that could be reduced or removed with targeted intervention from services such as occupational therapy are passported on to the relevant services. This will be of benefit to everyone who undergoes an assessment for PIP, regardless of whether they are then assessed as being entitled to the benefit.

This is not to say that disabled people do not experience barriers that result directly from their impairment or condition—they do, and it is, of course, essential that these are considered. However, Scope and other organisations say the plans do not go far enough and that they consider only half the picture. If you want to really support disabled people to overcome the barriers they face to leading the lives that they value, you have to acknowledge and address where those barriers come from. Some will be caused directly by impairment or condition, but others will be societal, practical and environmental. We need to consider these too, much more than in the latest draft criteria. Otherwise, someone with a relatively low impact of impairment, but facing very high barriers and additional costs because they are disabled, will miss out on the vital support they need. The new system would therefore not deliver the Government’s intentions.

At this point, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton resumed.

If the Government are truly serious about embedding the social model of disability within PIP, they must take on board Scope’s recommendations. They must redesign the assessment process with disabled people coproductively so that it accurately identifies those who face the greatest barriers. In this way we will have an assessment process that is fit for purpose in the 21st century but which delivers the aims the Minister has been rightfully suggesting it should.

I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I realise that I should have apologised to the Committee earlier for having taken no part in the debates on this Bill heretofore, then turning up on day 13 and contributing to practically all the debates. I hope that this will be regarded as making up for lost time rather than trespassing on the good will of the Committee. I would have been here for day 11 when contributory ESA was discussed at considerable length, but unfortunately I was away last week and therefore not able to do that, however keen I was to do so. However, I hope that I will be able to make up for lost time on that when we come to Report. There was certainly a lot to get one’s teeth into in the report of the debate on contributory ESA held on day 11, which I have already begun to study with care, but it is quite technical so it will need more study—I can see another weekend or two going on that.

I turn to the matter in hand. I certainly want to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Campbell. People vary in the extent to which they regard the social model of disability as another holy grail of disability policy and in the extent to which they regard the barriers erected by society as opposed to medical factors as accounting for the bulk of a disabled person’s difficulties. I confess that I am inclined to allocate a bit more significance than some to the so-called medical factors—those to do with the individual and their impairment. But this amendment is moved in impeccably moderate terms. Its purpose is simply to ensure that the assessment process for PIP takes into account the full range of factors—social, practical and environmental as well as medical—that disabled people face. No one could possibly disagree with that, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us that he does not either.

In introducing PIP, the Government have stated their commitment to support disabled people to overcome the barriers they face in order to lead full and independent lives. If that is the case, the assessment should assess the full picture of the barriers that disabled people face in their everyday lives, and putting this amendment in the Bill would help to ensure that the assessment process took that form.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I regard this as one of the most important amendments we are considering because of the importance of the message it carries. If we were alive then, most of us remember where we were when President Kennedy was shot, or when 9/11 occurred. I remember exactly where I was when I first came across the social definition of disability. I was in Sweden, it was 30 years ago this year, and it was the International Year of Disabled Persons. I was in the process of trying to get a disabled person’s Act on to the statute book in the House of Commons. With the support of a number of people here, we were successful. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Low, gave me a considerable amount of help outside the Chamber at the time.

The definition was put to me in these terms, which I still carry in my mind. Handicap is the relationship between a disabled person and his or her physical, social or psychological environment. By medical intervention, we may or may not be able to do something about the basic disability, but our ability to amend and adjust the environment can prevent disability becoming a handicap. In those terms, it is glaringly clear where responsibility lies to minimise the degree of handicap that people, for various unfortunate reasons, whether accidental or congenital, have to face as the consequence of disability. It is the responsibility of any Government in any civilised country to have that at the core of their approach to disability politics.

I am not certain of the extent to which the words in the amendment will change the thrust of policy, but I am certain that the commitment to this approach must be central. If we have that commitment at the heart of our thinking, other decisions in this Committee and in later stages will work out for the benefit of disabled people.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, the social model is something that anybody who has been involved in disability for any length of time has been searching to get hold of and use more correctly. I remember that when we did the Disability Discrimination Act, we had a variety of people coming in to see the committee, and it became my role in that committee to ask for a workable definition, which I failed to get from those groups at the time. We have moved on and are getting better. This is a step forward. We are building an agreement here, and I look forward to what the Minister says about it. This is something on which we might be able to admit that there is a continuation of government policy over various Governments. There has been a continuation of agreement on this over many subjects among the parties and across all political barriers. Implementation may change slightly over the years, but growth and consensus have been built up.

It will be very interesting to know how the Minister sees this approach being built into a variety of other subjects later on in the amendments on this part of the Bill, because that will allow us to assess how deep the thinking has been. It is very easy to say, “Of course we’ll do that”, and it has been done. We have all fought many smaller battles on disability over the years because somebody has said, “Oh no, that’s the way we do it”. One of the most recent ones I have been involved in, which I hope is coming to a happy outcome, is, “Oh, you’ve got to be able to spell to an acceptable standard to become an apprentice”. I have bored many people in this House with that over the past few months. They did not quite take on board that the use of language can be through various means. The electronic devices in front of you mean that you can transfer written meaning—text to voice, voice to text and back again—in various ways and have been able to do so for well over a decade. The people who have got involved in this—the people who were writing legislation at that point—were just out of touch with the reality and the perception of those other people who do not share the mainstream. They were interacting with one aspect.

If we can get a definition of how that is coming in, not so much for this amendment but to throw into a couple of others, we will all be a little happier. If you have a wonderful, magical definition that we can put into a Bill, I will cheer.

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I, too, strongly support this group of amendments, which were so comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. I, too, read with great interest the Scope paper The Future of PIP, to which she referred. I strongly urge the Government to take forward the paper’s recommendations and to consider seriously the merits of this group of amendments, which would ensure that the assessment used to determine eligibility for PIP adopted the social model of disability.

I am somewhat bemused by the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. For many years there has been a very good description of a social model. I am proud to say that we first discussed the issue on “Link” in 1975. The progenitor of the social model of disability was on the very first programme. I hope that thinking has progressed since then.

18:45

[Lord Addington]

I did not say that there was no definition; I said that it was not presented to the committee in a way that we felt we could use in legislation. That is the process. One may have an idea that is solid and makes sense, but getting it into workable legislation is something very different.

[Baroness Wilkins]

I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, said, it is the Government's stated aim that the new system should be underpinned by the social model. Ministers have insisted that the assessment process should recognise the disabling barriers that stand in the way of full and equal citizenship for people who need support to go about their daily lives. The Minister for Disabled People recently stated:

“Our vision is clear: we want to remove barriers to create opportunities for disabled people to be able to fulfil their potential and be fully participating members of society”.

I welcome the amended draft regulations that were published by the Government on Friday. They take into account some of the criticisms of the earlier draft. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, said, this is only a start. There is still concern about whether the Government will be able to identify the needs of a broad range of people, including those who need to make greater use of utilities or who incur additional transport costs. The amendments will assist the Government's recognition of the need for the assessment process to recognise the impact of disabling barriers. They will reassure disabled people and their organisations that they have been listened to, and they will provide the clear principle on which the Government say they want the new assessment to be based.

DLA and its replacement, PIP—DCLP as we will now call it—were created in recognition of the fact that it is highly costly to live as a disabled person in today's society. It is not just impairment or illness that create costs but the environmental, economic and attitudinal barriers that often accompany such experiences. The Counting the Cost report by Scope and Demos clearly demonstrated that factors such as the suitability of housing, the accessibility of local transport links and whether an individual has already received other forms of support from friends and family will all contribute to their extra costs. Therefore, it is imperative that these factors are considered when designing the assessment for PIP or DCLP. Otherwise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, eloquently outlined, many disabled people across the country will fail to receive the most appropriate levels of support, and the new assessment process will not be fit for the Government's stated purpose.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I was rather surprised to see that the amendment was felt to be needed. I had thought that the past 30 years would have made such an amendment redundant. Some time back, for just a few months and for reasons that I am ashamed to admit, I was in a wheelchair. Looking back, it is hard to say whether the difficulties I had were due to social or medical factors. What I am sure about is that an impairment easily becomes a disability if the environment is not supportive of that individual. That seems to make the difference.

What puzzled me until the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned it was that we had not referred to the DDA. The whole point of the DDA was to set the medical impairment in a context which, through social, practical, emotional and moral reasons, did not serve to bar the person from full involvement in their lives. What we asked with the DDA was that employers and providers of goods and services should be required to make “reasonable” adjustments. This seemed a perfectly intelligent balance between the costs for small businesses and the rights of individuals not to face artificially induced and constructed barriers to their full social inclusion.

I remember going around the city and looking at our historic buildings, which we had been told by various people could not be made accessible for disabled people. On the contrary, the brilliant architect John Goldsmith, who was then over at the old DoE and was himself disabled, showed how we could ensure full access to buildings from museums to 18th century chapels for disabled people in wheelchairs and the like. In the process, mothers with buggies, pensioners loaded down with bags and a whole swathe of the community found that they had added access on the back of what we were doing nominally for disabled people. We opened up some of the most beautiful buildings of the City to perhaps a third of its population who had found barriers in their way. Without needing to get into a debate about social and medical because I cannot follow down those paths, I say to the Minister that I just do not see how you can separate the one from the other, because they interlock whether they be transport, housing, public access to buildings or whatever. Unless you have both sides of that equation, an impairment will continue to remain a disability—unnecessarily so—for far too many people.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this amendment as my name is on it. Others have explained very clearly the need for these amendments. More specifically, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The social model was a lifeline to me. My parents brought me up to believe that having an impairment was not my fault. I became a wheelchair user at the age of seven—some 35 years ago. I was brought up in the social model before there was even a name for it, but I also grew up in a world where there were loads of people who almost delighted in giving me the long list of things that I never could, or even should, do, such as go to the cinema, stay in a mainstream school, go to university, go to a sports club, or even, more recently, get married and have a baby. The social model outlines very clearly how disabled people can play their part in society. We should not take this for granted because it would be too easy to forget what the social model is.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, these amendments are about encompassing the social model in the Bill. We support them. I have come to this issue somewhat later than some noble Lords here such as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, my noble friend Lady Wilkins and others. I found the Scope document, which has been referred to, particularly helpful not only because it laid out a route to a different process of assessment, but because it took the assessment and criteria in the DWP’s document and tried to point out in practical terms why they may not have encompassed these wider issues. I say to the Minister, as others have said, that this should not be a difficulty for the Government because they have on the record their commitment to the social model. It is in Hansard for 30 November 2010. I think it was the Minister, Maria Miller. It is clearly on the record and not a matter of dispute.

Indeed, the DLA consultation paper referred to the social model in the following terms:

“The social model of disability says that disability is created by barriers in society. These barriers generally fall into three categories: the environment—including inaccessible buildings and services…people’s attitudes—stereotyping, discrimination and prejudice…organisations—inflexible policies, practices and procedures”.

Of course, the model argues that these barriers can be changed or removed. We accept that dealing with these barriers is not just a matter for a DLA or PIP or whatever it is called, but the consequences of these barriers need to be taken into account in assessing entitlement. I ask the Minister how the approach to PIP is reflected in the social model of disability and how the Government would counter criticisms that their approach is still driven by the medical model which concentrated on the inability to undertake activities due to a physical, mental or cognitive impairment.

Paragraph 4.9 on page 29 of the explanatory notes to the second draft of the assessment criteria says,

“Furthermore, we remain concerned that taking greater account of issues such as housing, access to transport, informal support and utilities would make the assessment more subjective and lead to inconsistent outcomes for individuals. Many of these issues will be dependent on local circumstances and availability of services, meaning that results might differ depending on location across the country”.

Of course we understand the difficulty that taking account of a wider range of factors would involve an expanded and different process. However, any process that involves a points-based approach will have a degree of subjectivity to it.

The Minister will be aware of proposals from Scope, which other noble Lords have mentioned, that recommend the trial of a more extensive process that has co-operation with the claimant at its heart. I will not run through the detail except perhaps to comment on the last bit of the process as it sees it, which is the production of a local support plan to capture the evidence and information brought up over the course of the assessment process in order to help highlight where in the individual’s life the barriers and the needs tend to arise. This could help the claimant to identify particular areas in which PIP might provide valuable support in meeting disability costs, but would not take the form of an outcome-based agreement binding the individual to use their PIP for specific purposes. Do the Government have any plans to test this approach, together with input from disability groups? We acknowledge that a good deal of work, thought and engagement has gone into updating the assessment criteria, and this has also been recognised by the Disability Benefits Consortium, but inevitably questions arise about the rules of engagement going forward, what further consultation will be taking place, and particularly about why the Government are confident that the current proposals will take account of the full range of barriers and costs that disabled people face. I think that that is a particular bone of contention that may have been eased by the current document, but that has certainly not been fully answered. That is why it is important to have these issues in the Bill.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is seeking to ensure that the assessment for PIP reflects the social model of disability, which would mean that assessors would not just consider the impact of impairment on an individual, but also the social, practical and environmental barriers they face. On the question raised on the support we have, I should say that we have the Assessment Development Group whose role is to advise on the detail of the new criteria we are developing, so the group is necessarily technical in nature. However, the members of the group have a wide range of experience in working with and supporting disabled people, including two representatives of disabled people and disability organisations. Several of the group members are disabled people. The group includes individuals from a range of professions including occupational therapists, psychiatrists, physiotherapists, expert social workers and GPs. We also have representatives from RADAR and Equality 2025. We know it is important to hear wider views, which is why we have been talking to disability organisations throughout the development of the assessment and why we will continue to do so.

The amendment reflects a commonly held view that the assessment we are developing is a medical assessment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to state that that is not the case. The assessment is not fully based on the medical model, with the impairment or health condition that the individual has or its severity determining the entitlement. Indeed, the type of condition or impairment an individual has is of limited relevance as this assessment focuses on the activities essential to daily living and on outcomes. By looking at holistic activities and participation outcomes, this assessment will better reflect the social model of disability than did previous assessments. I do accept that it is not a full social model assessment; it is not intended to be. However, neither is it a medical model. The reality is that it is somewhere in between. It is perhaps more of a bio-psycho-social model. That is not a term that I have coined; it was coined by Professor Gordon Waddle whose work in the field of health and disability we have discussed in this House before. It recognises that there are biological, psychological and social factors to disability, which we have tried to capture in the assessment.

19:00

I should like to take the opportunity to provide more details on why we decided to do the assessment in this way. It does not include some of the additional factors to which the noble Baroness referred and which have been included in the alternative assessment proposals developed by Scope. I should add that we have a shared objective with Scope, which accepts that DLA is in need of reform: the need to overhaul this outdated benefit; assessing people as individuals, not as impairments; and ensuring that support is targeted on those who need it most. Its report contains some interesting proposals, for example, on how to support people through the claims process. We want to explore these further with Scope and others.

However, it is not administratively feasible to assess every aspect of disabled people’s lives, every barrier they face or every cost they might incur. Long, intrusive and costly assessments would be required to do so. We therefore need to focus the assessment in a way that enables it to be a summary of the overall level of an individual’s need. DLA looks at care and mobility needs to establish this. In this case we have chosen to look at the ability to carry out a series of everyday activities, all of which are essential for participation. We could have looked at other factors, such as those to which the noble Baroness referred. Whatever measure is used, however, it is important to assess need objectively and ensure that there are clear criteria against which to measure it. We must do it consistently for all disabled people, whatever their circumstances and wherever they are in the country.

That is where I think a fully social model assessment is flawed. If we were to consider every social, practical or environmental barrier that individuals face, we could not develop clear criteria against which to assess people, nor could we ensure that there was consistency in how it was applied. Taking into account housing or transport, for example, could lead to very different outcomes for individuals across the country, depending on levels of standards of provision. We believe such an approach to be unfair and at odds with how a national benefit should be paid. Access to personal independence payments should be universal. We do not want effectively to create a form of local needs testing.

I mentioned earlier that considering these wider factors was likely to require longer, more intrusive and more expensive assessments as assessors would need to cover much more ground. They would also be more likely to require more regular reassessments as these external factors could be liable to change more often than the impact of impairments themselves. While we want to review circumstances more frequently in the new benefit, we do not want more assessments than are necessary. Considering that these factors might also lead to an increase in uncertainty around entitlement for individuals and to appeals as people might have very different views about how these external barriers affect them, we are keen to avoid this both for the stress this causes and the cost of handling appeals. Therefore, while I understand the noble Baroness’s position, we do not think that including social factors in the assessment is workable. We want it to be simple, objective and consistent. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I particularly thank all noble Lords who have supported the amendment and teased out some parts of it. The social model sounds so easy but once you start looking into it, it becomes more complex. If the Minister is so confident about this new middle ground called the bio-social-medical model, which I have not heard many disabled people writing songs about recently, why is it not coming up in the guidance or in the Bill? If he is so confident that the social model will be incorporated in the new assessment, why not put it in the Bill alongside the condition? Then the middle ground would be there. It informs and gives intent clearly to all those who are assessing from that legislation.

I wish I had the Minister’s faith that society and the assessors will assess from a social model perspective as well as a medical one. I do not have that faith. Most people when they meet me do not ask, “What can I do to make it easy for you to come around to my house for a gin tonight?”. They ask me what is wrong with me. I get that nearly every week. Everyone wants to know my medical condition before they invite me to their house. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, clearly talked about that “light bulb moment” when everything became clear. I believe that by putting a social model definition in the Bill, it will help others to have that light bulb moment. I do not accept that a more social model approach or a social model-informed approach will lead to less objectivity.

The points-based descriptor approach such as the work capability assessment, which it should be noted has been continually subjected to widespread criticism and a high level of appeals overturned in favour of the claimant, has sparked off the need for a four-year review. Professor Harrington says that we must take a more holistic, social model approach to assessment. Using a points-based, tick-boxed descriptors approach will not capture enough information about the barriers and costs faced by disabled people on a daily basis.

The Government also seem to have concerns about inconsistency as an excuse to standardise disabled people’s experiences. That is precisely what we are not doing here. My alternative approach recognises the diversity of difficulties faced by disabled people. Difficulties arise from a plethora of barriers, which is why you can have two disabled people with the same condition or impairment but who face different social, practical and environmental barriers as a result of disability. Earlier today, I heard about the disability-related cost assessment of a man called Ali Kashmiri. His costs and needs are entirely different from mine, although we have exactly the same impairment and need for a wheelchair, which again shows a need for a social model approach.

I believe that the Government are working hard to make the assessment process more evenly constructed between a medical and a social model approach. However, there is work to be done and I look forward to discussing further with the Minister the new assessment criteria and to hearing the responses of other disabled people to the criteria. When we look at that, perhaps we will come back to this matter. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86ZZZL withdrawn.

Amendments 86ZZZM and 86ZZZN not moved.

Clause 76 agreed.

Clause 77 : Mobility component

Amendments 87ZZZP and 87ZZZQ not moved.

Clause 77 agreed.

Clause 78 : Ability to carry out daily living activities or mobility activities

Amendments 86ZZZR to 86ZZZU not moved.

Amendment 86ZZZUA

Moved by

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

86ZZZUA: Clause 78, Page 56, line 45, at end insert “including a requirement for the decision maker to collect evidence from the claimant’s own health care professionals as a part of the decision making process”

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in all cases, as part of the decision-making process to decide eligibility for PIP, evidence is collected by the DWP from the claimant's healthcare professionals. A great deal of evidence suggests that decisions are frequently inaccurate when made on the basis of reports from face-to-face assessments alone, without being informed by evidence from the claimant's healthcare professionals.

There are lessons to be learnt from the current face-to-face assessments. Evidence shows that when face-to-face assessments are carried out for the WCA, inaccurate results frequently occur. Recent figures published by the DWP demonstrate that 29 per cent of claimants who are in the work-related activity group were placed in it only after a reconsideration or appeal, after they had originally been found fit for work on the basis of the WCA. The deciding factor in tribunals overturning decisions is frequently medical evidence from the claimant's doctor or healthcare professional.

A recent small study by Citizens Advice asked claimants to check the accuracy of the report of what they had said during their assessment. It asked claimants to take part in the study before they had been to the assessment to ensure that the claimants were not just taking part because they had had a poor assessment. Thirty-seven claimants took part in the study. Sixteen of the 37 reports were judged to have a very substantial level of inaccuracy. These claimants were not angry because they have been found fit for work. In fact, nine of the 16 had been placed in the work-related group and would not have seen their report if it had not been for the study. Eleven of the 37 reports were judged to have a medium level of inaccuracy and 10 were felt to be an accurate reflection of what happened at the assessment.

The following case is one of the 16 cases judged to be inaccurate enough to affect a decision for ESA—or, if the claimant were found not fit for work, a decision for DLA. The client had a serious mental health condition as a result of a series of traumatic circumstances. He felt that there was little interest in what he said and he reported a number of factual errors. For example, the report stated that the results of an MRI scan and an ECG were normal. The ECG should have been EG and the client had explained that he had not yet had the results. There were also significant omissions and distortions in what the client is recorded as having said, and false assumptions made as a result. There are other examples in this case study.

The medical evidence sent in by the adviser when the client appealed clearly backed the client's view of the assessment, as the decision was changed on reconsideration without the need to go to a tribunal. The DWP and Atos now recognise the value of medical evidence from the claimant's doctors. The value of this evidence as part of the assessment process was acknowledged by Dr Crawford, the clinical director at Atos, in evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee on 18 May 2011. HCPs working for Atos also acknowledged this when a sample group were interviewed in a survey by the DWP. The DWP now encourages claimants to send in medical evidence for the WCA.

The onus should not be placed on claimants to collect this evidence. Claimants are often charged for medical reports. While advertisers are sometimes able to negotiate with a doctor to drop the charge when a claimant goes to a tribunal, doctors who charge will clearly not make this concession in the case of every claim. The charge is often £30 or £35, and sometimes more. Someone living on the basic ESA of £67 a week cannot afford this amount. It must be the responsibility of the DWP to collect the evidence that is needed for an accurate assessment. It is vital that the assessment process for PIP includes a requirement for the decision-maker to collect evidence from the claimant's healthcare professionals as a core part of the decision-making process. Without this requirement, there is a danger that there will be a two-tier system, with the poorest and most vulnerable claimants unable to afford to pay for evidence, and as a result at risk of receiving a less reliable decision. I beg to move.

19:15

[Lord German]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 86ZZZX in my name. I hope that I am pushing at an open door on this matter. The amendment asks for a suitable person to be informed about and to accompany people to their face-to-face or telephone interviews. I note that page 10 of the explanatory notes that we received from DWP on Friday states that while DWP is still developing the second draft of the assessment criteria, it is able to be clear on a few points. One of the bullet points is that individuals will be able to bring another person, such as a family member, friend, carer or advocate, with them to the face-to-face consultation where they would find that helpful.

That is very welcome, but behind a simple bullet point there lies a number of other questions. The most important is whether the person who is accompanying the person being assessed is able to be an active member of the assessment exercise. That is largely because in the WCA assessment exercise, anyone who accompanies the person being assessed is not allowed to take an active part or to communicate. There are some concerns. We are told that the reason is because the assessors say that the accompanying person could give a false impression of the claimant’s needs. It is good that it looks likely that an explicit right to bring someone along will be built into the regulations, but we need to be clear. People with some conditions, such as autism, mental illness, deafness or many other forms of disability, have communication problems. People with those conditions might not be able to communicate their needs, particularly given the level of anxiety in an assessment of this sort. For many people, it will be the first time that they have been assessed or had a face-to-face interview—I will come some to other forms of assessment in a moment.

Having someone there to support you is helpful, but the person, whether they are a family member, a carer, an advocate or whoever, must have the ability to intervene to give a clear account of the claimant’s situation. In my view, an advocate means someone who can give voice to the feelings of the person being assessed. The worry that I am hoping the Minister can put to one side is that carers might be able to attend the meetings but not be able to speak because they might interfere with the assessment process. In reality, they will give a clearer account of the claimant’s issues. There is some history on this matter. People have been present but have been unable to speak for part of the assessment process. I suppose I am asking the Minister to explain the relationship in the communication criteria which are being assessed and whether someone will be able to speak for a person who is being assessed in that area. I do not know quite how that will play out. The second area of communication problems could be if the assessment is being done on the telephone. There are circumstances when the assessment exercise can be carried out by telephone, and we understand that officials at DWP have said that that can mean that an accompanying person can engage in the same way as at a face-to-face interview.

In conclusion, is this meant to be a real open process where the advocate, the friend, the family member or the carer is able to take a full part in that process to ensure that the communication exercise is done in the most appropriate and holistic manner and that the anxiety levels are reduced?

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, my amendment in this group follows a similar vein but is slightly more specific—unusually for someone who usually prefers a broad brush. It is inspired by the National Autistic Society. Here it is asking for specialist knowledge to be available when somebody is assessed—specifically those in the spectrum that contains autism and Asperger’s syndrome.

Why is this a good example? It was put to me at my party conference at a fringe meeting by somebody whose name I have forgotten—and I apologise to them for that—that autism is not only a spectrum but a three-dimensional one where everything interacts differently. It is incredibly difficult for somebody who is not an expert to take part and assess what is going on and work out how these interactions occur and interact with the outside world.

As we are at the stage of probing amendments, I use that as probably the best example but there are very few packages of disability that do not have elements of that. Degenerative and varying conditions are an obvious example where we are asking a hell of a lot of an assessor who is not specifically trained in that area to get it right. This is not a new subject. Anybody who has been around this knows this has happened for a long, long time and it seems to be something that anybody who is on the Treasury Bench has a problem with.

The previous Government did. The issue was raised on numerous occasions and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I got into a little dance about this at one point. It was a case of her saying, “We are going to give them lots of training”, then me saying, “Are you going to give them the ability to go and get a real expert in individual cases?” and her saying, “But we will give them lots of training”. The noble Baroness was a very thorough and professional Minister. I think her attitudes might have slightly changed but as she is not here we will wait for another occasion.

You need expertise to get things right and to try to get away from the number of times assessments are challenged and the results overturned. People may say that 60 per cent of assessments are not being overturned—40 per cent are. Calling in expertise will probably save money in the long term. It will cut down stress. I do not know what benefit that would be to the administration of the system if things were not automatically challenged but calling in the right people at the right time is what we are calling for here. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a positive response because if we carry on as we are at the moment we are simply going to cause more grief and waste money.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I begin by following the very proper example of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and apologise to the Committee for not participating in its debates until day 13. I have attended a number of sessions and amendments are down in my name and other colleagues’ names and have been down for some time but other commitments in the House have prevented me being here. I do not show any disrespect to the hard work this Committee has done because of that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in her Amendment 86ZZZUA makes a very important point. She is seeking to amend Clause 78 entitled, “Ability to carry out daily living activities or mobility activities”. It makes commonsense for anyone doing that also to seek to collect evidence from the claimant’s own medical healthcare professionals. I hope the Government will certainly see that.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, very ably put the case for his Amendment 86ZZA which I and others have supported. It expresses concern about people who will carry out assessments having the right and proper qualifications. In making legislation we must learn the lessons of what we have done before and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to it. My party when in government in 2008 introduced the work capability assessment as part of the employment and support allowance. It has been flawed. It has been shown that—the noble Lord just has made this point— 40 per cent of those who appeal against decisions have had their appeal upheld. Clearly there is a problem. It is important to have proper qualified people to carry out assessments. Indeed, Professor Harrington, in his report, recommended that there be mental, intellectual and cognitive champions in each medical assessment centre to support professionals in assessing those with such disabilities. Again, that makes sense.

I shall give two brief anecdotes to the Committee, if I may, from my time in the other place. On one occasion a family came to see me. They had been on holiday and their daughter, a young woman, was staying with an aunt in the same street a couple of houses away. She went home one morning to collect the post only to find a man sitting in a car outside the house. He got out saying that he was Dr So-and-So who had come to assess whether she was still entitled to benefits. The young woman protested; she knew nothing about it. He insisted on coming into the House to carry out an assessment of her, resulting in her benefit being stopped. This young woman was in a wheelchair and had been disabled from birth. The point I am making is that sometimes there is such a casual approach even under the present system to these assessments that I am worried that if we do not have properly qualified people, we will not get proper and fair results in future assessments.

In the other case, a woman came to see me whose benefit had been stopped. I listened to her arguments, read the papers, and so on. I thought this was unjust and took up her case. After about two months I was getting nowhere. I wrote back and forth and eventually asked for all the documents that the assessor completed when the assessment to remove her benefit was done. At the top of the first page on the right-hand side, the assessor had written “Wore a fish badge, probably a Christian”. I am not saying that that had any impact on the assessment but what was going through that chap’s mind when he carried out the assessment? Indeed, when I went back to the department they were so concerned that they did not want any bad publicity and the benefit was restored. My point is that sometimes the casual way in which those assessments are done is detrimental. We must ensure that people have proper assessments.

The purpose of Amendments 86ZA and 86ZB in my name, that of my noble friend Lady Healy of Primrose Hill, my noble colleague and fellow countryman, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, are to ensure that claimants are not put through a face-to-face assessment where it is possible to determine the question of a claimant’s entitlement to a benefit on the basis of available, medical and social assessment evidence. That approach will not only save a great deal of money but would avoid placing undue stress on claimants with a disability or a significant illness.

I understand that the Government have estimated the cost of implementing the changes to DLA, including the new assessment regime, in the region of about £675 million. They plan to reassess all current recipients of DLA as part of the move to PIP and PIP claimants will also be reassessed regularly. The National Autistic Society has raised specific concerns about the introduction of face-to-face assessments for the new benefit, particularly given the experience of the work capability assessment to which I have already referred. When the educational support allowance was first introduced in 2008 the National Autistic Society followed a group with autism through the work capability assessment process and identified that the medical assessment was a particular barrier to fully assessing need. Many people reported that the Atos doctors undertaking the assessment did not have a full understanding of people with autism. I share the NAS belief that face-to-face assessments are not necessarily an appropriate way to assess the needs of people with autism because of the nature of their condition and associated difficulties that many have with communication.

Last Wednesday I was in Nottingham attending the annual meeting of the National Autistic Society. The question of replacing DLA with PIP and the worry about face-to-face assessments were on the minds of a lot of people there. I spoke to people about the problems this would cause for their autistic sons and daughters. If anyone needs to understand what autism is, I would start with four words: autism is for life. It is as simple as that. I repeat, autism is for life. One of the founders of the National Autistic Society, Lorna Wing, said, “When you have seen one person with autism, you have seen one person with autism”. That is important to understand because the autism spectrum is such that no two cases are the same.

19:30

If there was one message that I would bring to this Committee from the people to whom I spoke in Nottingham, it is simply that they hope that the Government will examine in more detail proposals to amend the assessment process. They want to see a regime that properly takes into account the reality that at the heart of autism lies the difficulty to communicate effectively and to possess an awareness of one’s own difficulties and needs. These past months, in seeking to learn more about the problems of people with autism and those who care for them, I have spoken to countless people who have told me that on facing an interview, if they were able to do so, their son or daughter would practise their responses to the questions. Others told me of similar circumstances when their son or daughter would give answers that did not accurately reflect their situation, whether due to lack of their own insight or their condition. They simply wanted to answer the question to please the questioner. That really happens.

The information provided to noble Lords for today’s debate by the National Autistic Society emphases some of those points. The briefing tells us that when one claimant with autism was asked, “Can you travel independently?”, he replied that he could. In fact, his support worker had travelled with him every day for the previous six months in order for him to complete a simple bus journey to the local shops. The individual was unable to understand that the real meaning of the question was whether he could independently travel to new places without support. Many people with autism take language literally. This individual felt that he had achieved that. He believed that his answer covered the whole question being put to him, but which he did not fully understand.

This has been my experience of talking to people with autism and their families. Last week, I met two chaps with Asperger’s who were not diagnosed until they were 40 years old. When one sees the problems and difficulties that these people have, we must ensure that any assessment is right, proper and fair. Given the complexity of autism and the lack of knowledge of the condition among professionals, it is vital that any decision about the allocation of benefit takes into account any expert assessment of an individual—a point ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

I agree with the National Autistic Society when it says that it,

“would not expect every medical professional to have a specialist understanding of autism, so where expert reports are available, they must be used”.

Of course they should. It continues:

“Expert reports will be much more comprehensive than any assessment made by a benefits assessor is ever likely to be. In instances, where a detailed report of need, carried out by a specialist is available, we would question the value of a face to face assessment with someone who does not have this expertise”,

and therefore cannot give a proper and fair response in evaluating a person’s condition. The NAS goes on to say:

“The face to face assessment will add unnecessary anxiety to the individual, who has probably … been subject to numerous assessments and tests. It also makes the process more costly at a time where finances are increasingly”,

difficult, as we hear from Ministers all the time.

The Disability Benefits Consortium has rightly argued that people who are severely ill or disabled and suffering from a progressive illness or condition should not be subjected to the stress of a reassessment. The National Autistic Society has taken a similar view and is arguing for a tiered approach to the new assessment process. A paper-based assessment, including self-assessment and expert reports, would constitute a first tier to the assessment process. If a person’s needs can be demonstrated without them having to attend a face-to-face assessment, carrying these out as a matter of routine will save unnecessary expense.

If need has not been sufficiently demonstrated through the process, it would be at this point that a face-to-face assessment could be introduced. Currently, a large majority of DLA decisions are made on the basis of paper evidence. Earlier today, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, made the point that just 1 per cent of these cases are said to have been brought about by fraud. We can be certain that that is not a headline we will see in the newspapers. Surely it is an inefficient use of resources to undertake face-to-face assessments and reassessments of people who have been diagnosed by medical or social care professionals as having a condition that either is unlikely to change significantly or that will certainly, by the nature of the condition, deteriorate over time.

On the positive side, I welcome the Minister’s recent indications—I think at Second Reading, but he will correct me if I am wrong—that he felt that in some circumstances the face-to-face assessment might be counterproductive. He noted that a number of Peers had worried about autism and how it would be handled, and stated that where it is,

“not realistic, helpful or appropriate”,

the Government will not insist on applicants for PIP being seen face to face.

Amendments 86ZA and 86ZB seek to do just that. They would secure two key objectives that I feel the Minister would be willing to embrace. They would put safeguards in the Bill so that those who have sufficient written evidence to demonstrate their needs do not have to go through a face-to-face assessment unnecessarily. As a result, the Bill would provide that all assessments will take into account expert reports and evidence as a first-tier assessment. This is our chance to ensure a fairer and more reasonable application of the new proposal that the Government are bringing forward. I hope that the Minister will take it on board.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I will be brief as I have not put my name to any amendments in the group, but there is a definite case for someone who has listened intently to what was said to back the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, recalled to my mind a time in the early 1980s when—I usually get this phrase wrong—my noble kinsman held parties at No. 11 Downing Street. I was very involved with the National Autistic Society. The Christmas party, with him as Father Christmas, was held for the benefit of autistic children. In those days, autism covered just one group. Now there is differentiation between different forms of autism, as there is with many other forms of illness.

My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson moved her amendment sensibly and practically. The requirement that the health implications of what the patient was suffering from should be known before any decisions are taken is obvious and essential, quite apart from all the other good reasons why various aspects should be taken into account. The communications skills that are so important in everything have yet again been re-emphasised.

I will say no more, but I hope that the Minister—if he is listening—will say something very positive. I hope that he has listened to and has been as impressed as I have been by the arguments that were made for something rather more positive in the Bill.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 86ZZA, 86ZA and 86ZB in my name. First I will say a few words in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord German. It is vital for adults with autism spectrum conditions to have this right. It is essential that a claimant whose disability impedes communication has an advocate to help them understand the meaning of questions fully and provide accurate answers. The condition also means that many claimants with autism experience high levels of anxiety. A known advocate would be a reassuring presence in an interview.

An autistic adult may have communication problems that are not obvious to the interviewer. That their answers could dictate whether they get the support they need purely on the grounds that they did not adequately understand what was being asked would be very unfair. Judging by the Explanatory Notes to the new draft regulations, which suggest that a claimant can bring another person to a face-to-face assessment, the Government might be sympathetic to the need for such support. However, without clear rights and duties to ensure that advocates are involved, there is no guarantee that such an advocate can attend, translate at and participate in the interview. Therefore claimants must be explicitly informed of their rights, and it cannot be left to the discretion of the assessor.

Amendment 86ZZA, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Touhig, is about the need for adequate training for assessors. I strongly support it. It is important because it is a safeguard against the fear of many parents that their autistic adult children will not be understood and that the wrong decisions will be taken about their needs and their ability to work. Families from the ACT NOW campaign group are very concerned that inadequately trained assessors will not understand the complexities of autism. They also believe that the government target to reduce expenditure on DLA by £1 billion will seriously prejudice individual discretionary decisions.

Although I welcome the Government’s acceptance of Professor Harrington’s recommendation that there should be mental, intellectual and cognitive champions in each medical assessment, I hope that that will also apply to the assessment of DLA—which possibly may become PIP—and that assessors will have training in autism as well as specific understanding of the limits of their knowledge and will know when to ask for expert advice. It should also be possible for assessors to have access to an expert champion to provide that advice.

The amendment would guarantee the safeguard of properly trained assessors who will have access to the necessary range of medical and psychological expertise. It is about ensuring a standard, regularised system of excellence that will deliver a high-class public service across the country. Families that have been through so much in trying to ensure that their children will be able to live independent lives need to know that the Government acknowledge their concerns and will not leave their child’s future well-being in the hands of inadequately trained and inexperienced assessors whose judgments could result in disastrous consequences. Families are concerned that if, as a result of the proposed 20 per cent cut, the new benefit focuses only on those with the greatest needs, their adult children with autism, who perhaps are unable to access social care support, will also lose this key benefit because of misjudgments by assessors who may be expected to take decisions influenced by the pursuit of targets that have been designed to reduce costs and the number of people on benefits.

Finally, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Touhig to allow claimants not to be put through face-to-face assessments where it is possible to determine the claimant’s entitlement to benefits on the basis of available medical or social care assessment evidence. Interviews and other similar kinds of encounters may cause people with an autism-spectrum condition severe mental anguish. It is not the nervousness or anxiety that we may experience at the approach of a difficult or unpleasant event, but dread and terror. A person with autism has autism for life, as my noble friend pointed out. It is surely unnecessary to repeat a PIP assessment every few years. For many, it will be needless cruelty. A mother of a 20 year-old man with Asperger’s said of his medical assessments, “I think the whole process is completely overwhelming for people with autism”.

The amendments seek to ensure that people who have been diagnosed by medical or social care professionals as having a condition that is unlikely to change significantly or that will deteriorate over time are released from the threat of constant assessment which in so many cases adds to their anxiety and so makes their condition more difficult for them and their carers to manage. Many, but not all, DLA claimants with autism typically undergo a number of assessments by expert professionals. Reports from these assessments will be available, as well as detailed information about them from professionals working with them. The National Autistic Society, to which I am grateful for its briefing, has argued strongly that in many cases an additional assessment by DWP is therefore unnecessary.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I have put my name to these amendments. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said. As joint patron of Autism Cymru, I identify entirely with the points that have been made by noble Lords. I hope there will be further opportunities to press these matters.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening in the middle of the debate but I am conscious that it is the custom that we do not go beyond 7.45 pm in Grand Committee. I suggest that this is a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 2 pm on Wednesday.

Committee adjourned at 7.45 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Monday, 14 November 2011.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Sure Start

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked By

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Sure Start centres have been closed since the Coalition came into power; and how many have had their funding cut in real terms.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, there were 3,631 children’s centres in April 2010. Information supplied by local authorities shows that as of 8 September 2011, there were 3,507 children’s centres in England. Of the reduction of 124 children’s centres, six are outright closures; the remainder are accounted for by local reorganisations such as the merger of two or more centres. A breakdown for each local authority has been placed in the Library and is available on the department’s website. The department does not hold information on local authorities’ funding allocations to individual children’s centres.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that after the coalition was elected, the Government gave an undertaking that Sure Start centres would not be cut? What we are seeing in the Minister’s Answer is the first of a wave of cuts. Is it not right that estimates now suggest that up 250 centres will be closed within the 12 months and that the position is getting worse year by year?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I have given the noble Lord the snapshot of figures that we have for September. As I said, that shows that there have been six outright closures and a further 120 or so mergers. If one added all those together and accepted that those were all closing, which they are not, that comes to something like 3 per cent of the total of Sure Start children’s centres. It is the case that the Government attach high importance to the role that Sure Start children’s centres play, which is why through the early intervention grant we have put in the funding to maintain a national network of Sure Start children’s centres.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, when my honourable friend Sarah Teather, the Minister for Children, made her announcement this morning about the additional free early years places for disadvantaged two year-olds, I noticed that there was something in the consultation about information for parents. The idea is one of moving to an annual report from local authorities about the sufficiency of places, rather than the current assessment. Can my noble friend the Minister say how he feels that this new system will be better than the old one?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the point of having much more information available to parents is that we hope that that will empower them to have more say in the system. We are also looking at trialling payment by results in Sure Start children’s centres, which we think will lead to better services, targeted more on those suffering from the greatest disadvantage. This approach will, I hope, improve the quality of the services delivered through this vital part of early years provision.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is some correlation between the removal of a number of preventive services at local authority level, Sure Start centres being one, and the rise in the number of children who are coming before the courts? This October, a record number of children came before the courts and then went into care. Do the Government not have a view about the need for local authorities to continue to improve their preventive services to keep children with their families rather than having the high level of removal that is happening at the moment?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree on the importance of that. We must do all that we can to try to keep families together and children with their families. That strikes me as being vital and that is one reason why the Government are looking at ways of trying to trial more support for parents, looking at ways of putting extra funding into Relate to keep families together and, more generally, looking at the whole adoption system and the range of support that we make available for children. However, I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of that.

[The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells]

My Lords, 83 per cent of all Sure Start centres are facing budget cuts. Of these the worst hit, in Hull, faces a 56 per cent cut. Does the Minister agree that the cuts affect children, many of whom belong to families being helped out of poverty by the Sure Start provision? Does he further agree that by failing to require local authorities to ring-fence Sure Start, it has become a soft target for cash-strapped authorities?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not agree with the last point made by the right reverend Prelate. I hope the figures I was able to announce to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, demonstrate that local authorities are working extremely hard to spend the money they get through the early intervention grant and maintain the important services delivered through Sure Start children’s centres. Of the 152 local authorities, I think I am right in saying that 119 have announced no change at all to the number of Sure Start children’s centres that they have; of the others a range of measures has been taken. The point of doing away with the ring-fence is to give local authorities greater responsibility and we think that is the right approach.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

My Lords, for the first time ever we have the prospect, through Sure Start, of a universal integrated service for the under-fives and their parents. It is clear, however, that local authorities are not only closing centres but are cutting their budgets dramatically—11 per cent this year, 21 per cent next year—in response to the Government’s significant cuts in the early intervention grant and the removal of the ring-fence, referred to by the right reverend Prelate. Will the Minister accept that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that this universal service continues instead of passing the buck to local authorities and that every parent has the right to access Sure Start? Will he at least consider bringing back the ring-fence for Sure Start funding?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As I explained in my answer to the right reverend Prelate, there is a difference of opinion between us and the party opposite about the ring-fence. It is our view that giving local authorities greater discretion over their budget is the right way to go forward; to treat them like the responsible bodies that they are. I recognise there is not as much money around as there was before—I cannot deny that that is the case—but we believe the right way is to put the same funding into the EIG for Sure Start children’s centres, which are an extremely important service. We want to focus them on providing better services for the most disadvantaged and we think that is the right way forward.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, does it remain the policy of the Government to retain ring-fencing of any area of local expenditure, over which the noble Lord has some influence?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I fear I have not boned up on the whole approach towards ring-fencing expenditure across local government. So far as my department is concerned, the general direction of travel we want to go in is to simplify funding, to have as few separate grant streams as we can and to delegate responsibility as much as possible, whether that is to local authorities or to individual schools.

Food: Prices

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

16:45

Asked By

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures are being taken to assist families in the United Kingdom to cope with increasing food prices.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the impact of rising food prices is of concern to the Government. While it is not the Government’s role to control food prices, we understand the need to monitor the impact of price increases on households. I hope it reassures the noble Lord that the Government provide a nutritional safety net to extremely low-income families through the Healthy Start scheme, which offers vouchers for essential foods. As the noble Lord will know, we also take into account food prices when benefits rise annually with consumer price inflation.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, according to the latest statistics from the OECD, UK food consumers face the second highest increase in food prices of anywhere in Europe—ironically, after Hungary. What are the Government going to do about it? Why are British food consumers so hard-hit relative to others in Europe? This is an urgent problem for family budgets—what is the Government’s response?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the House will know that food supplies and volatility in food price markets have been a feature of the past 12 months. We cannot doubt that in this country we have the most efficient food supply chain in Europe. Our supermarkets are extremely price-competitive, as anyone here who has shopped in other countries will realise. I think that the noble Lord was talking about increases rather than absolutes, but I am talking in absolute terms. Of course we are concerned. I think that the secret lies in increasing food production and producing a great deal more self-sufficiently in this country—a policy that was abandoned by the last Government but which this Government are determined to take up.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

I dare say that my noble friend will not recall that my first appearance in the Cabinet was on Guy Fawkes Day 1972, when I was appointed Britain’s first Minister for Consumer Affairs—a role described by Sir Edward Heath as the Minister for Keeping Down Prices. Does my noble friend recollect that that task was then taken on by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and that the most enthusiastic enforcer was the late Lord Cockfield? If there is any lesson to be learnt, it is that we were all wasting our time and burdening the nation to wholly no good. Will he please assure us that that lesson is fully understood?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for taking me back to my childhood in politics—names like Aubrey Jones and Fred Catherwood and prices and incomes policies all come back to me. Indeed, my noble and learned friend is right to remind us that there is nothing like a competitive market with a strong retail sector to make sure that prices are kept as competitive and as low as possible.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm the previous Government’s estimate that the EU’s agricultural policy costs each family of four in the United Kingdom about £1,000 per annum in higher food costs and tax? Would he also agree that since these higher food costs fall largely on milk, bread and sugar, they hit our poorest hardest? Finally, would he confirm that there is nothing we can do about this while we remain in the European Union?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I should inform the noble Lord that in actual fact the world price of sugar is currently higher than the internal European price of sugar. Indeed, the common agricultural policy, despite all the misgivings, at least provides some degree of stability in the huge volatility that there has been in global commodity prices. I cannot share the noble Lord’s view.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the rapid growth of food banks around the country—a Christian initiative which is gaining ever wider support? I declare an interest as the patron of Norwich Foodbank, which has assisted 860 families and individuals in just the past three months. What might be done to better integrate this generous voluntary provision with the work of statutory agencies?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Last week I, like a number of other noble Lords, attended an evening on food waste here in the House. Present at that gathering was FareShare, which, with FoodCycle, offers a facility whereby food that would otherwise be wasted can be made available through charity outlets. I think that that is a worthwhile initiative, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington on arranging the evening. It was most enlightening and, indeed, encouraging.

[Baroness Trumpington]

Is the Minister aware of the extremely helpful programme going out weekly on the BBC describing British food that is available to everybody but does not seem to be taken up? Can Defra please help the BBC? Cabbages, eggs and everything you can think of are being dealt with most efficiently on the BBC—I hate to give it credit but it is true. It would be helpful if Defra could follow in those valuable footsteps.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The BBC has pioneered informative broadcasting on agricultural matters, from “Farming Today” to “The Archers” to “Countryfile”, all of which I hope inform the public about what it is to produce food and all the elements that go in to making a strong food supply chain in this country.

Health: Cancer Drugs Fund

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked By

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the cancer drug fund.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, since October 2010, more than 7,500 patients in England have benefited from the additional funding we have provided for cancer drugs. The £600 million we have committed over three years will improve the lives of many thousands more cancer sufferers, giving them precious extra time with their loved ones.

[Baroness Morgan of Drefelin]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as chief executive of a cancer research charity. Can the Minister share with the House thoughts on plans for the fund, following the abolition of strategic health authorities which are currently responsible for administering the fund? Will he share with us any thoughts the department has about emerging patterns of variation in access to the fund? I appreciate that it is a new fund and that patterns are difficult to see in a field where there are small numbers. I would, however, be interested to know what steps the department is taking to issue further advice on that question.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work in this area. She asked what would happen when strategic health authorities are abolished. Arrangements from 1 April 2013, which is the planned abolition date, and beyond will be the subject of discussions between my department and the NHS Commissioning Board Authority. So I cannot give her definite news yet on that front.

I know that the regional clinical panels are using their own judgment to come to decisions, and it is entirely right that they should. At the same time, they are alive to apparent variations in the drugs that are being made available through the fund in different regions, and I understand that the SHA clinical panels are working collectively now to better understand the reasons for those differences.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that thousands of cancer patients have benefited from the cancer drugs fund, but can the Minister give an assurance that those cancer treatments currently available through the fund will continue to be available when value-based pricing is introduced in 2014?

[Earl Howe]

One of our aims for value-based pricing is to give patients better access to innovative and clinically effective drugs, which, unfortunately, has not always been the case until now, hence the need for the cancer drugs fund. That is certainly one of our ambitions for value-based pricing.

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems with this very welcome fund is that still too few patients know about it? Is his department planning any information campaign to ensure that patients know more about it so that they can ask for access to the fund themselves, particularly in view of the more complex structure that they will face in the NHS when the Bill currently before the House is law?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point. We endeavoured to publicise the fund in April when it was created. We have reminded the health service to make the fund’s existence known wherever possible. The specific answer to her question is no, we do not plan a publicity campaign. However, we wish to ensure that clinicians in the service are as fully aware of the fund as they should be. I believe that they are, certainly at the level of secondary care.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, I have read in the paper that some very expensive cancer drugs will now be approved by NICE on the understanding that DNA testing will assess whether the patient will benefit from them. This was one of the arguments to do with giving terribly expensive drugs. Will these drugs also now be available from the same source after 2013?

[Earl Howe]

We plan to ensure that value-based pricing will take care of the gap that currently exists in the availability of cancer drugs, which the cancer drugs fund is trying to address. In theory, until then any drug that a clinician wishes to prescribe for a cancer patient is available under the cancer drugs fund. There is no restriction that we have set; it is a clinical judgment.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, many patients from north Wales go to Christie’s Hospital in Manchester or Clatterbridge on Merseyside. How will this fund be available to them? How does Wales come out of the complexity of this situation?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, it is of course for the devolved Administrations to make their own decisions about their individual needs and budgets. It will depend on whether commissioners in Wales are willing to accept the cost of treating a patient with a drug that is not normally available in Wales. I cannot generalise but it is up to Welsh commissioners to take that decision.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I am aware that 2013 is approaching very fast. Does the Minister’s department have a timetable for the strategy that will be in place once the strategic health authorities have gone? Will there be consultation on those plans?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as I told the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, discussions are ongoing as to the arrangements that will be in place after the abolition of strategic health authorities. I cannot say that we have definite plans in place but I hope that we will be able to announce our plans soon.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, cancer treatment drugs are often used in a range of measures to treat people suffering from cancer, including both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Is it not the case that concern is being expressed about the closure of access to radiotherapy in some hospitals, and that people are having to travel for up to three hours? I understand that this is a problem in Essex and other parts of the country. Does the Minister share the concern about people not being able to get the treatment they need if these centres close? Who is responsible now, and who would be responsible in the future under the Government’s proposals, for ensuring that reasonable access is maintained?

[Earl Howe]

We are concerned to ensure that patients have reasonable access to the treatments that they need, including radiotherapy. I can tell the noble Baroness that part of the additional funding that we are making available under the strategy for cancer that we published earlier this year will go towards widening access to radiotherapy—not only better utilising the facilities that we have but commissioning new facilities. However, I am afraid it is the case that we increasingly see specialised units being concentrated in fewer locations. Unfortunately, this will mean that some patients have to travel a little further than they otherwise would have.

Media: Ownership

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked By

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent News Corporation bid for full ownership of BSkyB, what assessment they have made of the legislation relevant to the bid; and what deficiencies in the legislation they have identified.

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, the News Corporation bid for BSkyB raised a number of issues in respect of the existing media ownership regime. The Secretary of State will consider these issues, alongside any others and the recommendations from the Leveson inquiry, as he undertakes the communications review.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is general concern across the House about the adequacy of the current legislation? Does she also accept that the provisions of Section 58(3) and (4) of the Enterprise Act were created to enable the Secretary of State to amend the conditions in Section 58 if he or she felt that the need arose? In those circumstances, will the noble Baroness tell us why the Secretary of State refuses to take advantage of Section 58(3) and (4) to ensure that in future, if there is a fundamental mistake, misrepresentation or act of bad faith, advantage cannot be taken of the same?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, yet again the noble and learned Baroness raises a very technical and important point. This follows our extensive correspondence about Section 58(3) and (4) of the Enterprise Act 2002, all letters relating to which have been placed in the Library. With all due respect to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, we may not agree on specific points, but I want to clarify that there is already a requirement on Ofcom to make certain that anyone holding a broadcasting licence is and remains a fit and proper person. I again stress that this is an ongoing requirement and not one limited just to a merger situation. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for raising this important point again and we will consider it. The Secretary of State is not refusing to act; he will bring this up at the Communications Bill committee while also awaiting the results of the Leveson inquiry.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that over the past 10 years, and way before that, Governments and media owners have become far too close to each other? Would it therefore not be sensible to ensure that Ministers do not make the final decisions in media takeovers?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My noble friend makes a very good point. He has brought it up before and he knows that the Secretary of State agrees with it. The Secretary of State said this in his speech in Edinburgh on the Royal Television Society. He said that he wanted to explore this option in more detail and welcomed any views. At the same time, he will take into account the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry before making any final decisions. This is on the table and I am pleased that my noble friend has brought it up.

[Lord Razzall]

My Lords, obviously this is an occasion on which we are slightly intruding on private grief, bearing in mind the travails of News Corporation. Does the Minister not agree that the concern at the time of the original bid was that, if the merger were allowed, there would be no further power for either Ofcom or the Competition Commission to intervene, even if the News Corporation share of the market got bigger and bigger? Does she accept that there is an opportunity in the future Communications Bill to ensure that intervention can take place not just when there is an act such as a merger or a takeover but at any stage thereafter if the organisation gets too big?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My noble friend is very expert in these matters and has gone to the core of the subject. We are looking at the existing rules, particularly in the light of the News Corporation merger. It is important that these rules that we have in place do not allow one person or organisation to have too much control over the whole media landscape. We want a vibrant media market which attracts investment, ideas and skill. The challenge is to come up with suitable restrictions on media ownership which do not unduly restrict those. We recognise the gap that he mentions.

[Lord Prescott]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will realise that in the debates that we have had in this House on the Murdoch press and its application to BSkyB she has constantly told us that it is an issue not of criminality but of plurality. However, those crimes have continued under Murdoch. Indeed, only four months ago the Secretary of State for Culture assured us that he had interviewed Murdoch and was satisfied that he was increasing the independence of the editorial board and the financial viability of BSkyB. I hope the Minister will understand that it is not acceptable for this company to be in control of BSkyB or, indeed, to own the shares that it has at the moment as it is not a fit and proper company. Will its present shares be now reconsidered as the company is not a fit and proper one in view of all its criminal activities?

[Baroness Rawlings]

My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, and how he has suffered in this matter. We acknowledge that so far one newspaper in particular was responsible for the hacking and that it was the solid investigative journalism of another that exposed it. I am sure he agrees that we need to restore public trust in the regulation and activities of all our newspapers, and we expect that newspapers on the whole will welcome this. We trust that the Leveson independent inquiry will be able to do this and we trust in self-regulation in the capable hands of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral.

Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved By

[Lord Sassoon]

To move that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 29th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 9 November.

Motion agreed.

Health and Social Care Bill

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day)

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 18th Report from the Constitution Committee.

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

15:07

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I rise to intervene at this stage because I think this is the only place where I can ask the Minister about an important matter concerned with the ability of the House to conduct a comprehensive consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill.

On Friday last week my honourable friend John Healey MP made available the report that he had received from the Information Commissioner. What he asked for a year ago was the risk register which would have set out the key risks with information about them and an assessment—RAG, which is the traffic lights system—of their likelihood and impact on the implementation of the Bill through the transition period. His request was initially refused and has gone to appeal. Noble Lords will realise that this information is completely pertinent to the further consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill in Committee here. The issue I seek clarification on is the very damning judgment of the Information Commissioner. He says that the Department of Health must disclose this information within 35 days of receipt of his notice. Were the Secretary of State to wait until the last possible minute, this would take us near to the very end of our Committee stage on the Bill. In the spirit of open and transparent government, I ask the Minister to make the information available to the House as soon as possible, and certainly in time for consideration of the Bill on Wednesday morning at 11 am.

The risk register is available immediately because it is a regularly updated component of good governance of any major programme, and as such can be easily accessed. In other words, it is not a difficult document to duplicate or forward to anyone. The commissioner finds that there is a very strong public interest in the disclosure of this information given the significant change to the structure of the NHS proposed by the Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist the House by making this information available very quickly, because I am sure he will realise its relevancy. I hope very much that I will not find myself back here on Wednesday morning asking why the release of this documentation has not been possible. I regret that, under those circumstances, I may be asking what the implications for the future consideration of the Bill might be if the House does not have access to this potentially very important information.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: I hope that the Minister will give very careful consideration to this request. I believe it will enrich our debate substantially and of course enable us to deal with issues that may change as we learn more about the effect of these statements. I plead with him on behalf of these Benches to consider whether the department could release these documents as quickly as possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me prior notice of her question. I am grateful too to my noble friend Lady Williams for her remarks. As I stated in my letter to Mr John Healey some time ago, I am of course conscious that there will be public interest in the contents of the risk register. However, from a government perspective, we need to balance this with the public interest in preserving the ability of officials to engage in discussions about policy options and risks without apprehension that suggested courses of action may be held up to public and media scrutiny before they have been fully developed or evaluated. We also need to balance the need for my ministerial colleagues, our officials and me to have sufficient space in which to develop our thinking, explore policy options, and weigh all this against the risk that disclosure may deter candid discussion in the future, which may in turn impact on the quality of decision-making. Those are the issues.

We are therefore currently considering the decision notice from the Information Commissioner. We have to respond by 6 December and we intend to meet that deadline. Unfortunately, I cannot go beyond that commitment today. In the mean time, it is perhaps right for me to point out that we have already made public a very considerable amount of detail about our reforms, including information on key sensitivities and risks by policy area in the impact assessments that were published in January and September this year. I refer the noble Baroness to these documents. In addition, we continue actively to engage with stakeholders, building on the work of the NHS Future Forum and listening exercise.

Motion agreed.

Amendment 46

Moved by Lord Patel of Bradford

46: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—

“Secretary of State’s duty as to promoting equality of provision

After section 1D of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—

“1E Duty as to promoting equality of provision

In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to promote equality for those providing services on behalf of the health service and shall within one year of passing this Act, lay a report before Parliament on the treatment for Value Added Tax of supplies by charities to bodies exercising functions on behalf of a Minister of the Crown of healthcare services or associated goods.”

Lord Patel of Bradford: My Lords, we have discussed many aspects of equity and equality in relation to this Bill. In moving this amendment, I wish to draw attention to one matter that concerns the equity of provisions for VAT. Noble Lords will be aware that certain organisations, such as the NHS and charitable organisations, have particular exemptions in respect of VAT. I am not an expert in this area and certainly would be keen to hear from those noble Lords here today who are.

It was only in January this year that we debated the unfair burden placed on charitable organisations that take on public services but cannot claim the same VAT exemptions as the health service providers they have succeeded. A major inequality exists with respect to irrecoverable VAT for charities providing healthcare services. While the NHS is able to recover VAT on, for example, certain non-business supplies, charities are unable to do so. Of course, the NHS’s ability to recover VAT on certain non-business supplies is written into Section 41 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Under current legislation, when services are transferred from the NHS to the charity sector, there is a VAT gap that needs to be filled either by charitable funds or by the local PCT.

15:15

I shall give one small example, provided by Sue Ryder, one of they UK’s largest specialist palliative care providers. One of Sue Ryder’s hospices incurs £44,000 in VAT each year. If that hospice were run by the NHS, it would be able to recover 57 per cent of that amount under Section 41 of the VAT Act. That would allow the hospice to employ a nurse for around 44 weeks, or provide 1,500 bereavement sessions to families who had lost a loved one, or provide 2,500 hours of support from a carer. This amendment recognises that the Treasury has been engaged with the hospice sector to try to find a solution to the problem. I want to ensure that it remains on the Government’s agenda, so the amendment asks them to present a report to Parliament on this critical issue.

I am grateful to Sue Ryder Care for making me aware of this issue. As many noble Lords are aware, Sue Ryder provides specialist palliative and long-term care for people living with cancer, multiple sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, stroke, brain injury and other life-changing illnesses. It is one of the largest specialist palliative care providers in the UK, offering 4 million hours of care, over 100,000 days of long-term residential care, with the help of more than 8,000 volunteers. It provides vital services for people in their darkest hours of need. Who would argue that we should not do all we can to ensure that this continues? Yet these services are threatened. They face an additional burden at a time when the Government are asking organisations such as Sue Ryder to do more. It could be one of the many “any qualified providers” that are invited to take over services such as hospice care under the Bill.

As far as I am aware, there are currently 36 NHS hospices, all of which are rightly exempt from VAT. I understand that the issue is complex. It concerns EU legislation as much as our own national fiscal policies. Moreover, the Government have previously expressed concern that addressing the unfairness for the charitable sector would subsequently create problems for the private sector. Nevertheless, I am not convinced by these arguments and find it untenable to believe that this House, with all its creativity, cannot address this problem. It is surely unreasonable to expect those who give charitable donations to organisations such as Sue Ryder to pay tax twice—their donations are from income that is already being taxed, yet the vital services which their donations go towards supporting are then taxed again for VAT.

This issue is not limited to hospice services but affects many charitable organisations providing a range of health services. The situation is made all the more grave by the recent increase in VAT to 20 per cent. Estimates by the Charity Tax Group state that, prior to the rise in VAT, charities were paying more than £1 billion in irrecoverable VAT and that, after the rise, this figure has gone up by an extra £143 million. Sue Ryder informs me that approximately one-third of its income is from statutory services. What this means in effect is that, without its valuable contribution to care, the cost of providing it in the NHS would be two-thirds more.

We should not expect the charitable sector and those individuals who give their hard-earned money to support it to subsidise care that everyone agrees is vital, yet we do. We not only ask the sector to continue to provide these services at such significant cost-savings but we add insult to injury by saying that it should do so without the tax benefits given to the NHS.

I am aware from a discussion on this same issue in the other place that various solutions have been put to government to rectify the problem. One is the so-called “poppy” solution, whereby a matching grant for the VAT is given by way of return to the charitable organisation. This solution worked well for the Royal British Legion, and it should be possible to have something similar for hospice-care providers. It has also been proposed that relief enjoyed by local authorities and other public bodies under Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 and certain healthcare provisions under Section 41 of the same Act could be used to assist hospices. Alternatively, similar exemptions to those in operation across the education sector, where academies are able to enjoy the same exemptions as those given to local authorities, could be used.

To date, the Government have taken no action on any of the proposed solutions. Given the scope in the Health and Social Care Bill for additional services to be taken on by the sector, the need for action is even more urgent. The amendment seeks to strengthen the duty on the Secretary of State to promote equality in health service provision and would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the way in which VAT has been treated with respect to charities providing health services. This would enable us, in a transparent way, to see clearly the impact of any inequity in this kind of provision and also the total impact on the sector.

I am aware that more will be needed. There will almost certainly need to be two solutions to the problem—one pre and one post NHS reform. It is for this reason that the amendment seeks a report and not a solution. We want to ensure that we create a sustainable solution that applies when the clinical commissioning groups commission care. In order to do that, we need to have the information about how this affects voluntary sector service providers. I am sure noble Lords will want to discuss the merits and potential benefits of this approach and I look forward to their contributions. I strongly hope the Minister will see fit to accept the amendment and recognise that the unfair treatment of charities that are taking on health services from the NHS must be addressed as an urgent issue if the aims of the Bill are to be realised. I beg to move.

[Lord Noon]

My Lords, I wish to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Patel of Bradford. I declare an interest as chair of the Noon Foundation, which has made significant donations to charitable organisations and others concerned with the care of those living with cancer and those in hospices or receiving palliative care in the community.

My noble friend has outlined many of the key issues faced by the charitable sector with respect to VAT exemptions. I do not want to repeat these arguments, but let me add further information on the scale of the services that we are discussing. The combined contribution of these services amounts to more than 26 million hours of care every year. In excess of 2,000 adult in-patient beds are provided by the voluntary sector and more than £1 million is raised in charitable donations every day.

Of course, these are voluntary sector services that rely on thousands of people who give up their time to ensure the work is done. In fact, the estimated value of the 100,000 volunteers is said to be more than £112 million each year. The value of this sector as a whole in providing hospices and palliative care is in the order of £3 worth of care for every £1 invested. This is an outstanding achievement that should make all of us very proud. It is also why we should be doing much more to protect the sector and ensure that it can operate and grow on a level playing field.

I am a businessman so I know something about VAT and the need for equality in financial arrangements when different providers are in the same market. I am perhaps less anxious than some about the use of competition as a driving force in healthcare. I believe that competition can be harnessed for good and that there are many benefits to be realised by opening up the healthcare sector to this kind of discipline. However, competition must be fair and the current arrangements on VAT between health services and the charitable sector are certainly not fair.

One of the charities that I have been most closely involved with, as a donor and a supporter, is Marie Curie Cancer Care. Marie Curie provides high-quality end-of-life nursing care throughout the UK and has more than 2,000 Marie Curie nurses, who care for half of all cancer patients who die at home. These nurses provide essential care for patients and their families at the most stressful time of their lives. I have met many of these nurses, and their dedication and passion is second to none. They not only provide essential practical support to people as they face the end of their lives but are an emotional support for the whole family.

In addition to a range of community and home nursing services, Marie Curie is one of the largest providers of hospice care outside the NHS in the country. It runs nine specialist hospices which deal with all the patients’ needs—physical, social and emotional—across in-patient and day-care services. These services are vital to those who use and need them but we should put them in this context: 65 per cent of people say that they would like the choice of being able to die in their own home, surrounded by family and friends, but the reality is that only 20 per cent manage to achieve this choice.

It is clear that we need more of these provisions, and the Health and Social Care Bill will help to extend them. The new arrangements for commissioning mean that other organisations can provide more health services. This will also mean that there will be much more competition from lower-quality commercial organisations, but we must support them to be able to do this. Part of that support must be to ensure that there is a level playing field in respect of VAT. We should not expect charities to take up an extra burden in providing these vital services by expecting them to take on costs that do not currently apply to the NHS. The amendment provides a way of achieving this social goal by placing a clear duty on the Government through the Secretary of State’s report to Parliament on the treatment of VAT provisions across the charitable sector. I hope the Minister agrees that it is an important move in the right direction and will support the amendment.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I declare all my interests in relation to hospice and palliative care services.

The amendment is particularly important because of the any qualified provider provision which seeks to bring in more charitable sector providers, working with NHS commissioners, to provide essential services where the NHS is not able to plug the gap. That is why there was a debate in the other place in May this year on the effect of VAT on hospices. However, it goes much wider than simply hospices.

The VAT gap means that the private sector can claim back VAT by passing on the cost to customers; the public sector pays VAT, which is then refunded by government; but the charitable sector can do neither—it fund raises. In the hospice world—I am grateful to Help the Hospices for the figures—an average hospital in the UK, supporting about 1,000 patients and spending £8 million on care, may receive about 30 per cent of its funding from the NHS but it will spend about £82,000 on irrecoverable VAT. So money has to be raised just to cover that VAT gap.

As the hospital takes on more and more responsibilities, the problems become greater. As we try to get hospices to work together on joint ventures and share services with other providers and other charities, one hospice has to recharge services to another—one voluntary sector provider to another—including VAT, and that cannot be recovered. It also cannot recover any VAT on the repair and construction costs of charitable buildings. As there is increasing use of its buildings and it needs to upgrade to meet more modern quality requirements, VAT becomes a problem because, for the hospital to provide the quality service that we need, it has to outlay on capital expenditure.

The other difficulty is that VAT is fairly complicated for charities and requires expertise to manage the VAT process for them, which of course also incurs a cost on them in terms of personnel, which again is irrecoverable.

This is an extremely important amendment and the principle behind it has to be tackled if the fundamental idea of any qualified provider is to work in practice in the long term and provide stable, quality clinical services.

15:30

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

My Lords, charities have been campaigning about the VAT issue for many years. My charitable interests are declared in the Register of Members’ Interests. Without doubt, the VAT issue is an unfair burden and a major inequality in the charitable sector. Why should it be of concern to us? Let us think of what charities are good at. In addition to the services outlined by noble Lords already, charities are good at spotting gaps and funding innovative solutions. They are good at bridging gaps, especially between health and social care. They are very good at seeing patients or service users in their particular situations and providing services which meet their needs and not some notional need determined by an assessor. Those things are going to be tremendously important in the new NHS going forward.

Noble Lords should think of the contributions to care and health made by helplines, information provision, carer support groups and specialist nurses. They should think of the particularly significant service of incontinence supplies and advice—so vital to people with disabilities and to older people and their carers—provided extensively by charities. It is vital that charities are not only encouraged to continue to participate, but are also supported to do so—and not to be made subject to additional burdens such as those that noble Lords have outlined. The NHS and social care service cannot do without these services and, most importantly, patients, users and carers cannot do without them. Therefore, we must make it as easy as possible to provide for all qualified providers, including charities. I support the amendment.

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, I rise to lend my support for this amendment. I speak here as a trustee of the Wolfson Foundation, which has a programme of support for hospices and care homes and over the years has given many millions of pounds, largely for capital projects. VAT is a constant source of unhappiness to the trustees, and, in fact, they have reached the conclusion that they will no longer pay VAT for capital projects. This means, of course, that the hospices and care homes themselves will have to find that money, which is unfortunate. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take this amendment seriously.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I support the amendment and I do so from a background of having been the chairman of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and a trustee of a number of organisations that have supplied services to the NHS and local government. This is indeed a very long-running sore; it is a source of grievance. It often goes with another grievance—one which is not germane to this debate but which I might as well mention, because it explains why voluntary organisations are sometimes reluctant to provide some services for public authorities. That is a kind of meanness, almost, on the part of many public bodies about meeting the administrative costs—the management costs—of local authorities. If one takes the two together—a meanness about meeting management costs and being treated unfairly on VAT—this is a barrier to entry.

I fully support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. As the Minister knows, I have probably made myself a little unpopular on these Benches through my support for the idea of competition on a level playing field. I have a later amendment which raises the issue of barriers to entry. This is a barrier to entry. It is stopping voluntary organisations participating fully on the basis of a level playing field as a qualified provider. Therefore, in terms of the Government’s own philosophy in the area of competition, they would do well to listen to these arguments and remove this barrier to entry.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, I rise briefly to lend support to the amendment. I work with charities for the homeless and for children. If the Government’s ambition is to enable the NHS to work with the patient on the full pathway—rather than work being done in little bits by different organisations—then making the playing field level for the voluntary sector is absolutely critical to developing those pathways. In my experience, the voluntary organisation is frequently the glue in making sure that the pathway for the patient works for the patient.

I remind the Minister that when this works well there are often savings for the National Health Service. I have experienced that in homelessness, where we have been able to work with the PCT to get a community matron. That has reduced the number of expensive admissions to hospital and A&E for the most disadvantaged—the homeless. I have also seen that work well with, for example, children with disabilities and children who are very ill. They have been enabled to remain at home with the proper support instead of being frequently admitted to hospital.

It is to the advantage of the NHS that we get this right. What will the Government do to bring forward in the Bill comfort and encouragement for the voluntary sector? After the pause, that sector has been left with a rather large amount of confusion.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, for over 25 years I have worked either in or as a consultant to voluntary organisations. Consequently, my eyes lit up at the sight of an amendment that said VAT and charities. In my time, I have sat with wet towels around my head trying to figure out this, one of the most complicated subjects. I have attended seminar after seminar with the Inland Revenue at which people with bigger brains than me have come away with their heads reeling from trying to understand the issue of VAT and charities. It is infinitely more complicated for charities than it is for the private or public sectors. That is not new. As various people have said, this issue has been running for some considerable time.

I want to correct two impressions that might have been given inadvertently in the debate. First, there is the impression that there is a view in the charitable sector on this issue. There is not, because the issue effects different organisations disproportionately. While there may well be a consensus among hospices that it would be advantageous for them to make such a change, it may not be and indeed is not for other, smaller charities. That is the first thing.

Secondly, we have this new generation of social enterprises. These organisations are not charities but businesses. They are intended to be big players in the provision of services. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, has been clever here in not asking for the Government to take a particular step. He simply asks for a report on a subject that will fascinate some of us quite deeply. Were the Government to take on board the point that the noble Lord makes, apart from looking at a whole range of different charities—not just hospices—would they also consider the effect on social enterprises? I do not think that it is possible to come up with a set of legal proposals that relate simply to health and social care. By definition, they would have to go across the whole of public services. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would accept that an exercise of this kind should do that.

Finally, be careful in the questions that you ask of HMRC. As someone who advised charities, I was always brought up never to ask a question of HMRC unless I was pretty confident that I would get back the answer that I wanted. This may be an answer that the hospices want but I would wish to be pretty clear that it worked for charities across the board. I simply finish by saying that if this subject were straightforward, it would have been sorted out a long time ago—but it is not and that is why it has not been.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for what she just said about the complexity of the question. However, I would like to go back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said about what charities do well. Particularly important is their face-to-face concern with the whole needs of whole persons rather than the abstract application of principles. I would add two things that some charities offer that intersect with other bits of our social agenda at the moment. One is the passion of those volunteers who work particularly for local, small charities. A lot of energy is sapped by precisely the issue that we are discussing this afternoon. If we are concerned for what might be called in the most general way the big society, how you engage people in maximum participation at a local level in concerns and charities—particularly small ones, which are very close to the action—is extraordinarily important, it seems to me. Passion and localism are two aspects of this that must not be forgotten.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, moved an absolutely model probing amendment, and the complexity of the issue was very well illustrated by the brief contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I came not to take part in this debate but to listen, but I just want to say, as someone who represented a constituency in Parliament for 40 years, that I saw the enormously valuable work that so many charities did, particularly hospices and organisations that provide support, such as the Macmillan nurses and, as the noble Lord, Lord Noon, mentioned, the Marie Curie nurses, who do a very similar job.

As we have this seminal opportunity to get it right, I hope that my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect and regard, will be able to respond to this exemplary probing amendment in his customary exemplary way by indicating that the Government are indeed taking these matters exceptionally seriously. I hope that the Government are anxious to ensure, when this Bill emerges from Committee and goes to Report, that the Minister will have some remedies to meet the extremely important and pertinent points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, when he moved this amendment and others who have supported him in this brief but, I think, important debate.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I declare an interest in charitable organisations that are in the register. When it comes to the details of VAT and its complications, my expertise is roughly equivalent to that of Vince Cable. In the light of that, I took the very sensible advice of my noble friend Lady Wheeler and discussed matters with a charity here in London. It was quite an enlightening experience. I was told that the change in the world of voluntary organisations has made a significant difference to their position in relation to VAT. At one time, much of their income came from grants; now it is increasingly contracted. As contracting organisations, they become liable for the tax. For example, a new build for that particular organisation at one time would not have attracted VAT, but now it does; and as we have heard, there are other examples of that happening. Moreover, some of the services that it provides are exempt, as in education and social care, while others are not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, told us, smaller organisations in particular have to invest resources in getting the necessary advice to deal with their VAT problems. The organisation to which I spoke had an even more complicated position. It has a building, and because it is carrying out work that is both subject to VAT and not subject to VAT, it has effectively had to split the building into those parts that provide services that are exempt and others that are not; and there is a problem with mixed use in part of the building. It has to monitor and record everything scrupulously and file returns accordingly, so it is an extremely difficult position for such organisations.

I congratulate my noble friends Lord Patel of Bradford and Lord Noon on bringing this amendment to the House, as it throws light on a significant anomaly affecting very many voluntary organisations—the very sector that all of us, especially I suppose the Government, in the light of their proclaimed belief in the big society, would wish very much to encourage. The amendment does not require a change in the law at this stage; it merely seeks a report. It is time that this long-running matter, which has endured for many years under Governments of both political persuasions, should be resolved on the basis of a report. It is of growing importance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, again reminded us, because of the position of any qualified provider, which would now be open to a wider range of organisations.

15:45

At the moment, the anomaly exists in relation to the charitable sector and the National Health Service, but clearly there are other implications, including for the social enterprises to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred. In that context, it is interesting to consider the position of the voluntary sector compared with other organisations, some of which purport to be social enterprises. I cite the example of Circle, of which we heard a good deal last week and read about over the weekend. This organisation has now taken over the management of the Hinchingbrooke Hospital, which apparently had a pre-tax loss of £44 million in its last year. When it floated on the stock market, its prospectus said that growth would place,

“a strain on its managerial, administrative, operational, financial, information technology and other resources and could affect its ability to provide a consistent level of service to its patients”.

I cannot imagine that any voluntary organisation, or most other social enterprises, would have come within a mile of obtaining a contract under those circumstances, and it seems strange that that contract should be given to an organisation of that kind while the voluntary sector is significantly handicapped by the current VAT regime.

I hope very much, therefore, that the Government accept the amendment and undertake the review that it suggests, so that we might take matters forward and relieve them of a burden which reduces nobody’s profits but does reduce the capacity of the sector to provide a better and wider-ranging service to the people whom it seeks to serve, and in whom we all have an interest.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, how could one not accept this amendment?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I begin by saying that I completely understand the seriousness of the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Patel of Bradford and Lord Noon, and others noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, suggested that part of his purpose was to ensure that this issue remained on the government agenda. Let me assure him that the issue is very firmly on the Government’s agenda, and I am pleased that we are having this debate today so that I can outline exactly what we are doing.

Before I turn to address the amendment, I think it would be helpful if I briefly laid out the Government’s view of the role of the voluntary sector in the NHS. We firmly believe that voluntary sector organisations have a strong and often crucial role to play, due to the experience, expertise and insights that they can offer to commissioners and the system more widely. I of course acknowledge and pay tribute to the valuable work performed by Sue Ryder and numerous other charities, including most especially hospices. We recognise that they can play a vital role in delivering innovative, high-quality user-focused services in their local communities, along with improved outcomes for patients and increased value for taxpayers. We also acknowledge, as Amendment 46 highlights, that taxation treatment is one potential barrier to voluntary sector organisations’ entry into the provision of NHS services and to their increased involvement in those services. Access to capital is another. We are very keen to explore ways to overcome these challenges. The department is discussing this, as part of a wide range of issues, with voluntary sector providers of NHS-funded services.

When I was preparing for this debate, I asked whether the Treasury was looking at these issues, and the answer is that it is. I understand that Treasury officials are already working with representatives from the voluntary sector to explore the value added tax treatment of charities supplying the NHS, taking into account the legal limitations and the potential complexities around possible solutions. We are keen that they should make speed over this. However, the introduction of an artificial one-year timetable, as this amendment proposes, would limit the scope for a full and thorough discussion and consideration of this issue. I cannot commit to that limitation. However, I emphasise that we are very keen to work at possible solutions as fast as we can. It is a complex issue. My noble friend Lady Barker pointed us towards some of those complexities.

It is worth my repeating a general point here. The Government are committed to fair competition that delivers better outcomes and greater choice for patients and better value for the taxpayer. We want to see providers from all sectors delivering healthcare services. We have not the least wish to favour one type of provider over another. Indeed, as a result, and to ensure that the Secretary of State, Monitor and the Commissioning Board do not confer preferential treatment on any type or sector of provider, the Government have introduced amendments to Clauses 144, 59 and 20, inserting a new section, Section 130, into the National Health Service Act 2006.

We know very well that the voluntary sector plays a strong role in bringing the voices and experience of patients, service users and carers to the work of improving services, often reaching individuals who are excluded or who cannot access mainstream services. The voluntary sector brings advocacy and information to support individuals to exercise choice and control over the services that they access. These are major prizes, and we wish to capitalise on them. Opening up services to greater choice, for example, through “any qualified provider”—as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—allows for greater involvement by social enterprises or voluntary sector organisations. To a great extent, this is already happening.

Listening to noble Lords, I felt that there was a great deal of consensus around those points. There is a shared feeling across the House that charities have a key part to play in NHS provision, that the current VAT rules can act as a barrier and that this needs to be looked at very closely and urgently. I completely agree with that, and I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, that we will ensure that this taxation issue continues to be considered urgently, as we develop work on a fairer playing field for delivering NHS services. In establishing Monitor’s new functions, the department and Monitor will continue to consider these issues and the priorities to be addressed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, asked in particular what comfort there is in this Bill for the voluntary sector. She quite rightly mentioned the Future Forum in highlighting the work of the sector. The noble Baroness will be aware that the forum gave a very strong endorsement to the Bill’s creation of a bespoke provider regulator, Monitor, in order to oversee a level playing field. Such a commitment to a fair market was and remains a comfort to the voluntary sector. Of course, we acknowledge that more needs to be done, and that includes the ongoing work at the Treasury.

With those remarks, although I am sure that I have not completely satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, I hope that I have given noble Lords the sense that we are onside with this issue and shall be pursuing it with as much urgency as we can. I therefore hope that I have done enough to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, I have listened carefully and with great interest to the many excellent contributions on this proposed amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for giving a very considered and what I believe to be a very sincere response by recognising the issues. Noble Lords have spoken eloquently about many of the issues: the huge numbers of services and people involved—it is absolutely the big society in action. Yet they also clearly talked about what goes to the heart of this Bill: the barriers that are there to stop the provision of equal services. My “unpopular” noble friend Lord Warner clearly outlined those barriers and I will not repeat them.

We have heard from my noble friends about the importance of the voluntary sector. The Minister clearly repeated the importance of the role of the charitable and voluntary sectors, and the fact that they work with some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the complexity of the situation. She raised the important issue of social enterprises and the potential exemptions and disbenefits there as well.

We are not asking to make a single-line solution to the problem; we are asking for clarity and transparency. This Government have clearly talked about transparency throughout, and it is so important for us to have that information. I listened to what the noble Earl said about them still discussing how the Treasury will go ahead and that they are in the process of taking urgent actions, but those urgent issues have been there for a long time. I suppose that I go back to the issue of my day job, when I am working with service users and local communities. When working with people with mental health problems and drug issues, nobody disagrees with me. Everybody says, “Yep—this is really important and urgent. We have got to look at it and we will. We will talk and we will make sure users are on the panel”, but we are still talking about it 20 years on. We need a document or something that focuses the mind. That is why the amendment seeks to ask the Secretary of State to give us the data.

I do not think that a year is problematic. I think it should be six months. Why do we not have these data? The whole premise of lots of the services we provide is that we need high-quality data to tell us what is missing and what is wrong. I am hoping that a report will be presented to give Members of the House an opportunity to reflect on that data and to look at what is going wrong, and where, because the big danger is that there will be a discussion between the charity sector and the Treasury, and that the Treasury will say, “This is what we can and cannot do—accept it”. It is important that the House and others outside look at the data and the transparency within that and make an informed decision. I will not keep the Committee much longer. It is such an important issue and, as I genuinely think that we should have a report presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State, I therefore wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

15:59

Division 1

Ayes: 195

---

Labour: 142
Crossbench: 41
Bishops: 2
Independent: 2
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 183

---

Conservative: 111
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 15
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

16:10

Amendment 47A

Moved by

[Lord Kakkar]

47A: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Health Education England
(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as Health Education England, answerable to the Secretary of State and charged with the responsibility of ensuring and maintaining high standards of education and training of the NHS healthcare workforce.
(2) In pursuit of that responsibilities, Health Education England shall have due regard to—
(a) the responsibilities of the universities and the Royal Colleges and of other bodies involved with education and training;(b) the statutory responsibilities and authority of the regulatory bodies operating in the healthcare field; and(c) the necessity of ensuring that commissioning groups, foundation trusts, general medical practices and other qualified providers offer appropriate facilities for education, training and research.”

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 47A, which stands also in the names of my noble friends Lord Walton of Detchant and Lord Patel, who, regrettably, cannot attend the Committee this afternoon.

In moving this important amendment and speaking to Amendment 133 in this group, I wish to recognise the important statement made by the Minister on the first day in Committee on 25 October, when he made the case for an amendment to place a duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his function so as to secure an effective education and training system. This is an important and much welcomed recognition of the fact that education and training is absolutely critical to the delivery of healthcare.

The Minister will recognise that, without an appropriate system of education and training, whether it be for a surgeon or a physiotherapist, a neurosurgeon or a nurse, a physician or a radiographer, or indeed a psychiatrist or an occupational therapist, patients will be put at risk. The important gains that the Bill proposes in terms of improving clinical outcomes will not be achieved and vital resources will be squandered.

Education is at the heart of delivering effective healthcare. The professions, the public and indeed government have had previous experience of the introduction of changes in education and training with modernising medical careers that cause severe anxiety and disruption and have made all exceedingly sensitive to the importance of ensuring that any change in systems in the future provides the best opportunity for the patients who have to use health services in our country.

It is well recognised that Her Majesty’s Government wish to deal with education and training in a responsible and sensitive way, and it is broadly recognised that the changes proposed by the Bill raise anxieties about how education and training might be discharged in the future. In this regard, the commitment of the Government to seeking further clarification and the views of the NHS Future Forum is an important initiative. However, it would be impossible for the Bill to proceed unless there were absolute clarity with regard to education and training.

The intention is that employers will play a much greater role in the future discharge of education and training functions, and there is no doubt that the education and training system must be sensitive to the needs of the service and, most of all, to the needs of patients. We must also ensure, however, that two vital issues are addressed. The first is the ongoing interaction and engagement with the academic sector, universities and educational expertise. It would not be right for employers alone to determine the nature and content of curricula associated with the training of the healthcare workforce. Secondly, notwithstanding that there will be a second Bill—most likely in the next Session of Parliament—to deal with health workforce education and training, it is critical that enough detail is associated with this Bill to ensure that we can continue with confidence in planning and organising the arrangements for the healthcare workforce to be appropriately trained and educated.

16:15

With regard to interaction with those bodies, authorities and universities that have an expertise in the education of the healthcare workforce, will the Minister confirm that it is indeed the Government’s intention that, in the proposal to establish Heath Education England—whether as a special health authority in the intervening period and, thereafter, ultimately as a statutory arm’s-length body in a future Bill—there will be a requirement for Health Education England to engage fully with the academic sector? Will the development of curricula for the training of different disciplines in the healthcare workforce be set in partnership by service providers, employers and academic institutions working together to develop the curriculum? Will the working of local education and training boards be such that there is a clear relationship between them and Health Education England? Will the boards be composed of appropriate academic-health service partnerships to ensure that the valuable expertise in both the service and the academic sector can be brought into play to develop appropriate curricula and ensure that they are delivered to the highest standard; that those curricula are developed to meet both service needs and, most importantly, patient needs; and that, within the structure of local education and training boards, there are non-executive independent directors who ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are overcome?

We have certainly been fortunate in having strong deaneries that have accumulated large volumes of expertise in and insight into the delivery of postgraduate medical education and training. It is important that these functions and this expertise are not lost in the system, and that postgraduate deans are potentially housed in universities in the future so that their important functions can continue to be delivered as part of the local education and training board structure.

It is critical that there is an obligation on Health Education England to have an appropriate level of engagement and interaction with the royal colleges in medicine and other professional colleges. They are the regulatory bodies that play an important role in the supervision of training and the development of standards for practice in our country. Heath Education England should also be under an obligation to ensure that any qualified provider—NHS trusts, general medical practitioners and others—who ultimately has the responsibility and privilege of delivering NHS services has regard to providing appropriate education and training opportunities. This is vital, as the basis of education and training in our country has always been strong clinical exposure. If many of those clinical opportunities for training move to different service providers, the opportunities for education and training must not be lost. Amendment 133 deals with a further responsibility of the board and commissioning groups—to ensure that these interactions are properly addressed and that opportunities for training are not lost but well understood.

I recognise that the Government are considering these matters through the work of the NHS Future Forum and in other consultations. The purpose of tabling these amendments is to probe the Government’s view about education and training, and to determine whether there remains a strong commitment to academic service partnerships to drive forward education, training, innovation and research opportunities. These are all vital in ensuring that we have the highest-quality healthcare workforce for the future. They will also help us to understand better how Her Majesty’s Government envisage the relationship between Health Education England and local education and training boards.

Other amendments in this group deal with the important question of the future funding of education and training, and the importance of funding being ring-fenced and applied only for this purpose, rather than being put into potential jeopardy and used for other elements of the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 47B, which to some extent overlaps with Amendment 47A, which the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has moved so eloquently. I fully support the remarks that he made, particularly in relation to medical deaneries.

I want to start from the position in which we find ourselves. This Bill contains a major reorganisation, which affects 1.4 million employees. As David Nicholson has said, the size of this reorganisation can be seen from space. I can remember making these rather trite speeches as a Minister about the NHS being the largest organisation alongside Indian Railways and the Red Army. Ministers before me made the same speeches just to emphasise the sheer scale of the NHS and the number of employees working in it. Therefore, it seems extraordinary that the Government could have considered for a long time reorganising this organisation in such a way without taking into account the education and training of probably the most labour-intensive and largest workforce in the country. It is not surprising that, in these circumstances, people in the NHS are very concerned about what is going to happen to education and training in this brave new world that the Government are taking us into.

That is why some of us want to move amendments that go a good deal further than did the Government’s amendment in this area, which seemed to me not unlike those Russian dolls—once you open one doll, another is inside and a smaller doll is inside that—in its endless reference back to other bits of legislation. We need something much clearer than that if we are to reassure the people working in the NHS that education and training are going to be safeguarded and looked after in a period of major disruption to the way we run our health service.

Amendment 47B imposes a clear duty on the Secretary of State,

“to provide or secure the provision of an effective system for the planning and delivery of education and training of a workforce of sufficient size … to discharge his duties under this Act”.

That seems to me to be the focus that we should have in our discussions in this particular area. It tries to produce a clearer duty on the Secretary of State than the Government’s Amendment 43, but goes further by requiring the establishment of a new body, Health Education England, to oversee, supervise and manage the current functions and national budget relating to multidisciplinary training.

As we take the Bill through this House, it is not enough simply to say, “Oh dear, we are waiting on the Future Forum”. I am sure that the Future Forum will have something good to say, but before this Bill leaves this House as an Act we need to produce much more certainty about how this service is to be continued and how the money is to be safeguarded. The size of the budget involved is considerable—somewhere in excess of £5 billion a year. Much of that money is looked after and spent by the rather maligned strategic health authorities, which will disappear in 2013 as I understand it. That money passes through them to the end-users of the money that deliver education and training. There is great uncertainty and concern about how national and regional planning of education and training, including the medical deaneries, will actually work, how they will be funded and how the current budget will be safeguarded.

I recognise that employers need to play a full part in education and training, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has said, but I have seen the briefing by NHS Employers on this issue. That briefing makes pretty clear that there is huge uncertainty below the national level about how education and training will be managed when the strategic health authorities are abolished in 2013. People seem to be fumbling their way around, searching for a way forward when the SHAs go. We know that some activities cannot be left to local employers alone. A prime example of this is the specialist training that has to go on in securing placements for younger doctors coming through the early stages of their training and needing to have specialist postings to ensure that they can progress along the specialist route to fill the consultant posts of tomorrow.

At the national level we need to achieve greater clarity on how the Secretary of State will discharge his responsibilities in relation to education and training. The Government seem to think that this can be left to legislation in the next Session but as far as I can see they can give no assurances, other than resting on good will and the Future Forum, to say clearly what this system would encompass, what it would look like and how it would work. The more sceptical among us have doubts about whether the Government will have the appetite for another Health and Social Care Bill in the next Session. If one was Prime Minister for a day, it would not be surprising to doubt whether one would entrust another Bill in this territory to the team that gave us this Bill. That thought must have occurred to the Prime Minister at some time in his busy life.

In closing, I would like to say a few words about the third subsection in this amendment. This is in response to the concerns that have been expressed that many current functions and their budgets will be passed to the national Commissioning Board almost by default, and at the very time when the crisis on meeting the Nicholson challenge of saving £20 billion in four years will be moving to crunch time. I suppose there is a kind of poetic justice that David Nicholson should be asked to consider his own challenge and deal with it as chief executive of the national Commissioning Board, but people are concerned that temptation should not be put in his way in the form of the £5 billion or so of the budget for education and training work of the NHS. To help him resist that temptation, should it arise, this amendment includes a formula for preserving the education and training budget. It may not be the perfect formula—I am sure that noble Lords across the House would be willing to discuss a better one—but some kind of formula and ring-fencing which protect the budget for education and training is a sine qua non if we are to carry with us staff up and down the country working in the NHS whom we expect to continue to deliver a highly effective NHS at a time of great organisational change.

Of course, the Minister may be able to reassure us all and give us some guarantees, and I look forward to hearing them. These need to be guarantees about how the amount currently spent on education and training will be safeguarded. We will also want to know: what is to happen to the money when the SHAs are abolished? What division of responsibility between Health Education England and employers are the Government planning? Do the Government envisage a role in this sphere for the national Commissioning Board? I hope the Minister will not simply say that the Government are waiting for the Future Forum to report.

16:30

[Lord Turnberg]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 47B, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Warner. I simply wish to emphasise some of the points that he has raised and some of those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar. The amendment is an attempt to fill a conspicuous gap in the Bill in relation to education and training—namely, to introduce at this stage the idea that we have a Health Education England. I recognise of course that we are waiting for further information from the Future Forum and that we should expect further legislation on this in due course, but this is a subject on which we cannot afford to wait. We need something in this Bill, if only to try to settle some of the many uncertainties that are so disabling for many out there. We cannot wait for a second Bill at some uncertain and probably distant time.

The White Paper Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce is frankly disturbing in some of its recommendations. Putting responsibility for education and training at the local level entirely in the hands of provider networks—so-called local skills networks—is to my mind, and that of many I have spoken to, both dangerous and potentially damaging. Of course we need, and should have, local input in planning for local workforce needs. However, the standards of education and the level of skills and knowledge that patients deserve have to be set on a national scale. It is not helpful to have a healthcare worker trained solely for local needs who is unable to transfer to another part of the country without going through another local training scheme. Training must be transferable. For that we need national curricula, assessments and levels of achievement, so that when a new healthcare worker joins an organisation, the organisation can rely on that training.

At the moment, for medicine at least, the GMC sets the overall standard and the royal colleges and their specialist advisory committees provide all the curricula and set the exams, assessments and qualifications so that employers and patients can rely on the fact that a newly appointed cardiologist or surgeon, for example, has reached a recognised and approved standard on a national scale. However, most of the medical, nursing and other training takes place at the coal face: in the wards or in general practice by trainers who are themselves practitioners. Here, out and about, the postgraduate deans play the pivotal role because they oversee the whole process of training and planning of the workforce for their part of the country. The deans are the glue that makes it all happen. They control, of course, the budgets for the salaries of all the medical trainees. At the moment, they are employed by the strategic health authorities. When those authorities disappear, the current proposal is for them to be taken over by local provider skills networks. I have already suggested that it would be unfortunate if these bodies were purely NHS providers with little input from those with experience of what education and training entails. Providers may know something about what they want out of it at the end, but they are not set up to oversee and provide the education by themselves.

There are two things that must happen if we are to have a reliable system. First, Health Education England must be set up now, as this amendment suggests. This organisation should become a focus for the postgraduate deans and should probably be their employer. Secondly, we must make more use of the expertise in education that lies in the universities across the country. While universities are engaged in nurse education and that of some other healthcare workers, we must be one of the few countries in the world where universities play little or no formal role in postgraduate medical education. Of course, most clinical professors and their staff are engaged in teaching postgraduates, but the universities have no formal roles. It makes quite a bit of sense, therefore, to consider having the universities play a much bigger role in the local skills networks with the NHS providers. The postgraduate deans might indeed be employed by the universities if they are not to go into Health Education England, although I am not suggesting that their budgets go across to the universities—that may be a step too far.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it would be possible for the deans to be seconded to the local university. It might well be a valuable outcome if the deans could then work closely with local NHS/academic partnerships rather than with NHS providers alone. The example of the academic/health service partnerships set up as collaborations between the NHS and universities to encourage research and the transfer of innovation into practice, as initiated at UCL, might be worth following, and I hope that it might find favour with the Minister. A new partnership built on this kind of model, with deans, providers and universities, and advice from the royal colleges and oversight from Health Education England, would, I believe, find a lot of favour. It would not be providers alone, and it would not be universities alone—where we have seen some of the difficulties associated with nurse education—but a balanced combination of the two. I hope that we can see something emerge along those lines. If that is seen to be the general direction of travel now, even if the detail comes later when we have seen the Future Forum’s report, it will settle many of the anxieties that exist.

I understand that there is an intention to set up an interim Health Education England some time next year, but unless it is given the budget for education, some £5 billion a year, and if the money is instead diffused into local skills networks in the meanwhile, I fear that it will be lost for ever. That is why we should have a clear statement in the Bill now about Health Education England and its funding.

The other part of the amendment refers to the need to ensure that the funding for education and training is not eroded in the changeover, and I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort there, too.

I know that there is much more work to be done by the Government, but we should not leave this until some uncertain future. We must have something a little more concrete in this Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to help us.

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 47B. At Second Reading, I referred to why I thought it important that education and training be mentioned in the Bill, even though it was understood that work was already under way. Noble Lords who have spoken have underlined the importance of education and training being mentioned in statute now.

The Health and Social Care Bill proposes a comprehensive health service reliant on an effective workforce that is capable and competent to deliver a service that demonstrates improved patient outcomes. For this to happen, there needs to be an effective partnership between the NHS and universities. The introduction of local commissioning of services will also require local commissioning for education and training places for the agreed workforce plan at both local and national level. There must be multi-professional involvement if professional silos are to be avoided, both in relation to funding and the structures and governance arrangements that underpin the workforce. For too long, silos have been the problem in the funding arrangements for education, training and research.

Developments around the establishment of Health Education England are now being considered, but, as has already been said, progress is slow and is causing anxiety out in the field. The intent to move to an integrated health and social care service calls for these partnership arrangements to be made. There is a need to ensure the right balance of responsibility and accountability between Health Education England and the provider-led networks—employers/professions, the education sector and the whole workforce, plus patient and public representatives, working together. It is vital that this is a proper partnership and representation on the boards of local education and training boards, which can ensure effective multi-professional workforce planning. Representation of universities, medical schools and postgraduate deaneries, in relation to both non-medical and medical education, on the board of the local education training boards will ensure effective co-production of the healthcare workforce.

Universities should not be considered simply providers of education programmes but also co-producers of the workforce through this wider role of research, innovation, releasing social capital, and the globalisation of healthcare, which is integral to the development of advanced clinical care, service redesign and workforce planning. Universities should work in co-operation with the NHS to ensure the delivery of high-quality education and training and then be held to account by Health Education England. Ensuring that universities are a central part of the local education will facilitate effective partnerships, improved quality outcomes and a multi-professional approach.

The intent to move to this is very important and the establishment of budgets, which has already been mentioned, is also crucial. As already stated, silos should be avoided so that an integrated approach can be established to the education and training of the workforce. The challenge for the new education system will be whether it can truly ensure the co-product of a workforce that can deliver the new way that care can be delivered—one that will provide holistic care, especially adapting to the demographic changes, demanding more care in the community for the elderly, frail, vulnerable and for end-of-life care. Budgets will need to reflect the most cost-effective provision of care to enable hospital expenditure to be reduced.

Nursing, midwifery and other allied healthcare professions are committed to evidence-based practice and would warmly welcome the multi-professional involvement in education and training programmes as well as the benefit gained from multi-professional buildings and shared facilities. Not only would this be of benefit for the learning environments but it could be cost-effective in the use of expensive educational facilities, tutorial staffing and equipment. Could the Minister clarify some of these issues in his summing up?

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I have an amendment in this grouping. It addresses the duty that I would like to see on clinical commissioning groups to promote education and training of the current and future NHS workforce. The reason for putting the future in is because of the undergraduates who are studying to become healthcare professionals. This is important because we know that primary care placements at undergraduate level have a significant influence on career choices and therefore on career progression. The quality of training and the quality of care given by the tutor who is their tutor in primary care is influenced by having undergraduates with them. That applies across all the disciplines that work in the community.

The other point is that general practitioners will need training in commissioning responsibilities in the future. Therefore, if we are to attract the brightest and best of our undergraduate clinical workforce to work in the community and eventually contribute in clinical commissioning groups, they need to have excellent exposure at an undergraduate level.

I also support the other amendments in the group so eloquently introduced by my noble friend Lord Kakkar. I strongly support the comments made by all the other noble Lords who have spoken. We need to have this duty at every level—at Secretary of State level, at Commissioning Board level and, as I have suggested, at clinical commissioning group level. The one area that we have not addressed and that is not in the amendments is the way that Monitor grants licenses. We might need to come on to that at a later stage when we discuss Monitor.

There is a particular need for planning medical education and training and having it planned nationally. It takes 15 years, on average, from start to finish to develop a specialist in highly technical, very complicated areas of medicine. There are about 32 small specialities, and in-depth local intelligence and intelligence within that speciality are needed to know both the numbers that are needed in the future and to horizon-scan and look at the type of training that will need to be delivered and whether things will change. A simple example is in surgery, to which reference has already been made, where keyhole surgery came about. My discipline, the development of palliative medicine as a distinct speciality, has completely altered the face of some of the care in both hospitals and the community, and it has a significant workforce which is still developing.

16:45

There is also a need for reliable information on education and training so that the Centre for Workforce Intelligence can work with the proposed Health Education England to ensure that there is good information underpinning decisions. Quality management of education and training in medicine is currently undertaken by the deaneries, by and large, and that should be built on. They provide independent quality assurance. If the dean is the responsible officer and has a ring-fenced budget and a financial lever, they can withhold funding for posts and have been shown in many parts of the UK to rapidly drive up quality where there have been concerns about the training environment into which trainees were going. It is not difficult to expand that system to take on postgraduate deanery structures for the other disciplines as well.

I strongly endorse the need for the allied healthcare professionals and nursing to come under the new structure as well. There is a need for inter-professional working and learning. Inter-professional learning and integrated delivery of services with integrated learning will drive up the quality of care and ensure the development of good clinical leadership so that we bring the level of the best into the delivery and content of education and training.

The commissioning groups, in particular, must ensure that there are appropriate facilities for education and training. The quality of the commissioning they do at a local level, with both NHS and other providers, will ensure that undergraduate and postgraduate students can be placed in and learn from a wide range of services. We will then have a workforce fit for the future.

Health Education England, when established, can audit the local education and training boards and maintain a national perspective. There is worrying information about the way things are going. I have spoken to the Medical Schools Council, which recently surveyed medical school involvement in the development of the emerging local education and training boards. It indicates a variable extent to which higher educational institutions are involved in planning and suggests that the structures will vary widely. In some areas, such as the north-west and the east Midlands, medical schools and higher educational institutes appear to be actively excluded from the developing local education and training boards. This is extremely worrying because in service transformation there needs to be quality control and academic rigour. Medical schools are required by the General Medical Council to act as quality managers of clinical placements but, by excluding those which are providing education from the local education and training boards, we risk having a serious disconnect in the way that services develop and are delivered, and in the way that our workforce is trained.

[Lord Ribeiro]

I have listened to the debate with considerable interest, particularly as it brings to our attention the whole concept of Health Education England. I think Health Education England is a work in progress, and the reason I say that is that, as a result of the MMC/MTAS debacle that took place in 2006-07, one of the major recommendations of the inquiry that followed by Sir John Tooke was that a new body should be set up called Medical Education England. That recommendation was accepted by the Government at the time, and by the Opposition. It started work under the chairmanship of Dr Patricia Hamilton, who has come to this House to give her views on the development of education and training.

The reason I mention that is that Medical Education England was designed to deal with medicine. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has said, more than 50 per cent of the multiprofessional education budget actually goes on nurses and other non-medical members. Therefore, it is totally inappropriate to be moving on to a Medical Education England model when clearly we have to encompass all the other health providers, and hence we have Health Education England. I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to get on with this but, to get this to work, it needs to be thought through very carefully. One of the reasons—certainly from the medical point of view—is that, among the questions we asked in 2006 was, “What is the end point of training? What are we training these doctors for?”. One has always assumed that most medical treatments will occur within the hospital sector but we know, because of the ageing population, that more and more is being done in general practice and in the community. We therefore need to think very carefully about how we train doctors for the future and where they are going to work.

It is important, therefore, that we give time for the development of the workforce as well as the training and the education of the workforce. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, referred to the Centre for Workforce Intelligence, which is very important, but that is a new agency. I was in America last year, when a representative from it came to brief the American College of Surgeons Health Policy Research Institute on how it was trying to work out where doctors should go within the UK with respect to geography as well as specialty. They were taking advice from the Americans as to how they were trying to map and plan their health workforce.

I think this is work in progress. I welcome that this is a probing amendment, but I do not feel that at present we are in a position to roll out Health Education England without having heard the full report from the Future Forum.

[Lord Owen]

My Lords, I reiterate some of the comments that have already been made by many noble Lords on the sense of urgency about this issue. Above all, I feel rather like the man in the Bateman cartoon who mentions the words “party politics” in the Health and Social Care Bill in the House of Lords. There is here a very deep question. It is frankly inconceivable that there will be legislation in the next Session; I would think it would be almost inconceivable that there would be legislation on this before the next election, which is currently scheduled for 2015. Politicians simply do not usually go in for a repeat hiding, and this Bill has already had one hell of a political controversy. If we have legislation, it may be all on medical education, but it opens up a whole realm of party politics, which I just do not see being done.

Therefore, I want to make a practical suggestion to the Minister. There is a way through this if there could be bipartisan agreement. One only has to think of a situation in which there is no legislation until 2016 to realise that we are facing a real chasm in medical education and continuity. As I understand the legislation, the Secretary of State is empowered to create special health authorities. Whether he does that or removes the ones that are necessary, that power is there. If not, he could easily take it in the Bill.

There is so much cross-party agreement that doing something about health education is pretty urgent. I would have thought that it would be perfectly possible to meet most of the demands. The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, is completely right. We are not in a position to legislate now on anything other than a structure. That structure might be a temporary special health authority. It is not worth prejudging the question but, if it was a special health authority, it would need some form of regulation passed. As long as an agreement could be made—first on the clause that would be in the Bill, along the lines more of Amendment 47B than 47A; and, secondly, with the main substantive regulations for the special health authority done through an affirmative resolution—then it would be perfectly possible for us to move on the creation of this training authority, which has to embrace all the health professions and be pretty wide-ranging, some time at the end of 2012 or early 2013. That would meet the wishes of most people in the National Health Service.

It is really not enough to rest on the fact that there will be a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. I have already tried to convince my own college, the Royal College of Physicians, that it is highly unlikely that this will be fulfilled. As practical politicians, we should ask the Minister to take this away with a measure of real good will to see if there is some way through this issue which does not prejudice the long-term future but allows us to fill a very serious gap.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, I too support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Proposed new subsection (2) simply says that:

“In discharging this duty, the Secretary of State must establish a body known as”.

It does not tell us the rest of the details. It puts a duty on him or her to establish a body responsible for,

“the oversight, supervision and management of all current functions relating to NHS multi-disciplinary education and training, including post-graduate deaneries”.

How will it deliver that? What is going to be its content? That is for the Secretary of State in the future. But we fail in our responsibility if we miss the opportunity right now in the Bill to flag that up as part of the duty of the Secretary of State.

Noble Lords may remember from Second Reading that I spoke against supporting the Motion of the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Hennessey, because I wanted to ensure that the constitutional duty of the Secretary of State is to promote a comprehensive health service and improve the quality of that service. I told the House that I have recently spent time in three different NHS hospitals: University College, London; St Thomas’s Hospital; and York Hospital. These are teaching hospitals. I was more than content that whenever the doctors saw me they came with a large range of nurses, doctors and those in training of all kinds. I became a guinea pig. I did not mind because I knew that I was in a training hospital. How are we to ensure that our National Health Service has that responsibility of making sure they are training hospitals? We must not assume that our NHS delivery of clinical care is almost like the assembly line of a motor car where you fix it and it goes out okay. It is not that kind of thing. What distinguishes most of the best clinical practice is the fact that our National Health Service has these training hospitals. I would be unhappy to know that the Secretary of State had not established a body, known as Health Education England, with responsibility,

“for the oversight, supervision and management of all current functions”.

Where will those lie when the Bill has been passed?

Last time, when we debated other amendments, there was a worry about the diagram of the proposed structure of NHS reforms in the Bill. I drew one up for myself. Listen: the Secretary of State is on top, then there are other bodies—Public Health England, HealthWatch England, the Care Quality Commission, Monitor, NICE, clinical senates and networks, the NHS Commissioning Board, local Healthwatches, health and well-being boards, the community voluntary sector, local government social and public health, and multiple clinical commissioning groups. Where is education in all this? When the Minister replies, will he tell us where he thinks education is going to lie? If it does not lie within this Bill, with its already very complicated structure, the next time I am being treated in the NHS I will be crying, “Where are those learning as I am being treated?”.

17:00

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long. However, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider, as I do, that these amendments and this debate are premature. I do not think that we should be focusing on the substance of these debates other than to point out to my noble friend, as was pointed out when we did this a few sittings ago, that there is a broad sense of the importance of putting on the face of this Bill the responsibility of the Secretary of State for education and training. In that sense I agree with the most right noble Prelate—with the Archbishop of York.

[Noble Lords]

Primate!

[The Archbishop of York]

Call me whatever you like.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I am a just a simple Belfast boy. Archbishop of York seems pretty good to me; most of the clergy I know can only fantasise.

The timing of this debate is important in that it reinforces the message that my noble friend got the last time this was debated in this Chamber. I hope that he will tell those who tabled the amendments that they are premature. If he does, he will need to tell them that he will take away the contents of this debate and the previous one and bring back, in whatever way the Government think is appropriate, a means to attach the principle of education and training to this Bill. He knows that I hope that he will do that, but I hope that he is encouraged that I share the views expressed that this is not yet the time.

The noble Lord, Lord Owen, has addressed particularly well the element of perplexity and perhaps confusion in the NHS about the Government’s intention. My noble friend and his colleagues keep going on about the Future Forum. I am sure that it is doing a fine job, and no word of criticism about it will cross my lips—except to say, as a simple Belfast boy, that in a democracy it seems to me that the role of this House is to try to persuade Ministers; it is not its role to try to persuade those who are going to try to persuade Ministers. The Future Forum may have an important role, but I would like us to discharge our role quite clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, has the experience of having served in Cabinet, and I have been extremely fortunate and blessed to have had a similar experience. If my noble friend or the Secretary of State can go to the Dispatch Box and say, “I undertake that there will be legislation”, and specify the Session, we will all believe him. However, if that is not possible, it adds to the importance of bringing forward at least the principle to get this issue into this Bill.

Those of us who are in favour of education and training but want to support the Government are not entirely clear whether we should be tempted by Amendments 47A, 47B or 133, and I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that I am not tempted by her Amendment 199A. But at some point this House has to make a decision, so I hope that my noble friend will stand up, look the noble Lords who tabled these amendments in the eye and say, “Thank you, it’s been very helpful and I’ve heard what you’ve said. I’ll take it away and I’ll bring something back on Report, which I hope will satisfy the whole House”. In the mean time, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, will be tempted by this comment. If commissioning groups do not have a duty towards education and training, there is a real danger that they will commission services that are equal in quality but undertake no education and training and are therefore of a lower price as they do not incur the expenditure of having to have facilities, and so on, to provide education and training as well. In that case, we will deny the developing workforce expertise of quality placements in many parts of Britain as local commissioning will not take account of it.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, at the risk of stating the obvious, the massive reorganisation of the NHS proposed in the Bill, combined with the need to make £20 billion of efficiency savings, without doubt, and with common agreement across many of the professions, threatens the quality and delivery of medical training, post-graduate training and workforce planning. That is why noble Lords have been exercised about this matter from the outset.

The concern is that responsibility for medical training will be given to healthcare providers who, as I understand it, have a history of allowing service and research to dominate the agenda at the expense of education. That brings with it risks of its own. Many trusts, as other noble Lords have said, have persistently failed to support education supervisors by recognising this activity in job plans and increasingly failed to support their staff in fulfilling important national roles related to standards setting and training. I think that most noble Lords who have spoken would agree that there is an insufficient mention of the safeguards that need to be put in place to protect the quality of medical training.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and my noble friend Lord Turnberg mentioned their concern about post-graduate deaneries. Indeed, that was a major stream of work for the Future Forum. I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that as he made his remarks about the Future Forum I wrote in my notes that I do not understand why the Department of Health seems to have franchised that particular piece of policy-making out to the Future Forum. I think that the Future Forum was right in what it said about the dangers and risks involved in abolishing the strategic health authorities and its recommendation that it was mandatory and critical that alternative arrangements should be made.

We know that post-graduate deaneries are currently pivotal in quality-managing the delivery of medical training in trusts, but the planned replacements, being answerable to and funded by healthcare provider units, may lack the impartiality required to drive the quality agenda at a time when it is most needed because of the fiscal pressures and the associated threat to education quality. We all agree that effective management of the complexities of post-graduate medical training require professional leadership skills and experience, which take many years to develop. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, underlined that point in her remarks. My noble friend Lord Warner put his finger immediately on the crucial aspect—how will the money be safeguarded and how will we make sure that the funding that is necessary is in the right place, is accountable in the right place, and cannot be directed into places that we would not wish it to be? How will the Government make sure that that is what happens?

I was very struck by the briefing on this matter by the Royal College of Nursing. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, referred to this. The Royal College of Nursing expressed its concern that Medical Education England would dominate the new organisation, HEE. I think we would all agree with the RCN that:

“It is essential that nurse educators are treated as equals and the membership of HEE is representative and not led by the medical deaneries”.

The Royal College of Nursing also believes that there is an essential role for national planning in the delivery of these important functions. I think that there are great risks in the decentralisation of education and training in terms of quality, standards and safeguards. It is unclear how the skill networks or the LETBs will be held accountable for performance issues. It is not clear what authority Health Education England will have to enforce performance issues or how its overseeing of the skills network will take place.

There are some key questions for the Minister to address. The crucial one, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who used the expression “chasm in continuity”, is how long we will have to wait for legislation. We cannot be sure that the primary legislation that will be required in this area is going to come down the track in the next year. The Minister needs to recognise that it is too risky to leave this to chance and we have to put the appropriate duties and powers in the Bill to ensure the continuity that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, mentioned. On these Benches, we are very happy to discuss how to resolve that particular issue and how to ensure that medical education is safeguarded.

This is an important group of amendments. I am slightly worried by the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, that this is work in progress. The problem is that there is too much work in progress and there will be too much work in progress for the next few years. This is an area where we cannot take chances. We know from previous reorganisations, for which my Administration were responsible, that we have to be absolutely sure that we are safeguarding the education and training of future generations of workers in the National Health Service.

The most reverend Primate said that continuity and certainty are vital. I agree with him. Certainty in this area is vital. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views, but I suspect that we have not heard the last of this subject.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Government are clear that the education, training and continuing development of the healthcare workforce are fundamental in supporting the delivery of excellent healthcare services across the NHS. I am very pleased that so many noble Lords here today share that view. It is certainly the Government’s view. I very much welcome what have been excellent comments on this subject.

Amendment 47A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, seeks to insert a new clause placing a duty on the Secretary of State to establish a body called Health Education England. Similarly, Amendment 47B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to “provide or secure” an education and training system and to establish Health Education England to take responsibility for these education and training functions. Amendment 47B also specifies that the budget for education and training should be calculated on the basis of total health service expenditure and,

“should be no less than the level of expenditure on education and training at the time of Royal Assent”.

The Government recognise the importance of having an effective education and training system for the healthcare workforce. The NHS invests approximately £4.9 billion centrally in the education and training of health professionals. It is vital that there is a robust system in place to manage this investment wisely, with clear lines of accountability to Parliament. I would point out to the most reverend Primate that that is exactly why we tabled Amendment 43 which, as the Committee will recall, we debated in our first session. The Committee has already approved that amendment, which is now in the Bill and which says that there is a duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his,

“functions … so as to secure … an effective”,

education and training system. It is perhaps worth my flagging up that that amendment has received a positive response from the British Medical Association, which, in the current circumstances, is a rather remarkable fact. I reiterate that it is designed to ensure that the healthcare workforce has the right skills, behaviours and training to deliver a world-class health service. But we want to put flesh on the bones here. We recognise the need to do that and I therefore undertake that we will publish detailed proposals for the education and training system ahead of the Bill’s Report stage where we will describe how this duty will be enacted in practice. However, there are parts of our plans that I can set out now.

It is vital that we ensure a carefully managed transition into the new system and protect staff and students currently undertaking training. We are taking a number of actions in developing the new system to achieve this that I would like to highlight. The Future Forum recommended that the establishment of Health Education England should be expedited to provide leadership and stability in the system. We agree and it is heartening to see that many noble Lords support this course of action. We have appointed a senior responsible officer to drive this forward and inject pace into the design and development of Health Education England.

To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Owen, while I do not share in any way his analysis of the future prospects of the next health Bill, he was right on one matter: we plan to establish Health Education England as a special health authority in 2012. This will enable it to take on some of its functions from October 2012 and be ready to be fully operational from April 2013. There is not and there will not be the chasm that the noble Lord referred to. Noble Lords will have a chance to scrutinise the establishment order and regulations to set up Health Education England as a special health authority when they are laid before Parliament in early summer 2012. Lest there is any doubt on the matter, I reassure the Committee that it is our intention that Health Education England should form excellent partnerships with a full range of bodies involved in the planning, commissioning, provision and quality assurance of education and training.

However, I can say in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Kakkar, that Health Education England will provide national leadership for education and training, overseeing workforce planning and the commissioning and delivery of education and training across the system. We have been clear about its accountability to the Secretary of State to ensure that, at national level, there are sufficient health professionals with the right skills, education and training to meet future healthcare needs. Providers of NHS services will be expected to meet the obligations set out in the NHS constitution, including the right of recipients of NHS healthcare to be treated with a professional standard of care by appropriately qualified and experienced staff. Health Education England will hold responsibility for the management of the NHS multi-professional education and training budget, or MPET. To ensure that this budget is sufficient to support the development of the future NHS workforce, equipped with the right skills, our intention is to base the size of this budget on the needs of the service, supported by robust analysis of local workforce and education and training plans.

The question of postgraduate deaneries was raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. The SHAs will continue to be accountable for postgraduate deaneries until 31 March 2013. Securing continuity for the work of the deaneries will be a key part of a safe transition. It is expected that deans and many of their staff will continue to take forward the work of deaneries with an emphasis on a new, multi-professional approach in the new system architecture.

To pick up one point made by the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Turnberg, we also want to see stronger partnership working between postgraduate deaneries and universities. Further work is under way on the detail of these arrangements, with the right accountabilities for the quality of education and training lying with Health Education England and the professional regulators.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, about ring-fenced funding. As he knows, the MPET budget currently funds the education and training of the healthcare workforce and it is the responsibility of SHAs to invest the budget appropriately. We have proposed transparent systems to ensure that organisations receiving MPET funding under the future arrangements are held to account for using it for the education and training of the workforce.

The noble Lord also asked whether there will be a requirement to engage fully with academics. I partly covered that point but I emphasise that the new system presents a golden opportunity to build stronger links between the NHS and the academic health sector and to strengthen the educational foundation for research and innovation. Health Education England will ensure that research capability and capacity is maintained and it will forge strong partnerships with academia. Health Education England will work with the royal colleges, the Academy of Medical Sciences, regulators, universities and service providers to ensure that the needs of healthcare delivery are reflected in developing curricula in the context of the statutory responsibility of regulators.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, asked me about standards. I reassure him that standard-setting will be the role of Health Education England at a national level, and this is in addition to the important role that the professional regulators play in this area.

However, despite the progress that we have made, a lot more work has to be done to get these important arrangements right. In my view, that is why it is important that we do not try to amend the Bill in a way that later turns out not to be appropriate. The Future Forum is now leading a second phase of engagement on education and training, focusing particularly on the need for greater flexibility in training, variation in standards and quality, and the need for stronger partnership working between education, academia and service providers. I take this opportunity to mention that tomorrow I am hosting a seminar with Professor Steve Field, chair of the forum, and I welcome your Lordships’ involvement.

I appreciate that the service is waiting for detailed plans for the education and training system to be finalised and published, and I have two promises that I can make on this. The first is the one to which I have already alluded. Once the Future Forum has concluded its work, and prior to Report, the Government will publish more detail on the changes to the workforce planning, education and training system. That, incidentally, will include more detail on postgraduate deaneries. Secondly, it is likely that primary legislation will be required to support the continuing development of the education and training system, including establishing Health Education England as a non-departmental public body, but we think it is important to spend time to make sure that these arrangements are correct rather than legislate at this stage. However, I can tell the Committee that we intend to publish draft clauses on education and training for pre-legislative scrutiny in the second Session in the same way as on research. This approach will enable us to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose and that it allows additional opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation. I hope that this undertaking will be welcome to noble Lords and will indicate the Government’s strong desire to provide maximum clarity on these matters at an early stage. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press those particular amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have tabled remarkably similar amendments—Amendments 133 and 199A respectively—also on the subject of education and training. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, wishes to impose a duty on the NHS Commissioning Board to,

“promote education and training of the health care workforce”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, wishes to introduce a similar duty on clinical commissioning groups. As I have indicated, the Government’s intention is to delegate responsibility for education and training to healthcare providers. They are at the front line of service delivery and are best placed to understand how the workforce needs to develop and respond to the needs of patients.

Responsibility for education and training is of great importance to employers and the various professional bodies that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, mentions in his amendment, but commissioners will also have a role. I agree entirely that education and training needs to be effectively linked with the wider system. I am aware of concerns voiced by the royal colleges and professional bodies on precisely that matter. I wish to reassure the Committee that I recognise the vital interrelationship between education and training, and commissioning decisions. That is exactly why national and local education and training plans will need to respond to the strategic commissioning intentions set out by the board and clinical commissioning groups.

Similarly, in commissioning decisions there will be a need to consider the implications for education and training—it works both ways. The NHS Commissioning Board has to work closely with Health Education England and it will be a mutually supportive relationship. Indeed, this will be a prime example of the co-operation duties that will apply to the board and to other NHS bodies. Commissioners must also promote and have regard to the NHS constitution, which of course contains the pledges that I have already referred to.

I do not intend to speak for very much longer but there are a couple of points that I ought to cover. A number of noble Lords pointed to the lack of medical school involvement in the set-up of local arrangements. I need to be clear about this: the new arrangements are underpinned by the desire to strengthen both the provider voice at the local level and the role of professionals and education providers. We envisage that one of the functions of local bodies will be to ensure strong partnerships with universities and medical schools. Providers of services will have to work in partnership; they cannot just sit alone and ignore everybody else. The form of the local provider-led arrangements is still being developed. More details will be available prior to Report, but I have stressed the links that we envisage with academic colleges at a local level.

I hope that I have indicated that, contrary to the statement from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that within the modernisation agenda we somehow forgot about education and training, this is not at all the case. As I mentioned when we debated this before, this has been an active programme of work ever since the general election. It is a complex issue and we want to get it right. My noble friends Lord Ribeiro and Lord Mawhinney were spot on in their judgment on this. We are taking action now. We are not losing time over this.

To sum up, we have made provision for education and training in the Bill. We will publish our detailed proposals before Report and we will publish draft clauses on education and training for pre-legislative scrutiny in the second Session. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very detailed and extensive response, which is genuinely welcome. He has dealt with a number of the issues that were covered in this important debate. The confirmation that Health Education England is to be established as a special health authority and that a senior responsible officer has been appointed to drive forward its development at a pace to ensure that it is in a position to fulfil its important obligations and functions is a very welcome announcement. I think it will provide considerable hope that the question of education and training can be fully and appropriately dealt with in such a way that any future legislation can build upon an established structure that has already given confidence to those responsible for education and training that these matters can be properly dealt with.

17:30

The noble Earl has also confirmed a number of other important actions that he and his department propose to take as we move forward with this Bill. His confirmation that draft clauses of any future legislation dealing with education and training will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny and that an understanding around those draft clauses will be provided prior to the Report stage is welcome, as is the confirmation that the work of the NHS Future Forum will also be available to inform any potential discussion that we have in this matter on Report.

The confirmation that it is envisaged that Health Education England and any local arrangements for education and training boards represent true partnerships—academic service partnerships across the broad discipline, representing elements of the healthcare workforce—is also warmly welcomed. The question of the budget for Health Education England will require further discussion but the confirmation that Health Education England will have responsibility for supervision of the budget for postgraduate education and training is important, as is the recognition that postgraduate deans need to have an ongoing and developing relationship with the universities.

I wish to address the implied criticism that it was inappropriate to bring this group of amendments at this stage, the Committee having on its first day considered government Amendment 43. As I said at the outset, Amendment 47A and the others in this group were probing amendments to build upon the welcome comments of the Minister on the first day of Committee when Amendment 43 was moved. The Government’s approach to specifying in the Bill a responsibility for education and training for the Secretary of State for Health was an important announcement. Many noble Lords felt therefore that probing amendments thereafter to explore the opportunity for the establishment of Health Education England in whatever form to relieve anxieties about the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, were appropriate to bring at this stage.

I am grateful to the Minister for having dealt with these matters with such clarity and in such a way that anxieties around the areas of education and training can now be addressed in a constructive and co-operative fashion with broad support from all parts of your Lordships’ House. This will ensure that this vital function is developed for the benefit of patients who need to use our health services by ensuring that we have the best trained healthcare workforce to deliver the highest standards.

[Earl Howe]

Before the noble Lord decides what to do with his amendment, I should say that I did not wish in the least to imply that this debate was inappropriate in any way. If I did, I apologise. If I may correct one thing that he said, the draft clauses for pre-legislative scrutiny will come forward in the next Session of Parliament rather than before Report. However, we will be publishing much more detail before Report about what our plans will look like.

[Lord Kakkar]

I welcome those comments. It was not a criticism made by the noble Earl about this but by other noble Lords; there was a suggestion that it was not appropriate to discuss education and training in any detail at this stage. These were probing amendments, designed to provide Her Majesty’s Government with the opportunity to address issues, to allay concerns and to allow for further appropriate and constructive evaluation of this matter in the Bill in such a way that noble Lords could fulfil their function of scrutiny and revision to ensure that the best possible Act is finally delivered for the people of our country. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47A withdrawn.

Amendment 47B

Tabled by

[Lord Warner]

47B: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Secretary of State’s duty relating to education and training
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to provide or secure the provision of an effective system for the planning and delivery of education and training of a workforce of sufficient size and competence to discharge his duties under this Act to ensure a comprehensive health service.
(2) In discharging this duty, the Secretary of State must establish a body known as Health Education England and this body will be responsible for the oversight, supervision and management of all current functions relating to NHS multi-disciplinary education and training, including post-graduate deaneries.
(3) The budget for this body and its functions should be calculated on the basis of a formula related to the total health service expenditure and initially should be no less than the level of expenditure on education and training at the time of Royal Assent.”

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has spoken in this debate. I particularly welcome the support given by the most reverend Primate and by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. I share the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, about next-Session legislation and we would all do well to think carefully about his remarks.

I am still rather puzzled about why, if the Government are prepared to set up Health Education England as a special health authority, they cannot put it in the Bill along the lines of Amendment 47B. By all means doctor Amendment 47B. It was not the purpose of Amendment 47B to unreasonably tie the hands of the Government but I am still struggling with the question of why, if the Minister is prepared to produce a detailed paper before Report in which he agrees to set up a special health authority by next September, we cannot have a sensible cross-party discussion about setting up Health Education England in this Bill and giving the Government the necessary powers to make regulations to fill in the details.

My ears pricked up on the subject of money when the noble Earl said that there would be a “robust analysis”. I am willing to open a book on how far south of £4.9 billion the Government end up with on the robust analysis on education and training. I am available at all hours to discuss the odds a little further on this issue.

I will study the noble Earl’s remarks carefully. I listened carefully to what he said. He has moved some way. Whether he has moved sufficiently far to stop us bringing forth an amendment on Report is in doubt.

Amendment 47B not moved.

Clause 6: The NHS Commissioning Board

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment 48 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments 49 to 51 by reasons of pre-emption.

Amendment 48

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

48: Clause 6, page 3, leave out lines 27 to 34 and insert—
“(2) The Board has the function of arranging for the provision of services for the purposes of the health service in England in accordance with this Act and subject to any directions issued by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Board must exercise the functions conferred on it by this Act in relation to clinical commissioning groups so as to secure that services are provided for those purposes in accordance with this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State may give a direction to the Board to discharge each of those functions, and in such manner and within such period or periods, as may be specified in the direction.”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we come to a very important matter—the role and function of the national Commissioning Board. It is almost as important as the previous debate on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State.

In a telling intervention last week, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke of the tension in the Bill between the proposed duty to promote autonomy on the one hand and the fulfilment of the Secretary of State’s overall responsibility for securing the provision of services on the other. I suspect there is a similar tension built into the Bill in terms of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the national Commissioning Board.

At the heart of this debate have been concerns about the alleged micromanagement by the Secretary of State into the affairs of the National Health Service and specifically with regard to reconfiguration decisions. I sympathise with those in the NHS who can feel frustrated if hard-worked-through proposals are held up or rejected by Ministers or the service is constrained by too many interventions and targets from the centre. To think that this can simply be waved away in the new structure may prove to be optimistic. I suspect that a confusion of responsibilities between the Secretary of State and the national Commissioning Board and the plethora of organisations the Government have established or proposed to set up may well add to the burdens of the NHS.

Why is there political intervention in the health service? Surely there is political intervention because the NHS is one of the most important services that the Government are called upon to deliver to the public. Surely there is political intervention because, in the end, the public require it. In our debate last Wednesday the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said that the public, for whom the NHS exist and who pay the NHS bill, expect politicians to intervene on their behalf. Indeed, democracy may be a messy process but I prefer a messy process to rule by quango or even an unaccountable group of clinicians.

Even if you succeed in removing the Secretary of State from the picture, is it likely that local NHS organisations will simply be left to get on with life without external interference? The public will certainly not go away and nor will their representatives, Members of Parliament. They will still encourage the Secretary of State to intervene in the health service. Even if the Secretary of State courageously resists that pressure, it will then fall on the national Commissioning Board. I doubt that the regulators, the CQC and Monitor, will be immune. Nor, I suspect will clinical senates, the health and well-being boards that will be established or the commissioning support units that are apparently to emerge up and down the country. Certainly, clinical commissioning groups themselves will not be immune.

The idea that if you remove the Secretary of State from reconfiguration proposals all will be sweetness and light, with rational bodies making rational decisions and a grateful public acquiescing to those decisions, does not seem to be in the real world. Is it really suggested that £120 billion of public money does not require full accountability of Ministers to Parliament? By full accountability I mean sole accountability, rather than the construct of this Bill, which quite remarkably gives the Secretary of State and a quango—the national Commissioning Board—concurrent powers in relation to the crucial duty in Clause 1. It is so important that the Secretary of State is solely accountable because that is probably the best protection of the overriding mission of the health service to provide comprehensive services to all.

I recently read the transcript of the evidence that the chairman of the national Commissioning Board, Professor Grant, gave to the Health Select Committee, which is very interesting. Professor Grant disarmingly described the Bill as “unintelligible” but we know that all Bills, on the face of it, look rather unintelligible. He went on to make much of the Secretary of State’s responsibility for delivering, as he put it, a comprehensive NHS. He then laid great stress on the mandate set for the board by the Secretary of State. He suggested that it should be for three years, rather than an annual mandate as laid down by the Bill. He made it clear that if,

“the matter is within the mandate of the Board, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, except that he has power to revise the mandate with the consent of the Board or ... in exceptional circumstances”,

he can intervene. The professor concluded that,

“ultimate political accountability … remains secure, but it requires a Secretary of State to define upfront what he or she wants the Board to be accountable for and to hold the Board accountable for it”.

I found that, from the chair of the NCB, eminently sensible and I have no criticism to make of the points that he put forward. However, does that reflect the real world? Things happen, reports are published and crises occur. The Secretary of State cannot simply wash his hands of responsibility. There will be occasions when, mandate or no mandate, he will want to intervene.

17:45

A number of today’s newspapers carried stories that indicate that the Secretary of State is prepared to sack PCT chairs if they continue to save money by rationing treatments or making patients wait longer for operations. I do not know whether that is true but I say to the noble Earl that I certainly make no complaint about Mr Lansley’s actions. It seems entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to wish to intervene in that kind of event. However, what would happen if the Bill were to be enacted? Let us say that continuing financial pressures led clinical commissioning groups to implement a 15-week wait for non-urgent treatment, or that patient choice was restricted to ensure that sufficient money flowed into the local hospital to ensure its continued viability. Assume then that MPs raised complaints about that in Parliament to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State wanted to intervene. How? Would he call in the chair of the national Commissioning Board? Would the chair say, “I’m afraid that’s an operational matter—nothing to do with you, Secretary of State. It’s not in the mandate”? In any case, the chairman of the national Commissioning Board might go on to say, “You set the NCB one of its main goals, which is to balance the books of the health service. If we take action in the way you want, the books won’t be balanced”. What happens then? I suspect that there will be a huge tension and tussle, with real confusion in the NHS and among the public as to who is in charge.

Coming back to my Home Office brief, in the past two weeks we have seen some of the problems that can arise between a Secretary of State and an executive agency such as the UK Border Agency. There is absolutely no question that the UKBA is a subordinate agency of the Home Office. Therefore, there is no question over the Home Secretary’s right of intervention. Whether she intervened correctly is, of course, another matter. How much more confusion will there be if you establish a hugely powerful quango and give that body the same, concurrent duties as the Secretary of State in relation to the crucial duty set out in Clause 1?

I wish Lord Marsh was still here to talk about his experience in the nationalised industries. He was both Minister for and chairman of British Rail. Those of us who can recall those heady days will remember the inevitable tension between the Minister and the chairman of the nationalised industry. We certainly saw day-to-day intervention by Ministers in rail, steel and the other industries. We also saw a great deal of resentment on behalf of the chairmen of the boards of those industries. My suggestion is that the same is likely to happen over the NHS between the Secretary of State and the national Commissioning Board. That is why the relationship between the NCB and the Secretary of State is so important. Amendment 48 goes to the heart of this by removing the proposal in Clause 6 that the Commissioning Board should have concurrent powers with the Secretary of State in relation to Clause 1. I know that the Government have invited noble Lords to withdraw all their amendments to Clause 1 to allow for further discussions. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to do the same in relation to Clause 6.

The NHS Commissioning Board, however well led and powerful it is, ought not to be given the same, concurrent powers as the Secretary of State. There should be a clear hierarchy and the hierarchy should be the clear accountability of the Secretary of State. In Clause 1, clear responsibility should be given solely to the Secretary of State. That would therefore mean that the Secretary of State would have full power of direction over the national Commissioning Board. That would establish a sensible priority and ensure that clear accountability to Parliament through the Secretary of State is maintained. Above all, it would give clarity to the National Health Service. I beg to move.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, I too want to focus on line 27 of Clause 6:

“The Board is subject to the duty under section 1(1) concurrently with the Secretary of State”.

This raises all the issues that we have debated at length. I know that the Minister has taken away Clauses 1, 4 and 10, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, it would be extremely helpful to the Committee if he agreed to take away Clause 6 as part of the package on which to consult. Otherwise, those words in the Bill continue to provide a fault line that at some point will need to be addressed. I hope that my noble friend feels that it would be more productive to address this point in the spirit of co-operation and cross-party support that he has engendered for Clauses 1, 4 and 10 and include Clause 6 as well.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this amendment, mainly because of my puzzlement over why the Government want to give the national Commissioning Board a concurrent duty with the Secretary of State under new Section 1(1), given all the other provisions in the Bill which try to shape—if I may put it that way—the relationship of the Secretary of State with the national Commissioning Board. This is especially the case with Clause 20, the mandation clause. One interpretation of this concurrency is that the Secretary of State can pick and choose how he interprets his responsibility.

My noble friend Lord Hunt has mentioned, as delicately as he could, what has happened in the Home Office recently about the sometimes rather strange boundary between policy responsibility and management responsibility and the confusions that could arise. This is not the first time that the Home Office has got into this kind of territory. Your Lordships will remember the difficulties that Michael Howard, when he was Home Secretary, had with the chief executive of the Prison Service, Derek Lewis. It boiled down to this problem of uncertainty about where the remit of Ministers ended and where responsibility began, in this case with the Prison Service, an executive agency. Equally, though, I suggest it could have been a non-departmental public body.

There is a lot of history in this area where one should be extremely wary about passing legislation in particularly high-profile areas and giving concurrency of responsibility to a Secretary of State and to a powerful arm’s-length body, in this case a non-departmental public body, the national Commissioning Board. It is fraught with difficulties. I thought that the Government were trying to clarify this with Clause 20. I think the clause has been misunderstood a little bit by the new chairman of the national Commissioning Board, but the wording as it stands gives the Secretary of State the right, before the beginning of each financial year, to set out a mandate for the board.

There are a lot of safeguards in Clause 20, on both sides of that discussion and agreement. The national Commissioning Board has a lot of safeguards. The Secretary of State cannot keep coming back and adding bits and pieces as the year progresses. The Secretary of State also has quite a lot of safeguards. He or she can expect the national Commissioning Board to stick to what has been agreed in that mandate. There is no doubt about the Secretary of State’s ability to give instruction to the board and there is no doubt about his ability to change those instructions on an annual basis after proper discussion and consultation. That is very clear. One of the strengths of Clause 20 is that it does make the relationship clear between the Secretary of State and the national Commissioning Board.

I have tabled an amendment that tries to restrict the number of requirements that the Secretary of State can place on the national Commissioning Board. I can well remember the time when the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, was a Minister with responsibilities for health, along with his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, who is not now in her place. We had somewhere in excess of 50 priorities in the NHS that we were required to deliver each year. In practice, we had no priorities, because no one could hold 50 priorities in their head, so there is an issue about how far you go on mandation. Nevertheless, the structure of Clause 20 clearly states what that relationship is, on an annual basis, between the Secretary of State and the national Commissioning Board.

We would do well to stick with that kind of relationship rather than muddy the waters with a concurrency of responsibility. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this issue.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as has been pointed out, this amendment returns us to the topic of the comprehensive health service. We have had a wide-ranging debate on that issue. I appreciate the concerns held by some noble Lords about the extent to which the Secretary of State will be genuinely accountable for the health service under the new arrangements introduced by the Bill. I have outlined the reasons why I believe accountability will be maintained and how accountability to Parliament and the public will be increased by our proposals. We have indicated our intention to look further at what could be done to put the Secretary of State’s ultimate accountability for the health service beyond doubt. We will do that.

However, it is a core principle of our reforms that politicians should step back from day-to-day interference in the NHS to allow clinicians to take the lead in developing services that are built around the needs of patients. That would simply not be possible if the Secretary of State retained broad powers of direction over the NHS Commissioning Board. As I have previously described, the role of the Secretary of State in future should be to set the legislative and regulatory framework; to set the strategic direction for the NHS through the mandate, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has rightly reminded us; and to hold the national bodies in the system to account for fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.

I also understand the argument that the Secretary of State alone should be responsible for promoting a comprehensive health service. However, I believe that there are strong arguments that, in the interests of accountability, the NHS Commissioning Board should share this duty as far as it relates to NHS services. The NHS Commissioning Board will be the body responsible for ensuring that there is a comprehensive coverage of clinical commissioning groups covering every area of the country. It will be responsible for authorising and assessing clinical commissioning groups, providing support and guidance to them, and intervening if they run into difficulties. It falls to the NHS Commissioning Board to ensure that the continuity and quality of service provision is maintained at all times.

I am afraid that the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, expose a clear fault line between the Government and the Opposition. We believe it is important that the board should be under the same obligation as the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive health service in so far as this relates to the health services that the board and clinical commissioning groups will be responsible for. Let me be clear: the Bill’s provisions would in no way dilute the Secretary of State’s overarching duty. Indeed, they are intended further to reinforce the promotion of a comprehensive health service rather than to undermine it. With the general desire of noble Lords to strengthen accountability in the Bill, it seems odd that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, should want to weaken accountability in this way, for that is what his amendment would do.

I listened to the point made by my noble friend Lord Mawhinney that this is another facet of the issues that we are going to consider in relation to Clauses 1, 4 and 10. He made a good point. Therefore, I suggest that, in the light of our intention to consider together how we approach the duty on the Secretary of State and return to this on Report, the amendment should also be withdrawn and that any consequential changes to the functions of the board or clinical commissioning groups are considered as part of those deliberations.

18:00

I have omitted to cover a number of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He referred to minimum waits and restricting patient choice. Of course, the mandate on the standing rules would allow for specific requirements. For example, they could be used to prohibit minimum waits, and it is very likely that they will be used for that purpose. The Secretary of State would be able to set that kind of direction in order to achieve that. Patient choice could form part of the mandate. It is also something that Monitor would look at. The purpose of the mandate is to set out exactly what the Government expect from the NHS. It is intended to provide the clarity that the noble Lord and, indeed, most other noble Lords would seek for the NHS Commissioning Board’s remit.

I do not think that the noble Lord has made his case; in fact, far from it. It would significantly weaken the Bill if we were to go down the road that he is suggesting. I once again ask him to give further thought to this issue before pressing it any further.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. I am, of course, very happy for this to be considered in the light of the debate in relation to the other clauses around the Secretary of State’s powers. I may not have convinced the noble Earl but he has convinced me that a “train crash” will inevitably occur given the ambiguity and confusion built into the Bill on the role of the Secretary of State and the national Commissioning Board. The more the noble Earl spoke about that, the more evident the ambiguity became. As regards the mandate, my noble friend’s amendment suggests that only five functions should be given to the national Commissioning Board with five other objectives. I think that he is supported in that by other noble Lords. He has probably forgotten about the innate ability of the wonderful civil servants at the Department of Health to write very long functions which could probably embrace the world. However, I understand where he is coming from.

[Lord Warner]

I well understand the Civil Service’s ability to use the semicolon to extend a sentence for a very long period.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, my noble friend should refine his amendment by limiting the number of grammatical devices that can be used.

I raised this matter because of what the noble Earl said. I raised the reported intervention by the Secretary of State in relation to primary care trusts and the concern that because of their financial issues they are essentially putting in some artificial barriers in relation to patient treatment such as having a rule that on non-urgent treatment you have to wait a certain length of time before you can be treated, and other such mechanisms. When I asked the noble Earl how this would work in the future, he told me that it would be put in the mandate. Clearly, what will happen—

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If the board was not delivering the mandate, it is surely right that the Secretary of State should intervene. He has powers in the Bill to do that. Equally, if it is delivering the mandate, it is also right that it should be allowed to get on without interference from the centre. All we are saying is that the Secretary of State should be clearer about the reasons for his intervention in future. That is in everybody’s interests.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Either the mandate is so detailed that you will have reams of paper telling the board what to do or the Secretary of State will rightly become concerned at issues that arise during the year. Those issues will not be covered by the mandate as they will not have been anticipated. The Secretary of State will wonder what to do and how to intervene. He will wonder whether he will be told by the national Commissioning Board, “Back off. It is nothing to do with you”, as nationalised industries used to do. This is no different from a nationalised industry. I am concerned because I believe that giving concurrent powers to the national Commissioning Board as well as to the Secretary of State will lead to a great deal of confusion, tension and ambiguity. At the end of the day I would prefer one person to be accountable—the Secretary of State. However, I am encouraged by what the noble Earl said about agreeing to look at this in the context of the other questions about the duty of the Secretary of State. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 48 withdrawn.

Amendment 49 not moved.

Amendment 50

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

50: Clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“( ) must include at least one member who is a registered public health specialist and who has a broad range of professional expertise in public health”

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Rooker, he has asked me to move Amendment 50 standing in his name and those of a number of colleagues. This amendment is very simple in intent. It seeks to ensure that the national Commissioning Board has at least one member who is a public health specialist. Much of the work of the board and, indeed, of the clinical commissioning groups, is to commission services that arise from failures of public health, or the associated issue of the absence of clinical intervention at an early stage in a person’s condition. Later we will discuss a raft of amendments for strengthening the Bill’s provisions on public health itself. This group of amendments is concerned with the membership of the national Commissioning Board and the disclosure of information.

This amendment is intended to help the board in its deliberations. It is essential that it has ready access to public health expertise. I very much support Amendments 153ZA and 153B in this group, standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lady Thornton, which seek to curb the administrative costs of clinical commissioning groups. I have degrouped my amendments on controlling the overheads and management costs of the board. I have also tabled amendments that try to curb clinical commissioning group management costs. I tabled these amendments because I wanted to ensure that we had a fuller discussion on the two linked issues of overheads and administrative costs at a later stage. I will not speak on that issue at length today but I want to flag up to the Minister that this is an extremely important issue in this very difficult financial climate. Rather unusually, we may need to put in a Bill establishing new bodies a curb on the extent to which they can grow their administrative budgets in the future. My noble friends are doing the House a service in giving us a chance to have a debate on this issue.

I return to Amendment 50. It may not be directed at the right place in the Bill—I leave the Minister to think about that—but its substance should be in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s position on this issue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment, which is also in my name, and to support the other amendments in this group. They have the effect of ensuring that public health considerations and public health expertise are given due weight in the new arrangements set out in the Bill.

Public health covers three main domains: health improvement; health protection; and health service delivery. Public health specialists are trained and skilled in interpreting data and information about populations, understanding health needs and securing the services required to meet those needs. That expertise is vital to having effective commissioning at every level, particularly that of the NHS Commissioning Board, which will have the overarching responsibility for commissioning health services, so as to ensure that the services are effective, appropriate, equitable, accessible and cost-effective. It therefore seems only sensible to make sure that that expertise is incorporated at board level.

The Commissioning Board exists to secure and improve the health of the population through the NHS services it commissions, and indeed through the services which are not NHS-provided, if I have understood this Bill correctly. To do this, the board would benefit from public health input. Public health specialists have an unparalleled overview of a community's need for health services and how they are best commissioned, including changing, adapting or even decommissioning services which could work better in other ways. The role of a public health specialist would also be to provide the essential expertise needed to commission preventive services, such as screening and immunisation, and to look at the evidence relating to those services. The board may need the courage to decommission some of those services as well, or to substantially alter the way that they are delivered.

It would be inappropriate to say that this is going to be too expensive, because a public health specialist should pay for themselves many times over with their presence on the board. It is only by having such an expert at board level that we can ensure their expertise is incorporated into decision-making, rather than only feeding into the process in an advisory capacity.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, one of the most interesting aspects of the proposals in this Bill is the greater status to be given to public health. I think we all recognise that for some years public health has been something of a Cinderella in the medical establishment. To have public health lifted, as it should be, on to board representation seems to me absolutely central in our attempt to put greater accent on prevention, education and information; there are future amendments by some of my noble friends on some of those issues. I wish to say very briefly that I think that this amendment is absolutely right. It is crucial that public health recognition is given at board level, and I hope we can echo that in having it also represented in the clinical commissioning groups as they emerge.

One other question to raise in relation to public health, which we have been considering very carefully, is how we deal with chronic illness. Chronic illness is obviously not unrelated to lifestyles and life behaviour, so here again, raising the influence of public health in the attempt to bring about a healthier lifestyle among our fellow citizens and ourselves is absolutely essential. I therefore completely agree with what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in moving this amendment: that it is vital that public health be represented at the highest level.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, and I strongly support it. It is absolutely crucial that a public health specialist is a member of the NHS Commissioning Board. I note that protection and improvement of public health is one of the two crucial functions imposed upon the Secretary of State for Health by the Bill, and in several places. Three different bodies will be involved in discharging this function: the board, the commissioning groups, and local authorities. It is therefore essential that each has a public health physician at board level to do so. Effective commissioning requires expert understanding of populations and the diseases they might get, as well as their health needs and how these can best be met.

There are major public health roles for the NHS Commissioning Board, including the direct commissioning of services, for which public health specialists’ expertise needs to be embedded in the board’s management structure. The NHS Commissioning Board will continue to manage primary care contractors, hold the population registers which make screening programmes possible—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned—set the policy direction and operating framework of the NHS, and oversee major commissioning decisions and plan commissioning groups.

18:15

Without a registered public health specialist as an integral member of the NHS Commissioning Board, national commissioning decisions will be made without an expert population health perspective informed by clinical and population-based data. It is critical that public health expertise informs all commissioning decisions and that commissioners have access to timely, reliable and relevant information and analysis. To meet this need, it is crucial that there is a registered public health specialist on the board of every health commissioning board, including the NHS Commissioning Board.

There are other issues. Public health expertise within the service is also essential if the escalating costs of low-benefit technologies are to be controlled and the health service commissioners are to have the knowledge to implement the most effective and lowest-cost services. There should also be a duty placed on commissioning organisations to work with directors of public health and the public health teams on all commissioning decisions to ensure they meet the health needs of their communities. In addition, health impact assessments, and especially health inequalities impact assessments, are needed in all commissioning group investments in healthcare and in all clinical care pathway design. Where different care options exist, it is necessary to model which intervention will deliver the greatest health improvement for the lowest cost. Public health specialists are trained to do this, and to not have them at the board level of every commissioning body, including the NHS Commissioning Board, would be wrong.

I know that there is a later amendment which proposes that, if there is a member of the executive or a civil servant with public health expertise on the board, the current amendment might not be necessary. I do not agree. I think it is absolutely necessary that the public health specialist on the board is there independently, to give an independent view.

[Lord Rea]

My Lords, I support all those noble Lords who have spoken so far and I agree with everything they have said; there is hardly anything for me to add. I just want to emphasise that a public health specialist will have had special experience and training in dealing with the massive amount of health data that comes into a health authority or, in this case, to the NHS Commissioning Board; it will be a huge amount. Public health specialists are trained in statistics and in epidemiology, and have other skills needed to handle this information and to help the board to make the correct decisions. I would like to emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Warner that very often this can be extremely helpful when certain services are deemed no longer appropriate. They may save a lot of money by giving backing to decommissioning and reconfiguring certain services, ensuring that populations are best served with the resources that are available.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, it sounds as though there is a considerable level of agreement on this. I, too, believe that we should have a public health specialist sitting on the board. Members of the faculty have said that if there is not going to be such a specialist on the board by right, there should at least be one where the CMO is not a public health specialist. This Bill has put public health at its core and at every level.

I shall not say any more about the public health appointment but I will talk a little about the involvement of the patient. The patient is also meant to be fundamental to this Bill: “no decision about me without me.” Again, we have the patient involved through local government and the local commissioning groups but not necessarily on the board. I think that whoever is chair of HealthWatch England should have a seat on the board.

What would both of these positions bring to the board? They would bring a level of expertise that nobody else has. I understand the Government’s reluctance to be specific, and I know that lists are problematic. I also know that with these things there is a tendency to request that every man and his dog, or all and sundry, sit around the board table. However, it is a board table and not a representative council, so I would put those two people there for one distinct reason: they add a dimension that the board does not know it misses. Decisions made without them will be made in a vacuum and will be all the poorer for it. Somebody put it to me earlier today—your Lordships will have to excuse me for this—that the board knows what it knows, it knows what it does not know, and it does not know what it does not know.

[A noble Lord]

Was it Donald Rumsfeld?

[Baroness Jolly]

Apparently there was a Persian poet who got there even before him, but whether Donald Rumsfeld was a reader of Persian poetry, I know not. The point is that you do not know what you do not know. Both those voices would bring to the board serious added value.

I have another four or five amendments in this group which relate not to the composition of the board but to its work. Every year, the board is tasked with producing a three-year business plan on how it is going to discharge its functions. We have a Secretary of State who produces a mandate for the board. We are all in total agreement that the board has huge powers to shape the NHS. New Section 13S of the 1996 Act indicates that there should be an ability to revise the plan. It talks about a “revised plan” but says nothing about the process of revision. The Bill is silent also on the operational plans of the board. I am slightly curious as to which comes first—the mandate or the plan.

How might a conversation with patients and other stakeholders be managed to revise the draft plan? Clearly, we have to start with a draft and then it will be revised. To what extent does the Minister envisage the plan being amended? Might the details on board membership and business plan consultation be included in guidance to the board? One half of my amendments is about board composition; the others are about business planning. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to the latter because it will give us some indication of the way that the board plans to work or it is planned that it should work.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have a series of amendments in this group concerning membership of the national Commissioning Board and its cost. There is common consent that getting the board’s membership right is important.

My Amendment 52A would ensure that the chair could be appointed only with the consent of the Health Select Committee. I fully acknowledge that Professor Grant, the chair of the NCB, went before the Health Select Committee; I have already referred to the transcript. It is clear that the process ensured proper and effective scrutiny. However, I should just like to put the matter beyond doubt and make sure that the procedure will always be followed in future, and I hope that the Minister will agree to my amendment. I should say that I followed the legislation which established the Office for Budget Responsibility, so we have a precedent for ensuring that a Select Committee of the other place has an important role to play in such appointments in the future.

My Amendment 52B is simply a matter of good governance to ensure that a lay vice-chair is appointed, which I am sure I am right to assume is the Government’s intention.

On the composition of the board, my Amendments 54 and 56 are intended partly to probe and partly to make a point. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of the likely make-up of the board, both executive and non-executive, and perhaps some details about how non-executives are to be appointed. My specific point is to encourage the Minister to ensure that, on the executive side, a medical director, a nursing director and a finance director are always appointed. To be frank, my main focus is in relation to a nursing director. I have no doubt that there will always be a finance director and a medical director; I want to ensure, and I want the Minister to give an absolute assurance, that there will always be a nursing director on the national Commissioning Board. I go back to 1991, when NHS trusts were first appointed. Some noble Lords here will recall that some rather foolish chairs of those trusts did not want to appoint a nurse to their board. They were forced to do so, I am glad to say, through the intervention of a Secretary of State at the time. I have no doubt that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that there is a director of nursing on the board, but I should like to make sure that it always happens.

I understand that getting a range of expertise on the non-executive side will always be difficult. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, the risk is that Parliament will always seek to legislate for a list of backgrounds, which we know is not a practical way to ensure that a fairly small board is appointed. My amendments seek to ensure that there are at least some non-executives on the NCB who have some experience of the National Health Service. While the temptation will always be to appoint people from other sectors because of the experience that they can bring, there is something unique about the National Health Service. I think that non-executives find it helpful if, among their number, they have people who know the business and help them to challenge the executives. One of the risks of the fashion—my own Government were as guilty of it as any other—of thinking that what the health service most needs is outside business expertise is that, when it comes to issues of safety and quality, you do not have anyone on the non-executive side who can effectively challenge the executives. I urge the Government to ensure that there are non-executives on the board who have real experience of the National Health Service and how it works in order to enable a proper challenge to be put to the executive directors.

Amendments 52D and 54A are probing amendments, designed to tease out the place of public health on the national Commissioning Board. I support the comments already made by noble Lords. On my proposal that the Chief Medical Officer be a member of the board, the Minister may say that he thinks it more appropriate for the Government’s chief medical adviser to be seen purely as part of the department than to be on the national Commissioning Board. I sympathise with that point. I suspect that the answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in relation to HealthWatch is that there is always a problem if people are appointed because of their other positions. The problem is that they then have to take responsibility for the corporate decision-making of the NCB. I can therefore assure the Minister that my amendment to place the CMO on the NCB is probing, designed to enable us to hear how the public health function will be given sufficient prominence within the national Commissioning Board.

My Amendment 55 would remove the requirement for the appointment of the chief executive to be approved by the Secretary of State. I have no problem with paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 1, which provides for the first chief executive to be appointed by the Secretary of State. This is normal practice and is entirely sensible in view of the need to get the national Commissioning Board up and running. However, my question is why the Secretary of State needs those powers in relation to subsequent appointments. After all, the Minister has waxed lyrical about the need for there to be distance and for the Secretary of State no longer to intervene, so why on earth does he have to approve the appointment of a chief executive? Surely that is for the board to do. Surely it is for the Secretary of State to nominate the chairman of the board to go through the necessary parliamentary scrutiny. For the Secretary of State to actually have to approve the appointment of the chief executive is ambiguous. The department has not sorted out the real relationship between the Secretary of State and the national Commissioning Board. On the one hand, there is the desire to give the NCB as much freedom as possible; on the other hand, one knows that in these clauses there is a desire to control it. I should have thought that the fact that the Secretary of State has a veto over the chief executive appointment is an example of that. I hope that we can see that go between now and the conclusion of our proceedings on the Bill.

18:30

Finally, I come to some probing amendments concerning the number of staff to be employed by the national Commissioning Board and the staffing. I should like to hear from the noble Earl something about the size of the NCB and what its regional and local structure is likely to be, remembering that it will hold the contracts of thousands of practitioners. My understanding is certainly that it will hold the contracts of all GPs because it is deemed that presumably the local clinical commissioning groups cannot hold the contracts of the GPs who are members of the clinical commissioning groups. Clearly, if the Government’s proposals are to streamline decision-making, then finding that the national Commissioning Board becomes an absolutely huge organisation with thousands of people employed will rather detract from what the Government seek to do. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give assurances about the cost of the NCB.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton]

My Lords, I should like to go back to Amendment 50 and, in supporting this amendment, to tell your Lordships that during the deliberations of the House of Lords Select Committee on HIV and AIDS this very subject came up. It was felt to be essential that a public health specialist should sit on the Commissioning Board. Also, I feel that he or she should be the link between the NHS and the local authorities. Public health needs to have a high profile. It is vital to have someone who understands the problem of sexually transmitted infections—in which we lead Europe—as well as PVL MRSA, which is a community-type MRSA, food poisoning and epidemics such as flu. It could be possible for somebody who was interested only in obesity and exercise to be put on the board. Our public health is vital.

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, this is a very large group of amendments and I take them in the spirit that they are mainly probing. One cannot help but be sympathetic to the intention to have public health expertise available to the Commissioning Board, as well as the patient’s view and all those other things. The professional point of view is vital.

I speak as someone who was the only NHS non-executive on the Monitor board for many years before I recently ended my term of office. I am also very sympathetic to the idea that there should be an external non-executive person on the board. Having said that, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, have mentioned that what we have here is a corporate board, not a representative committee, and a relatively small board. Therefore, it is vital that we do not put on the face of the Bill the number of people who we would like to see have an impact on this board. I look forward to hearing how the noble Earl responds on how we can address these concerns.

I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about having a senior independent director on the board. I have seen how extraordinarily valuable that role can be in foundation trusts and, indeed, on the Monitor board. A little holding to account of the chairman by the non-executives through that senior independent director—a powerful second person on the non-executive front—gives the board great added strength. I support that amendment, although a deputy could well play that role. I certainly support the thrust and meaning of these amendments but I would not like to see them written into the Bill as they are.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

I would like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. It is really rather a mixed bag of amendments that we have before us. Clearly what is proposed in the Bill is that there should be 11 members on the NHS Commissioning Board. Perhaps the most wonderful Primate—I hope that Hansard will allow me to make the change—and the right reverend Prelate will think that the number 11 has a certain resonance about it, historically and religiously. We will leave it at that.

What I wanted to address was the size of the board and what has been said about whether it should be representative or whether it should be left to the board to decide the skills and experience that it needs to act effectively. I saw in the amendments—sadly, he is not in his place at the moment—that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, suggested having a director or a previous director of children’s services on the board. I can fully understand that because the noble Earl has done so much to try to promote the well-being of children. Clearly he feels that it is a constituency that needs to be represented on the board.

Other people might think that perhaps we need a past director of adult services on the board, especially as we have an increasingly elderly population. I can think of other professions which may ask where on the board are the pharmacists, the podiatrists, the physiotherapists, the occupational therapists and the dentists. We could have a litany of people who wanted to be on the board, so we have to be very careful.

[Lord Warner]

I think that the noble Baroness is experienced enough, like me, to remember the 1974 reorganisation of the NHS, where we ended up debating whether area gymnasts should be appointed. Therefore, I have every sympathy with her particular line of argument.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that intervention. I have no experience of gymnasts and, sadly, I cannot remember that particular time. However, I have chaired very big boards. I have chaired a board of 26 and it was a nightmare. It was a nightmare because we are such a lovely nation and we always try to get consensus. Trying to do that takes time and tough and speedy decisions are not taken. In the end, the board loses the grip necessary to manage the service, the organisation or whatever it is in charge of. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend on the issue of having 11 members on the board. When one has a very large board, a clique forms; one gets a few people who in the end run the board. They run it outside board meetings. They make the decisions before they come to the board. One gets a body of people who are responsible on the board but are actually disenfranchised—they are accountable but disenfranchised—and I think that that makes the board totally dysfunctional. Therefore, we should resist the temptation to have representatives on the board. We need a chairman with considerable leadership skills; a chief executive of proven management expertise; executives who know the business; and non-executives who bring a breadth of experience.

I have some sympathy with the arguments that have been put on the issue of the Director of Public Health but I wish to reserve my position on that, as I do on the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lady Jolly on HealthWatch England, because it could be that the board, or whoever, might decide that there is a non-executive who has wider experience and possibly could be more effective on the board than the chairman of HealthWatch England. This needs discretion and we should leave it in the hands of the board and the Bill and not try to make it representative.

In an earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, who is not in his place today, referred to the “fatal tendency” of the NHS to be bureaucratic and exercise producer catch-up. He said that:

“the tendency of any organisation that is in a monopolistic position [is] to be run for the convenience and in the interests of those who are providing the service, whether doctors, nurses, managers or whatever”.—[Official Report, 9/11/11; col. 251.].

We have to be very careful that we do not fall into that situation and we must try to address that “fatal tendency”, as he described it.

I wish to make one comment on the seductive amendment on limiting the numbers to be employed to 500. That again is a mistake. If we set a number, it is very likely that that number will be reached where possibly only 100 are required. It needs a great deal of scrutiny by the Secretary of State and others, through the mandate, to see what the board is doing and whether it is effective and keeping to its budget, which I am sure will be closely watched. I would like to keep the number on the board to 11.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. She and I have sat opposite each other at meetings for more years than I care to remember.

However, her belief that the chair of the NHS Commissioning Board will only be able to manage a board of 11 is slightly misplaced. We already know that the person who holds this office will be able to walk on water, with due deference to the most reverend Primate. We know that this individual will have the most extraordinary qualities. Indeed, the Health Select Committee has demonstrated that by the overwhelming vote that it gave him on his appointment. Therefore, any person of such calibre who is able to manage a quango with such an enormous budget must surely be able to manage a board of more than 11 people. That goes without saying.

It is probably unhelpful for the Bill to specify precisely the number of people who will be appointed because circumstances will change. At different times it may be appropriate to have particular people or specialisms involved, but that will change over time. To lay down the numbers too specifically is probably a mistake. Indeed, I am not sure that 11 is a sensible number for the effectiveness of boards. It is too large for the most efficient and effective of boards but it is not quite large enough to bring together all the strands of opinion and expertise that you might wish to bring.

My main reason for intervening was not to pick up on that point but to question a couple of the amendments, in particular Amendment 52C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. The amendment refers to the board,

“including one member who is also the Chair of Healthwatch England”.

That is a misguided amendment. It is very important that the viewpoint of the patient is heard clearly by the NHS Commissioning Board, but it would be wrong to bind HealthWatch England into the collective decisions that will be taken by the NHS Commissioning Board. Had the amendment said something along the lines of, “The chair of HealthWatch England will be able to attend all meetings of the NHS Commissioning Board and to contribute to them fully” rather than talking about membership, it would have been much better.

There is already a concern that HealthWatch England will not be seen as a properly independent organisation, partly because in the Bill it is framed as a committee of the CQC and also because the local healthwatch organisations will be wholly owned subsidiaries of local councils around the country and the money for them will not even be ring-fenced. Under those circumstances, there is a real problem about the reality of the independence of HealthWatch England. Further, to put the chair of that body in the position of perhaps having collective responsibilities for NHS Commissioning Board decisions is potentially a serious mistake. I would like to see a position where the board has the chair of HealthWatch England as an adviser. His advice may or may not be accepted, but it will be on the record what advice has been given.

I hesitate to oppose an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath but the same applies to the Chief Medical Officer. He should be there to advise the board—and that advice should be recorded—rather than being a member of the board and therefore being part of that collective responsibility. In framing the structure of the NHS Commissioning Board, there needs to be clarity of thought. There are a number of areas of expertise and interests that ought to be reflected in board membership—those individuals should bring their expertise to the table—but they cannot be there as representatives of those particular interests because they will have to take collective responsibility for the decisions of the board. However, it is also important that you have explicitly there a number of people to give advice. That should certainly include the chair of HealthWatch England and the Chief Medical Officer.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, I was not going to speak to these probing amendments, but as I have been gratuitously referred to twice it is prudent that I should speak.

The noble Baroness referred to number 11. We should remember that Jesus had 12 disciples; the twelfth betrayed him and so there were eleven left. Then the disciples decided before Pentecost to choose Matthias, so they then had 12 again. They then ran into trouble once St Paul the Apostle came along and they had 13, but they did not know where to put him. Numbers are always dangerous.

I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. We may need all kinds of characters on the board but it would be wrong to specify them in the Bill. If we do, then we will not have the kind of liberty and freedom to be creative and to enable the Secretary of State to promote a comprehensive health service and improve the quality of service. He needs that to help him promote the health service and then improve it. The board needs to consist of people who have the calibre to do that.

I have sympathy with Amendment 54 but not in the precise form in which it is put. It states:

“The Secretary of State must ensure that a majority of the non-executive members of the Board appointed under subsection (1)(b) have relevant experience”.

Those members should have relevant experience but as to whether they should be a majority, again, the discretion should be left to the Secretary of State and the board. If that is specified, they will all be there in big numbers but might end up not delivering or promoting whatever is required. Yes, the people appointed should clearly have relevant experience of either working in the NHS or serving on an NHS body—the NHS is not the same as Rover cars, Marks & Spencer or Tesco and you need people with relevant experience who are able to deliver properly—but I would go for the Secretary of State having people with relevant experience of working in the NHS or serving on a body without necessarily saying that they must be in the majority.

As these are probing amendments, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I want to make a few brief comments on Amendments 50 and 52C. I listened to all of the arguments about the public health specialists being on the national board, and I think it is really important. If we are going to have, or aspire to, a national health service that is about prevention and improving health rather than just treating it, there needs to be somebody on the board who attends or has that specialism and brings in the local government perspective. I was involved nearly 10 years ago in appointing one of the early public health directors. It was a joint appointment between the PCT and the local authority that I represented. That person sat on the senior management board of both the local authority and the PCT and was able to bring that expertise to both of those boards. Importantly, in the local government setting, he was able to bring together the directorships of education, environment and social services and to ensure that, when we were trying to address issues such as teenage pregnancies—which is still a massive problem in this country—it was everyone’s responsibility. It was not just over there; it was not just a health problem: it was a borough-wide problem. In terms of bringing that thinking on to the national stage—as other noble Lords have mentioned in this and other debates—local government has to be seen to be a key member if we are to aspire to improving the health of the population. Someone experienced in public health should have a very strong voice on the national, as well as the local, CCGs .

I now turn to Amendment 52C in the name of my noble friend Lady Jolly, which aims to have as a board member someone who is also the chair of HealthWatch England. I support having the patient’s voice heard at a national level. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was saying: the important thing is to have the voice there. Quite often, with a group of 11 or however many it will be of the “great and the good”, it is very important that we have somebody on that board who is going to represent the wider public as well—a lay person who can bring about some of the thinking that is going on locally around the country. The proposed chair of HealthWatch England might be bound in to some sort of collective decision-making which might sometimes make him or her quite unpopular with the other local HealthWatch organisations across the country. The most important thing we should be focusing on is that there is somebody on the board who has the authority, who can bring the voice of the patient and the public to this board.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, these are probing amendments: as the debate has shown, there is a great deal to probe. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will be able to answer some of the questions and give more details of the thinking that underlies the Bill as it stands, and how it might be carried out in practice.

The body that we are talking about will have—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris has pointed out—an enormous budget and enormous responsibilities, both nationally and extending to localities. It will be responsible not just—just!—for commissioning general practice throughout the country, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt reminded us, but also for a range of other services which will effectively be delivered locally. Yet in terms of the structure, composition and governance of the board, this Bill is about as skeletal as I imagine is the specimen that will greet first-year medical students at their first anatomy lecture. It needs flesh on the bones. There are a number of suggestions here; I have rather too many suggestions and I plead guilty to having advanced only some of them, but we clearly need a view about how the board will work and who will serve on it. I concur with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in relation to the appointment of the chair of HealthWatch England as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, as a member of the board. That person is likely to be conflicted: part of the job of HealthWatch will be to look at the operation of the board in an objective way. It may be that an attendance, as he suggests, would suffice.

Although I put down the amendment about the Chief Medical Officer being a member of the board, I can see the logic of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the Chief Medical Officer should attend without necessarily being a member of the board. I am temperamentally averse to mixtures of executive and non-executive directors. In the local government sphere, I never felt very comfortable with chief officers voting alongside elected members, but I suppose that members of this board are not going to be elected: they are going to be selected. I therefore think that it is sensible to have the best advice possible available to the board in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has described.

In terms of public health specialism, I think there needs to be a public health specialist—but not necessarily a serving public health specialist. I see the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has tabled an amendment calling for the appointment of a former director of children’s services. Without necessarily agreeing that that particular post should be designated, the concept of somebody with that experience—not necessarily being a serving member and therefore not conflicted—might well appeal. It is crucial—given that we are now going to have public health delivered in a very different way from what we had before, and basically rightly so, though in a complex structure that will involve the Secretary of State, the Commissioning Board and local government as well—that there should be a public health specialist of some kind serving on the board. I hope that the Minister may indicate a degree of sympathy with that.

As to the total size, I am a bit ambivalent about that, too. It clearly needs to be a working board and therefore cannot be too large; it cannot possibly reflect every conceivable interest. I agree with noble Lords who said perhaps it would be a mistake to prescribe the number in the legislation. That is a matter that could well be discussed later by the Secretary of State, no doubt having taken views and not least the views of the Health Select Committee in another place.

I hope that we can make some progress tonight in identifying issues which the Government will look at sympathetically and bring back on Report. If they do not, then at least those of us who want to press points will have an opportunity of doing so.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I have for most of this Committee so far been listening to and reading what people have said and have been astonished, as I always am, by the immense amount of expertise and distinction there is in this House. There are all the professionals, and there seem to be more former Health Ministers in this House than in any other place that could be gathered together. Most of the debate so far has been about high-level, national-level principles and structures, and we are now moving on to the area that I have been trying to get my mind around since I first obtained a copy of this extraordinarily huge Bill. That is the new structures that are being set up at all levels and how they are all going to work together.

At Second Reading, I laid some claim for my party for some of the improvements that were made to this Bill after the pause in the House of Commons, but one thing that certainly happened to the Bill after that pause is that it became more complex as the number of different organisations and bodies became greater. The need for this House is to sort out how this new galaxy, or kaleidoscope, of new bodies within the health service are going to relate to each other and how it is going to work—I use the word “work” in a neutral sort of way—how it is going to happen in practice and how they are going to relate to those bodies which continue to exist, such as the hospital trusts, the PCTs, the strange clusters of PCTs that will stagger on for a certain amount of time and then disappear by some means that is not completely understood yet and, of course, local authorities and the whole of the voluntary and private sector involved in healthcare.

19:00

I was interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on HealthWatch and its relationship at national level—and, indeed at local level—to these other bodies. That is an important issue which I hope we will go on to talk about before long. The Committee is beginning to bring expertise and experience from all sorts of personal levels to the debate, not just political stand-offs. That is what we should be doing. Personally, I support what the noble Lord said about the importance of HealthWatch being sufficiently independent and detached while also being able to be present at the table at all levels of bodies and at the national Commissioning Board, without necessarily being part of the collective responsibility for decisions. Noble Lords may want to think carefully about that principle. We will no doubt come back to it when we talk about HealthWatch specifically.

There has also been discussion of the question of having a public health professional on the national Commissioning Board. This raises questions, which we will come to fairly soon when we talk about Clause 8, on the different ways in which the public health functions of the health service are to be dealt with compared with its clinical commissioning functions. In Clause 8, the public health functions of the health service are in future to be mainly divided between the Secretary of State, who will keep direct responsibility in this area, and local authorities, which will have enhanced responsibilities for public health and entirely new ones—though in many cases they regain functions lost in the 1974 reorganisation of local government.

I have not yet got my mind round what the function and responsibility is of the national Commissioning Board in relation to public health. How will that work? Whether a specific public health professional should be required to be on the national Commissioning Board may depend on what the functions are of the NCB in relation to public health. It is impossible to put a clear dividing line between public health and clinical health issues. They overlap and are obviously incredibly interconnected. Nevertheless, how the administration will take place in future raises these questions. They need to be thought about carefully before a final decision is made on whether there should be public health representation on the national Commissioning Board.

The particular amendment that I wanted to speak to before I started listening to the debate—which is always fatal: you should never do that but just stand up and say what you wanted to say—is Amendment 153ZA, presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which goes under the beguiling title, “Duty to reduce bureaucracy”. I could not help an ironic smile at that and could not help wondering why, if the noble Lord is so keen on that, he did not do a bit more to assist in it when he was a Health Minister. Perhaps that is an unkind thing to say—perhaps he did.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can I say how much I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, to our Committee? We have missed him. Now we have turned our attention to detail, his particular expertise comes to the fore.

On bureaucracy, I have tabled this amendment because I have genuinely been a passionate fighter of bureaucracy. That is why sometimes as Ministers we have to intervene in the bureaucratic affairs of the health service. The noble Earl may find that he himself has to do so. My concern is that, partly because of the listening pause, there is now a plethora of organisations to be established. Apart from clinical commissioning groups, we have commissioning support units—about which we have heard very little but apparently will be there—as well as the senates, the health and well-being boards, the clinical pathways and the national Commissioning Board. The regulators are likely to be given more power in the future: Monitor is being given more powers and, post Francis, there will probably be changes to the CQC and other regulatory matters. The risk is that, far from this being a streamlined process, it will be a very complex and bureaucratic one. I seek here merely to help the Government deliver their aims by encouraging them to restrain the cost of the whole exercise.

[Lord Greaves]

I was of course teasing the noble Lord in as pleasant a way that I could. This is another instance where Hansard ought to have a few smileys liberally littered round the text. The noble Lord made the same point, at slightly greater length, that I made when I referred to the kaleidoscope of bodies that we now have. An important job of this Committee is to sort out the relationship between all these different bodies before they are finally set up. We have got to do that absolutely vital job.

Subsection (2) of the noble Lord’s proposed new section “Duty to reduce bureaucracy” says,

“For that purpose the Board must exercise its functions … so as to ensure that at no time there exists more clinical commissioning groups than there were primary care trusts on 1 April 2011”.

That is a slightly different point, hitched on to his bureaucracy point. This is a vital question. Again, this will not appear in the Bill—it will not say that there will be X number of clinical commissioning groups—but, in general terms, we need to have clear in our minds when the Bill leaves the House how many clinical commissioning groups there will be and of what sort of size. This has evolved with discussion over the legislation. When the first proposals came out—when they were called GP commissioning groups because that is what they were—there was a feeling among many people throughout the country, the health service and among politicians that they might be quite small, or even that large GP practices might try and do it on their own. A lot of people were alarmed by this because they thought it would not be very efficient and it would not work. How on earth do you commission the kind of facilities which have to be provided, whether it is a local health centre or specialist clinical services, on a sufficient scale? The more people thought about it, the more it seemed that these groups had to be larger than just a large GP practice or group of GP practices in a smallish town.

The Government then encouraged GPs in particular areas to get together and co-operate to set up early-stage shadow commissioning groups. This happened and the Government issued a statement saying that a high proportion of the country—I forget what, but perhaps 70 or 80 per cent—was covered by these voluntary, shadow groups. These GPs quite rightly wanted to make things work in their area, whatever they thought of the legislation and changes. In my part of the world, it tended to come down to one commissioning group per second-tier or lower-tier district council area, in places like Burnley, Hyndburn and Pendle. Now, apparently because of pressure from above, people are talking very strongly about having—or having to have—a commissioning group on the same boundaries as the existing primary care trust. This would not be the cluster of trusts that is at the county level but at a sub-county level.

So in effect people are looking at the groups and saying, “What will be the difference?” What will be different will be the functions and the direct control of community services, which effectively has gone already to the hospital trusts. As for commissioning, it will be effectively the same body, probably in the same premises, controlled by different people. We need to understand this regardless of whether it is necessary to reduce bureaucracy or whatever, which is secondary, in a sense. Before we leave the question of the commissioning groups, which we will be talking about in great detail, we in this House need to understand the Government’s thinking about the future likely site of these groups.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way again. I think it is a very interesting point about the size of clinical commissioning groups. My amendment was simply a probe to get a debate on this. Is there not a tension here? In order to get CCGs dealing with strategic issues, they have to be pretty large and cover a large population, but, in order to get the interest of GPs, they need to be smaller because the GPs need to feel involved. In essence, there is a tension there. The approach of the previous Government of taking primary care trusts and encouraging more practice-based commissioning may well have proved to be a better approach. The risk with CCGs at the moment is that, when they emerge with a board, they will be so removed from the individual GP that the very purpose of setting them up in the first place, which of course was about controlling demand through GPs, will lose that essential aim.

[Lord Greaves]

There is a great deal of truth in what the noble Lord says. Looking at this from afar, I think that the Government have had to struggle with this tension. In order for the bodies to be serious commissioning bodies, commissioning not just for their patients individually or collectively but for the health needs of their area, they have to be sufficiently large. What will happen is that the GPs who sit on these new commissioning groups almost certainly will represent the GPs in the whole of that area, and they will have to be appointed by some democratic process representing the whole area—perhaps one from each area. I do not know how they will do it but that will have to happen at a local, practical level.

In my view, one thing that has bedevilled this debate is that the word “commissioning” has been used in two quite separate senses. One has been the idea of a GP commissioning services for his particular—

[Lord Warner]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord’s flow, but I would like to press him a little further to give us some clue as to his thinking on this. My noble friend Lord Hunt gave us a snippet of history, but there is quite a lot more. We have been through a process where we have come down since 2002 from 300 PCTs to 50 or so PCT clusters. We have been on that journey because we found it extremely difficult to commission services effectively when there are very large numbers of PCTs covering small geographical and population areas. There is simply not the expertise to do that. Could he give the House some clue about where he thinks this is all going to end up? At the moment, in terms of starters for 10, we have about 250 of these clinical commissioning groups. I think it would be helpful to know where the members of his party and others who have argued for this stand on where the journey may end.

[Lord Greaves]

I am extremely flattered that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, thinks that I have the slightest idea where it is going to end up. I am doing exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and other noble Lords are doing—trying to get the Minister to give us some idea of that. We will be interested to see whether he gives that. Over the political lifetime of this subject, we have had constant changes. We started with bigger area health authorities and smaller district health authorities, going down to district level, and then going back to the area level, with the regional level having a greater or lesser influence. The fact is that this is a fundamental administrative difficulty—not a philosophical difficulty—for an organisation like the health service.

19:15

Everybody tends to think that what they have at the moment is not perfect and therefore they try to change it. Because there are only a limited number of options available, it goes backwards and forwards, from local to less local back to local again. If the noble Lord thinks that I know what is going to happen, I am afraid that I do not have the slightest idea. It seems to me that we need a clear idea of what this Bill is going to result in when it leaves this House and we need to understand how it is going to work. In a sense, the details of that matter less than the workability of it.

The point that I was making about “commissioning” being used with two different meanings is that it is used for a particular GP practice commissioning services for the people on its list—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

From what the noble Lord said, why on earth did we not continue with PCTs and give them a kick up the backside to allow GP surgeries to commission more locally as well? Why have we gone through this?

[Lord Greaves]

I am not quite sure why the noble Lord is asking me that question. He is tempting me to make provocative statements in relation to the coalition Government of which my party is a member. I think that it is an open question and the answer can remain open. I am not in the mood to make provocative statements today. I might be tomorrow, and the noble Lord can come back to me then.

The point that I am trying to make before I finish, if the Labour Benches will not interrupt me just one more time—

[The Archbishop of York]

The Benches opposite are probably provoking you into some kind of statement because of your earlier comment that you were reputed to have influenced the Bill during the pause. Given that influence, why did you not go back to what was working?

[Lord Greaves]

It is our view that the original proposals were not working at all, and the proposals that we have now are better than the original ones. That does not mean to say that they are perfect, and it is the job of the House of Lords to check that the imperfections in them are removed before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House.

The point that I was trying to make, which I will finally make once more, is that there is a real difference between the two meanings of “commissioning”. If you are a GP, you can commission services from an existing, static landscape or system of provision for your patients. However, commissioning services on a wider scale, commissioning the very landscape of services and the series of organisations that exist, whether it is deciding to put more money overall on a wide scale into one area of medicine and pulling back on others or just keeping the others going as they are, or whether it is financing capital projects—where to build new hospitals, new health centres or whatever it is—is very different indeed. You need bodies on a larger scale to do that. The idea that practices on their own or small groups of practices could commission that kind of undertaking on a wider scale is nonsense. You cannot rely on the market to provide them all because that will produce chaos and a lack of provision in many areas. That is why the original proposal for GP commissioning groups, which were to be quite small, simply would not have delivered at that level. The original proposals did not indicate in any way how that wider capital commissioning would take place.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on a set of important issues, and I am glad to count my noble friend Lord Greaves as one of my staunchest supporters.

The NHS Commissioning Board is one of the key elements of our vision of a modernised NHS—a highly professional organisation, focused on quality and able to support clinical commissioning groups in delivering the best care possible to patients. I completely accept that these amendments were proposed with the best of intentions, to strengthen the way in which care is commissioned. However, in setting out why the Bill is drafted as it is, I hope that I can explain to your Lordships why I cannot accept them.

It will be key to the effectiveness of the board to ensure that it obtains sufficient advice and input from clinicians, public health experts, other professionals and those with relevant experience of the NHS—patients and the public—and that it has effective working relationships and arrangements with local authority government. We have stated our intention that there should be clinical and professional leadership on the board, but in terms of the legislative framework for the board it is an important principle to maintain that it should have autonomy of decision-making on matters such as its own membership and its structures and procedures, as far as possible, to determine how best to exercise its functions. This would include, for example, whether it has a vice-chair or a senior independent director, as Amendment 52B suggests.

One thing is absolutely clear. Members of the board will, in practice, need to have a range of skills, knowledge and experience appropriate to the issues faced by the board. Ensuring the right balance of non-executive members from a variety of backgrounds is key to achieving a successful board. But if the majority of non-executives were required to have a particular background, such as NHS experience, as suggested in Amendment 54, that might create an unbalanced board and effectively disqualify potential candidates from the private and voluntary sectors. I agreed with the most reverend Primate in what he said here. It is worth remembering that the board and its members will be expected to follow the seven principles of public life—the Nolan principles—one of which will mean that it must appoint a,

“well-informed choice of individuals who through their abilities, experience and qualities match the need of the public body in question”.

That sums it up very well.

A number of noble Lords made the point that if we require the inclusion of doctors and nurses or a public health specialist as put forward in Amendments 50, 52D, 54B and 56, what about representation on the board of dentists, pharmacists and allied health professionals? The list could go on. It would simply not be possible to accommodate all interests in the board’s membership adequately, and we would surely invite valid criticisms that one group is being prioritised over another. Nor would this be desirable from a Government’s point of view, given that the primary purpose of the members of the board is to hold the organisation to account. Nor, in my very firm view, would it be appropriate for a senior member of another organisation with a different purpose or remit, such as the chair of HealthWatch England, or indeed the Chief Medical Officer, to have a seat on the board, as suggested in Amendments 52C and 54A respectively. That could lead to a potential conflict of interest and confuse accountability. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on that point—although he is not in his place.

Of course, in practice, the board must have the freedom to determine how these varied and legitimate interests are best involved and represented in its work. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, was quite right—the board will want advice and expertise readily available to it—but that is a different issue from board membership. It is worth bearing in mind that the board will have the freedom to appoint committees and sub-committees as it considers appropriate, and this may prove useful to the board to bring in interested parties on specific issues.

A number of noble Lords asked about public health expertise. We are coming on to debate clinical senates, but one main reason for establishing them is to bring in this wider range of expertise in a way that would provide practical benefit. This would absolutely include public health expertise. We amended the duty to obtain advice to make this explicit. New Section 13J inserted by Clause 20 makes it absolutely clear that the board must obtain advice from those with professional expertise in,

“the protection or improvement of public health”.

There will be an interrelationship between the board and HealthWatch. The board must inform the body in writing of its response, or proposed response, to its advice; it must also have regard to the views, reports and recommendations of local HealthWatch.

My noble friend Lady Cumberlege asked about the size and membership of the board. The requirements in the Bill are that there is a minimum of seven members; the Secretary of State must appoint a chair and at least five other non-executives, so that is a minimum of six non-executive members. The non-executives must appoint a chief executive, who must be a member of the board. That is to say, there must be at least one executive member. Beyond that, they may appoint other executive members as long as the total of non-executives is always more than the total number of executives. The final decision on the number of other executive posts and the nature of their roles will need to be agreed with the chair and non-executive members, but it is envisaged that the other executive members besides the chief executive will include a nursing and a medical director, a director of finance, of performance and operations and of commissioning development.

All departments are required to ensure that appointments are open, transparent and made on merit. The Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates the processes by which Ministers make appointments to the boards of certain public bodies in England and Wales, and this will continue to be the case. It is not government policy to offer confirmation or affirmation hearings for public appointments, as Amendment 52A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would require. These are ministerial appointments to make. The Cabinet Office maintains a list of posts that are subject to pre-appointment hearings by a House Select Committee. Ministers would consider the committee’s views, but such hearings are not binding and do not represent a power of veto. Your Lordships will be aware that we followed this process in the recent appointment of Professor Malcolm Grant as the chair of the NHS Commissioning Board.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he said, but did he pick up my point that the Government set the precedent in relation to legislation with regard to the Office for Budget Responsibility? The Government have moved on, and I am sure that they did it because of the importance of that body. My argument is that the National Commissioning Board will be such a responsible body that there might well be an advantage in giving the Health Select Committee rather more leverage on it.

[Earl Howe]

My understanding is that we are following the normal procedure. There is a list of appointments that are subject to Select Committee scrutiny. Departments are consulted over the list. It is our intention that the role of the chair will be included in that—and that is exactly the same situation that applied under the previous Government. The Office for Budget Responsibility is an exceptional body in this respect, given its role in providing both government and Parliament with essential, impartial information, necessary for both bodies to be able to fulfil their responsibilities. Although I will reflect on the noble Lord’s comments, I do not know that there is the parallel that he seeks to make there.

Amendment 55 would remove the requirement from the Secretary of State to approve the appointment of a chief executive of the board. This requirement is included for the important reason that the chief executive of the board will be the accounting officer for the commissioning budget, so it is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State should approve his or her appointment.

19:30

[Lord Warner]

Can I press the noble Earl a little further on that? If a chairman has been appointed for this body who has a level of experience to enable him or her to function at that level, then requiring the Secretary of State to approve the appointment of the chief executive seems to throw into doubt whether the Government have confidence in that chairman running that kind of body—they need to be able to appoint an accountable officer as their chief executive. I find this a pretty considerable vote of no confidence in the kind of people who are being appointed as chairmen.

[Earl Howe]

Not at all, my Lords. Of course we have confidence in the chairman. However, it is a little strange to hear from the noble Lord that he suddenlythinks the Secretary of State should not be involved in an area where he has a legitimate interest to make sure, on behalf of the taxpayer and indeed patients, that we have somebody who is capable of fulfilling the role of accounting officer. This is an important role for the Secretary of State to have.

Turning now to Amendments 57, 153ZA and 153B, let me assure the Committee, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we want to reduce the amount of NHS funding spent on back-office bureaucracy. That is why have made a commitment to reduce administration costs across the health system by one-third in real terms, saving £1.5 billion annually by 2014-15. All that money will be put back into patient care.

Clause 21 provides powers for the Secretary of State to impose certain limits on the overall expenditure and use of resources by the board and clinical commissioning groups, including in relation to administrative matters defined through parliamentary regulations, for the first time. The board has the power to set similar limits for individual CCGs. I see no reason to change this to a duty to do so, as Amendment 153B suggests. As the board will itself be responsible for overall administrative spending, I am sure it will want to use this power carefully. Within those limits, it should be for the board to determine how best to use the resources available to it, and to decide on its own structures and ways of working, and the number of staff that it needs to perform its functions effectively. It is not appropriate to set a staffing cap on an arm’s-length body.

How big will the board be? In a document called Developing the NHS Commissioning Board, Sir David Nicholson, chief executive-designate of the board, estimated that the board was likely to have 3,500 staff, carrying out the functions currently exercised by around 8,000 staff in the Department of Health, strategic health authorities, PCTs and a number of arm’s-length bodies that are being abolished, along with its own new functions. It will deliver these in a much more streamlined way.

Likewise, setting an arbitrary cap in the Bill on the number of clinical commissioning groups or on their expenditure on administration in comparison to PCTs is not, in our view, an appropriate means of controlling administrative costs. CCGs will be different from PCTs. They put local clinicians in charge and align clinical decisions with the financial and quality consequences. It is a little unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to say that we are creating a complicated and bureaucratic system, and citing clinical senates and networks and health and well-being boards. Clinical senates and networks are not new organisations in their own right: they will be hosted by the board. Clinical networks already exist. Health and well-being boards are also not separate statutory organisations: they will be hosted by local authorities. We are abolishing a whole raft of bodies under this Bill, as I have said on previous occasions. It is important to bear that in mind.

I appreciate the concerns underlying Amendments 58 and 59. It is important that there should be transparency in all the workings of the board. This is why Schedule 5 to the Bill was amended in another place to include the board in paragraph 7 as a body to which the duty in Section 1 of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 applies. This would include any annual meeting that the board may decide to hold. I say “may decide” because the Bill is clear, in new paragraph 12 in Schedule 1, that:

“The Board may regulate its own procedure”.

This would also apply to determining when it is quorate.

However, the Bill does include clear procedures around the publication of the board’s annual accounts and annual reports, to ensure transparency. The board must send its annual accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The latter must examine, certify and report on the accounts and then lay copies of the accounts and the report before Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is responsible for the audit of the accounts of all arm’s-length bodies. The board must publish an annual report and lay it before Parliament. The Secretary of State must then write to the board, providing an assessment of the board’s performance of its functions, publish the letter and lay it before Parliament. That gives an indication that there will be maximum transparency here.

Turning to Amendments 145A, 146A, 147ZA and 147C, I am afraid that I do not agree that it would be worth while to add the unusual burden of an explicit duty of consulting on a draft business plan. The board is already required in new Section 13P(2)(a) to involve and consult the public in planning its commissioning arrangements. Under a duty in new Section 13J, it is required to obtain appropriate advice to enable it effectively to discharge its functions, including the planning of how it will exercise its functions.

I hope I can reassure noble Lords that Amendments 147A and 147B are also not necessary. First, the duty to produce a business plan already provides for transparency by obliging the board to publish its plan. Secondly, while the Bill requires that the board’s annual report and annual accounts are laid before Parliament, that is part of specific processes for scrutiny of the board’s performance against the objectives it was set and the outcomes it has achieved. It is right and proper that the board should be held to account in such a way. Another clear recommendation by the NHS Future Forum was that the autonomy of the board needs to be respected. With this in mind, although it is right that the board should be required to produce a plan and for that plan to be published for all—including Parliament—to see, I am not convinced that it would be appropriate to have parliamentary scrutiny of the board’s plans or draft plans. The Bill places certain functions on the board, and it should be for the board to determine how it will seek to exercise these.

With regard to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Greaves concerning the size of clinical commissioning groups, I respectfully suggest to him that we defer them to a later group of amendments, where this issue will come up and I shall be able to talk more about it. For now, I hope that the noble Lords are sufficiently reassured to be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Greaves]

Before the noble Earl sits down, the question I asked about the specific role of the national Commissioning Board in relation to public health is one that he did not address. Can he tell us when he might address it?

[Earl Howe]

I apologise to my noble friend. The national Commissioning Board will, we envisage, be tasked with commissioning a number of public health functions by Public Health England. There will be a close relationship between Public Health England and the board. Much of the work of the board will straddle both public health and the provision of NHS services. There will be an intimate symbiosis between the two bodies.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, on Amendment 50, which I seem to have moved quite a long time ago, I will consider the noble Earl’s remarks. I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in support of Amendment 50. Public health is a rather special case and I would want to reflect, in a later debate, on the public health amendments. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.39 pm.

Agriculture: Egg Industry

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:39

Asked By

[The Earl of Shrewsbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact Council Directive 1999/74/EC will have on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom egg industry from 1 January 2012.

[The Earl of Shrewsbury]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the House for providing me with the opportunity to raise this matter, which is of very considerable importance to the future well-being of the British egg industry. I declare an interest, as my younger son is a producer of free-range eggs in Lincolnshire and contracted to Britain's largest producer of eggs, Noble Foods. As my noble friend the Minister will be fully aware, the welfare of laying hens directive, which is the subject of this Question, comes into full force on 1 January 2012. The directive prohibits the use of conventional battery cages and the marketing of eggs from hens housed in such cages. The new cages, known as enriched colony cages, will provide a more animal welfare-acceptable environment. Yet again, Great Britain is leading the field in agricultural animal welfare but such action comes at considerable cost to this sector of agriculture.

The British Egg Industry Council estimates that the industry has, to date, invested some £400 million in the new cage systems and that this country will be fully compliant by 1 January. This has been a truly massive change to the industry. Those producers who have not been in a position to upgrade their systems to the enriched colony systems have gone out of business. Others who have been in a position to make the change have invested heavily in the new systems; such investment has to be serviced and the capital repaid. However, while Britain will be fully compliant there is a very real concern within the industry that producers in some other EU member states will not be—indeed, some might never be.

In recent research conducted on behalf of the British Egg Industry Council, it was found that UK retailers, caterers, manufacturers, processors and producers have for some time been working together to secure the supply of eggs and implement traceability systems to ensure full compliance with legislation. As a result, it is anticipated that the vast majority of shell eggs and all Lion Mark eggs produced in the UK will comply, and that all major retailers will sell own brand shell eggs with the Lion mark. However, further evidence suggests that the main difficulty will be in ensuring that imported shell or processed egg used in manufacturing or catering products will be compliant. This will be particularly so where eggs or egg products are imported directly from those member states where doubts have been raised about the producer's ability to implement the legislation, but also from member states which have taken in eggs to process from non-compliant producers in other member states.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that in member states where there will be non-compliance there are farms with both conventional cages and enriched colony cage systems, often on the same site, thus making policing and traceability extremely difficult. The fact is that we in the UK are not self-sufficient in our supply of eggs. I believe that we produce 85 per cent of the eggs that we need. Egg products are also included in this, and therefore we need to import.

When this directive was first discussed, the egg industry thought that it was not good news but following comments made recently by Commissioner Dalli, the industry is far more worried for the future. The industry is not afraid of competition from legal imported eggs but is extremely concerned that if the directive is not uniformly implemented across the EU from 1 January 2012—and it is as clear as crystal that it will not be—it will be at a serious and unfair disadvantage because of the risk of non-compliant eggs and egg products with considerably lower associated costs being imported. All the industry wants is to be treated fairly and to be able to compete on a level playing field. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether, following 1 January 2012, first, anyone in the UK using eggs or egg products from illegal cage systems will be breaking the law and, secondly, what action Her Majesty’s Government envisage taking to ensure that only eggs and egg products from compliant cage systems will be imported into the UK following that date?

The British egg industry is highly successful and very efficient. It has improved in leaps and bounds since the introduction of the Lion brand as a measure of quality. Consumers have confidence in the product and the poultry sector is one of the great successes of British agriculture. Should Her Majesty's Government fail to act in the interests of the UK egg industry to stop the import of cheap non-compliant eggs and egg products, the British egg industry will be in very real danger of following down the path of the pig sector in the UK. Since 1999, the national pig herd has declined by 40 per cent through the import of cheap pig meat, produced in inferior systems and with far lower animal welfare standards.

19:45

[Lord Plumb]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer—not as an egg producer, but one who recognises the egg industry as one of the most efficient sectors of British agriculture. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury on securing this short debate on an issue that is pertinent to today's problems and that affects producers and all who are concerned and involved in the industry. As my noble friend said, the pig industry went this way some time ago, when welfare standards were improving in this country; not so in some other countries from where we are still importing pig meat. This relates to the Council directive, agreed in 1999, that battery cages should be phased out and welfare standards improved. I remember it vividly because it was my last year serving in the European Parliament. I well remember the debates that we had then, but it went through and here we have it. It should now be fully implemented on 1 January.

The estimated cost to the industry of £400 million to convert from battery cages to what are called enriched colony cages, which afford the hen 50 per cent more space than in a battery, is something that we must obviously take note of. For a producer who has a medium-size unit of 100,000 birds, the cost of erecting a new unit will be in excess of £2 million. In addition to people who have been in that situation and are converting, we are seeing free-range producers, and those who are also involved in free range from battery hens that they had before, being involved heavily in the preparation for the 1 January deadline. This follows that European directive on the welfare of laying hens, which prohibits the use of battery cages from 1 January. We should be proud of a business whose people have responded to the demands of consumers concerned with welfare standards. I understand that the majority of birds are going into the enriched cages by the deadline. In this country, under the egg industry’s assurance scheme, producers have agreed that they will meet the deadline by 2012.

As my noble friend said, the UK is not self-sufficient in eggs, with some 15 per cent being imported. We produce 9 billion eggs in this country every year, with 10,000 people being involved directly in the egg industry and 13,000 indirectly. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can satisfy British producers that the Government will not agree to eggs being produced in lower welfare battery cages, which can be imported into the UK, undermining the market and therefore distorting prices. From the figures submitted by the Commission, after requesting all member states to submit figures on the number of hens in cages, it would appear that there is still a significant number of hens in conventional cages, particularly in major countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy. The single market surely has to be based on equal standards on trade and welfare grounds and there has been ample room and time for this to develop since 1999.

British consumers can be satisfied that the 31 million eggs consumed each day are a key source of food and nutrition. The salmonella scare of the 1980s sparked panic in the country and among producers but, in a test of 28,000 British eggs in 2004 the Food Standards Agency found no salmonella; tests in 2008, 2009 and 2010 showed further improvement. There is continued satisfaction, therefore, in the quality of the product. The progress made in the United Kingdom is a great success story which must not be undermined by cheaper imports produced in countries with lower welfare standards.

19:51

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, on bringing this matter to the attention of the House and look forward to the Minister’s reply. As always, I enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Plumb and his robust representation of British agriculture, which, as he rightly says, is in the forefront of egg production.

The changes we debate originate from a welfare of laying hens directive 1999/74/EC, which comes into full force on 1 January 2012. From that date it will be illegal to use what most people would call battery cages but, in slightly obscure Euro-speak, are now called non-enriched cage systems of 550 square centimetres—a great deal less than it sounds. The minimum requirement will be an enriched cage system with more living space per hen—at least 750 square centimetres and a nest, perching space, litter to allow pecking and scratching, and unrestricted access to a feed trough. Many of us would still find this a small cage space in which to live but it is nevertheless a very significant improvement. That is the positive side and a good example of why we need to be in the European Union and why the European Union needs to legislate on such matters. Without legislation across Europe it would be very difficult to bring in this kind of law because of the competitive pressures which, in this transitional period, we are concerned about.

This is reported as being the first piece of EU legislation to ban a specific method of food production on animal welfare grounds. I do not know if this is true but there will be and there should be more. The problem with this, to be frank, is that the implementation of it by the European Commission has been botched. The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee issued an excellent report on this matter on 2 September. The press release said:

“The European Commission is sleepwalking into a potential commercial disaster over animal welfare regulations that could result in unfair competition for UK egg producers”.

As previous speakers have said, that is the nub of the problem. It is being suggested by trade sources that perhaps one-third of European egg production on that date will not comply and will be illegal. It is suggested that half of the 300 million laying hens currently producing eggs in conventional cages in the 25 European countries do not at the moment comply and will have to change. It is a difficult position and the Commission has proposed a transitional period covering half a year but says this must be voluntary. It is absolutely clear there will be a problem, at least for a substantial part of the next year and perhaps longer. It is all a very worrying precedent for the future of animal welfare legislation in the European Union. The legislation may be excellent but if it cannot be introduced in a competent way then it will produce this kind of problem.

Can the Government of this country ban the import of eggs, processed eggs or products including eggs which do not comply? If they cannot, what action can be taken? The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee suggested in its recommendation 13,

“that the obstacles to establishing a trade ban that encompassed all products that contained egg derived ingredients produced in non-compliant cages may well be insurmountable”.

It therefore recommended that:

“Defra investigate establishing a voluntary approach under which retailers and food manufacturers”,

in this country,

“would undertake stringent traceability tests”,

—and all egg producers throughout the European Union are supposed to be registered and declare what system of egg production they are using—

“to ensure that they are not responsible for bringing products containing non-compliant egg products into the UK. We further recommend that Defra publish a list of those retailers and food manufacturers that have signed up to the voluntary approach”.

I suppose that is the “naming and praising” approach; people not on the list can be shamed. Recommendation 16 was that Defra should,

“press the Commission to bolster the powers and resources of the Food and Veterinary Office”.

Is it doing that? It further recommends that after 1 January the Government should not purchase any eggs that come from non-compliant sources. Is that government policy? Will that instruction go out and will the Government make whatever effort they can to make sure that the whole of the public sector in this country follows such recommendations?

19:58

[Earl Cathcart]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the timing of this debate. With EU civil servants failing to reach agreement on 28 October, this issue is to be discussed today and tomorrow at the meeting of the EU Ministers. Like my noble friend, my son has a free-range egg contract through Noble Foods, which takes place on my farm. With Brussels failing to reach agreement, UK egg producers fear that Britain will be subjected to a flood of cheap imports from countries breaking the law by still using illegal cages. While Commissioner Dalli says he will not postpone the introduction of this new legislation, he will not permit the destruction of illegal eggs. He has come up with a number of proposals to soften the blow for those countries which, unlike Britain, have failed to comply with the law. In effect, he will be postponing the introduction of the legislation.

It is important to appreciate the magnitude of the problem. There are expected to be 80 million illegal laying hens from 1 January 2012, laying between 20 and 25 billion illegal eggs a year. Italy will have a staggering 25 million illegal hens, France 9 million, Poland 17 million and Spain 20 million, which is about half its total laying hen population.

Let us look at some of Commissioner Dalli’s proposals. First, he wants on-farm inspections followed by legal proceedings. Call me cynical, but I cannot see the Italian or Spanish inspectors bothering. They have not in the past, so why now? Secondly, Dalli proposes that all illegal first-quality eggs must be processed into liquid or powder. This would be totally impractical. There is neither the processing capacity nor the market demand for the processing of nearly 25 billion illegal eggs a year. In Spain, currently about 15 per cent of eggs go into processing. How on earth is its processing going to be increased to 50 per cent of its total egg production within the next two months? It is just not going to happen. Thirdly, Dalli proposes that no more pullets are to be housed in illegal cages from 1 January. This is impractical; for example, many of the pullets to replace the 20 million Spanish hens in illegal cages from 1 January have already been reared, as they will be delivered when they are already 16 weeks old. Where else can all these birds go if not into illegal cages? I cannot see the Spanish destroying them.

Fourthly, Dalli proposes a final cut-off date of 31 July to comply. Unfortunately this date makes no sense, as the life cycle for laying hens is 14 months, not seven. Even if there was the will to comply with the directive and the money was available to finance the required changes, this timescale is not achievable. It takes at least six months to refit or build a poultry house and there is not the capacity or money in the EU to erect housing for 80 million laying hens in the next nine months. It is completely unrealistic. Fifthly, Dalli proposes that if illegal cages are to be used, the current stocking requirement of 550 square centimetres per hen must increase to 750 square centimetres to give each hen more room. For most illegal cages, this would mean removing two hens per cage. Can you imagine this really happening—that the foreign farmer will slaughter his surplus hens, hens that have been making him a perfectly good profit? I do not think so.

Dalli plans that these and other proposals will be implemented under a gentleman’s agreement. He does not propose any new legislation or regulations to enforce them. Can you see it? Once Dalli leaves the door ajar, the illegal egg producers will storm through it, entrenching large-scale illegal production in certain EU states and creating a deeply uneven playing field. UK producers would be at a permanent competitive disadvantage just like in the pig industry. Frankly, I do not believe that any gentleman’s agreement would be worth the paper it is written on.

Where now? What do we want the British Government to do? First, the concerns felt by the British egg industry need to be conveyed to Brussels as a matter of urgency: that Dalli’s proposals are unworkable and totally unsatisfactory as far as UK producers are concerned; that Britain will not import any illegal eggs, egg products or prepared food containing egg products after 1 January; and that Britain, along with other compliant countries, should insist that no illegal eggs or egg products can be exported from the country of origin, even for processing.

There is a chink of good news. Last Monday my honourable friend Jim Paice, speaking at the Egg and Poultry Industry conference, confirmed that anyone in the UK using eggs or egg products from illegal cages would be breaking the law. He went further by saying that it needed to be made clear to owners of branded food products that the law applies to their ingredients. He added that any company using eggs produced from illegal cages from 1 January would be breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law. Of course, this is most welcome, but what plans does Defra have to ensure that known importers of eggs or egg products from the continent are alerted to the change in the law—that the importation of eggs and egg products produced from banned cages from 1 January will be illegal? Will they be fined or threatened with closure if they persist? Treating like with like, if a UK egg producer still used illegal cages after 1 January he would be heavily fined and his business shut down. The same two questions apply to the owners of branded food products. Will the Minister alert them and will they be penalised if they break the law?

We joined the Common Market in 1973 thinking we would get a level playing field for trade. After 38 years, is it not about time we got one?

20:05

[Lord Lexden]

My Lords, I am a newcomer to the important matters highlighted in this debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, who introduced it—the first of two Earls to speak in this debate, which lends it a splendid distinction.

I wish to speak briefly about the effect this directive will have on the egg industry in Northern Ireland, a part of our country in whose well-being—all aspects of it—I am always deeply interested, as I have pointed out before in your Lordships’ House. I do not believe that the existence of a devolved Assembly should preclude the discussion of Northern Ireland issues in this House, particularly where a wider UK dimension exists, as it does with this issue.

It is estimated by the Ulster Farmers’ Union, a long established and highly regarded voice of rural interests, that the Northern Irish egg industry is worth some £50 million a year to the Province’s economy. This directive was published in 1999. Many of the problems foreseen then by the UFU and their colleagues in other parts of the country have still not been resolved, although the European Union has had 12 years in which to put in place measures to ensure that compliance does not entail a competitive disadvantage for our farmers, as other noble Lords have already stressed. They have also stressed that fairness—a level playing field, in today’s well loved jargon—for poultry farmers is absolutely essential, given that in the United Kingdom in particular this industry historically has not enjoyed direct government support.

My friends in the UFU estimated in 1999 that 1.8 million birds in Northern Ireland would need to be moved to the new “enhanced colony cages”, at a cost of around £10 a bird. The average cost of conversion to the Northern Irish poultry farmer has been estimated at £300,000—or more, should they decide to convert to free-range production rather than the enhanced colony cage systems. Farmers south of the border in the Republic of Ireland have been eligible for financial help amounting to roughly 40 per cent of the cost per bird of conversion. Despite helpful discussions with United Kingdom Ministers, no similar assistance has been forthcoming to help farmers in Northern Ireland, who compete in the same geographical market.

Those more familiar than me with the farm modernisation scheme will know it to be a heavily oversubscribed fund, with no specific remit to help the poultry sector in particular, and will be unsurprised to hear that it has been of little help to the Ulster farmer looking to convert. The £300,000 cost is coming in the form of bank loans which will require repayment in the harsh economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, and amid a price war among the major supermarkets, which is preventing producers from raising the prices of their product. Several UFU members considered the costs too great at the outset, and ceased production. Small-scale, family-run farms, vital to Ulster’s important rural economy, have been replaced by major industrial producers, and others are at risk.

It is also worth bearing in mind that while the EU itself has had more than a decade to deal with the problems this directive might cause, farmers themselves have enjoyed no such luxury. A report due in 2005, but not published until January 2008, set the standards for these enriched colony cages, and farmers in Ulster prudently waited—they are extremely prudent, for the most part, in Ulster—until they could read this report before undertaking major financial risks. This was an excellent decision on their part, as it turns out that a farmer who converted to what might have been called an industry-standard enriched cage system in 1999 would have found his cages declared non-compliant after 2008. Farmers have therefore had just four years to raise the funds and complete the transitional process. This makes it all the more impressive that Northern Ireland expects to be fully compliant with this directive on 1 January 2012, in line with other parts of the United Kingdom, while other countries, as we have heard, have made public that they will not be compliant in time, if ever.

There was particular concern in Ulster arising from the fact that, under this directive, food manufactured using eggs from caged hens could still be tradable across the European Union. So we are back once more to the much invoked level playing field. Farmers in Ulster are looking for an assurance from the EU that products that use non-compliant eggs are at the very least clearly labelled as such for import and export so that farmers who invested in compliance are not at a serious disadvantage. There was a real risk that eggs from caged hens would continue to be used in the manufacturing of goods that could then be sold right across the European Union, pricing eggs from compliant farms out of the market.

For many farmers in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, much is at stake. I ask the Minister to ensure that there is close communication between his department and the Northern Ireland Executive as these matters advance to a conclusion.

20:12

[Lord Grantchester]

I would like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl on securing this debate at this time. All speakers have expressed concern as it was only on Friday 28 October that EU Ministers met to discuss how to address the problem of eggs being illegally produced in contravention of directive 1999/74, which lays down minimum welfare standards for laying hens and will take effect on 1 January 2012.

We have heard tonight about the cost that the UK industry has borne to convert conventional cages to the new standard and that all of the UK will be compliant. I know that an egg producer in the next village to me, Betley, has invested £10 million to convert, with a continuing added cost of 5p to 6p per egg over and above the cost of production under a more conventional system. He will be looking to the Government to protect his investment from competition from producers in some overseas countries that do not meet the same standards to which he must abide.

The EU commissioner for health John Dalli has confirmed that, despite predicted high levels of non-compliance, the Commission has no intention of postponing the 1 January ban. He is quoted as saying that the Commission,

“will not hesitate to start infringement procedures in cases of non-compliance”.

Is the Minister satisfied that the Commission has the power to act? The industry is concerned that the Commission has not yet come forward with firm proposals for enforcement and penalties.

Furthermore, from the meeting in Brussels on 28 October, there is concern that egg-production units with conventional cages will be allowed to continue until at least July 2012, subject to certain rules and that these rules are less than robust—for example, no non-compliance shell eggs to be exported outside national borders and all non-compliant shell eggs to be prohibited from being placed on the shell market as class A but are to be processed within that member state. However, if there is no processing plant or insufficient capacity in that member state, shell eggs will be allowed to be processed in a neighbouring member state and then returned. Such egg products could then be used in prepared food and products and exported. Could I ask the Minister who will monitor non-compliant eggs moving across a border, and who has the responsibility and by what process to ensure the egg is then returned?

Could the Minister confirm whether any analysis of supply and demand has been undertaken to determine that there will not be any massive market distortions or a displacement effect on seconds from compliant producers? Has the Commission got robust data from all member states on the conversion status of their industries?

In a batch-housing production system, the industry is also sceptical that the reduction in stocking density can be actioned between batches. At the Egg and Poultry Industry conference, the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food in the other place welcomed the British Retail Consortium’s commitment to ensure that all major retailers source their shell eggs and own-label products containing egg from producers with the new enriched cage system. What evidence will be available to consumers, and will any labelling system be put in place? Could I ask the Minister what action his department will be taking to ensure non-compliant shell eggs and egg products do not enter the market place? Is his department confident that there is ample consumer recognition of the industry’s food assurance schemes and is there more it would like to see being done?

The Minister will know that in the past certain countries have banned imports of certain foodstuffs—I am thinking of beef in particular. Has the Minister’s department made any plans to ban the import of shell eggs or egg products from any particular country that poses a more extreme risk of being non-compliant?

The UK industry and its farms in particular must be congratulated that they have met the demand for higher welfare standards. There is cross-party support for these measures. The consumer must also be sure that the food supply is legal, especially if a product has been procured overseas.

20:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, there can rarely have been a more opportune moment to debate the egg industry than today and I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for tabling this Question and giving us the opportunity of talking about it this evening. As he and all noble Lords know, my right honourable friend Jim Paice, the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, has been at a Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels today dealing with this matter.

As has been said, the provision in Council directive 1999/74/EC, which bans the keeping of hens in conventional—battery—cages from 1 January 2012, represents one of the most significant welfare advances across the EU, and we wish to see it effectively implemented across the European Union. My noble friend Lord Plumb recalled the debates in Europe that led to its introduction. However, I recognise that the cage ban is causing great concern to the egg industry. It is also a huge challenge for the Commission and other member states.

I will address the issue of compliance first. The Government acknowledge the sterling job that the egg industry has done in preparing for the ban and the very big investment that it has made in converting to other production systems, which are more acceptable in terms of animal welfare. My noble friend Lord Lexden made evident the cost in human terms that this has meant for some farmers in Northern Ireland. Despite all that he told us, he said that Northern Ireland will be fully compliant with the directive. The vast majority of UK producers will be compliant by 1 January 2012. Of the remainder, we expect many producers to leave the industry at the end of this year.

Perhaps I can help my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury by explaining just what the legal position is. Who will be in breach of the legislation if eggs from conventional cages are used in products after 1 January next year—the producer, the processor, the product manufacturer or the retailer? The egg producer would be committing an offence by continuing to keep hens in illegal cages after the ban and then illegally marketing his eggs as caged when they would be non-compliant. If processors, product manufacturers or retailers bought eggs that they knew were from illegal production systems, they too would be committing an offence. I also say to my noble friend Lord Greaves that the mandatory criteria of government buying standards will include the provision that neither eggs nor egg products from illegal producers should be used in any supply after 1 January 2012. The Government will take tough enforcement action against any UK producers found to be non-compliant after 1 January.

The far more significant concern is that compliant UK producers will be disadvantaged by having to compete with cheaper eggs still coming from non-compliant conventional cages in other member states in 2012. We want to protect our producers, who have invested some £400 million in converting from conventional cages, which is equivalent to spending £25 per hen housed.

The UK is the sixth-largest egg producer in the EU and the industry is an important contributor to the economy. The egg industry is one of UK agriculture’s success stories and is used to responding to market signals, without receiving direct subsidies from the EU or the UK Government. A prime example is the way that the consumer demand for free-range eggs has increased dramatically over the past decade, and now around 50 per cent of the eggs produced in the UK are free range. The UK is 82 per cent self-sufficient in egg and egg products, with the remaining 18 per cent coming from other member states, in particular France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Poland. Some of those countries have been mentioned as being non-compliant. Of the 18 per cent of eggs and egg products being imported, around 50 per cent is imported as shell eggs for use by UK processors, corner shops and caterers, and 50 per cent are imported as egg product, liquid and powder. The UK industry estimates that 23 per cent of the EU flock will remain in conventional battery cages on 1 January.

What sort of problem areas do we see? The vast majority of shell eggs marketed through the major retailers are UK sourced. Small retailers, street markets and food service outlets are more likely to provide an outlet for imported eggs from illegal cages. The Government are confident that we have a robust strategy to enforce imports of shell eggs. The prime concern is with imports of egg products, where the supply chain is less transparent and more challenging to audit. Currently, 27 per cent of the egg products used each week in the UK are imported. Along with noble Lords, the industry fears that this percentage will increase and prices will be dragged down by large-scale non-compliance in other member states.

Products which the industry considers most at risk from illegal egg imports from 1 January are Scotch eggs, sandwiches, quiches, cakes, gateaux and Yorkshire puddings, which use a high percentage of imported egg—I see my noble friend Lord Shutt raising an eyebrow at that information. The Government are working with the egg industry, retailers, food manufacturers and the food service industry in preparing their enforcement strategy to deal, not only with imports of non-compliant eggs from other member states, but also non-compliant domestic production.

The British Retail Consortium has come out publicly in support of UK egg producers and guaranteed that conventional caged eggs will not be bought by the major retailers or used as ingredients in their own-brand products. They have put in place stringent traceability tests to ensure that they will not buy non-compliant eggs. Retailers that have made this guarantee include Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Asda, J Sainsbury, the Co-operative Group, Tesco, Waitrose, Iceland Foods, Greggs, Starbucks and McDonald’s.

Tomorrow, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture will meet the Food and Drink Federation, which represents food manufacturers, and the British Hospitality Association, which represents the food service industry, to see whether they would be willing to follow the retailers’ lead. I hope that this reassures my noble friend Lord Cathcart that the trade in this country is determined to stick to sourcing eggs from legally housed hens.

Ultimately, it will be the for the competent authority in each member state to take responsibility at source for ensuring that their producers no longer keep hens in conventional battery cages after 1 January 2012. If the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the body that will enforce the conventional cage ban, has grounds to suspect that a particular consignment of eggs may have been produced in illegal conventional cages, then it will contact the competent authority in the member state to check if it knew whether it was sourced from a compliant producer. I can assure my noble friend Lord Greaves that traceability is a key responsibility placed on member states.

Alongside the preparation of a rigorous enforcement strategy, we are still pursuing UK interests in Brussels. For well over a year, the Government have been at the forefront of efforts to convince the Commission that simply relying on infraction procedures against non-compliant member states will not be enough to deal with the negative effect that non-compliance would cause and that additional enforcement measures would need to be put in place to prevent market disturbance. On my noble friend Lord Greaves’s question about strengthening the Food and Veterinary Office, the FVO clearly has a key role here, but relying on infraction proceedings alone will not be enough.

We are pushing the EU hard to use all its available resources to ensure that a ban is implemented and enforced. In September, the Secretary of State wrote jointly with nine other concerned member states to the European Commission, urging it to act quickly. At the October Agriculture Council, the Commission ruled out the option of an intra-community trade ban. It is very disappointing that we have ended up with no legal solution to protect compliant producers from the large-scale non-compliance that there will be in January 2012.

As my noble friend Lord Cathcart passionately observed, given the scale of non-compliance that we are expecting, the Commission is now looking for a robust enforcement approach that avoids large numbers of producers having to close down their operations and the destruction of millions of hens and non-compliant eggs. At the same time, we rightly demand that the Commission must protect all those producers who have complied with the ban and implemented a flagship animal welfare policy. The Government are contributing to ensure that any solution is as tight as possible to protect our producers.

I can assure my noble friend Lord Lexden that we are working with the devolved authorities. Earlier today, Jim Paice, the Minister of Agriculture, fought our corner on this issue at a meeting of the Agriculture Council in Brussels. I regret to say that no agreement was reached, and there will now be further discussions on 29 November to try to find a solution.

There have been some questions about a unilateral trade ban, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The Government have thoroughly investigated the possibility of taking unilateral action and bringing in a UK ban on imported eggs and egg products which have been produced in conventional battery cages in other member states. There are significant legal challenges in instigating a unilateral ban, but at this stage such a move is still on the table. We are also considering other measures that we could introduce swiftly.

In conclusion—and I am sorry if I have taken more time than I should—I thank my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. UK egg producers must not be put at a disadvantage for leading the way on animal welfare issues. They should be able to operate within a level playing field across the European Union.

20:30

Sitting suspended.

Health and Social Care Bill

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

20:39

Amendment 51

Moved by

[Lord Patel]

51: Clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(c) must exercise its functions by overseeing sub-national clinical senates and networks”

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I am very pleased to move the amendment on his behalf. I wish I had a better idea of what his purpose might have been in tabling the amendment. None the less, it is a good opportunity to explore the Government’s thinking in establishing the clinical senate.

It is easier to understand the purpose of the professional networks, which I have spoken about before. I think they are a good idea, and there should be more clinical and professional networks embedded in the health system. The cancer and cardiac networks are two good examples. However, when it comes to the senate, I am less clear about the Government’s intentions. I know that the NHS Future Forum: Clinical Advice and Leadership report said that commissioning consortia—now called commissioning groups—and the NHS Commissioning Board,

“should establish multi-specialty clinical senates to provide ongoing advice and support for their respective commissioning functions”.

It also said that independent advice from public health professionals should be available at every level of the system, but that is by the way.

Therefore, we have a situation where the Future Forum suggested that clinical senates should be a way of getting advice to all the different new structures. In response to the Future Forum, the Government said that clinical senates will give advice to CCGs which they must follow in each area of the country. At the same time, Dr Kathy McLean, who led on the project, is leading another project and has issued a consultation letter to develop the role of clinical senates and clinical networks. Obviously the Government do not have a clear idea of what the clinical senates are for, otherwise why is Dr Kathy McLean leading the project and issuing a consultation letter?

It is proposed that 15 senates will be housed by the NHS Commissioning Board. They will feed their advice back to the NHS Commissioning Board, although about what is not clear. In his two amendments my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant wonders whether they might be useful in feeding the Commissioning Board and the commissioners advice about specialist commissioning. The senates will have a major say in advising CCGs on their commissioning plans, but their advice will be exactly that—advisory. Membership will consist of doctors, nurses and other health professionals, so it will be a large group. The senates are to be involved in quality aspects of clinical commissioning and an annual assessment of CCGs, and they will report on their annual reports and performance. They have serious work to do in monitoring CCGs, yet they are only advisory for CCGs.

Future Forum suggested that clinical senates should provide advice and support for a range of bodies, including CCGs, the NHS Commissioning Board, health and well-being boards and others. Are senates not likely to end up as just another layer of bureaucracy? Therefore, what is the real role of all 15 clinical senates? Will they be involved in advising the NHS Commissioning Board in its commissioning role? Are they to be advisory for CCGs and check on the quality of their commissioning? Why are the professionals on the senate going to be from outside the commissioning groups’ area of commissioning? The amendments are tabled to explore whether they will really have a role in commissioning specialist services.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that he anticipated the remarks of his noble friend Lord Walton remarkably well.

Having argued against bureaucracy in the previous group of amendments, I am now about to argue in favour of putting senates on a statutory basis. I shall explain why. First, this was a very good outcome of the listening exercise. I think that because I am concerned at the Government’s decision to abolish the strategic health authorities. It is what I call the Hagley Road issue. In 1948, the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board was established; its offices were in Hagley Road and throughout 60 years there has always been something there. It may have been a regional health authority, a regional hospital board, a strategic health authority—call it what you will—but there has always been a regional outpost of the department acting essentially as a leader, with a positive role in looking at the region as a whole, ensuring that its services were cohesive and had proper direction and that, by and large, it was self-sufficient. That is to be removed and we are going to get large SHA clusters which will cover a much larger part of the country. Although we do not know the size of the clinical commissioning groups, they will clearly cover much smaller population areas.

I believe that there is still a need for a mechanism whereby strategic leadership can be given over a region, and I see the clinical senates as being the best approach to that. Noble Lords have spent at least two days debating reconfiguration and are concerned that these difficult decisions often have intervention from the centre. Clinical commissioning groups will be too small to take on the kind of strategic leadership that is required. When you are trying to establish in a region where the super specialty and tertiary services should be and trying to come to a view about how many A&E and emergency departments you need, you require a body that can take a strategic overview. The clinical commissioning groups are too small to do that. They could, of course, possibly come together in a kind of federated meeting to try to resolve those kinds of issues, but that could prove to be very difficult. Therefore, the senates could have an important role in setting some of the parameters and giving strategic leadership to a region.

However, as the Government intend them at the moment, these will be informal groups of people who could easily be ignored by the clinical commissioning groups, by the health and well-being boards, by the deaneries and by all the organisations that have an influence on the way in which the health service is going. My amendment is designed to set out a more structured approach to ensure that clinical senates are created as bodies corporate, that they are properly accountable to the national Commissioning Board and that they have the ability to give strategic leadership and have some oversight of the work of clinical commissioning groups.

I suspect that my amendment will not find favour with the noble Earl but the point about the need for strategic leadership in a region is important. I fear that the super SHA clusters will be too large to do that and the clinical commissioning groups will be too small.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 51 and 84, but before I do, I have an interest to declare. I am chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, an organisation campaigning for those with rare and complex conditions. The move to commissioned services for this particular group of patients by the NHS board is really welcome. It is the first time that there will be a common standard across England under the auspices of the board. However, we are not totally clear about the composition of the senates or their roles. I am not sure that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton—who is not in his place at the moment—actually gets to the meat of this. There is concern that specialised services within senates might get lost. If a specialised senate with expertise and integration were set up, that might be useful to this group of patients, but more often than not networks are where the specialised services go to for the expertise. We welcome the commitment to ensure that networks stay as they are and possibly expand. Maybe a network could set up a task and finish group to look at the problems around specific conditions. I would be grateful if the Minister would make the role of the senates clear. Would they have a role in specialised commissioning? Similarly, I would be grateful if he would shed some light on the ways in which the board will commission specialised services in general.

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, I must confess that when I first read about clinical senates, I thought, “This is a great solution”. But what is the question? The problem came home to me very much when visiting the New York mental health commissioning services and seeing the great difference in their approach. Mental health is commissioned by the public purse for a largely public service everywhere in the world, so it is a good way of looking at how people commission differently in different places. The big difference between New York’s system of commissioning mental health services and ours was that they had clinical specialists involved on a day-to-day basis who could never be second-guessed by the provider system. That is because they were recognised experts who usually had run a service themselves and were very respected nationally or locally. They were incorporated into the commissioning group. The same was true of public surgical services, public health services, and so on. That was very impressive.

Therefore, when I heard about clinical senates, I thought that this could be the way to provide that kind of serious expertise from a region to clinical commissioning groups. However, it does not seem to be developing quite that way. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is very optimistic, with a slightly grandiose idea of what these clinical senates might do. I would love to share his optimism but I remember those dreadful regional medical advisory groups. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, will remember them, because we dealt with the same clinical regional advisory group for the south-east Thames. They were dire; they were the lowest common denominator of time-serving BMA—No, I am going to be very careful now. I do not want to be too rude, but on the whole, they were not the edifying cutting edge of specialties.

[Lord Patel]

Psychiatry.

[Baroness Murphy]

Even the psychiatrists were not. I can remember this group of people being pretty darn useless. You would send up a proposal; they would look at it; they did not like it because it was not in their best interests as a specialty and they would send it back again. I can see that my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, agrees with my every word.

I am a little concerned about what these people are going to do. Will they provide cutting-edge, evidence-based expertise of the best kind to local commissioners? Will they be a talking shop? Will they be a regional medical advisory group?

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I rise to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and restore her confidence in the Labour Benches on the subject of senates. If the Conservative side can have the Mawhinney-Howe dialogue, why should we not have the Hunt-Warner dialogue on senates?

I can well understand why people would like to be a senator. It sounds very grand. It would be good to put on your CV that you are a member of the senate of wherever—even if it is Birmingham. To some extent, I can understand why the Future Forum thought it would be a good idea to have senates. I can imagine it received a lot of representations from specialists in various parts of the country that perhaps these GP commissioners, as they were then known, were getting a little uppity and needed to be curbed a little and put in their place. Why, then, not give a little more space to the people who really know about these things—the specialists—and bring them together in senates? Yet, since 2006, thanks to the helpful report by Sir David Carter on specialist commissioning, we have gone a long way in putting in place a sensible way for dealing with regional specialties and, on top of that for very rarefied stuff, a national commissioning capability. That has not been around for long. It would not be a bad idea to try to keep some of that learning experience together as we move into this brave new world.

I do not have any problem with networks. Networks have been a proven success. They have done a lot of good and there is a lot to be said for trying to reinforce them, even to put some wording about them in the Bill. But I struggle with senates. We need a really good explanation of what they are out to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, put her finger right on the button: it is a very good solution but what is it a solution to? I hope we can have some enlightenment on that from the Minister.

[The Archbishop of York]

In my day-to-day life, I have to do what they call “oversight”. The trouble with oversight is that it is always remote. The person who comes on the round is the parish priest or the diocesan bishop. The moment you begin to take oversight seriously from a distance, you are in real trouble. How do you know that the delivery of what you want will work? I am not so certain that I want this Commissioning Board to have oversight of both clinical issues and the senates. That would lie somewhere else, not with the board. It is to the board that Monitor, NICE, clinical senates and networks, and the Care Quality Commission actually report. I can understand the other factors in the Bill but the moment you include the business of,

“overseeing sub-national clinical senates and networks”,

you are in real trouble. What is that, by the way? I remain uncertain. We certainly need a clear spelling out of what senates are for. That is a separate question from whether the board should oversee their work, let alone if we understood it.

I am not one to suggest that this amendment is helpful. What would be most helpful would be to hear from the noble Earl what are the senates, what are these networks, and where you would locate the whole question of accountability and responsibility. I do not think it is the board; otherwise you are giving it a much bigger function when it already has five functions; and there are further provisions in the schedule. If you really want the board to fail, add on more work. So my view is that it should not have oversight of the sub-national groups. However, I am still confused. Will the noble Earl tell us what the senates are for? Networks I can understand; but what are the senates for? If he explains, we may actually see that this amendment is redundant.

21:00

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister what the potential relationship is between clinical senates and an expansion of academic health science networks, or academic health partnerships, that may be proposed from the ongoing chief executive of the NHS review of innovation. It is suggested that that review may endorse an expansion of the current academic health sciences network. I must remind noble Lords of my own declaration and involvement in University College London Partners academic health science centre.

As I understand it, the purpose of clinical senates is to provide support in helping clinical commissioning groups to draw on expertise available from a broader group of clinicians and disciplines within their region to help inform ultimate clinical commissioning decisions. However, if the proposal that the current network of five academic health science centres is expanded into a network of broader academic health partnerships, serving a population of about 3 million to 4 million for each partnership, within those partnerships there would be a broad range of academic and other disciplines. They would be represented in a health partnership or network fashioned on the current academic health science centres to be able to deliver expertise and advice on commissioning and provide the opportunity to aid in a transformation of health practice pathways of care, to provide a potential home for the education and training functions that will need to be rolled out at a sub-national level, and also promote interest with regard to research and innovation.

Under the circumstances, if academic health partnerships were to be expanded and promoted as a result of the ongoing innovation review, could not the responsibility suggested for clinical senates be undertaken by the academic health partnerships and current academic health science centres? This would avoid the need for yet another grouping or layer of bureaucracy to be created within the systems responsible for the commissioning and provision of health services.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, if I may, I will pursue what has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and also, in some ways, by the point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. I could not help thinking that perhaps protesters count among the networks and the people responsible for running St Paul’s count as part of the commissioning group. With that in mind, I will pursue also what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. If you look at his Amendment 224A(6), he helpfully refers to the clinical senate having,

“the function of establishing and maintaining a system of clinical networks”,

in the area. I think that should be applauded. I am very impressed by the way in which networks at their best not only extend information very widely among patients with a chronic condition but bring the patients into the discussions about what should be done in their situation. It becomes a huge educational and, indeed, morale-boosting process. So on subsection (6) I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has put his finger on something that could be very important and where the clinical senate would give clinical backbone to the deliberations and thoughts of the clinical network. That is almost, I suppose, what we are all trying to achieve.

I am not so clear about subsection (8) of Amendment 224A, where the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has effectively given the clinical senate something of a veto over the commissioning group. I am not sure that that is wise, as that plays right into what the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, were saying about creating yet another layer of bureaucracy. I think that would be unhelpful and might indeed feed into a certain self-importance on the part of people who call themselves senators, whether clinical or merely political.

I would like to ask the Minister, bouncing off the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whether, looking through that amendment, he does not find parts of it that are helpful, useful and constructive. It would make a clinical senator a significant part of the whole structure of the relationship between patients and clinicians. Whether he needs to press ahead with provisions that would bring in the senate as a requirement of the decision-making process of the commission is much more questionable. I am playing a kind of ping-pong, in which the ping of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has to go to the pong of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can I accept the invitation to come back on this? The reason why I am interested in the other bit of my amendment is that it is essentially about the strategic leadership that needs to be given to reconfiguration issues. When we debated the powers of the Secretary of State, a number of noble Lords complained that Ministers intervened in reconfiguration, which usually means the closure of services, perhaps emergency services, and their concentration around specialist hospitals. They are very contentious. As noble Lords have observed, MPs seek ministerial intervention, which is perfectly normal and democratic. In the new structure, there is no one to really lead this at a semi-national or regional level. The CCGs are far too small; they will not be able to come together to sort out how regional services should be operated, or the number of A&E departments you need within a region. The national Commissioning Board is far too big; it is national. That is why I think that there is room for some regional mechanism. The clinical senates seem the nearest that we can get to that. I do not see them as being like the old-style regional medical advisory committees; I see it as being a rather more dynamic process than that.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I thank the noble Lord for his typically articulate and thoughtful response. The idea of clusters coming together in what one might call semi-regional groupings is a better way forward than bringing regional senates in as a way to resolve the problem that he rightly talks about of bodies being too small or too large.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

Can I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about his amendment, in which he proposes setting up another very strong bureaucracy? It is a corporate body, known as a clinical senate; I presume, because it has a proper officer, that it will have a range of officials. It is suggested that it should revalidate doctors within the area, but I am wondering how that would work with the GMC and others. It will maintain a whole system of clinical governance within clinical commissioning groups and also authorise some of the clinical commissioning groups.

I can understand the noble Lord’s wish for some strategic leadership. I have been a regional chairman—and I have to say that our medical advisory groups were really excellent compared to those of south-east Thames. We had really good ones. But I am anxious about this matter. I sense that this is simply a probing amendment, because the membership of what the noble Lord proposes would be extremely bureaucratic. I understood that these were advisory boards, and that it was to try to get some of the clinical input from the acute centre into the commissioning groups so that they understood perhaps more clearly what they were commissioning in terms of acute services.

I very much look forward to what my noble friend is going to tell us as to how he sees this issue. But I must say to the most right reverend Primate—I think I have got that right—that if he can manage the Anglican Church he really could manage the National Health Service.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

I wonder whether this is one of the occasions where the organigram that we were discussing previously in Committee might be helpful. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us in his summing up when we might expect to see that diagram.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, we heartily endorse the important role that clinical advice will play in supporting the NHS Commissioning Board in fulfilling its duties and carrying out its functions effectively. We fully expect clinical networks and the new clinical senates to make a vital contribution to this.

The Government intend that doctors, nurses and other experts from across health and social care will form clinical senates to give expert advice to commissioners. They will do this principally, although not exclusively, in two situations: senates will have a role in the authorisation of clinical commissioning groups, as well as having a role in advising on significant service change on a large geographical scale. Existing clinical networks will also be taken forward and developed and will advise on how specific services can be better designed to provide integrated and effective care. The Government are committed both to retaining and strengthening clinical networks and to using them to help ensure that a range of professionals play an integral part in the clinical commissioning of patient care. The networks will include patient and carer representatives that exist in areas such as cancer care, so that they cover many more areas of specialist care. Networks will have a stronger role in commissioning, in support of the board and local clinical commissioning groups.

Although we fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in highlighting the important role that both clinical networks and senates will play in the new system, I cannot support his Amendment 51, nor can I support Amendment 224A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The reason why I cannot accept them is the same in each case: both of them would specify the roles of networks and senates in legislation. That would restrict the range of ways in which they can operate, which in turn would limit the value that is delivered for patients.

Clinical senates and networks will not be statutory organisations, and that is why they are not referred to in the Bill. That, surely, is a positive thing. It gives them much needed flexibility in how they operate, maximising benefits for patients while minimising bureaucracy. This flexibility will allow both senates and networks to act as enablers of the commissioning system, supporting commissioners by providing them with expert advice. They will not act as another layer of management or administration which hinders progress; instead, the board will host both clinical senates and networks, allowing any supporting functions which can appropriately be shared to be organised with the least administrative bureaucracy. The review of the current system of clinical networks is identifying the features that deliver the greatest benefits, allowing the new system to build on these in a streamlined way that effectively drives improved quality and outcomes.

The board will be subject to a duty, in the proposed new Section 13J within Clause 20, to obtain appropriate advice to enable it to discharge its functions effectively. We believe that this general duty is sufficient to ensure that it seeks appropriate advice, including, of course, clinical advice. In practice, clinical networks and clinical senates will form one way in which the board fulfils this duty.

Clinical commissioning groups are also under a similar duty to seek appropriate advice. Although the board will host senates and networks, clinical commissioning groups will be closely involved in their design and functioning, as well as benefiting from their advice. It is expected that the board will issue guidance about avoiding conflict of interest where this might arise. The exact number of clinical senates is yet to be determined but they are expected to be able to offer informed, strategic advice across a health economy, which might suggest having around 15 across the country. Clinical networks will be based on patient flows rather than NHS boundaries, so variations in size will continue, but representation will always be appropriate to the remit of each network.

21:15

Clinical senates will bring together a wide range of experts from across different areas of health and social care to provide cross-cutting advice on strategic commissioning decisions for broad geographical areas. The detail of the functions that clinical senates will carry out in support of commissioners is still being developed, but I think that they will come into their own particularly for strategic issues arising across a broader area than just at clinical commissioning group level. They could provide advice on the clinical aspects of commissioners’ proposals for large-scale service change or reconfiguration—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated—where commissioners feel that a broader strategic view would be useful. We think that they will also have a role in the quality aspects of authorisation or annual assessment of clinical commissioning groups. As a result, although analysis is being carried out to determine the most appropriate number of senates, it is intended that they will operate across a wide strategic area.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I have a quick initial question. If a CCG happens to be in the area of, say, a university medical school or medical hospital, how would the process of picking who would be on the clinical senate be handled?

[Earl Howe]

As I have mentioned, the senates will come under the wing, so to speak, of the NHS Commissioning Board. They will effectively be part of the board. While we have yet to receive details of how the board will configure itself sub-nationally, it will clearly have to do so in ways that make sense of the local commissioning and provider architecture in an area so, where you have a university, it might well be that medical experts from that university will be part of the senate. It is too early to say, but I look forward to updating my noble friend as and when I have further particulars.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I stand as a supporter of the noble Earl on the concept of senates. He is not getting much support but I agree with the point that he made that if clinical commissioning groups feel that there needs to be a wider strategic view, say on reconfiguration, the clinical senate could provide useful support. The problem is that some clinical commissioning groups may not think that there is a need for a wider strategic view because they will simply seek to defend existing provision. My argument is that you may need a mechanism which is somewhat more proactive, and which can intervene in the way that the noble Baroness's wonderful South West Thames Regional Health Authority used to do.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord could be proved right. As I have said, we will see how the functions of senates are defined. That work is ongoing. The initial proposals for the design and implementation of senates are currently being developed and initial straw-man proposals are being tested with the intention of presenting a clear set of recommendations to the top team of the special health authority later this year, so—

[Lord Warner]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl but I am still puzzled about where he and the department are taking this concept of the senate and how it fits in with the regional specialist commissioning set-up, which already exists and which has 10 regional commissioning capabilities aligned with the SHA areas. I am not clear about whether that work is to be folded into the senates. Is it free-standing? Are the lessons all to be lost, and what are the costs of this? What does hosting the senate mean in terms of costs, because there are costs to these regional bodies that are undertaking the work on specialist commissioning? I am at a loss to understand how these two elements—the senates and the regional commissioning capability that is there now—coexist and what the cost implication is of hosting senates alongside those.

[Earl Howe]

I will talk in a moment about specialised commissioning and I hope the answer to the noble Lord’s question will emerge. Amendment 84, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would require the board to commission highly specialised services, in collaboration with the sub-national clinical senates that are accountable to it.

I will not rehash my arguments around Amendments 51 and 224A, but many of the same points will apply to this amendment. Specialised services are challenging to commission; they involve complex care pathways, small numbers of providers and very small numbers of patients with rare conditions. The new NHS Commissioning Board authority will be considering options as to how it does this, including the best form for its substructures. There will be the freedom to adapt these over time and, to ensure that progress is not lost, the board will be required under existing provisions to maintain the necessary focus of clinical expertise in these highly specialised areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how we ensure that clinical senates are not ignored; this is precisely why we do not want to prescribe their role in the Bill. We want senates to be enabling bodies, which is why we are inviting views on the type of advice they could provide to identify the functions of the board and CCGs where they would add value.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, indicated that he thought the clinicians on the senate would have to come from outside the clinical commissioning group area. That is not the case; he is not correct in that assumption. There may be slight confusion with the rules we set for secondary care doctors on CCG governing bodies, who must avoid conflicts of interest, hence the need for area restrictions in that context. Experts on clinical senates can come from, in theory, all or any areas of the country. The difference between the senates and regional specialist commissioning is that the latter focuses on specialised services and nothing else. The senates could, in theory, work across all services; the two are not designed to do the same thing. The senates will be quite high level. It is expected they will be about only 15 in number, and while they may be established in a certain form they can evolve over the years to conform to the requirements that are placed upon them.

My noble friend Lady Jolly pressed me on the role of the board with regard to specialised commissioning, and I have already indicated in outline part of that role. The key point is that the board will maintain the necessary focus of clinical expertise and it will be under specific duties to obtain professional advice in the exercise of its functions. Under the regulations, the types of service the board will be required to commission will be kept under regular review. Work is going on at the moment to define what those services should be in the first instance, and I fully expect them to conform broadly to the specialised services national definition set. As my noble friend knows, the list of those services has historically changed over time and I expect the same will apply in the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about the long promised organigram. In fact, our fact sheet on the overall health and care system does have an organigram in it. It includes the NHS Commissioning Board and describes how senates and networks will be hosted by the board. I refer the noble Baroness to that sheet. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, asked how senates will be different to academic health science centres in their focus. In short, AHSCs are partnerships of local academic and health bodies to support innovation and excellence in that area. However, they will not be impartial; they are by definition a vested interest. Therefore, they would not be the right bodies to offer the broader perspective on how services should best be configured across a region.

I hope that noble Lords will be at least somewhat enlightened by the details I have been able to give about clinical networks and senates. As I say, this is work in progress. I make no apology for that. This was very much a recommendation that emerged from the Future Forum report. We have got on with the work needed to flesh out what these bodies should be, but we have a broad and, I hope, helpful idea of their role across the wider NHS system. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extensive reply. When I moved this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I did not think there would be such enthusiasm to join in. I was surprised by the enthusiasm generated by his amendment, and I thank noble Lords who joined in. The most reverend Primate said this amendment was not necessary. I hope that he was not referring to the amendments that I had tabled, or I would say to him that my amendments were “zuri sana”—for those of you who do not understand, that means they were very good. He understands that.

The noble Earl has, to a degree, clarified the Government’s thinking on what the role of these senates will be. As he said, it is work in progress. Of course, we will need to wait and see what the details are. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed.

Amendment 52 not moved.

Schedule 1 : The National Health Service Commissioning Board

Amendments 52A to 57 not moved.

Amendment 57A

Moved by

[Baroness Jolly]

57A: Schedule 1, page 277, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must make provision for a procedure whereby complaints about health and social care providers in England can be brought before the Board.”

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, Amendment 57A is to do with reporting complaints to the NHS Commissioning Board. There are two distinct areas for complaints: complaints related to commissioning and those related to care or service delivery. In fact, they would filter through the board, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities. I include local authorities because, if we are talking about complaints about possible integrated services, we cannot decouple clinical commissioning groups from local authorities.

21:30

In the far-off days that have been mentioned earlier in this Committee, before PCTs and foundation trusts were even thought of, most NHS boards had a complaints convener. I was one such person. We had a quarterly report back to the board. We reported back on complaints, but it is also worth putting on record and remembering that not only did trusts receive complaints but they received a lot of plaudits as well. You only have to wander around a hospital—I spent six months in my DGH as a visitor at the tail-end of last year—to see the number of cards of thanks sent in by relatives or by patients. Plaudits should get a mention, and we have far more plaudits than complaints in the NHS. Complaints, however, are important and should be reported back. In those days, they were reported back quarterly to the board, as they perform a useful function: they are a barometer of the institution. You can see what is working and what is not and where there are issues. They go up and down. They can form part of the performance dashboard and they are also critical for learning. An institution or trust can learn from complaints.

Handling complaints is a delicate—and should also be a transparent—process. The NHS Commissioning Board is committed to transparency. Its role is overseeing service provision and so it should see a breakdown of the complaints that are arising within the service it oversees—not personal details of Mrs Gidden’s hip replacement or Mr Patel’s hernia, but an appropriate format that will reflect the health of the NHS. As the board also oversees commissioning, it should also see complaints that relate to an organisation’s competence in commissioning. So, with that as the framework of my complaint, I wonder whether the Minister could clarify the nature of reporting such information to the NHS Commissioning Board. I am sure he will be happy to agree to its importance. I beg to move.

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak on this group of amendments, in particular on Amendments 143A and 143B, on behalf of my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Hunt. I am also speaking to the clause stand part debate on Clause 275, which relates to the abolition of the National Patient Safety Agency.

A critical function of the NHS Commissioning Board is to improve the quality of services and drive improvements in health and social care. A key way of achieving these objectives is learning from complaints information. There is a clear need for the NHS Commissioning Board to have meaningful comparable complaints data from service providers which can be used to help drive improvements in healthcare and strengthen the quality of services for patients and the public. This information can contribute significantly to an enhanced patient experience and enduring service improvement. It can enable the board to identify possible trends and patterns of risk and to take appropriate action through putting pressure on healthcare providers to raise standards and demonstrate how they have learnt from patients’ complaints.

Through this means, the board can hold providers to account for the safety and effectiveness of healthcare. Having this information is important because it identifies which providers are failing to learn from complaints. In collaboration with other organisations, such as the Care Quality Commission, Monitor, the NHS Information Centre and HealthWatch England, there will be the capacity to identify trends, themes and patterns of significant risk and respond through the commissioning process.

While NHS complaints systems have been much improved and enhanced in recent years—my own Government introduced the current system in 2009—we recognise that the current systems for capturing complaints information require significant improvement. We know that a sadly recurrent theme at the Mid Staffs public inquiry has been that the complaints of patients and families were not heard. A system which ensures that complaints information gets transmitted to the people running the NHS would help to remedy this.

Another crucial point is that, with the loss of primary care trusts, there is nowhere independent where complaints about GPs who are members of the local CCG can be investigated. It is clearly not appropriate for the CCG to investigate a complaint about a GP who is a member of the group.

The Health Select Committee has supported the view that commissioning bodies should be the engines that drive improvement in complaints handling, in the analysis of data and leading change within the NHS. Amendment 143A, in particular, would enable the NHS Commissioning Board to play its part as a major service commissioner in developing more meaningful NHS complaints procedures and information, establishing a duty on Monitor to publish information.

Amendment 143B is a probing amendment, which would delete the board’s proposed functions in relation to information. This is in the context of our support for the continuation of the National Patient Safety Agency’s much valued independent role. The National Patient Safety Agency provides a vital function under its current remit, managing the National Reporting and Learning Service, the National Clinical Assessment Service and the National Research Ethics Service. The NPSA acts as an umbrella organisation, providing a valuable overview of patient safety incidents by collection and analysis of data, and monitoring to ensure that lessons are learnt that can be fed back and used to improve patient safety.

Under the National Reporting and Learning Service, the NPSA receives confidential reports on patient safety from incidents from healthcare staff across England and Wales, and oversees the independent processes of clinicians and safety experts who analyse these reports to identify common risks to patients and opportunities to develop improvements in care and practice. However, under the proposed new arrangements, the NPSA is to be dismantled and split up. On these Benches we are totally opposed to this. I ask the Minister how the information monitoring and service that it provides can be provided by the separate bodies that will now span across these issues. The NPSA’s value is as an arm’s-length body that is respected and valued by the NHS for its independence, expertise and the service it provides. Therefore, I also ask the Minister how he will ensure that there continues to be an overview, information and reporting system for the important functions currently undertaken by the NPSA.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate to ask the noble Earl whether, in his reply, he could perhaps cross-refer to a later section in the Bill, which deals with the role of one of the entities to which my noble friend Lady Wheeler has just referred, namely HealthWatch England. In any procedure for complaints, whether about treatment or the ultimate effects of commissioning on patients and the quality of service, an independent body that represents the views of the users of the health and social care system is required. There is a whole group of relevant amendments, but it is the last group printed on this list so we will probably not reach it much before Christmas. Nevertheless, within that group is a strong line that HealthWatch England should be an independent body, which means independent not only of the providers but of the regulators. In any proper complaints system—although I do not suggest that this is the only channel for complaints—you need an independent consumer view. This has stood the test of time in several other sectors. It would be a major role for HealthWatch England if it could be built into the kind of clear procedure to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, referred.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this has been a valuable debate on what is an important topic by any standards. It is vital that patients feel able to raise complaints where services are not good enough. It is equally important that there are appropriate systems for ensuring that complaints and safety incidents are effectively monitored and addressed, and that wider lessons are learnt.

Amendment 57A would require the Secretary of State to create a new procedure, whereby complaints about both health and social care providers could be brought before the board. Amendment 143A would go further by giving the board a more specific role in collecting and analysing information relating to complaints about both the provision of health services and commissioning decisions by the board or clinical commissioning groups, and making this information available to the public. The current NHS and adult social care arrangements for handling individual complaints were developed to make the process of complaining quicker and simpler, and to put the focus on meeting the needs of the complainant. It is important that all NHS organisations view and manage complaints in a positive manner and use the information obtained to improve service delivery.

Under the current regulations, a complaint about poor service provision may be made either to the service provider or to the commissioner of that service. It is important that people have that choice. Someone may be deterred from making a complaint to the service provider if they consider that it may impact on their future healthcare provision. We consider it right for these general principles on complaints handling to be carried forward into the new system architecture. In future, we envisage that complaints about service provision would be made to the service provider, or to either the local clinical commissioning group or the NHS Commissioning Board, depending on which had commissioned that service. They would also deal with complaints about how they have performed their own functions.

Of course, where it proves not possible to resolve a complaint locally, the complainant has the right to refer the case to an independent arbiter. In the case of an NHS complaint, this referral is to the Health Service Ombudsman. The system of handling complaints will therefore continue to operate largely as it does now. The arrangements for monitoring complaints will also be similar. The NHS standard contract already requires all providers to report complaints information to commissioners. This information is collected by the NHS Information Centre and would be available to the NHS Commissioning Board. This is then discussed as part of the clinical review meetings between commissioners and providers, who are required by regulations to implement learning from complaints and other incidents. It will be vital that the NHS Commissioning Board is able to identify any emerging trends from this information.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the board will be assisted by both the local healthwatch and HealthWatch England, which will act as a conduit for the views of service users about their experiences of complaints handling. It will also be able to make recommendations to providers and commissioners about how services and procedures could be improved. There will be a duty on NHS organisations to have regard to the recommendations of the local healthwatch, which will also put pressure on providers and commissioners to improve.

Finally regarding these amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, makes the valid point that it is important that information about complaints is made available to the public. Patient and service-user generated information, which includes complaints as well as information collected from patients and staff through surveys, real-time feedback, ratings of services and patient reported outcome measures, are all vital in helping patients to make informed choices about their care.

Separate arrangements currently apply in reporting patient safety incidents that have or could have resulted in harm to a patient. These are reported in anonymous form through the National Reporting and Learning Service, operated by the National Patient Safety Agency. Safety has to be the key priority of all those working in the health service. We cannot allow it to be an add-on or an afterthought. Patients rightly expect that any service provided with NHS funding will be safe.

For this reason, we want to put safety at the heart of the NHS by transferring these functions from the NPSA to the NHS Commissioning Board. Clause 275 therefore makes provision to abolish the NPSA as part of our plans to reduce the number of arm’s-length bodies. Instead, new Section 13Q, which Amendment 143B seeks to remove, gives the NHS Commissioning Board responsibility for those functions currently carried out by the National Patient Safety Agency. This is in relation to collecting information about patient safety incidents, analysis of that information and sharing the resulting learning within the NHS and more widely.

Safety is, of course, another of the core domains of quality. We believe that the NHS Commissioning Board, as the body that will be legally responsible for ensuring continuous quality improvement in the NHS, will be best placed to ensure that this learning is translated into improved practice. Its unique perspective will allow it to ensure that appropriate levers are used to drive safety improvement across the system. Bringing safety right into the core of commissioning activity in this way is the most powerful way of driving a safety agenda through the NHS.

21:45

While I have sympathy with the intention behind these amendments, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that our reforms will ensure effective systems for reporting complaints and safety incidents which will enable this information to be shared more widely and will maximise the chance of it translating into improved practice in future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked me whether I thought that clinical commissioning groups should handle complaints about their member GP practices. As the NHS Commissioning Board will commission primary care services, complaints about a primary medical provider would be addressed either to the provider itself or to the board, not to the clinical commissioning group. Of course, anyone can raise a complaint with the regulatory bodies if they choose to do so.

In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend and the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw their amendments.

[Lord Patel]

Before the Minister sits down, will he please confirm that the primary care doctors and the primary care team will also be obliged to report patient safety incidents?

[Earl Howe]

My understanding is that that is the intention. The clinical commissioning group will wish to monitor the quality of service provided by its member practices and the outcomes that those practices achieve. As part of that monitoring we fully expect that safety will be a core component.

[Lord Greaves]

Before my noble friend replies to this group of amendments, I hope that I may ask the Minister a question on something on which I confess total ignorance. The Minister said that many of the functions of the National Patient Safety Agency in collecting statistical information would be transferred to the national Commissioning Board. What other functions does it have and what will happen to them?

[Earl Howe]

Will my noble friend allow me to write to him on that point?

[Baroness Jolly]

I thank the noble Earl for his reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for her commitment to quality and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the patient voice input. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57A withdrawn.

Amendments 58 and 59 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 7 : Clinical commissioning groups

Amendment 59A

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

59A: Clause 7, page 4, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) The areas covered by clinical commissioning groups in respect of general primary care shall, as far as practicable, coincide with local authority boundaries.
(1B) The requirement under subsection (1A) may be modified where clinical commissioning groups provide specialist services.”

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I apologise to those I informed that I would not be here to move Amendment 59A—I am here and so I will.

Noble Lords will probably appreciate that I have severe misgivings about aspects of the Bill but the amendment attempts to build on parts of the Bill of which I largely approve. The devolution of commissioning is important, but the later provisions in the Bill which associate issues of public health and well-being more clearly with the role of the health and social care system are also important.

When we are talking about configuration in the sense of bureaucratic bodies, it is important to try to build into this a relationship between what are mainly local authority services and those services which will be commissioned by the new commissioning groups. The original form of the commissioning groups in terms of GP commissions has been altered somewhat but there will obviously be quite a number of them. We do not know how many of these commissioning groups are envisaged by the Government. This amendment attempts to say that there ought to be a relationship between commissioning groups and the local authority boundaries within which they operate. It is intended to be a relatively flexible operation, although it would be very sensible in many areas for there to be a total coincidence in coterminous boundaries between commissioning groups and local authorities. In others, there may well be more than one, but I still think some recognition of a relationship with the local authority services is important. It is important not only in the provision of social care and dealing with the developing conditions of individual patients and users, but for environmental health issues, on which I have later amendments. The public health service should ensure that the commissioning authorities recognise the importance of work in the public health area and the need to co-operate with the public health authorities.

It is actually quite difficult to get the National Health Service, at both local and policy level, to take into account in its operational work the need for a public health dimension. There have been some significant improvements in this relationship in recent years, but they need to go further. I am therefore suggesting that, in principle, we should ensure that there is a relationship between the commissioning groups, the public health authorities and public health and well-being committees, and the local authorities that provide social care and public and environmental health services. It is intended to be reasonably flexible. Clearly such coterminosity, if that is a word, would not apply to specialist commissioning groups and, as I have said, I am not suggesting that there should be only a single commissioning group within each local authority area; although there would be advantages in that, it would cut across a lot of what the Government are attempting to do. I think, however, that somewhere in this Bill—not necessarily in the precise terms of this amendment—there needs to be a very clear relationship written in between the public health boundaries and the commissioning boundaries as they are envisaged in the new configuration. I beg to move.

[Lord Rea]

My Lords, following the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I raised this issue briefly on the second day of Committee. I felt, however, that the Minister only gave a partial answer. CCGs must have an “area” as set out in their constitution, but there seems to be nothing in the Bill which defines the limit of this area or its basis other than that CCGs will cover the registered practice population of the GPs sitting on the CCG. This will result in very untidy boundaries which will interdigitate with a variable number of other CCGs.

However, proposed new subsection (1A) in Clause 10(3) says that a clinical commissioning group has responsibility for other people resident in its area but not registered with a GP—homeless people, rough sleepers, asylum seekers, et cetera. A geographical boundary for those people is therefore implied. Can the Minister say how this boundary is to be delineated? Will it coincide, as my noble friend has suggested, with the local authority, or with the former PCT—which in fact in 85 per cent of cases will be the same as the local authority boundary—or will it have some other basis? There is a strong case for—sorry about this word again—coterminosity with local authorities. They provide many of the services on which GPs depend. In fact, they are an integral part of primary care, such as social services and community health services, and public health, including maternal and child welfare services. They are especially important as, under the Bill, local authorities will all have their own director of public health. There are a number of services which were formerly provided by PCTs on a geographical basis: for example, ambulance and emergency services, genito-urinary medicine clinics, and drug and alcohol services. These are by no means all the services which CCGs will have to commission or co-operate with. What arrangements will be made for the area that these services will have to provide for?

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, Amendment 60 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. It proposes to deal with the anxieties over real and perceived conflicts of interest that might exist in the functioning of clinical commissioning groups. The amendment proposes that:

“The Secretary of State must publish, and may from time to time revise, a code of conduct for all clinical commissioning groups … The code must, in particular, incorporate the Nolan principles …‘The Nolan principles’ means the seven general principles of public life set out in the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life”.

It is important to take the opportunity to explore the issues around potential conflicts of interest and the anxieties that these raise. The reason is very simple. Clinical commissioning groups will be new public bodies. They will have by large measure a large number of primary care practitioners as their membership. Primary care practitioners, GPs, will have responsibility for delivering care and have very special and cherished relationships with their patients in terms of promoting and guarding the interests of their patients. Moving forward, they will have new responsibilities for the commissioning of services. A potential anxiety exists under those circumstances.

For many other statutory bodies in the public sector involved in healthcare, we have dealt with the problem of potential conflicts of interest by ensuring that those organisations and those who serve in those organisations are obliged to conduct themselves in a way consistent with the seven principles of the standards in public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those seven principles are very powerful indeed.

On 14 April I put a supplementary question to the Minister at Oral Questions about whether clinical commissioning groups would be obliged to follow the Nolan principles. The Minister stated that, since they were going to be public bodies, they would be obliged to do that. As they are new public bodies, many of those that are going to serve in important capacities in clinical commissioning groups will have little experience of public life. Yet they will have very important responsibilities and have to deal with the sensitivities and anxieties of patients, because they will both serve in capacities on clinical commissioning groups and continue to serve as patients’ principal caregivers and primary medical practitioners. We need to find a way of ensuring that those anxieties are overcome.

In many other situations, we have dealt with that through these seven basic principles. Indeed, the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 was designed to ensure that anxieties over the conduct of Parliament could be dealt with in such a way as to satisfy the public more generally that there was transparency, and that those serving in public life in this Parliament had no doubts about their obligations and responsibilities. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 includes a commitment and requirement to adhere to the standards in public life defined in the Nolan principles. I therefore believe it might be an important opportunity to overcome the anxieties that attend the question of potential conflicts of interest in terms of the conduct of clinical commissioning groups for the same approach to be taken with regard to this Bill, and to include a specific reference to the Nolan principles in terms of the conduct of clinical commissioning groups.

21:59

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, clinical commissioning groups are, of course, one of the main building blocks of the Government’s proposed changes to the National Health Service and I support my noble friend Lord Whitty when he argues for the need for population-based bodies at that essential local level. However, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in looking at issues to do with corporate governance in clinical commissioning groups. I am concerned whether the corporate governance structure will be sufficiently robust. Will clinical commissioning groups be sufficiently accountable to the public? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that clinical commissioning groups operate in the public interest?

Schedule 2 sets out the details of the governance structure. Clinical commissioning groups will be bodies corporate with a constitution and a procedure for decision-making; an accountable officer and audit and remuneration committees are to be appointed. That is fine as far as it goes but I hope the noble Earl will use this opportunity to clarify what effective corporate governance structure is to operate. My Amendments 175CA and 175CB seek to do just that.

On Amendment 175CB, I seek guidance and reassurance about the composition of the boards of clinical commissioning groups. On every other board in the NHS the non-executives are in a majority. Will the noble Earl confirm that that will be the case with clinical commissioning groups? If not, why not? I follow what the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar said: surely, by any definition, GPs are the least experienced in any form of corporate governance in the health service? Therefore, given that they are the least experienced, is it right that they should be subject to so much less scrutiny and challenge than those other organisations in the National Health Service which are hugely well versed in corporate governance? At the very least the chair and vice-chair of the clinical commissioning groups should surely be lay people to ensure that the public interest is represented.

There would be considerable merit in ensuring an external appointments process. I have suggested here the NHS Commissioning Board but there may be other suggestions. All experience with public bodies shows that if boards are responsible for deciding on their membership you will often run into trouble. We have seen this in the education sector, with corporations of colleges simply deciding themselves who should be appointed and who should replace those who retire. Simply leaving clinical commissioning groups to decide on their membership is a recipe for deep trouble, particularly when the temptation for CCGs will be to spend resources on themselves, on their constituent GPs. The issue around public interest and conflict of interest will become a keen problem and, without strong, effective corporate governance, we may well run into great difficulty in the future.

There are probing amendments around membership but, in relation to Amendment 175CA, I would like to know whether the noble Earl feels it is appropriate that local authorities should have some kind of representation on the boards of clinical commissioning groups. Amendment 175CA in particular draws attention to the role of district councils in two-tier areas. That is because clearly the principal local authority will be the host of the health and well-being boards. There will be concern, particularly in rural areas, if the non-metropolitan district councils do not have some involvement. I at least pose the question as to whether they may have some involvement at the clinical commissioning group level.

My principal amendment is Amendment 175D which concerns the accountability of clinical commissioning groups. I do not understand how those groups will account to their patients. As a patient, what do I do if I do not agree with the decisions of the clinical commissioning group? What if I think the decisions made by my clinical commissioning group put me at a disadvantage compared to the decisions made by a clinical commissioning group in a nearby area? What if I think my clinical commissioning group, by its decisions, might affect the viability of my local general hospital? What if I think it is putting too many contracts with itself, bringing up this issue of conflict of interest? There is real concern about the conflict of interest issues around placing contracts with the GPs who form the constituent members of the clinical commissioning groups.

How do members of the public hold the clinical commissioning groups to account? As far as I can see, the Bill is completely silent on that. The noble Earl may say that it is contained in the doctor-patient relationship, but I do not think that is true at all. My relationship with the GP is not about commissioning: it is about essential care. Frankly, there is already a risk that, because GPs are collectively going to commission, the doctor-patient relationship might be undermined in any case. That is because the moment we place commissioning decisions with GPs, there will always be a suspicion among patients that decisions they are making clinically will be governed by the needs of the clinical commissioning group and the need to ration resources. Clearly, the Secretary of State has said, and has been saying consistently, that the reason the budget has been put with GPs is to give control over the budget overall.

I have put forward a model essentially based on the foundation trust model, which says that the members of clinical commissioning groups should be the patients who are on the lists of the GPs within that group. The membership should then vote for a governing body and the governing body should then appoint the non-executives on a clinical commissioning group. I am not completely wedded to that model: I just lifted a model that is currently in operation in the health service. My main point is that I do not believe that it is right and proper that a public body should simply be composed of one profession that is given enormous power—if you are lucky, there may be one or two non-execs on the board as well—accountable to nobody at all at the local level. There is no mechanism at all whereby I as an individual patient have any way of challenging the commissioning decisions of those clinical commissioning groups. This is a very important issue to which I am sure we will return. We have to make CCGs properly accountable.

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I will be brief in supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kakkar. I also support the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I think it vital that local commissioning groups are accountable and conduct themselves according to the highest principles of public life. CCGs are legally responsible for the quality of their decision-making processes. Therefore, they need to be able to stand up to judicial review. The individuals making those decisions should be required to adhere to the highest standards of conduct for public officials.

I know that, to a degree, the Government recognise this by raising the structures of CCGs—namely, the inclusion of lay and other professional members on governing bodies, the requirement for compliance, the principles of good governance and the pledges about public access to documents and meetings. While this work is being carried out, however, we need clarification about the methods of identifying and selecting lay and professional members of governing boards.

The Bill also states that CCGs may pay members of the governing body such remuneration and allowances as it considers appropriate. Full autonomy may not be appropriate as it might undermine public confidence in the ability of members of CCG governing bodies to act in the public interest. Some degree of national guidance about fee scales might also be valuable.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I will speak to Amendment 101A, in my name and that of other noble Lords. Before I do, I will say one word about the amendment spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel. I was pleased to hear what they both said because in a way it reflected the crucial nature of trust in the medical experience, the relationship between the patient and the doctor. That is at the centre of the ability to create a successful health service. They were absolutely right to emphasise that. Without going into detail, it is fair to say that the Nolan principles are becoming a kind of gold standard of the behaviour of people in public life. It is eminently suitable that that gold standard should be openly applied to those who are members of clinical commissioning groups at the local level. That will go some way to retaining the level of trust that exists between the medical profession and citizens.

Turning to Amendment 101A, we do not want to go over the ground again about membership of the board. This is, in a sense, the board in a miniature—the membership of the clinical commissioning groups. It is crucial that clinical commissioning groups are very close to their communities. The reason that my amendment refers in particular to a representative of the nursing profession is because almost nobody is ever closer to a local community than nurses. The information and knowledge that he or she carries can be vital to the working of the local clinical commissioning board. Also, nurses tend to be the recipients of any complaints there may be, so again it acts as a two-way channel. I also hope that we can bear in mind the importance of somebody with public health experience on a clinical commissioning board.

I make one other, final remark. As evinced by amendments later on that we will come to discuss, the major guarantee of the behaviour of a clinical commissioning group will be transparency. I hope that when we come to look at the extent to which members of boards should declare any interests that they may have, and should be recused from any decision which might bear upon that interest, we will recognise that this is one of the most important elements in dealing with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, legitimately raised. The real concern is about the interests of individual GPs or groups of GPs in their own particular business—so to speak—and the way that that must be made absolutely plain before the clinical commissioning group takes a decision that can have any bearing upon the individual interests of individual members of the board.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 169, 171 and 174 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I very much endorse the remarks made earlier by the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Hunt. There has been a huge amount of concern about the governance and accountability of clinical commissioning groups since they were launched upon a slightly unsuspecting world. That is not to say that it was a bad idea to have them, but a large number of questions have been legitimately asked about how they will be held to account for large sums of public money and how they will govern themselves, given in particular that they are a new type of public body. We have been unsure from the beginning precisely how many of them will emerge. It seems that there are now in the order of 200, or 250 or something like that, but we are not quite sure how many there will be eventually. Some of them are quite small and some will be quite big, so they are quite variable in their scale of operation.

The conflict of interest issue has come up repeatedly. I cannot remember how many events I have been to where that issue has been expressed. There is also the fact that these bodies are untested. They are different in kind from many other public bodies that there have been. The theme running through my three amendments is about trying to improve the governance and accountability of clinical commissioning groups, given the large amount of public money that they will be spending—the collective expenditure of these particular groups runs into tens of billions a year.

22:15

Amendment 169 seeks to ensure that a clinical commissioning group not only has a governing body but has,

“an accountable officer who is the most suitable senior”—

I emphasis “senior”—

“employee of the group”.

I can appreciate how difficult it may be for a group of clinicians to agree who should be the chief executive. I also have no wish to impose an overly rigid management structure on clinical commissioning groups, particularly in their early days. However, I am old-fashioned enough to believe that public bodies handling large sums of public money should have a senior accountable officer who, knowing that he or she may be held publicly accountable, can speak the truth to colleagues when they are tempted to duck responsibility. It is an important principle of the way in which we have run public bodies that there is a senior accountable officer who can internally, as well as externally, give strong advice and leadership on propriety in the way that public money is spent. This amendment would ensure that the governing bodies of clinical commissioning groups had a person who could perform that function.

Amendment 171 attempts to strengthen the provision on standards of governance for clinical commissioning groups in new Section 14L(2)(b). At present the Bill requires the governing board of clinical commissioning groups to have,

“such generally accepted principles of good governance as are relevant to it”.

As I have said, clinical commissioning groups are a new kind of organisation, spending large sums of public money. There has been much debate about the adequacy of the Government’s wraparound of these bodies. I share that concern and I believe that, as worded, the Bill does not go far enough. It tends to leave these groups to look around for a governance model that they deem to be relevant to them. They might find this a rather difficult proposition in its own right. There is a very strong likelihood that they will have very divergent governance arrangements for such large sums of public body money. We do not expect PCTs or local authorities to have that level of governance divergence in the way in which they conduct their affairs. That is why Amendment 171 attempts to increase the rigour and reduce the variation in the governance arrangements for clinical commissioning groups. It requires them to meet the standards of good governance of any elected or appointed public body authorised by Parliament. That seems to me to be the standard that we should be looking for, and we should expect these groups at least to be able to point to a governance system that is no worse than that of local authorities or PCTs.

If this wording can be improved further, or if other noble Lords have ideas for improving that governance, I am happy to go along with any proposition that strengthens the Bill in its governance requirements and produces an outcome that is likely to mean less divergence between individual clinical commissioning groups in the type of governance that they produce for the running of their affairs.

Amendment 174 has a different theme. It attempts to address the key issue of information that enables a public body, such as a clinical commissioning group, to discharge its public accountability in a way that enables comparisons to be made with other similar bodies within, in this case, the NHS. It is one thing to give clinical commissioning groups a lot of flexibility in the way in which they organise themselves. I see no reason why we should allow a thousand flowers to bloom in the way in which these groups choose to render public accounts for their work and expenditure decisions.

I also struggle to see how the national Commissioning Board can itself review the performance of clinical commissioning groups without some template setting out how it would do so. It would not be able to shrug its shoulders when asked about groups perceived to be performing poorly. It will need some evidence that it can make public about that inadequate performance. Why should that evidence vary dramatically from clinical commissioning group to clinical commissioning group? If that is to be the case, we should be clear from the outset that there will be a more standardised system of minimum financial performance information that these groups are required to publish annually. That is in the interests not only of the good governance of these bodies but of the public understanding what they are getting for their money from those groups.

It is critical that any such system has a good weighting of financial and cost data. Healthcare systems here and overseas are very good at putting into the public arena data about what they have produced that are often disconnected from how much they have cost to produce. We need a clear obligation in statute on the national Commissioning Board to require more data in this area from this rather diverse group of clinical commissioning groups.

I lived through the process of dealing with financial meltdown in the NHS in 2005-06. One of the main causes of that meltdown was that the NHS could explain to hardly anybody collectively the relationship between the level of activity and the cost of that activity. It had two streams of data—one about money and one about activity—and they were not related to each other. If we repeat that approach in clinical commissioning groups, we will end up in the same place as we ended up in 2005-06.

[Baroness Barker]

I shall speak to Amendment 92ZZA, which stands in my name and those of my noble friends. At this time of night, brevity is of the essence. This amendment addresses a crucial point.

The whole structure that the Bill sets up for the NHS depends on a number of things to work efficiently. It depends on the clarity of responsibilities and on different bodies having a clear understanding not only of their own role but of their role in relation to each other. One of the most important parts of the process underlying the structure is integrity. Although there has been much exaggeration about potential conflicts of interest in some of the things that I have seen, there is one—the one that I have highlighted in this amendment.

One commendable thing about this Bill is that in relation to acute care and hospitals we are stopping the process by which organisations—in this case acute trusts—are rewarded for the volume of the procedures they do rather than the quality of their outputs. It is important in commissioning that we stick to that same principle. There must be no possibility whatever that anybody who is involved in the commissioning of services stands to gain by the provision of those services, or their volume. That is why I have drafted this amendment. It may be imperfect in some way or another but its intention is to say that those commissioning decisions must be completely separate from the derivation of any benefit—or pecuniary benefit—as a result of that.

I have absolutely no problem whatever with people who either work for or are shareholders of commissioning support organisations advising CCGs on what to do. If they are, as we have been led to believe, experts in commissioning and clinical commissioning groups want to bring in their expert advice, that is absolutely fine. I do not have a problem with that at all, as it could be a much more efficient and effective way in which to do it. However, it would be unacceptable if those same people had any role whatever in the decision-making processes of the CCGs, either by being a member of a CCG board or by being a member of one of the CCG sub-committees. My amendment attempts to remove that potential conflict of interest. It is probably one that the Government had intended to remove, but they have not done so in the Bill as it stands, and so there is a loophole which needs to be closed in order that there is complete integrity about the process.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, this group of amendments and this debate are incredibly important. The risk of conflict of interest relating to general practitioners is particularly high because they are independent contractors—they are not NHS employees and therefore are not answerable in the same structure as an NHS employee would be within an organisation. Independent contractor groups may be small or they may be as large as practices.

I have been a GP myself and have had to go through the business of partnership agreements. I know only too well from colleagues of mine how disastrous the break-ups in partnership agreements can be and the degree of animosity that can occur. When we talk about GPs being on commissioning groups, there is a real problem in terms of how much they are going to get paid for undertaking commissioning decisions. If they are commissioned from an organisation with which they have a link—because they are a GP with a special interest and they work in another organisation—what are they being paid for? The content of their general and medical services contract is not closely defined. If they have a special interest, which their practice then refers to one of the partners in the group who is providing a service as part of another provider group, there is a risk that people in that practice will be getting double-paid under the organisation of that arrangement.

To try to explore this, I telephoned Assura, a group which is providing dermatological services in an area. I tried to explore the situation with regard to their internal governance arrangements and commissioning arrangements if they have a GP working there and how those arrangements are monitored. I was reassured by what I was told by the person on the phone, who was most helpful. However, it did not take away my anxiety. This provider was being careful and making sure that clinical governance structures were in place, but I have not been able to understand where the controls are on a clinical commissioning group. Will they be only on people who are GP principals on it, or will they apply to all the doctors who are working in general practice? Where will the GPs sit if there are a small number of principals, a large number of salaried GPs in an area who are doing all the clinical work and who know what needs to be done, and a senior partner who is taking the profits out of the business which is the business of the general practice?

Where coterminosity links to this is that, if you have coterminosity between the commissioning group and other services—local authority services, education services and so on—you at least have another organisation, or two others, which will be seeing what is happening. If you take a complex family—perhaps a single parent with one child with developmental delays, another with complex conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes or whatever, and another child who might be being neglected—then, by having triangulation between local authority services, education services and those services being commissioned, the gaps in the commissioning process may emerge. However, if you do not have coterminosity, I can see each group saying, “It falls outside our area”, and the children or the patients will fall through the gaps. With regard to the commissioning group, poor decisions in commissioning or decisions which involve a conflict of interest may not be revealed for a very long time.

Therefore, I urge the Government to look closely at these amendments, particularly the one tabled by my noble friend Lord Kakkar on the Nolan principles, because, unless we tighten up on the processes that will monitor and provide governance over the way that members of the clinical commissioning group behave, we run a risk. I wish that I could share the optimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the conflict of interest will lie only among those supporting commissioning decisions, but I do not.

22:30

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, this is a very mixed bag of amendments. It is all about clinical commissioning groups but the issues behind such a mixed group are varied and it is quite difficult to get a coherent debate about them—although I do not criticise the Government Whips’ Office for attempting to push this Bill along a bit, given the speed it is going. I shall speak to three or four of these amendments. I totally agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Barker said, so I will say no more about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, started us all off with Amendment 59A, suggesting that,

“clinical commissioning groups … coincide with local authority boundaries”.

In his speech, the noble Lord modified it a bit further than his amendment seems to go but the basic principle behind it is extremely important, except that where there are large, sprawling counties in two-tier areas those counties are clearly far too big to be the areas of the commissioning groups. In a county such as my own, Lancashire, or North Yorkshire it would seem sensible for the clinical commissioning groups to be smaller than the county, although I would argue strongly that the county boundaries and the top-tier or the unitary authority boundaries should not be crossed.

[Lord Warner]

Is the noble Lord aware that some of the most effective clinical commissioning in the existing arrangements has been done by primary care trusts which are based on county boundaries?

[Lord Greaves]

I am not saying that there are no counties where that might be the appropriate arrangement. I am saying that in very large counties which, first, have a large population and, secondly, cover a large geographical area it would be excessive. Indeed, the situation in those counties which I just referred to is that the primary care trusts do not cover the whole county. All I am asking for is a degree of flexibility to allow appropriately sized clinical commissioning groups where the counties themselves would be too large. I declare that my own county is one such example. Indeed, as I said earlier, the areas that people are looking at as being appropriate for CCGs in Lancashire do not cover the whole county but the principle is absolutely right.

More important is Amendment 60, which is linked with Amendment 92ZZA, which my noble friend spoke to. Amendment 60 is about the code of conduct and was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who I am pleased to see in his place again to hear what I have to say. As far as I am concerned, there is a real sense of déjà vu here, since in debating the recent Localism Bill—I do not know whether it is now the Localism Act—we spent many hours agonising over codes and standards of conduct for members of local authorities. I assume that when the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, talks about a code of conduct applying to clinical commissioning groups he actually means that it applies to the members of those groups.

I do not want to say a great deal more about this now, because if I start I will be difficult to put down. However, there was a great deal discussed during the Localism Bill since the Government started off with the position that they wanted to sweep away the existing regime in local government for local authority members, which is based on the Standards Boards for England and which they thought—and I agreed with them—was highly bureaucratic and expensive, very legalistic and over the top. They wanted effectively to remove the standards regime altogether. As a result of intensive discussions in your Lordships’ House in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading, a compromise was arrived at—a lighter touch regime, which regrettably does not involve a national code of conduct but requires local authorities to have a standards regime, to adopt a code of conduct based on the Nolan principles and a published system which is transparent and applies to local authority members in their area. The two noble Lords putting this amendment forward might profitably spend an hour or two reading Hansard from the Localism Bill—I am sure they will enjoy doing so—and looking at the way it might be applied to clinical commissioning groups, different bodies but with the same principles. If they come back on Report to say what regime would be appropriate I am sure those of us who have been involved in the Localism Bill would be pleased to discuss it.

Amendment 175CA is the first of what I believe to be extremely important amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. It refers to representatives of district councils in two-tier areas. This is important because district councils in two-tier areas have actually been written out of this Bill and not included under the various definitions of local authorities, despite having a very important role to play in public health; they are housing authorities, housing standards authorities and environmental health authorities, and they provide all sorts of public health facilities such as leisure services. At present they often work closely with their primary care trusts on local projects to improve public health. It is an important issue in this Bill that will come up again later so I will not say any more now.

Direct representation on CCGs is not necessarily the most important issue here. If you have five or six district authorities in one CCG, as it looks like we will have, the representation would not be very direct anyhow. It is a crucial issue and one which casts its shadow over discussions we shall have in coming days. The really important parts of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, are about the governance structures, how many independent members there may be on the CCGs and what role they will have. This is absolutely fundamental and links with local accountability. Should local accountability be to the patients in the area? Should it be through GPs? Should there be an understanding of some kind of accountability to everybody who lives in the area covered by the CCG? It is becoming very clear indeed that they are going to be area-based organisations responsible for the health of people in their area, despite the fact that some of the GPs will have patients who cross boundaries.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who said that if it is simply left to the groups themselves to appoint their members and successors they will run into trouble. There are going to be many countervailing forces within this new complex system that we are to have at local level. Bringing those countervailing forces together might result in integration, but if there is not sufficient integration and accountability built into the system it will result in conflict. There will be all sorts of different bodies involved. People will be out on the streets campaigning and collecting petitions, and the general culture within the local NHS will too easily become one of conflict rather than of people working together for the best of the area. The composition of the commissioning groups, the way in which they work and their accountability are going to be absolutely fundamental to this. If, with the assistance of this House, the Government get it right, it could be very successful. If they get it wrong, we will all be back in two or three years trying to get a new system, and we really do not want to see that happen.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, when I spoke to the amendments concerning the NHS Commissioning Board, I said that the arrangements for governance, membership and the like were skeletal. In the absence of the most reverend Primate, I am probably safe to say that these arrangements for clinical commissioning groups are, by comparison, words made flesh. There is currently virtually nothing in the Bill that indicates how these commissioning groups would be constructed, what their membership would be and indeed what they should do.

Clause 22 contains provisions to make changes to the 2006 Act to provide for regulations as to the governing bodies of clinical commissioning groups. It is disappointing that nearly a year after the Bill was first produced we are debating the formation of clinical commissioning groups without any clarity at all—for example, in the form of draft regulations, if they are to be prescribed by regulation rather than the Bill itself—about how these groups should be composed. It is quite unsatisfactory. Clearly tonight we are not going to be voting on anything—these are probing amendments—but I hope that before we get to Report we can have sight of draft regulations to see what is in the Government’s mind and what changes might be necessary for the composition of these bodies. I have some sympathy with Amendment 101A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, but that assumes that it would be the function of the NHS Commissioning Board to ensure the composition of the commissioning groups. That does not necessarily follow and presumably we will not know until we see what the draft regulations contain.

A number of your Lordships have referred to the issue of coterminosity. In principle, it sounds fairly straightforward although in practice it looks a little less straightforward. There are different types of coterminosity. As I have said before, in my home town of Newcastle we have two clinical commissioning groups. In one sense they are coterminous because they are within the boundary, but on the other hand there are two of them. What if they do not agree? What if there are competing, conflicting ideas about what should be commissioned from the service in Newcastle? That assumes that you can treat the services within the city as confined to the city, but of course that is not the case. There are facilities in the city that are widely used across the region. Some of them are specifically regional centres. It may be that some of these services would be commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board, but others would not. In this era of patient choice and the like—and one understands and supports that—there will be interest from other commissioning groups around the region in what goes on in the city, so coterminosity takes on a different flavour in that respect. In some parts of the country geography could make it difficult to envisage coterminosity. In a county like Cornwall or Devon, commissioning groups based primarily on general practitioners would be less likely to find it easy to work on the basis of coterminosity across the county area.

22:45

In previous debates the Minister referred to the possibility of groups working together. This needs to be fostered. It may be that the Commissioning Board would have a role in that, or this matter could be covered by regulations to provide for the opportunity for groups to cluster effectively to replicate the pattern of primary care trusts. As matters stand, however, it does not seem that is likely.

There are issues of a different kind about coterminosity because some, in particular GP consortia, may have interests in different areas. The Haxby Group in York, which has been mentioned in your Lordships’ House before—the general practitioners’ group which on NHS-headed paper advertised effectively a private service, though that is not the point I am making—also operates in Hull. That is in a different area. Hull is a unitary authority and York, which is also a unitary authority, is in North Yorkshire. They are two quite distinct areas. The practice, however, operates in both. I am not sure how a practice like that fits into the scheme of commissioning groups. Will it be present on two commissioning groups? Maybe and maybe not. Maybe it creates a difficulty; maybe it does not. It needs looking into.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in commending my noble friend Lord Hunt’s proposals around some district council representation. We will revert to this later when we are talking about health and well-being boards, where there is a more obvious role. Nevertheless, there is a potential role for district councils, with the services and responsibilities to which both noble Lords have referred, to have some place in commissioning groups. There is certainly, judging by the tenor of the previous debate, a clear role for either the director of public health or at least his or her representative to sit on commissioning groups. Again, if there is simple coterminosity—one local authority and one commissioning group—there is no problem. If you have, however, a number of commissioning groups within the area served by a principal authority, with someone running around from one group to another, it would not work but they could be represented. That should be looked at.

There seem to be a number of unanswered questions and this late in the day, in every sense, we cannot take them much further tonight. I hope, however, that the Minister can assure us that there will be an opportunity to have draft regulations and responses to all the issues that have been raised tonight in good time for the House, which has different concerns across the divide here, to consider them carefully, in order that we can take a clear view about how to close the gaps in the Bill on the basis of clear proposals expressed where necessary in the form of the draft regulations which will apparently be heading our way at some indefinite point in the future.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I think I am the last Member of the Committee to speak on the amendments in this group and I promise I will be brief.

I have two amendments in this group. One concerns a public health specialist on the clinical commissioning groups. We have been around the houses with this and my noble friend Lady Williams has spoken most eloquently on this matter so I will not emphasise the points again. My second amendment is to do with the recruitment and remuneration of lay members of clinical commissioning groups. The Committee has rehearsed the arguments that there is a lot of silence around clinical commissioning groups and their governance. This just underpins that. There is a bit of a Catch-22 with this situation because the Bill makes provision for an audit committee and a remuneration committee and also for a lay member to chair each of the two groups. Therefore, you could argue that a remuneration committee might play a part in deciding how much a lay person would be remunerated for sitting on the group. However, we do not yet have the lay person to chair the group and take the decision, so who will take the first decision about the appointment of these two lay members? They will also need remuneration; who will take that decision?

The other big issue that has been discussed by the Committee this evening is that of transparency within the governance of clinical commissioning groups. I expect the noble Earl hopes to wind up soon. When he does, I hope he will be able to give us a steer on the Government’s thinking on this.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

Briefly, this is a very important set of amendments, which we do not have time to deal with effectively in the next 10 minutes. I understand that the Government do not want to spend more money. Indeed, the Minister said earlier that the whole idea was to cut down the amount of money spent on CCGs, relative to what was previously spent on PCTs. The problem is that there will be more CCGs than there are PCTs and there is deep anxiety over the lack of clear governance. The Government have a problem here. So far we have had clues that there is to be accountability upwards. These amendments make it clear that there must be accountability downwards, too.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, GP groups are different from other groups in the National Health Service. They are not used to this level of accountability or this level of governance—even at the level that the Government have already put into the Bill. Nobody outside, particularly in other aspects of the NHS, thinks that the governance in the Bill is adequate. I share the concerns that other people have expressed tonight; I share the concerns about coterminosity.

I have mentioned previously to the Minister that Durham is now a unitary county. We used to have seven PCTs in Durham and Darlington; we now have one. We will have three CCGs. I do not believe that that will be cheaper and I am not yet convinced that it will be more effective for commissioning. The Government have a lot to do to reassure people that this will be more effective and that it will be accountable. There are many GPs who are now anxious the other way around. They are anxious that if they go into CCGs, the level of accountability, governance and bureaucracy will be so great that they are saying, “We’re not sure we want to have anything to do with it”.

This is an area where I suspect the Government will say that, in all truth, this is not where they want to be. However, this is where we are and the responses that we have heard so far simply do not meet the level of anxiety and the need for accountability that everyone thinks is there.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, what I want to say might have been a little long as an intervention in the Minister’s speech but it will be very short as a speech. I simply want to ask the noble Earl, when he replies to this debate, to address in a considered way how the Government intend to deal with an enormously significant and worrying conflict of professional interest that could arise in this context. Anyone who is a member of a clinical commissioning group, whether he or she is a GP or not, must presumably be committed and signed up to the priorities, policies and plans of that clinical commissioning group. However, where that individual is also a GP who has his or her own patients, some of those patients may have conditions that do not get a very high priority in those plans and policies. Surely there is an immediate conflict of interest. In the present circumstances, the GP can say to his or her patient: “I am doing my best to battle with the PCT to get the treatment that I really think you need”. However, in the situation that arises as a result of the structure in this Bill, that GP would be on both sides of the table. He would be arguing with himself and making representations to himself. Surely the noble Earl would agree that it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. Can he assure the Committee that it will not arise and, if it does, that the Government have a clear set of rules or procedures for dealing with it?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we have had another well informed and stimulating debate. I will start by going back to the beginning. On paper, clinical commissioning groups can seem like a dry concept, but I would encourage your Lordships to look beyond the words and duties on the page and consider what CCGs will be able to achieve in practice. GPs and other front-line professionals already make the clinical decisions that determine how most NHS resources are used. Putting them in charge of shaping services will enable NHS funding to be spent effectively to provide high-quality care.

I have seen at first hand the work of primary care clinicians—GPs, nurses, allied health professionals and others—in leading the commissioning of services. I have been struck on numerous occasions by their dynamism, innovation and their absolute dedication to ensuring that their patients receive high quality care. It is in that context that we should consider our debates on this topic, including this one, which have focused primarily on ensuring that CCGs have effective governance arrangements, but have also touched upon CCG boundaries.

I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that the arrangements are weak. We have already responded to the Future Forum’s recommendation to strengthen the Government’s arrangements for CCGs and made it a requirement for every CCG to have a governing body. We recognise that good governance will be critical to the design and operation of CCGs, in order that they act transparently, manage conflicts of interest and have the proper checks and balances in place to provide assurance that decisions are taken in ways that protect patients' best interests, promote continual improvements in quality and provide assurance that public money is well spent.

That is why I believe that the Bill already achieves the intent of Amendment 60, which would place the Secretary of State under a duty to publish a code of conduct for CCGs, incorporating the Nolan principles on public life. I am fully in support of CCGs adhering to the principles established by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. However, new Section 14L already states that the main function of a governing body of a CCG includes ensuring that the group complies—and these were the words quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Warner—

“with such generally accepted principles of good governance as are relevant to it”.

The Nolan principles, or any successor principles which the Committee on Standards in Public Life or another body was to issue, would be foremost among these. However, the provision in the Bill will also encompass any other relevant, generally accepted principles of good governance issued by appropriate bodies, such as the Institute of Good Governance, and therefore has the potential to be of wider effect. That is why I feel that Amendment 171 is also unnecessary, as it appreciably narrows the field of vision of the governing body.

In addition, the Bill already sets out other provisions which relate to a CCG’s conduct. For example, with respect to the constitution of a CCG, the constitution must include arrangements for ensuring absolute transparency. It must specify the arrangements for discharging the CCG’s functions, its decision-making process, how it will secure transparency about the decisions of the group, and how it will deal with conflicts of interest of members and employees of the CCG or members of the governing body.

23:00

Amendment 174 clearly aims to ensure transparency around the performance of a CCG in terms of its financial management and the outcomes that it secures for its patients, by requiring the NHS Commissioning Board to specify minimum standards of financial and performance information to be published annually by all CCGs. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that this is already provided for. Under new Section 14Z13, to be inserted in the NHS Act 2006 by Clause 23, CCGs are already subject to a duty to prepare and publish an annual report on how they have discharged their functions in the previous financial year, and the report must explain how the group has discharged its duty as to improvement in quality of services. The Bill also requires each CCG—

[Lord Warner]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I was aware of that. My concern was that it seemed to leave to clinical commissioning groups the decision on what type of information they put in that. They could put in a whole load of information that was not comparable with any other clinical commissioning group. The whole point of my amendment was that there should be a level of standardisation so that we could see the different levels of performance in different CCGs.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I take that point on board. It is my understanding that the NHS Commissioning Board will wish to set common standards for CCGs to follow. However, I will follow up that point with the noble Lord. As I said, the Bill requires each CCG to prepare annual accounts, independently audited. The board may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, direct CCGs as to the methods and principles according to which their accounts must be prepared, and the form and content of such accounts. Therefore, there will be scope for the board to drive consistency in the area the noble Lord mentions.

I turn now to Amendments 169, 175BA, 175C and 101A, which concern membership of, and appointments to, CCG governing bodies. In response to amendment 169, as the Bill stands, under new Section 14N, regulations may already provide that members of governing bodies must include the accountable officer of the CCG. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1A also specifies that the accountable officer may be one of the following: a member of the CCG, or an employee of the CCG or any member of the group. Restricting the accountable officer to being the “most suitable senior employee” of the group, as Amendment 169 also proposes, would narrow who the officer could be and ignore other able candidates, so I am not attracted to that amendment.

Amendment 175BA, and Amendments 175A and 175B, which we will be discussing in more detail in a future group, clearly intend to ensure CCGs have access to professional or other expertise to advise on all areas of their work. This is undoubtedly important, but the governing body is not the route to achieve this. As the Future Forum advised, a clear distinction should be made between governance of CCGs and clinical involvement in designing care pathways and shaping local services.

Clinical involvement in designing pathways or shaping services is exactly what a CCG will need to ensure in exercising its duty in new Section 14V, which requires a CCG to obtain advice appropriate for enabling it effectively to discharge its functions from individuals, who, taken together, have a broad range of professional expertise.

Clinical senates and networks will, of course, be crucial to effectively meeting this duty and to ensuring that CCGs can access specialised advice, as will the local knowledge and public health knowledge held by health and well-being boards. We believe there is a case for ensuring that governing bodies include the voices of some other professionals—at least one registered nurse and a secondary care specialist—but it would be unhelpful, as the Future Forum also acknowledged, for governing bodies to be representative of each group. That could lead to bodies that are too large and slow to do their job well. CCGs should have the flexibility to determine the professional input into their governance arrangements.

Amendment 175C would provide for regulations to be made setting out how lay members are recruited and remunerated. Subsection (3) of new Section 14N already makes provisions as to the appointment of members, including lay members, to the governing body. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 1A allows the CCG to pay members of its governing body such remuneration and other expenses as it considers appropriate. These existing provisions cover the intent of Amendment 175C.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, can the noble Earl assure me that the appointments will be made by independent bodies, and that it will not be a case of the board of the CCG making the appointments to itself? In terms of corporate governance, can he also assure me that non-executives will be in a majority as they are on every public body which the Government have recently enacted?

[Earl Howe]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I will answer those questions in a moment. Amendment 101A would similarly duplicate existing provision by placing a duty on the NHS Commissioning Board to ensure that all CCG governing bodies meet the requirements for clinical and non-clinical representation. The board already has to do this; under proposed new Section 14C, the board can grant an application only if it is satisfied that the applicant CCG has made appropriate arrangements to ensure that the group will have a governing body which satisfies any requirements imposed by or under the Act. That would include regulations made under proposed new Section 14N providing for minimum levels of clinical and lay representation.

Amendments 170A, 175D, 175CA and 175CB seek to introduce alternative governance arrangements for CCGs. These amendments would remove the existing functions of the CCG governing body and, through the proposed new schedule, replace the governing body with both a board of directors and a board of governors. I was grateful to the noble Lord for explaining where this idea originated. However, the amendments do not propose functions for these boards to exercise. They concentrate almost solely on the form of CCG governance; they neglect the function. As to that form, there is much here which is already provided for in the Bill and in relation to a governing body. I should perhaps explain that our preferred approach is to set through regulations the key requirements in relation to the composition of the CCG governing body and the logistics of their qualification, appointment, tenure and so on. This will, most importantly, allow flexibility for the approach to evolve over time and in the light of experience.

Turning to Amendment 59A on the subject of the area covered by CCGs, in the light of our lengthy debate on this last week, a letter will shortly reach your Lordships to provide further information on the arrangements for geographic areas of CCGs. It includes some analysis of the key issues which I hope will be useful and reassuring. We accepted the Future Forum recommendation that the boundaries of CCGs should not normally cross those of local authorities. If a CCG wishes to be established on the basis of boundaries that will cross local authority boundaries, it will be expected to demonstrate to the NHS Commissioning Board a clear rationale in terms of benefits for patients; for example, to reflect local patient flows and to secure a better service for patients. The board will also be required to seek the views of emerging health and well-being boards. In addition, CCGs will have the flexibility to enter into lead or joint commissioning arrangements with other CCGs; for example, for commissioning of lower volume or more specialist services. I hope that this reassurance will satisfy the noble Lord’s concerns.

Finally, Amendment 92ZZA seeks to mandate the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a ban on shareholders and employees of commissioning support organisations being given a seat on a CCG committee or governing body of a CCG—I assume that it is the governing body that the amendment refers to rather than the NHS Commissioning Board. We agree that there should be no conflicts of interest between a CCG and any commissioning support organisation that it uses. The support offered by such organisations should inform decisions made by CCGs, but we have always been clear that CCGs cannot delegate their duties or responsibilities. However, such an absolute ban would not take into account situations, for example, where a CCG may wish to invite individual employees from commissioning support organisations to provide expertise on a committee. The Bill already requires CCGs to have robust provision for managing conflicts of interest in how they discharge their functions.

It is clear from the debate that these amendments were proposed with the best of intentions, but I hope that noble Lords will feel that the points that I have made are sufficiently compelling to encourage them not to press the amendments.

I have a few questions that I would like to answer briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that the chair and deputy chairs of CCGs should be lay members. Each CCG must have at least two lay members. We are specifying that, and we have committed that one of the lay members of CCGs will be either the chair or the deputy chair of the governing body.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked me how a CCG’s geographic area would be determined. The primary factor in establishing the CCG’s boundaries or geographic area would be the practices that made up the membership of the CCG. The NHS Commissioning Board must satisfy itself that the proposed area for a CCG is appropriate and that the CCG can commission effectively for that area. That is a very condensed explanation of what the Commissioning Board will be looking for.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that he could not understand how CCGs would be accountable. Accountability is a key area. There is no doubt about that and I share the noble Lord’s desire to get this right. We listened to the Future Forum when it said that there is a balance to be struck between the need for good governance and the need to avoid overprescription. Perhaps that is a generally accepted principle—I certainly agree with that. I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, goes too far. However, we are absolutely clear that CCGs will be materially accountable in a number of ways. I could recite a number of ways that I have in front of me, but at this hour it might be appropriate for the noble Lord to receive that in writing from me. I would be happy to do that and to copy it round.

On the subject of conflicts of interest, we will be having a very full debate in the context of Clause 20 on conflicts of interest. I have a lot of material here, but essentially there are principally three safeguards in the Bill to prevent conflicts of interest: statutory requirements on clinical commissioning groups to have in place arrangements to manage those conflicts of interest—those have got to be set out in the group constitution; secondly, strengthened governance arrangements as regards the governing body, and I briefly outlined those; and specific provision for regulations to require that the board and the clinical commissioning groups adhere to good practice in relation to procurement and in commissioning healthcare services.

My noble friend Lady Jolly asked who will appoint members of the clinical commissioning group boards. We will work with patient and professional groups and with emerging clinical commissioning groups to determine the best arrangements for appointing members of governing bodies. As I have indicated, the Government will issue regulations in due course, setting out in more detail the requirements for appointing non-GP members to the governing body.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked whether non-executives would be in the majority on boards. I am not currently able to give that assurance. We are still working with a wide range of stakeholders on the regulations for governing bodies. We are well aware of concerns in this area. I will take the noble Lord’s points very firmly on board.

Very briefly in this group, I would also like to speak to government Amendments 172, 173 and 175, which are minor and technical in nature. Amendment 172 clarifies that the remuneration committee of the CCG governing body has the function of making recommendations to the governing body on its determination of allowances payable under a pension scheme established by the CCG for its employees under paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 1A. Government Amendment 172 allows regulations made under new Section 14L(6) to make provision requiring CCGs to publish prescribed information relating to determinations of the allowances payable under a pension scheme. Government Amendment 173 makes provision for the board to publish guidance for governing bodies on the exercise of this function. I trust the Committee will join me in supporting these minor and technical amendments.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply to what has been a fascinating debate. I fear, however, that he will have to return to a number of these issues.

The issues of accountability, governance, conflicts of interest and transparency are about confidence in the new system—not only confidence in this House but confidence in the population. The issue of coterminosity—which I thought was a word I had invented but I am glad that others took it up—is also vital to that because people understand the county boundary and where the services are and that there is a relationship between them. I am grateful for the Minister’s offer of a letter on the geographic boundaries but, before we complete the consideration of the Bill, we will have to be clear what the relationship between local authorities, providers of social services, those responsible for public and environmental health and the new CCGs is going to be. That also is an issue of confidence and understanding by the population and the people who use the health service.

Having said that at this hour of the night—I note the Chief Whip’s impatience—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 59A withdrawn.

Amendment 60 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 11.17 pm.