House of Commons
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
1. If he will meet Digital UK to discuss the adequacy of levels of service experienced by television viewers in north-east Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
I am always happy to meet relevant organisations to discuss issues affecting levels of services provided to the people of Wales.
Susan Elan Jones
I thank the Minister for his response. Digital UK is funded by the TV licence but the level of service it has been offering to many of my constituents, and other people in north-east Wales, has been totally shambolic in terms of the lack of provision of English or Welsh language Welsh television services. In some cases it has even told people to buy Freesat boxes, which is pathetic. Will the Minister ensure that the situation is sorted pronto, and that if Digital UK carries on being that pathetic it will be required to fund those Freesat boxes? The situation in north-east Wales is unsustainable.
Stephen Crabb
I am aware that in certain parts of Wales there are specific issues concerning the reception of digital television, and that some communities cannot receive the full suite of digital channels that most people receive. I understand that most of those problems are relatively straightforward to sort out, but where there are persistent problems I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady and Digital UK, and possibly Ofcom, which may be more appropriate in that respect,
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the reason for the digital switch-off was the sell-off of analogue frequencies for 4G. Does that mean that there will be adequate 4G coverage in north-east Wales—and elsewhere—when 3G services are superseded?
Mr Speaker
For the time being we need not preoccupy ourselves with elsewhere, merely with north-east Wales.
Stephen Crabb
I am advised that coverage in north-east Wales will be similar to the previous analogue coverage. Where communities experience a loss following the switchover or the roll-out of 4G services, the Government will be happy to pursue that issue and take it up with the relevant agencies.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does the Minister share my concern about services to people in north-east Wales from BBC Radio Cymru as the royalties dispute proceeds, and will the Government intervene?
Stephen Crabb
This is an issue of concern and the Wales Office is in very close touch with all parties involved in the dispute. This is not actually a matter for the Government—it is a contractual discussion between the BBC and performing artists—but we are hopeful that a resolution can be found very soon.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Knighton in my constituency—very near to north-east Wales—is able to receive only 17 channels as opposed to the 50 channels received in Swansea, Cardiff and the Minister’s constituency. Will the Minister join me in making representations to UK Digital on that matter?
Stephen Crabb
That issue is similar to the one raised by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). Where communities rely on relay transmitters, as opposed to the principal digital transmitters, they do not receive the full suite of channels and may receive only the 17 public service channels provided by BBC, ITV and S4C. We will continue to look into the matter and discuss it with hon. Members who have constituents facing those issues.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the defence industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The defence industry is a significant contributor to Wales and the UK’s economy, contributing more than £22 billion of annual revenues, of which £5.4 billion is from exports. Companies such as General Dynamics, EADS and BAE Systems ensure that the defence industry makes a vital contribution to the economy in Wales.
Mr Jones
I am always extremely grateful—as I am sure the entire House is—to see my hon. Friend take such an interest in Welsh matters. In November I visited EDGE UK, which is part of General Dynamics, and I was tremendously impressed with its exciting research and development programme. It is an excellent example of a part of the defence industry that is benefitting Wales hugely.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Royal United Services Institute think-tank produced a paper demonstrating that 40p of every pound spent on a UK-based—indeed, a Welsh-based—defence contractor brought 40p back into the UK economy. Will the Minister ensure that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence understand the importance of supporting our Welsh defence industries so that we can also support the UK economy?
Mr Jones
The Wales Office and the MOD are keenly aware of the importance of the defence industry to the economy of this country, and the hon. Lady is right to say that it makes a significant fiscal contribution. That is why I was extremely pleased to visit EDGE UK last year and see it making such a huge contribution to the economy in that part of Wales.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The MOD has disclosed that on safety grounds it has ruled out Devonport as a suitable relocation site for Trident following Scottish independence. Is the Secretary of State as surprised as I am that the First Minister is making a case for Milford Haven, when the MOD has not undertaken any safety assessment of the casualty rate in south-west Wales following a strategic attack or a Trident-related accident?
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the automotive industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on her inclusion in the new year honours. I know her many friends and fans across the Principality will share my delight at that recognition.
The automotive industry is vital to the Welsh economy, accounting for more than one-fifth of manufacturing turnover and generating more than £3 billion annually. The industry has also been instrumental in attracting foreign direct investment to Wales.
Dame Angela Watkinson
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Toyota in regaining its position as the largest motor manufacturer in the world. Is that not good news for its plant and employees at Deeside enterprise zone?
Stephen Crabb
I saw the news that Toyota is once again the world’s largest car manufacturer. That is obviously good news for the company itself, but it is great news too for the UK and for Wales, not least at Deeside where Toyota is now in its 21st year of manufacturing. During that time, it has created thousands of high-quality jobs and made a vital contribution to the north Wales economy.
Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Minister will know that one of our biggest brake manufacturing companies is Meritor, based in Cwmbran in my constituency. It relies heavily on European business, so the exchange rate with the euro is important, as is our membership of the European Union. Does the Minister not agree that mixed messages coming from his Government about our membership of the European Union do great damage to industry in Wales, including our automotive industry?
Stephen Crabb
I think there is a very clear and united message coming from the Government about the need to increase our exports and rebalance the economy following the failed economic model of the previous Government. We are working very closely with the automotive sector in Wales, and UK-wide, to see further growth in this sector.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has made on aviation policy in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
I have had discussions with Cabinet colleagues and the First Minister about Cardiff airport and aviation policy in Wales more generally.
Alun Cairns
The Welsh Government have taken the remarkable decision to tie up much needed capital public funds in the purchase of Cardiff airport, in spite of our thoughts and concerns. Will the Secretary of State take every proactive step possible to encourage new airlines to consider using Cardiff airport in order to increase the number of destinations it serves and to make the place sustainable, especially given the importance of the British Airways maintenance centre, which uses that runway?
Mr Jones
As I said, I discussed this matter with the First Minister recently. The purchase of Cardiff airport is of course a matter for the Welsh Government. I have no doubt that they will be looking to see a robust business case for that purchase, and we will be considering the issue of the operator of the airport very carefully, too. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the importance to the local economy of the BA maintenance facility.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In order to stimulate jobs in aviation and the aerospace industry, will the Secretary of State press the Chancellor to give Swansea super-connected city status in the forthcoming Budget?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know that Swansea made a bid for super-connected status, which was considered. Newport got super-connected status, which I am sure is welcomed by the people of Newport. He will know that a business case has to be made. He was very much to the fore in the business case for the electrification of the railway line to Swansea, and I hope he will play a similar role with regard to super-connected status.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
5. When he last met representatives of the tourism industry in Wales and what representations he received at that time; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
The Wales Office continues to work closely with both the tourism industry and the Welsh Government, who have principal responsibility for policy in this area. Wales remains, of course, the very best part of the UK in which to holiday.
Mr Llwyd
I thank the Minister for that reply, and I fully agree with him for once. I remind him that the tourism industry in Wales accounts for 10% of employment, both direct and indirect, which is higher than in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. As I am sure he is aware, at the end of next month we have Wales tourism week. What steps is his Department taking to ensure that this very important industry is given the political priority it requires?
Stephen Crabb
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, of course, about the critical importance of the tourism industry to Wales. I recall from last year that the Wales Office team had a busy Wales tourism week, and we look forward to a similarly busy week at the end of this month, going out promoting tourism in Wales and meeting tourism representatives and operators.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The tourism industry in mid-Wales—
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is taking a second supplementary on his own question. I had not realised he was going to do that, but he is welcome.
Stephen Crabb
Again, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. VisitBritain has an important role to play in promoting Wales as part of promoting the UK more generally. He will be aware of the additional resources that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement for VisitBritain. The challenge for Wales is how we capture a greater share of the UK tourism spend coming into the country. We look forward to meeting VisitBritain very soon to talk about the specific challenge facing tourism in Wales.
Glyn Davies
Thank you again, Mr Speaker. Tourism in mid-Wales is very much based on landscape and the scenic beauty of the area. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the impact on tourism in mid-Wales if the Mid Wales Connection goes ahead, with its 600 additional turbines and 100 miles of extra power cables, and of the damage that will do?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend will be aware of the close interest that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is taking in the proposed development in mid-Wales. Members on both sides of the House will share his concern that the beauty of mid-Wales be preserved as best possible.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
13. The long-standing tourism links between north Wales and Merseyside are underpinned by the transport connectivity. The Welsh Assembly Government have now announced that they want to start building a business case for electrifying north Wales rail, including the line from Wrexham to Liverpool. Will the Minister pester Department for Transport colleagues on my behalf and ensure that it shares all the information it has from business cases for investment in English railways?
Stephen Crabb
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We are already there; we are already pestering the Department for Transport. It is a good example of the collaboration now between the Wales Office and the Welsh Government. We are working closely to help to build a business case for electrification and further improvements of the north Wales lines.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Visit Wales may well be the responsibility of the Assembly Government and there are issues of concern about the marketing of Wales overseas by that organisation, but in those discussions with VisitBritain will the Minister argue confidently for a robust Welsh approach, Welsh identity and resources for Wales, because hitherto that has not always been the case?
Stephen Crabb
On the tourism marketing of Wales, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that those decisions lie with Welsh Ministers. I know that some Members are puzzled about some of the decisions they have taken about how they deploy those resources, but it is a matter for them. The Wales Office is keen to do whatever it can, including with VisitBritain, to see that Wales excels in the tourism sector.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Encouraging visitors to visit Wales could be greatly helped if they did not have to pay the highest tolls in the UK on entering Wales. Will the Minister ensure me that he is vigorously campaigning with the Department for Transport to reduce tolls when the ever-extending concession ends?
Stephen Crabb
The evidence on the economic impact on the Welsh economy of the Severn bridge tolls is mixed, not least in respect of tourism, which relies on the bridge to carry visitors into Wales. All I would say at this stage is that until 2018, when the concession ends, no decisions can be taken about the future use of those tolls and whether they will remain at the current levels or whether other options are available.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
6. What assessment he has made of the economic effect on people working in Wales of reductions in tax credits and other benefits for working people.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The measures announced in the autumn statement will mean that working households are on average £125 per annum better off in 2013-14.
Mr Hain
Is the Secretary of State aware that Neath food bank is now seeing more people in work—many part time and desperate—than out of work? One hundred thousand working people in Wales are now being hammered by his welfare cuts, some among the 230,000 households in Wales that will be forced by the Government to pay council tax for the first time in April. Will he now take down from the Wales Office website his promise that people will be better off under this Government in work and admit that some cannot even afford to eat?
Mr Jones
Certainly not. In fact, people who are in work are considerably better off. The average earner on the minimum wage who works full time will by next April be paying half as much in tax as he did at the beginning of this Parliament, in the wake of the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. If he is not willing to tackle the appalling legacy of the welfare shambles that he left, we will be prepared to do so.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my amazement at the complaint we have just heard from a senior member of the last Government, a Government who twice froze personal allowances and doubled tax for low earners, from 10p to 20p as a starting rate? Is not the reality that the massive £3,000 hike in the personal allowance—which Labour does not like to hear about—is helping low-paid people in Wales and the whole of—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member, but unfortunately his question was too long and substantially irrelevant. The Minister will focus on the responsibilities of the current Administration, briefly.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Could the Secretary of State tell us exactly how many households will see their modest incomes cut as a result of the reductions in tax benefits and other social security benefits that he voted for last week?
Owen Smith
There was no answer there from the Secretary of State, as usual. Let me tell him the answer. There is no excuse for his not knowing, because his own income assessment makes it clear that 400,000 households—a third of all households in Wales—will lose out as a result of these changes. Let us contrast that with the 4,000 households—that is 4,000 versus 400,000—that will get a tax break as a result of the millionaires’ tax cut. That ratio of 100:1 tells us everything we need to know about this Government. The 99% pay while the 1% profit. Let me be clear: Labour will continue to speak for the 99%; the Secretary of State can speak for the 1%.
Mr Jones
As a consequence of the measures taken by this Government, 1.1 million taxpayers in Wales are paying less tax, while 109,000 taxpayers in Wales are now paying no tax at all. That is what we are doing for hard-working people, and I am appalled that the hon. Gentleman sees fit not to support them.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of the availability of skills in the nuclear power industry in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
Hitachi’s investment at Wylfa will help to ensure that our nuclear work force remain highly skilled and some of the best in the industry. Talented young apprentices on Anglesey can look forward to an excellent future at Wylfa.
Neil Carmichael
Locally in Gloucestershire, as well as through the national training academy for nuclear, we are working hard to ensure that we have sufficient skills—and retain those skills—ready for nuclear new build. What measures will the Secretary of State be proposing to ensure that Wales, too, benefits from the ability to improve that capacity?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is right: the development of nuclear skills is key. The Government have created the Nuclear Energy Skills Alliance to co-ordinate the work of all the expert skills bodies relating to nuclear. The Welsh Assembly Government are also represented on that alliance.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the new energy centre in Llangefni—indeed, he has visited—which upskills people in the nuclear industry and for low carbon. However, with unemployment increasing considerably in 2012 and the announcement of a further 350 jobs at risk at Vion, will he meet me urgently to discuss the skills and jobs issues that are harming the prospects of young people and under-skilled people in Wales?
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Would it not be better to invest the money elsewhere because of the uncertain future of nuclear power, given the huge cost overruns in Finland and France and the fact that those two power stations are already three to four years late? Owing to the uncertainties relating to nuclear power, should we not be investing in renewable energy, and particularly in tidal energy, which is Wales’s North sea oil?
Mr Jones
The Government are committed to a mix of energy that includes renewables and nuclear, and nuclear will play an extremely important part in that mix. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has announced that the generic design assessment of the Wylfa reactor has commenced. The reactor will be a huge asset to the nuclear industry in this country.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
8. What steps he is taking to tackle fuel poverty in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
Notwithstanding the relatively mild winter that we have had up to now, fuel poverty remains a huge challenge. The Government are addressing that via a range of measures to ensure that those in most need are able to heat their homes affordably.
Nick Smith
More than 5,000 people in Blaenau Gwent would be up to £200 better off if the Government adopted Labour’s plan to force energy companies to put the over-75s on to their cheapest tariff. We have heard the Minister’s warm words, but why are the Government not doing much more to help people with their bills?
Stephen Crabb
We will take no lessons from Labour on how to respond to the issue of fuel poverty. We are taking real action, not least through the green deal, through our continued support for winter fuel payments and cold weather payments, and through implementing the Prime Minister’s promise to ensure that everyone gets access to the cheapest possible tariff through their provider.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Cutting domestic electricity bills in half would practically end fuel poverty in this country. The Americans have done that through the exploitation of shale gas. Would it not be right for us to get behind that exciting new technology as well, to remove people from fuel poverty in Britain?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend is quite right to suggest that shale gas has been something of a game changer for the energy market in the UK. In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a range of measures to explore the potential for shale gas in the UK, alongside strict new regulatory safeguards.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Minister will no doubt have seen the report from the Department of Energy and Climate Change which shows that people in Wales pay some of the highest gas and electricity prices in the whole of the UK. Why does he think that is the case?
Stephen Crabb
There are price variations right across the UK, and it is not possible to say that this is a Wales-specific issue. We stay in close touch with the regulators, and we are looking particularly at off-grid prices for liquefied petroleum gas and for fuel oil. We are aware of some competition questions in that area, but we do not believe that this is a Wales-specific issue.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the aerospace industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The aerospace industry plays a key role in the Welsh economy, and Wales benefits from the continued investment made by major aerospace companies such as Airbus and GE Aviation.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he join me in welcoming Air Asia’s £5.5 billion purchase of 100 A320 aeroplanes from Airbus? That will be good news for the aerospace sector in Wales and in my constituency, where there are several aerospace companies with Airbus contracts.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The success of Airbus is based on European co-operation. Does the Secretary of State think that his hopeless Government could possibly learn from that example?
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
10. What assessment he has made of the Government’s income tax policy so far as it relates to Wales.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
14. What assessment he has made of the Government’s income tax policy so far as it relates to Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
In 2013, the increase in the personal allowance for income tax will be the largest ever cash increase and shows that this Government are committed to creating a fair tax system that rewards hard work.
Karl MᶜCartney
Like many in my constituency, I am sure that the people of Wales and, perhaps in particular in Llanbedr Pont Steffan, welcome the changes to personal allowances that our Government have implemented. Would the Minister care to take this opportunity to confirm how many residents in Wales have benefited since 2010, having been taken out of income tax altogether following this Government’s welcome changes to the personal tax allowance?
Stephen Crabb
It is indeed great news in Llanbedr Pont Steffan and elsewhere in Wales that, as a result of the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the autumn statement, an additional 13,000 people will be lifted out of tax altogether, with a total benefit to people of £1.1 million.
Guto Bebb
The Silk commission proposals will provide the Welsh Government with the power to vary individual tax bands. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that the Welsh Labour Government might be tempted further to target the 6% of Welsh taxpayers who pay the higher rate of income tax and contribute 33% of all taxes raised in Wales?
Stephen Crabb
The Government are considering the recommendations of the Silk report and will be reporting on them very shortly. That is the appropriate time to take them forward.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
We all know that millionaires benefit from the Government’s tax policies. Will the Minister tell us how many millionaires there are in Wales?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are relatively few millionaires in Wales. What I can tell him is that in every year of this Parliament, they will be paying more tax than they did in each year of the last Labour Government.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is not the real danger with the Government’s changes to tax and benefits that we will see in Wales, particularly in deprived communities where the vast majority of people work, that those people will have less money in their pockets, less money to spend in local shops and there will be more shops closing and fewer people in jobs—a double whammy for the Welsh economy?
Stephen Crabb
If the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously as having a message on deficit reduction, he should know that deficit reduction cannot begin until a serious approach to welfare reform is taken. Government Members are doing that in a fair and responsible way—a way that rewards hard work.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Sapper Richard Reginald Walker of 28 Engineer Regiment, attached to 21 Engineer Regiment. It is clear to see from the tributes paid that he was an outstanding soldier and hugely respected. Our deepest sympathies are with his family and friends at this difficult time.
I would also like to mention the helicopter crash in central London this morning. The whole House will wish to join me in sending our thanks to the emergency services for their rapid and professional response to this situation.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
John Glen
For too long many women, and especially hard-working stay-at-home mums, have been penalised by the country’s pension system for interruptions to their national insurance contributions. After 13 years in which the previous Government did nothing to address this situation, does the Prime Minister think that this week’s announcement of a single-tier pension will finally deal with this grave injustice?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The single-tier pension is an excellent reform. I very much hope it will have all-party support, because it holds out the prospect in 2017 of a basic state pension of over £140 rather than £107, taking millions of people out of the means test, giving them dignity in retirement and particularly, as my hon. Friend says, helping low-paid and self-employed people and, above all, women who have not been able to have a full state pension in the past. It is an excellent reform, and I hope it will have the support of everyone across the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Sapper Richard Reginald Walker of 28 Engineer Regiment, attached to 21 Engineer Regiment. He showed the utmost courage and bravery, and all our thoughts are with his family and friends.
I also join the Prime Minister in passing on condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the helicopter crash in London this morning and in paying tribute to the emergency services.
When the Prime Minister first became leader of the Conservative party, he said that its biggest problem was that it spent far too much of its time “banging on” about Europe. Is he glad those days are over?
The Prime Minister
Even the leader of the Labour party should accept that a massive change is taking place in Europe: a change that is being driven by the changes in the eurozone. Frankly, the country, and political parties in this country, face a choice. Do we look at the changes, see what we can do to maximise Britain’s national interest, and consult the public about that, or do we sit back, do nothing, and tell the public to go hang? I know where I stand; I know where this party stands—and that is in the national interest.
Edward Miliband
Let us hope we can find out today where the Prime Minister does stand. I suppose I should congratulate him on one thing—deciding on the date of his speech. Well done. Another example of the Rolls-Royce operation of No. 10 Downing street.
In advance of his speech, what is the Prime Minister’s answer, which investors need to know, to this question: will Britain be in the European Union in five years’ time?
The Prime Minister
On important decisions, may I first of all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on an important decision that he has made this week—to keep the shadow Chancellor in place until 2015. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Rarely do we see so much cross-party support.
My view is that Britain is better off in the European Union, but it is right for us to see the changes taking place in Europe, and to ensure that we argue for the changes that Britain needs, so that we have a better relationship between Britain and Europe, a better organised European Union, and the full-hearted consent of the British people. Those are the choices that we are making. What are his choices?
Edward Miliband
Maybe we are making a bit of progress. In October 2011, as I am sure the Prime Minister will remember, he and I walked shoulder to shoulder through the Lobby against the 81 Conservative Members who voted for an in/out referendum. You might call it two parties working together in the national interest. At the time, the Foreign Secretary—I think he is on his way to Australia to get as far away from the Prime Minister’s speech as possible—said that the reason for our vote was that an in/out referendum
“would create additional economic uncertainty in this country at a difficult economic time”.
Was the Foreign Secretary right?
The Prime Minister
Yes, he was entirely right. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition only wants to talk about process, because he dare not debate the substance. I do not think it would be right for Britain to have an in/out referendum today, because we would be giving the British people a false choice. Millions of people in this country, myself included, want Britain to stay in the European Union, but they believe that there are chances to negotiate a better relationship. Throughout Europe, countries are looking at forthcoming treaty change and thinking, “What can I do to maximise my national interest?” That is what the Germans will do. That is what the Spanish will do. That is what the British should do. Let us get on to the substance and give up the feeble jokes.
Edward Miliband
First of all, I thought the jokes were pretty good. But I am talking about the substance. The Prime Minister’s position appears to be this: an in/out referendum now would be destabilising, but promising one in five years’ time is just fine for the country. Let us see if that is his position, because what does it mean? It means five years of businesses seeing a “Closed for Business” sign hanging around Britain. What did Lord Heseltine say—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members want to jeer Lord Heseltine, one of the few mainstream voices in the Conservative party. He said:
“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t begun on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s unknown…seems to me like an unnecessary gamble.”
Is he not right?
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely no secret that, when it comes to Europe, there are disagreements between me and Michael Heseltine. Michael, for whom I have a huge amount of time, was one of the leading voices for Britain joining the single currency. I am delighted that we have not joined, and we should not join—under my prime ministership, we will never join the single currency—and that is also the view of millions of businesses up and down this country. What business wants in Europe is what I want in Europe: to be part of Europe, but a more flexible Europe, a more competitive Europe, a Europe that can take on the challenge of the global race and the rise of nations in the south and the east.
Let me put it to the right hon. Gentleman again. When change is taking place in Europe and when the single currency is driving change, is it not in Britain’s national interest to argue for changes which will make the European Union more competitive and flexible, and which will strengthen and sort out the relationship between Britain and the European Union, and then to ask the British people for their consent?
That is our approach. Apart from coming up with what he considers to be very amusing jokes, what is the right hon. Gentleman’s approach?
Edward Miliband
The biggest change that we need in Europe is a move from austerity to growth and jobs, but the Prime Minister has absolutely nothing to say about that. This is the reality: the reason the Prime Minister is changing his mind has nothing to do with the national interest. It is because he has lost control of his party. He thinks that his problems on Europe will end on Friday, but they are only just beginning. Can he confirm that he is now giving the green light to Conservative Cabinet Ministers to campaign on different positions—on whether they are for or against being in the European Union?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman tries to make the point that Europe should somehow be moving away from the policy of deficit reduction. He is completely isolated in Europe. Not one single Government—not even socialists in Europe—believe in pushing up borrowing and borrowing more. That is the simple truth. What is in Britain’s interests is to seek a fresh settlement in Europe that is more flexible and more competitive. That is in our interests, and that is what we will seek.
Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this: does he not understand that what has happened over the last decade—during which a Labour Government signed treaty after treaty, gave away power after power, saw more centralisation after more centralisation, and never consulted the British people—is what has made this problem such a big problem in the first place?
Edward Miliband
The whole House, and the country, will have heard that the Prime Minister did not answer the question about whether he had given the green light to his Cabinet—to his Conservative Cabinet colleagues—for some of them to campaign for being in the European Union and others to campaign for getting out of it. That is the reality of the position, and of the weakness of this Prime Minister. At a time when 1 million young people are out of work and businesses are going to the wall, what is the Prime Minister doing? He has spent six months preparing a speech to create five years of uncertainty for Britain. When it comes to Europe, it is the same old Tories: a divided party, and a weak Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely nothing to say about the important issue of Britain’s relationship with Europe. What is his view? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The response from the Prime Minister must be heard, and it will be.
The Prime Minister
There will be a very simple choice at the next election. If you want to stay out of the single currency, you vote Conservative; if you want to join the single currency, you vote Labour. If you want to take power back to Britain, you vote Conservative; if you want to give power to Brussels, you vote Labour. That is the truth. What we see from the right hon. Gentleman’s position is that he wants absolutely no change in the relationship between Britain and Europe, and that he does not believe that the British people should be given a choice.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Q15. The Prime Minister has rightly focused the Government on growth. The development of new housing plays a key part in the provision of that growth, as well as the provision of much-needed new homes. In my constituency, two developments will provide 8,000 new homes between them. Will the Prime Minister join me in praising Rugby borough council’s attitude to new development, and perhaps visit Rugby to see how we are going about it?
The Prime Minister
I should be delighted to visit my hon. Friend in Rugby. He is absolutely right to say that we need to build more houses in our country. That is because, unless they have help from their parents, first-time buyers are now, on average, in their thirties. We need to build more homes in order to allow people to achieve the dream, which so many have already achieved, of getting on to the housing ladder.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Q2. In 2010 the Prime Minister and his party said it was lying and scaremongering to suggest they would reduce family tax credits for families earning less than £31,000, but we found out last week that the threshold will, in fact, be £26,000. Will the Prime Minister apologise to families he has failed to protect and has made poorer while he has been in government?
The Prime Minister
This Government have had to make difficult decisions on public spending and welfare, but we have protected those on the lowest incomes and we have made sure there have been increases in some areas. That is what we have done with child tax credits, and it is a record we should support.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
Q3. The residents of Thanet enjoy burgers but also love horses. They will have been shocked to hear this morning that they may have been eating horsemeat. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he and his Government are doing a lot to reassure the diners of Thanet?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important and extremely serious issue. People in our country will have been very concerned to read this morning that while they thought they were buying beefburgers, they were buying something that had horsemeat in it. That is extremely disturbing news. I have asked the Food Standards Agency to conduct an urgent investigation. It has made it clear that there is no risk to public safety, because there is no food safety risk, but this is a completely unacceptable state of affairs. The FSA will meet retailers and processors this afternoon and work with them to investigate the supply chain, but it is worth making the point that, ultimately, retailers have to be responsible for what they sell and where it has come from.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their condolences to the families of those who died in this morning’s helicopter crash in my constituency, and add my condolences and sympathy? Does the Prime Minister agree that amazing work was done this morning, particularly by the fire service? Firefighters from Clapham station arrived very swiftly. Given London’s changing skyline, does he also agree that—not today, but at some stage—we will need to look much more closely at where, how and why helicopters fly through our central city?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to praise the emergency services once again. I think everyone could see from the terrifying pictures on our television screens this morning just how swiftly they responded, and how brave and professional they were. On her point about the rules for helicopter flights—and, indeed, other flights over our capital city—I am sure that will be looked at in the investigations that will take place. She is right that that is not an issue for today, but it is inevitably something that has to be carefully looked at.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Q4. Last week I organised an entrepreneurship seminar in Chiswick for women wanting to set up their own businesses, and one of the questions they asked was about the cost of child care. This Government have extended 15 hours of care to the most disadvantaged quarter of a million two-year-olds and extended that to three and four-year-olds. Does that not show that this Government are supporting families and women who want to work?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Over the past couple of years we have seen one of the fastest rates of new business creation in our history, but we do need to encourage female entrepreneurship in particular, because if we had the same rate as other countries we could help to wipe out unemployment all together. As my hon. Friend said, we do help families with two, three and four-year-olds with child care. We also help through the tax credit system and, as the House knows, we are looking at what more we can do for hard-working people who want to go out to work and need help with child care in order to ensure they can do the right thing for their children and families.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
When will the Prime Minister visit a food bank? He is most welcome to come to Rotherham.
The Prime Minister
Let me say again that we should recognise and welcome the work that food banks do. The last Government rightly recognised that through giving food banks an award. [Interruption.] As this question has been asked, and as some hon. Members shout out a lot about food banks, let me remind them of one simple fact: the use of food banks went up tenfold under the last Labour Government, so before Opposition Members try to use this as a political weapon they should recognise it started under their own Government.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Q5. The National Star college in my constituency provides world-renowned care for some of our disabled youngsters with the most profound and complex learning difficulties to enable them to lead independent lives. Sadly, its future, like that of a few similar colleges, is being placed in jeopardy by a decision not to ring-fence its funding. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish to solve this problem, so may I invite him to the college to see this wonderful care for himself?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to discuss this issue with my constituency neighbour, who rightly praises the fantastic work carried out by the National Star college. It does an excellent job in improving the life chances of young people. I know that the college has concerns about the new funding system and that my hon. Friend has contacted the Minister responsible. We are changing the way in which funding is allocated, but that does not necessarily mean that the funding will be cut. I am very happy to discuss this with my hon. Friend, but the new funding system does allow local authorities to have more say in how the funding is distributed, and I am sure they will want to recognise excellent work, including from this national college.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Q6. Is the Prime Minister aware of the trauma facing thousands of families, particularly in London, who live in private rented accommodation, where the housing benefit payments do not meet the rapidly increasing rents? These people are then forced out of their homes and out of their boroughs, and the community suffers as a result, as does the children’s education. Does he not think it is time to regulate private sector rents and bring in a fair rents policy in this country, so that families are not forced out of the communities where they and their families have lived for a very long time?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we inherited a housing benefit system in London that was completely out of control; some families were getting as much as £104,000 a year—that is for one family for one year. Even today we are still spending about £6 billion on housing benefit in London. We have to recognise that higher levels of housing benefit and higher rents were chasing each other upwards in a spiral. I do not support the idea of mass rent controls, because I think we would see a massive decline in the private rented sector, which is what happened the last time we had such rent controls. We need proper regulation of housing benefit, and we need to make sure that we have a competitive system for private sector renting and that we build more flats and houses.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
The deficit has to be brought down, but if tax credits and benefits are capped for the next three years at 1%, people on low incomes will be left vulnerable to increases in food and energy prices. If prices go up by more than expected, what contingency plans do the Government have for benefits and tax credits?
The Prime Minister
The most important thing is to make sure that people are getting a good deal on energy prices, which is why we are going to be legislating to make companies put people on the lowest available tariffs. That is something the Government are doing that will help all families.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Q7. As a diabetic, may I welcome the fact that last year the Prime Minister lit up No. 10 for the first time on world diabetes day? One third of all primary school leavers are either obese or overweight, yet they still consume cans of Coke and Pepsi that contain up to eight teaspoons of sugar. What steps is he proposing to take to engage manufacturers in a war against sugar? If we do not act now, the next generation will be overwhelmed by a diabetes epidemic?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is one of the biggest public health challenges that we face in our country, and to highlight the problem of excessive consumption of sugar. That is why we challenged business, through our responsibility deal, to try to reduce levels of sugar, and that has had some effect. We have in place a diabetes action plan, which is about how we improve early diagnosis, how we better integrate care and how we provide better support. But, frankly, this is one of those health challenges that is not just a challenge for the health service; it is a challenge for local authorities, for schools and for parents, too. As someone who is trying to bring up three children without excessive amounts of Coca-Cola, I know exactly how big this challenge is.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Twenty years ago this week, Claire Tiltman, a 16-year-old pupil at Dartford grammar school for girls, was stabbed to death in my constituency. Nobody has ever been convicted of the crime. Both her parents subsequently died never knowing who had taken their only child from them. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that this Government will continue to provide full assistance to Kent police to help bring justice in the case of one of Britain’s most brutal unsolved murders?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this case, which is particularly tragic because, as he says, the girl’s parents have both died. Of course we will do everything we can, but above all it is for anyone who knows anything about this case to talk to Kent police, because in the end it is their responsibility to try to solve the case. As for taking action to deal with appalling knife crimes such as this, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government have taken a set of important actions.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Q8. Thirty-nine people suspected of serious child sex offences who fled the country have been brought back to Britain quickly under the European arrest warrant to face justice. Sadly, many of the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers want to scrap the European arrest warrant, making it easier for paedophiles to escape justice. Will he today categorically rule that out?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have the opportunity to work out which of the home affairs parts of the European Union we want to opt out of and which ones we want to opt back into. That is rightly being discussed in the Government and in the House, and I am sure they will listen very carefully to his arguments.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Great progress is being made in improving the rights of park home owners, many of whom are vulnerable and on low incomes. Currently they are not eligible for the green deal. Will the Prime Minister ask his civil servants to investigate this matter to make sure that assistance with energy efficiency is available to everybody who needs it?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. This Government have taken some steps forward on the rights of park home owners, of whom I have some in my own constituency and therefore know how important it is that we get the balance of law right. I will look at her point about the green deal, a very important measure to try to help people with their energy efficiency and to keep their bills down. We want it to be available to as many people as possible.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Q9. Yesterday Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, told the Public Accounts Committee that GPs were imposing unjustified restrictions on cataract operations. It seems that the Prime Minister and his reorganisation are taking the NHS back to the 1980s, when the NHS was the sick man of Europe. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to elderly people who are waiting unnecessarily for their cataract operations?
The Prime Minister
Compared with 2010-11, last year there were 400,000 extra operations in our NHS. Across our NHS, there are 5,000 more doctors and 5,000 fewer administrators. We have got the level of mixed-sex wards right down. The level of hospital-acquired infections—[Interruption.] The point that I am making, which I know the Opposition do not want to hear, is that the NHS is improving under this Government because we are putting the money in and they would take the money out.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
Q10. Many of us were inspired by the Prime Minister’s speech on political reform delivered in Milton Keynes when we were in opposition. He promised to make politicians more outwardly and properly accountable to the people. To make that happen, we were promised a system of open primary selection, which has already had such a refreshing effect in the constituencies of Totnes and Gosport. When does the Prime Minister expect a system of full-blown open primaries to be in place more widely, as promised in the coalition agreement?
The Prime Minister
I do support the use of open primaries. As my hon. Friend says, in the Conservative party we had a number of open primaries. I hope all parties can look at the issue and debate how we can encourage maximum participation, including in the selection of candidates.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Q11. Let us talk about Europe and the national interest. Millions of British women would be hit by the proposal in today’s Conservative Fresh Start report to opt out of the EU law on equal pay. Will the Prime Minister rule out such an opt-out today?
The Prime Minister
As I explained at the beginning of Prime Minister’s questions, the Government have massively helped women through the single-tier pension. I will look very carefully at the proposal that the hon. Gentleman mentions and I will write to him.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Q12. I know my right hon. Friend is aware of the extreme flooding suffered in the west country in November and December last year, impacting many homes and businesses and sweeping away the rail link between the west country and London, leaving us cut off for several days. Will he please ensure that our Government take every step necessary to improve the resilience of this vital rail link so that we never get cut off again?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this question. I am well aware of how bad the flooding was and I went to Buckfastleigh to see how badly the town had been flooded for myself. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has discussed the recent flooding with Network Rail’s chair and chief executive, and he will visit the area soon to look at this. We are working with Network Rail to improve the resilience of the overall network and we will do everything we can to ensure that these important services are maintained, even when they are challenged by floods such as those we saw last year.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Does the Prime Minister accept that a statement on Europe designed to be populist runs the risk of polarising this House, undermining key UK relations with America, confusing and alienating our friends and partners in Europe and, disastrously, starting a process that sleepwalks the UK out of Europe?
The Prime Minister
I think the most dangerous thing for this country would be to bury our head in the sand and pretend there is not a debate about Britain’s future in Europe. The most dangerous thing for this country would be to see the changes taking place in Europe because of the single currency and to stand back and say that we are going to do nothing about them. What Britain should be doing is getting in there and fighting for the changes we want so that we can ask for the consent of the British people to settle this issue once and for all.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Q13. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to keep pensioners warm in this cold weather and will he join me in congratulating the Suffolk Foundation on the great success of its “surviving winter” campaign?
The Prime Minister
This Government have given the biggest increase in the basic state pension—an increase of £5.30 a week last year. We have kept the winter fuel payments, we have kept the cold weather payments at the higher level and we are replacing the Warm Front scheme with the energy company obligation, or ECO. Although the Warm Front scheme helped some 80,000 houses a year, the ECO could help up to 230,000 houses a year. That is what we are doing, that is how we are helping old people, and it is a record we should be proud of.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Q14. The Prime Minister should know that the Office for National Statistics recently released figures that showed 24,000—24,000—extra cold weather deaths over the winter of 2011-12. The majority of those who perished were over the age of 75. Does the Prime Minister think that his Government should do more to help the elderly and the vulnerable and less to help millionaires through tax cuts?
The Prime Minister
As I just said, we are doing more to help the elderly and the vulnerable, with a record increase in the basic state pension that was bigger than what the Opposition would have done under their rules. We are keeping the cold weather payments at the higher level, which the previous Government only introduced before the election. We are keeping our promise on winter fuel payments. We are taking all those steps and ensuring—again, this is something that was never done by the Labour party—that energy companies will have to put people on the lowest tariffs. That is a record we can be proud of.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Tarn-Pure, a business in my constituency, is enduring a hideous regulatory farce thanks to the Health and Safety Executive and the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend remind the CBI that the British economy is very reliant on small and medium-sized businesses, which are far less able to cope with bad regulation, particularly when it is badly administered in the UK?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Businesses large and small are complaining about the burden of regulation, not just from Europe but more generally, and that is why we should be fighting in Europe for a more flexible, competitive Europe in which we see regulations coming off rather than always going on. The view of the Opposition is that we should sit back, do nothing, accept the status quo and never listen to the British people or British business, either.
Point of Order
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will be well aware, during last night’s Adjournment debate on Remploy I tried on a number of occasions to ask a question of the Minister. She refused to take interventions on the basis, I think, that she did not have enough time. The debate finished at 7.29, one minute before it was due to conclude. Is that consistent with parliamentary procedure?
Mr Speaker
It is purely up to the Minister to decide whether to take an intervention, so that is simply not a matter for the Chair. I note the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman’s point about the time at which the debate concluded, but that is not relevant to the autonomy of the Minister in deciding whether to take an intervention. The hon. Gentleman was certainly a persistent woodpecker and I feel sure that he will be so on subsequent occasions. He has put his concerns on the record, but nothing disorderly took place.
Corporate Accountability and Safeguarding of Adults from Abuse and Neglect
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to hold corporations criminally accountable for abuse and neglect in care settings; to make provision to compel any person or organisation to supply information to Adult Safeguarding Boards; and to introduce a new offence of corporate neglect whereby a corporate body can be found guilty if the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its board or senior management is a substantial element in the existence or possible occurrence of abuse or neglect.
I should like to begin with a quote:
“We as parents are there to protect our children and for whatever reason we failed to do so and it’s huge burden of guilt.”
Those are the words of Ann Earley, the mother of Steve Tovey. Steve has learning difficulties and was a victim of abuse at Winterbourne View hospital. Like everyone else, I was shocked and appalled by the events at Winterbourne View that were exposed by “Panorama” last year. The 11 perpetrators of those crimes rightly ended up in the dock and were punished. However, no stone should be left unturned when protecting vulnerable people.
My Bill proposes legislation that would see those who provide care and support held corporately accountable for abuse and neglect on their watch. In the words of Judge Ford, who presided over the Winterbourne View case, a “culture of ill-treatment developed” at the hospital that “corrupted and debased” the staff,
“all of whom were of previous good character”.
That statement goes to the heart of the reform that I am proposing. It reflects what many believe they witnessed at Winterbourne View: a care provider that betrayed those in its care and left unchecked a culture which, bit by bit, tolerated ever-more degrading treatment of vulnerable people, allowing a culture of cruelty to fester—and charged £3,500 a week for that. That is why, as the then Minister, I ordered the report into what happened at Winterbourne View so that we could make sure that lessons were learned, and it is why today I present this Bill to the House.
My Bill has two elements: to improve adult safeguarding and to close a loophole in the criminal law. It would amend the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to include a new offence of corporate neglect. This new law would act as a deterrent. It would force weak boards of directors to pull their socks up, visiting their services, talking to and, vitally, listening to the people who use those services and listening to and including the families of those whom they are caring for—and, yes, engaging with the staff, being interested in them and in their professional development. As the chief executive of care provider Care Management Group, Peter Kinsey, put it to me recently:
“If there is a systematic failure, as at Winterbourne View, then executives and ultimately the Board are responsible for not having measures in place to pick up concerns and failings in quality.”
That must be right. It is why good providers have absolutely nothing to fear from this Bill. Only those organisations that allow abuse and neglect to go unchallenged should be worried.
We would not be the first country to legislate on this issue; there are international precedents of this kind in law. For example, in Alberta in Canada care corporations face fines of up to $100,000 in such cases. Under my Bill, corporations found guilty of corporate neglect would face unlimited fines, remedial orders and publicity orders. That reflects the approach already enacted by this House in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
When things go wrong—when terrible abuse and neglect take place—the public expect those who take the fee to be held to account. It is not just the public who think so; many in the care sector do as well. Introducing a criminal sanction has the backing of the charity Action on Elder Abuse and of the Voluntary Organisations Disability Group, whose members include the Carers Trust, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Mencap, the National Autistic Society, and Scope.
The second element of my Bill concerns adult safeguarding. The serious case review into the abuse at Winterbourne View uncovered a raft of missed opportunities and bad care. The authors of the review also uncovered a
“lack of financial transparency and co-operation”
from Castlebeck, the company in charge. This meant that the review was not as comprehensive as it should have been—a blow to adult safeguarding in general and a barrier to those seeking to learn lessons from Winterbourne View. That is why my Bill proposes to amend the law to require any person or organisation to supply information to an adult safeguarding board—a provision that is already in place in relation to children’s and young people’s safeguarding in England. I know that the Government take very seriously their responsibilities with regard to protecting vulnerable people, but there is a gap in the law that needs to be closed.
Before Christmas, the Government, in their final report on Winterbourne View, pledged to consider how corporate bodies could be held to account for abuse and harm. That was incredibly welcome news and I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) commit the Government to changing the way in which we care for adults with learning disabilities in this country, but there is still much to do. I am convinced that my Bill would help to drive up the quality of care, acting as another safeguard against abuse.
The author George Eliot said:
“Cruelty, like every other vice, requires no motive outside of itself; it only requires opportunity.”
At Winterbourne View, staff carried out horrific acts because of the opportunities a culture of cruelty created. This Bill would help to remove some of those opportunities, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Paul Burstow, Hazel Blears, Jack Lopresti, Glyn Davies, John Pugh, Andrew Stunell, Tracey Crouch, Mr David Ward and Mr Michael Meacher present the Bill.
Paul Burstow accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 120).
Opposition Day
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Examination Reform
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the breadth of opposition from business, the creative industries, champions of vocational education and schools to the Government’s plans to introduce English Baccalaureate Certificates; and calls on the Government to rethink its plans.
This debate goes to the heart of the challenge facing our education system. The central question for the debate is: how do our schools best equip the young people of today to play their part in the economy and society of tomorrow?
Labour believes that a true baccalaureate approach, one that recognises skills, knowledge and the core characteristics needed to succeed in the future, should be at the centre of this debate. Although as a country we have made great progress in improving education, there is still a lot for us to do as we strive to compete with the highest performing jurisdictions. Our future economic competitiveness relies on our ability to produce aspirational citizens and young people with the skills, knowledge, resilience and character to get this country ahead in the world.
That is why we have called this debate. Yes, we need reform in our system of assessment and qualifications. That is why Labour has asked Professor Chris Husbands from the Institute of Education at the university of London to lead an independent review of 14-to-19 education in England. This is the exact approach that has been taken by the Labour Government in Wales.
We want to build a consensus on sustainable curriculum reform. Surely, before we decide on changes to assessment, it would make sense to reach a decision on what is needed from the curriculum. Instead, what we have from the Secretary of State is a plan drawn up last year on the back of an envelope that enjoys very little support. The Association of School and College Leaders said in its response to the Government’s consultation:
“This reform will only be successful if those who have to implement it feel involved and if there is an attempt to build consensus around the changes proposed.”
If we look back to the introduction of GCSEs in the 1980s, we will see that they were established with cross-party support. I share the concerns expressed by the former Education Secretary, the Conservative peer Lord Baker, that rushed reforms, lacking political consensus, do not offer the best way forward. We believe that the Government’s plans to introduce a narrow subject range of English baccalaureate certificates will undermine our future economic position, not strengthen it.
Concerns about both the substance and implementation of EBCs have been widely voiced. They have been voiced by business, including by the CBI and those in the creative industries and the knowledge economy. Sir Jonathan Ive, the pioneering inventor behind the iPod who was knighted last year for his services to design and enterprise, recently opposed the narrow focus of the Government’s plan:
“It will fail to provide students with the skills that UK employers need and its impact on the UK’s economy will be catastrophic.”
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept responsibility for the reforms undertaken by the last Labour Government, including the modularisation of GCSEs and the 2007 reforms? Both those major reforms have caused enormous damage to the reputation of GCSEs as a brand and to the underlying education that is provided under the new curricula.
Stephen Twigg
I certainly accept that we need to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the changes that have been made. We made a number of reforms. I was a Minister when Curriculum 2000 was implemented, which created the AS-level. That was a positive reform that has stood the test of time. There is a case to look again at modularisation, but as I will say in my speech, that does not require us entirely to remove controlled assessment from the core subjects that make up the secondary school curriculum.
Sir Jonathan has been joined by other leading British innovators in warning the Secretary of State that his plans are “jeopardising Britain’s future prosperity”. Research carried out for the Department for Education by Ipsos MORI demonstrates the effect that the EBacc performance measure has already had on creative subjects. For example, more than 150 schools have withdrawn the important subject of design and technology from their curriculum. There have been similar declines in drama and art. I fear that the Secretary of State’s plans for EBCs risk making the situation even worse.
A survey by YouGov for the National Union of Teachers that was published earlier this month found that more than 80% of teachers said that the proposed changes to exams at 16 were being rushed. Louise Robinson, the president of the Girls Schools Association, has said that the Education Secretary is transfixed by
“a bygone era where everything was considered rosy”.
She said:
“You can’t be forcing a 1960s curriculum and exam structure on schools. These children are going to be going out into the world of the 2020s and 2030s. It is going to be very different from”
the Secretary of State’s
“dream of what it should be.”
It is an indication of the Secretary of State’s unpopularity that voices from the private schools sector and the National Union of Teachers are united in their opposition to his plans.
Stephen Twigg
That is a completely different situation. There are many things that we can learn from the decisions of private schools, and indeed state schools, to adopt the IGCSE. In developing an appropriate consensus on the best qualifications for secondary schools, there is a lot that we can learn from the IGCSE, and indeed from the international baccalaureate.
The high-performing jurisdictions in Asia, which the Secretary of State often rightly quotes, are looking to our success in innovation and creativity. I therefore argue that now is not the time for us to move backwards. As they look to us, it is a false debate that says that we cannot have both rigour in maths, English and science and a broader, richer curriculum. As Michael Barber has pointed out:
“Leaders in Pacific Asia are realising that what worked in the last 50 years is not what will be required in the next 50. They have come to the conclusion that their economies need to become more innovative and their schools more creative. It is one thing for an education system to produce well-educated deferential citizens; another to produce a generation of innovators.”
We are right to want our schools to focus on maths and English for all. That is why the Opposition are committed to maths and English for all up to age 18—a proposal that was backed by the CBI in its recent education report.
As well as rigour in maths and English, we need it right across the curriculum. Excluding crucial subjects such as design and technology, computer science, engineering and arts subjects will not promote innovation in our schools. Those subjects are important to our future as a country, including our future economy. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister tell the House the Government’s plans for those subjects that will not be included in the EBCs? Last September, the Secretary of State said that he wants Ofqual to assess the expansion of EBCs into other subject areas, but that sounded to me—and to many others—like an afterthought rather than a central feature of his plans.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, under the previous Labour Government a qualification in cake decorating was considered the equivalent of a maths GCSE, and a level 2 qualification in horse studies was the equivalent of four GCSEs. Is that right and will he stand up to defend what the Labour Government did in promoting such equivalents? Will he return to an age where cake decorating is the equivalent of a GCSE in maths, and horse studies the equivalent of four GCSEs?
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman is capable of a more intelligent argument than the one he has just made, and I hope we can have that moving forward. The Labour party wants vocational qualifications that are fit for purpose, so let us have a debate about how we can secure that.
When I ask parents in my constituency what is their biggest concern about education, they often say, “Will it prepare our children for the jobs of the future?” Of course parents want schools that instil knowledge, but they know that knowledge alone is not enough. Parents value the role of schools in educating their children to become active citizens and informed consumers, and to participate in the economy and jobs of the future. That is the prism through which this reform should be viewed. A true baccalaureate approach will require forms of assessment that are truly fit for purpose.
Last September, the Education Secretary told the House:
“We want to remove controlled assessment…from core subjects.”—[Official Report, 17 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 654.]
and he nods in assent to that today. As I understand, however, the power to decide on forms of assessment lies with Ofqual. Is the Secretary of State planning to bring forward primary legislation to change that so that he has the power to make such decisions? I see he is nodding. Will he say whether he will do that and whether it is his intention to write the questions, invigilate the exams and mark the scripts as well?
The Education Secretary has expressed his preference to scrap controlled assessments, replacing them with three-hour exams at the end of two years’ study. In no other walk of life would we expect three-hour linear exams alone to provide the basis for an assessment of the depth and breadth of learning. Will the Secretary of State tell the House on what evidence from this country or abroad, he has based his preference for entirely removing field work in geography, laboratory experiments in science and presentational skills in English, favouring instead a linear exam that could encourage rote learning over deeper understanding?
The third area where the Government’s plans fall short is perhaps the most worrying. We know the Secretary of State’s plan A because it was published in the Daily Mail in June last year. What he really wants is to reintroduce the two-tier system of O-levels and CSEs—yet another example of the “Upstairs, Downstairs” mentality to which the former Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), referred at the Education Committee this morning. Having failed to secure his preferred scheme, however, it now seems that we have a stealth version of a two-tier system.
The Secretary of State told the House in September that his plans would not amount to a two-tier system, yet he is proposing a statement of achievement for those who will not take EBCs. Is that not a return to a two-tier system? In fact, it is arguably even worse than the old CSE system, because at least in that system high-performing CSE candidates still had the chance of getting an O-level. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what value will be attached in reality to those statements of achievement? How will they help young people secure places in further education or work, or as apprentices?
We as a House should, on a cross-party basis, reject the talent myth that divides children into winners and losers before they have even had the chance to demonstrate their potential. Such defeatist thinking is socially regressive and caps our potential as a nation. What estimates have the Government made of how many young people will not be entered for EBCs in core subjects? At the other end of the spectrum, the Secretary of State has hinted on a number of occasions at the reintroduction of what is called norm referencing—placing an artificial cap on the proportion of high grades. Are the Government going to proceed with that?
With EBCs we have had from the Secretary of State a lesson in bad policy making—putting the cart before the horse by putting assessment before curriculum, choosing dogma over evidence, and no attempt to build consensus for a lasting solution. Ofqual has expressed real concern about the Secretary of State’s timetable and careful implementation is vital if changes are to succeed. Will the Government, even at this stage, rethink the rushed timetable for those changes?
I accept that the education system is ripe for reform, but we need reform that works. That is why the Labour party has set out a plan for reforming vocational education, with a technical baccalaureate at 18, including English and maths for all. The Secretary of State has undermined important vocational courses. The engineering diploma, for example, was devalued by the Education Secretary before being reinstated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government have not given that crucial area the priority it deserves. While the CBI criticises the Education Secretary’s plans for EBCs, Labour would get businesses to accredit vocational courses.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s statement about what Labour would do, but will it overcome the fact that 42% of employers have to conduct remedial training for the young people who come to them?
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and that is part of the reason we have said that English and maths should continue beyond 16, right up to 18. As an advanced industrialised country we are unusual in not requiring learners to continue with both mathematics and the home language, and we have put forward that positive reform precisely to meet the concern raised. I see nothing in the Government’s proposals for EBCs that will address that bad situation, and a real risk that it will make it even worse.
When the Secretary of State set out his proposals last September he had no plans to include vocational education. A few weeks later, the Labour party set out its proposals, including for a technical baccalaureate. How did the Secretary of State respond? The Conservatives put out a press release stating that the certificates would “make young people unemployable.” That is what they said in September. Two months later the Under-Secretary of State for Skills, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is not in the Chamber today, supported Labour’s Tech Bac. We have seen from the Secretary of State that vocational education is, at very best, an afterthought, and in reality his policy on vocational education is a total shambles. I believe that education is crucial.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
The hon. Gentleman’s predecessor as shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), welcomed in full the Wolf report on vocational education, which preceded consultation on academic subjects. Does he welcome it in full, or has he changed Labour’s position?
Stephen Twigg
I certainly welcome the Wolf recommendations in full—absolutely in full. They provide an important guide for the work we are doing to develop vocational education. However, the Secretary of State may want to return to the Dispatch Box to explain why the Conservatives dismiss the technical baccalaureate—will he take this opportunity to support it?
Michael Gove
I am delighted to take this position again. I do not want to turn this into a conversation, but it is striking that before I asked my question the hon. Gentleman said our plans for vocational education were a shambles and he now says that the report, which we have implemented in full, was absolutely right. I am therefore in two minds about what the shadow Secretary of State’s position is on vocational education. On the one hand he endorses the Wolf report, which we have implemented, and on the other hand he says that our proposals for vocational education are a shambles.
Stephen Twigg
The reality, as a number of colleagues on my side were shouting, is that the Secretary of State has not implemented fully the Wolf report. We will support him in doing so. We will work with the Government to develop a technical baccalaureate if they are serious about it. However, if the Government were really focused on these issues, they would not have done what they did to the engineering diploma.
Stephen Twigg
The Secretary of State is keen to intervene and I will take his intervention. Why did it take the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reassemble the engineering diploma?
Michael Gove
Which parts of the Wolf report implementation have we not fulfilled that the shadow Secretary of State would like us to fulfil?
Stephen Twigg
The full implementation of English and maths right through to 18 is in the Wolf report and the Government have not said that that is one of their plans. We believe, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on the Government Benches, that English and maths to 18 is vital to our future. The technical baccalaureate is a proposal that we have made and the Secretary of State’s junior Minister has backed it. We want to see movement forward. It is not just about the Wolf report; it is about moving forward to a system where we have vocational qualifications that are fit for purpose and where English and maths sit alongside those good, vocational qualifications.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman says that there is one thing in the Wolf report that we have not implemented—English and maths to 18. I would contest that. Is that the only thing that he can think of? Have we implemented everything else? I should point out that there is no reference to the technical baccalaureate in the report.
Stephen Twigg
I am sorry that the Secretary of State seems to regard young people continuing with English and maths to 18 as a trivial proposal in the Wolf report—it is a central, important proposal. If he moves to implement it now he will have our full support, because it is vital to the future of this country. If vocational education really was at the heart of the Government’s proposals, why was he silent about it when he made his announcement in September? Why was the focus of the announcement in September on the EBacc subjects and anything else an afterthought: EBacc certificates for English, maths and science, EBacc certificates later for the other EBacc subjects, and then some vague possibility that Ofqual would devise other certificates for other subjects? If vocational education in creative and other academic subjects were really being given the seriousness that the Secretary of State claims, we should have a set of reforms that apply across the entire curriculum, not the narrowing of the curriculum that the Government have proposed through their English baccalaureate certificates.
Michael Gove
I would just like to repeat my question. Are there any other recommendations in the Wolf report that we have not implemented?
Stephen Twigg
The Secretary of State should stop digging. I welcome the Wolf report. It was published, as he pointed out, when my predecessor was in this position. I have been in this position for 15 months. The Wolf report is important, but the world is moving on. It took us to propose a technical baccalaureate. I am delighted that, albeit belatedly and half-heartedly, the Government seem to be supporting that, but my central point is that he set out proposals last September that were silent on the technical and practical subjects that are so vital to vocational education. I look forward to the day when I answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions from the Government side of the House, but he seems very keen to question me today. I will of course take his final intervention.
Michael Gove
I am sure we are all grateful that this will be the final one. First of all, the hon. Gentleman says that we have moved on from the Wolf report, so having welcomed it he now believes it is obsolete—that is interesting. [Interruption.] Well, if it is not obsolete, can he tell us which aspects of the Wolf report—not the one that he has mentioned; we will return to that—we have not implemented? Are there any others at all? I am all ears.
Stephen Twigg
I reaffirm that we welcome the Wolf report in full. We are in favour of English and maths to 18. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the Government did not come forward with proposals for that. When and if they do so, we will give them our support. The Wolf report is very important. It is not obsolete; it is an important piece of work that needs to be fully implemented. We will support full implementation, but we need then to move to build on that. The technical baccalaureate is a proposal to achieve that. English baccalaureate certificates that will not be in crucial creative, technical and practical subjects risk undermining the progress that the Wolf report has given us. If he says that we are going to have a new—I think he has used the term “golden standard”—qualification called the English baccalaureate certificate that will apply only to certain subjects and will be given a high status in the accountability framework, that is bound to lead to an acceleration of the trend that I have already described, where fewer schools are doing design technology, fewer schools are doing art and fewer schools are doing drama. That is surely something that all sides of the House can be very concerned about.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Recently, I met Airbus and Rolls Royce, who said that they are having to recruit graduate engineers from abroad, because we are not producing enough of them in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s changes will make that situation far worse than it already is?
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend makes the point powerfully, and it is absolutely the right point to make. It is not simply Opposition Members who are making it—it was the central argument of the CBI’s excellent report on education before Christmas, when it called for a pause in the Government’s proposed EBCs. That is why, in our motion, we urge the Government to rethink. We have reflected on what we are hearing from business, as my hon. Friend rightly reminds us, and from the world of education that they are not the reforms that take our education system, our economy, or our broader society in the right direction.
The Government’s plan for EBCs is very much in tune with the Secretary of State’s wider programme for education: a narrowing of the curriculum, backward looking in terms of assessment, and a policy for the few, not the many. Last year, the Secretary of State presided over the fiasco in GCSE English marking. Now, on his plans for changes to exams at 16, week after week we see increasing opposition, whether from business, entrepreneurs, teachers or parents. In contrast, I want to see a true baccalaureate approach to assessment and qualification reform. Labour Members are working to build a consensus in the worlds of business and education on reforms that will work and will last; reforms that will strengthen, not undermine, our standing in the world. On that basis, I commend this motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s point of order in a moment. Just before I call the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) to respond from the Government Front Bench, I should say that in order to try and accommodate the level of interest, I have decided to impose an eight-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution. Mr Brennan, I could never forget you and I was in no danger of doing so.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that, unusually, the Secretary of State has decided to wind up the debate rather than to respond to the opening speech and has intervened on the shadow Secretary of State on five occasions, is there any means by which the time could be extended to allow the Opposition Front Bench the opportunity to intervene on him the same number of times without him being able to cry shortage of time?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is no, and I should emphasise, for the avoidance of doubt, that nothing disorderly has occurred.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman, as he rightly says, did not say that. The order in which Ministers appear at the Dispatch Box is exclusively a matter for the Government. It may be unusual, but there is nothing improper about it whatsoever. The House will now wish to hear Mr David Laws.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
We warmly welcome today’s debate on what is an incredibly important topic. It has already been surprisingly interesting because of some of the shadow Secretary of State’s comments on his party’s developing policy. I praise him for the candour with which he has approached the debate.
I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the qualifications framework and examination system that we inherited from the previous Government were seriously flawed and ripe for reform. I think I heard him acknowledge that there were problems with the system of modularisation. I think I heard him welcome the radical and dramatic reforms—many of which seek to deal with problems that emerged under the last Government—pioneered by Alison Wolf as a consequence of her report. I thought I even heard him acknowledge, under cross-questioning by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), that the last Government were wrong to deny state schools the ability to use IGCSE qualifications, which are now used widely in the system.
Partly as a consequence of the hon. Gentleman’s candour, therefore, and partly because of the forensic cross-questioning he received from those on the Government Benches, we have made a lot of progress in establishing that the existing examination and qualification system is deeply flawed and that we are right to be pioneering change.
Stephen Twigg
May I tempt the right hon. Gentleman to match my candour? I mentioned the engineering diploma, which was one of the qualifications downgraded by the Secretary of State. The industry responded and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to reassemble a version of the engineering diploma. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, with matching candour, that the way in which that was handled was a disaster for that crucial area of industry?
Chris Skidmore
Given that we are having these confessional moments, will the right hon. Gentleman also welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State has endorsed in full the Wolf report, which stated that under the last Government more than 400,000 teenagers were taking vocational qualifications that were essentially a waste of time?
Kevin Brennan
I am sure the Minister is grateful to his right hon. Friend. Does the Minister recognise these words?
“There has been a breathtaking rise in performance in education since 1997. Inner London was a basket case pre-97; ninety per cent of students were failing to get decent grades at 16 back then. The improvement’s been astonishing, dramatic, unbelievable.”
They were his words in February 2010.
Mr Laws
I will make a little progress before I take other interventions.
In spite of the rather political exchanges we have heard from the Opposition Front-Bench team, I want to say that, as Lord Adonis has recently written, education should not be a political football. We are talking today—this is why the shadow Secretary of State was right to table the motion—about designing a new qualifications system for millions of young people in this country. They and their parents expect us to take the right decisions for the right reasons. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I both want to hear from Members from all parties today. The coalition Government have strong views on this issue, but we always listen to those who have sensible and constructive contributions to make.
I should also confirm that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, and as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned a second ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be replying to the debate rather than opening it for the Government. That enables me, with your permission, Mr Speaker, to be absent for a short period to fulfil an existing commitment, for which I apologise to the House.
Before I turn in detail to the points raised by the shadow Secretary of State, I would like to step back and consider briefly what the Government are seeking to deliver. Our ambition, quite simply, is to raise standards for all young people. We believe that the majority of young people are capable of leaving education with a wide range of good qualifications at good grades. We are also determined to close the wholly unacceptable gap between outcomes for the most disadvantaged pupils and the rest, which is why we have introduced the pupil premium and many other reforms. Of course, however, improving results and closing the gap are ambitions shared across the House, and I have never been shy in acknowledging some of the progress made under the last Labour Government, including in places such as inner London, where we have important lessons to learn.
If we are to realise this ambition for the schools system, however, we also need to ensure that our education system is delivering in at least three key areas. First, we need to know that the improvements in exam results are real and do not simply reflect grade inflation and falling standards. Secondly, we need to ensure that young people are choosing subjects because of their quality and relevance, not simply in order to meet league table and accountability targets, as I fear was the case for a period under the last Government. Finally, but crucially, we need to ensure that the content and stretch of qualifications are appropriate for the highly competitive environment—the shadow Secretary of State talked about this—that we will face in this century. We should be setting standards of stretch and rigour in our qualifications, not just to ensure the credibility of domestic standards over time, but to guarantee that the educational aspirations and outcomes for English children match the very best in the world.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Jonathan Ive, the designer behind the iPhone, has said of the EBacc:
“It will fail to provide students with the skills that UK employers need and its impact on the UK’s economy will be catastrophic.”
He said that the EBacc
“will starve our world leading creative sector of its future pioneers.”
What does the Minister say to that?
Mr Laws
I do not agree with that suggestion; otherwise I would not support the reforms. Indeed, I believe that they will have exactly the opposite effect in delivering higher standards and the ambitions I have just set out.
To be blunt, most people consider that, in the three areas I have just set out—as key ambitions for our qualifications and examination system—the last Labour Government failed to deliver. They failed to maintain standards, and confidence in standards, over time, as I think the shadow Secretary of State acknowledged; they failed to ensure that children were always choosing qualifications for the right reasons, and I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that serious criticism; and in their commendable ambition that all should succeed, they failed to ensure that the rigour and stretch of our qualifications kept pace with the best in the world. Therefore, the qualification reforms that we are debating today have two objectives: first, we want to restore confidence in standards, and secondly we want to ensure that the quality of our qualifications matches the best in the world.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I want to ask the Minister about the best way of preparing young people for life and the world of work. Does he honestly think that a three-hour exam at the end of two years does anything other than test a theoretical knowledge, and that the ability to demonstrate a good theoretical knowledge does not translate into skills for life or work? He must accept that and there must be some balance between the theoretical knowledge demonstrated in an exam and other demonstrations of ability, as far as employers and life skills are concerned.
Mr Laws
Of course, there are some subjects for which practical skills have to be able to be assessed properly, but in fairness the hon. Gentleman should also acknowledge the serious concerns about coursework and the credibility of assessment. It is sensible to address those concerns in our reforms, and I believe that for many subjects it is possible to do that without compromising high-quality accountability in the qualifications system.
Stephen Twigg
I gave three examples in my speech of areas of practical coursework—in geography, science and English. Does the Minister disagree with me about any of those?
Mr Laws
I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. I am happy to look at the areas the hon. Gentleman suggests, although so far I am not personally persuaded that I have heard clinching arguments for some of the subjects. Far more obviously we potentially need a different system of assessment in subjects such as art and music, but I am not sure that he has so far made a convincing case for some of the areas he has mentioned.
Mr Laws
I want to make a little progress, then I will take some other interventions, but I am conscious of the fact that a large number of people want to speak.
Our reforms combine rigour with a commitment to fairness and social mobility. They will raise the bar, but they will not shut the door on any young people. The shadow Secretary of State asked whether we would have a system in which a defined proportion of students would be able to get particular grades. I can assure him that we are absolutely not going down that route. We launched a consultation on 17 September setting out our proposals for reform. That consultation closed on 10 December. The Secretary of State and I and other Ministers are now taking the time to consider all the responses carefully before we make final decisions.
Before I turn to some of the more detailed points, let me say a little more about the case for change. GCSEs were a bold and radical development in education policy. They introduced the idea that all children, whatever their background or ability, could sit a single exam in all academic subjects and receive a grade recognising their progress. GCSEs replaced a system that was fundamentally unfair, in that it divided children into winners and losers at an early age and helped only a minority of students to prepare for further study and decent jobs. The crucial principle of universality is one that we as a coalition Government are determined to retain. Contrary to what the shadow Secretary of State said, our reforms look forwards. They do not look backwards. There will be no return to the divisive, two-tier system of the past. The reforms also look outwards, to learn from the best-performing systems in the world today—systems that deliver rigorous qualifications, accessible to all children. However, 25 years on, the GCSE is now ready for change. Students and teachers are working harder than ever, but not all are achieving qualifications that properly reflect their ability and support them to progress successfully.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
By and large, many of the reforms that have been proposed would have my support and that of my party. The Minister talks about consultation, but given that there are exam boards in those parts of the United Kingdom where education has been devolved and where students will be applying to universities in England, for example, and given the need, therefore, for comparability of results in the different countries that make up the United Kingdom, what consultation has he had—or does he plan to have—with Ministers responsible for education and exam boards in parts of the United Kingdom other than England?
Mr Laws
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his broad support for some of the proposals we are debating today. I believe in devolution in the United Kingdom, as does he. Where individual Administrations and Governments decide that they want to go down a different route, it is right that it should be open to them to do so. Indeed, I believe we can learn in the United Kingdom about different solutions that people choose and then work out over time which are seen to succeed. However, I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the point the hon. Gentleman makes. If there is anything we can do to assist with some of his concerns, I am certainly willing to contemplate that.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has explained the need for change at GCSE and provided an analysis—an accurate one for the most part—of the legacy from the Labour party. Can he explain why abolition of one suite of GCSEs is the right response, rather than simply introducing the measures and changes he has itemised for GCSEs as they stand?
Mr Laws
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points and the work that the Select Committee on Education has done on this and associated areas. I believe that in some of the core subjects where we are making these changes there is value in signalling the extent to which they will be improved and varied from the existing GCSE qualifications. There is some merit in underlining—through a change in how we describe these qualifications—how fundamental the changes could be. That will also be relevant for people when they assess the suite of qualifications and their future value in the labour market.
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. He is right about signalling. Is there not a risk from the Government’s saying officially that GCSEs as a brand are broken and irrecoverable of sending the signal that the remaining GCSEs—most subjects—for which children will spend an awful lot of time studying are also broken? Surely he must either have plans to abolish GCSEs altogether or recognise that such signalling has risks as well as benefits?
Mr Laws
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is exactly why we say in paragraph 4.7 of the consultation paper that to
“ensure the benefits of this more rigorous approach to the English Baccalaureate subjects are felt across the whole curriculum, we will ask Ofqual to consider how these new higher standards can be used as a template for judging and accrediting a new suite of qualifications, beyond these subjects at 16, to replace GCSEs”.
I promise him—I will come to this later—that we have no intention of allowing the status of the other subjects, which are not at present in the core English baccalaureate certificate, to be downgraded. We place huge value on those subjects, and I will set out later how we will take the matter forward.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Is not the most important signal that we must send on behalf of young people to tell future employers that they have been rigorously tested in a way that will make them suitable for work? That is the way we will take our economy forward in future too.
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Whatever policy solutions different employer groups favour, there is an absolute consensus that the problems we are setting out to address are real ones in the system which all the employer groups want us to address.
As I have said, I believe there has been a real improvement in education over the last two decades, but it is now widely accepted in all parts of the House that there has also been grade inflation. Until summer 2012, GCSE pass rates had increased every year since they were first introduced, but when we compare that achievement with our performance in international tests—where there is no incentive for achievement to be inflated—we see a different story. Between 2006 and 2009, the proportion of students achieving a C grade or higher in English and mathematics at GCSE increased by 8%, but England’s ranking in the OECD’s highly respected programme for international student assessment—or PISA—league tables stagnated over the same period. Universities and colleges complain of the need to provide remedial classes for apparently well qualified new students. That is why the shadow Secretary of State for Education has said:
“Sensible, thought-through and evidence-based measures to increase rigour and tackle grade inflation will have the…support of the Opposition”.—[Official Report, 26 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 175.]
Significant evidence of grade inflation is available in a range of academic reports, and I am pleased that that is now common ground among many of us.
The coalition Government have already acted to address some of the problems that emerged under the last Labour Government, including those that have caused the recent problems in marking GCSE qualifications—problems that have their origin under the previous Government and not, in fairness, under this Government or this Secretary of State. We have started to address the weaknesses of the current GCSEs, which privilege bite-size learning over deep understanding. Ofqual, the independent exams regulator, has already acted to make the GCSE more rigorous—for example, by tackling the re-sit culture and restoring marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar. We have introduced the English baccalaureate, which has powerfully incentivised more pupils to study key academic subjects. We did not hear from the shadow Secretary of State about the enormous increase in uptake in areas such as modern languages since the English baccalaureate was introduced, which I would have thought most Members would welcome.
However, we need to go further. We believe in the professionalism of teachers and those who set exams. They want to do what is best for students—rigorous teaching and rigorous assessment—but the system they are currently working in is flawed. The combination of competition between exam boards and a high-stakes accountability mechanism in the form of league tables has led to a race to the bottom by exam boards. We must address that. In our consultation, we proposed introducing single exam boards for each subject, with franchises given to the winning exam board after a competitive process. In a letter to the Secretary of State on 26 September last year, the shadow Secretary of State made it clear that he supported that proposal. Others have raised delivery issues and risks in relation to the proposal, and we will look carefully at all those points. We will also shortly be publishing a consultation on how we will reform the accountability system for schools.
Stephen Twigg
The Minister referred to “others” expressing their concern. I assume that among them was Ofqual, which wrote to the Secretary of State in November to express its concern about the timetable for change. Will the Government consider adopting a different timetable so that, if changes are to be introduced, they can be implemented with care?
Mr Laws
All those issues are, of course, part of our consideration following the consultation. We have already made the decision, at the time that we made the announcement on the EBCs, to move back the start date so that they will not start being taught until September 2015. We will ensure that the timetable for delivery is achievable.
As part of the accountability consultation, we will consider floor standards and incentives to take high-value qualifications. We will also consider appropriate incentives for schools to teach all their students well, rather than focusing only on students near the C/D borderline.
Let me now turn to some of the specific issues that have been raised during the consultation. The Secretary of State and I are determined that these new, more rigorous qualifications will meet the needs of the vast majority of students who are currently served by the GCSE. The reforms and improvements to education that we are making will enable more students to operate at a higher level—that is exactly their point—and, as exams become more rigorous, we will equip students to clear that higher bar. So there is absolutely no reason to believe that there will be a substantial change in the proportion of students achieving a good pass. Indeed, our clear aim is that, over time, a higher proportion of children will secure a good pass.
The consultation has shown that there is an understandable concern that we should continue to give strong support to many subjects that are not part of the EBC core subjects of English, maths, science, history, geography and languages. The Chairman of the Select Committee has raised that point today. I want to make it absolutely clear to all Members that the Department for Education remains fully committed to ensuring that pupils receive a well-rounded education, with high-quality music, art and design, drama and dance all playing an important part.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Minister has referred to the uptake of foreign language studies on a number of occasions. The reality is that most schools have been ditching the subjects that children might have wanted to study, simply to comply with the Ebacc requirements. Where is he going to find room in the school timetable, after the Ebacc subjects have been accommodated, for the teaching of all those subjects that he has just mentioned?
Mr Laws
First, we have made a deliberate decision to keep up to 30% of the school timetable available for the teaching of non-EBC subjects. Secondly, I think my hon. Friend is being rather generous about the reasons for the massive decline in the study of subjects such as modern languages. That happened because schools and others had an incentive to encourage students to go for the qualifications that were easier to pass, even if they were not right for their education and future progression. That is exactly why we are addressing those issues in our reforms.
Mr Laws
I am going to have to make some progress, I am afraid.
Parents want to see their children secure a strong grasp of the core academic subjects, but they also want them to have a fully rounded education, with opportunities in the other areas that I have mentioned. We are determined to ensure that those opportunities will be available. We are committed to ensuring that pupils will be able to take good-quality qualifications in all subjects at the end of key stage 4 that are fair, rigorous and rewarding. Indeed, we said in our consultation that we would ask Ofqual to consider how the higher standards that we are proposing for core EBCs could be used as a template for judging and accrediting a new suite of qualifications at age 16 to replace current GCSEs. We acknowledge that there are subjects for which 100% reliance on formal written examinations is not the best form of assessment, and we will be working with Ofqual, the Arts Council and others to review qualifications outside the core EBacc subjects. We will make an announcement, including on a proposed timetable for reform, in due course.
Mr Graham Stuart
May I probe my right hon. Friend a little further on the subject of tiering? The GCSE was tiered in certain subjects, and I understand that, with the introduction of the EBCs, that will be abolished. Will he tell us what share of children took tiered GCSEs last year? What are the positive and negative implications of the loss of the tiering that was found to be necessary to provide an appropriate assessment of a child’s level of attainment?
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that issue. We are looking at it closely as part of the consultation. I think he would acknowledge that the principle behind our reform is absolutely right. We will look at individual subjects to ensure that the reform is deliverable and that it has the intended consequences.
Stephen Twigg
May I reinforce the point made by the Chair of the Select Committee? Ofqual’s letter to the Secretary of State in November states:
“Our first concern is that the aims for EBCs may exceed what is realistically achievable through a single assessment…Our advice is that there are no precedents that show that a single assessment could successfully fulfil all of these purposes.”
What is the Minister’s response to that?
Mr Laws
These are the issues that we are taking account of as part of the consultation. As I have said, we will reflect carefully on all the responses and make our announcement shortly.
Turning to vocational qualifications, I also want to make it clear that this Government fully support high-quality vocational study. We believe that all students benefit from having a strong academic core of qualifications, particularly up to age 16, but good quality vocational education will remain an option, both pre-16 and post-16. We have already committed to improving the quality of vocational education so that those 14 to 16-year-olds who are better suited to vocational qualifications can be confident that those qualifications will be comparable with the best academic qualifications in terms of content, assessment and opportunities to progress. In the past, too many vocational qualifications simply did not measure up.
Mr Laws
I must make progress, I am afraid.
This coalition Government have rightly sought to address the major challenges about the future of our qualifications system. Securing the right qualifications and examination system for young people in this country is one of the most important tasks for our Department, so it is absolutely right that we should take time carefully to consider all the contributions and views before we make our final decisions. What is clear is that the current system cannot continue as it is. I welcome the support of the shadow Secretary of State for that view, and I am only sorry that more Labour Members do not recognise the necessity for some of the detailed proposals that we are making.
We have a shared aspiration in this House for much better performance by all our young people, and that is welcome, but if we are truly to serve the interests of all young people, including the most disadvantaged, we have to be prepared as a country to face the other challenges. We must have an examination system that commands public confidence and in which changes in results truly reflect changes in real standards and performance. We must have a qualifications system that supports students to make the right subject choices that will lead to progression and success. We must have a qualifications system that matches the best of any country in the world, and that challenges and prepares our young people to reach world-class standards. Those are challenges that some others might wish to duck, but this coalition Government are united in their determination to take the right decisions for this country, and for its young people in particular.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Education Select Committee, of which I am a member, has held detailed discussions with the Secretary of State, with curriculum and assessment experts and with others in the field, including representatives of universities, other learned bodies and employers, on the Government’s proposals to change examinations at 16. I know that many Members want to express their concern that the proposed Ebacc will restrict and limit qualifications, particularly in religious education, music, information technology and art. I have spoken about that many times in the House, and I do not propose to focus on it again today, but I want to repeat that subjects such as RE and music have a huge role to play in underpinning other vital subjects—philosophy, ethics, mathematics, even medicine—in later and higher learning. I find it strange to hear the Minister say that he is not downgrading these subjects. How can some subjects not be downgraded if other subjects are being upgraded? That simply does not make sense.
As I understand it, the Secretary of State proposes to introduce the EBacc qualification as a replacement or as a higher-value qualification for GCSEs in 2017. Perhaps he will clarify that for me in his summing-up speech. He proposes to change the way all examinations are administered, yet we saw the chaos created in the system in 2012, when the administration of just one subject—English language—was changed. At the same time, the Secretary of State proposes to franchise examinations and to open them up to wider competition. Although there are, in my view, dangers in each of those proposals, collectively the impact will be a recipe for chaos and disaster in the system. That is why I want to ask about the cumulative impact of all these changes.
What is so important about GCSEs is that they are examinations for all pupils of all abilities. They were initially introduced by a Conservative Government in 1988 in response to huge unhappiness, largely among parents, many of whom were middle class and whose children had been pushed down the CSE route. The Secretary of State at the time built a huge consensus around GCSEs. There was cross-party support for their introduction in this House, supported by teachers, head teachers, universities and learned bodies, parents and employers. I fail to see any such consensus on the introduction of a replacement for GCSEs. My understanding is that many of the people in the groups I mentioned have not been spoken to at all and that the independent body, Ofqual, has expressed real concerns about this change. The Secretary of State told us in the Education Committee that he intended to talk to the winner of the Turner prize—so that should help.
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether he intends to introduce this new examination in 2017 as a replacement for GCSEs or to create a two-tier system with GCSEs as the lower qualification? There is a lack of clarity about that.
The evidence presented to the Education Committee has demonstrated that while reform of GCSEs is required—indeed, periodic reform of any qualification is required—the brand is not broken and that it is the Secretary of State himself through his language and actions who is intentionally trying to damage the brand beyond repair for his own ends. Everyone who has spoken to him—and I mean everyone—has said that GCSEs deliver what we ask them to do, and that issues such as modularity versus linear or grade creep can be repaired, changed and improved within the GCSE brand.
Let me move on to the way in which we deliver examinations. We on the Select Committee have looked at that, too, and we agree that there is a conflict of interest where examination boards are both designing the syllabus and setting the examinations. We saw the remedy in separating that out, without necessarily opening the whole thing up to competition. The Secretary of State has told us about his plan to move towards “relationships” rather than contracts as a way of getting round EU contract law. Good luck with that! I do not think that will fool anybody, least of all the courts. My worry is that the current expertise in Guildford, Oxford and Cambridge will exist in future years in multinational companies in New York, Berlin and Frankfurt, without any involvement of our universities and learned bodies. We look as if we are doing for examinations what has been done in rail and energy, which has not exactly been a huge success. I ask the Secretary of State to think carefully about that.
Each of these proposed reforms has dangers, but I am mostly concerned about the cumulative impact of doing all this at the same time. One insider in the system recently told me confidentially, “When the blood bath happens, I expect this Secretary of State will be long gone.”
Important though they are, we are not talking about trains, electricity lines or reservoirs; we are talking about our children and their futures. There is real danger in what the Government are proposing—in the timing but, most importantly of all, in the cumulative impact of these proposals. I ask the Secretary of State to think again about them, especially about the aim to deliver everything at the same time. The risks are huge and the potential for chaos is massive.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has been interesting and stimulating up to this point. What are the aims of Government policy in education? There are two: to raise standards for all, and to close the gap between rich and poor. I think those two aims bring the whole House together in support.
Expert advice from the university of Durham and elsewhere is that there has been grade inflation, which means an undermining of confidence in the currency of GCSEs. It has to be said that we saw some occasionally rushed changes driven by the Department under the last Government, which contributed greatly—although we have not yet reached our conclusions on it—to the GCSE English furore last year. The truth is that changing so many elements at the same time contributed to the difficulties we saw with the English GCSE last year.
I agree with many of the criticisms made by Ministers. I believe there are issues surrounding modularity, and I am delighted to hear from the Minister that he is not moving towards an absolute position on every single subject. It is right to be informed by an understanding that modularity has been counter-productive in too many ways, without necessarily getting rid of it where it is the best way of delivering the most effective assessment.
The Government’s move to reduce the number of re-sits is also correct, as is their move to address equivalences. The shadow Secretary rightly raised some issues about one of the few successes that came out of the diploma debacle—specifically, the engineering diploma. As disasters go, the fact that it has been reconstituted at whoever’s behest suggests that it has not been that catastrophic and that sufficient flexibility exists in the system to allow the good elements to be retained.
As I have said before in education debates, we attempt to define what is wrong with the current system, perhaps spending rather too long on that, and we then talk about the nirvana we would like to move towards, doing very little on what is in front of us now—the mechanics of the changes. We do not give them enough protection because we get into a fight with one side defending its period in office and another side pointing out that there are some serious problems and asking whether the other side is going to deny it.
To his great credit, as has been acknowledged, the shadow Secretary of State has said that he could see a few problems but that that was as far as he could go. That does not mean, however, that the Government’s particular recommendations are the right ones. It means that there is a case for change. We then have to make sure that we examine it. As for the controversy over the diploma, I recall the now shadow Chancellor, whom I would describe as gleaming-eyed in his certainty, sitting before us as expert after expert came before the then Children, Schools and Families Committee and said, “Slow down; listen to the evidence; take your time; get this right; there is a real chance for a legacy”—leaving something that, if got right, would last for whoever was in government in the future. The right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) did not listen, and we ended up with much of what was positive about the diploma being lost, with only some of the good salvaged from it. We do not want to make that mistake again. It is important that we carry people with us, not least politically. Otherwise, whatever happens to the Labour party at the next election or the one after that, we will not see the benefits of having a more rigorous system in place.
I ask the Government to consider some slowing down. The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that
“coherence comes at the end of the process.”
Well, I think coherence comes at the beginning of the process. To look at it simply, if we are dealing with assessment, we first need to work out what needs to be taught—the curriculum. That can be looked at in isolation and work can be done on what we think should be taught. Everything else then needs to be looked at coherently. We need to look at the assessment that matches it, and then at the system of accountability that drives behaviour in schools, drives the allocation of teachers to certain types of pupils in all sorts of ways. The Government have acknowledged that, and we need to get it right.
We have had an announcement on new qualifications before we have had the findings of the secondary curriculum review. I think that looks like putting the cart before the horse. It would be helpful to have those findings. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for undertaking to do an accountability review, but qualifications and accountability need to be seen as a coherent whole, working with the curriculum and the syllabus. I worry that we have not quite got that right.
Appropriateness of assessment is an issue. The Government want to set the bar higher. The Secretary of State is a dynamic man, who wants people to aspire and thinks that a lack of aspiration and acceptance of poor performance has gone on too long, and has entrenched poverty. He is right about that. But if we move the metric up, what is it about the measure that will change teacher quality? It can have some effect, but let us face it, is it the key driver of improvement in education quality? I do not think so. If we exclude equivalencies, in 2011 48% of children did not get five good GCSEs including English and maths. If the GCSE currency is so bankrupt, weak and devalued, and yet half of children are failing to achieve that measure, it is not obvious that pushing it up will magically lift performance, unless the accountability is wrong. However, our accountability is driven and focused to an obsessive and damaging extent. It pushes schools to focus desperately on trying to get people over the line, and yet 48% of kids still do not get over it. That is not because they are not focused enough on it; they could not be more focused—they are excessively focused on it.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Is it not possible that moving the metric up could have the perverse outcome of demotivating people?
Mr Stuart
My hon. Friend, who serves on the Education Committee, leads me neatly on to structure.
How sufficient was the understanding—I did not have a sufficient understanding—of the nature of how our qualification system works? I come back to tiering. Ministers did not know—they will correct me if I am wrong—the share of young people who were doing tiered exams. Last year, in AQA English—the largest board—45% of children did the tiered exam. One of the Secretary of State’s objections is that by putting them into this thing where, a bit like the old CSE, the top grade they could get was a C, the two-tier system was alive and well within our GCSE system, we just did not know it, and that we must get rid—maybe it came out of coalition politics; maybe it was the leak of the new O-level—of any form of separation or tiering. We must make sure our assessment is appropriate, because otherwise children will sit exams that, unless some genius designed them, put them off learning, rather than encouraging them. [Interruption.]
Bill Esterson
While the debate rages in front of me, I want to check—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I say to Mr Brennan and the Secretary of State that that is enough. Let us hear the intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Bill Esterson
I thought the Secretary of State was giving another of his famous soliloquies in his team meetings, which we heard about this morning.
What is the view of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on the role of assessments within qualifications and the balance between that and end-of-year exams, because that is one key change in the EBCs proposed by the Secretary of State?
Mr Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who serves with distinction on the Education Committee. I am sympathetic to the Government’s view on a move to more linear exams, notwithstanding that the Secretary of State must be careful not to tread in areas that are rightly those of Ofqual, the independent regulator. The fact that controlled assessment is being reviewed—I forget exactly what stage it is at—by Ofqual suggests that it, too, has concerns, which I think it has expressed to the Education Committee previously. It is right to ensure that the system has public confidence. If we improve assessment within schools, and our confidence in it, we might be able to move the balance back in the right direction. I think the Government are right to say that the assessment should come more towards the end of the process.
There are two parts to the administration of exams. First, there is the wholly new EBC qualification, which has been introduced on the basis that the GCSE brand is broken, at least for the main subjects that are not being upgraded—the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) was right to mock slightly the idea that one can upgrade one without effectively downgrading the other. I am not sure the case has been made. It takes a long time to establish a brand in the education market, and I do not see why we should not repair what we have got, which I do not see as fundamentally broken. I have met Engineering UK and employers of all sorts, and notwithstanding their agreement with the Secretary of State on many of his insights about the need to tighten what we have, none of them thinks that establishing a wholly new qualification is the right answer.
The second part is the issue of moving to a franchise system. On that, the Department for Transport and its troubles are lesson enough to go slowly. Ofqual itself has said that if we insist on creating new qualifications, we should at least consider decoupling from the market reform. Handing over to lots of people a five-year monopoly on provision of the most sensitive exams before really thinking through the incentives and possible implications is perhaps not the wisest thing to do.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chair of the Education Committee, who has made a thoughtful contribution to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) has mentioned that at the Education Committee’s session this morning, the former children’s Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), referred to weekly, often cancelled, ministerial meetings, which I think he said were often like soliloquies. I asked him who was doing the soliloquising. He said, “Can you guess?” I asked him whether it was more Hamlet than Lear, or more Lear than Hamlet. He said, “Well, think about that yourself as well.”
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about English baccalaureate certificates and the education of our current and future generations. As a member of the Education Committee, I have on many occasions expressed my serious concern about the introduction of the English baccalaureate in secondary schools, which occurred initially in 2010 without any consultation with education professionals, and was implemented retrospectively, to the detriment of many improving schools, who were then pushed further down league tables—tables that, I believe, are of questionable use when it comes to adding value to our education system. Can the Secretary of State produce the huge weight of evidence on which he has developed the policy, because I am struggling to find much of it?
As we have heard, the Government propose to replace GCSEs in the EBacc subjects—maths, English, the sciences, a language and history or geography—with English baccalaureate certificates. From what we can gather, that would involve three-hour end-of-course exams and no coursework element. I am troubled by many parts of the proposals, which I will attempt to go through systematically.
First, on the consultation regarding EBCs that ended in December, members of the Education Committee, parents, students, governors, businesses, teachers, head teachers and other education professionals have expressed considerable concern that the proposals have been rushed through and that the consultation parameters were too narrow and did not allow for comprehensive discussion. Many, including me, believe that the proposals surrounding examinations should not have been decided upon, and certainly not introduced, until the forthcoming review of secondary school accountability and the secondary national curriculum had taken place. Another result of the policy will be the introduction of a two-tier education system, in which pupils who do not achieve the EBacc will be given a statement of achievement that will not reflect their true ability or potential to employers and colleges, who will more than likely deem a certificate of achievement to be inferior. I am afraid that that is a sad fact of life. That is largely owing to creative and vocational subjects being disregarded and assessed as in some way second class. I reiterate the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham: how can we upgrade some subjects without having the impact of downgrading others?
Such an attitude to creative and vocational subjects is disgraceful and worrying, given our country’s history of ingenuity and technological entrepreneurship. I question a policy that places the importance of Hebrew and classical Greek above that of business studies, information and communications technology, or design and technology. Those subjects were taken by one of my parliamentary staff, who is now studying for an MA and who considered them to be invaluable to her personal development. Several other valuable subjects have been removed from the menu.
In restricting subject options, we are also restricting pupil potential. Any system that prevents our young people from flourishing should not be endorsed, and should certainly not be introduced. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will revise his policy if proof materialises from universities and employers that the education system is failing to prepare young people for further learning and work in technical and artistic fields.
Another aspect of the policy that concerns me is the likelihood that, in the case of most subjects, there will be no assessment other than a three-hour end-of-course examination. That, too, highlights the two-tier nature of the policy. Many pupils thrive on an examination system that involves a combination of modular work and examinations. By introducing a qualification based purely on exams, the Government are almost casting aside all the pupils who do not excel at examinations but have a flair for coursework. I believe that that is counter-productive, and that it will be detrimental to a large proportion of young people. It strikes me as an idea that springs from a vision of a golden age of education in the 1950s, and possibly even the 1850s: an idea based on nostalgia for an era that never existed.
In my opinion, too much emphasis is being placed on employability. I believe that we should be asking ourselves what education is for, and concluding that it should be about trying to provide a system which, while preparing young people for work and working life, also produces well-rounded human beings. Employers, moreover, are likely to require a measure of an individual’s capacity to work systematically for a given period, rather than his or her ability to perform in a one-off three-hour afternoon examination. Let us help to prepare our young people to thrive and contribute to our community, rather than trying to retrofit them through a citizenship service. Let us try to do that while we are educating them.
I believe that, if we are to answer the question of what our education system is for, we should begin by revisiting the Tomlinson review of 2004, and using it as a starting point for the fashioning of education policy for the future. I think that that would be greeted warmly by a great many people in the education profession. I also think that the review has been broadly regarded as a missed opportunity from the period between 1997 and 2010 when Labour was in government, although I should add that Labour was faced with a massive education mess to clear up in 1997.
During an Education Select Committee session, the Secretary of State suggested that it would be possible for more children to succeed in a more difficult exam because they would be “taught better”. I found that response almost delusional. I believe that such comments devalue the hard work of our teachers, who work in difficult, emotionally draining environments, and many of whom already give far more than what is expected of them. It is all very well constructing an education system and a menu of examinations that may or may not fulfil the needs and aspirations of thousands of clones modelled in the image of the Secretary of State for Education, but the vast majority of children, I am glad to say, are not like that.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the soliloquy of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), although I should point out that the EBacc combination of GCSEs will not drive out subjects such as ICT and business studies, or, indeed, art and music. When English, maths, science, history or geography and a modern language are taken into account, 30% of the curriculum time will still be available, so there is no need for those subjects to be excluded.
I understand what was meant by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Chairman of the Select Committee, when he described the reforms as “the driver” of higher standards, but they are not “the driver”, and were not intended to be. They are “a driver” when combined with the other reforms that the Government have introduced and are introducing in, for instance, improving initial teacher training, raising the bar for entry to the profession, making changes in the curriculum, and changing standards of behaviour in schools. I believe that, taken together, those changes will bring about significant improvements in standards in our schools.
Fiona Mactaggart
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that pupils are not required to drop creative subjects, but that has been the result. He has referred to improvements in behaviour and achievement. Interestingly, all the studies of creative education, creative partnerships and so on concluded that they improved the attendance, attainment, behaviour and achievement of children.
Mr Gibb
I do not disagree with that at all. Creative education and partnerships can be motivational for young people. The creative subjects are very important for all students in all schools, and vocational subjects can be very important motivators for some students. However, I think that we should take a reality check when talking about the EBacc. It includes English, maths and science—all of which are already compulsory for students aged up to 16, as they were under the last Labour Government—and languages, which were compulsory for students aged up to 16 until the disastrous decision in 2004 to make them compulsory only for those aged up to 14. So we are only talking about a humanity, namely history or geography, and one subject cannot drive out all the other optional subjects that young people can study up to the age of 16. I think that those on the other side of the debate are exaggerating the consequences. I also think that it is important to reverse the decline in the number of students taking history and geography, and very important to reverse the decline in the number of those taking modern languages.
Andrew Percy
I think the point that my hon. Friend is missing is that the study of foreign languages or humanities—subjects that I used to teach—is not always desirable. We should go back to the question of what is best for the child, which is a child-centred education. That means not compelling children to study subjects that will be of absolutely no use to them in the future.
Mr Gibb
I must disagree with my hon. Friend. In 2000, nearly eight out of 10 young people were taking a modern language GCSE, and all children were studying a modern language up to that point. Their intellectual development will have benefited from the study of that subject, even if it did not result in a qualification.
Bill Esterson
There is a grave danger that teachers will become increasingly likely to opt for the EBacc subjects and stay away from the vocational subjects, because the vocational subjects will provide less opportunity.
Mr Gibb
I disagree with that as well. Good schools provide a broad and balanced curriculum, and that will continue to be the case regardless of the reforms, while poor schools will continue not to provide such a broad and balanced education. That is why the Government’s academy reforms and school improvement reforms are so important.
Let me now address the allegation that there is a lack of evidence for the necessity of the reforms. There is, in fact, ample evidence. Both the Royal Society of Chemistry and Durham university have found that students of similar ability are being awarded higher grades than their equivalents in the past. A 2012 survey by the CBI—an organisation that has been cited in this debate—found that 42% of businesses were not satisfied with the literacy of school leavers who joined them, and 35% were not satisfied with the maths ability of school leavers. During the short period between 2005 and 2011, the proportion of A to C grades in maths and English rose from 46% to 60%. During the same period, we were falling in the league tables of the programme for international student assessment.
According to Ofqual, demand for GCSE maths and science has lessened, and GCSEs have become increasingly predictable as exam boards have guided schools towards parts of the curriculum that will be examined. As for the International GCSE figures, 295 independent schools have switched to IGCSEs, and they have tended to be the top independent schools. So far, 66 state schools have begun to offer IGCSEs.
I worry about competition between exam boards for an increasing share of the schools’ exam market. That is big business: £300 million a year of business. Inevitably, such competition leads to the chipping away of standards in small increments, which, over a period of years, will result—indeed, has resulted—in lower standards and expectations. In the correspondence that has been cited, Ofqual said:
“We quite appreciate the rationale underlying the market reform proposals and agree that competition has influenced standards in the past.”
One of the most damaging aspects of the last Government’s GCSE reforms was the introduction of modularisation. They introduced that despite the evidence that it leads to more teaching to the test, that it reduces curriculum flexibility for teachers, and that it fragments knowledge. It also increases the number of resits. Research by Rodeiro and Nádas in 2012 found that pupils admitted that they would have worked harder had there been only one chance for them to pass the exam. That is why the Government were right to end GCSE modularisation for those starting their courses in September 2012. They were also right to introduce marks for spelling, grammar and punctuation in those GCSEs where that is relevant: English literature, geography, history and religious studies.
In 2007, under the last Government, the quango, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, introduced wholesale reform of the secondary curriculum at key stages 3 and 4, which fed into revised GCSEs. We moved from a knowledge-based curriculum to a skills or competence-based curriculum, which, in essence, resulted in a greater focus on the skills of learning and how to learn, rather than the knowledge inherent in a subject.
This 2007 skills-based curriculum has done enormous damage to our secondary schools. The argument of the pro-skills lobby is best summed up by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, whose website says:
“A 21st century curriculum cannot have the transfer of knowledge at its core…it cannot be an ‘academic’ curriculum where pupils spend most of their time reading and writing and learning facts that have been organised into academic ‘subjects’.”
I fear the Labour party would want to take us back to that position if it were to win the next election.
This is the essence of the argument: with so much knowledge in the world, how can it be possible to select what should be taught in just 11 or 13 years of school? Would it not be better, it is argued, to teach children how to learn so they are equipped to discover for themselves the knowledge they need? This argument is not new and it did not start with Google. Its origins lie in a progressive view of education emanating from Teachers college, Columbia university in New York in the 1920s. However, as E. D. Hirsch argued in his book, “The Schools We Need And Why We Don’t Have Them”, the idea
“that a thinking skill in one domain can be readily and reliably transferred to other domains”
is “a mirage”. Learning French is very different from learning physics or maths.
At the core of the 2007 national curriculum is a series of general aptitudes, including a desire to produce
“successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve”
and
“confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilled lives”
and
“responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society”.
All these are worthy objectives, but they should be delivered not through the academic curriculum, but through the ethos of a school.
The 2007 national curriculum translates these objectives into skills-based aims for each subject. In history, for example, the curriculum is divided into the skills of “historical enquiry”, “using evidence” and “communicating about the past”. Therefore, a school can teach as little, or as much, as it wishes of British and world history, provided that it teaches the broad concepts of “change and continuity”, “cause and consequence”, “significance” or “interpretation”. The detailed narrative and complexity of a period of history comes second to the teaching of one or more of these generic skills. As a consequence, much important historical detail is lost, and many very important periods are not taught at all. Meanwhile, the scholarship skills of reading a history book, taking notes, précising, and essay-writing are neglected. That demonstrates why the Government’s reforms are so important.
I am also worried that schools are not setting enough internal tests and end-of-year exams in years 7, 8 and 9. Testing is important, and I was alarmed when I heard references to the Tomlinson proposals, as in the long term they would eliminate any external examination at 16, which would be a retrograde step. There is a study that shows the importance of testing for the acquisition and retention of knowledge.
I urge the House to vote against the Opposition motion.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I am going to take advantage of the fact that the Secretary of State has decided to conclude the debate by taking the risk of trying to persuade him to change his mind. I do not know why I think I might succeed in that when so many more eminent people than me, including Sir Nicholas Serota and Dame Liz Forgan, have failed, but I think it is worth a crack. The Secretary of State will be bored by what I am about to say, as I have asked him many questions on this subject, but I believe it is worth another crack because he is a relatively cultured member of the Cabinet. He is one of those rare creatures who still read books, and he recognises the value of creativity.
I have been going on about this subject for some time. My argument is that the Secretary of State should add a further subject to the suite of subjects in the EBacc, so that it is not all about pupils writing out what other people have thought, but is also about them creating objects and learning for themselves. In March 2011, I asked the Secretary of State why 60% of schools that responded to a survey said the introduction of the EBacc had resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum. His general response to me at that point—before I had started being very boring—was rather positive. He said my argument was well-made and he sympathised with it.
I have also been badgering the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on this subject. In November she said:
“The hon. Lady needs to understand that the English baccalaureate has creativity at its heart.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 708.]
Frankly, however, it does not, and that is the problem. It is an examination, or suite of examinations, about knowledge. I agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) that it is very important that people learn stuff, but I also believe that educational achievement is about finding out how to do things. We need to learn things, but education must not be just about learning other people’s facts.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Do not the kind of tests the hon. Lady is criticising also involve synthesis and analysis?
Fiona Mactaggart
Indeed, but the point is that pupils are analysing other people’s achievements and creations. One of the reasons why our country outperforms all our competitors in the number of Nobel prizes won is because we have a tradition in our learning and education that combines creative education and learning how to create with excellent science education. That is why we are able to produce so many innovative achievers.
Damian Hinds
When all these Nobel prizewinners were at school, were subjects such as art and music option subjects or compulsory curriculum subjects?
Fiona Mactaggart
Members on the Government Benches have said a number of times that there is space in the curriculum for these subjects. The problem, which none of them has yet addressed, is that since the introduction of the EBacc, school after school has reduced provision in those subjects. A tool is available, which the Government have chosen not to use. I do not think there is a respectable argument not to include in the EBacc at least one subject in which a young person’s creativity is what is assessed. I am arguing not for the exclusion of anything, but for the inclusion of assessment in subjects such as design and technology, music, art and drama.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
George Nicholson, a published composer and director of graduate studies at the university of Sheffield, makes precisely the point my hon. Friend has made about the degrading of creative subjects. Would she argue that, at the very least, a sixth pillar must be added to the EBacc, covering such subject areas, as the Henley review recommended?
Fiona Mactaggart
That is precisely the point I am seeking to make: there needs to be an additional pillar that includes these kinds of subjects.
I am worried about the Secretary of State, because in his response to my question about the achievements in Nobel prizes and so on, he said:
“The arts are mankind’s greatest achievement.”
We both share that view, but he went on to say:
“Every child should be able to enjoy and appreciate great literature, music, drama and visual art.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 579.]
That is not enough; it is not sufficient for children just to be able to enjoy and appreciate, and one thing we have to do as part of education is to develop in children the ability to create. I welcome Henley’s report, but Robinson’s report on creativity in education, produced more than a decade earlier, rightly suggested that we should define creativity as
“Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value.”
This is one thing that children should learn in school. It is not sufficient to expect them to learn it outside school. Many of us ensure that our children are able to learn it outside school, but many children do not get that opportunity and it is those about whom I am most concerned.
I am also concerned about the effect on our country’s achievements. There is a reason why we are a world leader in creative industries: our tradition of creativity in education and of requiring these subjects to be part of every child’s entitlement. I am concerned—I have yet to hear an answer on this from Government Members—as to whether there is any tool that ensures what I believe the Secretary of State wants, which is that children should be able to learn the ability to create. The schools that he most admires—Eton, just next to my constituency, and others—provide outstanding creative education. They are not following a set of league tables that make them jump through hoops and be judged just against their EBacc levels.
On this issue, I am reminded of the bit in Dickens’ “Hard Times” where Thomas Gradgrind says to Sissy Jupe, who knows everything there is to know about horses, “Define a horse.” She sits there silent, not knowing how to do it, and then Bitzer says, “Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth”. That is of course the right answer, because ours is a world determined by facts. The bit of the story that many of us have forgotten is where the inspector speaks later. Dickens has him saying:
“You are to be in all things regulated and governed…by fact. We hope to have, before long, a board of fact, composed of commissioners of fact, who will force the people to be a people of fact, and of nothing but fact. You must”—[Interruption.]
Oh! Trust iPad!
Fiona Mactaggart
No, indeed. The inspector goes on to say, “You must not allow flowers and birds on your china, because they aren’t there. You must not allow horses on your wallpaper, because they aren’t there in fact. You must not allow flowers on your carpets, because they are not there in fact.” I do not believe the Secretary of State wants that world, but, unthinkingly, this EBacc is leading us towards it, not because that is what he wants to achieve, but because that is the measure by which our schools will be judged. We know, because every piece of research since he has introduced this measure by which we judge our schools shows it, that schools are cutting their education in creativity and reducing the number of their teachers qualified to teach these subjects. That is betraying future generations and it will damage our country’s international achievement, economic success and, in particular, the success of our creative industries. I beg him to think again, because I think he is capable of doing so and I think he is big enough to do so.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I do not have an iPad to quote Dickens from, but I do have a couple of bits of paper with some notes on. I have drawn them up from my time and experience, limited though it may be as I am so young, of being in the classroom, both as a pupil and a teacher. I enter the debate on the EBacc with some trepidation, because the last time I did this I was described in a national newspaper as a “left-wing Conservative”, which contrasted somewhat with a description of me on Twitter this weekend as a “right-wing Tory who should be taken outside and shot”. That had not been posted by a constituent, I hasten to add.
As many people have said, the previous Government certainly achieved some great progress in education and in standards in this country. However, at the end of their 13 years in power an awful lot had not been achieved and some great challenges had not yet been responded to. I wish to describe one thing that I saw in the classroom at that time. All Governments find, sadly, that the teaching profession feels that every Secretary of State is, “The worst Secretary of State we have ever had”—until the next one. We used to hear that all the time, but that was largely because the goalposts were continuously changed. The measures were continuously changed and, as happens with all Governments, we ended up focused entirely on the league tables. The one thing they did do was create an inspection regime that punished schools for happening to be in deprived areas. I did not find that the inspection regime helped teachers; it seemed to be more designed to catch teachers out.
We cannot deny that in terms of literacy and numeracy there is something seriously wrong in this country. A lot of employers say to me, “We get young people coming to us who have bits of paper that say that they have reached certain standards in English and maths, but when we put them into the workplace we find that they are nowhere near those standards.” So clearly something is going wrong. When I was teaching we had what I used to call the great GNVQ fiddle. I got a lot of stick for it because I was also a member of the city council at the time. League tables were being fiddled through vocational qualifications and through equivalencies. I saw that in one of my schools, where young people were not actually given a choice and were instead told that they were going to undertake certain GNVQs because we knew the impact that that would have on our league table position. I recall champagne corks being popped on the front steps of the Guildhall in Hull when we had a 600% increase—a 1,000% increase in some schools—in standards. Schools with some of the most challenging catchment areas that had had terrible results in the past were, suddenly, overtaking schools in the neighbouring authority; much more middle-class schools, which had far less pressure on them and had previously achieved much greater results, were suddenly being overtaken, all on the back of the great GNVQ fiddle. Of course, as soon as the league table measures changed and the gold standard was introduced, the schools in challenging areas, sadly, plummeted back down to the bottom of the league tables.
Something had to be done about modular exams, because they have contributed to a slip in standards. So I support a lot of the thrust of where the Government are heading. However, one issue I have a big problem with is the implementation of the EBacc. We are told that a lot of the elements of it are not going to be compulsory, but the reality is that in the teaching profession schools teach to whatever the measure is. The measure will become the EBacc, as it is becoming already. So there will not be this space available—
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend considered what would happen if we were to abolish league tables—[Interruption.] We can do that. What would happen if we then gave the power to head teachers?
Andrew Percy
I have considered that, but, sadly, I do not have an answer, as league tables are probably a necessary evil. We need to be able to judge schools against one another. We can play about in terms of how we measure them, but we will end up with a league table. The league table will exist in any case, in the form of a school’s reputation locally, if nothing else. So there always has to be some form of measure. The sadness of the situation is that we put so much emphasis on the league table position when it comes to inspection regimes and all the rest of it, and we sometimes forget about what we are actually achieving for our children.
As I was saying, the EBacc will become, in most schools, the standard by which schools are judged against one another. The theory is all fine, and I have heard talk in the past about how everybody should have access to an Eton education. That is a fantastic theory, but it misses the point that although we want everybody from everywhere to have access to an Eton education, it is not always going to be the desirable or necessary route for every young person. I have nothing against providing that as an option, but it is not suitable for everybody. Sadly, schools are ditching subjects that young people may have chosen to do in the past and students are being forced on to foreign languages and even on to doing subjects such as history, which I used to teach. Perhaps in two and a half years’ time I will be delighted that there is increased demand for humanities teachers. Perhaps the Secretary of State has produced a post-political career employment plan for me, but it would not be appropriate for every young person with whom I have come into contact over the years to take my subject. They will not get anything from it. It is not of any value to them in the future.
Among the guff and nonsense in Every Child Matters, the previous Government talked a lot about a child-centred education, and I would like us in this debate to get back to that. We have talked a great deal about what Government want to see. We have talked about what parents want to see. We have talked somewhat about what employers want to see. But at the centre of all this should be what is best for a particular child. For some children, delivering the EBacc and giving them access to it will be appropriate, but for others that is simply not the case.
When we talk about providing an Eton-style education for everybody, we forget the immense challenges that many of our schools face in delivering. I have nothing against foreign languages, for example. I am learning one myself, with less success than I would like. [Interruption.] I am learning Hebrew, with not a great deal of success. Delivering a foreign language in the school that I used to teach in was incredibly hard. Our young people would go home to parents who would say to them, “Why are you learning a foreign language? What’s the point of learning that sort of muck?” They were not going back to a nice middle-class home. A lot of the kids who I used to teach were not Tarquin and Fluella, who would be driven off to a gîte in France every year where they could practise their French, or where they would be told by their parents the importance of doing that. We have to factor into the discussion the child’s background and the possibility that they will not have support at home.
We are, in effect, setting some children up to fail by forcing them on to a subject that they will not get support with at home, that they do not need in the future or for the basis—
Mr Gibb
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s speech. I respect his experience and I respect him as a Member of the House, but I am alarmed by what he is saying. Our schools have to be able to redress the background that those children have and make up for the lack of support at home in the school. That is what we must do and what this Government must achieve if they are to close the attainment gap between those from poorer and wealthier backgrounds.
Andrew Percy
I could not agree more, but we will set young people to fail if we force them down a route on which they will not be supported. In education it is not as simple as saying, “This is the curriculum offered at Eton—the gold standard. This is what we must offer in this school. If the teachers just worked a little harder and if everyone tried a bit harder, we would get the same outcomes.” We would not and we have to understand and accept that. We have to move beyond the theory of what would be lovely to deliver, and deal with the reality of what is deliverable in our schools. I question, as I have already, whether some of these subjects were desirable or necessary for the young people I used to teach and for the employment that they wished to go into.
I have another example. We have just got agreement for a studio school in Goole, with support from the Secretary of State, who came and saw Goole high school at the time. The vision there is to deliver a completely different style of curriculum and to say to young people, “Make the choice at 14 whether to attend the studio school.” The model we have is that there will be a grammar school stream, which will be the academic school, there will be the studio school and there will be a smaller vocational school for the most challenging children. We want them to divide at 14 into those different routes, according to what will be best for them in the future. The problem that we will have if the EBacc becomes the gold standard is that attracting children to the studio school will become incredibly hard because it will look as though it is the lesser choice, compared with the school that will be offering the EBacc. It conflicts a little with the statements and policies that we have had on studio schools, as though we were saying that the studio schools can offer certain subjects, but the gold standard will be the EBacc, which they will not be able to offer.
I like the idea of the technical baccalaureate. I do not care whether it is Labour’s idea or the junior Minister has taken it up as the Government’s idea. It has some merit and I hope we will pursue it.
On measuring, one thing we should measure better is where a child ends up. Never mind measuring the bits of paper; where is a young person in five, six or even 10 years’ time? Then we can make a better assessment whether the education system has provided for them, rather than measuring where they are at 16 or 18.
I am trying not to be too critical because I support much of the thrust of the policy. Certainly, academic rigour is necessary in certain subjects, where they are appropriate for the young person. The one plea that I would make, which is often made by the profession, is that when we get through this, we must have in our schools a period of stability so that everybody—parents, young people and the teaching profession—knows where they are.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
The Department for Education seems to have a habit of not listening to people. The High Court ruled that the Secretary of State had unlawfully failed to consult councils before cutting the planned school building programme. Currently 150 schools, 42 councils and six professional bodies are contesting last year’s GCSE grades fiasco, after the Secretary of State refused calls to intervene. Now, with the English baccalaureate certificate, people once again fear that the Secretary of State is not taking account of their views.
There is of course nothing wrong with reviewing the exam system with the intention of making it more effective, but there are real concerns that the EBacc will be drawn too narrowly, excluding vocational and arts subjects. There are concerns, too, that it will mark a return to the divisive two-tier system of O-levels and CSEs by giving students who are not suited to academic subjects only a second-rate qualification. There are real concerns that by relying almost exclusively on a lengthy final examination, the EBacc will disadvantage students who are bright but not necessarily suited to that particular format, and that it will fail to test their full range of skills. There are further concerns that, allied to league tables, it will undermine the achievement of schools that are most successful in added-value measures.
In Croydon North parents, governors, students, teachers and head teachers fear that the Government are not listening to their concerns about these proposals. In a world where both China and India, every year, produce more new graduates than there are in total in this country, we need to identify, nurture and utilise the talents and abilities of every child in our country. Without that, we will be unable to compete in the coming century because we will fail to harness the talent and unlock the potential of every growing citizen.
Instead of looking forward to the demands of coming decades, these proposals look backwards to the failed two-tier examination system of decades past, a system that classed children as successes or failures without recognising that every child is different and that every child has something to contribute. It also fails to value subjects that are critical to our future economic success. One way that Croydon hopes to improve its fortunes is by attracting more high-tech IT and creative industries, such as the dotMailer business that I had the pleasure of visiting last week. The EBacc places no value on the subjects that will equip local students to take advantage of such opportunities.
Of course academic rigour is necessary. Of course we need to allow the most able students to demonstrate and enhance their abilities; but the proposed single-tier test could result in the most talented not being able to demonstrate their full abilities, and in others not being able to demonstrate their strengths. It is critical that England’s exam system commands the support and confidence of the whole country, not least parents and students, schools, the teaching profession, and business. These proposals do not achieve that, and this rushed consultation is no way to secure the world-standard examination system that our young people need and deserve. I hope very much that the Secretary of State will listen to these voices.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
We have had, as others have said, a good debate. There are areas of consensus, which is what the shadow Secretary of State wants us to achieve, and those are to be welcomed. The first of those is that there is a need for some reform. I will not rehash what we have already heard, but there have been problems with the system and with people’s confidence in it, which I share.
We need to look at rigour, which is now a fashionable word on everybody’s lips. We also need to examine the pressures of assessment crowding out learning. We want to make sure that there is room for deep, wide-ranging learning so that teachers are free to teach. The coalition Government have been clear about that from the outset. We should be clear that we have excellent teachers, probably the best qualified and best motivated that we have ever had, who are doing a great job. If results have improved, it may be in part because there has been competition between exam boards and changes in assessment patterns. It has also been because of improvements in teaching—the Secretary of State has acknowledged that, and I do too—and because young people themselves have worked incredibly hard to achieve those results. It is not an either/or situation. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, we must remember that those young people should be at the heart of all the decisions we take and the discussions we have.
Our duty as legislators is to raise aspiration even further, but to raise it across the ability range too. The Secretary of State has rightly highlighted the small number of people from the most deprived backgrounds—those on free school meals—who have gone on to attend Oxford or Cambridge, so that gives us one measure to consider. I hope—I am sure it is true—that we as a Government will look across the ability range to make sure that whatever people are capable of achieving, they are supported in doing so. It is not just about the very high flyers; social mobility is about making sure that everybody gets to where they could go. That is good for them, but it is also good for us as a country to ensure that we are making use of their skills and talents in future. We want a system that allows them to achieve, supports them in doing so, and does not dispirit or disillusion them in any way.
The Government have acted on vocational qualifications to distil what has worked and what has not—what is of value and what is not—to try to ensure that we have a suite of qualifications that people in business understand and can have confidence in. I welcome that work. The Government have also been prepared to revisit issues with engineering to make sure that we have got things right. That is a mature and grown-up way of doing things.
On qualifications at 16 and the GCSE, the Government have discussed internally how they should respond to the need for reform. It is unfortunate that back in the early summer a leak was reported in a national newspaper suggesting, some thought, that there was an intention within the Conservative party to move towards a two-tier qualification. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is happy with a pattern of having one wider qualification that develops in future. The shadow Secretary of State seemed to want to return to where we were with the business of the leak instead of looking at it in the context of a formal Government announcement, but we have moved on from that. I am sure that he would acknowledge that people such as Mike Tomlinson and John Dunford have acknowledged that the proposed qualification is not a two-tier system. For example, the proposed statement of achievement would ensure that the same small number of young people who are not entered for GCSEs get something. Under the current system they have not had anything, so that is a step forward. It is important to get my understanding of that on the record. To his credit, the Secretary of State, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and other Ministers, is considering the views expressed in consultation to make sure that we get it right. That is absolutely the right approach.
I welcome the fact that Opposition Front Benchers have used some of their supply time for this debate. I might question the terms of the motion, but I welcome the debate. In recent weeks I have submitted several bids for a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, and this debate has given me the chance to make the points that I want to make.
I should like to draw attention to a couple of issues that others have raised. On assessment, my right hon. Friend the Minister said that nothing was set in stone. However, the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), from whom we have already heard, have been very keen that examination is a recognised and rigorous way of carrying out assessment. The system must work as a good assessment of the young people who are able to take that approach and to achieve under those circumstances.
Others learn and should be assessed in a slightly different way. That is not to say that I agree with programmes of study that are assessed by 100% continuous assessment. We need a balance. In the past, GCSEs were much more balanced, and that has got out of kilter. Assessment through examination during the course is another problem, because it can lead to constant learning and cramming towards a test. I can understand that from young people’s point of view it is good to bank something early on but, on balance, that has negatives.
We want to make sure that coursework is assessed properly. We in this Government trust teachers, so we know that they will be able to tell the difference between something written by the student they have in front of them week in, week out and something that has been written by their parents or friends or has been taken from the internet. It is possible to make those judgments, and we need to support teachers in making sure that they have the skills and knowledge to do so if they are lacking. We can also tighten up through moderation and so on. I hope that the door is not bolted on 100% examination for all subjects, because that bears greater exploration.
Another issue is the name of the qualification. We already have in the English baccalaureate a suite of qualifications that means one thing, and now we have an English baccalaureate certificate, so it is debatable whether the name is right. However, as long as the qualification is right I am more relaxed about its name. There is some justification for discussing which subjects are included and which are not. If it is introduced gradually to different subject areas over time, it is possible that those who get it first will be seen in a different way from those who get it later on, and we have to be careful about that.
I broadly welcome the focus on reform, which has been widely called for by people outside this place as well as by parties in the House. In particular, the statement of achievement is a big step forward for young people.
Kevin Brennan
Given what the hon. Gentleman has said so far, what is it in the motion that he disagrees with?
Dan Rogerson
The motion is set up to say that the Government should scrap their thinking and start again. The Government are examining and will respond to the consultation, which one could call rethinking. [Interruption.] We know what Opposition days are about—they are a chance for the Opposition to get their point of view on the record, as I am sure that they will; in fact, they have done so more successfully today than they have in the past on these issues. [Interruption.] Both sides have had the chance to clarify matters through their conversation over the Dispatch Box; I was not being churlish about the shadow Secretary of State’s ability to get his point across.
I hope that as the Government look at the responses to the consultation they re-examine some of these issues to make sure that we have got this absolutely right. What we want at the end of the process is a qualification that stands the test of time so that the young people who are now being born in my constituency and others across the country and who may well take the examination in future will find that it is still valued and understood by employers, teachers and everybody else. We must get it right. We have an opportunity to do that, and I am sure that the Government will take it.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). I am pleased that he focused on young people themselves. We need a bit of “back to basics” on this subject. We must ask fundamental questions about what we are doing. What are these assessments at 16 for, and who are they for? If we ask about the what and the who, everything else will flow sensibly from that.
We need to bear in mind that we are speaking in a context that is changing. We are not only facing the challenges of the 21st century, not the 19th or the 18th century, but we are at a point where there has been cross-party consensus on raising the participation age first to 17 and then to 18. GCSEs were brought in as a “leaving the system and going into employment” exam, and then that framework was changed so that people leave not at 16 but at 17 or 18. That raises serious questions about what these exams should be like and who they are for.
Assessment is a fundamental part of the educative process. Across this House, there is a joint, consistent commitment to the value of assessment. Formative assessment, which goes on day in, day out in every classroom—it will be going on at this moment in myriad different contexts—determines how learning is driven forward for each individual or clusters of individuals to get the best out of them. That is going on all the time, and it is far more complex than summative assessment. We spend nearly all our time getting excited about summative assessment and the nature of the exams or assessments that take place at 16, 17 or 18, or indeed at other times, but we must get the formative assessment right to make sure that it drives better teaching and better learning.
Members from all parties have made some excellent contributions. I would pick out in particular my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who spoke from experience. Often, in debates such as these, some Members speak from experience and their views resonate because they have sense and power behind them, but others speak as a result of their beliefs. That is not to say that those beliefs are not valid—they often are—but belief as against experience is an interesting dilemma and battle of ideas.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He often says that our policy needs to be evidence-based. Could he give some examples of the exact evidence in addition to that from the teaching profession?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Let me pick out just one quote from Deborah Annetts, the chief executive of the Incorporated Society of Musicians:
“It is as if the Olympics never happened. Design—gone, technology—gone, music—gone. This short sighted, wholesale attack on secondary music education will emasculate not only our world class music education system but also our entire creative economy”.
Those may be apocalyptic words, but they reflect the depth and breadth of the views of people who really care. I recognise that all parties involved in the argument care, but I shiver a little when I hear belief after belief, but no evidence. That is a dangerous way of changing and making policy, and it imperils the quality of what goes on both inside and outside our classrooms.
Mr Ward
The hon. Gentleman has been dragged away from a crucial point that he was making about formative and summative assessments. A horse race would have different winners 10 yards before the finish line and 10 yards after it. The crucial thing is not just the who or the what that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but the when. It is the judgments made at a particular age that divide people into successes or failures.
Nic Dakin
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. He reminds us of the central question that I asked at the beginning of my contribution, namely: what and who is this assessment for? Summative assessment is extremely costly. It costs a huge amount in energy to prepare for it and in time spent on it. The whole of the summer term of the final year—year 11—is more or less taken up by summative assessment. We have to ask ourselves whether that time is best spent on summative assessment—and for whom—or whether it would be better spent if it were used more creatively to drive forward other things that we want our young people to have at age 16.
Why have such a wide range of exams at 16 if they exist only for the accountability of institutions? That is the issue. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) has said, there is a problem when those assessments at 16 are used for the purpose of the accountability of institutions. It distorts behaviour if those assessments are taking place for the benefit of the institutions rather than the individual. Qualifications are framed by the curriculum, and the choices that an individual makes in any system—hon. Members have given examples from the past and present of the paths that young people have decided to follow—are influenced by the interests of institutions, not those of individuals.
I fear that we are moving away from the strength of personalised learning, which was beginning to blossom. It was not perfect and issues needed to be dealt with, but there was a consensus behind it that was driving greater achievement, greater progression and greater performance in the post-education world. We are in danger of moving back to another age of greater failure. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole drew attention to the dangers of lowering aspiration and increasing failure, and to the risks inherent in following that route.
I want to draw attention to the work that I have been doing on behalf of the noble Lord Haskins by chairing the skills commission on the Humber local enterprise partnership. It is a business-led skills commission, but I am its chair, which is slightly bizarre. We have been taking evidence from industry. It was more than a year before the Secretary of State met the CBI, but he met News International many times during that period, which is a reflection of his priorities and who he deems more important on this issue among business and the media.
I have been listening to the views of people in the real world of commerce and business. The reason they are often excited about some of the Secretary of State’s other ideas, such as university technical colleges, studio schools—[Interruption.] Let us give everybody the blessing of coming up with those ideas. The reason they are excited about those experiments is that they give industry the opportunity to help frame the curriculum. They say that that frees up the time. What they are really bothered about—this message comes back strongly across the piece—is not so much academic excellence, but softer employability skills. They take the academic excellence as read. What they say is missing when young people come through the workplace door is their readiness for work. To be frank, the direction of travel of English baccalaureate subjects puts at risk the time available to prepare pupils for employability skills and so on.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to say that it should be in the school’s ethos that such things are taught, but he has not done as many timetables as I have. Doing a timetable is a complex business. It is what delivers time to young people—it is a rationing mechanism. Once time has been set aside for something to happen, the time is reduced for other things to happen. What is happening at the moment is a natural and obvious restriction of the curriculum. That does not mean that a breadth of curriculum subjects is not available in different places, but it does mean that individual student choice is being greatly reduced.
I bear witness to the sensible and intelligent contribution of the Chair of the Education Committee, who, as always, spoke with not only a great focus on improving the quality of education, but a great realism. He reminded us of the quality of the brand of GCSEs and of their performance. We may want them to perform better, but he reminded us that they are a brand that deliver and perform quite well, that we could work with and develop them better, and that what people involved in the consultation are saying is, “Let’s get on with it and let’s make it better together, but without tearing up the past or the present.”
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I want to start by reflecting on the details and the worryingly selective nature of the motion. It is clear that it has been written by somebody who is, sadly, unaware of the fact that the planned reforms of qualifications for 16-year-olds have been welcomed by organisations such as the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Engineering Employers Federation.
The motion completely ignores the fact that Simon Walker, director general of the Institute of Directors, has stated:
“We welcome Michael Gove’s new exam reforms. This announcement will undoubtedly help to shore up confidence in the British education system. Business leaders want a stronger curriculum and more rigorous exams, and these measures are welcome progress towards delivering that.”
Sadly, the motion also ignores the wise words of Dr Adam Marshall, director of policy at the BCC, who has stated:
“Unfortunately, in recent years too many new employees have lacked basic skills and required remedial training for inadequate literacy and numeracy. Employers must be assured that qualifications reliably reflect a given level of skill, and will welcome an end to artificial grade inflation and planned changes to increase rigour.”
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the consultation for the Education Committee’s report on the English baccalaureate certificate, which was heavily subscribed to by people and organisations outside the House, not a single response was overwhelmingly supportive?
Chris Skidmore
I want to add to that in what I am saying. A responsible Opposition would not cherry-pick individual examples of what is happening with the EBC, but would reflect in their motion the fact that there is support for it. I intend to recognise the support that has not been recognised in the motion or in this debate so far.
Steve Radley, director of policy at the EEF, the largest manufacturers’ organisation, said of the Government’s planned reforms:
“Employers will broadly welcome the need for greater rigour, particularly in English, maths and sciences, having long complained that ever greater academic attainment levels have not produced young people with economically valuable skills ready to enter the workplace.”
Whoever wrote the motion is seemingly unaware that the Wellcome Trust has stated:
“We welcome the proposal to improve the quality and rigour of examinations at Key Stage 4. There is real potential to modernise the curricula with expert input and to ensure a continuous progression to A-levels and further qualifications.”
It added:
“We welcome changes to qualification content that will improve the quality of examinations and provide more challenge for the most able students.”
The author of the motion, whoever they are, does not appear to realise that it is not just the major organisations that represent business that welcome the Government’s—
Chris Skidmore
I remember when the hon. Gentleman was in government, and he regularly claimed the CBI was not representative of business. The CBI is just one of many organisations. The motion should reflect the fact that there is support for EBCs.
As the Financial Times stated in an editorial published last September,
“these proposals should result in a better assessment of secondary-level attainment.”
Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has stated:
“There are aspects of these reforms which make perfect sense, such as the potential for flexible timing to suit student needs and a retreat from the idea of a two-tier system. For once,”—
this is at odds with the shadow Secretary of State—
“we seem to have a decent lead-in time, to prepare properly. We are also comfortable with a more demanding standard for top grades, as exams should stretch our most able.”
Stephen Twigg
I am the author of the motion. He accused me of having decried the CBI in government. Will he either substantiate or withdraw that comment?
Chris Skidmore
I will substantiate the comment by saying that I remember the Labour Government not acting on the CBI’s comments. The CBI said every year for 13 years—for five years of which the hon. Gentleman was a Labour Education Minister—that we needed qualification reforms, and the Labour Government did nothing to reflect that. We now have a Government who are bringing in new qualifications, which are being welcomed by the British Chambers of Commerce and the EEF, that will ensure that more young people are prepared for the world of work.
I was going to say, “Whoever penned the motion,” but it was obviously the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Skidmore
I was giving the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, because I thought it might have been written by a new researcher who had just come in. It is obvious that he has no understanding of the current debate or if what is going on in the wider world.
For instance, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to the “Today” programme on 17 September, he would have heard Sir Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools, saying:
“I agree entirely with the removal of the modular structure and the resit situation.”
He added that the new exam system
“will give us a system that has more positives than presently”.
The hon. Gentleman, who was an Education Minister in the early 2000s, once rejected Tomlinson and did not listen to his proposals. I hope he will listen to him now.
It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman who wrote the motion does not check his Twitter feed more carefully. If he did, he would have discovered that the Labour peer and former Education Minister, Lord Knight, tweeted at 6.4 am on 17 September that
“GCSE needs reform - modularisation led to gaming.”
There we have a former Minister for Schools and Learners admitting that there is no point in continuing with modularisation. The reforms will deal with that fact.
It is a shame that the shadow Secretary of State decided that it was a good idea to call a debate to oppose bringing back more rigour to our examination system without looking at where the public stand on the matter. According to a YouGov poll taken in June 2012, 60% of the public, including parents, think that it has got easier to get a good GCSE in recent years, compared with only 6% who think that it has got harder. It also shows that 47% of Labour voters think that it has got easier to get a good GCSE in recent years, compared with only 7% who think that it has got harder. Perhaps he should listen to Labour voters. It is not only the public and parents who have little confidence in the current system. According to the latest Ofqual survey, just 51% of students in 2011 had confidence in the GCSE system.
We know why that is. A yawning gap has opened between the image of educational success that GCSEs have presented over the past few decades and the reality of what is taking place globally. While GCSE results have risen to record levels, they have not been matched in international league tables. Fifteen-year-olds in England have fallen down the rankings from seventh to 25th in reading, eighth to 27th in maths, and fourth to 16th in science. As the OECD has commented:
“Official test scores and grades in England show systematically and significantly better performance than international and independent tests”.
It added that
“the measures based on cognitive tests not used for grading show declines or minimal improvements.”
Perhaps we might be able to gain some consensus on that fact. After all, on 26 June last year, the shadow Secretary of State said:
“I absolutely acknowledge that there is grade inflation in the system”.—[Official Report, 26 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 179.]
Perhaps he might also like to acknowledge that, in 1997, 49.9% of pupils entered GCSEs in English, maths, two sciences, a language and either history or geography—the core subjects that now make up the EBacc—but that the figure more than halved by 2010, with only 22% of pupils sitting those subjects. Perhaps he might even like to demonstrate regret for the fact that when he was an Education Minister, Labour decided to remove the languages requirement for 14 to 16-year-olds. By 2010, that had resulted in 200,000 fewer 16-year-olds taking a modern language GCSE. Surely he must be ashamed of that record of achievement.
The Government’s introduction of the EBacc is already having a significant effect on the adoption of rigorous subjects. An Ipsos MORI survey of pupils who will take their GCSEs in 2014 suggests that the percentage of pupils taking the full EBacc will increase from 22% in 2010 to 49% by 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of pupils taking a GCSE in history will go up from 31% to 41%; those taking geography will go up from 26% to 36%; those taking a language will go up from 43% to 54%; and those taking triple science will go up from 16% to 34%.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern about the finding of the Institute of Physics that only 49% of maintained schools sent a girl to take A-level physics in 2011? Does he agree that it is vital that more young people take triple science so that more girls do physics and play a role in our physics future?
Chris Skidmore
Absolutely. It is not only the gender balance that we need to tackle. There is also a gap when it comes to the most deprived pupils in society—those on free school meals. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) did not mention that the EBacc shines a torch on underperformance because it shows the gap between those in the most deprived areas and the most affluent in society. We must close that gap by using the EBacc as a crucial measure.
Many countries, including France, Finland, Germany, Japan and South Korea, have more than two compulsory subjects. They have modern languages and history as compulsory subjects. Having more subjects that pupils must take ensures that there is a greater measure.
We are in a global race in which qualifications from the 20th century will no longer equip us with the skills and knowledge needed for the modern world. We need not only to look outwards and emulate countries that are powering ahead, fuelled by a rigorous education system that will not accept second best, but we must also look inwards at ourselves and recognise that if we do not reform our education system we will be letting down future generations of pupils who will be competing in this modern, international world. That is why we need reform—we recognise that the world has changed, and we must change with it.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
In following the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) I should like to consider what he said about the profound effect of the EBacc. We can all agree that it has indeed had a profound effect on creative subjects such as art, design, drama and music, which are clearly being sidelined despite the incredible value that our creative sector brings to the UK economy. Some 15% of schools have dropped one or more arts subjects since the EBacc was introduced, and the latest figures, from summer 2012, show a serious decline in the number of entrants for design and technology: down 5.1%, for art and design, down 2.4%, for music, down 3.6%, and for drama down 6.3%. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman that the introduction of the EBacc has had a profound effect.
I want to pick up on the theme pursued by other Members who talked about preparation for work and for life, and ask the Secretary of State some questions that I hope he is considering. What are qualifications for? What is education for at age 16 and beyond? What are we trying to achieve with our qualifications? What is in it for young people and for the country? In a globally competitive world in which we struggle to keep up with countries that, until recently, were regarded as developing, we have different needs for our future work force. In a world with technology on a scale that many of us never imagined when we were at school, the needs of young people are completely different from those considered when GCSEs were created.
In September, the Secretary of State said in his statement that
“nations that were slow developers 20 years ago are outstripping us economically, and now that ways of learning have been so dramatically transformed in all our lifetimes, it is right that we reform our examination system. We know that the old model—the ’80s model—is no longer right for now…We know that employers and academics have become less confident in the worth of GCSE passes because they fear that students lack the skills for the modern workplace and the knowledge for advanced study.”—[Official Report, 17 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 653.]
No one in this Chamber would disagree with a word of what the Secretary of State said in that statement, but the question is what we need now from qualifications, schools, education, and for and from our young people. How do we compete in a world where we are rapidly being overtaken by China, India, Brazil and countless other countries?
Employers tell me that they want young people who can solve problems and who have strong communication skills and an ability to get on with others, but good sets of GCSE passes—or other written exam passes—do not necessarily correspond to those three skills. Businesses need staff who will help them to thrive, and we also need people who will start and grow their own businesses. We need excellence in the services that support our creative industries and our high-tech manufacturing that will produce the jobs and growth that will enable this country to thrive and our people to enjoy prosperity.
There is no question but that we need academic qualifications. High standards in English and maths are the cornerstone of success for this country, but so too are qualifications in engineering and the arts. The young people I speak to want to study vocational subjects—engineering, design and technology, music, art, catering and hairdressing. Those subjects are crucial for young people who want to pursue their chosen career and a country that wants its economy to succeed. In short, success in school and beyond results from the combination of academic and vocational study, and our qualification system needs to reflect that mix.
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is spelling things out very clearly. Does he think that the CBI put its finger on the pulse of the issue when it said that there is a risk of making the mistakes of the past by trying to micro-manage what is going on, instead of allowing other things to happen?
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend has vast experience as the former principal of a sixth-form college and he knows exactly what he is talking about. Yes, the CBI made it clear in its report that high-stakes testing at 16 must not be a barrier to achievement at 18. It said:
“There is a risk that the mistakes of the past—both teaching to the test by schools and micro-management of the school system through the means of exams and league tables—may be repeated in the EBC. For this reason, we favour pausing to ask a more fundamental question about the role of examinations before 18, namely what their purpose is.”
I hope that the Secretary of State—while he is sending something out on Twitter or texting one his staff—will perhaps find the answer to that question so that when he sums up the debate he can tell me and, more importantly, the CBI.
The Secretary of State’s proposals indicate a preference for an end-of-year exam, with no assessment or coursework, in a number of subjects, but in the real world how useful is the ability to succeed in a three-hour written exam? I would question whether it is of much use at all. In many jobs, the ability to perform tasks is essential, and, yes, success in work is closely linked to an ability to perform under pressure, often under time pressure. However, in the long run it is the quality of the product or service that an organisation delivers that is critical to success. The role of the individual in contributing to that success does not appear, as far as I can see, to be in any way linked to the ability to pass an exam.
The ability to solve problems, to think on one’s feet, and to communicate effectively face to face, on the phone, by e-mail, in a letter or in a report are all essential skills in the world of work and outside it. They all depend on good English, yet there will be no spoken communication element in the EBC, no testing of real world skills linked to the use of IT in English and no testing of key communication skills such as customer service, which is a vital skill in today’s world. I am not saying that GCSEs were perfect, but surely we are moving further away from a qualification and examination system that measures those real world skills, not closer to it.
Bill Esterson
Yes, and of course Lord Baker was one of the architects of the GCSE system. He recognised the need for change, so he is in a strong position on this matter. He has credibility and a track record, and the Government should certainly listen closely to what he has to say.
Standards in English and maths are crucial. We can all agree on that and we all do, but the question is how those standards are measured. I do not believe that we measure them effectively, either for young people or for the economy, purely through the use of a linear exam system.
In my business career I worked with many young people in telephone call centres, among other places. Call centre managers often bemoaned the lack of basic literacy of the younger recruits. Often those with GCSEs in English of grade C or better were unable to write properly and struggled when talking to customers on the phone. There is clearly a problem, but the solution we found was to help young trainees with practical skills. They included literacy skills, because they had not picked them up at school. The key was to make training practical—to make it relevant to their jobs and to their lives outside of work. Because the training took place at work, it was in context and they understood for that reason. The students were motivated to learn and to do well at work. How do we replicate that within the education system before students go to work? I do not see how it can be done in the artificial environment of a linear exam process.
To make learning practical and real is a simple concept, and we should be able to do it in school. In short, we should be able to design a system where young people learn what they need for life, in a way that motivates them and helps businesses to flourish. However, to make sure young people are ready for life, they need to learn skills that they can use and which are of use to employers.
Michael Gove
I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. He has made a number of interesting and worthwhile points, and has outlined some of the weaknesses that he sees with existing and proposed qualifications. Are there are any qualifications that he thinks hit the nail on the head and do the job that he has described?
Bill Esterson
I am certainly familiar with some work qualifications. If the Secretary of State is looking for ideas, I hope he will look at them as examples and consider how they could be introduced, with good work experience, into the education system.
To ensure that young people are ready for life, they need to learn skills they can use and which are of use to employers. Someone who has a qualification that shows they can already do a job is of much greater interest. Perhaps the answer I gave to the Secretary of State demonstrates a way of doing just that.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
A short while ago, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), challenged the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) to say what he objected to in the motion. I must say that we new MPs are used to seeing rather stronger worded motions than today’s, which makes me wonder whether the Opposition’s heart is really in it. The motion talks in general terms about requiring a rethink, but without specifying or committing to the things that they think are wrong and the things they would do differently.
The Opposition cite a few opponents of the Government’s plans, however, and they are worth reflecting on. Business, they say, is opposed. My experience from the Education Committee was that, if we were looking for a unified voice from business on qualifications and so on, good luck! To the extent that there is a unified voice, however, it is complaining about the things that the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) talked about—employability and workplace skills—but it is talking about the young people coming through the system now, not about some change that might happen in the future.
The Opposition also cite as opponents the champions of vocational qualifications, but that ignores the fact that the Government are also reforming vocational education and training. They have commissioned the Wolf review and are now implementing it. We must recognise, however, that Alison Wolf states, again and again, the value of academic qualifications alongside vocational qualifications. It should not be seen as an either/or. From a social mobility perspective, we know that countries with earlier specialisation tend to be associated with lower levels of social mobility, whereas those in which people specialise later do better in that regard.
On the creative industries and the arts, I had the opportunity recently to have a fascinating discussion with Mr Julian Lloyd Webber. Of course, any lobby or interest group will lobby to have its subject as part of the suite of subjects that has this name—many of us will have benefited from hearing from a lot of religious education teachers, for example. On the arts and creative industries, however, the argument is based on a false premise. Britain is a world leader in these industries—a world leader in the arts—but that was achieved without those subjects being forced on pupils in school, with or without a national curriculum.
When the shadow Secretary of State was at school, when you were at school, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I was at school—when all of us were at school—in most schools, art and music were optional subjects at aged 15 and 16 and they were over and above a set of subjects that pretty much everybody would do. The EBacc suite—[Interruption] I like the word “suite”—is not a compulsory set of subjects.
Mr Ward
What the hon. Gentleman says about the education we received many years ago is true, but back then there was not a national league table by which the institution was judged on the basis of whether it had an A-level in art, drama or whatever. That is the fundamental change that has taken place.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is right to identify that, and it is that focus on the five-plus C-plus—almost regardless of what subjects they are in, with the exception of English and maths, which have held an elevated position—that has caused the problems that now need to be addressed. Even if the Ebacc were made up of a compulsory set of subjects, there would still be ample room in the curriculum for optional subjects, just as there always has been.
I would never claim that everything that happened between 1997 and 2010 in education was bad, but I am afraid that this whole system around qualifications, examinations and league tables is one area where things went badly awry. This was a time of stiffening international competition, yet in this country, we had grade inflation, smashing all domestic records, while slipping down the international league tables. That eroded confidence in the system, and the people that lets down are not the politicians, but the young people themselves.
Although the current shadow Secretary of State rightly acknowledges the existence of grade inflation, that is a relatively new road-to-Damascus conversion for the Labour party. Until relatively recently, it was keen to keep hammering on that all the improvements in children’s outcomes were actually real improvements and that we should celebrate them, rather than criticise them.
Damian Hinds
Both those things are true, which is possibly the point the hon. Gentleman wanted to make, and I absolutely acknowledge the real improvements. We may have brighter kids, and we certainly have more engaged parents and families, better teaching and teachers, better recognition of special educational needs and different styles of learning and all sorts of things that we would expect to improve over time, and which have. On top of that, however, there has without doubt been grade inflation and gaming of the system on an epic scale, and that is what these reforms seek to address. It is worth listing some of those points further.
Ian Mearns
I am grateful to my honourable Friend—I will call him my friend because we are friends—for giving way. When I took over as chair of the education committee in Gateshead in 1993, in the previous year fewer than 30% of youngsters got five good GCSEs. In Gateshead the figure is about 80% now—although it is about 55% including English and maths. We cannot honestly think that the vast majority of that change in 20 years was due to grade inflation.
Damian Hinds
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman—and friend—exactly what proportion is accounted for by what. I celebrate the achievements of the children in his constituency and that area, and of those schools. We should never be reluctant to do that: their achievement is fantastic. Some element of that has been a real improvement; what I am saying is that there is also another element. Indeed, I think that everybody across the political spectrum and throughout almost the entire educational establishment—we are still working on the National Union of Teachers—now acknowledges what is a blindingly obvious fact.
The three areas where the gaming and the inflation take place are in the mechanics of the system, the subject mix and competition between boards—I want to return to the point that the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) raised.
Damian Hinds
I think I ought to plough on, if I may.
On the mechanics, so many things can be done with the syllabus content and breadth, through modularisation, resits, early takes and, potentially, the questions set and the stringency of marking, although certainly—we extracted this over some weeks in our Select Committee inquiry—an upwards-only tolerance in the expected outcomes across a cohort of students around the country. In other words, every year there is a certain level that we would expect to reach. We could be either side of it; in reality, things only ever went one way, leading to in-built inflation in the system. The second area is the subject mix. It is beyond doubt—some of the statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and others mentioned bear this out—that some children have been steered towards subjects that were not the most appropriate for them to study, but which suited their schools in terms of how they would appear in the league tables. Then there was the debacle over so-called equivalences.
The third point—a few hon. Members have mentioned this today—is competition between exam boards. It has been suggested that there is not really a problem with competition between exam boards so long as we separate the organisation setting the exam and the organisation doing the syllabus or specification. I can absolutely see the arguments for having competition at the operational level—delivering exam papers and that sort of thing—but I just do not see the argument for competition in either the specification or the setting of exams. So much of this debate—including when we had it in the Select Committee with some of the exam boards and others—is all about accessibility. I worry about the word “accessibility”. It is a good word—we want more people to be able to access things—but it ends up being used to mask all sorts of other things, all of which ends up meaning: “Well, if we just make it that tiny bit easier, more people will want to do it.”
The bad effects of the competition between different exam boards can be seen in little unexplained spikes in market share for individual boards in individual subjects and in more and more schools using multiple boards for different subjects. The average number of exam boards per school is now about three, which is pretty remarkable when we consider that there are only four boards altogether. That means that almost all schools are using almost all boards. As reported relatively recently in The Times Educational Supplement, there are also relatively new trends, such as schools entering children for GCSE and IGCSE at the same time, to see which one comes out better, or entering with different, multiple boards for early modules and examinations, to see which is likely to give them the best chances of progressing.
Through all this, we without doubt came to a point where we had too much teaching to the test, with children in some schools—not all schools—having a much narrower experience than they should have had. Schools have been paying £100,000 a year on examination entries—a number that doubled in just a few years. It is worth reflecting that had that not happened, we could have had a lot more teachers in this country. Some children were pushed into inappropriate subject choices, with too much focus on the C/D borderline and an overall failure to equip as well as we should our young people to make the most of their talents and our nation to make the most of what we have got in the world.
We have reached the point at which the Government must reset the clock, so that we can have exams that are consistent and understood and that are pinned to the highest world standards. We must remove the race to the bottom between the different exam boards and inspire confidence in employers, in educational institutions and, above all, in young people themselves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The wind-ups need to start at 3.40 pm. In order to fit in the last two Back-Bench speakers, I am changing the time limit to five minutes. I am dividing the time equally between the two speakers. I call Neil Carmichael.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am perfectly happy to give up my five minutes so that my hon. Friend can speak for 10 minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) will not get 10 minutes; he will get eight, as that has been the time limit. It is very gracious of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) to withdraw; I thank him for that.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) for that gesture, although I am not going to speak for what must now be only seven and a half minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have to speak for eight minutes—if he does not, there will simply be longer wind-ups—but he should get on with it.
Neil Carmichael
First, I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on beliefs and experience. We all have beliefs and some of us have had experience as well. One of my sharpest experiences was that of marking examinations taken by undergraduates who displayed an innate intelligence but not necessarily a huge ability to communicate. We should all think about that during the course of this debate, because it is important that communication skills and mathematics should be embedded as early as possible.
My second point is that there is much more continuity between those on the two Front Benches than might first be supposed. That came to my attention when I was reading Lord Adonis’s recent book on education. He has paved the way for some of the changes that we are continuing—
Neil Carmichael
I am not suggesting that Lord Adonis supports everything that we are doing; I am saying that there is some continuity. That is good, because we need more continuity in education policy. A lot of the measures that we are introducing will be useful, in that they will make things better and build on some of the achievements of the previous Government. That needs to be said.
My third point is that I am a firm believer in the Ebacc, as I stated when the Education Select Committee looked into that subject. In fact, that was the only time I ever voted against the publication of a report. I did so because I believe it is important that the Ebacc should be promoted. One of the myths that needs to be completely debunked is that the Ebacc will stop other subjects being taught. That is clearly not the case, because most, if not all, schools also offer a wider variety of subjects. That is what they are supposed to do, and what they will continue to do. I do not believe that enough attention has been paid to the role of Ofsted in ensuring that schools are going beyond the Ebacc subjects. We need to be much clearer about the process involved in the inspection regime, and about the impact that the Ebacc will have on the delivery of other subjects.
Linked to that is Professor Alison Wolf’s report, which has been discussed by the shadow Secretary of State and the Minister for Schools. I think that Alison Wolf’s report is first class. It sets the scene for proper vocational training. She makes two points, however, that have thus far been overlooked. First, she believes that an academic framework is absolutely necessary for pupils, and that it is not inconsistent with going on to vocational studies. In fact, she notes that it is a good thing to have an academic basis for vocational training. The second point that she makes very clearly in her report is that there is plenty of time in the school day to go beyond the Ebacc and into vocational training. I think that is critical, because it applies to post-16 education—beyond school and into colleges—as well. We need to bear those two points in mind when we think about the EBacc.
It is important to underline what the Minister of State said about universality. I was particularly impressed with it, as I think we should have a system in which all pupils are treated fairly and all pupils have a fair chance of taking an examination, so that we do not get division between one type of pupil and another. One of the great achievements over the last decade or so has been exactly that—and we should celebrate it. I would say, however, that the EBacc builds on that and does not threaten it, which is something of which we should be proud.
Mr Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend describes his support for a universal exam. To achieve it, the Government have said, the boundary must be higher than the grade C GCSE. There must be a risk, must there not, that quite a number of people will feel that they have failed and that the certificate of achievement will not be a currency of much value in reflecting the work they have done.
Neil Carmichael
The currency with the least value is the one that allows too much inflation. The brutal fact is that we want to avoid grade inflation, and the measures being introduced in parallel to this change seek to do precisely that. I think that that is exactly what we need to do.
Mr Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. When grade inflation is inadvertent, denied, counter-productive or whatever, there is an argument about the level at which the qualification should be set. If we cease grade inflation at some point in time, we will be fixing it as being “the level”. It is interesting to reflect on what the appropriate level is: perhaps we should have something much harder, but the Government appear to be talking about reversing that inflation and setting the level of a pass—however it comes out—at a higher level than it is now. Already, 50% of kids do not achieve five good GCSEs including English and maths.
Neil Carmichael
I thank my hon. Friend for his second intervention. The simple answer is this. What we need to ensure is that we have a set of grades whereby the student can be properly assessed and valued. That is what we need to do, that is what the EBacc is all about and that is why grade inflation should not be welcomed or tolerated. It needs to be dealt with not just through the type of examination and certificate, but through the way in which marking and so forth is done.
I shall finish on the point about business. Much has been said about whether business wants the change. In my constituency, business definitely does. I run a festival in manufacturing and engineering each and every year. I do it because I really want to encourage young people to get involved in those key areas, which would clearly benefit from the EBacc. At every festival, I pick up the fact that business wants to know that people are coming out of schools with more experience and more capacity in mathematics and the STEM subjects more generally. The EBacc will help, so that is what we should aim for.
It is a false description if people say that when something starts off, nobody wants it. When it proves itself, as the EBacc undoubtedly will, business will see that the right decision has been made. That is an important point. Anyone who talks to the organisations that represent engineering, manufacturing and associated activities will find that they are interested in the move towards the EBacc, that they think it is the right way to test and examine children and that they think it will be useful to them when they start recruiting. I shall conclude on that note.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We have had a high-quality debate this afternoon with contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). We found out from him that at 6 am in the morning, he is checking Lord Knight’s Twitter feed—not something the rest of us would necessarily do at that time. We also heard contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and the hon. Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). The hon. Member for Kingswood was obviously only half awake because he seemed to think that Lord Knight’s Twitter feed said that he supported the proposals, which is certainly not the case.
It is more and more clear that the Government’s proposed EBacc certificate is the wrong reform on the wrong timetable. What is more, the Secretary of State has got it the wrong way round. In one sense, I am certain that he agrees that it is the wrong reform, because we know that it is not the reform that he wanted. He announced the reform that he wanted using the now traditional method for making important Department for Education announcements—via a leak to the The Mail on Sunday. He was celebrating his great news triumph when word got through to the Deputy Prime Minister in his hotel room in Rio, presumably wearing his onesie—[Interruption.] That is true; it might be too hot in Rio for a onesie.
The Deputy Prime Minister was so furious with the Education Secretary that he not only made him withdraw his plans and modify them into the incoherent mess that we have been hearing about today, but made him sack his trusted lieutenant, the former schools Minister, and replace him with the current part-time schools Minister, who I think is off in the Cabinet Office doing his other job—a Lib Dem incubus in the Secretary of State’s lair. [Interruption.] He has now come to the Chamber. A bit like horsemeat in a burger, it can be swallowed but it is not very palatable. Even the Secretary of State thinks that it is the wrong reform, because he has had to drop the overtly two-tier approach that he favoured for the covert one that we have heard about today. Everyone else knows that it is the wrong reform, because it does not address, as we have heard overwhelmingly from Members on both sides of the House, the real issues and challenges for education at 16.
First, the reform is anti-creativity. Many people are asking: what do the Secretary of State and the Government have against creativity? As we saw in a debate on the EBacc certificate in another place on Monday, he calls his new qualification a gold standard, but how can a qualification on which the Secretary of State places such a valedictory appellation have no place for the arts? As the former Education Secretary Baroness Morris of Yardley in another place said:
“How can an assessment that marks the end of the national curriculum not recognise achievement in music, dance, drama, art, design and craft?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 2013; Vol. 742, c. 547.]
The EBacc is also the wrong reform because it does not seriously examine the purpose and relevance of high-stakes public examinations at 16 when the participation age has been raised to 18. That topic is causing a veritable buzz in the world of education. The Secretary of State needs to listen not just to his closest advisers and cronies and his own soliloquies. We need a proper debate and consensus around reform, which addresses the key issues that the Chair of the Education Committee has often cited, as he did again today—in particular the long tail of underachievement. Perhaps we should rename the EBacc certificate the GOVE—general opposition to vocational education—because the Secretary of State has nothing to say on how we can have a gold standard in vocational education. That is why we have had to take the initiative in developing the Tech Bacc, in which he seems so uninterested.
Another reason the EBacc certificate is the wrong reform is its rigid and mystifying insistence that it should be assessed by final essay-based examination only. The Secretary of State was rightly asked earlier whether it is his role to decide that anyway, and perhaps we will get an answer in his speech, but essay-based exams measure only a narrow range of skills and knowledge. I have been trying to understand what makes the Secretary of State so against controlled assessment and practical exams and why he thinks the only valid way of testing anything is a three-hour written examination at the end of a course. What traumatic event in his past could have led him to have this seemingly inexplicable aversion to the appropriate use of controlled assessment and his insistence that only written exams should count? Then I remembered—
Kevin Brennan
He is ahead of me—he is very quick. The driving test is administered on a basis of a written test combined with a practical controlled assessment, and the Secretary of State failed his driving test on six occasions. And this is the man who does not believe in re-sits!
Had the driving test consisted of a course in the theory of driving followed by a three-hour written test, the Secretary of State would no doubt have passed first time, with flying colours. He might have achieved a merit, perhaps even a distinction, maybe an A* for demonstrating his in-depth understanding of the intricacies of the highway code. But would that have made him a better driver, and would the public have been safe with him behind the wheel? Possibly not.
This is the wrong reform, and it is also being carried out according to the wrong timetable. It is not just the foot-draggers, the naysayers and the vested interests who are saying that. It is being said by Glenys Stacey, the head of Ofqual and the Secretary of State’s guardian of exam standards, who has written to him expressing her concerns—incidentally, we know about her letter only as a result of dogged forensic questioning of the Secretary of State by the Education Committee—and it is not being said just by Ofqual either. In response to a recent survey, more than 80% of teachers said that the changes were being rushed, adding to the huge majority of heads who said that the changes would not be an improvement, and reinforcing the call from the CBI—about which we have already heard today—for a pause in the Government’s timetable.
I am old enough to have taken O-levels—I also have a CSE in woodwork, a grade 1—and A-levels, and I taught for O-level, GCSE and A-level. One thing that I do know is that it is impossible to introduce successful examination reform without being clear about the curriculum, without consensus, and without proper piloting of new qualifications. GCSE reform was kicked off by Shirley Williams, and brought in by Keith Joseph after many years of development. It is necessary to aim for that breadth of consensus at the start if lasting reform is to achieved. However, the English baccalaureate certificate proposal is not a product of consensus based on evidence; it is being rushed through to meet a political, not an educational, timetable. That is the wrong recipe for reform, and the right recipe for chaos.
The Secretary of State’s reform is being introduced for the wrong reasons, the wrong way round. The Secretary of State says it is about rigour, but rigour is achieved through engaging, imaginative, high-quality and creative teaching, not through dispiriting learning by rote that is based only on facts. That is not a recipe for rigour; it is a recipe for rigor mortis in the classroom—the stiff dead hand of Gradgrindian misery about which we heard earlier.
In a recent television interview, Lord Baker reminded us of the welcome contrast between the current CBI report on education and that of one of its predecessor bodies, which states that all that was, or should be, required of the curriculum was that it should teach “literacy, numeracy and obedience”. Sometimes, listening to what is said by members of the Government, I wonder whether that is what they believe now. As Lord Baker also said, if that is all we think is required today, God help us, because that is the attitude that has created
“the long tail of underachievement”,
demotivated generations of young people, and wasted the talents of so many.
It is, however, the background noise that hisses around the Secretary of State’s approach to this reform. The proposal is the wrong way around. It puts the cart before the horse, the exams before the course, and the outcomes before the aims.
Here are some possible aims of a curriculum for the Secretary of State. It should produce
“a confident person who has a strong sense of right and wrong, is adaptable and resilient, knows himself, is discerning in judgment, thinks independently and critically, and communicates effectively; a self-directed learner who takes responsibility for his own learning, who questions, reflects and perseveres in the pursuit of learning; an active contributor who is able to work effectively in teams, exercises initiative, takes calculated risks, is innovative and strives for excellence; and, a concerned citizen who is rooted”
in his country,
“has a strong civic consciousness, is informed, and takes an active role in bettering the lives of others”.
The Secretary of State may think that that is wishy-washy. It is, in fact, a list of the aims of the curriculum in Singapore, and perhaps he ought to take a look at it before he starts to design a new exam system. How can this style of examination achieve those aims? It cannot, which is why Singapore has been reforming its education in our direction.
This is a case of wrong reform, wrong timetable, wrong way round: wrong, wrong, wrong. The new three Rs are all spelt with a W, standing not for “reading, writing and arithmetic” but for “wrong, wrong, and”—as the Secretary of State might say—“thrice wrong”.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
First, may I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), on securing this debate? It has been advantageous to the House and of benefit to me to be able to hear a range of views about how we might reform our examination system, and I am grateful to all Members who spoke in what felt at times almost more like a seminar than a parliamentary debate. As well as speaking with passion from the heart, many Members had specific experience. The hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) was a distinguished leader of a successful Labour council, and the hon. Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass) have both had council responsibility for children’s services, and under their stewardship standards for their children were high. [Interruption.] Forgive me: the hon. Member for North West Durham has a range of past experience that qualifies her to speak on these subjects, but, sadly, she was never a councillor.
All the contributions have given me an opportunity to reflect on what we should assess and on how we should assess achievement at the age of 16. One of the important consequences of the process of consultation we have initiated is that a vigorous debate has been taking place, not only in schools and among teachers, but also, as the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) pointed out, among people in the creative and cultural worlds. As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, business organisations and associations have also engaged in that debate.
There was, perhaps, consensus among Members that the current situation is unsatisfactory. The shadow Secretary of State quoted the CBI liberally in his speech. The CBI is no friend of the situation that prevailed under Labour for 13 years, however. This is what the CBI report on education says about the situation we inherited from Labour:
“This approach represents a triumph for relativism, with pupils either taught to the test while developing no real mastery of the subject being studied or left to fester in study of subjects where they will do least harm to the school’s overall results and league table position. In truth, however, this cult of relativism has blighted every stage of their educational journey.”
Those are strong words and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) pointed out, they reflect a broad consensus in the business sector that we need to change our examination system.
Understandably, the CBI and others have questioned the purpose of assessment at 16. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) pointed out in a brilliant speech, it is important that we have rigorous, summative assessment at that stage. The Labour party has questioned the appropriateness of that. If Labour believes we should get rid of proper, rigorous assessment at the age of 16, it should say so. If, as the shadow Secretary of State hinted in an interview in The Guardian, Labour believes we should go back to the 14 to 19 Tomlinson diploma approach, it should say so. Disappointingly, although the critiques mounted from the Opposition Benches had much to recommend them in terms of forensic detail and passion, precious few positive alternatives were offered.
We were accused of having neglected the vital importance of a rounded education in two specific areas: cultural subjects and vocational subjects. I want to say a little about each. There was an exchange—I was tempted to call it a dramatic monologue, or soliloquy, punctuated by noises off—between the shadow Secretary of State and myself on the Wolf report, but putting that to one side, I am pleased that there seems to be consensus about the Wolf report and its recommendations. The shadow Secretary of State says it is important that English and mathematics are taught to the age of 18. We should bear in mind that Professor Wolf says people who have not secured a good GCSE pass or equivalent in English or maths at the age of 16 should carry the subject on, and that is Government policy. We would only contend, however, that people who secure a good pass in English and maths at 16 but who wish to specialise in other, perhaps creative or vocational, areas should not be forced to carry those subjects on. We should develop courses for such people who want to move beyond GCSEs. Someone may not want to pursue A-level mathematics, but may believe that a mathematical course would be appropriate, and we have worked with Cambridge university and Professor Tim Gowers on that area.
The care we have taken to implement every detail of Professor Wolf’s report reinforces the fact that before we said how we were going to reform academic qualifications, we said how we were going to reform vocational qualifications. We have heard a lot about carts and horses, and about priorities, in this debate. We put vocational qualifications ahead of academic qualifications in our desire to reform. I am not just talking about the Wolf report; the Richard report on apprenticeships, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills rightly welcomed recently, as I have done, sets a path for the reform of the most trusted brand in vocational education—the apprenticeship. The Richard report was welcomed yesterday by Lord Adonis and it points out the steps we have been taking to change apprenticeships so that they are no longer a theoretical driving test, such as that described by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). They are no longer the inadequate, poor qualification that, sadly, used to exist in some cases. An apprenticeship will now be conferred on somebody only where they not only secure English and maths to an acceptable standard, but have an occupationally specific qualification which guarantees or confers mastery in a specific area and can be graded on more than simply a pass-or-fail basis. The fact that this reform was so carefully designed and has been so widely supported underlines our support for improving vocational education.
Stephen Twigg
May I bring the Secretary of State to the subject of today’s debate? In my opening speech, I asked him about the issue about which Ofqual has raised real concern: the preparedness of the system to be implemented in the way that he says. Is there any possibility that he will change the time scale in response to the real concern that hon. Members on both sides of the House have reflected today?
Michael Gove
I was grateful that a number of concerns were raised about different parts of implementation, and they have been raised during the consultation. It is important that I look seriously, as I am doing, at all the points raised in the consultation. Following on from the very good speech made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, it is important that we respond having reflected on all the points that were made and that our response is not simply yes to this and no to that in a piecemeal and cherry-picking way. We should present a sustained and coherent response to what has been an informed and helpful consultation.
I wish briefly to discuss creative subjects, because, in a brilliant speech, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) both paid me a compliment and set me a challenge. One thing I would say is that there is ample time in a well-constructed curriculum for creative subjects, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and a number of other hon. Members. The idea that this Government have not been taking creative and cultural education seriously is belied by the facts. First, we ensured that we had a national plan for music education, following on from Darren Henley’s report, that has seen not just sustained investment in new music hubs that provide high-quality music education and increased access to instrumental tuition, but our expanding of the In Harmony orchestra initiative, which was borrowed from the El Sistema idea in Chavez’s Venezuela. We have also commissioned a report on cultural education from Darren Henley, which has led us to implement a variety of changes, including having a cultural passport for every child to record their cultural and creative engagement during their time at school. We have provided extended access to Saturday schools for those able and capable in art and design. In addition, a Conservative Government—not a Labour Government—have for the first time introduced a national youth dance company for talented and gifted individuals who want to and should make a success in dance. So the future Akram Khans and Michael Clarks will have that opportunity as a result of our changes.
Michael Gove
We have only two minutes left and there are still a number of points to cover—
Michael Gove
In a speech that was significantly longer. In the time available, I wish to deal with one or two of the other points that were raised, particularly the one discussed by the Chairman of the Select Committee. He asked whether qualification reform is the key driver of change and improvement in education. The answer, which I wanted to underline, was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton: it is a key driver. The hon. Member for Cardiff West pointed out that nothing matters more than the quality of teaching, and that is right. But the qualification reforms that we have put forward will ensure that there is more time for teaching. If we remove controlled assessment, which teachers tell us takes between six and eight weeks of what could be teaching time, we allow more high quality teaching to be made available to the students who need it. So there is a link between the style of assessment and the capacity to improve a child’s education.
Let me take this opportunity to point out that we do not need to change, nor is it the case simply that we can make requests of Ofqual. Ofqual can consider them and has in the past made wise judgments. I should say that the shadow Secretary of State has consistently questioned the judgment of Ofqual. We have been clear that it is an independent regulator and we back it.
In the course of the debate, a number of misconceptions were repeated. It is the case that we believe that a move away from modular towards linear assessment reduces the chance of gaming and frees time for teaching, but it is important to say that we do not think that every subject should have three-hour exams. Nowhere in our consultation have we said that three, six, nine or 12-hour exams are appropriate. We believe that rigorous examination in academic subjects requires the deployment of end-of-course linear assessment, but there are a variety of subjects, many of them creative, which, as the Arts Council recognised, should be assessed in other ways.
I note that it is 4 o’clock. I hope this conversation can continue. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House for your indulgence and, in particular, I thank the Members who contributed to the debate for the brilliant speeches that I so much enjoyed the opportunity to listen to this afternoon.
Question put.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012. The Ayes were 279 and the Noes were 214, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Fuel Poverty and Energy Efficiency
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that the typical annual dual fuel energy bill has now hit a record high of £1,400; notes with concern the warning from the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group that 300,000 extra households could be pushed into fuel poverty this winter; further notes analysis by National Energy Action which shows that support for fuel poor and low income households will fall dramatically under the Energy Company Obligation; believes that the most sustainable way for households to cut their energy bills is to make their homes more energy efficient; and calls on the Government to ensure that the Green Deal is offered on fair terms and at affordable interest rates to the public, without punitive upfront assessment fees or early repayment fines, to ensure that appropriate action is taken against energy companies that have not met their obligations under the Community Energy Saving Programme or the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, and to extend the deadline for Warm Front until the full budget for 2012-13 has been committed to expenditure.
As the cold weather sets in and parts of Britain are plunged into sub-zero temperatures, millions of families up and down the country, who are already reeling from the latest wave of energy price hikes, who have been hit by the strivers’ tax and who are facing an even bigger bill to renew their rail season tickets, now find that even the most basic human task of heating their homes has got a little bit harder than it should be. Today, the average family’s annual energy bill stands at a record high of £1,400, up by nearly £300 since the last election.
There are things beyond the control of any Government. No Government can control the weather from day to day or global gas prices, but the test of any Government is the way they respond to those events and the choices they make. I want to address the choices that this Government have made and show what we would do instead.
When we heard that a written ministerial statement was forthcoming today, it crossed my mind that the Government might have thought about our motion’s proposals and seen sense. Instead, the statement says nothing and does even less. I am afraid that it is not worth the paper it is printed on.
No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us that everything is okay. He will tell us that the warm home discount is helping low-income and vulnerable households, but he will not admit that it was the previous Labour Government who legislated for a compulsory rebate from the energy companies to their poorest customers. Nor will he mention that, under the Government’s scheme, hundreds of families with children are still not getting the help to which they are entitled. He will tell us about the support for local energy schemes that was announced yesterday and the energy company obligation, but he will not say how, even when those are taken into account, the level of support that this Government are providing for vulnerable, low-income and fuel-poor households has halved from what it was last year and that it is a fraction of that in years before that. He will say that it does not matter that Warm Front is ending or that the carbon emissions reduction target and the community energy saving programme have finished, because ECO is being introduced. However, over the next 10 years, the Government expect ECO to lift only 250,000 households out of fuel poverty. That is 50,000 fewer than will fall into fuel poverty this winter alone.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that 850,000 more people are now in debt to their energy suppliers? What does she think the Government should do about that?
Caroline Flint
It is very worrying, as my hon. Friend has stated, that Consumer Focus has indicated that both electricity and gas customers—often the same household will pay both bills—are finding that the debt that they owe their energy supplier is going up. That should be an indication that more needs to be done.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is a scandal that under this Government, for the first time in 30 years, there is no Treasury-funded scheme to insulate people’s homes? Does she support the call to use the revenue from the carbon floor price or the emissions trading scheme on fuel-poverty measures?
Caroline Flint
I agree; as I will say in my speech, when Warm Front closes on Saturday, it will be the first time since the 1970s that a British Government have not provided an energy efficiency programme. That is a shame. In answer to the hon. Lady’s second question, I believe that we should look at how we can better deal with the issue of energy efficiency. Although the motion does not cover the suggestion that she has made, we have outlined how we can use some money that is already available to get to some of the most vulnerable households.
The difference between Warm Front and ECO is that the Government pay for Warm Front, whereas consumers pay for ECO through their bills. Starting ECO is therefore no excuse for ending Warm Front before the budget is spent.
As a result of the choices that this Government have made, more people are being pushed into fuel poverty, more people are being forced to choose between eating and heating, and pensioners are going to bed early to seek warmth in a house that they cannot afford to heat. Not only Labour Members are saying that. Transform UK predicts that more than 9 million households will be in fuel poverty by 2016. The Hills fuel poverty review, which was commissioned by this Government, but about which we have heard little since its publication, warned that unless Ministers change course, 200,000 more people are set to be in fuel poverty in the next four years and millions of families will be pushed into even deeper fuel poverty. Before Christmas, the Government’s advisers on fuel poverty, the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, predicted that 300,000 more people will fall into fuel poverty this winter.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I agree with the right hon. Lady that we want lower energy bills. Does she understand that America followed a much more successful policy than the EU by going for cheap gas? Would she recommend that the EU learns from America so that we can have cheaper gas for all our people as well?
Caroline Flint
We have to look at the diversity of our energy supply, but it is unfounded to suggest that there is a silver bullet in relation to gas, because it is unknown as yet. There is another side to what America has done. For example, 40 million people in America are involved in collective switching schemes and, at a local level, community energy generation programmes have been supported through investment. There are things that we can learn from our cousins in America and elsewhere.
However, we are debating the choices that have been made by this Government. The fact that expert organisations are telling all of us as policy makers that the number of people in fuel poverty is going up means that we have to address it. It has not happened by chance or by accident; it has happened because of the choices that this Government have made. They have chosen to end Warm Front. They have chosen to cut winter fuel payments. They have chosen to cut dramatically the support for vulnerable, low-income and fuel-poor households. I am afraid that that is something that they have to face up to.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that this ministerial team, in its different guises during this Parliament, and having had a destructive influence on the industry and on jobs in my constituency through the hasty downgrading of input tariffs, has now sneaked out the announcement that it will do away with the Warm Front scheme, which will further erode jobs in my constituency and have a devastating impact on the potential for people to get their houses insulated?
Caroline Flint
My hon. Friend is right. One side of this debate is about how we can help those who are fuel poor and tackle housing stock that leaks energy through its walls, roofs and windows. Another side is about hope for the future and addressing, through new forms of energy and energy efficiency, the prospect of real growth and jobs. I will say a little more about the number of jobs that are being lost.
Caroline Flint
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and then I will make a bit of progress. I might take more interventions later.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
In a previous reply my right hon. Friend spoke about collective switching schemes. May I inform her that, as of this afternoon, 15,034 UK residents have signed up to the Labour-controlled Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s Fair Energy initiative? That will help them benefit from substantial combined purchasing power across the Greater Manchester city region’s 10 councils, and lower household bills as a result. Is that not a result of Labour in action?
Caroline Flint
It very much is an example of what Labour councils can do at local level and I am proud that the British Labour party was the first political party in British history to launch its own energy collective switching scheme.
Caroline Flint
I will make a little progress. A great political myth of our age is that there are no alternatives to the choices that the Government have made, but the truth is that if they can find £3 billion for a tax cut for the highest earners in the country—worth on average £107,000 a year for 8,000 people earning more than £1 million a year—they could have found some money to have kept Warm Front going, to have not cut winter fuel payments, or even to have invested in the green deal to keep interest rates down. However, they did not.
If the Minister wants to compare records I would be happy to do so. Time and again we have heard Ministers claim that fuel poverty went up under the previous Labour Government, which is just not true. Let me lay the myth to rest with a few facts.
Caroline Flint
No.
The simplest test of any Government’s record is to compare the number of people in fuel poverty when they left office with the number when they took office.
Caroline Flint
If the hon. Lady would like to listen to some facts she might learn something. Figures published not by Labour but by the Minister’s Department paint a very different picture to the one the Government try to portray. In 1996, the year before Labour entered office, 6.5 million households were in fuel poverty. In 2010, the year we left office, that number had fallen to 4.75 million—nearly 2 million fewer households in fuel poverty. That can be spun however people like, but those are the facts. Under Labour, fuel poverty went down, not up. That happened because of choices we made—choices to introduce winter fuel payments, to invest in energy efficiency through Warm Front and the decent homes programme, and to ensure that all new homes for the future will be energy efficient and zero carbon. We made a choice to invest in our health services, hospitals and communities to protect the ill, the elderly and the poor from the cold—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) asks from the Government Benches what that has to do with it, but as she should know, a good health service helps to prevent cold-related deaths.
Those are policies for which the Labour party fought and argued, often in the face of opposition. They are policies that Conservative Members pretended to support and pledged to protect when they knocked on doors seeking people’s votes, but which they quickly dumped as soon as they agreed to trade with their coalition partners.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
The right hon. Lady does not raise the standard of debate when she uses statistics in that way and does not engage with the real issue of how we measure fuel poverty. That is why the Government asked Professor John Hills to carry out a review of how we measure fuel poverty. The right hon. Lady knows that fuel poverty has been correlated more with the price of gas, and at one stage, because of the way fuel poverty statistics work, the Queen was deemed to be in fuel poverty. We want to reform those statistics so that we have a better debate and a better way of targeting money on those in fuel poverty. Does she agree with that?
Caroline Flint
Well, the Government certainly are not doing the job of tackling fuel poverty, and that will be outlined further in my speech and in the motion. Who in the House would disagree that the best way for people to save money on their bills is to improve their energy efficiency? That does not just keep out the cold for one year, it does so every year. If ever a Government set out to prove that they were out of touch and completely lacked any common sense, they would begin by making it harder for people to make their homes energy efficient.
Caroline Flint
I will perhaps take an intervention a little later, but I have taken quite a lot of interventions and I want to make some progress.
Let me come on to the green deal. We have always said that we want such a scheme to work. All three parties went into the general election with a pay-as-you-save scheme in their manifestos, and the pilot started under the previous Labour Government. Properly executed, it could really help to cut people’s bills and create jobs. In the build-up to the launch of the green deal, the Government have not been shy of making big claims for this policy. Ministers have proclaimed that it would reach 14 million homes by 2020, and 26 million by 2030. We were promised that it would create up to 100,000 jobs by 2015. They told us it would be the biggest home improvement scheme since the second world war. That is not the scheme before us today.
Under this scheme, just to find out eligibility and what measures are available, someone might have to pay £100 or more. This is a scheme where, instead of using the green investment bank to make green deal loans good value—as happens in Germany—interest rates could be as high as 8%. People could end up paying more in interest repayments and charges than the original measures cost. This is a scheme where, if people try to do the right thing and pay off their loan early, or have to pay it off because they are moving house and the new owner does not want to take on the green deal, they will be hit with penalty payments running to thousands of pounds. Yes, the Government who preach about debt will penalise people who want to pay off their debts. Under this scheme, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, the number of lofts lagged every year will plummet by more than 80%. This is a scheme that has so far seen nearly 2,000 people in the insulation industry lose their jobs, and 1,000 more put on notice of redundancy. For all the hype, this is set to be the green disaster, and the public will vote with their feet. Given the choice of deal or no deal, the public, in their millions, will be saying no deal.
Let us look at the obligations on energy companies. Not only have the Government made a mess of their flagship policy, but they have failed to get the energy companies to keep their side of the deal. In government, we put tough obligations on the big energy companies to make them offer energy efficiency measures for free, or at a very low cost, to households in deprived areas. Those programmes were known as the community energy saving programme and the carbon emissions reduction target, and they came into force on 1 October 2009 and ended on 31 December last year. Ministers and Ofgem have therefore had two and a half years to keep the policy on track. Instead, they sat back and did nothing, as month after month companies failed to stay on course, and they watched, in the final few months, as the energy giants threw money at the problem of take-up, which they should have dealt with far sooner and more effectively, instead of leaving their customers to foot the bill.
Ministers cannot say that they did not have any warning. On 16 May last year, I told the Government in this House that the energy companies were not on track to meet their targets. Let me remind the House what the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said in response:
“we fully expect them to deliver their obligations and we will make sure that they do.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 554.]
Now that the scheme has closed, will the Minister tell us whether he has kept his word and made sure that the energy companies met their obligations, or will he now admit that because of his complacency the energy companies have missed their targets? As a result, families across the country are facing a cold winter with poorly insulated homes when they could have been helped. If those companies have failed to honour their obligations, will he tell the House that he will expect Ofgem, as it states in the motion, to use its full range of powers to take tough action to ensure that companies know that there is a price to pay if they do not do what is required of them?
Charles Hendry
The point I wanted to make earlier—I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way—is that in the interests of transparency can she confirm that the number of people in fuel poverty started to come down in about 1995 or 1996, as wholesale prices came down? They continued to decline until 2005, when they bottomed out at approximately 1 million, and then rose inexorably to 3 million, 4 million and 5 million from that point onwards as wholesale prices increased. That was not a matter of political success or failure; it was a matter of wholesale prices more than anything else.
Caroline Flint
I do not accept that it is just a matter of wholesale prices. There are issues about prices and I recognise the experience that the hon. Gentleman brings to the Chamber on this issue, but the truth is that if we had not had the decent homes programme, the Warm Front scheme and other measures to help tackle homes that leak energy, in both social and private housing, we could have left office with more people in the grip of fuel poverty. The truth is that the numbers went down.
Under Labour, the Warm Front scheme helped well over 2 million households insulate their homes, improve their energy efficiency and cut their bills. No one would pretend that the scheme is perfect—no scheme of such a size ever is. I have dealt with cases in my constituency where people have not received the kind of service expected, but when Warm Front closes on Saturday, the Government will be, as I have said, the first Administration since the 1970s not to have a Government-funded energy efficiency programme. I do not think that that is a fine record to set.
In its final year, it is no exaggeration to say that Ministers have run the scheme into the ground. The number of people receiving help this year is on course to hit an all-time low. Between 2006 and 2010, nearly 250,000 people were helped each year, but so far this year fewer than 22,000 households have been accepted for help—not 80,000, as the Prime Minister told the House earlier today. In the Secretary of State’s own constituency, just seven households have received assistance in the last year. I am not sure whether that will feature in his election literature in 2015.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I understand that the Warm Front scheme helped a lot of people, but the right hon. Lady will recognise that the Public Accounts Committee report on Warm Front said that it was badly targeted, that about 75% of households were not expected to be in fuel poverty and that it did not really help any countryside house that is off the gas grid.
Caroline Flint
Labour has already said that those families and homes off the gas grid should come under better regulation supervised by a new energy watchdog. I take the point from the hon. Lady and others who are concerned about that. As I have already said, I am not suggesting that Warm Front is perfect. These schemes always need to be assessed to see whether they are delivering, but the truth is that 2 million homes were helped. Warm Front helped to ensure that people’s homes up and down the country were warmer.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a disgrace that 60% of homes in the country that can take cavity wall insulation have still not received it and that only 2% of those with solid walls have been insulated?
Caroline Flint
Absolutely, and the question is this: what have the Government been doing for the past two and a half years? [Interruption.] Well, for a start, 2 million homes received a Warm Front grant under Labour. What is this Government’s record? Let us talk about that. Even families who have been accepted as eligible for help under Warm Front are facing huge delays. Despite being asked parliamentary questions, so far the Government have refused to reveal the average waiting time, but yesterday morning on “Daybreak” I learnt of a single mum called Susannah Hickling who was forced to wait nine months.
From asking other parliamentary questions, I have uncovered a huge backlog. In response to a question on 18 December, the Government were forced to admit that of nearly 22,000 successful applications for Warm Front grants—fewer than we have had in previous times—just 6,000 have resulted in any work, meaning that nearly 16,000 families who have been told that they will receive help are still waiting, in the middle of winter. I understand that the Government are now saying that the backlog is only 14,000. That is hardly a sign of success. If that is the case, I hope that the Secretary of State will update the House on how many households are waiting and when they can expect the work to be done.
On top of that, a further 9,000 people have applied for assistance but are still anxiously waiting to know whether they will get any help before Warm Front closes for good. Notwithstanding the insulation or energy efficiency measures that have finally been installed, the amount of help that people end up receiving has been quietly slashed by two thirds compared with last year. This year, the average level of grant provided under Warm Front is just £997, but last year it was more than three times as much at more than £3,000. In short, we have a scheme in its dying days under which people are receiving less help than ever before, with a massive backlog and thousands of families being given the cold shoulder.
Disgraceful though that is, it gets worse. Despite all the hardship—the cuts in funding, the reduced help, the delays—the Government have been forced to come clean and reveal that more than half the budget is predicted to remain unspent. In answer to a parliamentary question from me on 12 December, the Government confirmed that, from a total budget of £100 million this financial year, just £34.8 million has spent, while another £15.1 million has been committed but not yet spent. That means that more than £50 million that this Government chose to set aside to help low-income households through Warm Front might not even be spent at all. Given that the average Warm Front grant this year has been just under £1,000, that means that some 50,000 low-income or vulnerable households could have received help but will not, unless the scheme is extended and Saturday’s deadline is pushed back.
Let me ask the Secretary of State a straightforward question. What possible justification can there be for shutting down a scheme and turning away people in need when only half the budget has been spent? If he cannot answer that question, will he not see sense today and agree to extend the Warm Front scheme until the entire budget has been spent or committed to expenditure? No one is asking for more money or for the budget to be increased. We are simply saying that if the Government have chosen to set aside £100 million for Warm Front this year, they should at least ensure that this support reaches the people it was intended to reach.
Gloria De Piero
It is a particular outrage and a disgrace—call it what you will—that there is money left over given that I and, I am sure, colleagues across the House are being contacted by constituents, including vulnerable and elderly people, who are trying to get help from Warm Front, but who have been told that they must wait or have not had the answer that they need in these freezing temperatures. It is nothing short of a disgrace.
Caroline Flint
It is indeed a disgrace. I do not say this without thinking about it first, but I think this Government have basically driven the scheme into the ground.
It makes it even more unforgiveable that we find ourselves in exactly the same situation as last year, when, despite repeated warnings, the Government had an underspend in the previous financial year of £50.6 million in the Warm Front scheme. Instead of that money helping people to reduce their energy use and cut their bills, it went back to the Treasury—presumably to help to fill the holes in the Chancellor’s borrowing targets. Why were Ministers not on the case? They have known since October 2010 that Warm Front was due to end this Saturday. After last year’s debacle, if I were a Minister I would have been all over this issue and not waiting for another car crash. Indeed, if I can access that information through parliamentary questions, Ministers should have known about the underspend, the backlog and the thousands of applications still waiting to be decided on. If they knew there was a problem, why were they not on the sofas of “Daybreak” or “This Morning”, or out in the country promoting the scheme and ensuring that people knew the help was available? The Government are keen on performance-related pay; perhaps they should start with the pay of Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Richard Fuller
I am extraordinarily grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Perhaps my question will move her on to something more constructive and what we can do to improve some of the schemes. She has mentioned the Warm Front scheme and some of the problems with the backlog, but the Public Accounts Committee found that only 35% of the households that were likely to be fuel-poor would be eligible. Does she not think that it behoves us to look at improvements to the scheme? What would she recommend constructively that we could do better?
Caroline Flint
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I recommend. There is £50 million in the Warm Front budget. The Government should delay the closure of the scheme and extend it so that more people can get what they need. Indeed, only 22 people in his constituency got Warm Front in the last year. Is he happy with that? Is he satisfied that £50 million will go back to the Treasury, rather than helping people in Bedford and every other part of this country? I suggest that he put that in his press release for his local paper, explaining why he will sit on £50 million before letting it disappear from the communities in Bedford and everywhere else in the country.
Sometimes there are Opposition motions whose purpose is to express a clear dividing line between us and the Government; sometimes they will contain policies or proposals with which we know the Government will not agree; on the odd occasion they will even be used to make a political point or two. In preparing today’s motion, however, we focused on common-sense solutions to some of the problems relating to Warm Front, the green deal and the obligations of the energy companies, in order to ensure that our energy efficiency schemes deliver, that help reaches those who need it most and that, even in these difficult times, people who are struggling are not needlessly left out in the cold when money is available and has been committed to help them. It is in that spirit that I urge all hon. Members to support a green deal that is a good deal, tougher action on the energy companies if they fail to meet their obligations, and the extension of Warm Front until its entire budget has been spent. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Seventeen people have indicated that they wish to take part in the debate. The wind-ups will start at 6.40 pm, so we have a limited amount of time for Back-Bench contributions. I shall wait to see how long Mr Davey’s contribution takes before I announce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but hon. Members should not think too far outside the five-minute box.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I am grateful to the Opposition for this opportunity to set out the many things the Government are doing this winter, and in the winters to come, to help people to keep their energy bills as low as possible and to keep their houses warm. I am under no illusion about how hard it is out there this winter. Times are tough, many people’s incomes are not going up, and the cost of necessities such as food is rising. I understand that higher energy prices are hitting some people hard, so let me make it very clear that rising energy bills are one of my greatest concerns.
We need to set the story straight on why energy bills have been rising. They have been driven remorselessly up by wholesale fossil fuel prices, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) admitted. Global gas prices were 50% higher in the five years to 2011 than in the previous five years, and they have continued to rise. Sustained higher world oil and gas prices have taken some by surprise because, in the past, prices have fallen when the developed world has experienced recession and low growth. But today, probably for the first time in modern history, the fast-growing economies of China, India, Brazil and other parts of the emerging world are all demanding oil and gas. So world oil and gas prices have remained stubbornly high, and are likely to remain high.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
My right hon. Friend referred initially not to rising oil and gas prices but to rising fossil fuel prices. Is it not the case that, although coal prices have fallen significantly, we are seeing no benefit from that because we are closing coal-fired power stations, including Kingsnorth in my constituency on 17 December, because of an EU directive?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is not quite explaining the situation fully. There is an awful lot of coal being burnt in this country and elsewhere, because of its low price, but that has not changed the picture because of the high price of gas.
Britain cannot control the global market. We cannot drive down international wholesale prices, but we must still do everything we can to help the people and businesses facing those rising global prices, especially the most vulnerable and those in fuel poverty—and, despite what the right hon. Member for Don Valley said, we are doing that.
Government policy is designed specifically to drive a wedge between global energy prices and energy bills, now and in the future. It is designed to enable us to cushion and insulate people from the hikes in global fossil fuel prices as best we can. The coalition has a plan to tackle ever-rising energy bills. When the Labour Government were in power, they talked big but did very little. They did not effectively target help on those who needed it most, they did not establish a new market in home energy efficiency and they did not reform the electricity market. We are doing those things. We are acting, whereas they just talked.
Caroline Lucas
Will the Secretary of State explain how promoting a major new nuclear power programme, which will require a subsidy of about £4 billion a year and which will inevitably push up prices, is compatible with trying to reduce the impacts on people in fuel poverty? It is going to make energy far more expensive.
Mr Davey
Two things surprise me about the hon. Lady’s question. First, she seems to know the details of the ongoing negotiations between EDF and the Government. I pay tribute to her if she knows them, but I have to tell her that her figures are completely wrong. Secondly, I would have thought that, given the real threat of catastrophic climate change, low-carbon energy would have changed a number of people’s views on nuclear power, if we can make it cost effective without public subsidy, in line with the Government’s policy.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is deliciously ironic that the Green party should be attacking the coalition Government for pursuing a form of energy generation that requires some kind of subsidy when it is determined to festoon the country with wind farms that require enormous subsidies to generate anything at all?
Charles Hendry
I was delighted to go to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) to help open a wind-turbine manufacturing plant, which is keen to take advantage of this technology. That was not, however, the point I wanted to make in this intervention. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Labour did not just talk, but blocked progress? When the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), and I proposed a green deal as an amendment to the Energy Bill under the last Labour Government, Labour vetoed it. We could have seen progress two years earlier than it has happened.
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is an authority in the House on this issue. It was not just the green deal or nuclear or other things that Labour failed to do when in government; it failed to get investment into the energy system in the UK, and we are having to make up the backlog.
We are helping people now, in the short term, by intervening directly—getting extra money into the pockets of those who need it to pay their bills and looking after those who are struggling most—through the warm home discount. We are helping people now and in the medium term by helping everyone to be able to help themselves to cut their bills by saving energy through the green deal. We are ensuring through the Energy Bill that our country and future generations are not hit by future volatile fossil fuel prices, as we are being hit by major reforms for a more competitive, more diverse market of suppliers and energy sources. Let me deal with each of those areas in turn
Richard Fuller
We all recognise the differences between this Government and the last Government. This time money is short, whereas the last Government spent like drunken sailors money that they did not have. When we deal with fuel poverty, we thus want to ensure that the funding is focused on those who really need it. Will the Secretary of State address the issue that under the last Government schemes were not targeted on those who really needed them, and tell us what this Government are doing about it?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am coming on to talk about that right now. Looking at the actions we are taking, it is clear that we are helping the poorest and most vulnerable with targeted extra money to help with winter bills. We need to make sure that those who feel the cold most sharply and those who can least afford to pay can put on the heating in the knowledge they will receive extra help to pay for it. For many pensioners, winter fuel payments make a valuable contribution to paying their energy bills. That is why we have protected winter fuel payments in line with the budget set out by Labour. Last year, we made over 12 million payments to over 9 million households at a cost of around £2.6 billion.
We are doing more for the poorest pensioners and for many other vulnerable households through cold weather payments. When the coalition came to office, cold weather payments were at £8.50 a week and had only temporarily been raised to £25. As cold weather payments target the most vulnerable when they need it the most, the coalition decided, despite the tough financial situation, to keep cold weather payments at £25 a week and to make that permanent, investing an extra £50 million a year. About 4.2 million people are currently eligible—older people on pension credit, disabled adults, families with children under five on an income-related benefit. They can now be sure that—year in, year out—if the temperature drops dramatically, they will get help with energy bills. We should be proud of that.
Mr Davey
I want to make a bit more progress.
In addition to the winter fuel allowance and cold weather payments, the coalition brought in the warm home discount—a legal obligation on the energy companies that we introduced for direct cuts to the energy bills of the most vulnerable. The Opposition rarely mention this, although to be fair to the right hon. Member for Don Valley she mentioned it today. She will know that so far this winter, more than 1 million low-income pensioners have already received the warm home discount to help keep them warm—and, with them, almost a million other vulnerable households with mandatory rebates worth £288 million this year alone, automatically cutting the bills of the most vulnerable by £130 a year. The Opposition do not normally mention that because it is clear evidence that we are doing everything we can to tackle fuel poverty, despite the financial situation we inherited. Even before cold weather payments can be claimed, a poor pensioner over 80 is guaranteed to receive £430 of help with their energy bill. Under Labour, a vulnerable household was not guaranteed anything, but with the coalition’s warm home discount, they can get £130 off for sure. That is real help.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
How can the Secretary of State say that a pensioner over the age of 80 was not entitled to £400 under Labour, when they were entitled to £400 under Labour’s winter fuel scheme? Will he come clean and tell the House that his Government have cut that to £300, at the same time as cutting the £250 to £200? Can he tell us one week in this winter in which the cold weather payment has been paid to people in the UK?
Mr Davey
First, cold weather payments are related to the weather, which the coalition Government do not control, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley was at least good enough to acknowledge. I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s figures are wrong. Under Labour, £300 of winter fuel payments went to all pensioners, but through the warm home discount we guarantee £130 off their bills from the energy companies, so that amounts to £430 off for elderly pensioners. That did not happen under Labour.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
One thing the Government could do is make winter fuel payments earlier so that people who are off grid and buy large amounts of oil, gas, coal or wood got more value from the money the Government are giving them. Will he consider that? Such a proposal was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) in a Bill that was blocked by Government Members.
Mr Davey
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Department for Work and Pensions administers that benefit, and I am sure that he has made that request to the Secretary of State for that Department. My Department has been encouraging people in many parts of the country who are off grid to buy early, because they can get much better deals than if they leave it until later.
Although the extra payments are welcome to those who get them, they are not received by everybody. They do not address the fundamental problem of homes and appliances that waste energy and money. Britain’s draughty homes account for a quarter of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Millions of homes do not have full double glazing. More than half do not have enough insulation or an efficient condensing boiler. Most do not even have proper heating controls. The single most effective means of bringing bills down for people, including for the most vulnerable, is to help people waste less energy. Energy efficiency is about using less energy to provide the same warmth, or more. That means lower bills and lower carbon emissions.
Caroline Flint
I quote the written ministerial statement from today:
“The Warm Front scheme has been an important policy in tackling fuel poverty among private sector households in England though the installation of a range of heating, insulation and other energy efficiency measures”
and since 2000 it
“has helped around 2.3 million households vulnerable to fuel poverty.”
Given that this budget has a £50 million underspend, will the Secretary of State explain why he is not urging his colleagues in Government to extend the Warm Front deadline so that the budget can be spent to help the very people he has just been talking about?
Mr Davey
I am coming to the Warm Front scheme, because the right hon. Member for Don Valley made much of the fact that we are closing it down. Under the previous Government, the Warm Front scheme was the vehicle by which some vulnerable households were helped, but we consider the scale of the fuel poverty challenge to be much greater, and, as she has admitted, there were problems with the scheme. We are far more ambitious, because fuel poverty must be tackled and Britain has some of the oldest and, therefore, draughtiest, housing stock in Europe. If we are serious about climate change and tackling high energy bills, we should not help just those who are at risk of fuel poverty, although they should of course be a priority. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to green-proof their house and achieve lower energy bills in the process.
Warm Front will be closing, as announced more than two years ago, but applications will continue to be accepted up to 19 January, and the work will be followed through, for all who apply up to 19 January. I have set out to the House today in a written statement how that transition will work. Even before 19 January, we brought in Warm Front’s successor—the affordable warmth scheme, which the right hon. Lady did not mention, and which is part of our new energy company obligation. Affordable warmth is up and operating, and low-income households who previously could get Warm Front can now get affordable warmth. It and the energy company obligation, which are both now in operation, will support our most ambitious policy of all—the green deal.
This is a transformative moment. We shall see the full launch of the green deal this month. From 28 January, all households will be eligible for it. They will be able to make energy-saving improvements that will be paid for, over time, through their energy bills and the savings that they make. This is an affordable way of retrofitting millions of homes, making them cheaper to heat and lowering carbon emissions at the same time.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley rightly wanted to talk about Warm Front and the details of its budget. I shall deal with that now, although she herself admitted that there will problems with Warm Front. As she said, we have spent £38.4 million of the £100 million budget, and £15.5 is committed. We expect to spend about £70 million by the end of the year. We will not return the remaining £30 million to the Treasury, as the right hon. Lady implied, because we want to do all that we can to address fuel poverty, and we have worked hard to ensure that the money is spent on tackling it, organising a local authority competition for cash from a special fuel poverty fund. I told the House yesterday that about £30 million was being provided for local authorities across the country to spend on local energy efficiency projects for low-income and vulnerable households. There will be no waste. As it comes to the end of its life, Warm Front is being recycled, and what is replacing it is infinitely better.
Opposition Members seem to think that Warm Front was a fantastic scheme, but people had to apply for it, whereas under affordable warmth the energy companies will have to go out and find people in order to help them. I should have expected Opposition Members to support that.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Government announced yesterday that extra money would be available under the affordable warmth scheme. In Stoke-on-Trent, it will amount to £290,000, which could help 200 homes. However, when a quarter of the population are in fuel poverty, that is a drop in the ocean.
Caroline Flint
When—in, I believe, October 2012—the Secretary of State announced the competition for local authorities seeking to win money to help energy efficiency locally, did he make it clear that it would be Warm Front money? He has said that £30 million will go towards the scheme. What is happening to the other £20 million of Warm Front underspend?
Mr Davey
The right hon. Lady was clearly not listening when I said that we expected that amount to be spent by the end of the year. [Interruption.] It would help if the right hon. Lady listened now. She will know that uncertainties are involved in schemes such as this—even Labour could not macro-manage everything—but we expect to spend about £70 million.
The right hon. Lady asked whether we had announced that the money would come from the Warm Front scheme. We did not do so, because we were not absolutely sure what we would be spending on Warm Front by the end of the year. I wanted to ensure that we were making fuel poverty a priority, and that any underspend from Warm Front or anywhere else was targeted at it. Now the right hon. Lady is criticising me—
Caroline Flint
I am happy to withdraw it, but I will look into the facts to establish whether it was made clear in that announcement that the money would come from Warm Front.
Mr Davey
We did not need to.
Through targeted intervention to help the most vulnerable and by helping people to insulate their homes, we can help them to keep their bills down, but if we are to keep bills as low as possible in the long term, we shall need to ensure that there is a competitive market of diverse suppliers and diverse energy sources in which consumers can obtain the best possible deal. The Energy Bill, which is now before Parliament, is designed to do just that. We had a full debate on Second Reading just before Christmas, so I shall not go into the details of the Bill now, but I will say something about tariff switching, because I think that that has already been raised in the debate.
Switching has been the principal way to ensure suppliers compete for customers and to enable more suppliers into the market, but some statistics suggest the system is not working as well as it might and the majority of consumers do not seek out the best deals. Some 75% of consumers are on their supplier’s standard variable rate tariff, which tends to be more expensive. We therefore need to shake up the market.
We shall do so in two ways. First, we must help the vast majority of consumers who do not shop around to get the cheapest tariff their supplier offers that is in line with their current preferences. Secondly, we need to help and encourage people to shop around for even better deals, with better and more helpful and simple information on bills.
Many Members will by now know about my personal focus—some might say obsession—on collective switching, as it can help cut bills, promote competition and address fuel poverty. That is a collective solution to fuel poverty that the Labour party never thought of in 13 years. It is about encouraging people no longer to be passive consumers of energy, but to be active consumers, clubbing together to strike a better deal than they can get alone, and using the weight of thousands of voices—or whole local authority areas—to drive a harder bargain. It was not the Labour party that first pushed this idea into the political debate; it was this coalition Government and, if I dare say so, I and the Liberal Democrats in particular. This is about rekindling the spirit of co-operatives.
I have spoken many times about the many examples of this policy working, including examples in Belgium, the Consumers Association’s “Big Switch”, and examples involving South Lakeland district council and Cornwall Together. Yesterday, I announced the winners of “cheaper energy together”, a £5-million competition I set up last year to stimulate collective switching across the UK. I was thrilled so many councils and community groups applied. There were 114 bids, and the 31 successful bids cover 94 different local councils, so this year millions of people will have the opportunity to take part in collective switching schemes.
New ideas such as collective switching are part of the answer to high energy bills and fuel poverty, but no single measure will bring bills down, keep bills down and end fuel poverty. Today I have outlined a series of measures that will help people, both this winter and in winters to come, to keep warm at an affordable price, to save energy and to change the dynamic in the markets. While no Government can control global energy prices, we will do everything we can to limit the impact on people.
Taking all our policies together, by 2020 the average household energy bill will be 7%, or £94, lower than if this Government were not pursuing our energy and climate change policies. Last year, our independent review of fuel poverty suggested that our policies are reducing fuel poverty: we are doing the right things. That is good news, but there is no room for complacency.
No party in this House has a monopoly on compassion. When there are reports of people having to choose between heating and eating, we are rightly determined to make sure that we help the most vulnerable. I will do everything I can with my colleagues across Government, as well as working across the House and with business and consumer groups alike, to make sure that the choice between heating and eating becomes a thing of the past.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. A five-minute time limit on speeches is in place, and if Members shave a bit off their allowed time all of them will be called. Members should also be aware that if there are a lot of interventions, Members will be dropped off the list.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
This is one of the very few issues that can unite households across the United Kingdom. Labour Members have demonstrated that our party believes it is important to speak up for consumers, who are at the sharp end of ever-rising energy costs. Families and households are struggling to pay their bills. Let there be no doubt about the hardship that is being caused to millions of families and people, old and young, working and non-working.
Set against that background, it is important to understand that consumers have no appetite for rhetoric. They want Government intervention. They are demanding a fair price for the necessities of gas and electricity. We parliamentarians should be on the side of the consumers and be demanding transparency from the energy suppliers.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The energy companies have paid out £7 billion in dividends. Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of that money could have been used to lower energy costs for the needy in this country?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend has made an excellent point.
Just before our Christmas recess, I raised this issue with the Prime Minister when I said:
“let us be transparent…as one body has advised, approaching 9 million households suffer from fuel poverty, which is the highest since records began? Will he explain to the House and our constituents, as we approach Christmas, what the Government are prepared to do about the horrible scandal of fuel poverty?”
To be fair, the Prime Minister agreed with me in his reply, saying that I was
“entirely right that fuel poverty is a scandal and that it needs to be dealt with”.—[Official Report, 19 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 851-52.]
However, he challenged my figures. Today, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I put on the record the fact that they came from the Government’s own advisers. The Energy Secretary must know that that is the case. If we are going to set the record straight, as I believe I have just done, we may learn what plans the Government have to help to reduce the horrendous levels of fuel poverty, which are clearly identified in the report I referred to and clearly understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
No fuel poverty figures are available on a Scottish constituency basis. Lanarkshire has two councils, and at this point I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) for the excellent point he made about councils getting together—mainly Labour councils—to protect their constituents against the excesses of the prices being imposed on them. North Lanarkshire council has 37,000 households in fuel poverty, which represents 26% of the housing stock. The adjacent South Lanarkshire council has 45,000 households in fuel poverty, which represents 32% of the housing stock. Given those shocking levels of fuel poverty, my Lanarkshire MP colleagues are supporting an initiative that has resulted in my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and I meeting the leadership of the North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire councils—again, that took place just before Christmas. I do not want to overstate the position, but the response from the Lanarkshire council leaders and the situation we have reached are deeply encouraging. Although it is important to hold the Government to account for their policies, it is now incumbent on Opposition Members to be more thoughtful and innovative. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish are aiming to do. Our duty is to offer alternative solutions, as we are doing.
On 23 January 2007, I said:
“It is my intention to explore every avenue with all relevant bodies. I have written to Ofgem—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—which has a duty to consumers, and to the Office of Fair Trading, which has a duty to ensure that, frankly, a cartel is not operating against the public interest.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 381WH.]
I am more convinced today than I was then about the probability of a cartel of energy companies being in operation. For example, I tabled three very simple parliamentary questions asking for facts that consumers are entitled to know, but not one was the subject of a reply. If we are talking about transparency, right hon. and hon. Members of this House are entitled to replies to the questions they put. If we are to hear from the Prime Minister information that is clearly wrong and if his Ministers give us the impression that they are living in another world, we are entitled to ask what the facts are. We are entitled to build on those facts, which we know because of our own experience in our constituencies. On the evidence so far, what is happening on fuel poverty suggests that it is time that this House asserted itself and said enough is enough.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
We are all united today in lamenting the fact that so many people are suffering as a result of fuel poverty. I listened with great interest as the Minister, the shadow Minister and right hon. and hon. Members discussed what they would do about it—all the schemes that they have put in place, the Warm Front scheme, cold weather payments, the green deal, the affordable warmth scheme, collective switching, bashing the energy companies, subsidising people to put insulation in their lofts, and whether pensioners were getting £300 or £400 under Labour. There was no agreement about that, but it struck me that there was not a great deal of difference in what any of them were suggesting. The only difference was that Opposition Members were promising to do more of it and spend even more money, although of course they have no money because, as they admitted, they spent it all. There was very little difference.
We are failing to address a fundamental question. The energy policies of all parties in the House are predicated on the fact that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming, that this is a problem and something must be done, and that the something that must be done is to change the way in which we generate electricity so that we do it through renewables and fund this through subsidies, which have to be passed on to consumers. Of course more people are suffering from fuel poverty under this Government and the previous Government. They always will, because we are pursuing policies that are increasing the cost of energy and we should be honest about that.
If we are to be honest about that, we would have to be honest about something else as well: the problem that we are trying to confront does not appear to be a problem. In 15 years, according to the Met Office website, there has been no increase in temperature. Let us think about that for a minute. Since 1992 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been chucking out predictions, one after another, telling us that there are going to be monumental rises in temperature as a result of the fact that we are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In the 150 years of industrialisation, the temperature increase has been around 0.7° and much of that will be due to the fact that we were coming out of a period of unusual cooling anyway from about the time that we industrialised. But for the past 15 years there has been no increase whatever. All the industrialisation that has gone on in China, India, Brazil and all those other countries has not led to a trace of an increase in global warming, which is another reason why so many people will stay in fuel poverty: they will continue to have to spend large amounts of money heating their homes.
I have spent a great deal of time looking into this issue. I voted for the various carbon taxes and the climate change Bills, and I am coming to regret the fact that I did. But I did not have the information that is now out there. For ages I could not even find the Met Office figures that show that there have been no increases. If there are no increases, it is surely reasonable to conclude that something other than carbon dioxide is affecting the atmosphere and climatic and temperature changes. If that is so, perhaps we need to rethink our entire energy policy—all of us.
I have come to the conclusion that it is time to do away with the carbon taxes, the subsidies and all the rest of it, to allow energy companies to generate electricity as cheaply as they can and to sell it to consumers as cheaply as they can. I look at America, where this approach has been tried out. The price of electricity for domestic users has halved in the United States as a result of the exploitation of shale gas through fracking. Obviously, Ministers will get no support from the environmentalists, but they will get no support from them anyway.
The first Member who intervened on the Minister was the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the Green party Member, complaining about subsidies. I have never heard anything so ludicrous as a member of the Green party complaining about energy subsidies and energy price increases. We have followed its policies to some extent and obviously all renewable energies need subsidies and they will always lead to an increased cost, which is passed straight on to the consumer.
Caroline Lucas
I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because I did not want to give him any encouragement whatever, but he has now challenged me. Does he accept that fuel bills are rising now because of rising gas prices, not because of anything to do with support for renewables?
David T. C. Davies
I can assure the hon. Lady that I need absolutely no encouragement whatsoever. It would be a pleasure to discuss this issue with her at some point. She will understand that gas prices in the United States have not just halved—they are around a quarter of what they were a few years ago as a result of the exploitation of shale gas. I am tempted to suggest that she should join me in supporting that exciting new technology, but I have a feeling that I know what the answer will be. Of course she will not support it, and she will not support the Severn barrage, either, even though that would allow us to generate electricity without carbon emissions. She will not support nuclear power, even though that allows us to generate electricity without the carbon emissions that she would suggest are the greatest threat to our climate.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech. He has mentioned the United States and the fact that gas prices have gone down by a factor of four. The other interesting thing about the United States is that it was the OECD country that reduced carbon emissions the most last year, by replacing coal with gas—exactly the opposite of what Germany is doing.
David T. C. Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am out of time and I will not impose on you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Tear up the carbon taxes, tear up the subsidies—let us start again, deliver the cheap energy we know is out there and end fuel poverty that way.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
As I follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), and having heard the exchanges just now, I know that I am on the side of the Secretary of State. It is vital that whatever the Government do on energy policy puts into effect the Climate Change Act 2008. If hon. Members, in the five minutes they have in which to make a speech, go on and on about the issues of climate change and scepticism—as we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman—we will not deal with the large number of people who, as we sit here, are unable to deal with the cold in their own homes.
Five minutes is not a proper amount of time in which to rush through a speech, but if there is any way that the Secretary of State could use the revenue from the European emissions trading scheme and the carbon floor price to provide the additional resources needed to eradicate fuel poverty once and for all, that would be just one contribution to this wide-ranging and complex debate that could make a difference to people in my constituency and across the UK.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), as many as 9 million people will experience fuel poverty by 2016. We must deal with that and doing so would I believe give heart to the 25% of households in Stoke-on-Trent who are in fuel poverty. Last week, the cold weather payment was triggered. That means that those people are having to decide whether to heat their homes or to feed their families. Our constituents are having to make those choices, so our debate today is timely. Although I welcome the money announced yesterday that will improve however many households, it will not produce effects on the scale needed to deal with the hardship that people face.
We have heard about the Warm Front scheme, and although it had its problems, the fact that it will end this Saturday—although we were given prior notice—raises the question of what will happen to that funding. I do not think that it should just go back to the Treasury or that the Department of Energy and Climate Change should just say that there will be extra money for different programmes. We need additional money and I urge the Government to consider that in the context of the current crisis.
Many Members want to speak, so I shall be brief. The green deal is fine for those who will be able to take out loans at 7% interest rates, but that will not be an option for the majority of people in my constituency. If we can increase expenditure on energy efficiency, that will create jobs, putting money back into local economies to make a difference.
The energy company obligation—the ECO scheme—will probably be of some help in Stoke-on-Trent. As we worked so hard to set up the warm zone scheme, into which I had a big input over the years, we are now well placed to know where the households are that can be targeted.
My final point is about district heating networks, which we must consider from the point of view of innovation. We need to look at what the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is doing and how the Treasury is making money available. We also need to look at best practice in other European countries. If the Government are going to have a heat strategy that tries to increase the use of waste industrial heat in urban centres, that is exactly what Stoke-on-Trent would benefit from. The Government have set up a competition on carbon capture and storage. Why could they not think about giving technical support to ways of introducing district heating systems and providing some of the capital, preferably using money from the UK Green Investment Bank?
We need to step up the way in which we are dealing with fuel poverty and the whole energy agenda by viewing it as a crisis. It is not only about the need to decarbonise the economy; the crisis is also there in the homes and lives of our constituents. In this debate—I welcome the fact that it is an Opposition debate—we must find a way of moving the whole agenda forward.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I will start on a positive note. The motion states that
“the most sustainable way for households to cut their energy bills is to make their homes more energy efficient”.
I could not agree more, as I said in my speech on Second Reading of the Energy Bill. To recap:
“Energy saving is the quickest and cheapest way to cut carbon emissions and so should be at the heart of…reform.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 930.]
However, I struggle with much of the rest of the motion, as Labour’s record on fuel poverty was appalling. Between 2004 and 2009, the number of households in fuel poverty rose from 2 million to 5.5 million, with the burden falling disproportionately on vulnerable households. If we accept the shadow Secretary of State’s logic, this was entirely—or at least mainly—down to choices made by the then Government. Under Labour, fuel poverty among vulnerable households trebled in just six years, with an increase of 500,000 from 2006 to 2007, just before the financial crash. In 2008, the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group went as far as to say:
“The Government appears to have given up on the legally binding 2010 Fuel Poverty Target”.
I am prepared to admit that a lot of that was due to wholesale energy prices, and that is what one does in a grown-up debate when one is searching for solutions and consensus. But it is a pity that Labour Front Benchers do not seem capable of that.
In Government, we are introducing measures to help millions of low-income and vulnerable households to meet the cost of heating their homes through the energy company obligation and the warm home discount scheme. There are winter fuel payments for more than 12.6 million pensioners in 9 million households and additional cold weather payments. We have welcomed the report by Professor John Hills that suggested a move away from the current definition of fuel poverty. The review is right to say that we should direct support to those who need it most rather than merely those with very large, difficult-to-heat houses, regardless of their income. I am pleased to say that we are not taking, and will not take, our lead on the issue from Labour, because this Government are committed to sustainable and affordable energy reform that will help people today while protecting our planet, our jobs and the economy in future.
In the medium to longer term, unfortunately, pressures on wholesale energy prices will probably mean that household energy bills go up. However, we have introduced new measures to ensure that energy companies are up front with people about the tariff they are on, and we are making suppliers more accountable to consumers by strengthening Ofgem’s role. Let us be clear: wholesale energy prices are a reason for increasing our investment in renewables to increase our energy security and help to insulate this country from the unpredictable wholesale market instead of running headlong towards the mirage of cheap shale gas. These reforms are radical and positive, and they will ensure that people get the best value for money.
Measures announced by the Government to ensure that consumers get the best deals on their energy prices reflect our determination to tackle rising energy bills. This is not just for fuel-poor households. Which? has stated that 82% of consumers list the cost of energy and fuel as a top financial concern, and it is even worse for those who are off-grid. We are therefore encouraging increased competition in the sector, and we have also made sure that providers are up front with consumers about whether they are on the cheapest tariff. Only yesterday it was announced that the £5 million made available by this Government to set up collective switching schemes has been awarded to 31 successful bids. One of those is Changeworks, which has formed a group of several Scottish local authorities, including Edinburgh, as well as Kingdom housing association. I welcome the £414,000 that they have received to assist with that.
As I have said here before, the best way for most consumers to reduce the impact of rising bills is through energy efficiency measures. The green deal will have a positive impact on the energy efficiency of households. As the report of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group states, it provides
“an opportunity to establish an effective framework that can deliver against the twin objectives of eradicating fuel poverty and significantly reducing carbon emissions”.
Time is beating me.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mike Crockart
No, I will not, because—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady listens for a moment, she will learn that I have missed out on the opportunity to speak at the end of debates in the past because other hon. Members have taken interventions, so I will not do that.
Finally, the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group notes a lack of public knowledge and awareness of Government schemes aimed at improving energy efficiency. That is certainly a concern and I am sure that the Minister is taking it seriously. As local Members, however, we need to assume our own responsibility, so I encourage each and every Member to set an example by becoming an early adopter and having our own houses assessed and improved under the green deal.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Fuel poverty varies a great deal around the UK. The rate in Northern Ireland is 44%, which is explicable by the lack of gas up the pipe—more people are off-grid. The rate in Scotland is 28%, in Wales 26% and in England 16%. The Bevan Foundation estimates that fuel poverty in Wales is high, with 332,000 households in fuel poverty. Figures are also available for the regions of England. Fuel poverty hits rural England very hard indeed, but it is interesting that the rate in the south of England is 11.5%.
Wales is disproportionately hit by higher fuel bills. Incomes in Wales are lower and the percentage of people’s incomes devoted to energy is higher, and that, of course, leads to fuel poverty. We are also hit hard by Government policy on benefits. If benefits are to go up by only 1%, including, I might add, benefits for hard-working families, fuel inflation will, clearly, be much higher. That is not unique to Wales, but it is hitting us particularly hard, given the level of wages in Wales and the number of people who are dependent on in-work benefits.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Some 86,000 pensioners in the United Kingdom fail to claim all of their pension credits, 12,000 fail to claim their full housing benefit and 24,000 died in the last calendar year owing to cold-related illnesses. Is it not time that the Minister, along with the Department for Work and Pensions, make every effort to ensure that all those moneys that are not claimed are claimed by those vulnerable people who need it most?
Hywel Williams
That is a very good point. I hope that the Government’s pension policy will address some of that under-claiming. I will refer later to a particular aspect of this question—namely winter payments—which the hon. Gentleman will certainly be interested in.
There is less availability of mains gas in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and rural England. That leads to rural areas being dependent on off-grid fuel, which is a point that I made to the Secretary of State earlier. People have to adopt and then pay for alternatives that are, of themselves, much more expensive and, of course, they have to pay up front. I came across a case last week of a pensioner who had been saving hard all year, essentially to put £600-worth of fuel into a tank in her garden. It was quite a strain.
Delivery in winter, particularly of gas, can be difficult, as we found in north-west Wales two years ago, when some households with pensioners could not heat their houses because the lorry could not get up to the house and they could not afford to put money up front earlier in the year. It is all very well to talk about switching and getting the best deal but, as I said earlier, pensioners would be much better off if they could spend the money given to them by the Government earlier in the year, when coal and gas are cheaper. They would get more bangs for the buck—I am sorry for that particular remark, but they would get more for their money.
There is limited potential for switching because of the cost. People cannot change the equipment easily if they are off-grid. For example, converting a solid fuel stove to gas costs a great deal of money. Switching suppliers is less common among those with off-grid fuel than for those with electricity or mains gas. The Office of Fair Trading figures for 2011 show that 3.7% of people with such solid, liquid and gas fuels switched supplier. People who depend on cylinder gas, although I concede that they are very few, are in an even more difficult situation.
I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir) introduced a private Member’s Bill to allow winter fuel payments to be made earlier in the year, but it was blocked. I hope that the Government will look at that idea sympathetically.
Wales is in the bizarre situation of being rich in mineral and renewable sources of energy, but having one of the highest levels of fuel poverty in the UK. We are energy rich and fuel poor. According to the Welsh Government, we have the potential to produce double the amount of electricity that we need. According to the Department of Energy and Climate Change here in London, Wales is a net exporter of electricity, and yet energy prices in Wales are among the highest.
We in Plaid Cymru have called for planning decisions on energy to be devolved. It is our belief that that would improve the situation markedly. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) presented a simple and reasonable Bill to devolve energy planning policy to the Welsh Government.
Hywel Williams
I will resist, given that I am nearly at the end of my remarks and other people want to speak.
We want to see devolution that puts Wales on an equal footing with Scotland and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, that was resisted by Government Members, with a few honourable exceptions.
As many Members have said, people should not have to choose between heating and eating—not in the UK and certainly not in energy-rich Wales.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
At the outset, we must establish a couple of facts. First, as we all know, the British Government are even now borrowing £100 billion a year, so the budget is very constrained. Secondly, despite the budgetary constraints and the economic pressure that we are all under, the coalition Government remain pledged to keeping the winter fuel allowance and to their environmental commitments in the green deal. Those are significant facts.
If we look at fuel prices—I notice that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is chuntering in a sedentary position—over the past 20 or 30 years, it is an indisputable fact that privatisation led, in its initial phase, to a fall in prices. Competition and a degree of free enterprise reduced costs.
We all know that over the past 10 years in particular, costs have increased. That has been caused by two factors. The first, which has been alluded to by the Front-Bench speakers, is the increase in fossil fuel prices and energy prices. People have talked about the rise of China. The fact that it is developing quickly and consuming a huge amount of energy has put prices up.
The second factor, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) alluded, is green legislation. Members from across the House hold different views about the nature or reality—or the unreality if that is what they feel—of climate change. However, it is indisputable that the green legislation that was introduced to decarbonise our economy has added to fuel costs in the short run.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
As we use tariffs to increase electricity produced from wind turbines and solar power, we are subsidising that electricity through consumers. That will, in itself, push up the price of energy and bring about more fuel poverty. We must recognise that.
Kwasi Kwarteng
There must be a realisation that we cannot expect to regulate and put more taxes on activities, while at the same time expecting those activities to be cheaper. There must be some give in all of this. The Government have managed a balancing act pretty well in very difficult times. We can look—I intend to do so in the second half of my speech—at the record of the previous Labour Government, certainly between 1997 and 2010. In many ways they were deeply irresponsible on this issue.
Another factor that drives up costs is supply. In this rather lengthy debate on which we have embarked, no one—apart from a few comments from Opposition Members bashing private companies—has mentioned supply, yet that is crucial to cost. The previous Labour Government did nothing to secure this country’s long-term energy future. There was no planning or provision for energy supply.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a point about supply. Is it not the case that during Labour’s years we started with 15 energy suppliers and ended with six? The Labour party reduced, not increased, the supply.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that pertinent remark. Not only was there a reduction, but there was no recognition of any long-term strategic need of this country.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Forgive me. There was, however, a considerable amount of spending, and as the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has acknowledged, that spending was not particularly smart. It was not directed to the most vulnerable; Labour simply spread it around in their usual style and hoped they would get results as a consequence. Again, that was a deeply irresponsible way in which to conduct the public finances.
Caroline Flint
In a mature way I was honest about acknowledging that big Government schemes often have situations in which the service is not as good as it might be. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that helping 2 million people through Warm Front was not worth doing?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am not saying that for a second. I am saying that it is one thing to spend money, but quite another to spend it effectively. Under the previous Labour Government, yes, it is true, the money was spent; they were world champions at spending public money and no one disputes that. I am, however, disputing whether that money was spent effectively. Many people—indeed, the electorate in 2010—believed that that money was not spent particularly effectively.
In the remaining moments of my speech let us look more closely at Labour’s record. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) pointed out, fuel poverty increased hugely during the Labour years. I am not so partisan as to say that it was all Labour’s fault, and I have acknowledged that there were rising fuel costs and that we were in a commodity cycle which meant that fuel costs were going to go up. It is a fact, however—such facts cannot simply be wished away—that fuel poverty increased dramatically under the previous Labour Government for the reasons I have outlined.
It is nauseating for Government Members to be lectured on fuel poverty by the right hon. Member for Don Valley and her friends, when their record was so dismal. The Government Front Bench are trying to do exactly the right thing under straitened economic circumstances and with difficult public finances. They are trying to get a fair deal not only for our constituents, but for businesses up and down the country. There is a recognition that a lot of interests are being balanced in a fair way.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I would like to bring to the debate an issue that a number of my constituents have asked me to raise: direct debit payments to energy companies. As the Secretary of State recognised in his opening comments, the cost of living is rising, energy bills are soaring and there are increasing concerns about job security, and so people are trying to manage their finances responsibly. Debt is a major worry for low-income families, as it is for us all. According to research by Save the Children and YouGov, 71% of parents on the lowest incomes are worried that energy bills will push them into debt. Heating the home is always a priority.
Direct debit appears to be a good way to predict and manage your monthly expenditure, and energy companies often offer incentives if you pay by direct debit. Many of my constituents have taken up the offer, thinking that they are saving money and acting prudently. Across the country, 65% of people are paying by direct debit. For a few months, the arrangement works. Then the energy companies send a letter saying that the direct debit payments are going up, often by more than 50%. The companies say that this is to account for “increased usage”, and that the original estimate they gave, which was the reason to switch to them, was inaccurate. From my personal experience, customers are not given alternative methods of payment or told by how much usage has increased, just that extra money will be taken from their account. That is presented as a fact and is not a point for debate, leaving no option but to accept and pay the increased amount, regardless of the impact on the household budget.
This summer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) wrote to all of the big six energy providers. Only SSE and npower responded. Npower, the biggest provider of energy in Yorkshire and so most pertinent to Rotherham, stated that more than 3.7 million domestic customers were in credit to it. Surely that figure proves that the majority of people do not need their direct debit to be increased. Npower also stated that the average level of credit is £106.89—£106.89 of my constituents’ money is sitting in the energy companies accounts. My constituents are not receiving interest on that money. They cannot draw it down to pay for their children’s clothes or food. In fact, they probably do not even know that they have this money, as the energy companies do not tell them unless they leave or specifically ask the question.
A study by the respected Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank found that as many as 5 million homes were being overcharged by their energy supplier, with some households paying £300 a year more than necessary—that cannot be right. Why are the Government and Ofgem letting this happen? Money is really tight at the moment. Some people in Rotherham are forced to go to loan sharks to make ends meet, saddling themselves with mind-numbing interest rates when all the time the energy companies have their money in their fat accounts. Many of my constituents are at zero at the end of each week. They have to micro-manage their budgets just to keep out of debt. That planning and prudence are completely thrown out of the window when the energy companies increase their direct debit payments unannounced.
Currently, there is nothing that people can do about this situation, as most people are tied into contracts. While the savvier may change suppliers at the end of their contract, we know that the majority do not. Switching between energy companies reached its lowest level ever in the first quarter of last year. Partly, this is due to people being disillusioned with the energy companies—thinking they are all the same—and partly it is apathy, but often it is because of the complexity of the process. This is especially the case with people over-75, who are the least likely to investigate cheaper tariffs and switch suppliers. They are the least IT literate and the least aware of the savings they could make by switching. I am very supportive of our campaign to make all energy companies put over-75s on the lowest tariff. That simple act would ensure that up to 4 million pensioners would benefit from lower energy bills. From the pensioners I have spoken to in Rotherham, the security of knowing they are on the lowest rate would give them great peace of mind and help considerably in managing their pensions.
The current situation regarding direct debits is that neither the Government nor Ofgem even require energy companies to report on how much the customer is in credit. We need to abolish Ofgem and replace it with a tough regulator with a statutory duty to monitor wholesale and retail energy prices and ensure that the suppliers pass on these savings. A strong regulator could tackle the shady dealings occurring with direct debits. To restore faith in the energy companies, we need them to be transparent and accountable, and the Government need to take strong action to make that happen. At the moment, suppliers seem to be riding roughshod over us all, seemingly without caring about the impact of their decisions.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
This is a timely debate, given the weather outside and the big increases in fuel prices over the past few years, which are causing real problems for people. It is highly appropriate, therefore, that we are discussing this issue.
Ensuring that people stay warm requires progress in many areas: energy supply, energy efficiency, market reform and taking advantage of the opportunities that new technologies will provide. Progress in one area alone will not deliver us the desired outcome of cheaper bills for households and businesses. Market changes across the world are an important driver of costs, of course. Global demand has been growing, and that influences what happens here in the UK. We must recognise that wholesale prices have doubled here since 2007. The issue of supply is not covered by the motion, but increased supply will cut bills, so it should be recognised. I therefore support the Government’s initiatives to increase supply, whether it is the renewal of nuclear, opportunities presented by shale gas or the expansion of renewables. The answer lies in multiple solutions and multiple sources. Over the past few years, we have been too casual in recognising the importance of ensuring long-term, secure and affordable supply.
The motion states that energy efficiency is one of the most important ways of cutting bills sustainably. I completely agree that it is an important factor. We have made progress on that over the past few years, but the progress needs to be faster and better targeted. It is a complicated area, with that complication coming from different places. We all know that there are different ways of making our homes more energy efficient, but some times the range of options can be daunting. The installation of renewable energy also presents significant opportunities, but again the range of options is daunting. Do I choose solar, ground source, air source, water source, heat pumps, photovoltaic or biomass?
It is not easy to navigate those options, yet I remain a huge fan of renewables and would like to draw the House’s attention to my personal experience while a councillor on Harrogate borough council. We installed ground source heat pumps in council properties, starting in more rural areas that were off mains gas. Our motive was to bring cheap, clean power to homes that would not otherwise have had it. We were the first council in the country to do that, and it was a great success.
Caroline Lucas
I am pleased to support the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for renewables. Does he agree that community-owned energy can play an important part, not only in increasing supply, but in getting fuel bills down, because communities can share in the profits? Would he urge his Government to bring forward their community energy strategy without further delay?
Andrew Jones
I think that community ownership will play an important part in the future, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will pick up on that point later.
I have to say that retrofitting was expensive, because we were not just fitting heat pumps, but fully insulating homes. Nevertheless, the cost of heating fell for the homes with the pumps, and carbon emissions were much reduced as well. It required some changes in behaviour in how residents used their power, but that was easily communicated, and I spoke to many residents who were basically extremely positive about what had happened.
Ministers deserve credit for the green deal. I have seen the high upfront costs that insulation and energy efficiency improvements bring, and removing the challenges of these upfront costs will remove one of the biggest barriers to progress. Under the green deal, bill payers will be able to get their energy efficiency improvements without having to pay upfront, as businesses will provide the capital and consumers will pay back the costs over time through their energy bills. I like some elements of the scheme in particular, but I will emphasise just two things: the way businesses can be included and the way the scheme will be extended to the private rented sector.
The range of tariffs has been highlighted as something that can be confusing. I agreed with the points that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) made. It has been hard—probably deliberately so—for people to see which tariff was right for them. It took me months just to get my supplier to merge my personal accounts, including gas, to take advantage of a dual-fuel tariff, and I was not even changing suppliers. My personal experience is mirrored up and down the country. It is simply far too hard to make changes, so I applaud the Prime Minister’s work to cut through all this and ensure that by next year everyone is on the lowest tariff that is right for their needs.
A further area of complexity is the range of schemes that are available to help. Sometimes they are hard to access or even know about in the first place. Last month I visited two constituents, Mr and Mrs Courtman, who needed a new boiler installed, as theirs was breaking down and they urgently needed reliable heat at home for their health. Unable to afford a replacement, they turned to the local council’s home improvement agency to see whether help was available. Help was available; the point is that it came through the SSAFA—the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen’s Families Association—and an npower scheme. However, Mr and Mrs Courtman were not even npower customers, so how could they even become aware of the scheme? It is hard to know where to go. That is why I produced a guide called “How to Save Money on Your Energy Bills”—alongside other colleagues in the House—which I have been distributing locally in Harrogate and Knaresborough and which has been well received.
Let me end by reiterating the point that market simplification, Government assistance and new technologies all have important roles to play, but it is long-term work to boost capacity that will be critical to delivering what we all want for the future.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
It is in poorer areas such as Croydon North where rising energy prices really hurt. More people there than on average depend on prepayment meters and fewer homes are likely to be insulated, because they were built before cavity walls were a requirement. An above-average number of local households are fuel-poor. When rising fuel bills are combined with the high cost of housing and rising train, bus and tube fares, the result is a big squeeze on the disposable incomes of hard-working local people. National and local government must take a lead in giving people the power to change things, because empowering consumers can help to deliver greater fairness.
First, it is time for the energy regulator Ofgem to end the unfairness of the poorest paying higher energy tariffs than the rich. Why should a millionaire in a mansion pay a lower tariff than a hard-pressed family on an estate? One of the starkest examples is that of prepayment meters. Around 6 million people in the UK—many among those on the lowest incomes—use such meters. Most are unable to switch accounts or take advantage of deals to save money, including by using direct debit and fixed-rate contracts. The meters cost substantially more than the standard tariffs offered by energy companies, so the poorest end up paying hundreds of pounds more every year than those on middle and higher incomes. That is unfair and should be put right by a regulator on the side of consumers.
Secondly, it is time to end rip-off energy exit fees. Millions of people face charges of up to £100 in exit fees just because they want to switch their accounts to a lower tariff. That is anti-competitive and contradicts the Government’s advice to customers that switching accounts will save them money. The Government must change the law to make switching energy tariffs free, as other places have, including the Australian state of Victoria.
Thirdly, it is time to get serious about insulation. Last year the Energy Saving Trust said that London was at the bottom of the league table for insulating homes. From 2008, just 5.1% of London’s homes received insulation, compared with 16% in the north-east, which was the best performing region. The Government’s green deal scheme was launched in October to give people the chance to insulate their homes, yet interest rates on green deal loans are as much as 8%, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said. To make the green deal work, Ministers must ensure that finance is available at an affordable rate.
Finally, we need to encourage more energy-purchasing co-operatives to start up, to provide competition for the big six. That will require changes to the Energy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. In 2011, residents on a Brixton housing estate set up the Brixton Energy solar 1 scheme, which was the UK’s first inner-city, co-operatively owned energy-generation project. It has been a huge success, generating renewable energy, providing an annual return of 3% for investors and delivering savings for residents through lower household energy bills. We need the support of the Government to champion co-operative energy in order to catch up with countries such as the United States, where 42 million citizens are members of energy co-operatives. I salute those councils, some of which have been mentioned today, that have already set up collective energy switching schemes to secure lower energy prices for local residents.
Fuel poverty is not an inevitability. The Government should support communities that are already taking action, and they must act themselves to ensure that we have an energy market that is fairer for everyone, with a level playing field for community energy generation and with no household excluded from accessing the lowest tariffs.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I should like to kick off by saying how worth while it is to hold this debate today, given that it is going to be very cold over the next few days, and probably for the rest of the winter as well. I am delighted to be able to speak from a pretty unusual position, in that I am an urban Tory. There are not many of us outside London. I am delighted that I do not have a single piece of farmland in my constituency, or very much in the way of suburbia either. There is real deprivation there, however. There is a 20-year difference in life expectancy between one end of the city and the other. The issues that we are discussing today are very important indeed.
Fuel poverty needs to be taken seriously, and at the end of the day, we are dealing with three areas. The first is energy security: can we supply enough energy for ourselves in this country? The second is the need to deal with CO2 emissions. The third is the need to target our welfare to ensure that we are delivering it to those who desperately need it.
The previous Labour Government failed to deliver proper energy capacity. It is likely that, in the next couple of years, we will be reduced to about 4% capacity, although it has been as high as 14% in the past. We have failed as a country to deliver a proper set of energy facilities, and we now need to ensure that we include nuclear power in those facilities, although I know that some people here will not be keen on that. We also need to ensure that we have a proper amount of renewables. Devonport dockyard in my constituency is going to have a marine energy park, and I was delighted that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) was able to come down to Plymouth to announce that. It is a very positive development that will also help the growth agenda. We need to ensure that we have sufficient energy capacity.
Last year, I paid a visit to the British Antarctic Survey, which has done an enormous amount of drilling down into the ice. It has pulled out a good 800,000 years worth of ice and examined it. Its research shows that, except during the past 300 years, there have not been high levels of CO2 emissions. The past 300 years of industrialisation have made a very big difference indeed, however. Unless we do something about all that, things are going to get much more expensive. Hon. Members will have seen on their televisions over the past couple of months that the whole of Devon and Cornwall has been under floods, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) knows. It is going to become increasingly expensive to deal with those issues.
It is also important that we target our welfare. I read a paper recently that made it clear that in 2009—this was not when we were in power, I am sorry to say—the Public Accounts Committee found that 75% of the households receiving Warm Front support would have been unlikely to fall into fuel poverty. We need to take a positive approach to that matter.
I very much welcome all that my right hon. Friend the Minister has done on the green deal, but I believe that we need to have a much more joined-up Government. A lot of people live in affordable and rented homes, and we must ensure that the new buildings that the housing associations are delivering will be compliant with our energy campaign standards and that they will be much greener. Similarly, we must ensure that the improvements being carried out to Ministry of Defence properties will be environmentally friendly. I have had a great many discussions in the past two and a half years, but I believe that this is one of the most important debates that we have had.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a statement of the obvious to say that fuel poverty is a function of both the cost of fuel and the income of the household of the consumers involved. We all know that over the next few years there are going to be massive changes in the benefits system because of the Government’s welfare reform measures. I shall not go into the rights and wrongs of them, which can be done on another day, but it is quite clear that such changes bring a great risk that those who are already vulnerable and on low incomes will lose out even more. That is true not necessarily because of the changes to benefits—I have said I am not raising that issue today—but because under any new system, major change or major upheaval in the applicable criteria bring the real risk of people falling through the net. Their applications for support from fuel companies might not get through at the right time.
That point has been made in an excellent report from Citizens Advice Scotland on energy issues recently brought to the attention of its citizens advice bureaux. The report states:
“With several years of upheaval ahead for the benefits system, suppliers should be proactive in monitoring usage, particularly amongst prepayment customers. Where customers are self-disconnecting, suppliers should proactively contact those customers…Arrears should be identified quickly by suppliers and communicated to customers to allow them to address the issue before the debt becomes unaffordable.”
I shall not go into any more detail, but this is a good report. I can send a copy to the Minister, who I hope will agree to read it and to take account of its suggestions. The Government must take that on board to ensure that what is being done through the green deal is closely linked to changes in the benefit system. This applies not just to the Government, but to suppliers, who need to keep an eye on what is happening.
My second point relates to the Government promise to make energy companies offer the lowest tariffs to their customers. I do not think we heard much about that in the Secretary of State’s opening speech, and there is still a lot of uncertainty, as we all know, about how that is going to operate. What still appears to be the case is that any benefits from that new policy will not go to those on prepayment meters—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I urge the Government to make it absolutely clear when this policy is developed that those on prepayment meters should automatically be given the cheapest tariff that the supplier offers. There should be no qualification or hesitation about that.
My final point relates to how the green deal will operate in Scotland. The Minister will know that, because the energy company obligation is a UK or Great Britain-wide measure while the green deal equivalent is delivered in effect by the Scottish Government, the responsibility falls on two Governments to ensure that the system works as effectively as possible. I raised this matter with the Minister, who was helpful in providing some information about it. I have to tell him, however, that there is still a great deal of uncertainty within the industry and among consumers in Scotland about how the green deal will operate in Scotland. That is partly because of the role of the different Governments and partly because of the need to work on solid-wall properties, reflecting the peculiarities of the Scottish system of property ownership. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) will know, that can sometimes vary between different cities. I hope the Minister will ensure that attention is paid to making the green deal work effectively in Scotland and in all our constituencies.
I am a great supporter of the principles behind the green deal. That is why I find it a tragedy that such a very good idea has not to date shown its full potential. As the Minister well knows, the Insulation Industry Forum has pointed out that although it strongly supports the green deal,
“the delays in the Government’s implementation of it have now begun to destroy some of our businesses as well as undermining the Coalition’s green ambitions for the country.”
That is, as I say, a tragedy. I hope that the defects in the implementation of the scheme so far can be repaired, so that all of us who support the green deal in principle can see it bring the benefits that we want to all our constituents.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a shame that the shadow Secretary of State took such a combative and shrill tone at the beginning of this important debate, because no one has a handle on caring about their constituents. I was privileged to serve on the Energy Bill Committee in the previous Parliament, and I noticed that the then Government took no measures to tackle the complexity of tariffs or the issue of those who are fuel poor and who use metered fuel, although the Labour party is raising those issues today. I encourage the Minister to keep up his good work, because we do not have money to throw around as the previous Government did. In all the comments from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), including from a sedentary position, I have yet to hear whether Labour would continue Warm Front in some form after 2016 or introduce another scheme. Perhaps she will enlighten us in the winding-up speeches.
Mrs Main
I will not, because she did not give way to me when she was being particularly vociferous on how good Labour was on fuel poverty.
As I said in a debate on fuel poverty in the previous Parliament, my constituency is usually regarded as an affluent one, but it does have areas of multiple deprivation needs. In 2006, St Albans had 2,400 households in fuel poverty; in 2008, it had 3,500; in 2010, according to the latest figures available, there were even more. A degree of humility about such calculations is, therefore, important. It should also be recognised that in constituencies such as mine, a higher amount of family income is spent on rent and mortgages, so many people feel fuel-poor, whether or not they are technically in fuel poverty. I welcome the fact that under this coalition Government most families will be put on the best tariff that suits them if that is possible.
We have very little time to debate the matter today, but the green deal will be an affordable way of tackling fuel poverty. I believe we would be casual with taxpayers’ money if we simply splashed out the dosh—the right hon. Lady said that it was £50 million, but the correct figure is £30 million, which will be reinvested. The Labour party would have continued the Warm Front deal, which, as Members on both sides of the House have said, was fraught with difficulties. When elderly constituents of mine were told how intrusive the Warm Front deal would be in terms of where the boilers would be located, and how they had to go along with what they were being offered, rather than having it tailored to suit their needs, they backed out of it, and were left with nothing. Rather than imposing something, the green deal gives people choices to tailor a system to suit their household.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically brilliant speech that succinctly crystallises what many of us had been thinking. She has put her finger on one important point: under the Warm Front scheme, one company was a monopoly provider with the contract for the whole country. Under the ECO and affordable warmth, real competition and consumer choice will be allowed, meaning better value for the bill payer and more choice for the people who have installations in their homes.
Mrs Main
I thank the Minister for that strong clarification. People said to me that they would have liked to take up some of the opportunities offered by Warm Front, but they did not like the installers, who were sometimes rude and ineffective, they did not like being dictated to about how their house would be operated on to make it more efficient, and they did not like a take-it-or-leave-it package without the opportunity to pick and mix. What the Minister refers to is yet another proposal from the coalition Government that is much better for the consumer.
Gregory Barker
My hon. Friend has given practical reasons why hundreds of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House received thousands of complaints about the Warm Front scheme.
Mrs Main
I thank the Minister for that comment. That is why it would be ridiculous just to insist that Warm Front continues and to splash the money about until it is gone. The coalition Government have a forward-thinking plan on how to offer consumers what best suits them, including the best deal on tariffs, and how to help all families, whether or not they are technically in fuel poverty.
I hope that if nothing else comes out of the debate, we agree that we should not waste energy. Whether or not we agree on climate change, wasting energy will be ruinous for people in the future.
Oliver Colvile
There is a tendency for electricity from the national grid to be dissipated because it has to travel so far. We need to ensure that much more is available locally.
Mrs Main
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not explore the issue he has raised.
I pay tribute to RES in my constituency, which has developed numerous innovative ways of finding renewable energy solutions. I think that we should have a pick-and-mix arrangement—a whole basket of energy solutions. The last Government were in complete denial. When we were debating the Energy Bill, I observed on many occasions that they seemed to have no solutions. The present Government, however, are having to find a way forward.
Rather than making shrill proclamations about our taking everyone to hell in a handcart, the right hon. Member for Don Valley should welcome the fact that we are giving consumers a better choice, and that we have agreed to support the poor and the vulnerable. We work within the Government budget because, in the end, it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent. I think that this Government are forward thinking enough to find the right way forward, and to do what is right for the consumer.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
As I listen to the debate, I wonder how many people in Selly Oak are sitting shivering tonight, frightened to turn on their heating, or worrying that what they are buying is disappearing owing to the draughts and lack of insulation. In February last year, in response to a survey that I carried out among my constituents, 63% said that they were using less heating in their homes as a result of energy price rises, while 43% said that they were cutting back on other items to afford their energy bills. Consumer Focus points out that the number of households in debt to their electricity supplier has risen by more than 25%—1 million households—yet the energy companies are on target to see their profit margins rise by 14%.
Let me ask a question that others have asked. Why, at a time when the number of people struggling with fuel costs is on the increase, have the Government spent only half the budget of the Warm Front scheme and turned down thousands of people? Nearly 13,500 families have been rejected. Given all the problems with the green deal, what would be wrong with extending Warm Front for another year, or at least until after the total budget has been spent? That would not only help those most in need, but help the insulation industry, which is experiencing job losses because funding is being withdrawn prematurely. Nearly 200 jobs have gone in the west midlands, and about 100 people have been given notice of redundancy.
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman may not have picked up the Secretary of State’s words earlier. We can confirm today that the whole Warm Front budget will be spent on measures for the fuel-poor. We will be introducing Warm Front measures, but they will not be introduced exclusively through Warm Front. The balance—the underspend—will be spent on exactly the same people, but through a local authority competition that will deliver the measures more quickly and effectively.
Steve McCabe
I did indeed hear the Secretary of State’s words. What I understood quite clearly from them was that he is filching money from the Warm Front scheme to pay for a scheme that he announced some time ago, and that he did not tell us at the time that he was robbing Warm Front. It is what, in the trade, is normally called sleight of hand.
Ongoing concern about green deal finance means that it is unlikely to get going until around autumn this year, if ever. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that their plans will cause the loft and cavity wall insulation industry to fall off a cliff. Why does the Minister not act now? He does not have to say that it was the idea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint); he could announce an interim plan in a couple of weeks, and take all the credit himself. That would be OK: we would not tell anyone.
I want to be fair to the Government, so I will assume that they did not set out to rob people as they are doing through so many of their other policies. I think that on this occasion their problem is that they simply do not know what they are doing. As a flagship policy, the green deal is costly and complex. The scandal of punitive up-front assessment fees needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency before the whole idea falls into disrepute, and the Government need to look again at the interest rates associated with the project. At 7.5%, it will be far cheaper for those who have the cash to pay up front for improvements than to use the green deal, and, of course, those who cannot raise the cash will simply shiver or find themselves exploited by a Government scheme that is beginning to look like it was modelled on payday loans. Then there is the helpful penalty charge if people want to pay it off early, which means they will be rinsed for another few thousand pounds. I am afraid that any objective analysis of this programme suggests it will fail, and the Minister really ought to act now before it is too late.
There is speculation about the abolition of Ofgem. What I and my constituents want is a regulator with some teeth and some backbone who will stand up for their rights, who will not be conned over wholesale price rises and who will force energy suppliers to pass on price cuts when wholesale energy costs fall.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Given what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the regulator, does he regret the fact that when the Leader of the Opposition was Energy Secretary he left a situation in which fines levied by Ofgem on the industry were given back to the industry, so this coalition Government are having to change the law to make sure fines levied by Ofgem will be given back to consumers?
Steve McCabe
I do not think there is any problem with the regulator redistributing that money if it is to the benefit of people. I would be a bit wary of talking about fining people, however. I also remember that this Government’s first direct hit on energy consumers was the VAT rise they imposed not long after coming to power.
We need a tougher regulator because at present the energy companies are running rings around Ofgem. An Institute for Public Policy Research study found that as many as 5 million homes are being overcharged by their supplier, and some households are paying almost £300 per year more than they need to pay. It also states that if the market was a truly competitive market, that could knock £70 off the average household bill at a stroke.
It is not too late for the Minister to take corrective action on Warm Front and the green deal and to help thousands of families and elderly people, as well as protecting jobs. If he does not take some corrective action in respect of the regulator, we will be mortgaging our homes to pay our fuel bills before this Government leave office.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not believe that any Member attending this debate does not want to see the eradication of fuel poverty. I do not believe that this Government want to stand over 26,000 winter deaths every year, or 65 people dying of cold each week, or more people dying of cold than die in road accidents every year. I do not believe that the Government want to stand aside and see so many people suffer and die from cold.
One aspect of this debate worries me, however. Since I was elected to the House, I have had two Westminster Hall debates on fuel poverty and I have spoken in a number of debates on energy prices, and on each occasion the Government have said, “We’re going to do something to eradicate fuel poverty. We’re going to help people who are struggling to pay their bills.” I wonder, however.
Today, so many Government Members have blamed the last Labour Government for presiding over what they claim were 13 years of increasing fuel poverty, but those Members are saying and doing nothing to help people. Tonight, there may be people sitting in front of their television who may go to bed early with an extra pullover or coat on, because they are fearful of lighting an extra bar on their electric fire or turning up their central heating a little more, as their fuel bill has gone up by £107 in the last two years. What Government Members are saying does absolutely nothing for people in that position. Those people do not care about the green deal, they do not care about energy markets, and they do not care about the profits of the energy companies. A Save the Children survey found that half of all families are cutting back on food in order to be able to pay their fuel bills.
Fuel poverty is a moral issue. It has an impact on so many Departments and areas of government. The chief medical officer has said that cold-related illnesses and diseases cost the NHS £850 million a year. Children are the ones who suffer the most. Poverty affects the oldest people in society and the youngest. What does poverty mean? It is all very well quoting statistics, but what it really means is children going home to cold, damp houses and being written off before they start—that is a shame. We need also to consider the people with cancer or a disability. The winter fuel payment is a good scheme, but it does not stretch to the most vulnerable in society and perhaps it needs to be better targeted.
However, I wish to discuss a simple solution today. The Government are imposing carbon taxes on energy companies to wean us off our obsession with fossil fuels, but the money raised by the taxes—the European emissions trading scheme and the carbon floor price—is not being passed on to the consumer for them to get insulation. The taxes are being passed on by the energy company and the consumer has to pick up the bill, and we must change that.
In five years’ time, carbon taxes will have raised £4 billion for the Government. That money should be directed towards insulation, boilers and the other things that can keep people warm and reduce the loss of energy. Of course, these things are already available—people can buy a new boiler—but that costs money. If we moved the revenue from carbon taxes towards the consumer, we could give everybody a grant to improve their insulation. The problem with fuel poverty comes down to one thing: the price of gas, coal and oil has gone through the roof. If we cannot stand up to the energy companies, the Government should fund insulation programmes to stop energy escaping. This country has more winter deaths than Norway and Sweden, and that is because those colder countries understand that insulation is important. That is why the Government need to invest. James Maxton, the great socialist, said that poverty is man-made and therefore subject to change. We have to take action today to change fuel poverty for so many people.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
This Government are failing to tackle fuel poverty because they have not managed to tackle the energy companies and bring in the tough regulation needed to make them moderate their prices. As we have said, we would make the energy market more transparent and create a tough new energy watchdog to replace Ofgem.
I will cite just one example of why we need a much tougher watchdog. Ofgem allowed Swalec, which is now part of SSE, to double its standing charge between September 2011 and October 2012—a massive 100% increase. Since October 2012, Swalec has been charging customers a standing charge of £100 a year for their electricity and an additional £100 a year should the customer also get their gas from Swalec. Such charges just feed into the bills of my constituents. Swalec’s prices are of particular concern to people in south and west Wales, because Swalec is the traditional supplier for the area, and Wales has one of the lowest percentages of people who have switched energy company for their electricity.
That doubling of the standing charge in less than 15 months is hitting low users disproportionately hard, punishing people who are struggling to keep their bills down and who switch off appliances whenever they can. No matter how much they switch off, whether to save money or to save the planet, Swalec is taking £100 off them just to stay connected—£200 if they get gas from Swalec as well. I am sure that if these people had computers, they would be thrilled to know that the SSE site tells them that £50 per customer per fuel is profit—is that not wonderful news for them? It is an absolute kick in the teeth for loyal customers. SSE knows jolly well that many customers who have stuck with the traditional south Wales company for years are probably the least likely to switch provider. It is all very well to say that customers can shop around, but unless people have easy internet access it is impossible to compare the prices. Even where people do have that access, the process can be extremely confusing. In any case, people are wary of switching. They hear horror stories and they are worried about being caught out by some sort of penalty charges for switching, or worried about the goalposts being moved just after they have switched and finding that things have changed yet again.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) explained, people are wary also of going on to direct debit because they are pretty well convinced that the companies take more than they should be taking, and that they will take advantage at every turn to make sure that the money is in the banks of the energy companies, rather than in the pockets of the people that they are taking it off. The energy companies tell us that that is for simplification purposes, but I am cynical about that. By increasing the standing charge, energy companies avoid the problem of having to decrease energy prices if there are fluctuations in price. They have heard that that is what people are talking about. They have heard that we, the politicians, would like to see them decrease energy prices, but if they stick the increase on the standing charge, they will not need to do that.
Energy companies have also heard that we might want them to put people on to the cheapest tariff. So what are they doing? They are raising the cheapest tariff, aren’t they? They are making energy more expensive for the lowest users. The cynic in me says that the companies have good reasons for upping the standing charge. The effect is regressive. Like any form of regressive taxation, it means that those who have the least money are proportionately punished the most.
It is right and proper that the Government’s cold weather payments should be raised when energy prices are rocketing, but they are for exceptional circumstances. For the vast majority of the UK it is not often that temperatures for an entire seven-day period average zero. It is far more likely that there are three or four days of cold weather, then a slightly milder period, then more cold weather and so on. There are fluctuations, so the number of times during the year when people will be able to claim those payments is extremely limited.
Finally, I wish to say a word about the Warm Front scheme. I am horrified to hear that £50 million is not being spent on good insulating programmes. I contrast that with the Welsh Government, who are continuing with their Arbed and Nest schemes, which they have adapted. They have looked at many different ways—
Gregory Barker
I can assure the hon. Lady that that is exactly what is happening. Any underspend from the Warm Front scheme is being spent on exactly the type of measures that she mentioned.
Nia Griffith
So are we clear, then, that that money has been ring-fenced and that it is in addition to any other planned money that was going to come into energy schemes anyway?
Gregory Barker
We are scaling up the proposals that we had for the community challenge in order to deliver into that programme a much greater amount of money than would otherwise have flowed.
Nia Griffith
I hope the Government will follow the example of the Welsh Government, who have also drawn down European money. I am sure the UK Government could do that for the areas of the UK where that might be possible. The Welsh Government have rolled out a number of programmes in their Arbed and Nest schemes, which cover a range of different types of property, particularly those that are hard to heat and those that are part of social housing, as well as properties that are privately owned.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for permitting me to speak. This is the first time that I have spoken in an energy-related debate so I will be grateful for forbearance if I do not know all the terminology.
I came to the House with very positive feelings about the Warm Front scheme. Prior to the general election in 2010 I was contacted by an elderly gentleman, who said, “I have never contacted anyone before, I have voted for your party all along, and I have a problem with my heating at home.” He had served his country, always done the right thing and brought up his family, but he was on his own, he was in his 80s and he had no heating at home. I engaged with the company—I think it was Carillion at the time in the region—and it did a superb job in following up. It had been complicated for him to get help but the company did an excellent job in supporting him. It was wonderful to see that reaction. It is a great sadness that he has since passed away.
I do not lightly criticise the Warm Front scheme. It was a very good scheme in that instance, but we have to face facts. It is a shame that the shadow Minister did not respond as positively as she might have done to my inquiry. When money is short, we have to make sure that it goes to those who most need it. That is incredibly important. We cannot pretend to people that we can spend money that we do not have to help people who perhaps do not need it just because they would like to have it at the cost of directing money towards those people who really need it. I applaud the Government for ensuring that, when there is less money available, they protect the money for, and focus it on, the most vulnerable.
Most of my comments relate to how the Government are trying to focus on ensuring that all the taxpayers’ money that is being spent goes to those who most require it. Will the Minister assure us that the Government is targeting taxpayers’ money for people in fuel poverty more on those on the lower decile incomes and on those who are most vulnerable? What measures is he taking to ensure that that happens?
Directing money towards those who most need it is important, but ensuring that it gets there—and does so effectively—matters, too. I was intrigued by the response to a letter from the shadow Secretary of State to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the installation times under the Warm Front scheme. I noted that during the last period of the Labour Government, the time it took to install insulation or heating was very long. The installation of insulation took 30 working days, on average, under the previous Government and it took 60 or 70 working days for heating. I noticed that that had come down during the past couple of years and I would be interested if the Minister had further comments about the efficiency of the Government’s proposals to tackle fuel poverty, ensuring that the work and necessary steps are done as quickly as they can be, and about how they are holding the insulation and energy companies to account as quickly and frequently as they can.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that the underlying causes of fuel poverty are multiple. I applaud the Government for considering a more rational view of assessing fuel poverty—I think the Secretary of State mentioned that the Queen would be counted at one stage, so that clearly needs to be considered. The statistics on fuel poverty in different parts of the United Kingdom show that there are clearly issues. My interest obviously lies with the town of Bedford and also with England.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I accept everything my hon. Friend says about Warm Front. Does he accept the findings of the Public Accounts Committee that the majority of people who were likely to benefit from, and be targeted by, that scheme were less likely to be in fuel poverty?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend makes precisely the right point: we need to ensure that money is focused on those who most need it and that that money gets to those people as efficiently and effectively as possible. That is what I heard in the Secretary of State’s speech today, which was focused very positively on what could be done rather than on, if I may say so to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), throwing around statistics that were not particularly relevant to what could be done right now. When we look at the statistics, we can see that underlying issues lead Governments to take certain actions. I am interested to hear what the right hon. Lady or her colleague, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), will have to say when they wind up, but it would have been nice to have heard some more positive engagement from the Labour Front Benchers. It would have been nice to have heard what they would do and what positive suggestions they would propose. Opposition is not just about shouting one’s point of view—it is often about engaging with statistics and answers and coming forward with positive solutions. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be very positive.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the hon. Lady intervenes, I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the clock hits 6.40, I will ask him to resume his seat.
Sarah Newton
Is it not important that we learn the lessons from the ridiculous situation in which people who were off-grid were made to have oil as their central heating system, which they could not afford after the first time the system was filled? Under our schemes, they can now have something sustainable, such as a ground source heat pump.
Richard Fuller
I appreciate that positive contribution from my hon. Friend. I guess that sums up what I would like to say: as many Members on both sides of the House have said, many constituents are facing tough decisions on their heating this winter. We are beholden to engage positively in support of the Government in the initiatives they have taken. It is critical that the Government—I look to the Minister for an answer today—ensure that their initiatives are focused on those who most need the support—that is, the most vulnerable. If he is doing that, he is doing this country a great service.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
This debate has been lively and informed, with eloquent and powerful contributions from those on both sides of the House. It has shown once again that we have an energy Department that is in chaos and unable to deliver its policies, and it is the public who are paying the price in higher energy bills.
As many hon. Friends have said, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), Ministers cannot hide the shambolic management of the Warm Front scheme. Over the past two years, the scheme’s budget has been cut by two thirds, and the number of people getting help from it has fallen from nearly 250,000 homes per year three years ago to fewer than 22,000 households so far being selected for help this year. I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), but the situation is contrary to what we have heard from Government Members. The criteria for people who want to apply for Warm Front explicitly say that in order to qualify people must have a poorly insulated home or not have a working central heating system, and, further, must have a household income of £15,860 or less. I strongly believe that when the scheme was created back in 2000 it was a good scheme. In fact, it is important to note that in the statement that was released by the Department today the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), said:
“The Warm Front scheme has been an important policy in tackling fuel poverty among private sector households”.
Under this Government, the amount of support that each household is receiving has fallen and there is a massive backlog of people who want help but cannot get it. To add insult to injury, in addition to the £50 million of underspend last year there is £50.6 million this year. I have listened carefully to representations from both Ministers. I have also had time to go through the press statement that was released back in October, which makes no mention of the fact that the pot of money for local authorities was going to be taken away from the Warm Front scheme. Why did Ministers not announce that at the time? Was it part of a deliberate strategy to undermine Warm Front so that people did not take it up? I listened to what the Minister said a moment ago, but there is not an exact match in relation to the underspend. Further to that, thousands of people this winter are suffering with high heating bills.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) reminded us of the price that people up and down the country are paying for this incompetence, with huge increases in the price of gas and electricity. Energy bills have risen by almost £300 since this Government came to power, and the average fuel bill now stands at a record £1,400. I have spoken to many people in my constituency who cannot afford to turn on their heating even on the coldest of days. Those who have least are being hit the hardest. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and for Islwyn (Chris Evans) mentioned the rise in fuel poverty in our country. As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and other hon. Members said, our constituents are having to make the choice between heating their homes and putting food on the table. The Government’s own fuel poverty advisers are warning them that this winter 300,000 more households will go into fuel poverty.
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State referred to the energy company obligation, but he did not say that according to his own impact assessment the Government expect to see by 2023—10 years’ time—a reduction of 250,000 in the number of homes in fuel poverty. To have a reduction of only 250,000 in 10 years is a very sad state of affairs, and it is less than the increase in fuel poverty that will occur this winter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly highlighted the problems that their constituents and people right across our country are facing and suffering because of the increase in direct debit payments. This is against the background of the startling fact from Save the Children and YouGov that 71% of parents on the lowest incomes are worried about their energy bills pushing them into debt. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out that nearly 1 million people are in debt to their energy company; that is information from Consumer Focus.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) highlighted in her opening speech, the Government’s mismanagement of the Warm Front scheme is not the only thing that we are concerned about. A number of Members from all parties have talked about the green deal. Ministers have promised us this flagship scheme, but we are worried that what they have delivered so far is more like a submarine, because it is so far below the radar that polling shows that most people have not even heard of it, let alone want to take it up. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle says from a sedentary position that the scheme has not started, which is in stark contrast to what the Secretary of State told Building magazine, namely that the green deal had started on 1 October.
As has been said many times, all parties support the principles behind the green deal. The former Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) intervened earlier and made a point about an amendment tabled to the 2010 Energy Bill. The reason why that amendment was not accepted is that Labour was already running a pay-as-you-save energy efficiency scheme—a green deal pilot was already running when the amendment was tabled.
We do not believe that expecting people to pay £100 just to get an assessment, or to pay double the up-front cost of the measures because of high interest rate payments, will inspire the millions of people who need to take up the green deal scheme in order urgently to improve the energy efficiency of properties and homes up and down the country. We have some of the most energy-inefficient properties in Europe.
The hon. Member for Bedford asked about practical solutions. I would ask him to refer to our motion, which makes some practical suggestions. Likewise, we highlighted all our concerns about the green deal when we discussed it during the Committee stage of the Energy Bill, but we are still talking about them a year and a half down the line.
The hon. Members for St Albans (Mrs Main), for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) talked in positive terms about the green deal, but I would ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, who talked about a report by the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, to look at the group’s most recent report. It raises serious concerns that we will all be subsidising expensive works for people who can afford to insulate their homes, rather than distributing money to people who cannot afford to heat their homes in the first place. In the FPAG’s evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, it notes that it
“has consistently stated that the Green Deal per se will not benefit the fuel poor.”
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not respond to a serious point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, so I shall raise it again. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) was right to highlight the tragic figures released today by the Insulation Industry Forum, which show that, so far, 1,782 jobs have been lost in the insulation sector—800 of them in the past two weeks—and that a further 1,100 insulation workers have been put on notice of redundancy. I urge the Minister to respond to that, because those are people up and down the country who are now not in work and struggling to get by.
Ministers cannot say that they were not warned. Last year the Association for the Conservation of Energy projected that there would be up to 16,000 job losses in the sector if the Government did not seriously address the issue of the transition from previous schemes to the green deal and the energy company obligation. We know that in the run-up to Christmas more than 34,000 insulation works were cancelled as a result of energy companies withdrawing their funding ahead of the CERT and CESP deadline. We also know that a further 27,284 installations have been put on hold because new funding is not yet available. If Ministers had acted to put in place a smooth transition from CERT and CESP to the green deal and ECO, this work could then have gone ahead and job losses could have been avoided.
It is not as if there is no work that could be done now. I refer Ministers to a report on page 2 of The Independent today. Despite Ministers’ claims to the contrary, DECC’s own estimates show that at least 8 million homes in the UK still need loft insulation and 5.8 million need cavity wall insulation. Is it not time that Ministers got around the table with the industry and sorted out this mess?
It is clear from this afternoon’s debate that Ministers have taken their eyes off the ball. The motion proposes simple things that the Government could do today to clear up the mess and fix the green deal by taking tough action to force the energy companies to keep their obligations and extending Warm Front so that help is given to those who need it most during the current cold snap. I urge all Members on both sides to support the motion and I commend it to the House.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
We have heard many excellent speakers from across the House and I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude the debate.
Unfortunately, the many excellent speakers did not include either of the speakers from the Opposition Front Bench. That really is sad when we are debating such a serious issue. Any sensible, objective observer would recognise that this has been a problem under successive Governments. Labour did not have a magic wand. During the last Parliament from 2005 to 2010, when the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) was in government, fuel poverty rose substantially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) pointed out. The right hon. Lady is in total denial about that fact. It does her credibility no good if all she does is to make narrow partisan points, because there are a lot of people on both sides of the House who speak with a great deal of knowledge. We might not always agree and we might not share the same conclusions, but to be in total denial of the basic facts and to trot out ridiculous partisan points lowers the tone of the debate across the whole Chamber. When Members on both sides of the House have spoken with such passion, it is a shame that those on the Opposition Front Bench, particularly in opening the debate, looked as if they were auditioning for a part in “The Thick of It”. It really is a little beneath them.
I am more concerned not that the Opposition Front Benchers have undermined their own political credibility, but that they are trying to score party political points by talking down the green deal. In doing so, they are talking down all those small and medium-sized enterprises that are investing in the green deal and all those people who are trying to inspire confidence to get people to invest in order to bring forward what I am certain will be the most transformational energy efficiency programme that this country has ever seen—a programme that is built for the long term. All the Opposition want to do is to use the efforts of people in business and their employees to score cheap party political points. I am sorry that that is how they have decided to play this important issue, which ought to command significant cross-party consensus. In opposition, we tried, where possible, to build that consensus. Obviously, they are going to plough a very different route.
This week’s cold weather has focused our minds on those who are at the bottom of the ladder, struggling to keep warm. The coalition understands the urgency and scale of the challenge. We are not going to make cheap political points or pretend that the situation is anything other than very concerning. However, unlike the Labour party, which had 13 years in government to do something transformational, the coalition Government have a plan. Not only do we have a plan, but after only two and a half years, we are taking action—very real action. We have already passed the substantial Energy Act 2011 and are well on the way to taking another substantial Energy Bill through Parliament. The Labour Government had 13 White Papers, and what did they have to show for it in the end? More than 5 million people in fuel poverty. We are doing a great deal that we can be proud of.
During the debate, we heard a number of positive contributions. There was a measured and sensible contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). There was a powerful demolition of Labour’s policies, which were irresponsible with consumers’ and taxpayers’ money, from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). He clearly pointed out that, yes, we can do good, and Warm Front made a difference to a lot of people. In terms of value for money, however, that extraordinary amount could have been spent much, much better. The fact that it was a monopoly provider, that there was no competition from other firms and no choice for people at the bottom of the ladder, was not to the scheme’s credit. Under the ECO—an integral part of the green deal—we will deliver much better value and, pound for pound, many more measures than we were able to provide with Warm Front. Year on year, significantly more people will be helped through ECO than were helped through Warm Front. The fact is that the Labour party confuses spending large amounts of money with getting the best outcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) spoke with great expertise and passion not only about energy efficiency but about renewable energy. That point was picked up by another champion of the sector, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who showed how we can marry those two agendas—in fact, we need to need to marry them as we go forward.
Perhaps the most candid and powerful speech of the afternoon came from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who really put the record straight on fuel poverty and effectively blew the whistle on Labour’s claims. She was right to say that whatever we think about climate change and renewable energy, it is always wrong to waste energy and for people to live in poorly insulated, poorly heated homes.
We must remember that reaching out to the most fuel poor and vulnerable is not easy. That was recognised by Professor John Hills and it is not a precise science. Often the households we are trying to reach—I know that Labour Members also want to reach those people because they see them in their constituencies and surgeries—are very dysfunctional. Often, people are in temporary accommodation, and certainly not their own accommodation. They do not read a daily newspaper and might be hard to reach because they probably do not read the information provided by the local council. Trying to get to those hard-to-reach homes is a difficult job, which is why we need a new approach.
We could have carried on with Warm Front and the status quo, but it would have taken us over 80 years. In fact, we may never have got there because over the past five years, despite the amount of money that Labour threw at the problem, fuel poverty was going up. We need a transformation in the way we deliver fuel poverty solutions, as well as delivering more investment. The green deal and the ECO are our best possible shot.
I do not deny that the green deal is not perfect, and I have no doubt that we will want to improve the scheme in light of experience. However, those on the Opposition Front Bench are trying to write it off before we have even begun to roll it out and the first green deal plan has been signed, and before it has really got going. I think that is despicable. I am pleased to say that Labour councils up and down the country are not taking the same negative partisan approach. Talk to Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Newcastle. Those councils do not have that narrow partisan view of the world that we have seen demonstrated tonight. They are taking a responsible view—as are many Opposition Back Benchers—and working with us in the interests of the fuel poor to deliver better outcomes for people in their areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) asked me to assure him that we will target our fuel poverty solutions in the best possible way. There will be tighter criteria. Pound for pound the ECO will be more effective and transparent than Warm Front. It will not be a monopoly and it will deliver a better service and greater choice.
We know that the cost of living is a huge concern to all our constituents. That is why the coalition Government are taking radical action, and instead of Labour’s countless White Papers—
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Business without Debate
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Human Rights: Iran
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
That the draft Charging Orders (Orders for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 26 November 2012, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 214 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I am particularly pleased that you are chairing this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know your profoundly held views on the issue of human rights in Iran. Many colleagues are attending the debate tonight and, as I am having great difficulty in pronouncing some of the names that I need to read out, I would be grateful if they could intervene to help me with that exercise.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about Iran’s human rights record, which is an absolute disgrace. The record of the clerical regime’s 34-year rule includes the execution of 120,000 of its political opponents, yet the world remains silent. It also includes the catastrophic repression of women, oppressed nationalities, and followers of various religions; the destruction of the majority of the middle class; the obliteration of the private sector; the falling of at least 40 million people below the poverty line; unemployment standing at 35%—an absolute disgrace—and a 40% inflation rate; and the plunging of the nation’s official currency.
At the same time, Iran’s regime is sowing the seeds of discord right across the middle east, not least in Syria, where the mullahs are lending huge assistance to the dictator Assad, who is a very wicked man indeed. The regime is also attempting to eliminate Iraq’s democratic opposition leaders, as well as the 3,300 Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty. The mullahs are a particular concern, owing to their dangerous pursuit of nuclear weapons. Let there be no doubt in the House that those nuclear weapons would be directed towards the destruction of the entire world.
I shall keep my remarks brief, as I hope to be able to give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe at least a couple of minutes in which to respond to the debate. I shall focus on the regime’s brutal efforts to suppress a Persian spring, which stopped the possibility of democratic change occurring organically in Iran. Iran’s fundamentalist regime has embarked on a brutal campaign of mass executions to terrorise its people and prevent a resurgence of the protests calling for regime change.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the regime has simply run out of chances and that it has to go? Does he also agree that the one constructive thing that we could do would be to let the legitimate leader of the Iranian opposition, Mrs Rajavi, come to this country to talk to British politicians and the people in our media, so that they could see the alternative?
Mr Amess
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I stand shoulder to shoulder with him on this issue.
On 13 November, 44 people in Iran were sent to the gallows. At least 450 people have been executed in Iran since the beginning of 2012, according to the tally publicly announced by the authorities, which we can hardly believe. The true number is far greater.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing such an important debate to this Chamber. The number of Members here is an indication of its importance for us. The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned it yet, but is he aware of the specific persecution of pastors of churches such as evangelists? If someone is a closet Christian, they are left alone, but if someone tries to promote the gospel or evangelise, they are persecuted, as shown by the fact that 85 people were jailed for it in 2009 and more than 100 people were jailed for it in 2010. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that this is not just about human rights, but about religious rights?
Mr Amess
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, as I do on so many other matters.
Some 1,000 prisoners—yes, 1,000 prisoners—are currently on death row in prison. The regime has appointed a death panel to expedite the implementation of the death penalties for prisoners on death row, yet the world remains absolutely silent.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the passion with which he is making his case. Does he agree that it is right that the world should not remain silent? Iranian citizens are not the only ones affected; as the case of Saeed Abedini shows, so are citizens of countries around the world. If my hon. Friend will indulge me, let me explain that he is a 32-year-old US citizen who lives in Idaho with his wife, who is also a US citizen, and their two children. He was visiting Iran to see his family and was taken off a bus, arrested, put in prison for several months, tortured and, this very week, is due to appear before a judge. He risks 18 years in prison or even the death penalty. For what? It would appear only for holding the Christian faith.
Mr Amess
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done the House a great service in bringing that terrible issue to our attention. I compliment her on the wonderful work she has done ever since she was elected.
The mullahs have at least 60 repressive institutions in the country, including several types of anti-riot agencies, several sections for torture and at least 12 others for filtering websites and controlling e-mails. Not only has this regime meddled in the affairs of Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza; it has recently interfered with the BBC Persian TV service, which experienced deliberate and illegal interference from within Iran from the first day of the 2009 Iranian presidential election. The former director-general Mark Thompson—for whom I do not usually hold a candle—highlighted the issue of BBC Persian staff and their families facing harassment and intimidation at the hands of the Iranian authorities, which has naturally put BBC staff under immense pressure. I know that the noble Lord Patten is trying to do the best he can to sort out that mess.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
On the issue of the media, my hon. Friend interestingly draws attention to recommendation 5 of the report of the all-party parliamentary group on the persecution of Christians in Iran. It states:
“We ask the British Government to work through European institutions to facilitate EU regulations that will ban signal-jamming on European-owned satellites.”
We must do better to ensure that freedom of speech goes across the airwaves—not least to the BBC.
Mr Amess
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that matter to my attention, and I applaud the wonderful work he, too, does as a Member of this place.
Those staff deserve praise for their bravery in spite of danger, and they deserve the protection of this Government. I ask the Minister to dwell particularly on that point in his reply.
On the 27 November, the UN General Assembly’s third committee condemned Iran for widespread human rights abuses—but what has happened? It is all very well condemning them; what has happened in reality to change the system? The committee cited the
“continuing alarming high frequency of the carrying-out of the death penalty in the absence of internationally recognised safeguards, including an increase in the number of public executions.”
As we have already heard, a 35-year-old dissident blogger was arrested by Iran’s cyber-police on 30 October at his home in Robat Karim. On 6 November, his family was told to collect his body from Tehran’s detention facility, and he was buried the following day. He had been brutally tortured to death while in detention in an attempt to obtain a forced confession—a method used extensively by the Iranian regime against the opposition and dissidents. Witnesses said his body was “crushed”, based on the torture marks. Yet again, however, the world does nothing. The case of Khosravi illustrates the arbitrary nature of the regime’s judiciary, and its mistreatment of political prisoners.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend talks about the arbitrary nature of the judiciary, and is it not true that in Iran it can be difficult to find lawyers to defend such individuals, especially as on occasions not just the accused but their lawyer can be thrown into prison?
Mr Amess
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; yet again the world remains silent.
In 2008, following arrest by the Intelligence Ministry, Khosravi was given a six-year prison term for providing support to the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, the largest Iranian opposition group.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his leadership of our parliamentary group in highlighting many of the abuses of the Iranian regime. He talked about how the situation is escalating. It is escalating as we speak, as the Iranian Parliament is trying to pass a law to prevent single women, the dissidents to whom he refers and people who have been championing human rights, from leaving the country without the consent of a guardian. Barring people from leaving is being used as another means of repression. Does he agree that the Government should put pressure on Tehran on that point, too?
Mr Amess
My Welsh hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. Again, we need to ensure that the Foreign Office do something other than utter endless platitudes, which I am absolutely sick to death of.
Khosravi was tortured and subjected to extreme duress in solitary confinement for a period of 40 months, and following two retrials, sentenced to death after conviction on a fresh charge of “enmity against God”. In 2013, that is crazy.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the Adjournment debate. I am grateful to one of my constituents, Professor Brad Blitz, who only last Thursday sent me a list of five people, including Jabber Alboshoka, Mokhtar Alboshoka, Hadi Rashedi, Hashem Shabani, and Mohammad Ali Amoori, who have all had their death sentences upheld. Does my hon. Friend agree that they have been sentenced not because they are criminals or have done anything to offend the state, but because they are all part of the Ahwazi minority, an ethnic group that the mullahs and the Iranian Government are determined to wipe out?
Mr Amess
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I wonder whether he and I should swap places, as he has done a far better job of pronouncing these difficult names than I have in my brief speech.
Elmira Vazehan began a hunger strike on 5 October to protest against the regime’s refusal to allow her to have an operation. She is suffering from heart disease and cancer. She was arrested in December 2009, accused of having relatives and family members in Camp Ashraf, and charged with “waging war” by working with the main democratic opposition group, the PMOI. She was initially sentenced to death and subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison, and yet the world remains silent. Nothing is ever done.
The UN special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, in a recent report to the UN General Assembly, described what human rights activists in Iran are subjected to. I wish the Government would send me to address the United Nations General Assembly. I would welcome the opportunity to shake things up.
Mr Joe Benton (Bootle) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I share the same concern as other Members who have intervened about exiled Christians and people suffering from the inability to express their freedom of conscience. I propose to raise the matter at some future meeting of the Council of Europe, because it is appropriate that the issue is raised there. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that not enough is being done to bring the issue to the attention of world authorities. Does he share my wish that the Government back the initiative to take the matter forward at the next opportunity in the Council of Europe?
Mr Amess
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, as I do on so many other issues. I hope that our Minister will act on what he has said.
In view of the Iranian regime’s complete disregard for 58 United Nations resolutions, and given that it has denied access to various UN rapporteurs for the last seven years, it is essential for its human rights dossier to be referred to the UN Security Council for binding measures.
I also want to draw the House’s attention to the human rights abuses being committed, at the mullahs’ behest, against the 3,300 residents of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty in Iraq. Dissidents who have resided in Iraq for more than 25 years built a modern town called Ashraf, which they developed from the ground up. Its residents have been major targets for the mullahs in Iran. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Ashraf residents who disarmed voluntarily were designated by the coalition as protected persons under the fourth Geneva convention.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue. Does he agree that it is not just a matter of raising the subject of Camp Ashraf in the House, and with the Government and international institutions? Would it not be welcome if the western media did more to draw public attention to the disgraceful things that have gone on in that place, and to the human rights abuses that have occurred?
Mr Amess
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The media cover absolute trivia, yet there is no coverage at all of something as important as the execution of 120,000 people, presumably because it does not involve sex or celebrity status.
Unfortunately I shall have to dump most of the rest of my speech, because I want to allow the Minister a couple of minutes in which to respond to the points I have made. Let me say, however, that I am extremely unhappy about Martin Kobler, the special representative of the UN Secretary-General in Iraq. He gave the residents repeated assurances about their welfare and protection at Camp Liberty, but, sadly, those residents have been badly let down. Those assurances are not worth the paper on which they are written.
As one who knows the Foreign Office of old, let me say this to my right hon. Friend the Minister. Many Members in all parts of the House are fed up with the lack of action on this issue. When President Obama won his first term of office a little over four years ago and chose Mrs Clinton to be his Foreign Secretary, we heard much about what America would do about it, but what has happened? Absolutely nothing. I have reached a point at which I am prepared to say that, ultimately, this is about oil. Money talks. I think that if there were any consistency on the issue, action would have been taken.
First, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to talk to our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and to ensure that further diplomatic relations with this dreadful regime are conditional on its stopping the ongoing executions and torture. We had appeasement from the last Government, and I do not expect it from the Government whom I support. Secondly, I ask my right hon. Friend to refer the mullahs’ terrifying human rights dossier to the UN Security Council. If he will not do that, I certainly will. Thirdly, I ask the Government to assure the security and protection of the inhabitants of Camp Liberty and Camp Ashraf, to call on the UN to give it refugee camp status, and to respect Ashraf residents’ property rights and their right to sell their goods, according to the original agreement. Finally, I ask the Government to recognise the Iranian Resistance for regime change.
For too long we have had platitudes and good intentions, and I now expect action from Her Majesty’s Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Burrowes has permission from the mover of the debate and the Minister to make a short contribution.
Mr Burrowes
I congratulate my hon.—and dear—Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) on securing this important debate. Members across the House must continue to raise our voices on behalf of those suffering abuse and persecution in Iran. I had the privilege of chairing an inquiry on behalf of the all-party group on Christians in Parliament, which led to the publication of the “Report on the Persecution of Christians in Iran”. It was presented to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), in October. Our focus was the terrible circumstances faced by Iranian Christians, and I welcome this opportunity to acknowledge that the Iranian regime has blighted—and, indeed, terminated—the lives of so many individuals from a variety of backgrounds, not only Christians, but Baha'is, Sufis, Sunnis, journalists, film-makers, homosexuals and political activists. That is totally unacceptable and this report for the first time systematically catalogues the abuses, such as the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of more than 300 Christians in the past two years, including Church leaders such as Farshid Fathi, who was arrested in December 2010 and sentenced to six years in prison. He has just spent his third Christmas away from his wife and two young children.
The report contains first-hand statements about physical and psychological torture. It speaks of the murders by Government agencies of Christian pastors, and includes the testimonies of Iranian witnesses and evidence of education and employment discrimination driven by agencies of the state, and of many more abuses as well.
Since October the abuse has gone on day in, day out. Rev. Vruir Avanessian was celebrating Christmas with about 50 believers in a private home in Tehran when police arrived and raided the house. He was arrested and detained in the notorious Evin prison for 15 days. He was released on 10 January, but is awaiting a court summons, as are the others who were present. The abuse continues, therefore.
The report marks not the end of the process, but the beginning. The persecution in Iran has been raised on numerous occasions by many Members, and we must continue to work together and be determined to expose the ongoing iniquity. We must be unrelenting in our ambition for others to enjoy the simple liberties with which we are so blessed in our own country, and we must be resolute in the struggle for justice.
We trust that this Government will, as the report recommends, use the appropriate channels to urge the Iranian regime to uphold its obligations under both its own constitution and international law in its treatment not only of the Christian population, but of all those citizens who are being denied their liberties—freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West in a few moments, and to hearing the Government’s response to the report’s recommendations in due course.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) for securing this debate on such an important subject, and I pay tribute to him and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for consistently championing the cause of human rights in Iran. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has just said, one of the most striking and appalling aspects of the situation in that country is that Iran’s own constitution and laws provide for precisely the liberties the breach of which we learn of week by week in the reports from Iran.
A few years ago when I was an Opposition spokesman I briefly visited Iran and was told with great pride by representatives of the Government about the position given to the Armenian and Assyrian Churches in Iran, and the fact that seats were reserved for religious minorities. That stands in stark contrast to the treatment of individual believers and pastors, as has been reported in my hon. Friends’ speeches and in interventions from both sides of the House this evening, and as is apparent from the catalogue of tragic cases of people—particularly, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, from the Evangelical and House Church movement inside Iran—who have been imprisoned, tortured and treated in the most appalling fashion.
Jim Shannon
We are talking about the Muslim order of Islamic guidance—I believe that is what it calls itself. It is the blackshirts of that organisation who come to target evangelicals specifically, and that organisation should be condemned at the highest level.
Mr Lidington
There is no doubt in my mind that deliberate and systematic persecution of Christians takes place in Iran. Iran’s supreme leader called last year for efforts to be made to stop the spread of Christianity in Iran. Ironically, that is being done in the name of a faith that prides itself on the message of mercy and compassion, and in the name of a prophet of Islam who accepted the place of Jesus as one of the honoured prophets of Islam. The Koran contains many of the stories of Jesus, including the nativity, told as part of Islam’s own religious revelation. That makes still more shocking what we are observing in Iran today.
Where I differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West is on his challenge that the Government, or the rest of world more generally, are silent on these matters. I can absolutely understand his anger and frustration at the fact that these abuses of human rights have continued year after year, but the British Government have been resolute in calling Iran to account for its human rights violations. We will continue to monitor closely and speak out against such violations in Iran, which not only contravene international law but do not even comply with Iran’s own laws or professed values.
I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and that of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), to this evening’s proceedings. They have frequently condemned the many instances of human rights violations reported to us. We believe that that has contributed significantly to both public and international awareness of individual cases and of Iran’s human rights record, and has helped build pressure on the regime. Sadly, we know, too, that many more abuses remain behind closed doors. The promotion of human rights has always been seen by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as something that should lie at the very heart of British foreign policy. We regularly make clear to Iran, through the various international forums in which we participate, the importance we place on respecting international human rights law.
Mr Amess
I just want to make something very clear to my right hon. Friend, although I do not want to sour things. This country followed America’s lead and got involved in all sorts of violent conflicts, with disastrous consequences. I was one of the people who voted for the war with Iraq, and that frustrates me. However, the real cause of my frustration is that, despite all this pressure, nothing actually changes. I want some action. Why do we give this dreadful Ahmadinejad a platform at the United Nations?
Mr Lidington
That is not something over which the Government of the United Kingdom have control. Iran is a member of the United Nations. President Ahmadinejad would normally be banned under United States law from visiting the United States, but as the Head of State of a member of the UN he is entitled to travel, via the United States, to the UN General Assembly or to other United Nations meetings in order to represent his country as a member of that organisation. Whatever the sense of anger we feel about that, it is, on balance, not a bad thing that President Ahmadinejad should have to go to speak at the United Nations and be aware, through what happens in the chamber, that representatives of many countries walk out when they hear him speak—
Ministerial Corrections
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bangladesh
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Main
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what outcomes she expects from her Department's funding through the Manusher Jonno Foundation in Bangladesh.
[Official Report, 22 October 2012, Vol. 551, c. 718W.]
Letter of correction from Alan Duncan:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on 22 October 2012.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Duncan
By 2013, the Rights and Governance Challenge Fund, implemented by the Manusher Jonno Foundation, is expected to have enabled 253,000 poor and vulnerable people to benefit from social safety net programmes, 11,700 children to be withdrawn from hazardous work, and 121,000 workers in garments and shrimp industries to be paid on time and have improved working conditions. In 2011 alone, the programme supported 5,755 women to receive government land that is meant to be allocated to poor people, and 7,000 boys and girls to obtain stipends from the government to attend school.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Duncan
By 2013, the Rights and Governance Challenge Fund, implemented by the Manusher Jonno Foundation, is expected to have enabled 253,000 poor and vulnerable people to benefit from social safety net programmes, 11,700 children to be withdrawn from hazardous work, and 212,000 workers in garments and shrimp industries to be paid on time and have improved working conditions. In 2011 alone, the programme supported 5,755 women to receive government land that is meant to be allocated to poor people, and 7,000 boys and girls to obtain stipends from the government to attend school.
Defence Industrial Base (Scotland)
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Last week, the UK Government published a paper about Faslane, which was widely reported together with incorrect job projections. Will the Minister dissociate the UK Government and the Better Together campaign from double counting and fabrication on such a serious issue?
Mr Dunne
The hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading information that is simply not emerging from the Ministry of Defence. The base at Faslane is the largest employment site in Scotland, with some 6,700 military and civilian jobs projected to increase by around 8,200 by 2022 as the Royal Navy moves all its submarines there. Those are the numbers.
[Official Report, 14 January 2013, Vol. 556, c. 592.]
Letter of correction from Philip Dunne:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Dunne
The hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading information that is simply not emerging from the Ministry of Defence. The base at Faslane is the largest employment site in Scotland, with some 6,700 military and civilian jobs projected to increase to around 8,200 by 2022 as the Royal Navy moves all its submarines there. Those are the numbers.
Westminster Hall
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Personal, Social, Health and Financial Education
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The schools White Paper “The Importance of Teaching” announced a review to determine how to support schools to improve the quality of teaching in personal, social, health and economic education, PSHE, including giving teachers the flexibility to use their judgment on how best to deliver it. In launching the review, the then Minister with responsibility for schools, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), said that Ofsted had reported some weaknesses in the schools visited. Although PSHE was judged to be good to outstanding in three quarters of the schools, the report noted that pupils needed more knowledge and better understanding in education on relationships, drugs and alcohol, and mental and emotional health.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
From her experience as a member of the Health Committee, will my hon. Friend say something about the role that PSHE might play in ensuring that young people in this country are as healthy as possible?
Barbara Keeley
That is an important point, and I will come on to it. The PSHE Association has argued for the following key education themes to be included: health, relationships, careers and the world of work and personal finance. The consultation on the Government’s review finished on 30 November 2011. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect to see a revised programme of study for PSHE? On 9 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) received an answer to a question on drugs education telling her:
“Revised draft programmes of study…will be sent out for consultation in due course and consultation responses received will be taken into account before final programmes of study are published later this year.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 341W.]
May we have more clarity on dates for those revised draft programmes?
I would like to focus mainly on relationship education, which is a key issue in my constituency and for Salford as a local authority, because teenage pregnancy rates are a continuing concern for us. The latest published statistics show that the teenage conception rate in Salford is 57 conceptions per 1,000 young women. That is higher than the north-west region, which has a conception rate of 40 per 1,000, and considerably higher than England and Wales, which have a rate of 35 per 1,000. The latest figure for Salford is the highest in Greater Manchester and, depressingly, it is more than three points higher than the previous year’s figure. That is a clear issue for Salford, because it goes against the national trend. In Salford, the teenage conception rate has declined by only 3% since 1998, while in the north-west the rate reduced by 11% and in England and Wales the reduction was almost 16%. What that means in human terms, which is the most important thing, is that since 1998, between 215 and 250 young women under 18 in Salford have become pregnant in any one year, and 130 to 185 babies are born to mothers in that young age group in any year.
When action to reduce teenage pregnancy rates in Salford seemed to have stalled in 2007, the council’s children’s services scrutiny committee commissioned an inquiry into the extent and effectiveness of relationship education in our schools and colleges. The inquiry report commented:
“Teenage pregnancy is a serious social problem. Having children at a young age can damage young women’s health and well-being and severely limit their education and career prospects. While individual young people can be competent parents, all the evidence shows that children born to teenagers are much more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes in later life.”
The inquiry sent a survey questionnaire to all schools and colleges in Salford. It found that where the teaching of PSHE was not seen as a priority, the delivery of relationship education was not as effective.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay for the whole debate, but I am very pleased that it is taking place. Does my hon. Friend agree that an important factor to consider is the quality of teacher training? One reason why teaching may not be good in schools, or why the subject may not be given priority, is that teachers do not feel confident about talking about relationships, including, of course, same-sex relationships.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, and that is my next point. The Salford inquiry found that schools were patchy in the take-up of their role in relationship education. In responses to the survey, schools cited “more training for staff” as a key improvement area, but the inquiry found that some schools, even in areas that were hotspots for teenage conception, were unable or unwilling to release teachers for the continuing professional development PSHE course. Another important point is that very few school governors had taken up the responsibility to oversee the delivery of relationship education in their school, and very few had taken on the available training. My hon. Friend is quite right.
The inquiry concluded that direction from Government was needed to make relationship education
“a consistent and compulsory part of the national curriculum.”
The inquiry in Salford was a valuable piece of work, but the situation in relationship education has sadly not improved since. The proposed clauses in Labour’s Children and Families Bill that would have made PSHE, including one year of relationship education, compulsory were lost in the legislation “wash-up” process before the 2010 general election, because Conservative Front Benchers and the usual channels were unable to agree to those provisions.
Funding sources that we used to fund work on teenage pregnancy have not been replaced. The 2007 inquiry report makes quite sad reading, because it envisaged the council being able to continue funding teenage pregnancy projects once grant funding ceased, with schools in teenage conception hotspots also providing matched funding. However, Salford city council has been the subject of budget cuts amounting to £90 million over three years since 2010, so extra funding for teenage pregnancy projects seems a forlorn hope.
That matters because we know that nationally the infant mortality rate for babies born to teenage mothers is 60% higher than for babies born to older mothers; children of teenage mothers are generally at increased risk of poverty, low educational attainment, poor housing and poor health, and they have lower rates of economic activity in their adult lives; and teenage mothers are less likely to finish their education and more likely to bring up their children alone and in poverty. We also know—this is why we are so concerned—that rates of teenage pregnancy are highest among deprived communities, so the negative consequences of teenage pregnancy are disproportionately concentrated among those who are already disadvantaged. Those are all powerful reasons for action.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Lady makes a powerful case for the importance of a mandatory element of PSHE teaching in our schools. Does she agree that PSHE teaching should be broader, incorporating matters such as gender equality and challenging gender stereotypes, which have an impact on young women’s aspirations? Does she also agree that it should be statutory for PSHE teaching to address violence against women?
Barbara Keeley
I will come on to that in a moment, but if relationship education is done well it can cover many aspects. Domestic violence is a very important aspect, because not only do the communities I have mentioned experience poverty and disadvantage, but frequently in families in those communities, very young children see violence.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. In addition to issues such as gender equality, domestic violence and teenage pregnancy, which are all significant, does she agree that one of our significant problems is how to engender in all our young people—not just our girls—a sense of self-confidence and security in themselves? Does she agree that that should be a critical component of any good relationship education?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed, and although I am talking about teenage conception affecting girls and young women, the involvement of boys and young men is important too. Beyond the serious issue that I have mentioned of teenage pregnancy, there are new concerns about how young people can be protected from adults who want to groom them for sex or adults who abuse and assault young people, as in the horrific allegations made against Jimmy Savile. Relationship education can equip children with the knowledge and the skills to understand what constitutes inappropriate behaviour from an adult, it can help children to resist pressure from adults who want to harm them, and it can inform children about how to get help and support when they need it.
The National Children’s Bureau feels that PSHE is key to safeguarding children. The PSHE Association says that
“the most important safeguard against grooming and abuse is that young people are equipped to understand what is appropriate and what is not and to develop strategies to stop that abuse.”
The association feels that PSHE is an ideal forum to explore these issues. Equipping children to understand if they are at risk or if they have already been a victim of such exploitation is a primary line of defence against such behaviour. Of course, these issues cannot be dealt with in an ad hoc way, and the importance of training has already been highlighted. This sort of education needs to provided through regular timetabled sessions, delivered by trained staff.
Evidence also points to the important role that PSHE can play in ending or reducing bullying in schools, and this includes work with young carers. In Salford, we are fortunate to have an excellent young carers project. It works in a number of our schools to identify and support young carers, and to develop awareness of the role of children and young people who are carers. Recently, Salford Young Carers has worked with the Lowry theatre to produce a DVD for schools to build awareness of the issues faced by young carers in school. It is entitled, “I am not different, I just do different things”, and I can get lots of copies, so if anyone here is interested in seeing it, I am very willing to make it available.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
In addition to what happens in schools in planned PSHE lessons, may I ask the hon. Lady to reflect on the importance of popular media, such as the radio and magazines that young people have? I would also suggest that people can learn a lot from the way we reduced drink-driving among young people. That was achieved not only by formal lessons at school but by giving people strategies to allow them to avoid drink-driving.
Of course, we must remember that every week between 6,000 and 7,000 people—not just teenagers—contribute to a conception that ends in a termination. Most of those terminations are avoidable if people just use the language that, at the time, prevents them from doing something that will have consequences that they do not really want.
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. That is the confidence we want to build up.
I was talking about Salford Young Carers and the fabulous DVD that it has produced, so let me get back to the treatment of young carers in schools. The DVD shows the type of caring tasks that young carers take on, how caring affects their performance at school and how it means they cannot take part in activities that other young people have time to engage in. We are fortunate in Salford to have that work being done in our schools, but of course the project is limited by resource constraints. Surprisingly, the project’s staff have also encountered barriers, including a school saying, “We don’t have any young carers,” which most of us will understand is highly unlikely. A dismissive attitude to young carers is also unfair, because many of them are likely to be shouldering practical, emotional and financial responsibilities that are normally taken on only by adults.
Clearly young carers need to be identified and then supported. On 7 September 2012, I introduced a private Member’s Bill in the House, the Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill; there are a couple of supporters of that Bill here today. On identification, my Bill contained a provision that a local authority must ensure that both the authority itself and the schools within its control have in place a policy that both identifies young carers and makes arrangements to support pupils who are young carers. I commend that provision in my Bill to the Minister, who might just have been in her new role at the time that I introduced the Bill. It is crucial that schools and local authorities across the country do more to identify and support young carers.
I have talked briefly about personal, social, health and economic education and what it could enable schools to provide. As I have just touched on, it could enable support to be provided for young carers and the understanding of their caring role, which often entails taking on practical, emotional and financial responsibilities. It could help action to prevent or reduce bullying in schools. It could help to safeguard children against grooming for sex and attention from or assaults by paedophiles. As I mentioned in the main part of my speech, it could equip girls and young women with the knowledge and skills to avoid unwanted teenage conception. It could give all young people the information and values to enable them to have safe and fulfilling relationships. All those things are beneficial outcomes and very strong reasons to put personal, social, health and economic education on a statutory footing within the national curriculum.
There have been other calls from MPs for elements of the PSHE curriculum to be made compulsory, and I think that there are MPs here today who may talk about those elements. There has been a call for statutory financial literacy education from the all-party group on financial education for young people. A cross-party group of MPs has called for for relationship education to be made statutory—that relates to the subject of teenage pregnancies. There has also been a call, which I am sure we will hear about, for compulsory lessons on body image by the all-party group on body image, as well as a call for a commitment to provide effective drugs education from the Home Affairs Committee in its report, “Drugs: Breaking the Cycle”.
Failing to make important subjects compulsory within the curriculum will mean that some schools’ delivery of education on those vital subjects will be patchy at best, or non-existent at worst. It is time that all our pupils benefited from PSHE subjects being taught as effectively as possible.
John Robertson (in the Chair)
There are quite a few Members standing who have not forwarded their names. If we have time, we will try to get more people in, but I have a list of Members who submitted their names and they must be given the opportunity to speak first. Having said that, if the Members who are called to speak could look at the time they are taking to speak, that would be most helpful.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate and on the work that she has done on the subject for some time. I am pleased to see so many hon. Members in Westminster Hall today to discuss this subject. In fact, I am surprised that there are so many Members here. Sometimes, I come to Westminster Hall and limited numbers of Members are present for a debate, so it is very encouraging that so many Members are here at this point in the morning to discuss this subject.
I should perhaps explain my initial connection with this topic: both my parents are teachers. In fact, my mother was responsible for PSHE in the secondary school that I attended, so if there are any failings in my skills in dealing with life, I suppose that I will probably have to take them up with her on two levels, and take the pain of that. However, it gave me a commitment to explain how important PSHE is. My mother dealt with Cornwall county council in those days, talking about the importance of the PSHE element in the curriculum. In fact, when she started dealing with the subject it was actually called “personal, social and moral education”, which perhaps gives an idea of what the subject was like in the early part of the ’80s; there was a slightly different twist to it.
The hon. Lady has focused on relationship education as something that is crucial, and it is very important to me, too. I remember that when I first stood for Parliament I was at the hustings—it was one of that type of “churches together” hustings—and a question came up about sex on television and whether it was a bad thing. Being a politician, I turned the question into something important to me, which is talking about relationships. I said that what I found far more insidious is that all that young people hear all the time, from soap operas and so on, is about relationships failing. Let us be honest—it is done that way because it is a story and that is what soap operas are about. There are very few examples of relationships that actually make it and that work and are successful. That is perhaps a sadder issue. The mechanics of sex being on television are such that the cues that young people pick up—they also pick them up from wider society, celebrity magazines and so on—are all about how relationships are exciting things to start and exciting things to end, and sometimes it is the work of keeping them going that is far more difficult to deal with.
As the hon. Lady said, there are many campaigns for elements or aspects of the curriculum that could come under PSHE; hon. Members have argued strongly for their inclusion in PSHE. However, it is also important that we do not take those elements and put them in some sort of silo and say that this is something that we tuck into a corner of the curriculum and forget about. Those elements must also inform what goes on in education as a whole.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is not the point about the situation now that PSHE is precisely tucked into a silo of science? The only part that pupils are required to learn about in school is sexually transmitted infections and how to have sex, and that is a kind of advertising manual rather than a proper sex and relationship education that might enable, for instance, girls to have so much self-worth that they want to delay their first sexual experience and that might bring boys into the equation, so that they understand that sex is not only a recreation but might also be part of a strong and fulfilling relationship.
Dan Rogerson
Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although boys, too, might well want to delay their first sexual experience, rather than just girls. I think that we sometimes get caught up in a “boys are from Mars, girls are from Venus” view, and there is a difference in the way that we deal with the two. In fact, I think that a lot of the issues, concerns and disquiet that young people might have about some of these issues will be shared by both boys and girls.
Of course, as the hon. Lady said they are also issues about drug and alcohol abuse, as well as strategies for managing and dealing with exposure to drugs and alcohol. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) made a point about how campaigns, such as those on drink-driving, have been successful in the past. General issues of mental health and well-being are incredibly important, too. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said, sometimes some of these things are incredibly important to young people in their development but difficult for them to express and engage with. They carry those feelings around with them day to day, but they find it difficult to confront them. In extreme cases, that can lead to self-harm or suicide. In other cases, it can undermine academic performance, social interaction and all sorts of other things, so it is crucial that the issue is explored.
We need to look at strategies for bringing relationship education out of its silo, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) agreed. Save the Children’s Families and Schools Together programme takes relationship education out of the classroom and deals with building relationships in families as well. We talk about early intervention, and the earliest intervention would be to get to people and give them the skills in parenting and dealing with their own emotional growth before they become parents. However, some people have already been through education, and it failed to provide such things. We need to look at schools as a way to engage with such people to give them skills as parents, to reinforce all the good things that they do and to share that experience. Save the Children’s programme is a successful way to do that.
Relationship education must be taught effectively, and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South was right to mention the questions that have been raised about that. As the coalition Government consider the information that they have received through consultation and how they might advance relationship education, I hope that they will focus on that. They have set out their determination to increase the quality of the teaching available, and this important issue must not be dealt with simply as something that teachers pick up to fill their timetable; it must be something people have the skills to deliver effectively.
Teaching should be reinforced through interaction across the curriculum. The hon. Member for Rhondda talked about the science connection, and other hon. Members have talked about their determination to see more done on financial literacy and financial education, so there are tie-ups with maths, business and so on. By reinforcing such messages across the curriculum, we can make them much more powerful, and we can use the skills of teachers in other disciplines to ensure that those messages are worked on and delivered effectively. As I say, we can also use schools as a way to reach out into families and reinforce what goes on in them.
The coalition Government have not tackled this issue by moving on a prescriptive curriculum or by micro-managing what goes on in the classroom. However, it is important to Members on both sides that the issue is pursued and that the Government have a grasp on it to make sure that we deliver it effectively. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the debate in that spirit.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this important debate. She clearly set out why PSHE is so important. I am pleased to contribute to the debate, because I have a long-standing interest in the issue.
As a Minister in the previous Government, I took through the provisions to introduce PSHE as a statutory part of the national curriculum. It was hugely disappointing that, although the Liberal Democrats supported the Labour Government, the Conservative party declined to support the proposals introduced in 2010 and scuppered them in the wash-up, so preventing them from becoming law. It was striking that the Conservative party failed to engage with the overwhelming evidence that high-quality PSHE needed to be taught, and taught by well-qualified, well-trained teachers, and that it needed to be given sufficient time in the curriculum. The Conservative party also failed to understand that most parents wanted relationship and sex education taught in schools. Young people themselves say that they want it taught, and that includes not just the practicalities of which bit of the anatomy goes where.
As we have heard, when the Government came into power, they published the schools White Paper “The Importance of Teaching”, announcing the review of PSHE. The consultation was launched on 21 January 2011 and ended on 30 November 2011. We have been waiting 14 months to hear something from Ministers about their review, so last November I decided to ask them what was going on. I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State for Education
“on what date his Department’s review of personal, social health and education stopped receiving submissions; and when he plans to publish the results of that review.”
The Minister who is here today said:
“The public consultation phase of the internal review of…PSHE…ended in November 2011. The review will take account of the outcomes of the ongoing national curriculum review and we will publish conclusions in due course.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 369W.]
I wondered why it had taken the Department for Education so long to deal with the issue. What has been happening in the Department since November 2011? Perhaps Ministers wanted to listen further to expert groups in the field to fully understand and appreciate all the compelling evidence about PSHE. Perhaps Ministers have been having extensive meetings and further evidence-gathering sessions, so that they can give us the evidence-based policy decision making that they keep telling us they are so keen on.
I therefore thought that I would ask a few more questions. I asked the Secretary of State
“which groups he has met with to discuss relationship education in the latest period for which figures are available; and which groups he intends to meet for discussions on relationship education in the next 12 months.”
The Minister responded that the Secretary of State had met the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)
“to discuss sex and relationship education on 8 February 2011. The Secretary of State has no such meetings planned in the next 12 months.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 69W.]
I was a bit worried by that.
Diana Johnson
I am very keen to give way as the hon. Lady was at the meeting.
Diana Johnson
I am pleased that the Secretary of State agreed to meet that small group of Conservative Members of Parliament and that there was a least one female Member of Parliament present, because the rest were all white men. There has been no mention of any other groups being invited in to meet a Minister. I thought the PSHE Association, the Churches, End Violence Against Women or the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children might have been invited in to meet the Secretary of State, but no. A group of experts on violence against women and girls has been trying for some time to get a meeting with the Department to discuss the issue. Would the Minister agree to meet them to hear what they have to say on the role of PSHE in combating domestic violence?
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is making an important point. One thing that I think that she will agree is most concerning is the alarmingly large number of young boys and young girls who think that it is acceptable for a boy to hit a girl or to force her to have sex when she says she does not want to.
Diana Johnson
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point very well.
Although Ministers have met none of the groups I thought they might have, extensive evaluations might have been going on of the education programmes available on PSHE. I therefore asked the Secretary of State another question:
“what lifeskills educational programmes (a) he and (b) his Department has evaluated.”
In response, the Minister said:
“This Department is in the process of assessing the strength of the evaluation of Botvin Life Skills Training Programme. Once completed, the assessment will be added to the Department’s open-access database of evaluations of programmes aimed at improving outcomes for young people.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 585W.]
There was therefore a little glimmer of hope, but there was no mention of one of the most successful, biggest and best-informed education programmes developed in the UK, the Good Behaviour Game. I therefore asked another question:
“what representations his Department has received on the effectiveness of the Good Behaviour Game as a lifeskills programme; and if he will commission a review of the effectiveness of the programme within the English curriculum.”
It is worth noting that, at first, the Department thought the Good Behaviour Game was about discipline and not that it was a life-skills programme. It worried me that it did not seem to know the difference. In response, the Minister said:
“The Department has not received any representations in respect of the effectiveness of the Good Behaviour Game as a lifeskills programme. The Government has no plans to commission a review of the effectiveness of this programme.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 81W.]
The Department is obviously not spending a great deal of time looking at or evaluating educational life-skills programmes, so perhaps it is focusing on the individual components of PSHE. I therefore thought I would ask some questions about relationship education. I asked the Secretary of State
“what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of relationship education”—
this goes to the point that was just raised—
“in…combating violence against women and girls and…changing attitudes towards domestic violence; what evidence on these issues has been presented to his Department in the last five years; what plans he has to review any such evidence; and if he will make a statement.”
This answer was a little better. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), said:
“There is some evidence, such as Taylor et al 2010, showing that schools-based programmes can improve awareness, attitudes and knowledge of gender violence and harassment prevention. Relationship education can be provided by schools as part of…PSHE…It is for schools to determine what they teach on these issues”.—[Official Report, 17 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 586W.]
The Minister went on to say that the Department was part of a cross-Government committee that looks at violence against women and girls and that it was “responsible for some actions”—he was not very specific—to deal with the issue. It therefore seems rather depressing that the Department accepts that relationship education can be effective in combating violence against women, but it seems to have no plans as to how that should be promoted.
What is the Department saying about alcohol? I asked the Secretary of State
“what assessment he has made of the role of alcohol education within the curriculum; what representations his Department has received on the nature and effectiveness of alcohol education; whether he plans to review such evidence; and what steps he intends to take to improve the quality and prevalence of alcohol education in schools.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 527W.]
The answer, which is quite shocking, is that the Department
“has not conducted a specific assessment of alcohol education within the curriculum.”
The answer continues:
“From April 2013 a new two-year contract will be in place to deliver information and advice to practitioners, including teachers, in the field of drug and alcohol education. It will build on the best of national and international practice”—
I do not know how the Department will do that, because it does not seem to evaluate anything—
“and ensure commissioners and practitioners understand the evidence-base and use programmes known to be effective.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 528W.]
Will the Minister tell us how that will happen and how it will fit with the drugs education forum? Its role was to bring together good practice from agencies, and it did that for the modest sum of £69,000, which was cut by the Government when they came into power and then hastily reinstated when they realised what a good job it did.
I turn to the PSHE review and drugs education—perhaps things will be better in relation to drugs. Again, I asked the Secretary of State what
“assessment he has made of the role of drugs education within the curriculum; what representations his Department has received on the nature and effectiveness of drugs education; whether he plans to review such evidence”.
The Minister replied:
“Pupils are currently taught about the negative physiological effects of drugs as part of the statutory National Curriculum Programmes of Study for science, and may also receive wider drugs education as part of non-statutory Personal, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 341W.]
It is disappointing that the Government do not seem to understand the importance of comprehensive drugs education in our schools. Drugs has cross-departmental reach, and I thought, perhaps naively, that much work was going on at that level. From another parliamentary question, however, I discovered that Education Ministers have attended the inter-ministerial group on drugs only four times out of 12. I also obtained the agendas for those meetings and, shockingly, drugs education has never been on the group’s agenda.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Was my hon. Friend able to ascertain through parliamentary questions whether the 66% failure to attend those meetings was down to authorised or unauthorised absences by Education Ministers?
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point that the Minister will perhaps address.
I am conscious that I have taken up quite a lot of time, but I am concerned that the Government, who have set up a review, seem to have failed to conduct it properly. Although I am sure that all hon. Members recognise the importance of PSHE and life skills, the Government need some lessons in how to govern effectively and how to review evidence and to make decisions based on that evidence.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this important debate. I share many of her concerns and views, particularly her points about teenage pregnancies and the health outcomes for both mother and baby. With those in mind, I set up a cross-party inquiry into unplanned pregnancies at the end of last year, which was supported by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who is present. We decided to look at whether we could establish the consequences of the level of teenage pregnancies in this country.
As a reminder, Britain has the highest level of teenage pregnancies in western Europe and is second only to America in the western world. It is five times the rate of the Netherlands and twice the rate of Germany and France. I pay tribute to the previous Government for the enormous effort that they put into the teenage pregnancy strategy from 1999 to 2010. They set out to reduce the level of teenage pregnancies by 50% and reduced the conception rate by 25%. It was a great achievement, but it was obviously not enough, and we remain at the top of this sin league of teenage pregnancies, with the accompanying bad health outcomes.
In the inquiry, we set out to examine the possible causes of teenage pregnancies and what recommendations we could make to the Government.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
What ages are in the group that my hon. Friend mentions? Are they under-16s, under-18s or under-21s?
Amber Rudd
We looked at the figures for under-19s. In fact, the figure for under-16s is extremely low. We mainly examined the figures for those aged 16 to 19.
We had a genuinely open mind towards our inquiry. It was public, with several groups giving evidence. We thought that one of the causes might be access to contraception, but we found that relationship education was absolutely the key missing part. Let us not forget the men. Let us not think, perhaps like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), that the issue is more about men than women or women than men. The issue is about society.
Amber Rudd
Or both, as was just helpfully said.
We must include the whole of society in this important social problem. We found that sex education is pretty good. The young people that we spoke to know about contraception and how to get pregnant, but they do not know why not to get pregnant or about the emotional confidence they need.
There is some confusion around sex education. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is right that sex education is compulsory as part of biology. It is compulsory for schools to have a sex and relationship education strategy, but it is not compulsory for them actually to teach it. It is compulsory to have some elements of HIV and sexually transmitted infections within PSHE education, but the crucial aspect of relationship education is apparently not included.
Chris Bryant
There is a particular problem here. I made a lengthy report into teenage pregnancy a few years ago, as it is one of the major causes of poverty in my constituency. One problem is that because the legal requirement focuses on sexually transmitted infections, much of sex education in this country focuses on the use of condoms only. Condoms are notoriously ill-used when one is blotto at 11.30 pm on a Friday and that is one reason why we have a much higher rate of teenage pregnancies in this country, whereas other countries that teach the double-Dutch method of using two forms of contraception are far more successful.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is the Pearl index, which I am sure he knows about, which assesses the effectiveness of contraception. In the age group that we examined, condoms have an effectiveness rate of something like 70% to 80%; so perhaps another reason why there should be some form of relationship education is that, as we know, drink unfortunately plays a large part in whether young people will use the right form of contraception.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
We took evidence from various groups as part of our inquiry. One of the most telling statements was from a gentleman from Brook, who said that aspiration is the best form of contraception. The whole context of aspiration and where children want to go with their lives is important and should be included in PSHE.
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We took some interesting evidence from Simon Blake of Brook, whose participation was helpful. That point about aspiration and ambition was echoed by the group of young people from the Respond Academy—a youth group from Hastings led by JC McFee—that the hon. Lady and I interviewed in the evidence session. They said that they need some form of guidance and relationship education. They need the reasons not to get pregnant, and they need help with forming relationships.
Certain people object to that, and their objections are on two fronts. First, they say that if relationship education is entered into, at some point a judgment will be made. They ask, “Is it right for the Government to be involved in judgments about when, or whether, young people should have sex?” We must respond by saying, “Of course it is right. We are the adults. Every mother and father knows that we need to help our young people in making such decisions.” No one wants young people having sex before they are ready for it. They need help and emotional guidance, and we must address that need. That objection is one that we just need to take on.
The second objection is, “Is it for schools to do this? Is it not for the families?” I have received some such objections, and my response is, “We have to deal with the world in which we find ourselves.” Of course we would prefer it if parents were able to give the education to their children, but in a world in which young people are saying, “We need help and guidance,” it is incumbent on us as the Government to say to them, “We need to respond to that.” If young people are not getting the help and guidance from their families, we must ensure that they get it from some other place, and that could be in schools.
Amber Rudd
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes).
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes a critically important point. Does she agree, however, that even in the ideal situation in which parents are willing to give such support to their children, and are also capable of doing so, that might not be what the children want? I am the mother of a 14-year-old girl who would rather receive impartial advice from a teacher than get such support from only me.
Amber Rudd
I agree, and I think that my hon. Friend’s 14-year-old daughter is fortunate in having a mother who is able to enter into some such discussions with her. We were particularly concerned about the young people who said, “I don’t have family support at all.” Children who are vulnerable, including those who have been in care, are the ones who are saying to us most loudly, “We have no family support. In that absence, who is going to help us? There is a gap in our lives.”
Dr Thérèse Coffey
A question that does come up, though, is whether this should be dictated from the centre or whether, as well as encouraging parents to have the discussions, we allow governing bodies to make choices. The situation might differ from school to school, with different communities and different principles.
Amber Rudd
That is certainly something that the Government and the Department should consider. Different schools have different ethoses and different values—some are Church schools, for example—and it is perfectly reasonable for schools with different attitudes, values and religions to have different approaches. My plea, however, is that they have an approach, and in too many cases they simply do not. We must ensure, therefore, that, as has been said, teachers have the proper training to give the good relationship guidance that is so important.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
As it is looking less and less likely that there will be enough time for me to speak, I just want to say that one of the problems with the workload agreement, which the previous Government introduced for very good reasons, is that in many schools PSHE lessons are not delivered by trained teachers but by teaching assistants.
Amber Rudd
I understand that training in citizenship, which is a compulsory part of PSHE, is popular with teachers and is receiving proper training attention from them.
Briefly, as I want to give other Members a chance to speak, I want to say that there are many ways in which the Department could approach this matter. Citizenship is already a compulsory part of PSHE. What greater gift for our young people, and how better to make them the best citizens we can, than to make them emotionally secure and confident young men and women, able to develop their own relationships? If we do not do that, we let our young people down.
John Robertson (in the Chair)
If colleagues try to keep their speeches down to about five minutes, everyone will get in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on bringing this matter to the Chamber. I want to concentrate on a couple of health education issues in particular. I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate and mentioned some of my concerns about sex education, and I want to speak about sex education in primary schools.
I well remember being taught, or given—taught is perhaps too strong a word—the essentials in secondary school by a teacher. We were all uncertain about what was going on, but at 14 we were old enough to understand and have an appropriate attitude. I look at my granddaughter who has started nursery school and will start primary school in September, and I am aware that some people are suggesting that sex education should be introduced at primary school level, to five-year-olds. That is unrealistic and unfair, and it destroys innocence.
The Christian Institute says that material for children as young as five has been slammed by a leading academic. When I first heard that I wondered if it was true, and I was concerned that there was an attitude that sex education at primary school should be suggested as part of the thesis. Professor Brenda Almond of the Christian Institute says that most five-year-olds have no interest in matters to do with sex and
“wouldn’t even recognise the word”.
I believe that that is the case, and that many people in this Chamber would echo that opinion. Professor Almond also refers to a “worrying new investigation”, conducted by the Christian Institute. Commenting on sexual education material, she warns about
“comic-book-style pictures of different sexual positions”,
and activities, and explanations of the differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Her conclusion was clear:
“For five-year-olds! So much for an age of innocence”,
and I would say that too. To introduce sex education at primary school level to children of that age would be ludicrous and very unwise.
Lorely Burt
I have a lot of sympathy with the way in which the hon. Gentleman is framing his argument, but does he not agree that no one is proposing that we should start to teach the biological sexual elements of relationships to five-year olds? All relationship education should be completely age-appropriate, so a five-year-old would learn about friendships and loyalty—
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. Obviously, we have different opinions. I am clear about what I have stated and about the evidence that I have, which shows that there is an inclination among some teachers and from some education authorities to introduce such education at this early age. That is wrong, unfair, unwise and unrealistic, and the evidence that has been presented to me and of which I am aware backs that up. I would not want to see my granddaughter, or anyone’s granddaughter, being introduced to such material.
Professor Almond has clearly pointed out the emotional damage that graphic sex education could be doing to many children, destroying the simplicity of childhood, and I would reiterate that point. We are all aware that children grow up at different speeds and in different ways, and the role of the parent is important, as many Members have mentioned. Sometimes parents abdicate their responsibility, but parents who want to be part of the process should be. In many cases, it is the parents who best know how the matters should be addressed, and their opinion should be very much part of that. Ministers certainly need to take on board parents’ opinions.
I believe that sex education needs to be taken out of primary schools altogether and the responsibility handed back to the parents. We all have different opinions about that, but in this House I have the right to express my opinion, and I do so, making it very clear—as you know, Mr Robertson. My opinion is based on the opinions of my constituents, and I represent my constituents to the best of my ability, in this House and elsewhere, ensuring that their opinions are well stated.
It is also my opinion that how a family unit is made up should not be taught at school as a one size fits all, but neither should it be that anything goes, while at home mum might have a different opinion. Religious beliefs must also be taken into account in the teaching, and I fear that schools are being asked by some bodies to take too much on and are in danger of usurping the parental role. The Government must take that into account in the review of sex education for younger children.
I will conclude, because I am conscious of the five minutes and that other people want to speak. I make my point again, very clearly: in primary schools, there should be no sex education; in secondary schools there should.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Robertson, for ensuring that, once again, my prediction did not come true.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles—[Interruption.]. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—it is all the wrong the side of the Pennines for me—on securing this debate on an important subject. I declare something of an interest, having previously been a secondary school teacher and having delivered PSHE and, indeed, the more general pastoral care that comes with being a form tutor.
I first came across PSHE when I was a pupil in the 1980s, when it was introduced as PSD, as I think we called it in my school. The problem from the start with PSD was that people did not really know what it was. I remember that it was delivered by my form tutor, who used to say that PSD was a waste of time for all of us and that it was an opportunity for us to catch up on homework and for him to carry on doing his paintings—he was an art teacher, so that was acceptable. We were not delivered a great deal, apart from photocopied sheets on various subjects that took about five minutes out of a half-hour or 45-minute lesson.
PSHE has had an image problem from the start; indeed, there is still a problem today. I chaired last year’s inquiry by the all-party group on financial education for young people, and we took evidence from young people themselves. We invited them into an evidence session, and one of the questions I asked was, “What is your perception of PSHE?” to which one of the kids—sorry, that is a very local way of describing young people—described PSHE as a bit of a doss. That is still the perception in some schools, because it is delivered variously across the country.
There are some good and some bad examples. Part of that comes down to schools being under competing pressures. A challenging school might be so busy trying to work its way up the league tables and to address all the other problems that come with teaching in a challenging environment that, sometimes, things such as PSHE fall by the wayside and are not a particular priority because they are not examined. Unless something is examined or contributes to a school’s performance in the league table, focus naturally goes elsewhere.
I do not particularly remember the PSHE element of my postgraduate certificate in education, so I concur with some of the points about teacher training.
I noted the speech of my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who made a couple of political points, and I will respond with a couple of political points. First, due to the workload agreement, PSHE was hived off to teaching assistants. At one school I taught at in her constituency, PSHE was hived off to cover supervisors.
Secondly, teaching and learning responsibility was added in to the pay scale, meaning that teachers received extra salary for teaching and learning responsibilities, not pastoral responsibilities. In many schools, pastoral responsibilities were removed altogether from classroom teachers. Teachers lost their form classes and no longer had a registration group, which meant they no longer taught PSHE. So PSHE and the pastoral side ended up being delivered by people who were not qualified or trained teachers. I have some pretty bad examples of that because, to protect my classroom, I used to sit in on a PSHE lesson delivered by a teaching assistant while I did my planning. I have some horror stories, which I will not go into today, of how that was delivered.
We must recognise that the pastoral side of being a teacher is much more than just delivering PSHE. We also need to understand that many of the issues that we are addressing today will come out at other times in the school curriculum; they will come out just because a schoolteacher is there and is around school. Kids come in to speak to teachers at the end of the day. We also need to understand that, beyond PSHE, schools take on board many other projects. We used to have a whole-day “Prison! Me! No Way!” programme to which the whole school was committed. Similarly, we had our own teenage pregnancy programme.
I have only a minute left, and perhaps not even that, but I want to make two pitches. First, this is an important debate and there is a position in the curriculum for such teaching. One of the all-party group’s proposals was to make financial education cross-curricular, linking with maths, and we could do that with other areas of the PSHE curriculum. That would increase the value of PSHE in schools by helping to support other parts of the curriculum. We produced a list of recommendations on financial education and met the Minister to discuss them.
Secondly, a constituent of mine, Susan Eastwood, produced a book on employability skills, which she wants to see delivered in schools because she feels many schools are failing to deliver them. I will end there, despite having a great deal more to say.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
As parents, we want our children to be educated not only to achieve academic qualifications and skills but to make good choices in their personal relationships and lives.
Recent scandals, including the Rochdale and Jimmy Savile cases, have horrified people, but behind those scandals, and in other similar cases, we see the same picture. We find that sexual predators felt free to operate, partly because of institutional and cultural attitudes, whether in the BBC, the Church or agencies that were supposed to be protecting children, while children were left feeling powerless to complain. To meet that challenge we need a big cultural change in this country to protect the children of the future. One of the ways we can help to do that is with good compulsory PSHE in schools. The knowledge that PSHE gives children will help to prevent further Rochdale and Jimmy Savile scandals.
As well as giving children the knowledge to make better choices about their personal lives, PSHE gives them the knowledge to protect themselves against inappropriate relationships, whether from their peers or adults, and the confidence to speak out. Quite rightly, cases such as those of Rochdale and Jimmy Savile have led to strong public revulsion that such things happened to our children, and there is a public mood to ensure that we do all we can to stop it happening again. We must not miss this moment by downgrading PSHE in schools. I support the calls for PSHE to be made a compulsory part of the curriculum.
Schools have a critical role in keeping children safe by talking to them about issues such as sexual consent, sexual coercion and exploitation, and how to shape healthy relationships and respect for each other, as well as alerting children to signs of when they are being sexually groomed. The focus needs to be on both boys and girls. Boys need to be supported to form positive and respectful attitudes to girls, especially to counter the widespread availability of pornography—a point stressed by the recent cross-party inquiry into unwanted pregnancies.
Compulsory sex and relationship education in schools would give more children the confidence to speak out and reject inappropriate relationships—not only grooming by older men for sexual exploitation, but sexually coercive relationships with their peers. The issue of what constitutes sexual consent is important. Many boys watch pornographic sites in which there is often a violent element to sexual relationships, and it is not clear that they understand the nature of consent.
I pointed out in a recent Commons debate that one third of all 16 to 18-year-old girls have experienced groping or unwanted sexual touching in schools. In 2009, a Home Office opinion poll on violence against women revealed that one in five people think it is acceptable in certain circumstances for a man to hit or slap his female partner in public in response to her being dressed in sexy or revealing clothing.
I know the Government have indicated that they do not want to make PSHE statutory, but the problem with not doing so is that our children are subject to a random postcode lottery. Schools in some areas, like my own in Stockport, are delivering high-quality PSHE and sex and relationship education, but others, sadly, are not. Such education should be available to all children in all schools.
It is now a year since the PSHE consultation closed, and the ongoing uncertainty, alongside the Government’s commitment to drive through the English baccalaureate, holds massive risks for the teaching of PSHE in schools. Evidence is emerging that important subjects that are not part of the baccalaureate are being squeezed out of the curriculum, which is worrying. A 2011 survey of 2,500 teachers by the NASUWT revealed that 43% of schools had axed or severely reduced provision of some subject areas as a result of the new baccalaureate. A reduction in the provision of art, music, religious education, citizenship and drama was reported, with an 11% decline reported in planned PSHE provision.
The proposed cut to PSHE provision could not come at a worse time, and not only for keeping our children safe, which is my main concern. We need a more holistic approach to education. Of course it is right that children achieve academic qualifications such as the English baccalaureate, but they also need to be given the knowledge to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex, global and risky world. We need to prepare children for the realities they will face. Most importantly, we need to give them the knowledge to keep themselves safe and healthy.
What is the value of a child getting a top English baccalaureate if he or she cannot recognise when they are being sexually groomed or bullied and are unable confidently to make good personal relationships? PSHE helps young people to cope with that world and will increase their confidence in being able to deal with it. Constructive and important work is already being done in many schools. The more information that children and young people receive in schools to prepare them for the world that they face, the better, but it is not being done everywhere, and it should be. The situation must not be allowed to get worse because of the move to a new baccalaureate that squeezes out all but core subjects.
John Robertson (in the Chair)
I thank colleagues for being disciplined, and I hope that the last two speakers will follow their example.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on body image, I will speak briefly on some of the issues that we encountered during an inquiry that started in November 2011, and I will focus on why we have called for compulsory teaching on body image as part of personal, social, health and economic education. I was not surprised to hear references to financial education; in fact, I am a little surprised that other members of all-party groups have not made more pitches explaining why the groups in which they are involved have a particular role to play in PSHE. I will focus on some of the findings of our inquiry and the role of body image as a building block for encouraging young people to develop the self-confidence and self-worth that enables them to establish and sustain relationships that help them go on to become healthy, happy and secure adults.
We took evidence from a range of experts and from young people. One thing that surprised me was evidence that children as young as five had a sense of their body image and how they might appear different from others. Just because they are different does not mean that they have less value or worth, and trying to instil that in very young children is an important part of PSHE. That is evidence in support of discussing body image with children of primary age. Sadly, one piece of evidence that we took was that children can develop a negative self-image from their own parents. It is evidence that we need an independent forum away from the home, where children can discuss such issues and learn to talk about them with confidence and a sense of security.
We certainly took evidence that when it comes to PSHE teaching on body image, quality teaching is necessary. It is difficult for somebody who does not feel confident themselves to teach confidence to young people. I endorse the calls for good training. It is important that our teachers are given the teaching tools and support that they need to convey that message in the classroom, and it is important that they be evaluated. Evidence was given that PSHE taught in the wrong way can do more harm than good. We need quality, evaluated teaching.
I am painfully aware that PSHE is a crowded space. It is not given a large slot in the timetable, but we have heard in this debate about drug abuse, alcohol misuse and sexual relationships; I am here to talk about body image, and there is also financial education. That is a massive range of subjects, but all of them lead to our young people going out into the world as happy, healthy, rounded individuals, which is critical.
I endorse to an extent the calls by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is no longer in her place, for flexibility within schools. I have done a significant amount of work on eating disorders, and I know from my constituency that I can talk about eating disorders at one school where it is a problem, yet in one of the other secondary schools in my constituency, there is far more focus on obesity and lack of physical activity. Education must be adaptable to schools’ particular circumstances. Good teachers, head teachers and governing bodies could have the ability to adapt.
This might sound a little controversial coming from my party, but I endorse the comment about sending out children with more than exam passes. It is critical that in addition to being able to read, write and do arithmetic, our children are sent out into the world as rounded individuals. I have said it before: we need them to be healthy—
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the world is much more complicated now? We have talked about sexual education, although we have not really talked about financial education. There are so many pressures on children leaving school that they should have a better-rounded education. It is not all about certificates and exams.
Caroline Nokes
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. It is not just about exams; it is about more than that, and we fail our children if we do not send them out into the world as happy, confident individuals.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate. Teenage pregnancy is one of the biggest and most complex issues that Members from all parties want to address. The figures for this country rose dramatically during the Thatcher years and then fell somewhat, although not as far as we wanted, under Labour Governments. The fact remains, as has been said, that our figures are five times higher than in the Netherlands, three times higher than in France and twice as high as in Germany. The single biggest policy difference between those countries and ours in relation to young people is the quality of sex and relationship education. I believe that we in this country have made things worse by insisting that children must learn about sexually transmitted infections and the physical, biological aspects of how to have sex, rather than placing those in the wider context of self-development and issues of growing up as a young person.
Teenage pregnancy matters because many teenage mums go on to be the mums of teenage mums. Indeed, many girls who have babies when they are under 16 end up having another baby before they are 20. Many of the daughters of mums who gave birth at age 18 or 19 end up giving birth at the age of 15 or 16. I have met girls from my constituency who have given birth at the age of 14 or 15. While that continues, nobody can say to me that we as a country are serving those children well.
Motherhood becomes a career for some young girls because they do not have enough self-worth or believe that they are valued at home or at school, and they think that a baby might provide them with unconditional love. I do not believe some of the mythology about girls getting pregnant so as to have flats; there is simply no evidence for it. The vast majority of teenage mums live with their parents or other family members. However, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown, there is evidence that girls choose motherhood almost as a career in self-worth. That is what we need to address.
It is true that sex and relationship education, as all Members have said, is patchy in both England and Wales. Not only the Ofsted reports on England but the Estyn reports on Wales have said exactly the same things: large numbers of schools have a policy but do not implement it, or have teachers who are theoretically meant to be engaging in sex and relationship education but feel that they are not up to the job or are not doing a very good job. Numerous children who respond in surveys say, “I wish we’d had better sex and relationship education. I know how to do it, but I don’t know how to not do it.” Again, I think that we are failing them. That is partly because all too often, we start far too late. Girls get to their first period without realising what is happening to their bodies. What will that do to their sense of self-worth as they grow up? Often, parents are far too terrified to talk about such issues with their children, or children are far too terrified—[Interruption.] I would certainly be terrified of having sex education from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) if she were my mother. Children are often terrified of addressing the issues with their parents.
The value of good sex and relationship education, if it starts early enough and instils a sense of self-worth, is that it almost certainly leads young people to have less risky sex, to take fewer risks in their lives and, if they do take risks, to do so knowingly. Most importantly, it probably delays their first sexual encounter. If we could change all that, we could probably change the pattern of poverty in this country. The map of teenage pregnancy is the map of poverty. It means that poverty in this country is more handed down from generation to generation than wealth. That is why I want to change things.
I also hope that we might be able to do something about homophobic bullying in schools. Diversity Role Models, a charity of which my partner is a trustee, does a great job of trying to stop it, which is important because a young gay boy is six times more likely to commit suicide than anybody else.
Finally, such education must be mandatorily, statutorily, compulsorily provided across the whole country; otherwise, schools will not invest, local education authorities will not ensure that the quality of the teaching is good enough and we will fail our children. I say that not only to this Minister, who has responsibility for England—I hope that she will reply expressly to this issue—but to my colleague in Wales, because I believe that we need to do exactly the same in Wales as in England.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this important debate. She told us about teenage pregnancy in Salford and reminded us that a move to make PSHE statutory before the last election was blocked by the Conservative party during the wash-up. That was a shame. Perhaps Back-Bench Members from whom we have heard today could exert some pressure to reverse that position.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) said that there were not many positive images of long-term relationships on television. I used to be a fan of “Coronation Street” and always thought that Jack and Vera Duckworth or Hilda and Stan Ogden were wonderful role models. I do not have enough time to watch any soap operas these days, so I am not sure what is going on. I think it has got much more sensationalist since my day.
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I had heard. But those were long-term successful relationships.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) highlighted the Government’s lack of activity and, in doing so, highlighted the great deal of activity that she has put into this subject. I will say more about that later.
The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd)—the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, no less—spoke with great passion and conviction, as always, on this subject. I congratulate her on the cross-party work that she has done on this subject, which she has got across recently in the media. She said that teenage pregnancy under 16 was low. I know, from the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South in Salford, that figures for teenagers above 16 range from a low of 216 to 250, whereas for the under-16s it ranges from 37 to 51. It can be as high as 20% in some areas. Although I take the hon. Lady’s point, I would not describe it as very low: 20% is a worryingly high proportion.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with conviction, although perhaps his view is not shared by the majority of hon. Members present. Age-appropriateness is the issue here. I think all of us can agree that sex and relationships education should be delivered in that way. I appeal to him for clear evidence and actual, practical examples of where he thinks abuse of this provision is taking place, because it is important that this debate happens in the light of evidence.
In the 1980s, ill-conceived media coverage and ill-conceived views expressed about what was being taught to children led to section 28. I was a teacher at that time and a colleague, who was a gay man, had to keep his sexuality hidden because of the consequences of section 28, which was based on unsubstantiated rumours that what was being taught in our schools was promoting homosexuality.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about age-appropriateness, but does he agree that it is appropriate that the value judgments of many people in the regions of the United Kingdom, particularly parents, about how children should receive sex education should also be borne in mind?
Kevin Brennan
I agree that it is a devolved matter and should be decided by the Northern Ireland Assembly, although I hold to my remarks about age-appropriate education.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) brought his experience as a teacher into the debate. He said that he was a pupil when PSHE was first introduced. At that time, I was a teacher. Some may find that hard to believe, but it is true. He also mentioned that his art teacher did not take it seriously. Art teachers are probably an endangered species these days. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of pastoral care. Hon. Members should not forget that teaching and learning responsibilities were rewarded with extra money and that was the first time in many years that pastoral care had ever been there, and that points were available on the teachers’ scale for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) spoke with expertise. I congratulate her on her long-running campaign on safeguarding. Her points about the nature of consent, and the importance of teaching that to boys, were well made, as were the points made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), whom I did not find terrifying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) did. I found the hon. Lady’s remarks about body image persuasive. She made a good point about parents sometimes reinforcing body image issues. It is important that children have another source from which to gain confidence to combat that. I agree strongly with her remarks about education being more than just examination passes.
My nearish neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, made points about teenage pregnancy that he has been making for many years, campaigning on the issue. He made an important point about unconditional love.
One general observation about the debate is that lots of hon. Members are reluctant, sometimes, to call for things to be made statutory and compulsory. I am, too. But there has to be a transmission mechanism for things to happen. I am afraid that despite the Government’s simply saying, “It would be quite nice if it does happen,” it does not work that way. Over time, we will find out—provided that this is one accountability measure that the Government do not change to hide the impact of their policies—that PSHE will not get better unless there is a serious attempt to get schools to do it. Only statutory provision will make a real difference.
As hon. Members have said, the Department for Education carried out a review on PSHE, a response to which we await with bated breath. The consultation finished on 20 November 2011, not 2012. Any young person with a good sex and relationships education will be able to tell hon. Members that the typical gestation period for a human being is nine months. However, the gestation period of this consultation most resembles that of the elephant, which is 20 months, and we are fast approaching that point. We are eager with anticipation—I was going to say “pregnant,” but I will not—to see when this will come about.
Will the Minister tell us directly when she will deliver the Government’s promised position? When she does, I should not like her to do that in the way in which she answered parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, which was the equivalent of what Lloyd George called the perfect parliamentary answer. He was once driving in north Wales and stopped to ask directions of a Welsh farmer, asking, “Where am I?” The farmer answered, “You’re in your car.” Lloyd George said that was the perfect parliamentary answer, because it was short, accurate and told him nothing he did not know already. The answers given by the Minister and her ministerial colleagues did that in respect of my hon. Friend’s questions, by saying, “some time later this year”. It is clear that the Government are hugely conflicted about PSHE. Essentially, the Secretary of State appears to think that it is all a waste of time, but he cannot bring himself to say that in those terms or authorise his Ministers to do so.
It is important to teach children essential skills, such as how to work in a team, what to do about their body changing and their body image, and how to develop good social, employability and financial skills and good relationships. It is symptomatic of the Government’s attitude that, at first, the Minister—she raised this matter in Business questions a few weeks ago—refused to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and representatives from the PSHE community.
I give the Minister, who is a relatively new Member and Minister, a piece of advice. At first she will sit in her office, as all hon. Members who have been through this process have done, surrounded by civil servants, radiant with lawful power, feeling pleased with herself. However, she should not ignore requests from parliamentary colleagues of whatever political party, but agree to meet them, where it is a reasonable request on a subject that is within her ambit. If she allows civil servants to erect a wall of steel around her and gets trapped in her Department, she will regret it. She should read and answer parliamentary correspondence and attempt to give full answers to parliamentary questions that will inform the House and Ministers. There are good reasons to do that. First, doing that will make her a better Minister. Secondly, it is right that she welcomes scrutiny in our parliamentary democracy. Thirdly, Back Benchers have the tools at their disposal to make her life a misery if she does not follow those practices. I can see that her civil servants are listening, and they should listen carefully. She should agree to reasonable meetings and answer questions and correspondence promptly. The Department has a poor record on that.
It is not just policy makers and stakeholders who are joining the call for more robust PSHE. A new report called “A new conversation with parents” by Pearson and Family Lives, has shown that parents also want this to happen. It is clear that the knowledge that comes along with PSHE does not need to be cut or ignored. The Government should not have the cavalier attitude that they appear to have. Let us have a clear and unequivocal statement from the Minister on why we have heard nothing from her and her colleagues on the subject over such a lengthy period and why the Government, in not responding, are undermining good-quality PSHE in our schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate and I congratulate so many Members on their contributions. The number of Members who have turned up and spoken with such passion demonstrates the issue’s importance to Members of Parliament. I may not be able to give them all the answers that they were looking for this morning, but I hope to set out the Government position. We have had some interesting comments about the details of situations in their constituencies, and I assure them that I will take into account what they have said today and feed it into the Government review. As the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) knows, I am holding a series of meetings on the subject.
The Government believe that all young people should have access to a high-quality, rounded education in personal, social, health and economic issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) asked about sex education as a requirement, and the current statutory guidance makes it clear that this involves teaching about relationships and parenthood and teaching girls and boys. That is the requirement for schools in teaching sex education, so it is already set out and on the statute books. The guidance for sex and relationship education also provides for pupils to be taught about how the law is applied.
There have been some interesting comments about susceptibility to domestic violence and violence against women and girls, and that is part of the current statutory guidance. Hon. Members alluded to the Home Office-led, cross-Government violence against women and girls group, which continues to draw attention to the issue. The Minister who sits on that group is the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who represents the Department. Our position, therefore, is that guidance to schools on sex and relationship education covers those matters and applies the relevant laws.
Hon. Members have pointed out, with a number of comments on the time scale, that the Government review of PSHE education has been extended. Our issue is to make it work with our review of the national curriculum, for which hon. Members will not have to wait much longer. Those two elements need to work together. Our fundamental belief is that the national curriculum should give schools more flexibility to teach in a way that is suited to their pupils and to how the school operates. As I have mentioned, we have statutory sex education, but we believe in more local autonomy in how things are achieved, so that they are done in the best possible way.
Barbara Keeley
Does the Minister believe that such flexibility should be extended so far as to allow that education to be patchy or non-existent? That is the lesson from the many hon. Members who have spoken. We have said in all our contributions that we do not want such education to be non-existent, pathetic or patchy in our schools, in my authority or any other. Does flexibility go that far? If it does, we have an issue.
Elizabeth Truss
No. We want schools to offer a rounded education, but we believe the best way to do that is to allow more decision making by head teachers, rather than by Whitehall.
I want to respond to some of the points made on financial education and to explain how it works with our national curriculum review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned, we are incorporating more financial education into the mathematics curriculum, such as understanding money, compound interest rates, loan repayments and applying percentages or ratios. That is a practical reason why the PSHE review has to interface properly with the national curriculum one. We are opening up the new published national curriculum for review, so I hope that Members will be able to comment on how it relates to what they have asked for in the PSHE curriculum.
Drugs education was also mentioned by hon. Members. Our focus is to ensure that schools and local commissioners understand which programmes have a genuinely positive effect. To support that, we have asked the Centre for Analysis of Youth Transitions to develop an open-access database of evaluations of programmes and interventions that have robust evidence of impact outcomes for young people, including on substance misuse. I can provide a link to the information in place.
I have outlined how I think that more teachers should be empowered to decide the content of the wider school curriculum. International evidence shows that giving schools more autonomy results in them being able to make better decisions on the ground. The same applies to teacher training, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South. We are clear that teachers should be free to access high-quality resources and training, such as that provided by the British Heart Foundation on life-saving skills. It is a two-way process, with professionals in schools in regular dialogue with outside bodies, as well as the Government, rather than one with edicts issued from Whitehall about how exactly subjects should be taught.
Dan Rogerson
I accept what the Minister says about empowering schools to adapt things to local circumstances; but clearly, head teachers and governing bodies act within a framework of accountability, including league tables and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) pointed out, those academic scores are a focus for schools—in particular, for schools in challenging areas—whereas dealing with some of the issues that young people face could unlock their potential and help them in their academic lives. As well as looking at the curriculum, can the Government do something to incentivise good teaching, by rewarding it in how schools are judged?
Elizabeth Truss
We are currently reviewing the accountability system and will shortly have some proposals, as well as having the PSHE review, so such things are under consideration. I am meeting organisations and hon. Members from all parts of the House about those various elements.
Barbara Keeley
That is the second time that the Minister has mentioned meetings, and she is talking about meeting Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), however, made the point that the Minister is not meeting organisations such as the PSHE Association, which clearly has a vital role, or many other organisations. Furthermore, she is not meeting Opposition Members. Will she start to throw open her meetings to a much wider group, such as those who are interested today? Will she meet more groups and Members from all parts of the House?
Elizabeth Truss
I have met both Government and Opposition Members on matters pertaining to PSHE, and I have met various organisations. As hon. Members have alluded to, quite a few organisations deal with the various issues across PSHE, and I am certainly willing to engage with Members—I am keen to do that, and I have already had a series of meetings. I am also happy to respond to a parliamentary question or to write to the hon. Lady about which organisations and Members I have met. Perhaps she was referring to the previous Minister—I am not sure.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for raising body image, which is another important issue. Giving schools more autonomy will enable them to teach what is relevant to them. She mentioned that different aspects of the body image issue might be important in different parts of her constituency. Again, that demonstrates the need for more local decision making within a framework set out by the Government. That is what we are working on in the PSHE review, to follow our release of the national curriculum review. I am happy to engage with hon. Members on that.
I thank everyone for their contributions to today’s debate, which has been extremely helpful in informing my views, as a relatively new Minister, on important issues for Members of Parliament from in all parts of the House.
Local Government Procurement
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to have been granted this debate.
Local government procurement is becoming increasingly important, particularly in places such as my constituency, and I will refer to some of the work that is being done to support local businesses in my constituency during these harsh economic times, especially with the help of Tameside metropolitan borough council in its Tameside Works First initiative. It is also important nationally because almost £62 billion a year is spent through local government procurement, and that amount looks set to increase rapidly as spending cuts force councils to outsource even more services. Clearly, the way in which that money is spent can have a huge impact on the local economy, jobs and training, so we must ensure that we get it right. We must also ensure that, as well as working to obtain best value for money, councils do not overlook important benefits that could be secured through better procurement, particularly added benefits to the local economy.
A study by the Federation of Small Businesses shows that of every £1 spent in the local economy, 83p goes back into that economy. Social Enterprise UK asks:
“If £1 is spent on delivery of services, can that same £1 be used to also produce a wider benefit to the community?”
That is an interesting point, because investing in our local communities must almost certainly have a wider social benefit and positive effect on the same local area.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
As ever, it is a pleasure to share with my hon. Friend the responsibility of representing Tameside in Parliament. He is always pressing its case. We know from experience in Tameside what a difference local councils can make. Does he agree that the Government’s attitude to local government funding and to local councils borders on contempt? The way we are going, we will soon lose any lever we have in managing our local economies through local authorities and helping to improve our constituents’ lives.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because the impact of the local government settlement on a council such as Tameside has been nothing short of devastating. Projections show that coming years will be very difficult for Tameside and other boroughs if things do not improve substantially. That will involve not just the council’s own budget, but the wider local economy. The amount of money being taken out of areas like Tameside will have a devastating impact on the communities we represent.
I want to highlight some of the good work being done in my constituency. The importance of local procurement to support small and medium-sized enterprises is well known. Research in 2005 by the New Economics Foundation with Northumberland county council suggested that for every £1 of direct spending in the local economy, the total value, including indirect spend, equates to £1.76. At the start of the economic downturn, Tameside metropolitan borough council, one of two councils covering my constituency, introduced the Tameside Works First initiative to give more support to local companies and to help to boost the local economy. It was spearheaded by Councillor Keiran Quinn, then the cabinet member for economic development and now the executive leader of the council, precisely to provide support to local companies. Under that programme, specific capital projects and programmes were designated to be supplied locally when possible. At the same time, partner organisations were encouraged to sign up to a local procurement charter, committing themselves also to support a local supply chain.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Ours are neighbouring seats and we share some cross-constituency issues. Does he agree that, to help small local businesses, it is important to remove many parts of the bureaucratic process, such as pre-qualification questionnaires? Small businesses tell me that they must complete these big questionnaires, often for small orders.
Andrew Gwynne
I agree that a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy is often tied up with some contracts. Tameside council has tried to enable small local businesses, no doubt including businesses in the High Peak area, to access council contracts.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman will know that council structures in Northern Ireland are different from those on the mainland. Councils in my area have recently clustered together to help with the financial package for small businesses, procurement and bin collections and so on. Does he see any benefit in that?
Andrew Gwynne
I absolutely do see benefit in that type of clustering arrangement. We in Greater Manchester had the first statutory combined authority, covering all 10 metropolitan boroughs that make up the county of Greater Manchester. They are now working together on a statutory footing, including on some procurement issues, and providing huge savings for those local authorities. That sort of best practice could be rolled out across the United Kingdom.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Is he aware that, for some time, Scotland has had joint procurement under the Scotland Excel initiative, which is delivering sizeable savings for councils throughout Scotland and allowing local businesses to piggy-back on contracts?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend reiterates the point that joint working and joint procurement models can bring huge savings to the public purse and immense benefits for the local economy, whether in Scotland, Greater Manchester, Derbyshire, Cumbria, or Northern Ireland.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He kindly mentioned Cumbria, where the central challenge in local procurement is how to support small local charities against big national providers. The procurement rules seem to make it difficult for small local Cumbrian charities, and even Carers UK and Mencap, to retain contracts that they have performed well for 20 years. They are being swept aside by huge national giants. Does the hon. Gentleman have any lessons from Greater Manchester on how to deal with procurement for local charities?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In his constituency and mine, excellent work is being done by not-for-profit organisations and charities to provide key public services. Given a level playing field, they can compete and often provide better services than the big players, but one problem with local government contracts has been that the big players can sweep up those contracts. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point and ensure that local councils can prioritise local charities and organisations to provide those services. There is often an added benefit in keeping them within an organisation that operates in the locality, because it keeps skills and some spending local.
During the first year of the Tameside Works First initiative, a total of £12 million of capital funding was invested in the local economy. In the second year, more than £13 million was invested in local companies via the Building Schools for the Future programme alone; that was delivered through its investment partner, Carillion. In line with most of local government across the country, particularly in metropolitan areas, since the 2010 spending review, the council’s capital programme has been vastly reduced. Continued austerity measures and Government proposals to localise business rates make it even more important that local companies receive the support they need to survive and grow, if we are to increase personal and economic resilience in places such as Tameside.
Let me put that into context. A total of £151.9 million was spent by Tameside council with external contractors in 2011-12, of which £35.3 million, or 23%, was spent with Tameside-based companies, and a further £27.6 million was spent via Carillion, which also uses local companies in its supply chain as part of the Tameside Works First initiative. As a result, the council’s spend on Tameside contractors has increased hugely, by almost 50% over the past three years, from £20.1 million in 2009-10, when the Tameside Works First initiative started. In addition to sums spent with external contractors, £9.5 million was spent in the local economy via Tameside council’s own direct services. All those combined are considerable amounts of money to keep in the local economy to support local businesses and jobs.
According to 2011-12 billing data, in that year alone Tameside council processed transactions with 12,000 external contractors, of which 5,593—almost half—were based in Tameside. Some £35.3 million was spent with those companies across 55,713 individual transactions, equating to an average transaction value of £634; the largest individual transaction value was just over £1 million. A total of 3,100 local suppliers received payments of up to £60,000, which requires either three quotes of up to £20,000, or three tenders between £20,000 and £60,000 before the contracts can be let. Many of those were smaller contracts, directly let to local companies. I think, for example, of the new park railings at Granada park in Denton: not only does the park look very smart, but that fairly small contract was a lifeline for the Denton blacksmiths, Anvil Masters, a few years back, because it helped the company to keep its head above water. We must not lose sight of the importance of those small contracts. We would do well to look at the very good work being done by the Tameside metropolitan borough council to see how a local council can actively support its community through very tough economic times.
In the short time left, I will focus on Stockport metropolitan borough council, which is the other council that I represent in my Denton and Reddish constituency, with Reddish North and Reddish South wards being in Stockport, of course. Sadly, the council has not been quite as proactive as Tameside in supporting the local economy. Stockport introduced an initiative called Stockport Boost. The frustrating thing for me is that the initiative seems gimmicky in nature, giving the appearance of helping local businesses and the local economy while actually doing very little. It speaks volumes that Stockport council won the local authority PR team of the year award in 2011 for the Stockport Boost campaign, which
“looked at ways to tackle the recession, providing businesses and residents with advice and support on how to cope during the year ahead.”
That is very laudable, and advice and support are fine, but on inspection it appears that Stockport council does not have a specific policy for prioritising local provision. In a recent response to a Labour party survey, the council said simply that it seeks to
“strive to look beyond the price of each tender at what the collective benefit to our economy and the environment would be.”
Warm words, but perhaps the council could learn a few lessons from the Tameside part of my constituency.
Of course, given the way in which the Stockport Liberal Democrats run the council, it is hardly a surprise that the council won the local authority PR team of the year, with little else to credit it with. It still has not identified £5.3 million of additional cuts that need to be included in the budget that will be set in the first week of March. Overall, from 2010-11 to 2015-16, the estimate is that nearly £80 million of budget reductions will need to be found in Stockport, but the council’s approach is entirely about keeping its head in the sand when it comes to local finance.
Clearly, taking £80 million out of a local economy will be hugely damaging, and I am almost certain that it will be my constituents in the Reddish area who will feel the swing of the axe the hardest, because the Liberal Democrat council has past form in choosing to focus many of its cuts on those areas of Stockport in which it has absolutely no political representation. It is worrying to me that by not supporting local communities, there is an inherent unfairness and a higher impact on more socially deprived areas such as Reddish and other communities, particularly in the north of Stockport.
Mr McKenzie
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once more. Does he agree that it is essential to encourage local businesses to register with their councils’ procurement departments at the earliest possible opportunity, so that up-and-coming contracts can be flagged up to them, prior to other tenders being submitted?
Andrew Gwynne
I agree absolutely.
Returning to the national picture, I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions, particularly on the wider issues that we have discussed today. The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 was intended to support local areas, but the Government do not seem to be supporting it as much as we would expect them to. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that councils are aware of that legislation and that they know how it could benefit them and their local economies?
European legislation has proven to be an issue, with many councils citing it as an obstacle preventing them from undertaking their preferred procurement policies. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has repeatedly spoken of that problem since the Government came into office, but has not done much about it. What steps are being taken to ensure that EU procurement law does not prevent local authorities from procuring in the best way for their area and their local objectives?
Some of the most innovative councils, such as Birmingham and Newcastle, have written social clauses into the majority of contracts to ensure that suppliers contribute towards meeting objectives such as reducing youth unemployment, taking on apprentices, or providing jobs for the long-term unemployed. Sadly, however, the Government are not taking enough action to support that approach. In his document, “50 ways to save”, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government suggests that councils do more to bring down the price of goods and services, combine back-office procurement functions and cut down on procurement fraud. I know that those ideas have largely gone down like a damp squib in local government. Nowhere does it mention the savings that can be made by taking a strategic approach to procurement that supports the local economy and local jobs, thus necessitating less spending in the future.
I commend to the Minister the good work of Labour-controlled Tameside council, which is using its sadly diminishing spending power to support local businesses, local jobs and the local economy in these tough times. I urge him to give serious consideration to the points I have made. Local government, even in these cash-strapped times, has a key role to play in economic support. I also urge him to take action on the wider obstacles to local government pursuing a more directed procurement policy. I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) on securing the debate. He is right; local authorities can be market shapers and are uniquely placed to support local jobs and business growth in their areas. They understand their local economies. They have links to local businesses and can work with both public sector and private sector partners to create the conditions for growth. Councils with planning powers can shape their local market, driving regeneration and growth. That will be increasingly important and advantageous for them with the new business rates retention scheme.
I will explain where I have a difference of opinion. We must ensure that we procure efficiently and effectively, and councils can decide to use the money locally as part of driving growth, but procurement is not about engineering their areas. Procurement should be about good procurement. I will come to that specifically in a moment. We have to trust councils, as part of localism, to get on with it and not be tempted, as central Government, to fix it for them or to direct them too far on how they spend money locally.
Councils are almost always one of the largest spenders and employers in their local economies. Local government as a whole holds assets worth more than £230 billion and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, last year spent about £60 billion on directly procuring goods and services. That is a substantial amount of money. Many local residents will take the view in relation to that £60 billion spend—this would be the same for any business—that if we can save just a couple of per cent, councils will be able to spend more money on front-line services. They must ensure that they use that money efficiently and effectively for local residents.
By making life easier for small local businesses to bid for and win council contracts, which the hon. Gentleman touched on, and by being cleverer about how they use their spending power, local authorities throughout the country can do more to stimulate local growth. The Government have taken significant steps to support councils to embrace their role as supporters of the local economy. We have introduced a number of reforms to free town halls from Whitehall bureaucracy and give them the tools to help with the difficult challenge of driving growth. We have done that by providing strong positive financial incentives for local authorities and communities to support and encourage local housing and business growth—for example, by allowing them to keep a share of business rates.
We have supported local enterprise partnerships. We have allocated £730 million to them to support local development. There is substantial planning reform to ensure that planning policy supports growth. We are providing greater financial flexibility locally, so that there is greater scope to support local economic growth. We are providing £1.4 billion of direct support through the regional growth fund. We have agreed city deals and announced Portas pilots to revive local high streets.
We are also taking a number of steps to support local authorities directly in using their spending power to support and boost local economies. For example, we have established the contracts finder portal and created simplified pre-qualification questionnaires, which are free for use by local authorities. Those make it easier and cheaper for small and medium-sized firms and the voluntary and community sectors to bid for public sector opportunities.
We have also taken steps to deal with the recognised commissioning skills deficit in local government. The commissioning academy will provide development on commissioning skills for up to 2,000 public sector employees over the next three years. That will be supplemented by the establishment of an online home for public sector commissioning expertise and learning, so providing all local authority officers with access to free learning materials on commissioning.
Clearly, central Government cannot deliver better hands-on local procurement. What we can do is create the right conditions by eliminating unnecessary red tape, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) said, and by removing barriers to local innovation. It is for local authorities themselves to take the initiative in their local areas. The general power of competence in the Localism Act 2011 gives them far more power than they have ever had before to do just that. I look forward to more and more local authorities taking advantage of the opportunities that that general power gives them.
There are some very good examples out there. I want to touch on a few, including the local council of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. There are some very good examples specifically at Tameside metropolitan borough council, which has been particularly proactive in stimulating local procurement with Meet the Buyer events and initiatives such as the Tameside Business Family and Tameside Works First.
Hon. Members touched on Manchester more generally. The north-west procurement portal and supplier training events are also excellent examples of pooling procurement expertise and making it simpler for SMEs and local businesses to tender for public sector contracts. The result has been a widespread shift to more local procurement spending across the entire north-west. As hon. Members will know, Manchester city council has shifted 10% of its current spending from non-local suppliers to local suppliers, so generating many millions of pounds for the local economy.
Eleven local authorities and 11 other Hertfordshire-based public sector organisations have grouped together using the collective brand Supply Hertfordshire. A web portal advertises all contract opportunities for member organisations. That includes regular e-mail notification for suppliers.
Mr McKenzie
Does the Minister agree that collaborative procurement offers not only savings, but greater opportunities to provide such information as contract monitoring?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Working together produces an awful lot of benefits; he is right about that. They include spreading best practice and being able to buy in a larger critical mass and therefore get a better purchase price.
There are many good examples out there. I have mentioned what Hertfordshire is doing with small and medium-sized businesses. Waveney district council has simplified its tender documents to encourage third sector organisations, as well as small businesses, to tender for contract opportunities. Its objective is to reduce the maximum time for suppliers to complete a tender response to one hour. That kind of practice makes life much easier for businesses that do not have the capacity to take on some of the larger tender documents that we have seen in the past. We need to make contract opportunities more accessible in such ways.
I again thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish for initiating the debate to give us all a chance, through the record of Hansard, to highlight to local authorities that want to take notice of what they could be doing. Their members can look at what other authorities are doing and challenge their officers to go further and faster on this journey.
Rory Stewart
Will my hon. Friend the Minister touch on the question raised about Cumbria and, indeed, the local charity question more widely? What could local authorities do to help procurement in relation to local charities against national charities?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend tempts me into allowing central Government to dictate to a local authority what it should be doing—we get criticised for that—but I will say to him that authorities have the general power of competence. They can look around at some of the very good work that I have just touched on, at Waveney, Hertfordshire and Tameside, and see how to simplify the process. That will ensure that a local charity does not have the problem that such charities have had in the past, when I was in local government, of having to say, “We can’t bid for this. We haven’t got the staffing levels, because it takes days to understand these forms, fill them in and negotiate.” The forms for these contracts should be simple and straightforward. Any of us should be able to read and understand them and take part in the process. Local authorities still have some way to go with that. That leads me on to my next point.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am listening to the Minister’s speech, and he seems genuinely to be an enthusiast for the role that local authorities can play in shaping their local economies. Is he in any way concerned that the financial situation that local government faces, which is a fact—this is not the time to debate whether it is right or wrong—is limiting their ability to do that and is to the detriment of getting this country back towards growth and jobs for everyone, which is what we all want?
Brandon Lewis
No, I do not agree with that. The hon. Gentleman mentioned cuts earlier. The Labour party has announced £52 billion of cuts in the Department for Community and Local Government budget and has not itemised any of them. We have to be realistic about that. Actually, the situation should drive local authorities to want to do better with procurement, to free up money to use on services rather than procurement.
Councils can now do many things to improve procurement, and many authorities need to go much further. They can consider abolishing requirements to complete a pre-qualification questionnaire for contracts below the EU threshold. They can publish all their tenders and contracts online, build up a supplier network and engage with suppliers in the way some already do. They can stop gold-plating on equalities. Equality impact assessments are not and never have been a legal requirement. Officers can use their judgment to pay due regard to equality without resorting to time-consuming, bureaucratic, tick-box exercises. Breaking up contracts into smaller bite-sized chunks or using subcontracting can open up procurement.
Local authorities have a key role in supporting their local economies through procurement. Councils can take steps to use their spending power to support economic growth, but procurement processes need not be complex. All councils can simplify them, as I have outlined, and make future contract opportunities easier for small businesses. Making those changes will also save councils money by reducing unnecessary red tape and bolstering business rate returns. There is an in-built incentive for local authorities to do that now. Some councils have grasped that and made great strides to help local businesses to bid effectively for contracts, but the majority have a long way yet to go. They owe it to local taxpayers to rise to that challenge.
Local Government Standards Regime
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
As a local borough councillor myself, I am very interested to know what Mr Bob Neill is going to say about the operation of the new local government standards regime.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, not least because you were a borough councillor in my constituency before you moved to your current constituency. Most of us have had direct personal experience of local government over a number of years.
I sought a debate on this subject because the coalition agreement set out clearly the Government’s intention to remove what, by common consent, I think, had become regarded as a top-heavy and excessive standards regime. It was debated at some length when the Localism Act 2011 went through Parliament—a process in which I had a certain personal involvement, if I might put it that way.
The Government’s intention was crystal clear: although transparency in councillors’ dealings and behaviour is rightly important, and should always remain so, and although it is important that every council has in place a code on members’ conduct that is cognisant of the Nolan principles of public life, there should be flexibility within those parameters, with a view to councillors no longer being subject to the degree of inhibition that, intentionally or unintentionally, had grown up under the old regime through a mixture of the operation of the then standards regime and what many regarded as a gold-plating of the interpretation of the common law on matters such as predetermination. That was the objective; Parliament’s intention in removing those inhibitions from councillors was crystal clear. It was in the interests of greater democratic involvement at local level and greater transparency. In fact, by and large the objective was uncontroversial on both sides of the House. We had disagreements over some details and means, but the objective was broadly supported.
My remarks today are not partisan. I want to put before the House certain concerns, which have come to my attention over the past few months, about how in some places the regime operates in a way that does not always reflect the intentions the House expressed when the Act and subsequent secondary legislation went through. Those concerns arise from local authorities of all political complexions; this is not a political issue.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on an issue that deserves far more attention. He is bringing his great expertise to bear, so may I ask for his view on one of the many instances of heavy-handed interpretation of the rules that have arisen in my constituency? Councillors have been advised that if they attend a meeting held to protest about plans for redevelopment of the city centre in Hitchin, they may be deemed to have fettered their discretion, even if they announce when attending that meeting that they will not allow it to do so. Could he confirm that is absolutely not the intention of the legislation?
Robert Neill
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that case, which I have also come across. When I was the Minister responsible for signing off the regulations and the code, it was absolutely not the Government’s intention that the code should be construed in that way. With respect to whoever gave the advice, it is frankly nonsense to interpret the legislation in that manner.
My right hon. Friend highlights one of my principal concerns, of which the House needs to be aware: the varying quality of interpretation of the code from one authority to another. He gives an example of a situation that most people with common sense would regard as nonsense. Rather than supporting local democracy, such cases undermine it. I am grateful to him for raising it, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can restate the Government’s clear view that they do not intend the code to lead to that form of inhibition.
My right hon. Friend’s case parallels an instance I came across involving a councillor who was coming up for election. The big issue in their ward was whether a golf course in that ward might be subject to development. All the candidates were effectively advised that should they be elected, if they had turned up to a residents’ meeting to consider that concern, they would be regarded as having predetermined any application that subsequently came before the council. It was the green lungs of that community—it was the big issue. People wanted to know where those standing for election from all parties stood on it, but the monitoring officer was giving advice inhibiting them from doing so. That was never the intention of a proper standards regime.
Exactly the same advice seems to have been given in my right hon. Friend’s example, and it is worth dwelling on it, because I see that the councillor went back to say, robustly, “I’ve got my own legal advice, and it comes nowhere near that construction.” We seem to be getting into a very dangerous state of affairs, where monitoring officers, perhaps through an abundance of caution—I put that charitably—come up with an interpretation of the law that clearly inhibits councillors from expressing a view. My right hon. Friend is right that the councillor was making it clear that they would go along, perhaps as an observer, and say, “I have come with an open mind.” The monitoring officer came back and said, “Even if going as an observer, you will be taken to have predetermined the issue,” because the title of the meeting started “Hitchin against” or “Save Hitchin from”. Such stretching of the rules and the interpretation of the common law concept of bias brings the regime into disrepute.
I hope that this debate gives an opportunity for the Government to restate what has always been our contention: proportionate standards do not require that degree of micro-management. It does no service to councillors of any political persuasion in any community. That is one of a number of examples we have found in this field, and I was going to take the opportunity to deal with some of them today. Equally, there have been examples of real success under the new regime, and it is right and proper to recognise that.
Wiltshire, a big unitary authority, has adopted a regime that is accurately described as strong on transparency but light-touch on participation and voting. That is a sensible approach; provided council members have stated what their position is, there should be no fall back to the old idea that they must automatically be excluded from consideration if they have declared any potential interest on the record. Wiltshire has made the regime work well. Other authorities seem to have adopted a much more prescriptive and old-fashioned approach, which gets in the way of council members representing their constituents. We all know that this is a long-running problem, and it was clearly the intention of this House and Parliament as a whole to rectify it. Perhaps the difficulty is that, in some cases, the mindset of some, but not all, monitoring officers has not changed to reflect the localism agenda.
For localism to succeed, as we all wish it to, it requires two things; first, political will on the part of elected members to carry out the mandate their voters gave them; and secondly, intelligent and informed co-operation from their officers—not obstructing council members from carrying out that political will, but assisting them to do so. Sadly, we have seen the growth of a risk-averse culture in monitoring standards and the way in which councils transact important areas of business. That risk-averseness needs to be addressed.
It is sometimes difficult for an individual councillor—perhaps newly elected to a small authority or a back bencher in a large authority—to stand up, as my right hon. Friend’s constituent did, and say that they have access to advice that frankly brings the monitoring officer’s view into question. It is therefore all the more important that we make it clear that that sort of gold-plating is needless and unhelpful. There have been many such examples around the country, and I am happy for hon. Members to raise others during this debate, because I know that they are important and pressing.
The problem relates not only to an overly restrictive approach to the interaction of the code and predetermination, but to the approach taken towards councillors who do their public duty. That duty may sometimes involve saying controversial things about the operation of the authority itself, but it is wrong—as it has been in some of the cases that I have seen—if, in effect, that is used to gag a member from speaking out. I will happily give a few examples.
The first example was raised by Lord Tyler in the other place during the passage of the Localism Act. A member of Cotswold district council who had acted as a whistleblower found himself the subject of a complaint. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed, but it was a trying and difficult process for that member. Members often find themselves alone, and as Lord Tyler put it—describing exactly the vice that we sought to avoid—councils have
“catered for—even encouraged—persecution of whistleblowers”.
That is strong language to use. I do not know whether the word he used is appropriate, but that is sometimes the effect. Of that case, Lord Tyler said that
“one assiduous councillor, doing precisely what electors expect of him, has been proved right in identifying potentially illegal activity”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2011; Vol. 730, c. 830.]
Instead of the whistleblower being encouraged or supported to bring information into the open, it seems that the Standards Board regime was used to bring a complaint against him, albeit the allegation was ultimately ruled to be unfounded. That is exactly the type of behaviour that we intended to end, but unfortunately that has not happened in all councils. I have already given the example of Wiltshire council adopting a proportionate and sensible approach, but there are examples of members having to fight very hard against the mindset of officers who want to retain, in effect, the whole of the old system, with the exception of the Standards Board for England regime, which has obviously gone.
A cabinet member of a district council in the home counties told me that they had been put under considerable pressure by officers to adopt a code that, in effect, simply transplanted the old regime and put it in place without any changes. It happens that that cabinet member is married to a senior partner in one of the leading local government law firms in this county, so they were able to go back to the monitoring officer and say robustly, “What you are advising me goes well beyond what is necessary. We are not obliged to rewrite all the old rules on predetermination and bring that into our code,” but how many members would have been in a position to challenge the officer’s advice, just as the constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) did? That is a serious issue.
There is a serious question about the way in which monitoring officers sometimes operate. That job seems to have grown. Many monitoring officers—those in my local authority, for example—are excellent; they do a thoroughly good and professional job and it would be wrong to say otherwise. In other instances, however, the role is either amalgamated with other functions or, frankly, does not always seem to be held by somebody with any considerable degree of legal expertise, which is not satisfactory.
I have some examples from councils across the country. One councillor said that they suspect many monitoring officers are still attempting to control elected members—these are the member’s words, not mine—and to frighten them into leaving the chamber on the very flimsy grounds of having interests to declare; and whenever important issues come up for debate, the councillor has found that a paper entitled “Monitoring officer guidance” is included with the agenda, and this tries to direct the members with veiled threats. Whether it is intended in that way, I do not know, but, inadvertently, heavy-handed guidance can certainly have the effect of inhibiting members who are confronted with it. It seems bizarre that every item of any significance should require monitoring officer guidance. That takes the regime well beyond the monitoring officer’s real and proper role, which is to ensure that the council acts lawfully and intra vires, and appropriately to police whatever the code is.
It is worth looking at another county. South Norfolk district council adopted the very light-touch code that was issued, when I was still a Minister, by the Department for Communities and Local Government. That has worked well and entirely satisfactorily. Norfolk county council has adopted an extremely complex code, which is, in effect, the old-fashioned one by another name. We now have the bizarre situation of the leader of the county council being subject to a complaint from the district council leader about what is essentially a dispute between county and district about the site of an incinerator. I do not make any comments on the merits of that dispute one way or the other, but the idea that a legitimate political debate should find itself up in front of the Standards Board is to use the old thinking and procedures, which it was the Government intention to remove.
Other councils have seen even more striking and worrying examples, and I particularly want to refer to the London borough of Tower Hamlets. That authority has a directly elected mayor. He is an independent, but it is well known that he has close connections with the Respect party. The mayor is supported by sufficient independent members to ensure that he has the blocking third to get the necessary budgets and mayoral policies through. However, throughout his time, there has been a history of vexatious complaints against members of the opposition Conservative and Labour parties—Labour is actually the largest party—made by members of the mayor’s cabinet. Councillors appointed by the mayor to his cabinet have made complaints particularly against the leaders of the Labour and Conservative groups. Sometimes the complaints have not come to fruition; in other circumstances, they have. That causes real concern.
The monitoring officer of Tower Hamlets, Isabella Freeman, is also the assistant chief executive for legal services, and the monitoring officer is also the person who advises the mayor. There is now a situation in which the monitoring officer, who advises the mayor and polices the regime, regularly investigates complaints by a member of the mayor’s cabinet. On the other hand, complaints against members of the group who support the mayor have not been taken forward for investigation, which inevitably raises concerns as to who monitors the monitoring officers in such cases. In that case, the monitoring officer is herself in dispute with her employer—the authority—and there is apparently an industrial tribunal case ongoing, but the monitoring officer still sits in and carries out her functions, even though they involve councillors who may be witnesses to those proceedings.
Tower Hamlets has reached the extraordinary stage of members from several parties passing a motion to have certain disciplinary steps taken in relation to the monitoring officer. We might have thought that the monitoring officer would have withdrawn from the meeting at that point; instead, she insisted on remaining, and noted what was said by every member, which hardly gives the impression of an unbiased, open and transparent approach. Freedom of information requests in relation to only two of the complaints have revealed that some £6,000 of public money was spent on investigating a complaint against the leader of the Conservative group and that some £12,000 was spent in relation to a complaint alleged against the leader of the Labour group. No such complaints have been taken forward in the same way against the group that supports the mayor.
That may be a particularly egregious example. At the same time, however, members raised complaints with the monitoring officer about a highly partisan publication, East End Life, which is the subject of great controversy, and the monitoring officer responded that everything that the mayor had put in that publication was in order. The same monitoring officer gave advice that the mayor was not obliged to answer certain questions from members in the council in relation to the exercise of his functions because that might infringe his human rights. That, frankly, brings the standards regime, which we all want properly and proportionately exercised, into serious disrepute. That is not in anyone’s interests.
The matter that has arisen in relation to Tower Hamlets seems, on the face of it, to be frankly scandalous. It involves one important case that comes back to the whistleblower point. An opposition councillor raised an issue concerning an applicant for a senior post in the council, and it was demonstrated that that applicant’s CV was inaccurate in an important and material respect. The applicant had been obliged to resign from a previous employment, and that was not placed on their CV. That achieved a degree of national and regional publicity, not surprisingly.
The result was a complaint by the same member of the mayor’s cabinet, who was a frequent source of the complaints, against that member. That was investigated and the member set out in considerable detail their side of the matter. The hearing took place within weeks of the abolition of the Standards Board regime, and the member was not present. The upshot—I have to be careful what I say—was that within days of the regime being swept away, rightly, by the will of Parliament, the standards committee, which, I understand, consisted predominantly of members who supported the mayor, referred the matter to the first-tier tribunal, where it remains. The purported view of that seems to be that in relation to a complaint that was some two and a half to three years old—never mind its the merits—there was a desire, frankly, to invoke suspension of a leading critic of the mayor. That was why it was being taken to the first-tier tribunal, which refused to entertain it. Now, I gather, there may be attempts to appeal that.
That sort of abuse of the system brings local government into disrepute. It is right to have that on the public record, because that is not how the system is intended to be used. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government’s intention has been that, as of 1 July, the ability to suspend or disqualify a member should not be exercised in the standards regime, but that instead such a power is exercisable when the criminal offence of failing to disclose a pecuniary interest, which came into force on the same day, is committed. The case that I mentioned had nothing to do with a pecuniary interest of any kind; a councillor was doing what many people would regard as their duty by pointing out something that might have been seriously misleading in relation to an important and sensitive public appointment.
The fact that that member should have hanging over their head the prospect of defending themselves in legal proceedings before a first-tier tribunal—brought, of course, at public expense—when it is known, and was known when the decision was taken, that the power to suspend was going to be removed, is an abuse of the system. I hope that we can make it clear and restate that it was never Parliament’s intention that the transitional provisions that were brought into place when the Standards Board regime was abolished should be used in that way. That, too, is an important example of where we need to look more closely at how things work.
I want to refer to one or two other examples that illustrate the issues that need to be addressed, and again, there should be political consensus between us on this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden referred to the case that occurred with his constituent councillor and what was said in relation to the campaign group, and that is not the only case I have come across. I am aware of a council that resolved that councillors should not meet developers, full stop. It seems to me that that kind of blanket interpretation of the rules goes well beyond anything that Parliament intended. We all know that development applications have to be treated with great care and sensitivity, and it is important to ensure that proper process and probity are observed in all such instances, but the idea of such a blanket prohibition seems to me to be fundamentally wrong.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I apologise for being late, Mr Hollobone. My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and raising some important issues, which occur right across the country. As for councillors’ involvement with local government, when I ask my constituents whether they have spoken to their local councillor, they say that they have but that the councillor cannot say anything—I suspect that many of my colleagues hear the same thing—either because the rules have been misunderstood, or because, in some cases, an anxious or over-zealous monitoring officer has put the fear of God into councillors. Clearly, there is a big misunderstanding in such areas, which should be cleaned up as soon as possible.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in a number of instances right across the piece, we have come across precisely that fear of God being put into members, many of whom are voluntary public servants, sometimes in quite small district or parish councils, where they do not necessarily have access to independent advice. A forceful expression of opinion, however questionable, by the monitoring officer can often understandably intimidate, whatever the intention. We need to deal with exactly that issue.
One of the things that we specifically did in the Localism Act 2011—again, it was not, of itself, a matter of controversy in the House—was to clarify the law in relation to predetermination. There is no doubt that the common-law rule had been seriously gold-plated in the advice that monitoring officers were giving, to the extent that, essentially, people were being told, “You really cannot say anything about this planning application, otherwise you will be taken to have predetermined it.” That is wrong, and it is not what the case law ever was, but that is how it was interpreted in all too many cases.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that, because the fact that advice to that effect continues to be given demonstrates, despite the will of Parliament and despite the guidance clearly set out by my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department, that that message is not always being taken on board by some monitoring officers. That is in danger of undermining the potentially good work that is being done by the legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden quoted from the example of his councillor constituent, and I will read out the detail of the advice, because it also touches on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). It is worth reading it out to give you the whole flavour. It was headed “Members’ information note”, and it provides
“Guidance on pre-determination regarding public meeting ‘to oppose an extension to the Simons contract to redevelop the centre of Hitchin’”.
That is all well and good, and it is an understandable matter of public concern. Under the heading “Summary of advice,” the document states:
“Attendance at a public meeting that has a clear purpose of opposing a particular course of action or proposal, and which includes at item 3 on the agenda a “vote”, is very likely to be regarded as evidence of pre-determination of the matter. Either attending the meeting as an ‘observer or listener’ and/or declaring at the start of the meeting that one is approaching the matter with an ‘open-mind’, could still lead to perceptions and allegations of bias and pre-determination, due to the current stated purpose the meeting.”
The member went back on that advice and, as I say, rightly went along to the meeting.
Frankly, that advice was nonsense. If that sort of advice is being given, the sooner that it stops being given the better, because it is not legally sound and does not accurately reflect section 25 of the Act, which says:
“A decision-maker is not to be taken to have had, or to have appeared to have had, a closed mind when making the decision just because…the decision-maker had previously done anything that directly or indirectly indicated what view the decision-maker took, or…might take, in relation to a matter”.
Simply turning up as an observer is certainly doing something, but it could hardly be regarded on any sensible interpretation of the statute as being an act that would tend to predetermine a councillor in relation to a decision.
Basically, bad legal advice is being given to members, and it undermines the proper purpose of the standards, which is to ensure probity, decency and honesty in the conduct of our affairs. When there is nonsense advice of that kind—if I may put it that strongly—it makes it harder to enforce the system in the important cases where a proper red line has to be drawn in relation to members’ conduct. I am afraid that the example that I have just given is one of a number that seem to exist.
Another issue that has concerned me considerably is the attitude of officers towards members at times. Again, I do not want to say that that attitude exists in all cases. In my experience, the majority of officers work sympathetically and constructively with their members. However, a district councillor in Surrey has written in strong terms. Again, it relates to a planning application and let us remember that one of the reasons that we got rid of the previous standards regime was that a vast number of the complaints—something like 60%-plus—turned out to be essentially vexatious. I think that only about 28% of the complaints ever got taken forward properly and many of those related to things such as disputes on the parish council or the fact that someone was aggrieved that a planning application went a particular way; they were related to things that really had no foundation.
In the case in Surrey, there was a controversial planning application and clearly the member had expressed a view; I do not know which way they went, or did not go, and perhaps it does not matter for the purposes of this debate. Nevertheless, it caused the aggrieved applicant to make a complaint to the Standards Board. Essentially, what happened was that an investigator was appointed by the monitoring officer; the investigator questioned the councillor for 10 and a half hours in two meetings, as well as e-mailing the councillor a large number of questions; and on the second occasion, there were another 56 questions, almost as though everything that was being said by the complainant was being taken as read, without any attempt to apply any discretion about the merits of the case and whether it actually warranted that level of investigation.
The matter then dragged on for a number of months, the councillor rightly involved her MP and her conclusion was:
“The sword of Damocles is hanging above us and if someone says something the public don’t like, the sword will fall.”
It has never been the intention of Parliament that that should be the case or that any councillor should feel that way, regardless of their party and their views. The councillor in Surrey says that she has been a member for 16 years, having been returned about four times by her electorate, and for a member of that experience to feel like that indicates that something has gone wrong with the way in which the regime is being applied. The sad comment from the councillor is that:
“The Council were extremely bad with me throughout the entire investigation. They did not help or support. In fact the very opposite. The then CE—”
that is, the then chief executive—
“could not have been less kind or caring and made things worse.”
In fairness, she also says that the current chief executive adopted a different approach, and it is right to say that as well. However, the fact that an experienced councillor has to write in those terms indicates that there is a problem, and reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset that public servants are feeling inhibited from doing the right thing by their communities.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way, and again I must say that his speech is quite excellent. I want to raise another issue with him that I have certainly found in my constituency—again, I suspect that colleagues have also found it in their own constituencies—regarding planning applications.
Planning really is the most contentious area. In my experience both as an MP and as a former journalist—I was a journalist for some 17 years, sitting in on these planning committees—many of the councillors had not even been to the sites that they were considering, because they claimed that they were not allowed to go to them. Yes, there is a drawing that shows what is intended, but that does not show what is around, the buildings nearby, the proximity of perhaps an ancient monument—I do not know, whatever is around the site—so councillors get a completely false perspective and potentially often make the wrong decisions. Is there anything that we can do to stop that happening and perhaps introduce more common sense?
Robert Neill
What we can do to help my hon. Friend in that regard is to promulgate the good practice and what is perfectly permissible. I know from my time as a member of a planning committee that it was perfectly standard practice in many authorities, and it should be perfectly open anywhere, for site visits to take place. It is probably best that members of the committee and the officers go together. That is what is usually and sensibly done, so that they all go in a group, and because the officer is present, there can be no suggestion of improper contact between the members of the committee and—let us say—the applicant or an objector. That can be sensibly done; many authorities do it; and those authorities that do not do it, and think that it cannot be done, should be told that it can and should be done.
Frankly, most of us would hope that with the new approach to empowering members, officers would look for ways to say, “Yes, we will enable a site visit to take place if members wish it, with the proper safeguards in place to make sure that there can be no accusation of impropriety.” It happens in many places, but the fact that it is not generally known that it happens is perhaps a real concern, as my hon. Friend suggests. Perhaps it is something that the Government need to think about doing, perhaps working with the Local Government Association and the local government community in general to ensure that that sensible good practice is rolled out.
It is interesting that my hon. Friend raises the issue of planning, because it comes back to the point about members being told not to meet developers. One of the few things on which I agreed with the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone—there was not much on which we agreed, as hon. Members will know—was that he had a very sensible and proportionate approach to dealing with planning applications that came before him. By their very nature, they were very often strategic applications, potentially involving large sums of money and important social impacts.
When he was Mayor, Ken Livingstone met applicants under those circumstances, he did so with an officer present and everything was properly minuted. Although I have accused the former Mayor of various things over the years, nobody would ever have questioned the total integrity with which that process took place, and indeed it continues under his successor, Mayor Johnson. It was a sensible and proportionate thing to do; Mayor Livingstone was right to do it and Mayor Johnson has been right to continue doing it. However, if they had listened to the sort of advice that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset referred to earlier—the advice given to his colleagues, or that we have seen in some of the documents that I have referred to—they would not have done it and those meetings would not have taken place.
Actually, very often the involvement of members in planning applications can be constructive, provided that it is done with total probity. There are plenty of examples of how the engagement of the ward members has enabled a scheme to be refined or adjusted in such a way that what was potentially unpalatable to a community can be made palatable, and actually the application can be improved by the involvement of the local members. Consequently, such involvement is not only something that should not be obstructed but something that ought to be positively encouraged as a matter of good practice. So I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point about planning.
The other issue that seems to have arisen recently, and that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with when he responds to the debate, relates to pecuniary interests. I was rather surprised to see advice that is being given to a number of councillors, that they should be regarded as having pecuniary interests in effect because they are council tax payers. Again, that advice is all set out in legal documents, which I could happily quote, but if that advice is not nonsense then I do not know what is. Once more, I must say with a sense of frustration that that sort of advice or idea is exactly what I spent two and a bit years of my life as a Minister trying to get rid of, and I feel that perhaps I have failed and that perhaps it is my fault, because I did not make that message clear enough. I hope that that is not the case, but what I have described today is happening in a number of local authorities. In addition, I regret to say that when I looked at some of the e-mails that I have received on this subject, I see that such practice seems to be based on a view taken collectively by a number of monitoring officers.
Like most professions, monitoring officers are not without their collective bodies. They are worthy people; I met some of them on a number of occasions when I was a Minister. However, that does not mean that they always get these ideas right, and the idea that simply because someone pays council tax they should be regarded as having a pecuniary interest is another idea that I hope the Minister will make clear today was never the intention of Parliament. Hopefully, this debate will give us an opportunity to send out a message—to officers that such advice is wrong, and to members that they should not feel constrained by such advice. The idea that someone would have to get a dispensation for every member of a council in effect, so that they could vote on the council tax in their area, is a nonsensical interpretation.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Reluctantly, I have to point out the situation in Wiltshire. A local Labour councillor contacted me saying they had received an e-mail from the ethical governance officer. It said that the current legislation referred to councillors having
“a disclosable pecuniary interest in any matter to be considered”.
The reference to “any matter” was essentially used to justify people not voting on anything, which is utterly absurd. When I responded to the councillor, I said that common sense was required, and I do not think that my advice and input were welcome. However, it is ludicrous that the legislation has been interpreted in such an unhelpful way.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a sad irony that Wiltshire, having got the structure right and achieved a sensible, light-touch, proportionate structure, seems none the less to have been giving out advice on a specific point that is clearly wide of the mark. That issue needs to be raised with monitoring officers generally.
Richard Drax
The mobile phone is a marvellous bit of kit: as my hon. Friend was talking, the leader of the Conservative group on Purbeck district council raised the same point with me. I asked him whether there were any points he wanted to raise, and he said that,
“under new rules we have to declare an interest to set the council tax.”
Funnily enough, that is the very point that my hon. Friend has just raised, and the comment I have read out reinforces it.
Robert Neill
I am immensely grateful for my hon. Friend’s presence, because he has allowed us to have a debate in real time, which is extremely useful. His point highlights the issue and takes well into double figures the number of instances I have come across of such advice being given out. As everybody in the room knows, that advice is clearly wrong.
That raises questions about the quality of advice monitoring officers sometimes give. We all know it is important to have a monitoring officer—something that goes back to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. However, some of the mission creep that has come into the monitoring officer’s role raises questions. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on what the Government see as the proportionate and appropriate use of monitoring officers to ensure probity without creating an industry via the back door. One complaint about the previous standards regime was that whatever its intentions, which were good, it created an industry that was expensive for the public purse and that had the effect—probably unintentionally, but this was the reality—of being something of an inhibitor of open public debate. The whole objective subsequently has been to put an end to that.
All too often, there seems to have been pressure on members simply to recast the old regime but give it a localist badge. An extremely restrictive interpretation of the legislation, which goes well beyond case law or statute, persists all too frequently. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset has given clear examples in relation to planning matters and the key issue of council tax. District monitoring officers also sometimes give such advice to parish councils in their area. Whatever the intention, if that advice lands on a parish councillor, who might have just a part-time clerk or something of that kind, it will be extremely intimidatory. I have had a number of e-mails from members across the country saying, “I’m wondering whether it’s worth standing for my parish council again.”
In a number of instances, the provisions on spouses’ or civil partners’ pecuniary interests have been misinterpreted. Initially, a flurry of advice seemed to suggest that council members would have to give the name and details of their spouse or civil partner. The Department sent out a letter—I may have written it myself—to all council leaders making it clear that that was not the case, and that the interests of the spouse or civil partner are regarded as the member’s interests. Therefore, if a member’s wife or partner owned a relevant property that should be declared, it was declared, but under the member’s name; it was not necessary to give details about their wife or civil partner. The fact that misleading advice was given, and still seems to be given, indicates that the message might not have been fully taken on board. Under certain circumstances, such advice could deter worthwhile and valuable candidates from coming forward for election. That is disproportionate, and it is important that we get a sense of proportion back into these matters.
That brings me back to the quality of the monitoring officer and what their proper role should be. There is flexibility at the local level, and that should of course be the case. However, one councillor who has raised serious concerns with me states at the end of his e-mail that he was one of the first monitoring officers to be appointed under the 1989 Act—he had obviously retired and, having been a local government officer, decided he had not had enough, so he became a member instead, which is absolutely admirable. He said that, when he was a monitoring officer, he had done about one and a half hours’ work a week as part of his other responsibilities. However, he said that the role in his district council had mushroomed and was becoming a full-time job, which was never the intention in a proportionate scheme. Obviously, the work load and the demands in a big authority will be greater, but all too often it seems to me and to many members who have contacted me that there has been an exponential growth in the monitoring officer role, which sometimes leads to advice that is not accurate or focused and to an attitude that can be intrusive. That is important, and I hope the Minister can give us some idea of the Government’s thinking on making sure that there is clarity on the issue, and that councils do not feel the need to over-engineer a solution.
I also hope the Minister will be able to comment, in so far as one can where matters are potentially sub judice, about the extremely concerning situation in Tower Hamlets, where there does not seem to be the independence and transparency that one would wish for in the operation and governance of the council and in the monitoring officer’s role within that. There is a risk of members being worn down by serial complaints against them that are not filtered out at an early stage.
Let me give just two more Tower Hamlets examples to conclude. One involves a complaint—I am glad to say that nothing came of it in the end, but it still took time and investigation—from Councillor Alibor Choudhury, the cabinet member for resources, who is a regular complainant, against the leader of the Conservative group, Councillor Golds. An interim chief executive had been appointed. In the council meeting, speeches were made welcoming that officer to their post. During the debate, Councillor Golds referred to the fact that he was looking forward to appointing a proper chief executive in due course. That was the subject of a complaint, on the basis that it showed disrespect to the acting chief executive, as well as bias. The acting chief executive actually wrote saying, “It does no such thing. I didn’t feel in the least bit offended by that.” It was pretty clear that Councillor Golds was referring to a substantive appointment being made in due course, which everybody would wish to see. The fact that the issue was dragged through the standards regime in Tower Hamlets suggests that not just old mindsets but questionable mindsets were being applied.
A further complaint was then raised—interestingly, three complaints were all made within about a month of each other, and the same cabinet member was a party in each case. In this case, the allegation related to the matter that is now working its way through the first-tier tribunal. A third complaint was then made, this time about a member’s suggestion—it was made by the same leader of the Conservative group, as it happens—that a ward be renamed. It is a sensitive issue locally whether the ward is called Spitalfields and Banglatown or Spitalfields, but the fact that it should trigger a complaint of racism is well beyond anything the provisions were intended to do. The complaint was ultimately taken no further, but a great deal of public money went into dealing with it. Any proportionate system of monitoring would surely have weeded it out at an early stage. As I say, the same council spent £18,000 investigating the two opposition party leaders. At the same time, the monitoring officer declined to investigate complaints against members of the party supporting the mayor.
All those cases raise a specific matter in relation to Tower Hamlets. However, they also raise a specific, important point, which I hope the Minister will be able to clarify, about the use, or perhaps abuse, of the transitional provisions, which were intended essentially to enable members who might be involved in an outstanding complaint to clear their names by going to the first-tier tribunal. I do not know how many such instances, if any, we have on record of attempts to use the transitional provision in that rather extraordinary way, but it is clearly not what Parliament intended.
I hope that I have done enough to give a flavour of the areas of concern that I want to set before the House. I do that not in any spirit of criticism of the Government, because they have been doing the right thing and there was, broadly, a measure of consensus in the House about wanting to ensure that we have proper standards. Making sure that our public affairs at a local level are conducted honestly and transparently, having good quality candidates from all backgrounds coming forward for election, and enabling voters to believe that their members can do and say things that make a difference are critical to the health of local democracy. All of that was clearly the Government’s intention when we carried out the reforms and it was clearly Parliament’s intention when the new arrangements were put in place.
I hope that we will be able to use this debate to reinforce and clarify the message that the new regime is about empowering members, not inhibiting them, and that advice to the contrary is incorrect and should no longer be given out. The Department should use its good offices, working with the Local Government Association and the local government world generally, to ensure that members are not subject to the kind of unintended and inaccurate pressure that undermines our shared objectives.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on securing the debate. He and I have often clashed across the Dispatch Box, but no one doubts his commitment to or interest in local government, in which he served with distinction for several years. I am sure that that experience is sadly missed at the Department for Communities and Local Government.
The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues this afternoon about how we maintain appropriate standards of conduct in local authorities without imposing a burdensome and costly regime that encourages frivolous complaints. We have seen that in local government—we occasionally see it in the House—and it is something that I deprecate, because it brings politics into disrepute. Dealing with serious wrongdoing is one thing, but making frivolous and politically motivated complaints is something else entirely.
The hon. Gentleman hit on several important issues about the operation of the current regime that are worth considering. He is absolutely right that the best safeguard against wrongdoing is transparency. If people know a member’s interests—just as in this House—and can then judge their vote accordingly, that is the best safeguard against anything going wrong. The hon. Gentleman is also right that members in local government are often given bad advice, and it is particularly difficult for those who are new or who do not have a legal background to challenge it. Part of the problem exists particularly in the planning system, where officers, especially monitoring officers, get frightened of big development firms and their lawyers. They sometimes seek to protect councillors from the effects of that, but they often go the wrong way about it. A firm in my constituency that wants to carry out a development that I oppose is, I think, working up attempts to try to intimidate me. I am not intimidatable. It is a waste of time. However, some councillors do find themselves in that position because of poor quality interpretation of the law.
We ought to say clearly that no standards regime should prevent an elected representative from talking to those who elect them or, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, from talking to developers in an appropriate setting where an officer is present to minute what is said; and yet that often happens. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned complaints being made against whistleblowers, which is extraordinary and, again, not what the standards system was ever intended for. Although it is fair to say that none of us is nostalgic for the old regime, which he rightly said became an industry in its own right, we need to ensure that the current regime operates properly and that people are giving proper advice.
The hon. Gentleman discussed Tower Hamlets and the particular difficulty that arises when a monitoring officer wears two hats. If the Minister is able to comment on that, I am interested to hear what he says, because it is clear that the situation there is not conducive to good local government and to delivering the best service to those who elect us. The issue of monitoring officers going over the top on trivial complaints was also mentioned. I am not for one minute saying that they all do that, but the hon. Gentleman gave one example of a member being subjected to 10 and a half hours of questioning over something small and trivial. That is ridiculous. Any system must be proportionate.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right about wrong advice being given on the declaration of pecuniary interests. My local authority’s members have been told that if they are council tax payers, or if their spouse is a council tax payer, as it is their name on the bill they must all declare an interest when they set the budget, and then apply for an exemption. He is also right that it is not only in big authorities that that happens. My husband is the leader of Culcheth and Glazebury parish council. I try not to let it go to his head but, following a swing to Labour in our village, it is now a Labour-controlled parish council. Its members have been told that, before they set the parish precept, anyone who is a council tax payer or is the spouse or partner of a council tax payer must declare an interest and ask for an exemption. Of course they have an interest; they live within the parish. It is a parish council. People who are elected either come from within the parish or very near to it. Those are the rules. When people elect them, they know that. No one is suggesting that parish councils around the country are abusing their right to set the parish precept because they happen to pay it. Quite frankly, it is getting ludicrous and we need to look at how we can give councils proper advice and work with the Local Government Association to ensure that they get that advice.
I have one or two queries for the Minister about how the system is working in other ways at the moment. He will remember that the Government’s original proposal was not to have a requirement for local councils to maintain a code of conduct. Following amendments in the other place, common sense prevailed and local authorities were required to maintain a code of conduct based on the principles of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Councils can now decide for themselves whether they want to amend or replace the existing code. It has not been mentioned, but how they fulfil the duty imposed on them by the Localism Act 2011 of promoting and maintaining standards is important. Work needs to be done to ensure that all councillors, particularly new ones, are familiar with what is required of them, are adequately trained and take a sensible view of such things.
The 2011 Act also provided, as the hon. Gentleman said, for the registration of members’ interests and for the appointment of an independent person to advise the council before it considers an allegation against a member. Will the Minister tell us how that is proceeding? Quite often—we have done it in this House—we believe that we must get an independent person in to advise on this, that and the other. It is as if there is a pool of people out there just waiting to jump in and do that. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he is aware of any problems with councils finding people to undertake the role, which is, after all, purely advisory.
Before the regime came into operation last June, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, with which we are all familiar, expressed concern that a large number of local authorities were unprepared for the new system. The committee said that nearly half of those who had replied to its inquiries had yet to adopt a new code, and that four fifths had yet to appoint this mythical independent person that we are all to find from somewhere. I wonder whether that lack of preparation on the ground has in fact led to some of the problems that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst outlined. Will the Minister update us? How many authorities, if any, still do not have a code of conduct in place? How many have yet to appoint an independent person to advise them on complaints? If there are any such authorities, will the Minister tell us what his Department is doing to ensure that the law is observed in that respect, and what advice it is giving to councils?
The Committee on Standards in Public Life also—wrongly, I think, in this case—had concerns about the robustness of the new arrangements, and argued that the codes needed to be supported by independent scrutiny. I am not convinced by that argument, because I believe that as long as complaints and any decisions about them are dealt with openly and are open to public scrutiny, that is all we need. Such committees as this tend to overlook the fact that members are ultimately accountable at the ballot box for their conduct. There is the famous Hillary Clinton quote about Bill: “If you don’t like it, don’t vote for him,” and it is as simple as that. Unfortunately, most of us do not have the charisma of ex-President Clinton, and we have to rely on other things to get us re-elected.
It is important that members of the public understand the new regime and that steps are taken to inform them of how complaints are dealt with. I know, and I think that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst knows from his constituency, that there is often great confusion among members of the public about how to make a complaint against a councillor. It is members of the public that we are trying to cater for here; we are not dealing with cross-party allegations. A number of people have recently written to me because they are upset about a particular planning decision, in the belief that I can deal with complaints against local councillors and can somehow impose my will on them. I have had to explain that there is a separate electoral mandate for councillors, and that complaints against them are dealt with differently. If the scheme is to work well, we need to address that confusion.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life made an important point, which relates to what the hon. Gentleman said earlier about the need for guidance and training on the new system, and about the application of appropriate penalties if the system is breached. Will the Minister tell us how the need for training is being dealt with in local authorities, for those involved in the new standards regime? Does he know how many local authorities have provided such training for their members—not their monitoring officers—and does he have an indication of how well that is going?
I want also to mention sanctions. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly said, the 2011 Act makes it an offence for a member without reasonable excuse to fail to register or declare a pecuniary interest. That can be dealt with by a magistrates court and, in the most serious cases, a £5,000 level 5 fine can be imposed upon conviction. I do not believe that most of us would have a problem with that in really serious cases, but we all know that most cases are not like that, dealing, as they do, with less serious breaches of the code of conduct. Since suspension is not an option, is the Minister convinced that local authorities have enough sanctions available to them to deal with breaches of the code? If a member of the public makes a complaint and the complaint is upheld, that person needs to be satisfied that the complaint is being taken seriously and dealt with appropriately, and I am interested in hearing the Minister’s views on that.
I was recently told of an independent member of a local authority who refused to sign the code of conduct. The legal advice given to the authority was that it had no way of making the person sign. The argument was that if he did not sign he was not bound by it. It is different with political parties, because they can impose on their members the necessity of signing the code—someone cannot be a member of the group until they do that. This is an interesting case, and if the Minister cannot tell me today how it should be dealt with, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me, in order that the case might be resolved.
I accept that it is very early days, because the new system has been in operation for only six months or so, but although none of us wants to encourage frivolous or politically motivated claims that are not based on fact, it is important that the public have faith in the system and believe that their complaints will be properly dealt with. The vast majority of councillors, of all parties I think, simply want to do a good job for their local community, and they give up a lot of time and contribute a lot of effort. They too, therefore, need the protection of an appropriate standards regime and the assurance that breaches of the code of conduct will be dealt with. That is right for the public, but it is right also for the vast majority of councillors in this country who are honest and hard-working. Will the Minister undertake to consider over the coming year how the system is working, look into the problems that I and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have mentioned, and report back to the House if action is needed?
We cannot take issues such as this lightly, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has made that clear today. Local councils are an important part of our democratic structure. They can, and often do, produce enormous benefits for their local communities, and they deal with serious and important matters—things that affect people’s social and economic well-being—but it is precisely because of their importance that we need to ensure that the standards regime works properly, maintains public confidence and is not abused, and that councillors get the right advice to enable them to comply with what is required of them. That is extremely important, and I hope that the Minister is able to assure us on those issues when he replies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for providing this opportunity to have what is, in the light of what is going on, a hugely important debate. The debate is also timely because the Localism Act 2011 received Royal Assent more than a year ago—I enjoyed several months on the Public Bill Committee with my hon. Friend, as Minister, taking the legislation through—and just over six months ago, on 1 July last year, the new standards regime came fully on stream.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the central part he played in doing what I think most people in local government—perhaps not monitoring officers—will for ever be grateful for: abolishing the old Standards Board regime, thereby fulfilling an important coalition agreement commitment, and overseeing the establishment of a new regime, which should be opening the way for councils to put in place their own new localist standards arrangements. I will be clear with the House on this: I am a fan of old-fashioned democracy and I believe there is a strong case to be made, as it was in the debates on the 2011 Act, that the most effective sanction for wrong behaviour is found in transparency, particularly through to the ballot box. We need to bear that in mind when we consider what the Standards Board regime, which we are moving away from, was at risk of becoming.
Every council should aim to have a simple process that ensures high standards of conduct from all members without imposing bureaucratic burdens or providing a platform for vexatious and politically motivated complaints that not only waste taxpayers’ money but, as the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) mentioned, damage the very fabric of both local democracy and democracy generally. That was the case with the old regime. As a councillor for a decade or so, I saw that regime develop. Since coming to the House and taking my current office, I have found it worrying that, despite the change in regime, monitoring officers are expanding and developing as an industry, and changing the regime seems only to have brought that industry further in-house, rather than getting rid of it.
The essence of the new regime is that, within a simple broad framework, the design of a council’s standards arrangements is put into its members’ hands. I stress that there is no detailed central prescription about conduct. Given what is happening, there is a temptation for us to start getting involved centrally, but I am wary of doing that because it would be a move away from local accountability. It is for individual councils to decide how best to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.
I will have a look the case and come back to the hon. Lady, but my instinctive response to the councillor who refused to sign a code of conduct is that if the council has adopted the code of conduct, it is, de facto, the council’s code of conduct. I am not sure why it is necessary for every member to sign the code of conduct for it to take force. It is the council’s code of conduct.
There is no central prescription for the process a council might follow. Beyond certain clear, basic, national rules—for example, that certain pecuniary interests must be disclosed, which I will return to, because I have seen far too many farcical cases of the type raised today—it is for each council to decide its own arrangements, to decide its code of conduct, to decide how to deal with allegations that that code has been breached and to decide how personal interests should be handled. That approach puts members in the driving seat and recognises the commitment of members across local government to serving their communities, to acting consistently in the interests of those they represent and to ensuring local taxpayers’ money is well spent.
The new regime recognises the central importance and value of members’ roles, which must be a priority, and their knowing what is right for their community and authority. Rightly, under the regime members can take ownership of all their council’s standards arrangements and be satisfied that the arrangements are proportionate and appropriate to the circumstances of their authority.
The first six months of the new arrangements have seen councils and their members take a wide range of approaches in responding to the opportunities provided by our new standards regime. The Government have taken a number of steps to help members make the most of those opportunities. To assist councils, in April 2012 my Department circulated an illustrative text of a simple and straightforward code of conduct, as envisaged by the new regime. In June, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wrote to local authorities about simple arrangements for handling misconduct allegations. We followed that in August with a plain English guide to openness and transparency on personal interests.
All those measures graphically illustrate how simple and straightforward, yet wholly effective, standards arrangements can be adopted by councils under our new regime. It is therefore disappointing and, to an extent, worrying to hear that some local authorities have developed both a code and model arrangements for handling misconduct complaints that appear to be essentially a continuation at local level of the old Standards Board regime, and in some cases go further than the old regime. I have heard about too many cases of that in the past few months.
We have heard examples today, and I will respond to a few specific points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) described a situation that simply should not be happening. The Localism Act makes it clear that a member can go to meetings, and even campaign on an issue, and still take part in the formal decision-taking process, provided they approach that decision with an open mind, as I am sure members do. There is no basis in law for a monitoring officer to give the type of advice about which we have heard.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He says that a councillor may campaign, as long as he or she maintains a neutral state of mind, but if someone is campaigning, they are clearly campaigning either for or against something. For clarification, is the Minister saying that councillors can campaign for something? If councillors state that they are for or against something at a council meeting, they might be accused of not having a clear mind. Does he follow my argument? I may have misunderstood him.
Brandon Lewis
Bear in mind that that is a decision for the individual member, as it is when we declare an interest in the House. Councillors must decide whether, at the point of a decision, they have an open mind, having heard all the evidence. If someone has been campaigning heavily against something, they may come to a meeting, hear all the evidence both for and against and then make a judgment about whether they have an open mind on the evidence. That is a matter for them. The key point is that the advice being given to councillors that they cannot do that is wrong. They can do it and, actually, that is how we represent our residents. That was one of the problems with the old regime.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, since 1 July 2012, when the new regime came into force, councils have had no power to suspend a member—absolutely none. A member convicted by a court for failing to disclose a disclosable pecuniary interest may be disqualified for up to five years by the court in its sentence. In addition, the law remains that any person sentenced to three months or more in prison is disqualified from holding the office of councillor for five years.
Robert Neill
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. Were there to be any growth in litigation based on an erroneous interpretation of the transitional provisions, would he consider what steps the Department and the Government might take to assist the courts in ensuring that a tribunal has access to the correct interpretation before coming to a decision?
Brandon Lewis
I will address the transitional arrangements in a moment, but, yes, we do have to consider that.
The advice in the Wiltshire case makes little sense. The advice refers to a pecuniary interest in any matter, but it focuses on the word “any,” which is completely the wrong end of the stick, to use a colloquial phrase. The advice fails to define a disclosable pecuniary interest, which is the key point. The simple fact is that one cannot identify a disclosable pecuniary interest that relates to the setting of council tax. A beneficial interest in land is probably the nearest to that, but that interest is clearly not materially affected by the setting of council tax.
I have learned something today, and I am hugely impressed: I have never before heard of an “ethical governance officer,” which is a fantastic new title. I am sure the title will be cropping up across the country, no doubt with people asking for pay rises. One of the things of which I have seen far too much, particularly in parish councils, is organisations advising that, in setting precepts, all members have to declare a pecuniary interest, which implies that every councillor has such an interest, be they district councillors, county councillors or unitary councillors. Indeed, it could be argued that that goes all the way to us when we set the Budget. That is farcical. That is not what the guidance sets out. We must make it clear to parish councillors that that is bad advice. It is wrong. That was not the intention.
Another example I have heard is how councils feel the need, under the transitional arrangements, to continue to investigate a complaint under the old regime, whatever its merits. That is absolutely not what the transitional arrangements require. Briefly, if a council considers a complaint unworthy of investigation and the resources that that would entail, it can bin the complaint. I stress again that that is a decision for the council—the members. Neither the monitoring officer nor any other officer has the power to make a decision and force or tell councillors to do something. The decision is in the hands of the democratically elected councillors.
Why is all this happening? Why is there an attraction to continue a Standards Board-type regime—a regime that was widely loathed in local government and ill served citizens, taxpayers and councillors? As I hope I have stressed clearly, our new regime puts members firmly in the driving seat when it comes to deciding what a council’s standards arrangements should be. They are for local councils to decide. In that role, it is right that members look to their officers for advice, as that is what officers are for, but I have to say that much of the advice being given to members is far from satisfactory. There are some very good monitoring officers out there, but far too much poor advice is being given, leading members to feel that they are being bullied by officers.
What I have seen often shows that, for whatever reason, officers have simply failed to grasp what the reform is about. It is about having arrangements that maintain high standards while avoiding bureaucratic burdens and doing away with all the petty, vexatious complaints that bedevilled the operation of the old regime. Whether because of excessive caution, bureaucrats’ love of bureaucracy for its own sake, or a misplaced belief that they and not members should be in the driving seat on standards, officers often advise that something more or less akin to the old Standards Board regime should be continued.
One of the most worrying examples is the Public Law Partnership that provides legal advice to a number of councils, including Essex county council and, I believe, Brentwood borough council, where I was once a member. The partnership has prepared a model code and model arrangements for handling misconduct complaints that seem essentially to be a form of the old Standards Board regime. I see no need for a local authority to adopt a code of conduct based on such a model, or to put in place complaint-handling arrangements based upon the Standards Board regime. I see no need for a heavy, bureaucratic, gold-plated approach that has no place in the new localist standards arrangements, which should be driven by and for members.
I send a clear message to council leaders and members that where they receive such advice, they should simply tell their officers to think again. They must challenge their officers to get it right. They should tell the officers that what they are saying is wholly out of step with the new regime and its aims as approved by Parliament, and instruct them to come forward with something different—something that is proportionate and that meets the needs of members under the new regime.
I know that members are trying to do the right thing and want to make the right decisions, and that the officers giving advice sound well informed and very much in control. It is easy for members to believe, “We must do this.” I hope that today I have sent a clear message to councillors that the power is in their hands; they should exercise it and challenge their officers to come up with a light-touch scheme and approach. I know that leaders and members have the strength and capacity to do that. They should do it now, if they have not done so already. They should get on with it, using the comments made by all Members in this debate, including me, to challenge their officers. My message to monitoring officers and others who give that advice is to be professional and proportionate and to cut out the gold-plating. Let us see some common sense.
I have heard of law firms offering advice—at a price rather than pro bono, I imagine—on the standards regime and how to operate it. It is, of course, for councils to decide what advice they need. Again, I suggest that members should consider carefully whether they need outside, paid legal advice when they have their own officers. I find it hard to envisage circumstances in which seeking such advice can be genuinely justified. The new standards regime is about empowering councillors to deliver high standards of conduct; it is not about creating a new legal industry, whatever attractions that might have for some. My message to council members is at the very least to consider matters very carefully before deciding that it is necessary to involve a legal firm in the conduct of their council’s standards arrangements.
Monitoring officers are there to provide professional advice, not to decide what is to happen or judge whether a member has a disclosable pecuniary interest. I hope that I have made that clear. It is the responsibility of the member concerned to make that judgment. Members need to have confidence in the expertise, professionalism and independence of their officers and to trust that they do not have an agenda or aim that might put their advice into a particular context. Again, I encourage members to challenge their officers appropriately and robustly.
The public expect high standards of conduct from local authority members, and the vast majority of local authority members conduct themselves in an entirely appropriate manner. Across our country, they work fantastically hard for their communities. There is simply no point in a local authority needlessly imposing a burden of bureaucracy on itself. Councils now have the opportunity to free themselves of the Standards Board regime and make a fresh start free of complicated codes of conduct and resource-intensive arrangements for complaint handling. This opportunity is too important to miss, and I hope that they will take advantage of it, guided particularly by the comments made in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst again on securing the debate, which is welcome and, I hope, helpful for local authorities and councillors across this country.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank all Members who have taken part in this most interesting debate, and I congratulate Mr Neill on securing it. I am afraid that we will have to contain our anticipation of hearing Mr Bellingham until the Minister arrives at 4 o’clock.
King’s Lynn Incinerator
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Although there is overwhelming consensus in favour of diverting waste from landfill, support for incineration is rapidly diminishing around the world. Increasingly, it is seen as yesterday’s technology—old technology that is going out of fashion. In spite of that, Norfolk county council has opted for incineration to sort out Norfolk’s waste, in the face of massive public opposition, which I will come back to in a moment, and the opposition of the local borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and all of Norfolk’s MPs.
In March 2011, the county council awarded a contract to Cory Wheelabrator to build a huge 268,000-tonne plant at Saddlebow, near King’s Lynn in my constituency. In spite of opposition from so many quarters, the council tried to give itself permission at a planning committee in June 2012. I am pleased, however, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued a holding notice and called in the application, for which I and Norfolk’s other MPs are grateful. The hearing before Norfolk county council’s planning committee was a total farce, and no one received a fair hearing. I am confident that at the public inquiry, though, we will be treated with great respect; I have every confidence in the inspector.
The Saddlebow site, which is to the west of King’s Lynn, is totally unsuitable for a county-wide facility. If we are to put such a facility in Norfolk, we should not put it in the far west of the county, not least because of the number of vehicle movements necessary along already stretched roads. Furthermore, the site is upwind of Norfolk’s third largest community—I will come back to the health risks—and of the internationally renowned Wash, famous for its shellfishery and as a breeding ground for many other species. It is upwind of numerous sites of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty, including Roydon common and the Dersingham bog on the Sandringham estate. It is also on a floodplain so, frankly, the county council could not have picked a more unsuitable site.
The figures in the contract signed by Norfolk county council with Cory Wheelabrator are huge, amounting to £596.9 million over 25 years. I understand that the runner-up was AmeyCespa, which had a bid total £46 million more favourable than Cory Wheelabrator’s. Norfolk county council must explain why it went for the more expensive solution. We must see some transparency and the evaluation results made public. Furthermore, why did it switch to Cory Wheelabrator at the last moment? The council also negotiated a £20 million penalty clause and an agreement to pay Cory Wheelabrator’s legal fees beyond a figure of £100,000, which I find staggering. The contract surely represents an abject and total failure by the county council to protect Norfolk’s hard-pressed council tax payers. As my colleagues are aware, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued private finance initiative waste credits about a year ago. At the time, our view was that those waste credits were not a good use of money and that DEFRA’s own criteria, which demand a broad public consensus, were not met. The contract, however, was signed, and the PFI credits signed off.
Palm Paper has a large paper-mill near the proposed site and, at the time of the planning application, Cory Wheelabrator claimed that it was in detailed, advanced and ongoing negotiations with the mill for the offtake of heat. That claim was repeated in DEFRA’s waste infrastructure delivery programme report that was issued in October 2011. The WIDP report is the transactor monthly report, which is more of a technical document, and one was published the other day—again, there was talk of links with Palm Paper and the offtake of heat. Palm Paper, however, has denied that talks were taking place or that they were at an advanced stage, so we need to know what was going on. What was happening? Can the county council and Cory Wheelabrator clarify things?
What do the public think of all this? During the consultation process I chaired some public meetings, and both sides of the argument were made vehemently and strongly. Nearly 2,000 people voted, having attended those meetings, and 99% voted against the incinerator. The borough council then carried out a borough-wide referendum covering all my constituency and most of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). It was run by King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council under Electoral Commission rules, and the result was remarkable—65,516 people voted no on a turnout of 61.3%, so a total of 92.68% voted no. Compared with the recent police and crime commissioner elections, when the turnout was around 12%, that must be one of the most decisive, if not the most decisive result in British electoral history.
Neither Norfolk county council nor Cory Wheelabrator took part in the referendum. They could have done, but they refused to do so on so-called legal grounds. They could have accepted the result and looked for a compromise, or at least held discussions, but they did not. Cory Wheelabrator’s advisers, PPS, an independent communications consultancy, said in a document at the time that,
“we need to suggest that our absence from the referendum undermines the moral value of it and that it carries no legal value in any event,”
That was cynical and shabby.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate and commend my hon. Friend on his work in standing up for his constituents, which is the cornerstone of our democracy. Does he agree that whatever the whys and wherefores of the issue—some of the arguments are complex—localism often requires difficult and tough decisions from the locality, but democracy is ill served if, at any level of government, consultation takes place but its findings are ignored, particularly when they are as overwhelming as in this case? When difficult decisions require leadership, they should be done without consultation that is ignored.
Mr Bellingham
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s excellent support. My hon. Friend the Minister wrote to me about the Government’s planning policy and said, “Our policy is to put power into the hands of local communities to shape the plans and places where they live.” Does the Minister agree that it is wrong for any council, particularly a strategic tier council, to ride roughshod over local people when they have made their views so crystal clear?
I want to say a word or two about incineration. Is it efficient, does it encourage recycling and how green is it? First, it has low energy efficiency. It produces more CO2 than oil and gas, and even coal. On the plus side, it generates electricity, but in doing so the process of combustion creates new waste streams and new hazards. I will elaborate on that in a moment. Incineration now flies in the face of the whole philosophy championed in DEFRA’s 2011 waste review, which referred to “reduction, reuse and recycling”. Recycling crowds out the three R’s.
Norfolk’s current recycling rate is a pitiful 38%, one of the lowest in the country. The county council’s figures show that it will increase to 55.4% by 2020, which is still a very low rate. I suggest that incineration discourages recycling. The revolution that is taking place is about educating people, and encouraging young people and the older generation—people like my mother who had never recycled anything, but now separates her waste and follows the recycling rules. There is a recycling revolution.
Norfolk county council committed itself under the contract to supply 170,000 tonnes of waste to the incinerator. The beast will need feeding, and the council has a choice of either keeping recycling rates low, or importing waste from around the whole region, or perhaps both, which would be the worst of all worlds. A disincentive to recycle is built into incineration, which is why in the DEFRA waste hierarchy incineration is falling down the list. The whole world is turning way from incineration, including the EU and the US.
The Massachusetts state government’s waste master plan 2010-20 refers to “A Pathway to Zero Waste”, and calls
“for keeping the state’s current moratorium on new incinerators; expanding reuse, recycling and composting; ensuring greater producer responsibility for materials; and promoting recycling businesses and jobs.”
It continues:
“on a per-ton basis, recycling sustains 10 times the number of jobs that burning does.”
That is a strong argument, and it is going on around the world.
Is incineration safe and healthy? Although the filters remove most of the larger particles, those under 10 microns are not filtered out. Those nano or microparticles escape into the atmosphere and can be blown on the wind for up to 15 miles. Even if industry removed the nanoparticles down to 2.5 microns, some would still escape, and they contain CO2 obviously, nitrogen oxides, mercury, lead and dioxins. An additional problem is that a significant percentage of the waste from the incineration process is left behind as toxic fly ash that must be treated and dealt with. There is an issue with that because the site is in a flood zone.
Many of those chemicals are both toxic and biocumulative, so they may have an impact on people’s health if they are subjected to them over a prolonged period. Many of the studies are only just reaching conclusions and producing results. The situation is evolving, and the lead-in time is often long and slow. However, a recent report from the British Society for Ecological Medicine is headed, “The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators” second edition, June 2008, and the authors are Dr Jeremy Thompson and Dr Honor Anthony. They focus on people such as the very young and the very old who might have a pre-existing respiratory condition, and say that some of the dioxins, particularly PAHs—polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—may have an effect on people with pre-existing conditions. They say that
“it has been estimated that these increase the lung cancer risk by 7.8 times”,
which I find very, very worrying.
What does that mean? It means that if the incinerator is located upwind of King’s Lynn, it could have an impact on people’s health. We do not know for sure, but I suggest that on the precautionary principle alone, one would not put it in the proposed location. Furthermore, substances such as mercury and lead do not biodegrade. They remain in ecosystems and they can have a long-term impact on food chains through a build-up, for example, in farming, horticulture and shellfish. We would be mad to locate the facility upwind of a population centre and upwind of very valuable agriculture and horticulture. All I say to the county council is, have a look at the potential damage. Look at the precautionary principle, and do not put a blight on our homes, on our habitats, and on my constituency and those of my hon. Friends nearby. I have a vision of west Norfolk attracting new waves of dynamic IT and life science businesses, but all that could be put at risk by the project.
I want to talk about the company itself, because Cory Wheelabrator is a partnership between Cory Environmental Ltd, which is a well-known, well-established UK company, and Wheelabrator Technologies, which is a subsidiary of the US credit company Waste Management Inc., or WMX Technologies. The parent company in America has a truly awful record of performance. There is absolutely no doubt about that. I have a long list of examples of where it has either been heavily fined or severely reprimanded. Most recently, Wheelabrator Technologies, which operates three waste incinerators in Massachusetts, agreed to pay a staggering $7.5 million sum to settle a state lawsuit. The alleged violations included emitting ash through holes in the plant’s roof and walls; failure to properly treat and dispose of ash; and dumping waste water in the surrounding wetlands.
Another payout, again in 2011, was $77,500, in agreement with the Maryland Department of the Environment to resolve violations of the state’s air pollution control laws in two separate incidents, both of which stemmed from a failure to control mercury emissions released from its south Baltimore incinerator. If we go back further, there are other examples—I have a long list, and I will quote two more. In 1991, the sheriff of Ventura county, California, issued a report describing 225 different criminal and civil actions over 13 years against WMI and subsidiaries. That, again, is a staggering figure. In 1992, a report in San Diego found that
“the company’s history requires extreme caution by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors or any other governmental entity contemplating any contractual or business relationship with Waste Management.”
It also stated that
“it is clear that Waste Management engages in practices designed to gain undue influence over government officials.”
I would also like to mention one other event, from 1996, when WMX was found guilty of cheating, fraud, misrepresentation, greed and other crimes in respect of hazardous waste. A federal judge ordered an award of damages of $76 million, plus punitive damages of $15 million. Among other things, the judge said:
“What is troubling about this case is that fraud, misrepresentation and dishonesty apparently became part of the operating culture of the Defendant corporation.”
The company has serious questions to answer. I ask Cory Environmental Ltd whether it has carried out full due diligence. I also ask the Environment Agency whether it looked at Wheelabrator’s associated companies’ and parent companies’ records in America. Surely that would have some influence on the decision about whether it is a fit and proper company to be doing business in Norfolk, and furthermore, is this really a company that Norfolk’s council tax payers should be funding?
If there were no alternatives to incineration, I would be saying that perhaps we have to go along with it as the only solution available, but it is not the only solution available. Earlier, I mentioned the three R’s, the recycling revolution that is taking place that all of us want to encourage, and the change in culture across families and communities regarding people who want not only to recycle, but to add value to waste. A number of exciting technologies are now emerging, and one in particular involves anaerobic digestion plus plastics extrusion and manufacturing.
There is a company called Material Works, with which the borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk has signed a memorandum of understanding and a conditional contract to treat all of its 30,000 tonnes of waste. The company’s process entails, first of all, methane extraction from anaerobic digestion, and then adding fibres and digesters from the anaerobic digestion into an extrusion process, adding plastics and polymers, and ending up with a substance called Omnicite, from which plastic products such as fencing, pallets and roofing material can be manufactured. There is a conditional contract and a pilot plant is about to be opened. If it works, and there is a very strong chance that it will, given what has been proved on the continent, Norfolk county council’s waste strategy would be in complete tatters, because it would be losing out on a key waste management partner in the waste partnership, because if the waste is not obtained from west Norfolk, I do not see how the strategy could survive.
My approach—I want to make this clear to the Minister—is constructive and pragmatic. As I say, if there were no alternative to incineration, I would not be questioning the plant so vehemently, but I believe that there are cheaper, better, more modern and more exciting alternatives that would command public support. I have lived in Norfolk all my life, bar four years, and I have spent all that time in west Norfolk, which has a truly remarkable environment. We have some world-class habitats, world-class biodiversity, and an amazing tourism industry. We have some really impressive light industry and IT companies. We have a great deal going for us, with a growing community and a great historic town, in King’s Lynn. We have some of the best farming in the country and a horticultural industry that is second to none. We have a shellfish industry in the Wash that is also incredibly important and a number of SSSIs and areas of outstanding beauty. We have a community that is very proud of itself, and what concerns me a great deal is that there could be a blight on this community, and the impact would be very significant. It would be an absolute scandal if all those things I have spoken of were put at risk.
What I am saying to the Norfolk county council is, please think again. I know it has the penalty clause and that it has made commitments. I know that civil servants, officials and councillors, having made their mind up, do not like to change track, because they see it a sign of weakness. What I am saying is, why not sit down and talk to local MPs—talk to all of Norfolk’s MPs—and to the borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, and look for an alternative solution that could command public support? There is an opportunity to do that, and would that not be far better than slugging it out in a public inquiry at huge public expense? There is a better way to go, and I urge it on Norfolk county council and on Cory Wheelabrator.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The Minister has until 4.46 pm to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) on securing this debate on a subject that is of such importance to his constituents. I am always in awe of him, particularly when he arrives here at the head of an army of men and women from Norfolk who have turned out, in numbers that any of us in this place would envy in an election, in support of the cause for which he argues so eloquently.
I know my hon. Friend will understand that with the application having been called in by the Secretary of State, which he was keen to see happen, it is now not possible for me to discuss the details of the application, for fear of prejudicing that process of inquiry and call-in. However, it may be helpful if I set out briefly the general national policy background for waste policy against which the decision will be made and talk a little how about the process of public inquiry will work, so that his constituents can understand how they can engage and ensure that their opinions are taken into account in that process.
My hon. Friend recognised, and indeed saluted, the Government’s commitment to a zero-waste economy. In preparing for this debate, I came across a phrase that I thought was horrific: the waste hierarchy. When we dig behind the phrase, however, we discover a very intelligent and simple concept, which is that the first priority should be to reduce our use of any material; the second priority, if we cannot reduce our use of the material, should be to reuse it; the third priority, if we cannot reduce our use of it or reuse it, should be to recycle it; if we cannot do any of those things, we should think about energy recovery from burning it; and only as the last resort should we consider disposing of it. My hon. Friend is right to point out that energy recovery comes way down the list. To the extent that it is possible to push stuff higher up, into one of the other categories of reduction, reuse or recycling, that is better.
The Government require every area to have a plan for waste management. I recognise that Norfolk county council has such a plan and congratulate the council on that, because that is the key basis for the decisions it makes. As a Government who genuinely would like to see as many local decisions as possible, we would prefer local authorities to make decisions on waste, as on other matters, for themselves, having put in place the right policies through a plan on which they have consulted widely with local people. Our default position therefore is that we would prefer a local authority in Norfolk to take this decision. Sometimes, however, issues are so controversial or their impact will be so widespread that the Secretary of State has the right to call in the decisions. To be clear, the criteria suggest that if an application might conflict with a national policy on an important matter, have a long-term impact on economic growth, have significant effects beyond the immediate locality, or give rise to substantial controversy, there is a case for the Secretary of State to call it in to make the decision at national level.
After my hon. Friend and all the other Norfolk MPs, plus others—a total of 20 MPs, I believe—and many other people suggested that the Secretary of State should call in the application, the Secretary of State took the decision to do so. What we now start on is the process of public inquiry by an inspector. Let me briefly set out how that will work.
Mr Bellingham
I am indebted to the Minister for making those important points. On the point about Norfolk’s waste strategy, does he agree with me that it would be much better if Norfolk county council had got the full support of all the districts, including Norwich city council and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, for incineration? Those other councils support the waste strategy in broad terms, but not incineration specifically, so there is a glaring fault in the waste strategy.
Nick Boles
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it would be preferable to have that support. We do need to recognise—this is not unique to incineration—that certain facilities that are required in every area of the country will never be popular among their neighbours. This facility may well be one of them, but what is absolutely the case is that there needs to be a thorough process to gain an understanding of the answers to the following questions. Is this is the right facility? Is it the right technology? Is it a necessary facility? Is it of the right scale and, critically, is it in the right place? Is the operator, as my hon. Friend has asked, a fit and proper operator? All those questions will be explored—should be explored—by the county council in putting together its plans and will be explored, to the extent that they are planning issues, in the planning inquiry.
The timetable for the public inquiry procedure is designed to enable the application to proceed quickly and fairly. I understand that the inquiry will commence on 26 February and it is envisaged that it will run until 19 April. My hon. Friend has made clear the extent and the strength of local feeling in his constituency and beyond its borders about the application. He has set out some compelling arguments about the particular facility and the people running it, as well as the alternatives that he and his constituents believe could do the job that is required for Norfolk’s waste, without bringing the impact on communities that he so fears. That public inquiry will give him and the people he represents so capably every opportunity to develop those views, to put their arguments and to have them tested by a planning inspector. That is what will inform a decision that the Secretary of State will ultimately make. I cannot promise my hon. Friend, of course, that the decision will be one that he will welcome, but I can promise him that the process of arriving at that decision will be thorough and open and will give his constituents and him every opportunity to make their case.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the last debate of the day, which will conclude no later than 5.16 pm.
Payroll Companies
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank Mr Speaker for allowing this debate to go ahead. It essentially comes down to a simple issue—the division between people who are employed and people who are self-employed. That division traditionally was quite firm; there was a definite line between the two, but in recent years it has become blurred. Certain disreputable employers have had a very strong interest in blurring that line, on the basis that they can divest themselves of responsibilities if they transfer their work force into self-employment. For instance, they do not have to pay employers’ national insurance, holiday pay, sick pay and redundancy pay. They do not have to pay into a pension scheme. Also, the workers are relieved of many if not all of the rights that people have at work.
What we have seen in the recent past—this is a comparatively recent development—is the advent of what are now called payroll companies. Those companies will say to employers, “You give us the responsibility for your payroll and the responsibility for the relationship with the work force, and we will make sure that you don’t have to pay tax, national insurance”—and all the other things that I have mentioned. In some cases, they also say, “Do a deal with us and we’ll get Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs off your back for good.” I will say more about that later.
Payroll companies seem to be active in all industries, and trade unions and other bodies have long raised objections to their activities. However, the building union UCATT—the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—recently commissioned a report by Jamie Elliott, a freelance investigative journalist, which has brought some extremely interesting and worrying developments to light. To launch the investigation, UCATT set up a fake building company called Fairbrother Builders. Jamie Elliott then approached a number of payroll companies. The biggest of these was Hudson Contract.
I should point out that the report makes it very clear that the majority of the payroll companies agreed to help to shift workers from being employed to what I would regard as bogus self-employment. Some did not, but the majority did. The biggest one, and the biggest one in the country, is called Hudson Contract. It made no attempt to conceal what it wanted to offer. It wrote in an introductory letter to Fairbrother Builders:
“We can save you money, 20% of your labour costs, by reclassifying PAYE staff, paying them through CIS.”
For hon. Members who do not know what the CIS is, it is the self-employed scheme in the construction industry; it stands for Construction Industry Scheme. The letter continued:
“Self Employed operatives, paid under CIS deduction through Hudson are not entitled to holiday pay, redundancy or notice. We are helping companies to move their PAYE labour over to CIS…Last year this saved our clients over £25M in Employers NIC, placing tax and employment law liabilities with us.”
That seems pretty disreputable to me, but what then happens, if the employer decides to go down the route of using a payroll company to transfer the work force into self-employment, is that the work force are asked to sign a contract with the payroll company. That is often sweetened slightly by a small rise in pay, but that will never compensate for all the other benefits and rights at work that in the meantime have been lost. It is particularly the pension rights that spring to mind, because pensions are so crucial in all industries, but particularly in the construction industry.
Once the contract is signed, the former employee no longer has a relationship with the original company but only with the payroll company. But of course on the ground, in the workplace, the payroll company has absolutely nothing to do with the direction of operations —in this case, in construction. The client company—by that I mean the building firm—issues directions and engages with the work force, who in all practical ways remain employed but technically are not. That is a perverse situation. The contract used by Hudson states that the worker
“has no contract of any type whatsoever with the client”
and
“he neither has nor shall make any contractual claim of any type against the client”.
Yet the contract also makes it clear that the new relationship between the freelance operative—I am using its words—and the client has little to do with the way that work is agreed on the ground. In practice, it has nothing to do with the way the work is carried out and agreed on the ground. The contract continues:
“The terms upon which that labour shall be supplied shall be negotiated directly between the freelance operative and the client...upon the conclusion of those negotiations, Hudson will step into the shoes of the client and contract with the freelance operative on the terms negotiated.”
Reading that, I have just noticed that Hudson do not know the difference between a verb and a noun, but that is by the by.
The Hudson website also makes very bold claims as to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs:
“Say goodbye to HMRC status issues and employment tribunal challenges.”
It is a bold statement, but to a large extent, Hudson is justified in making that claim. HMRC challenged Hudson in 2007—when I say challenge, I mean a legal challenge—and took the case to the High Court. HMRC argued that, despite what the contract stated, there was an implied relationship between the construction company and the freelance operative because of the reality of the relationship between the company and the operative, which is denied by the contract and the services offered by Hudson and other such companies. It makes perfect sense; there is an employer, which employs people to do a certain job, and that job and that relationship do not change, and yet people are told, “You are now self-employed. Despite the fact that you work for the same people and despite the fact that you do the same job, you are now technically self-employed.”
Incredibly, the High Court rejected the argument, and on top of that rejection, the past three years have seen the number of employer compliance reviews conducted by HMRC fall dramatically. The cumulative effect is that firms in all industries, not only construction—this has spread to other industries as well—have little to fear from Government agencies, because HMRC is powerless to do anything.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an important debate for all Members’ constituents affected by the worrying trend of payroll companies in many sectors. Does he agree that it is about time the Government looked at the practice, certainly to benefit the workers who are losing out, but also because it affects workers’ confidence to spend money and therefore the wider economy? That is why the Government need to look at this in detail.
John Cryer
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes an important point. Creating economic uncertainty—and there is enough of that about anyway—and payroll companies spreading it around by making people self-employed so that they do not have rights at work or confidence in the future, is hardly an incentive to spend money. If people are not spending money, there will be even less economic confidence or confidence in other areas.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on developing some interesting arguments about this largely unknown and certainly unexplored and ignored issue. May I pay tribute to my union, UCATT, which I joined as a young teenager in 1979? Members will say that that year does not sound right, but—
Steve Rotheram
Yes, child labour.
I pay tribute to the work that UCATT has carried out in bringing the issue to the attention of a much wider audience. Can my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) say why, at a time when Liverpool city council, for example, is having 52% of its discretionary budget cut—up to £300 million—the Government are turning a blind eye to payroll companies, which are avoiding paying up to £2 billion into Treasury coffers?
John Cryer
I thank my hon. Friend. He makes a good point. The council that largely covers my constituency, Waltham Forest, faces some savage cuts, while we see billions—it is billions, by the way—disappearing down the Swanee, because HMRC is powerless to stop it. HMRC itself is facing cuts and has been for quite some time. It will face more and more cuts; its staff numbers are being reduced, so it is unable to police this behaviour.
I should point out that not all payroll companies behave as Hudson does. When Jamie Elliott began his report, he found companies that said, “We are not going to help you do this. This is inappropriate. We think that you are engaging in bogus self-employment, so we will not help you.” The majority, however, did not say that. The majority said, “Yes, we are more than happy to help you transfer people to”—using my words—“bogus self-employment.”
I have mentioned the more respectable payroll firms, but at the dodgy end of the market things can be even worse. There are cases of workers turning up for work and being told, “Although you have not signed or agreed anything, you are now self-employed. You are not employed by the company.” They are transferred without their knowledge. That may technically be illegal, but under the current circumstances and in such an uncertain industry as construction, many employees will not be keen to complain about an employer, which clearly does not think that much of them if they want to transfer them to being self-employed.
I have described a fairly straightforward sort of scam— I use the word advisedly—but another scam is the use of umbrella companies, which is rather more complicated. Workers remain employed, but by an umbrella company, which is in turn set up by the payroll company. The cost saving is made by a tax dodge that allows tax relief on employees’ travel and subsistence to be used to pay employers’ national insurance. Since employers’ NI runs at 13.8%, we are talking about a considerable saving. That is the incentive that payroll companies have to set up the umbrella companies that allow the dodge to take place.
A final example of the sorts of practice being engaged in is the use of offshore status. For example, International Subcontracting Solutions Ltd employs 24,000 supply teachers across the UK. Because it is based in the Channel Islands and is a payroll company, ISS is not liable to pay employers’ NI, although it does technically employ the teachers. At the same time, the recruitment agencies in the UK that actually find the jobs for the teachers are also not liable to pay employers’ NI. On all the fronts I describe, the Treasury is losing out in a big way—to the tune of billions of pounds.
My final point is in line with the intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made. The Elliott report puts the amount of money lost to the Treasury at £1.9 billion, but that only covers construction. It is an estimate, but it is pretty accurate. There have been no detailed reports, which is why I have concentrated on the Elliott report, but from what I can gather, such practices are spreading to other industries. I have received e-mails describing how they are spreading into the hospitality, catering and retail industries.
If we take all those industries together, my suspicion is that billions of pounds are being lost to the Treasury at a time when we are seeing savage cuts to public services left, right and centre. Every Member can cite cuts to services in their constituencies and local authorities used by the people who they represent, and yet all this money seems to be disappearing down the Swanee.
Thousands, certainly tens of thousands, and possibly millions of workers in the long term, will be deprived of basic rights at work, their holiday and sick pay, and their pension and redundancy entitlements. That will do only one thing: fuel a lack of confidence in the economic future of this country.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way just before he concludes his remarks. He has made a powerful speech. It is important to remember that self-employment and freelancing are good, but we are looking to tackle bogus self-employment. Is it incumbent on the Government to launch a full inquiry, through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, into this, not only for the sake of the employees and the Treasury, but because of issues in the construction sector such as blacklisting? People who work in the construction sector deserve an awful lot more from this Government. They deserve a full investigation of all the facts around their employment and future.
John Cryer
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It would be a sensible solution for the Department to conduct an inquiry into the various tax dodges, particularly in construction, but in other industries as well; into blacklisting and all those slightly shadowy practices, some of which are straightforwardly illegal, some of which verge on illegality and some of which are straightforwardly legal; and into how it affects people and business and economic confidence.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Apart from the impact on employees, such an inquiry might cover how much damage is being done to small and medium-sized enterprises in the construction industry, which are suffering seriously during this recession only because they treat their employees fairly and are undermined by such people.
John Cryer
That is a very good point. I have met many employers, including in my constituency—I represent two boroughs, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, because it crosses borough boundaries—who have told me exactly that: “We are a legitimate employer. We want to do our best by our employees. We want to protect them. We want to give them decent wages, holiday pay, sick pay, pension entitlements and all that. Sadly, however, we are being undercut by people who are frankly cowboys.”
It would be an excellent idea for BIS, perhaps under the leadership of the Minister, to look into such practices and see exactly what is going on. Those practices are not often brought into public light, partly because people who suffer under them are very nervous about reporting them. People have come to my surgery, as they probably have done to those of many other hon. Members, to tell me about such practices, but as soon as I ask them whether they will go on the record, they say, “Well, no. I can’t go on the record, because I will never work again, at least not in the industry”—for instance, construction—“as I will effectively be blacklisted.”
In conclusion, the two elements—the loss of money to the Treasury, which is very significant, and the loss of rights and pay, the resulting loss of economic confidence and the basic unfairness of some of the practices—should be brought to light and be ended, which is why I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) for securing and introducing this debate, and for outlining the range of issues about which he and his colleagues are concerned. Towards the end of his speech, he rightly spoke about how it can be a challenge for people who are worried or vulnerable within the employment market to speak up on things that are not right. That is one reason why it is important that they can bring such matters in confidence to their Member of Parliament, so that MPs can take the opportunity to raise issues in the House and question Ministers through such vehicles as Westminster Hall debates. It is right and fitting that he has done so today.
It is worth putting on the record that the problem we are discussing is not the existing model for payroll companies per se. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed out, there is a range of different employment statuses and ways of working. We enjoy having the kind of labour market that has flexibility, which has many benefits for our economy. At the same time, however, that does not mean that we should not be concerned when vulnerable people are subject to practices that should not be going on.
It is worth noting that, even in the investigation that was carried out, not all the companies approached acted in any way improperly, as has been mentioned. Many payroll companies provide a valuable role, not least in small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the land that may not be able to have their own full human resources departments. Outsourcing that service can be essential, but of course we want to ensure that that service is not being used as a front for tax avoidance or to deny people rights to which they should absolutely have access.
The practice that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead described, from that investigation, of a company basically wanting to shift people from PAYE to self-employment, without changing anything else about their work, management structures and so on is absolutely unacceptable. He is right to highlight that that type of behaviour is fake self-employment. HMRC has powers to investigate and clamp down, and those companies will then be liable for tax and national insurance contributions and issues such as holiday pay, when an individual was effectively an employee rather than self-employed. The company, not the individual worker, would be liable for those costs.
Jo Swinson
I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I am shocked to learn was a teenager in the late 1970s—some appalling kind of child labour must have been going on.
Steve Rotheram
I was exploited at a young age. If money is demonstrably not being collected by HM Treasury, has the Minister queried why? Why is a blind eye being turned to the construction sector? Is that perhaps because the casualisation of our industry that results from payroll companies’ practices is a price worth paying?
Jo Swinson
I do not agree, and I do not accept that a blind eye is being turned, because HMRC is able to investigate. One of the concerns that has been mentioned is the reduction in the number of investigations opened. I can understand why, at first glance, those figures are of concern, but it is worth bearing in mind the context. Basically, there is much greater use of intermediaries and employment businesses in the recruitment of people into the industry, so the smaller number of cases opened by HMRC does not necessarily reflect a smaller number of individuals covered. A case may be opened now that would have involved many individual cases some years ago, and therefore I do not draw the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman.
It is important that HMRC investigates, because none of us wants to see tax avoidance. We may disagree on the figures and estimates. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead suggested that the figure was £1.9 billion. The Government’s estimate—it is based on the previous Labour Government’s estimate, which is very much in line—is about £350 million a year. We therefore disagree on the scale, but whether it is £1.9 billion or £350 million, we can all agree that tax avoidance is not welcome or acceptable if the practice is deliberate and people are actually employed rather than self-employed. The Government are, of course, taking significant steps to clamp down on tax avoidance.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the worrying issue of companies suddenly trying to transfer to self-employed status people who had previously had full employee status. Of course, as he acknowledged, that would be illegal, because companies cannot unilaterally change employment contracts.
It is worth recognising that more can be done to improve the information available to individuals about their rights. The Government website, which is a good source of information, is being revamped under the gov.uk banner. We in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will look at the information about different employment statuses that we provide through that website and at how best to get across that information. In doing so, we will consider some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in his speech.
There is also the pay and work rights helpline, which is a free service. It is confidential, which is important, given the fear that vulnerable employees might sometimes face. There is somewhere that is free for them to go for advice in confidence. The number is 0800 917 2368, which I encourage MPs to be aware of and to pass it on their constituents.
We have a flexible labour market in this country, which is valuable in itself. The challenge is to distinguish between false and genuine self-employment. Of course, not everyone who is self-employed and works in the construction industry is falsely self-employed; it is an entirely legitimate path for individuals to choose. Equally, we should not assume that everyone who works in that way in the construction industry is in some way cheating the system.
We have a range of different employment statuses—employee, worker, fixed term, part time, temporary—and it is right for employees and companies to be able to choose between those options, so that they can find the approach that works best for them. It would not be helpful to suggest that any type of employment status is better than the others, because people value different elements. Flexibility is often appreciated in both directions, as is the extra control that workers often have on how they undertake their contracted work, rather than being directed as an employee would be.
Steve Rotheram
I do not think that anyone is suggesting that every self-employed person is dodgy or that they are going through an organisation that is in some way dodgy. Like many people, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and I were self-employed in the construction industry. The issue here is about the practices that are demonstrably called into question by the report that was referred to earlier. If nothing else, will the Minister agree to meet the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and perhaps other unions to discuss the matter in detail?
Jo Swinson
The debate today gives us an opportunity to discuss a range of related issues and for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to look at what it can do. HMRC plays a significant role in the matter, so it would be worth engaging with Treasury Ministers. I will undertake to contact my counterparts in the Treasury after the debate to express the concerns that have been raised, particularly those in the UCATT report. I will make sure that they have a copy of that report and are aware of the issues. Anyone who likes can report any concerns about tax evasion directly to HMRC. The authors of the report and, indeed, hon. Members may want to do so on 0845 915 3296.
The resourcing of HMRC was mentioned, and we are investing more than £900 million in HMRC to tackle tax evasion, criminality, unpaid tax debt and avoidance. We announced on 3 December an additional £77 million by the end of 2014-15 to expand the anti-avoidance and evasion activity, because it is important. Some issues have been mentioned today not only in the construction sector but through false self-employment, which we recognise is a problem. More widely, there have been well publicised cases of tax avoidance, and we want to ensure that they are dealt with.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is estimated that some 300,000 people are falsely registered as self-employed. I do not know whether that figure is correct. Perhaps the Minister has the correct figure. If she does not, will she write to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) with her Department’s estimate of the number of people who are falsely registered?
Jo Swinson
I do not have the estimate of the number of people who are falsely registered, but the Government’s estimate of the cost of false self-employment in this area is £350 million. I will certainly see whether HMRC has additional estimates of the number of people who are falsely registered. I would be surprised if it were as high as 380,000, given HMRC’s estimate of the cost. I will endeavour to find out and to write to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead.
The construction industry scheme was mentioned, and it has an important role to play in tackling tax evasion. We do not want to fall into the trap of thinking that many people are trying not to pay tax. Most people pay what is due and pay it on time, and that is as true in the construction sector as anywhere else. We are aware, however, that because of the flexible contracts in construction, where itinerant labour is often used, there can be challenges. That is why the construction industry scheme was set up, so that a deduction or withholding payment of 20% can be made from the payments to a subcontractor if their track record indicates that that is necessary. The scheme secures £3.2 billion a year that might otherwise be at risk. In cases of genuine self-employment, at the end of the year appropriate reports and returns are sent in and a refund is paid.
Ian Murray
Does the Minister not realise that the reason why the Government have to deal with this problem is that workers in the construction industry are, given the state of the industry, simply glad to be in a job, so they will not raise concerns themselves? It is important that the Government take hold of the issues and deal with them on behalf of the workers. Workers fear for their jobs at the moment, which is why they are not bringing forward concerns themselves.
Jo Swinson
I recognise that at a time when unemployment is certainly higher than we would like—thank goodness, it is starting to come down, but we all want it to be much lower—that has a knock-on effect on the confidence of people in the labour market to challenge behaviour. That is why the Government, and, I would argue, hon. Members, have an important role to play in ensuring that people have information about their rights. Helplines offer free and confidential advice. Employers’ responsibilities are often highlighted, and public pressure can be applied, particularly to large household name companies, to ensure that good practice is followed.
Written Ministerial Statements
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Office of Tax Simplification: Unapproved Employee Share Schemes
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government launched the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) in July 2010 to provide independent advice on simplifying the tax system.
The OTS has today published the final report of its review of unapproved employee share schemes, commissioned by the Government on 5 July 2011.
The Government asked the OTS to carry out a two-stage review of employee share schemes. The first stage of the review looked at the four tax-advantaged schemes. This was completed in March 2012 and the Government gave their response at Budget 2012. Following consultation, autumn statement 2012 announced a package of simplifications, most of which will take effect during 2013.
The OTS has now completed the second stage of its review, focused on unapproved schemes (those that do not benefit from tax advantages). The Government will make their initial response to this report in the Budget, on 20 March 2013.
Electronic copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Warm Front and Energy Company Obligation
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
The Warm Front scheme has been an important policy in tackling fuel poverty among private sector households in England though the installation of a range of heating, insulation and other energy efficiency measures. The scheme was introduced in 2000 and has helped around 2.3 million households vulnerable to fuel poverty. The 2010 comprehensive spending review announced that 2012-13 would be the last year of Warm Front’s operation.
The scheme will close to new applications on Saturday 19 January 2013 to allow time for qualifying applications to be completed, as far as reasonably practicable, before the end of the financial year. All applications received before 5pm on that day will be processed under the scheme. Warm Front is closing only to new applications. Aftercare services for households assisted will continue.
For households seeking help and support once Warm Front is closed to new applications, the energy company obligation (ECO) is already available. Anyone calling the Warm Front telephone line to make a new application after 5pm on 19 January will be directed automatically towards ECO.
ECO came into force on 1 January 2013 and works alongside the green deal, with the aims of saving carbon by supporting energy efficiency measures in harder to treat homes and enabling the installation of efficient boilers and insulation into the homes of vulnerable people across Great Britain. Part of the ECO is specifically targeted at a wider group of low-income households than Warm Front, helping them to keep warm and save money on energy bills. A referrals system is already operational for people who call the ESAS helpline. This checks customer eligibility against the benefit based criteria for ECO affordable warmth support. Relevant customers will then be put in contact with suppliers participating in the ECO who will then provide a guaranteed minimum package of assistance under this obligation. Householders should therefore contact the energy saving advice service (ESAS) for advice and access to ECO.
Furthermore, we have taken steps to ensure that we make maximum use of the full budget for capital spending on fuel poverty. As set out in a written ministerial statement to Parliament on 15 January 2013, Official Report, column 29WS, DECC is awarding some £31 million of capital funding to support 61 outstanding local fuel poverty projects, helping 169 local authorities across the country improve the thermal efficiency of homes in their area.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council (December)
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
I represented the UK on agricultural matters and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), represented the United Kingdom on fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neil MLA and Alun Davies AM were also part of the United Kingdom delegation.
Fisheries
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave an oral statement on the elements of the fisheries negotiations at the December Council which directly affected UK interests on Tuesday 8 January.
Black sea fishing opportunities for 2013 were also agreed at the Council. Bulgaria and Romania supported a roll-over of the TAC for sprat and resisted a Commission proposal to reduce the TAC for turbot. They successfully argued that, given the fishing interests of non-EU countries in the Black sea, the only long-term solution was better regional management.
Agriculture
The Council welcomed the presidency’s CAP reform progress report and was generally able to accept it as a balanced assessment of the debate on the four main CAP reform proposals. Member states raised common issues they felt are still debatable or important to them. The most common was greening; with most member states happy with the direction of discussion and, with a bit more flexibility, an agreement could be reached. The feeling on internal convergence of direct payments is that it could be phased in over a longer period. On market management issues, some member states called for a “more effective” safety net and for production restrictions to be maintained for wine, sugar and, to a lesser extent, milk. For the UK, in particular I highlighted that there needed to be further work to simplify the proposals for farmers and national administrations, and cautioned against moves to diverge from a more market-oriented approach to CAP reform.
Any Other Business
Wine
The Commission presented two reports. One concerned the implementation of the 2008 wine reform, noting that the many objectives set out had been met and the sector was on a better competitive footing as a result, but also suggested some minor adaptations and improvements to the regime and its operation. The second outlined conclusions of the high-level group on vine planting rights, with suggestions pointing to a way forward that might see the development of a “planting authorisations” framework which was controlled by producers rather than member states. I argued that it was important to stick to agreements in previous rounds of CAP reform, including phasing out vine planting rights by 2018. This would provide certainty to businesses and generate the confidence to invest.
Coupled Support
Several central and eastern European countries presented a joint paper calling for the option of providing more coupled support in new member states than provided for in the Commission’s CAP reform proposal. The Commission noted that this would be dealt with during negotiations.
Sugar Levy Repayment
Germany requested the Commission expedite legislation to establish a legal basis for recalculation of historic sugar levies paid by producers in order to repay them, including interest, following a recent ECJ case ruling the existing provisions illegal. The UK and other member states supported Germany. Belgium and France called for the interest to be paid from Community funds. The Commission responded with a two-stage approach. It would soon publish an information note, and follow this up with draft legislation which would contain a retrospective revaluation of levies from 2001-06.
Milk Quota
The Commission presented its second report on the dairy market situation, which concludes that the conditions are in place for a smooth phasing out of the milk quota system in 2015. The report found that the market was functioning well with overall EU production below quota. I welcomed the Commission’s conclusions. Six member states had exceeded their quota and were thus subject to a “super-levy” in 2012. They disagreed with the Commission’s report and called for measures to help their farmers. Some member states also called for a re-examination of the decision to end milk quota.
Trade in Exotic Animals
The presidency reported on the recent international conference on the movement of exotic animals. In response the Commission noted its intention to bring forward a legislative proposal in this area.
Incoming Irish Presidency Priorities
The Irish Agriculture Minister (Simon Coveney) set out his determination to reach a CAP reform deal in June if possible. He urged Ministers to start proper negotiations and move away from repetitive restatements of national positions. The MFF notwithstanding, he hoped the Council could reach an agreed position in March to allow negotiations with the European Parliament to begin.
Grand Committee
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
“Letting agents etc.
(1) In section 1 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (estate agency work), for “to which this Act applies” substitute “and in subsection (1A) below to which this Act applies.
(1A) This Act also applies, subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, to—
(a) things done by any person in the course of a business (including a business in which he is employed) pursuant to instructions received from another person (in this section referred to as “the client”) who wishes to let or have the letting of an interest in land managed (for example, the collection of rents on his behalf)—(i) for the purpose of, or with a view to, effecting the introduction to the client of a third person who wishes to let an interest in land; or(ii) after such introduction has been effected in the course of that business, for the purpose of securing the letting of the interest in land; or(iii) for the purpose of, or with a view to, managing the letting of the interest in land on behalf of the client; or(iv) for the purpose of, or with a view to, block management of interests in land; and(b) management activities undertaken by any person in the course of a business (including a business in which he is employed) in connection with land or interests in land.””
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this is unfinished business for me. As the then chair of the Property Standards Board, I failed miserably to persuade the previous Government to do what I am now asking, but I feel I might have more success with this one.
The purpose of these amendments is, first, to bring letting agents into the Estate Agents Act, thus enabling the OFT to ban agents who act improperly; and, secondly, to require all letting and block management agencies to join an ombudsman’s scheme, which would give tenants and landlords the possibility of redress. This is already the case for estate agents under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 and we simply want to extend this to letting agents, as was demanded by Mark Prisk in 2007. I will make the case in three ways: first, the evidence of need due to the size of this sector; secondly, the number of complaints; and thirdly, the industry’s support for this move.
First, the numbers: about 3.5 million people rent privately, two-thirds of whom go through letting agents. Over 1 million landlords use letting agents to manage their properties. The private rented sector accounts for about 17% of all stock at the moment; this is forecast to rise to 20% by the time of the next general election. Which? estimates that tenants pay £175 million a year in agency fees. So it is a big industry, affecting the most basic of consumer goods—that is, homes—but it is not well run or well regulated.
Indeed, the industry is actually completely unregulated. There is ample evidence of rogue agents in this field. Luckily, there is also lots of evidence of good agents. In fact, just as estate agents have to sign up to a redress scheme, so 60% of letting agents—those who are members of the professional association ARLA: the Association of Residential Letting Agents—choose to belong to a redress scheme. However, 40% of letting agents are not members of a redress scheme because membership is voluntary.
We want all letting and managing agents to be members of a scheme and thus covered by a code of conduct or by the RICS “Blue Book” of standards. The amendment is supported by the two residential property ombudsmen: Ombudsman Services and the Property Ombudsman. The latter, Chris Hamer, has noted that with 40% of agents outside a redress scheme, there is a,
“significant risk for consumers who use such … firms. That risk arises from a failure of the firm to follow accepted standards of operation and customer service as laid down in … [the] code; and … exposes the landlord or tenant to … financial loss either through there being no protection of client money if the firm fails, or because … funds have been misappropriated”.
The Property Ombudsman’s workload with letting agencies has increased 200% in the past five years—up 25% last year alone. Some of that represents the increase in agents who are joining voluntarily, but it is the economic situation forcing more people into the private rented sector that is leading to more complaints. However, a quarter of the complaints referred to the Property Ombudsman could not be handled because the letting agent was not a member of the redress scheme.
The other ombudsman, Lewis Shand Smith, who is chief ombudsman at Ombudsman Services, has stated:
“Protection for the consumer in the lettings market is patchy which in turn leads to confusion. There is also an inequality in that those buying and selling residential properties are protected and have access to redress, while those renting in the private sector do not. A more robust and comprehensive regulatory framework and comprehensive access to independent redress will both protect and empower those in the PRS [private rented sector] market”.
These ombudsmen are seeing the problem grow day by day. Research undertaken by Which? and by RICS bears this out. One in five tenants and 17% of landlords said they were dissatisfied with their letting agents. Indeed, landlords’ customer satisfaction score for letting agents was sixth from the bottom across 50 markets and tenants’ satisfaction was second from the bottom. Half of consumers were unaware of or could not remember if their agent was a member of a professional body and the vast majority of them believed that letting agents are required to abide by a code of practice, despite that not being the case. However, nine out of 10 believe it should be compulsory for agents to register with a regulatory body and meet a code of conduct.
It is not just tenants. Landlords are hardly more sophisticated consumers than tenants. In fact, only one-third checked whether their letting agent was a member of a professional body. So tenants are not in a position to choose the agent and landlords often make bad choices. It is not simply that tenants and landlords have nowhere to go with complaints if there is not a redress scheme. It is also that, because letting agents do not have to be a member of a redress scheme, they cannot be banned for bad practice, they do not have to provide indemnity insurance, they do not need a published complaints procedure, there are no client protection rules and there are no entry requirements or qualifications. It will come as no surprise to the Committee that Shelter, Crisis and Which? support these amendments, as does Boris Johnson, mayor in this city, and Sir Robin Wales, Mayor of Newham, whose borough has driven the debate on regulation of the private rented sector. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who is, unfortunately, unwell today and unable to be with us, is also very supportive of these amendments. He was the first director of the OFT, which would gain some powers under one of these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who sat through our last session when we did not reach these amendments would also like her name associated with them.
We know that those who represent tenants and landlords want this change, but what of the industry? The industry is absolutely behind this amendment. Lucy Morton, who has been described by the Telegraph as,
“the queen of London’s rental market for 30 years”,
told that paper:
“It is shocking that so many letting agents remain unregulated”.
The Chartered Institute of Housing wrote to me that it,
“believes that the private rented sector deserves adequate … regulation … to protect the increasing numbers of people … in the sector ... Currently, the regulatory arrangements … fall short of customer expectations with … nearly 40% of … agents not part of … [the] regime. CIH supports these amendments … [which] would … offer a redress scheme and extend the Estate Agents Act … to include … letting and managing”,
agencies.
They are not alone: the Residential Landlords Association, the British Property Federation, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations, the National Federation of Property Professionals, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the National Association of Estate Agents, Southern Landlords Association, the Institute of Residential Property Management and the Association of Residential Managing Agents have all asked me to let the Committee know that they support these amendments and that they support mandatory membership of a redress scheme in line with estate agents. They have written that they,
“believe that the regulatory framework in the lettings market … offers limited protection for the consumer with approximately 40% of lettings agents outside of regulation … The current … framework … costs business money, hitting many micro-businesses and sole practitioners … particularly hard. This amendment will provide consumers with clarity and … protection … raising standards across the rental sector, without adding unnecessarily to business costs”.
One of the UK’s largest estate agents, Knight Frank, has also written to endorse this statement.
This is a king-sized roll call. The industry is completely signed up to the initiative. Indeed, it is one that it has long wanted, as have others such as the Resolution Foundation, which wants all letting agents to be members of an ombudsman scheme and brought under the Estate Agents Act 1979 so that the OFT can ban those that act improperly. There is a major mischief at the moment as an estate agent banned by the OFT can open up the very next day as a letting agent. Charities, campaigners and the industry support my amendments.
I turn now to the governing parties. In their policy document, Decent Homes for All, the Liberal Democrats, noting that the numbers in the private rented sector now equal those in social housing and are set to overtake the public sector by 2020, describe how,
“a minority of bad … letting agents are a blight on the [private rented] sector … bringing PRS into disrepute”.
The Liberal Democrats therefore support,
“regulation … to ensure that … people are protected from unscrupulous or incompetent landlords and managing agents”,
by promising to,
“require all letting/managing agents to be on a national register and … to set up a mechanism whereby bad agents may be removed and therefore prevented from practising”.
These amendments provide that mechanism.
I turn to the other part of the coalition. The then opposition MP and now Housing Minister, Mark Prisk, tabled amendments to the 2007 Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill when it was going through the House. His amendments, as I am sure the Minister has recognised, were virtually identical to my Amendment 28ZH. That is because he said that that amendment would amend the Estate Agents Act 1979 to extend the definition of estate agency work to include residential lettings and management. Some of the scandals in this market include charging both the landlord and the tenant for the same service, charging for simple procedures already covered by a landlord’s management fee, and charging exorbitant fees for basic functions. He went on to say:
“As a Conservative, I am instinctively cautious about arguing for more regulation. However, as a chartered surveyor and a constituency Member of Parliament, I know that we need to put lettings on the same regulatory footing as sales. The fact that the National Association of Estate Agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the rest of the industry agree shows that the measure is long overdue”.—[Official Report, Commons, Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill Committee, 24/4/07; col. 192.]
I have to confess that my party then proceeded to defeat his amendment. However, with this amendment, we have a chance to implement the amendment tabled by Mr Prisk in the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I support the amendment, but I do not think it goes far enough. I shall go on to talk about that in a minute. The noble Baroness has raised some interesting points and I was rather cheered to hear about her lack of success with the Labour Government because I am finding the same at the moment with the Conservative Government as regards the regulation of managing agents. I should say at the outset that that is what I think is missing here, and I hope to bring forward an amendment on Report to cover the regulation of managing agents of leasehold properties.
The noble Baroness mentioned the private rented sector. I am aware of what that is, but unfortunately we still seem to be unable to deal with the invisible private sector, which is quite worrying. I meet people all the time who are being forced out of a bedsit or something because the rent is being put up. The landlord does not even declare that he has any tenants—much less use any letting agents—and when the tenants try to find another place to go to, just a simple room, they are joining a huge queue of people. The rent is increasing even as they wait for their opportunity to get a room.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I wish to focus my remarks on the R-word—redress—rather more than on the regulation side. Here before us, in the excellent amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is an opportunity to do something simple but clearly important which should have been done years ago—that is, to close the redress loophole in property lettings and management. The more one reads and learns about this issue, the more surprised one is about how we got into this muddled position that we are in today, with one department—BIS—taking a different view from another—Communities and Local Government.
As we have heard, change will be achieved by bringing letting agents and those who manage leasehold property within the redress net of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 and the main provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979. Those Acts are both BIS Acts but, of course, housing is a CLG responsibility. The key thing that they do is, first, require all sales agents to be a member of an approved redress scheme and, secondly, give the OFT negative licensing powers to ban or reprimand sales agents for any misdeeds. However, neither Act has any sway over letting or managing agents, despite them interacting with consumers to an even greater extent.
I do not think that we should see access to redress as regulation. It is a consumer right and one of the eight consumer principles. It is true that consumers who are unhappy with their lettings or managing agent could go to court to get access to redress. However, as we know, very few do. These amendments are about mandating an alternative to court—alternative dispute resolution—which means that letting and managing agents must offer independent ADR to tenants, landlords and leaseholders. Therefore, I strongly support the intent behind these proposed new clauses. From the consumer perspective, they would mean that consumers with a complaint, after exhausting any in-house complaints procedure, if there is one, can take that complaint to an independent body approved by the OFT or its successor. This ADR will most likely be an existing body such as the Property Ombudsman, which already covers most sales agents, although I believe that there are other schemes as well.
What is the impact of this loophole? Surely it does not make any sense that a consumer who has a problem with a sales agent when selling, or even buying, a house has access to an independent complaints body, but if that same consumer—landlord or tenant—has a complaint about a lettings agent over a rental property or a problem with a managing agent who looks after their block of flats, they may not have access to independent ADR. While it is true that many, possibly a majority, of lettings managing agents are voluntary members of the Property Ombudsman—we have heard that already from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—there are around 6,000 firms of lettings agents that are not subject to it.
Why does it matter that we target them? One only has to read the briefing from Which?, along with that from many other organisations which have already been mentioned, to find the answer. The sector’s problems as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and other speakers—and I am sure many others will continue in this vein—speak volumes. I shall not extend my time by reading out the Which? report giving various examples of landlords and tenants who have suffered in this way. Noble Lords will no doubt have a copy and can see for themselves.
I very much hope the Minister and the coalition Government will be able to accept the very reasonable and carefully defined amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, not least in view of what a Minister in his role—Mark Prisk, now the Housing Minister—tried to do on a previous occasion.
Lord Deben
My Lords, the longer one has been in this House—or, indeed, in the House of Commons—the more one believes that certain statements are made irrespective of the Government. Somehow or other Governments take on a particular view about certain things, and regulation is one of those things. It seems to me that Governments often take a very narrow view about regulation and seem to think that if they regulate at all, they will be accused of red tape, of stopping businesses and of every heinous offence. That is the reason why the previous Labour Government refused to do this and why the present Government have introduced this Bill without this clause.
I hope the Minister will take it from somebody who has been in elected and now non-elected public life for nearly 40 years that it is the duty of Ministers to stand up against that attitude, because here is an issue where everybody recognises that there is only one sensible answer. It is not sensible to have a situation in which those who sell houses have a code that is different from the code for those who rent houses, because those who buy or rent houses think that they are working in the same context. Indeed, as it becomes more natural to buy and to rent in equal terms—I do not mean in numbers, but that people make those decisions—we must help the consumer in a sensible way. The only sensible way is the way so eloquently put forward by the noble Baroness when she pointed out that this is not regulation but consumer rights. It is the possibility of a consumer having a perfectly reasonable way of ensuring that they get fair do’s when they go to court.
It is very important for us to press this. I am speaking because I am a strong deregulator. I do not believe in the degrees of bureaucracy that we have managed to land on business. In my own business, I am conscious that there is a whole series of rules and regulations that restrict the number of people you take on and certainly stop the expansion of British industry and a lot of things that can be done. This has nothing to do with that. The only people who can dislike this light regulation are those who have every intention of misbehaving. When one reads that list of people who are supporting this, it is very hard to think of any responsible, respectable body, apart from the Caged Birds Society, that is opposed to this proposal.
I say this to my noble friend. Whatever is in his speaking notes—and I have a horrible feeling that I could write those notes, because there is a kind of parallelism with what I myself was given in the past, and was often willing to ignore—I hope that he will say to himself, “Least said soonest mended if I can’t give way”. If he cannot give way, some anodyne references would enable him to go back and say to the powers that be, “This won’t go. This isn’t acceptable”.
We must find a way to ensure that rogue letting agents do not get away with it any more. There is no argument that can be put up by BIS that can overcome the simple matter of the rights of the consumer. That is probably the elegant way through and I hope that he will be able to take it.
Lord Sharkey
I speak briefly and enthusiastically in support of Amendments 28ZH and 28ZJ. Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently and powerfully in favour of these amendments already and I do not want to repeat all their arguments, but I stress the real importance of this proposed measure to people’s lives. The absence of any kind of ombudsman scheme for letting agents is in itself an odd situation. It is tempting to say simply that if we can have an ombudsman scheme for estate agents surely it is obvious that we should have one for letting agents.
The absence of any such scheme for the private rented sector is not just an unfortunate gap in the regulatory or perhaps the redress landscape; it is an admission that can be the cause of real and prolonged distress. I have some personal experience of this. Two of my children lived in private rented accommodation until recently and for prolonged periods of time. The experience has been on the whole often unsatisfactory and occasionally downright distressing. On frequent occasions the dissatisfactions and distress were caused directly by the incompetence, inattention, procrastination and venality of the letting agent, and these were not always trivial occurrences. That is not surprising because we are discussing people’s homes.
We have heard a careful, well-argued and rational case for requiring letting agents to belong to an ombudsman scheme, but we should not let the rational and logical force of the argument blind us to the fact that the current situation can be and frequently is the cause of real emotional and financial distress. We know that the problem is widespread, with 40% of letting agents not signed up either to a professional body or a redress scheme. We know that it is the less well-off who experience the most dissatisfaction. We can see by looking at the amendments that the problem is easy enough to fix.
The amendment is not simply a tidying-up measure. It addresses a real, widespread, distressing and, above all, completely unnecessary problem. It is very encouraging to see that there is widespread support for the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, both current and historic. The noble Baroness has listed the current supporters and I would like to add my colleagues in the Commons to that list. Annette Brooke put down an Early Day Motion in the middle of last month calling essentially for the measures that are now before us. As for historic support, the noble Baroness has noted that as long ago as 2007 my honourable friend Mark Prisk argued forcefully in favour in the Commons.
I very much hope that the Minister will see the force in the noble Baroness’s arguments and in those of the other noble Lords who have spoken and of his colleague Mark Prisk. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to revenge Mark Prisk’s defeat at the hands of the previous Administration and accept this important amendment.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I certainly will not rehearse the arguments—in fact I have torn up half of what I was going to say after the excellent opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this particular amendment. But I want to report particularly that when the Liberal Democrats debated our policy paper, Decent Homes for All, we heard of some very personal examples from members that I found profoundly shocking. They included one letting agent who had taken on a policy of no single parents at all, even if they were offering a three-month deposit as a guarantee and even if they were happy to provide—which I would not have been—a separate guarantor. This particular letting agent had just decided that single parents, mainly mothers, were no good. This parent, in particular, had no form of redress at all to that.
What is in front of us today is an utterly reasonable way of getting that redress. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for making the point that this is actually much more about redress and consumer rights. It is rare to see an amendment that is so widely supported not only from within the House of Lords but also in another place by various people, including Mark Prisk, Annette Brooke and others from the government side. I hope that even if the Minister cannot give us an instant answer today he will be able to engage in discussion with those who have spoken in the debate on this amendment prior to getting to Report stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie)
My Lords, it may not surprise my noble friend Lord Deben that I do indeed have some speaking notes, but I also hope that I can attempt at least to answer the questions that have been raised this afternoon by noble Lords. I know that these issues have been raised before, and I have considered carefully the amendments, arguments and indeed endorsements of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for regulating the letting sector, particularly the ones that were mentioned this afternoon. She raises a very important issue.
I fully recognise the noble Baroness’s commitment in championing the interests of consumers in this area and take her concerns very seriously. It is helpful that she has brought it up in the context of this Bill. I note and respect the intervention of my noble friend Lord Deben in this respect as well. I know that the Housing Minister is aware of these concerns but I will raise them with him for further consideration. It is clear from the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that he—Mark Prisk, my honourable friend in another place—is aware of the issues that she has mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the issue in terms of a need for a mandatory redress to protect consumers, particularly those who are the most vulnerable. The Government are indeed keen to promote a greater use of redress but, understandably, want to avoid increased costs which might fall on landlords and tenants which a new mandatory regime would bring. While the Government acknowledge that poor practice exists in some parts of the letting sector, Ministers believe that new regulation would be disproportionate and would drive some businesses from the market. This would increase costs for consumers and reduce the choice and availability of accommodation on offer to tenants.
I can reassure noble Lords that letting and management agents are already subject to consumer protection legislation. For example, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 protect against giving false or misleading information, not acting with the standard of care and skill that is in accordance with honest market practice or claiming falsely to be a member of a professional body or approved redress scheme. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 provide protection against unfair contract clauses, particularly where they are hidden in the small print.
Consumers who are treated unfairly or are charged unreasonable fees by an agent can seek help from their local trading standards officers, who have civil and criminal enforcement powers. The Office of Fair Trading has been investigating practices in the lettings sector and will be producing a report shortly including recommendations on how enforcement bodies can work to raise standards. We look forward to considering its report and recommendations. I hope that this particular point will go some way to reassuring the noble Baroness on the points that she has raised.
In addition to the protection offered by the consumer protection legislation, it is estimated that around half of all agents belong to voluntary schemes which set standards and offer redress if things go wrong. We invited industry bodies to work with us to improve the quality and coverage of self-regulation and in 2010 we endorsed the industry-led SAFEagent scheme. SAFEagent is designed to help consumers understand the benefits of using agents with Client Money Protection, by developing an easy to recognise logo. We are aware of the need for consumer awareness and also the importance of ensuring that vulnerable people are well informed, and indeed are advised as to what to do and where to go for help.
We have also published top tips for both landlords and tenants setting out the benefits of using an agent that belongs to SAFE agent or one of the professional bodies offering the right protections. We will continue to work with Citizens Advice and other bodies to ensure appropriate information is available. Citizens Advice provides help and advice on lettings over the telephone, online and face to face. In the light of these existing schemes and the consumer protection legislation in place, we have no current plans to introduce further statutory regulation. We are, however, keen to do everything possible to ensure that consumers are well informed and empowered to exercise their rights.
I was grateful for the intervention from my noble friend Lady Gardner who spoke most eloquently on the issue of the regulation of managing agents. I am aware that several issues have been brought to the Housing Minister’s attention in relation to letting agencies and residential leasehold and I am certain that managing agents are part of this. I am sure he is aware of your ongoing interest in this matter, but I will also inform him of the comments you made today. These are important issues to raise—as has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, there is a shortage of 300,000 houses in the UK. The letting of some of these properties must be effected fairly and consistently.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is reassured and will therefore be prepared to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I recognise a Treasury reply when I see it. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would justify the first sentence of his reply by writing to me with the evidence on which that statement was based—that having this amendment passed would result in higher costs for consumers and a diminution in respectable firms in the market. That is just Treasury boilerplate. I very much doubt that they have done the work to justify that but I eagerly await the Minister’s letter to show me that I am wrong. In the absence of that, I very much hope that on Report we will deliver to my noble friend his first defeat as a Minister in the House of Lords. As he knows, this will not be a defeat for his department but merely for the Treasury and therefore one in which we shall all rejoice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, we would all like to see that reply and I hope that it will be made readily available to everyone.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Not only will I be very pleased indeed to reply to a letter that I might receive but I would be delighted to meet to discuss these matters fairly and fully.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The Minister will not be surprised to know that the lady is not reassured. I thank the noble Lords who have spoken for their support, not only the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but also the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whose ministerial experience I am very grateful for, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner and Lady Howe.
The problem with the voluntary scheme is that only the good agents belong. They are the members of the Association of Residential Letting Agents, which does not just get you in there—it educates you, awards certificates and does training. Very interestingly, ARLA also gets feedback from the ombudsman scheme to know what is going wrong and help them maintain their standards. The problem with the idea of using unfair contract terms is first that the consumer—whether it is a landlord or a tenant—simply does not know to go to them. Secondly, if an individual trading officer deals with something they will probably just deal with that one letting agent and there will be no feedback or ongoing case. I do not agree that this cost is disproportionate. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, gave the figure of £150 to belong to a scheme: this is not going to put any letting agents out of business. The Minister also seemed to suggest that if any letting agents did go out of business—and they will only go out if they are bad and run off with clients’ money—this would somehow lead to less property. It will not: they will just go to a decent agency. It does not affect the number of properties on offer to tenants.
“Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies
(1) The Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales is abolished.
(2) Every agricultural wages committee for an area in England is abolished.
(3) Every agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee for an area in England is abolished.
(4) Schedule (Abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision) (abolition of Agricultural Wages Board and related English bodies: consequential provision) has effect.”
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The Agricultural Wages Board and Agricultural Wages Committees were set up in their current form nearly 65 years ago. The board was established at a time when there was little statutory employment protection for workers. Today the situation is very different and all workers are protected by the National Minimum Wage Act and working time regulations. Before I proceed any further, I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government firmly support the national minimum wage.
The Agricultural Wages Board is the only remaining sector wage council—all others have now been abolished. There is now no compelling reason why the agriculture sector alone should continue to be subject to a separate statutory employment regime. Let me explain why.
The agriculture industry today is very different. First, such businesses are often not just dependent on agriculture. Technological developments and increased mechanisation mean that there is no longer such dependency on manual labour in order to carry out agricultural functions. This has enabled businesses to expand and take on other, complementary work. The sectors within agriculture are therefore becoming increasingly diverse and many farm businesses now carry out non-agricultural activities alongside more traditional farming enterprises—for example bed and breakfast, and farm shops, where workers would not necessarily be covered by the agricultural wages order.
The agricultural wages order, which is made each year by the Agricultural Wages Board, takes no account of these changes within the agriculture industry. The process is one of “one size fits all” and this imposes a rigid and no longer appropriate structure on what are in reality nowadays myriad businesses that come under the umbrella term of “the agriculture sector”. The order is overly complicated and its provisions are wide-ranging and restrictive, hampering the ability of the industry to offer more flexible, modern employment packages. These amendments will end the separate statutory employment regime for agricultural workers in England and Wales and make amendments to the National Minimum Wage Act to bring the agricultural industry within the scope of the national minimum wage. The Government will also make amendments to secondary legislation to ensure that agricultural workers are adequately protected by the working time regulations.
The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the associated agricultural minimum wage regime will enable farmers to offer terms and conditions for new workers that suit their particular circumstances and take account of the requirements of the specific farming sector. They will also be able to agree more flexible terms with existing workers by mutual consent. It will make it easier for farm businesses to employ workers, including taking on new workers, and encourage longer-term employment, thereby boosting growth and creating job opportunities.
The abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board will also mean that a single employment regime applies to all types of activities. This will bring transparency for both employers and workers, which is increasingly important given the diversity of farm businesses, not least in the interests of fairness and as the distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural activities becomes blurred. Even within the agricultural sector there can be confusion as to whether activities are covered by the agricultural wages order. For example, where a business packs and trims salad produce that is both grown on the farm and bought in, the packing of the home-grown produce is covered by the agricultural wages order, whereas the packing of the bought-in produce may not necessarily be. There are similar examples of confusion in the dairy and livestock sectors. Abolition will lift administrative and regulatory burdens from farm businesses and enable them to focus on their core business activity. It should encourage farmers to offer more in the way of longer-term employment, including the payment of annual salaries. All of this will encourage the development of a sustainable and prosperous industry for the future.
For the avoidance of any doubt, let me offer some further reassurance. Agricultural workers who have contractual rights reflecting the terms of the agricultural wages order at the time of the abolition of the board will continue to have those rights until such time as the contract might be varied by agreement between the employer and the worker or until the contract comes to an end. Moving forward, it is important to bear in mind that if agriculture-based businesses want to retain and attract able and well qualified people, they need to offer remuneration packages that are competitive. We know that the majority of workers in the agriculture sector already benefit from terms and conditions that are above the agricultural minimum wage rates. Currently, about 60% of permanent agricultural workers over the age of 22 are paid above the agriculture wages order minima. There is no reason why they should find themselves in a worse position in the absence of the board. The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to include agricultural workers in its considerations when providing recommendations for all of the elements of the national minimum wage in order to achieve the smooth integration of agricultural workers in England and Wales.
Most of the functions of the 15 Agricultural Wages Committees in England have now lapsed in practice or been replaced by wider legislation. Their only remaining active function is to appoint members of the 16 Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees in England, which are sometimes known as the ADHACs. The committees were established under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 and their function is to give advice to local authorities on rehousing agricultural workers. As a result of changes in housing legislation, the number of requests for advice from ADHACs has declined significantly, to fewer than 10 in each of the last two years. There is no statutory requirement to consult an ADHAC and many local authorities happily take decisions on rehousing without such advice. I hope the Committee agrees that these 31 regional committees in England are now effectively defunct bodies and their continued existence at public expense cannot be justified. With regard to the abolition of the ADHACs in England, I want to assure noble Lords that there are no plans to change the provisions in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 which give security of tenure to protected tenants, and therefore the amendments will not in any way jeopardise the position of tenants with protected tenancies under the 1976 legislation.
In summary, these amendments will bring employment practices in the agricultural industry into the 21st century, enabling sustainable growth for the future. They will also remove a number of obsolete public bodies and contribute to the Government’s wider programme of public body reform. I hope that, in the light of my remarks, noble Lords will accept them. I beg to move Amendment 28ZK.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, the Minister must realise that this is a bit of a controversial item. That is not surprising because in their latest impact assessment of the outcome of this measure the Government’s own best estimate is a cut in the living standards of rural workers in England by £236 million over the next decade.
Before I get on to the substantive points, of which I have many, I need to make a procedural point. I am not clear why we are debating the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in this Bill on this occasion. The amendments were put down two days before Christmas, without any prior warning. The Bill has been through the House of Commons. There was no indication in the House of Commons that the Government were going to come forward with this amendment in the House of Lords, which is very unusual, and, of course, everybody in the industry—on both sides of the industry and in Parliament—thought that the wages board was dealt with at primary-legislation level under the Public Bodies Act well over a year ago.
To implement that, the Government have to follow Section 11 of the Public Bodies Act, which lays down certain stipulations for bringing forward secondary legislation. It requires a full explanation to both Houses, a proper consultation period, the consideration of alternatives and a special memorandum to be laid before the House before it considers it. Why is this before us today when a procedure is already laid out and it appeared that the Government were prepared to go along that road until very recently? There was no explanation in the letter we got from the noble Viscount’s predecessor nor has there been any explanation from the Minister today. I can think of a couple of procedural reasons why the Government are in a bit of bother on this one. One of them is the Delegated Legislation Committee and the other one can be summarised by saying “Wales”.
Under the Public Bodies Act, the Government are already in serious trouble on a range of ways in which they have tried to bring forward the secondary legislation. The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee indicates that the Act requires a proper 12-week consultation, not the four-week consultation that Defra has sprung on us, and a full impact assessment followed by a government response to that consultation and a memorandum to Parliament. The Government seemed to start down that track, but the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee criticises their behaviour in relation to other public bodies on a number of grounds: the lack of robustness of the government case; inadequate evidence; an inadequate approach to consultation with stakeholders; a failure to consider alternatives; and a lack of arrangements for future monitoring of the outcome. On pretty well all those counts, Defra and the Government are failing in the implementation of the Public Bodies Act in relation to the Agricultural Wages Board, so it must have occurred to the Government that it might be a bit easier to slip it into another piece of legislation, almost when nobody was looking over Christmas.
However, probably the biggest reason relates to Wales. This is, of course, an England and Wales body. As I understand it, the Welsh Government object to its abolition. The Welsh Government would like to see a continuation of statutory provision in agriculture which the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have decided to have in relation to their own agricultural sector. Of course there is confusion here. If this was dealt with under agricultural legislation, and as agricultural policy is devolved, the Welsh Government would have equal rights to the Westminster Government and we would have to reach agreement with them on this.
Lord Plumb
My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer and someone who has employed farm workers over a considerable number of years. It is for that reason that I am more interested in the substantive points made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, than in the procedural points. The procedural points he raised are worthy of some examination and I am sure that the Minister takes all that on board. The substantive points are what really matter—how people react to whatever decision is taken in the proposed removal of the Agricultural Wages Board.
I also declare an interest as, many years ago, a member of that board. I served on it for a while so I have some recognition of what it does and the importance of the workers, farmers and independents who served on the board—as they do now—who had the responsibility of trying to reach a fair conclusion in the interests of both parties.
I particularly remember when we had the threat of a farm workers’ strike, which had never been heard of in history. It became quite serious because the noises were coming from East Anglia when we were about to start sugar beet harvesting and potato picking and so on, and it was spreading across the country. I always encouraged my workers to become members of their own union; I was a member of a union and the leader of a union and told them that they had the same responsibility.
I remember saying to my herdsman, who had a pretty substantial responsibility looking after a lot of animals, “You are a very keen member of the NFU. Have you heard about this strike?”. He said, “Of course we have heard of this strike. We had a meeting last Wednesday night. Of course we have to join them—solidarity and all that”. I said, “What are we going to do? If you are going to join this strike, have I got to come home and do the milking?”. He said, “No, we will manage”. I said, “How can we manage if you are on strike?”. He said, “I will get up a bit early and do the milking, then I will have a bit of a strike and then I will do the milking in the afternoon”.
That story sums up very fairly the relationship between the farmer and the worker. They live and work shoulder to shoulder. They can discuss things that are not normally discussed between industrialists and their workers, because of the numbers and relationships and so forth, which are very different.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that I am a bit nearer to farmers than he is. I have talked to the workers and to the farmers. When they see that the difference between the national minimum wage and the agricultural minimum wage is 2p an hour, they say, “What are we keeping it for? It is plain daft to try to keep something going just for the sake of keeping it going”. What is the cost of keeping it? Is it £50,000? The figures will come forward, I think, but we know that a considerable amount is spent every year on running the various meetings, let alone the buildings, the staff and the offices.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, who is such an authority on agriculture in this House, but the figure of £500,000 is not accurate. As a point of information, I think it is about £50,000.
Lord Plumb
I am inclined to agree that the figure is not accurate. I was quoting from the NFU. I am not the NFU. I was, but I am not now. I think the figure is considerably higher than that. If the noble Lord wants to quote that figure, I am very happy for him to quote it. I was merely quoting the cost of running the outfit, not the whole cost of the operation, including the buildings and everything else. If he wants to do that, I ask him please to produce that figure. I shall be delighted to receive it.
One notes that Unite, which represents farm workers on the board, is today campaigning against its abolition, which one understands, and argues that the plans will put thousands of rural and agriculture workers’ pay and conditions in jeopardy. I do not accept that. I know from experience what is being paid at the moment. You can forget your wages board and your minimum wage. If you are going to employ on your farm today someone who is going to sit on a machine that has probably cost £250,000, you are not going to pay them peanuts to try to get them into employment; you are going to pay them a good living wage. I am a great believer in giving these young people an opportunity to get into a share-farming operation. More and more people are inclined to that sort of determination as we look towards the future.
Rather than foster good labour relations, I believe that the present system is a source of friction and could certainly be done away with. The normal pattern is for the employers and the employees to take turns each year in being disgruntled. The board and the councils were established each year, and we had the Wages Council Act 1947. At their height, there were 100 throughout the country. They were progressively abolished, as we well know and have already heard, particularly between 1979 and 1997, leaving the Agricultural Wages Board as the only remaining example. If they were so vital, why did the previous Labour Government not restore them? Why did they not bring them back saying, “Other workers are going to be damaged”, as they propose farm workers are going to be damaged? They have not been, and we have not got wages boards there. We got rid of them, so why not do the same with agriculture?
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on matters of agriculture and, indeed, on other matters with the greatest respect, as do all noble Lords, but the fact is that my noble friend Lord Whitty has made some very powerful points indeed about what the impact of this policy is all too likely to be on agricultural workers.
I want to make only two brief points; they are both about process. The Government have tabled this amendment in order to remove a provision from the Public Bodies Act. The effect of tabling this amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is to undo what Parliament quite recently legislated in the Public Bodies Act. Only two days ago, the Opposition tabled an amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill and the House approved it. It had the effect of altering a provision in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, and there was the most almighty hullaballoo and complaint from the Government—the Conservative Party, certainly—in the House. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, waxed eloquent in saying:
“Where does it put this House in the eyes of the people should the Committee choose to pass the amendment? We will not be seen, as we would choose to be seen, as the guardians of constitutional propriety”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 520.]
He said that the amendment would damage, “the delicate constitutional underpinning” of the relationship between the two Houses. He also said that,
“there are great dangers in that”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 522.]
I can only conclude that all that complaint about the constitutional impropriety of what the Opposition were doing was humbug.
I make no further comment on that, but I want to make a comment on the process that the Government have adopted in introducing the measure as they are now doing. I am told that they allowed only one week for consultation in Wales. I had the privilege of representing a Welsh constituency in the House of Commons and among my constituents were a number of agricultural workers. Any Member of Parliament representing a Welsh constituency is very well aware of the fragility and vulnerability of employment in the agricultural sector in Wales, which deals with very difficult conditions of all kinds. What is at stake in the policy represented in the amendment which the Government tabled is the incomes of agricultural workers. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, they are poorly paid and in fragile employment. It is simply wrong to consult for no more than a week on a matter of such grave importance to those who would be affected by it. It is wrong and inhumane, and the Committee must deprecate in the strongest possible terms the way in which the Government have proceeded on this.
Baroness Byford
I would like to take the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, back to 2000 when we had a long debate on the CROW Act. Why do I refer to that? I do so because he has suggested that this bit has been slipped into another Bill. The CROW Act was four different Acts in one Act. The last bit dealt with areas of outstanding natural beauty. It went through the whole of the Commons before that bit was printed up at all. It then came to this House, and I was sitting opposite the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he introduced it formally at Second Reading. I said to him clearly at the time that I was not prepared to go into the Committee stage before we had that legislation before us to consider it as a whole Bill. So I think that his protesting too much about how this part of the Bill is being introduced is a little rich.
Lord Whitty
Since we are going down this historic road with the noble Baroness, which I am delighted at, the difference is that by then my right honourable friend Alun Michael had already signalled in the Commons that we would be coming forward with substantive provisions. Nothing was done in the same way on the same amendment.
Baroness Byford
I perhaps would not agree with him because, if I can take him further along down memory lane, the Bill was debated in this House, amendments were made and it returned to the Commons. Several Members who were in the Commons at that time will well remember that at that stage not one word of the amendments in the areas of outstanding natural beauty were debated in the Commons because it was guillotined. That is what happens. Therefore, the noble Lord is being slightly mischievous this afternoon in perhaps protesting too much.
However, I return to the substance. I should again declare that we are family farmers. We used to employ people but are now part of an arrangement with a neighbouring farmer who does the work for us. I also declare the fact that, like the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, we have always had a good working relationship with our employees. Many of them were housed on the farm and some still live in housing on the farm, many years after they retired. I would hate to think that other Members of the Committee, perhaps responding to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, believe that all is bad out there, because clearly it is not—and it should go on the record that it is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to the hugely expensive machinery that we have these days. Obviously, you pay your workforce according to the work that they do. Personally, I am very happy to support the proposals that the Government are making, in that we should look again at what job these boards still do, and whether it is necessary. The introduction of the minimum wage in 1999 made a huge difference—two pence is what we are talking about, and most farmers pay more than that to a lot of their workers. The noble Lord also mentioned the fact that some employers have not practised well, if I can use that expression. I shall think of better words. I remind the noble Lord that in response to that his Government rightly brought in the gangmasters Act. There was a case recently in the paper where it was declared that two family members were employing people in dreadful conditions, underpaying them and keeping them virtually confined. That is an absolute disgrace and any practice like that should be hit on the head. It should not be allowed—and I use this opportunity to reinforce that point, because it is hugely important. Where there is bad practice, it should not be allowed. The gangmasters Act, which the noble Lord and I took through the House, has teeth and it should happen. I am therefore more resolved in supporting the Government in their proposals than I might have been had we not had the gangmasters Act behind us.
Today we live in a very different era from when we first introduced the Agricultural Wages Board. The workforce is smaller in many ways, and its members multitask in many ways—they are not just labourers. I know that reference has been made to horticultural workers. To a certain extent, that is much more mundane work because of the nature of what they are doing. However, for anyone who wants to get on in life and run a good business, the one thing you should always remember is that your business is successful only if your workers are well looked after and encouraged to work well.
I hope that Committee Members will support this move, which will allow the agricultural industry slightly greater flexibility. It may be that wages are slightly better in one particular area than another but in normal business, people working down here in London get paid more than they do up north. Nobody goes to town about that saying that it is outrageous. The responsibility is on the farmers to make sure that they employ fairly and pay fairly. In this day and age we do not still need the wages board. I support the government amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that was an interesting contribution from the noble Baroness, who speaks from experience, but there is no guarantee that farmers will do the right thing. My concern, apart from the procedure, is that by removing the Agricultural Wages Board you are removing an essential safeguard. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, also spoke with great experience. Both noble Lords gave us a rather warm-hearted view of how farmers will respond. Apparently, we can rely on them to do the right thing and pay much higher wages than are paid under either the minimum wage or the rates contained in the order issued by the Agricultural Wages Board—but I wonder.
If one looks at the evidence given during the very truncated consultation period, the fact is that the supermarkets will undoubtedly be looking to drive down those wages in order to ensure that they keep the profits themselves. That is the story in history of how the supermarkets have behaved time and again.
My principal reason for coming into this debate is that I, alongside my noble friend Lady Royall, led for the Opposition on the Public Bodies Bill. I find it extraordinary that we are debating the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board in this Bill. We spent hours debating the Public Bodies Bill. We had two very good debates on the Agricultural Wages Board in Committee and on Report during passage of the Bill, and in no way was there any suggestion by the Government that they would not be using the process laid out in what is now the Public Bodies Act to deal with the Agricultural Wages Board.
We have lost the super-affirmative procedure, which would have allowed for extensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. It would have allowed noble Lords who had an interest to have taken part in extensive debate. Instead, we have had this remarkably truncated consultation—four weeks for England and one week for Wales—when many people are engaged in other activities during the winter period. We all welcome the Minister to his place but it is remarkable that in his introductory remarks he gave no explanation whatever about why this amendment was being introduced at this late stage, why the Public Bodies Bill procedure agreed by your Lordships' House is not being used and why such a short consultation period was agreed.
The consultation has been discussed very recently by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It very helpfully undertook a review of the new approach to consultation by the Government. We have to go back only to November of last year when the Prime Minister made a speech to the CBI conference and said:
“When we came to power there had to be a three month consultation on everything and I mean everything”.
He continued:
“So we are saying to Ministers: here’s a revolutionary idea—you decide how long a consultation period this actually needs. If you can get it done properly in a fortnight, great, indeed the Department for Education has already had a consultation done and dusted in two weeks”.
We know where that has landed the Department for Education. The Prime Minister added:
“And we are going further, saying, if there is no need for a consultation, then don’t have one”,
at all.
We now have a remarkable situation where, instead of having a well ordered process to consultation, it is entirely up to Ministers to decide how long it should be. I should have thought that there would be the inverse rule of ministerial law, which says that the more contentious the issue the shorter the consultation will be. Here we sit: one week in Wales on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board when we know there is absolutely no support whatever for its abolition in Wales. No wonder it is a week. People should be grateful, should they not? Why not a day? Christmas Eve would no doubt have produced the result the Government wanted. The way the Minister’s department has acted is, frankly, a disgrace.
I refer the noble Lord to the evidence given to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It received a lot of evidence and, unlike the summation of the evidence that Defra made of the consultation receipts, which I regard as wholly inadequate, this is a very well ordered summation. The committee report refers to a quote from the Academy of Medical Sciences, which said:
“‘We are concerned that if adopting a consultation response time of less than 12 weeks becomes the default, this may prevent expert membership organisations from being able to provide considered responses to support evidence-based decision-making in policy … as so many legislative proposals impose additional costs on business, calculating their actual cost impact can often take time and resources’”.
The committee concluded that there was a,
“widely expressed preference for a 12-week standard duration”.
We can see from what has happened in relation to the Agricultural Wages Board why that should be the case.
The Fresh Produce Association, as my noble friend says, is a convenient front for the supermarkets; no wonder it is in favour. On the issue of what landowners’ companies will do, I noticed the Duchy of Cornwall Nursery response in the consultation. The manager there says: “Overtime rates are ridiculous”. We know what will happen to the overtime rates of Duchy of Cornwall employees when we abolish the Agricultural Wages Board. I doubt there will be any overtime rate at all. That is what will happen in practice when this wretched amendment is passed, if it is passed, by your Lordships’ House.
The Minister then talked about this being a “deregulatory” action. I was a Minister at Defra for a little while and I am reminding myself of the Agricultural Wages (England and Wales) Order. It is not a very long document and absolutely clear. It is one of the most readable documents that I have come across. Here is a very clear way for employers and employees to understand what the rates are and how to put them into practice. That is admitted by Defra, whose regulatory impact assessment, in talking about the impact on the affected groups, states:
“Employers will need to familiarise themselves with relevant legislation instead of”,
having to look at the agricultural wages order. I refer noble Lords opposite to their continued and frequent complaints about the complexity of employment legislation. I fail to see how getting rid of this very slim, readable document and replacing it with the need for hard-pressed farmers to go through and read Act after Act is, frankly, a nonsense.
The impact assessment goes on to say:
“Workers and employers will need to spend time on negotiations to agree pay levels & other terms & conditions individually”.
How on earth is that reducing the time and effort of both farmers and farm workers?
The Government are replacing a well ordered system, easily understood by everyone, with bargaining that will have to take place from farm to farm, involving both farmer and farm worker in the complexity of negotiations. Is there any group of workers who work harder than farm workers? I doubt it. Surely they are the “strivers” that this Government were so pleased to cite when Mr Osborne started to try to divide this nation up in a very disturbing and discomfiting way. We know that the real impact of this will be to drive down the wages of some very good and vulnerable people, and we ought to have nothing to do with it.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, when these amendments came to my attention, my first rather tongue-in-cheek reaction was, “Blimey, does the Agricultural Wages Board still exist? I thought it went out with the ark”. I say that as a farm employer. When setting a farm worker’s salary, I have to pitch it to reflect the salaries in the wider market outside of farming; that is, the competition.
Within the past year, we have employed two new farm workers and I will use one of them as an example. Previously, he had been working for a road haulage firm, on a salary of £16,000. It became clear in the interview that he was keen to take our job and he seemed exactly the right man for it from my point of view. Getting him to switch jobs all rested on his salary package. I was advised that the job equated to about £7 an hour, which is just above grade 2 on the latest agricultural wages order scale. Let us look at the practicalities of using the agricultural wages order scale in negotiations. The prospective employee said, “What is my salary going to be?”. I replied, “£7 an hour”, because the Agricultural Wages Board only works in pounds an hour. He said, “What does that mean in gross per annum?”, because he wanted to compare my offer to the £16,000 from his existing job. I said, “That is £7 an hour grossed up for the year”. So we got out the calculator: £7 an hour times seven hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year is £12,740. That is what the Agricultural Wages Board is saying I should pay him. He wanted the job and I wanted to employ him but the Agricultural Wages Board pay scale does not cut the mustard because he would not move jobs for a £3,260 cut in pay. I offered, and he accepted, £16,000—the same as he was getting from the job outside farming. The important point here is that it was the competitive wider employment market that determined his salary, not the agricultural wages order pay scales, which we ignored as not being helpful.
I asked my firm of accountants in Norfolk whether other farmers ignored the Agricultural Wages Board rates when setting salaries. Was I alone, and was I breaking the law? I now know that it is not strictly legal to pay a salary to a farm employee under the agricultural wages order. Happily, the accountants’ answer to both questions was no—I was not alone and it was not illegal. They said that few, if any, use the agricultural wages order rates nowadays because one has to pay over the odds to attract people into farming, especially if skills are involved, given, as my noble friend Lord Plumb said, the combine harvester worth £250,000—that is a big skill. I also asked my neighbouring farmers, who employ workers on their farms, and got the same answer.
Another point is that the way the Agricultural Wages Board works is archaic in that it sets pay rates per hour, rather assuming that we still hand out weekly wage packets. That is clearly impractical in today’s world. The preferred option for both parties is for a monthly standing order. If employers and their advisers are not using the rates set by the Agricultural Wages Board, what is the point of the board? Here is the rub because the practicality of today’s employment market has made the board obsolete. Also, the raft of modern employment law referred to just now has made the board irrelevant, not least by the national minimum wage that was just referred to, which currently stands at £6.19 an hour. The current minimum rate under the agricultural wages order is £6.21 an hour, a difference of a mere 2p, as has already been said. That 2p difference is not surprising because the board cannot set its minimum below the national minimum wage and it would look too simplistic to set it at the same rate—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am most grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. He has referred to the grade 1 rates, but he might have referred to the other grades listed in the Agricultural Wages Board order, particularly those around overtime. Where are the guarantees on those?
Earl Cathcart
If I may, I shall come on to that point later. As I was saying, the board cannot set the same rate as the national minimum wage because that would look too simplistic, so the rate is set at 2p more. Last year—surprise, surprise—it was also set at 2p above the national minimum wage. Next year, if the board still exists, I would hazard a guess that the rate will be set at 2p more. This is hardly rocket science.
Recent research shows that the average earnings of full-time farm workers are 40% higher than the rate set by the board and that in 2010 some 90% of farm workers received more than the grade 2 minimum. The conclusion must be that farm workers are paid well over the minimum set by the board. I have talked largely about full-time employees, but what about temporary workers? I would argue that they are and will be protected by the national minimum wage.
Apart from some noble Lords opposite, who does not want to see the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board? It is the union, Unite, which is deploying scare tactics by saying that without the board farm workers will see reductions in their pay with only the national minimum wage to protect them. That is quite clearly rubbish. Going back to my employee on £16,000 a year, if the board goes, am I really going to reduce his pay to the level of the national minimum wage; that is, £11,300? I am not going to do so because he would not accept a drop in salary of some £4,700 and he would leave. That action would disrupt my business because I would have to interview new applicants, train the new person, and probably have to pay the new worker £16,000 to entice him to move from his existing job. It is highly likely that all existing employment terms and conditions will remain exactly the same as my noble friend the Minister has said, in spite of—
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Can the noble Earl square his estimation that no agricultural worker will lose any pay with the Government’s own economic impact assessment which states:
“Research suggests that workers’ wages may fall by £0-34.5m”,
A year, and that its best estimate is £32.5 million? Where is that £32.5 million going to come from if it is not from agricultural workers?
Earl Cathcart
I am not absolutely sure why—I can only give you my case—I would want to reduce their pay at all. As far as I am concerned, the system is working perfectly well. I am happy with their pay, and so are they. I do not know where those figures come from. My view is that it is highly likely that all existing employment terms and conditions will remain exactly the same, as the Minister has just confirmed.
Lord Whitty
I am sorry to pursue this point. The noble Earl may well be right in relation to his estate, but the department, which is supposed to know about the totality of the industry, estimates that there will be a significant cut in wages. Indeed, it is the major effect of this amendment in terms of the impact assessment. If the noble Earl is describing that argument as rubbish, it is not we on this side or United who made the argument, but the department, which got it seriously wrong. If that is what he is saying, it is another argument for the Government to look at what their information is based on.
Earl Cathcart
I am sure that the noble Lord will be interested to hear what the Minister says when he winds up.
I am happy to say that since employing new workers, my business has prospered. It may not be the norm, but the decision I have to make is not by how much I should reduce my employees’ salaries, but rather whether I should give them a bonus, a pay rise or a combination of both. It is a decision I shall make in spite of, not because of, the Agricultural Wages Board and contrary to the scare tactics that I suggest are being used by Unite.
If I wanted to expand my business beyond packing and selling my own farm produce by taking in produce from other farmers for packing and resale, any new workers for that expansion would not be classed as farm workers and would not come under the Agricultural Wages Board’s umbrella, so we would have the absurd situation of two people who are doing exactly the same job being paid at different rates—and all for 2 pence, which is a ridiculous complication. It is further complicated because I am told that if my expanded business had a busy period, say, before Christmas, under the Agricultural Wages Board’s rules I would have to pay time and a half to the agricultural workers packing my farm produce if they work more than eight hours a day or 39 hours a week. The workers packing my neighbouring farmers’ produce would be subject to the national minimum wage and paid the minimum rate regardless of the number of hours they work. What a dog’s dinner. I believe that the board is irrelevant in today’s employment market and an unnecessary cost to the taxpayer. It is outdated because it works on hourly wage rates, not salaries. Those who need an hourly rate are protected by the national minimum wage, and if the Agricultural Wages Board—
Lord Myners
I sense that the noble Earl is coming to the close of his comments. I want to remind him that he said he would answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath; namely, that the higher grades are not protected by the national minimum wage. The noble Earl said he had an answer, and I think that the Committee is looking forward to hearing it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Perhaps I can help my noble friend. I am referring to grades 1 to 6: grade 6 is the farm management grade and the rate is £14.10 an hour; grade 5, which is the supervisory grade, is £13.05 an hour; and grade 4, the craft grade, which I suspect is the grade that the noble Lord has in mind, is £12.32 an hour, which on a 37-hour week comes to £22,000 a year. I really do not understand what he is saying.
Earl Cathcart
The noble Lord did raise a question and I did say that I would come back to it. This is all about the competitive market. I said before that one has to attract people with skills into farming and to pay a higher rate according to those skills, and that is exactly where I am; you have to pay a higher rate of salary—not a higher rate per hour—to the person with the greatest skills, and it is the competitive market that determines that price, which is normally higher than the Agricultural Wages Board rates.
I said that the board is irrelevant to today’s employment markets. It is outdated, working in hourly wage rates not salaries. Those who need an hourly rate are protected by the national minimum wage, and if the Agricultural Wages Board disappeared tomorrow I do not believe that most employers and employees would notice. Those who did would, I believe, breathe a sigh of relief as it would reduce the administrative burden on farmers and their advisers.
The noble Lords opposite have all argued strongly for the board’s retention, but they had 13 years in office to change, modernise and bring the Agricultural Wages Board into the 21st century. They chose to do nothing.
Lord Myners
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his new role, although I feel rather sad for him that his debut is in promoting a Bill that most Members of the Committee will now recognise is a misrepresentation in its reference to the promotion of enterprise. I can say without any doubt after a career in business, including chairing a number of major public companies, that almost nothing in this Bill will have any beneficial impact on economic activity or on the growth of the economy.
This is a rather tawdry Bill, and we are now being asked to look at rather a shabby amendment. It must have been very clear to Members of the Committee that the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, did not really have his heart in the Bill at all. It was quite clear that he would much rather keep up his suntan overseas than put through legislation that will have such little economic impact.
The amendment has come about as the result of wholly inadequate consultation that is supported by evidence which is thin in the extreme, and the Minister will need to explain to the Committee why it is being proposed now. Why was it not incorporated into the original Bill? Why was it not mentioned, debated or discussed in the other place? Is it an afterthought? Was it overlooked when the Government were drafting not only the Public Bodies Bill but this Bill? If that is the case, those who work in the rural economy will have grounds for extreme grievance at the behaviour of a Government who can approach this issue, which is of great importance to them, in such a superficial and callous manner. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has already pointed out that by putting this amendment into this Bill, a number of procedures and processes that Parliament approved in the Public Bodies Bill will be avoided.
I noted the Minister’s strong endorsement of the national minimum wage and I declare my past role as chairman of the Low Pay Commission. However, as I listened to him I felt, as he advanced his arguments for the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, that one could have made the same speech and inserted the words “Low Pay Commission”. What is it about the Agricultural Wages Board that is different from the Low Pay Commission? His arguments about freeing up the economy, allowing the market to operate and establishing a market clearing rate apply to the whole economy. I ask myself whether we are seeing this shabby amendment incorporated into this Bill at such a late hour as a precursor for a deeper and more fundamental attack on the concept of the national minimum wage.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of a very small amount of agricultural land. I am also a former Minister of State for Agriculture. My only surprise is that it has taken so long to get to this point. It is unacceptable to say that the only people in the entire country who have to have a wages council after all the others have been abolished are we rural people. Actually, the insult is to us. The suggestion that there is only one group of people in the entire nation who need a wages board—because otherwise they will behave in a way that is wholly unacceptable—is offensive. It is offensive to my neighbours, it is offensive to rural people and it is not acceptable. That is the first thing.
Secondly, earlier I was rather tough with the Minister about what he may have written down. I could have written all the speeches on the other side quite simply because they have been said for the past 50 years. It is always the same thing—this argument that somehow or other people are out to do people down in an industry that is the most co-operative industry we have. You cannot run a farming enterprise—I do not run one but I see them all around me, and I was Minister for Agriculture and deputy Minister for the longest period of anybody—unless farmer and farm worker work together.
Thirdly, it is incredible to see the ignorance of what is happening in the industry, to hear speeches that assume that the industry today is like it was 50 years ago. Most people involved in the industry, by any proper measure, do not find themselves subject to the Agricultural Wages Board because the way farming is now organised and run is wholly different. Have we had a great campaign from Unite to say that the board has to be extended? Have we had trade unionists stamping in the street? Of course not, because they know perfectly well that this is an out-of-date mechanism which they do not want to bring back in any of the areas where it has been abolished. The previous Government had 13 years to do something, but they did not.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I would like to revisit history very briefly. As I understand it, the wages councils for every other sector were abolished in 1993, the same year that the noble Lord finished being Minister of State for Agriculture. He must have been part of the discussions held then as to whether or not the Agricultural Wages Board should be abolished along with the others. Can he explain why he chose not to abolish it then?
Lord Deben
First, I do not remember whether I was still there or not because it was the year in which I moved. Secondly, I have always been opposed to the Agricultural Wages Board and have always said so because it has never seemed to apply to the industry that I know. It may have applied in 1930. It may have applied in the long-distant past in 1830, although we did not have the board in those days. This is what worries me about the speeches from the other side. I do not feel that they understand how agriculture works.
The former Member for Newport talks about agricultural workers in Newport. I must say that my mother was brought up there and there must be a pretty exiguous collection of people in Newport. However I say this: those of us who live in agricultural areas, care about agriculture and have spent a lifetime dealing with it have to say that the speeches from the other side have no connection with reality at all.
Baroness Turner of Camden
Is the noble Lord not aware that other employers in the industry feel very differently and find the Agricultural Wages Board useful and helpful? I was speaking to one such, a noble Lord, on precisely that point today. I do not know very much about agriculture, but I know quite a bit about employment rights, and I happened to mention this matter to a friend—not a noble friend but a friend—who is involved in agriculture in a large way. He told me that he respected the Agricultural Wages Board. He had always found it useful and was surprised that the Government were moving in the direction of abolition. It was clear that there had not been overall consultation. This is apparent from a number of the contributions today; there has been no real, deep consultation on the amendment.
Lord Deben
I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree from her long history of trade union negotiations that you can always find someone who takes a differing view. However, I have to tell her that if one talks to farmers throughout the country and to large numbers of farm workers their view is simple: this board has been an irrelevance for a very long time. Many of them feel it to be an insult to suggest that this portion of humanity, this group of people, should be singled out and defended on the basis that they cannot be trusted to run their businesses or to negotiate in the way that everyone else in Britain does.
I particularly objected, if I may say so, to the comments of the noble Lord who suggested that it would be much easier to keep the wages board because it is too complicated for farmers and farm workers to negotiate. My goodness, what a miserable society it is in which we have to have things done on a collective basis because individuals who work with, talk to and care about each other are unable, too stupid or do not have the time to work out the relationships between them, both financial and in terms of employment. It is a harking-back occasion. This Committee often reminds me of discussions—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned me, and it would only be courtesy to let me—
Lord Deben
I have made it quite clear that I will give way, but I should have a chance to finish my sentence before I do. I am very happy to give way to the noble Lord, who I much respect.
I was saying merely that before we indulge in historical references, we ought to remember that we are talking about people working today, who are employing today, who are alive today, who listen to these comments and who recognise in them a kind of attitude of superiority to rural people that many townspeople appear to have by believing that they are not fit to run their own lives like townspeople can.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way because he mentioned me as the noble Lord who had referred to problems in reading legislation. The Bill is called the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. The Minister told us that it would be great to get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board because it will remove a whole raft of regulations from the industry. The point I am making is that the regulatory impact assessment produced by the Minister’s own department has a wonderful phrase that,
“employers will need to familiarise themselves with relevant legislation instead of the Agricultural Wages Board Order. Workers and employers will need to spend time on negotiations to agree pay levels and other terms and conditions individually”.
My point is that far from easing regulatory burdens, this will increase the burdens in an area of industry that is characterised by many small employers with a limited number of employees. I would argue in favour of the simplicity and straightforwardness of the order, which is incredibly easy to understand and well written. I know that if I was a small employer, I would welcome it. The current arrangements are much less of a burden than having to refer to dozens of Acts of Parliament, which the noble Lord’s department seems to think will have to be done in the future.
Lord Deben
I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, as I have on other occasions, and I think that he is missing the point. Indeed, he has revealed exactly the kind of concern that I have. Most of the employers of agricultural workers are larger employers because most of the smaller concerns do not employ any longer. That is one of the issues. To talk about the agricultural industry from that point of view is to talk about an industry which has passed. Ever since the passing of the Hunting Act we have gone through periods of listening to townspeople who do not know about the countryside talking about it in a way that they would find insulting if we who live in the country talked in the same way about the towns.
I say this to noble Lords opposite. It is impossible to defend an argument which says that uniquely among all jobs and professions, uniquely among all employers and uniquely among all employees, the small part of the agriculture and food industry to which this wages board applies has to be protected because it cannot otherwise stand up for itself. That is manifestly untrue, and it is insulting to a large section of the population. It also means that those of us who live in the countryside must again remember that people in this House and in the other place often debate our future with exiguous knowledge of what actually goes on Britain’s rural areas. I shall give way to the former Member for Newport.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am grateful to the noble Lord who knows my former constituency so much better than I and who insists that although I represented a rural constituency for 15 years, I know nothing about agriculture. I represented farmers and farm workers for many years.
The noble Lord has still not answered the question put to him by my noble friend. Why, when he was the Secretary of State for Agriculture, did he omit to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board?
Lord Deben
First, I think I did say that I could not remember whether the decision to do the wages board came before or after I ceased to be the Agriculture Minister. I am being absolutely truthful about that. Secondly, I was never in favour of the Agricultural Wages Board, but I also remind the noble Lord that the decision to abolish these boards was taken as a whole. In those circumstances, I would have played a part, but, as a matter of fact, I do not think I did because the timing was rather different. I would just say to him that if I had had the opportunity, I would have done so. He might remember that I had a number of other things to deal with at the time, but we do not wish to go into that otherwise people will recall the photograph which was so widely used.
The issue I want to return to is this. I am not insulting the noble Lord. Of course he knows about agriculture because in a different guise he represented an agricultural constituency. I am merely saying that the language we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and those who spoke later, including even the upright defender of Cornwall, does not go down well with those in agricultural areas who want to be treated like everyone else: grown up and able to look after themselves. Their employment practices are decent and the relationships between employers and employees are particularly tight. The gangmaster regulations removed the only part of this which might have been argued, even though the agricultural workers regulations did not always cover the very people we wanted to help. I commend the previous Government for bringing that forward, and I am only sad to see that there is an innate conservatism in the trade union movement which makes it impossible for it to understand that the world has changed and with it we have to change our practices.
Lord Monks
My Lords, I respond, as a former general secretary of the TUC, to that last remark about the trade union movement. I cannot claim any rustic origins—I do not come from that part of the world—but I do claim some experience of rural life gleaned, at great expense, in various village pubs over the years, listening to what people say. While I accept that the degree of paternalism that often exists from the farmers’ and landowners’ side is often genuine and sincere, and we have heard some of that today, it is not the full story of rural life. It is not an idyll for everybody, some place where Beethoven’s Symphony No. 6 wafts gently in the background and people are all very nice to each other. That is not the case. There are some dark sides and some problems which are not being faced up to on that side.
Over the years, I have not been a great fan of wages councils or the Agricultural Wages Board. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, that the National Farmers’ Union has plenty to do with the fact that it is very difficult to be proud of the Agricultural Wages Board because it is a very tough negotiator. It can always answer for itself. It is good at it. If anything is irrelevant, as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, suggested, it is often because the employers have not wanted the board to address some of the problems that were brought to their attention. I take a rounded view which is certainly not old-fashioned. Some of the rates of pay that have been contracted for people driving a machine worth £250,000 or whatever do not seem excessive. When I look at the figures for farm incomes, I accept that there are good years and bad years, but they went up by 25% in 2011. I did not see a trickledown effect in the Agricultural Wages Board or any of the other agreements which were around. Farmers were, no doubt, thankful for a good year after some bad ones, but they were not exactly shelling out the money generously to their staff.
I ask the NFU and others, and I look forward to what the noble Lord says on these things, whether where there are shortages in the industry and a reliance on migrant workers it could be because the wages and conditions are still too low? Could it be because it is not an attractive place for young people to go to work and the prospects for replacing the ageing workforce are not fantastically good? I look forward to what the Minister will say on these things. This debate is about pay and conditions in agriculture as well as about the wages board. The wages board, like the wages councils, was in the words of Winston Churchill, a floor beneath wages. They are not a restriction which stops you from paying more. They are simply a floor, and if you do not go below it, you are clean. However, there are plenty of people who do go below it. I could quote examples, particularly from the horticultural industry, where some quite substantial employers went below the wages council order and were in difficulty when they were caught.
I ask the Government to follow the wise advice that has been given by my noble friend Lord Whitty and take a longer, deeper look at this. I am not against change, reforming, making the thing more relevant and all the rest of it, but this industry has different features. There may be some other industries around that you can compare it with, but they are not on our agenda today. Rural life, close relationships, living cheek-by-jowl—not always, but often—make this a rather special place, and that justifies the continuation of the Agricultural Wages Board.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, first, I apologise for missing the first part of this debate. I am afraid that I was unaware that this debate was taking place until very recently.
I thought that we had put this whole issue to bed with the Public Bodies Bill. We went through all the arguments, we discussed it, we voted on it, and I thought that the Agricultural Wages Board had been abolished. Anyway, let us go through the arguments again.
There is no doubt, as many noble Lords have said, that the Agricultural Wages Board is and has been a very useful guide to farmers. I totally accept that. In some ways it is a bit of a cop-out for farmers because they can look it up on a piece of paper and know what they are going to pay their workers. It has been a useful guide not because of the actual rate set—because in fact the majority of farm workers are paid above the Agricultural Wages Board rate—but because of the percentage increases that have been given. This function can be easily replaced by other means, and the NFU has already committed to replace it.
It is no surprise to me that the majority of farm workers are paid above the Agricultural Wages Board rate. As the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said, with machinery costs—actually his figures are slightly out of date because you can get tractors nowadays that cost £400,000 to £500,000 and combines that cost nearly £750,000—would you seriously pay someone the minimum wage to drive such equipment? I very much doubt it.
As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said, rural competition is huge. Agricultural employment represents around 4% of the rural employment statistics. The competition from other industries is big, and you will not get people to come to work as farm workers. As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, the prospects for replacing the current workforce are not particularly good. They will not be particularly good if farmers do not pay proper wages, which I personally believe most farmers do, certainly on my farm and my neighbours’ farms.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that farming is a very co-operative industry, and I absolutely agree. You live and work—and even play—as a team on a farm. Quite often, you are in a remote area. You cannot treat them as a distant workforce. You have to live next door to these people, meet them in the pub and so on, and it is a very co-operative industry. Frankly, I do not believe that farmers will immediately make use of the absence of the Agricultural Wages Board to behave completely differently towards their teams from how they do at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the supermarket interests will get the better of us and we will have to put wages down. If you sell commodities to the supermarkets, they put you through a whole series of tests, such as Nature’s Choice for Tesco, and one of the main chapters is how you treat your workforce. I do not agree that the supermarkets will impose such tight margins that agricultural wages will naturally have to come down. I cannot see that as the logical conclusion to the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board.
The board has been a useful guide, but the NFU has committed to produce comparative indicators to help us, such as the cost of living changes, the labour market, comparative industries, farm business conditions and so on.
On farm business conditions, it is not as tough a life as it used to be. Tractors have heating, stereophonic sound and CD players, and you have to produce all these things to attract your farm workers nowadays. It is a completely different life from the image that I seem to be getting from certain noble Lords.
All the agricultural bodies—the CLA, the NFU and the TFA—have been consulted and agree that, frankly, a statutory board for a single remaining industry is completely unnecessary in today’s world, and I very much agree with that opinion.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I was a member of the Low Pay Commission when it was first established, although I did not have the pleasure of serving under my noble friend Lord Myners. We set the first statutory national minimum wage, which was applied to thousands of farm workers who were not covered by the Agricultural Wages Board. It did not render the AWB irrelevant, because the AWB dealt, and deals, with a wide range of other issues relating to the grading structure, pay above the grade 1 level, training, and other important terms and conditions.
Although I am aware that abolition has the support of the supermarkets, the horticultural industry and, regrettably, the NFU, I believe that the country will suffer and that we will come to regret this move if it is carried out. We know about the sorry process, so I will not repeat it. May I ask whether the proposal has the support of the Welsh Assembly Government? Will similar measures follow in Northern Ireland and in Scotland? In other words, have they been asked for their view in Northern Ireland and in Scotland?
The proposal will have a detrimental effect on most agricultural workers. Recruitment is already difficult, and the Agricultural Wages Board has been particularly strong on building a career structure for farm workers, strongly supported by the NFU, I should say. Farms with between one and four employees will find it impossible to resist the relentless pressure on pricing, and I have to disagree with my noble friend who has just spoken; the pricing issue will bring enormous pressures to bear on bringing down the cost in many farms. Their standard of living is already comparatively low, and the wages board was to an extent protection against that downward pressure. Small farms will also have to carry out their own negotiations on pay. That might be perfectly possible—of course, they are not stupid; I would not dream of saying that they are— but it is an extra bit of work on top of a heavy workload.
The most recent impact assessment has revealed a much greater detrimental impact than the first one, and I ask the Minister why there is that difference between the two impact statements. Does he have any assessment of how many small farms will go to the wall as a result of abolition? We know what will happen in horticulture; the staff will all be temporary, all immigrants, and all on grade 1, which is the equivalent of the statutory national minimum wage. To rely just on the minimum wage and the working time directive is to throw out the baby with the bath water. That is not to say that the board itself does not recognise the need for change and the need to give its constitution more flexibility. It has said so itself.
If I were still chair of ACAS and were asked what I would do to replace it, I would have supported the idea of a joint industry council with an independent chair and a conciliation and arbitration mechanism where there is a failure to agree. The parties involved in the AWB have already called for this. The Minister in the other place has called for salaries and not just wages to be paid, something to which the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, referred. Again, this could be done without abolishing the board. It seems to me that the Government are hell-bent on abolition. Presumably if they do not get their way in this Bill, they will begin again in another Bill whose subject matter overlaps with half a dozen other Bills, which seems to be the coalition Government’s theme.
As the Minister knows, a lot of overtime is worked in the industry. At present, that is paid at the rate of time and a half. I thought it was 39.5 hours, but somebody said 39 hours, and I stand to be corrected. This will be in jeopardy, and workers may face an 80- to 90-hour week in an industry which is the second most dangerous after the construction industry. The workers might put themselves at risk simply to make up for lost income in order to feed their families. Have the Government assessed the impact on health and safety if pay levels fall and excessive overtime is worked?
The Minister in the other place, David Heath, has recognised the skills shortages and the importance of “rewarding well paid careers”. Amen to that, but the future of farming must take account of the needs of small farmers, not just agribusiness, if we are to protect our food supply for our country. Have the Government given up on small farmers? The industry is a special case because it enjoys a £3.4 billion taxpayer subsidy. In 2011, these payments accounted for around 60% of total farm incomes, so they are practically in the public sector. Farmers and farm workers are special because they help to feed the nation. I ask the Minister: if he succeeds in abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board, which will be a sad day for this country, what will he put in its place?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate and heard the arguments very well put on both sides. I shall start my comments with reading to your Lordships some of an Early Day Motion that was put down in the other place in June 2000. It said,
“this House notes that … the Agricultural Wages Board also sets a series of rates of pay to reflect the varying qualifications and experience of farm workers, thus providing a visible career structure for recruits going into agricultural work and is used as a benchmark for other rural employment; is nonetheless concerned that average earnings in rural areas are considerably lower than in urban areas; believes that any weakening of the Agricultural Wages Board or its abolition would further impoverish the rural working class, exacerbating social deprivation and the undesirable indicators associated with social exclusion; and therefore calls on the Government at the conclusion of the current review, to retain the Agricultural Wages Board as it is currently constituted”.
I read that out partly because it summarises the argument that I want to make but also because among the names of those who signed the Motion are some who are now Members of your Lordships’ House; for example, the noble Lords, Lord Clark of Windermere, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, Lord Tyler and Lord Jones of Cheltenham. The name David Heath stands out. He is the Liberal Democrat Minister responsible for abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board now, so I wonder what has changed in the intervening 12 and a half years for Mr Heath. I think there are very important principles at stake here.
I pause at this moment to correct something in the intervention I made on the authoritative noble Lord, Lord Plumb, about getting the facts right. I checked the Government’s impact assessment, which has been very helpful to us during this debate. It says that the cost of running the board over 10 years is £800,000— £0.8 million—which equates to about £80,000 a year, so I was wrong and the NFU was wrong. I apologise to your Lordships if I corrected the noble Lord incorrectly.
The principle of a rural living wage is important. If you are poor in rural areas, it is a particular struggle. The quality of life in rural areas attracts asset-rich retirees and second-home owners, pushing up house prices, and local shops are a long way from distribution centres and competition is limited because of the geography, meaning that prices are higher than average. In its 2010 report, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that it costs 10% to 20% more to live in rural areas.
Average wages are relatively low for the working population, with the predominant sectors being cleaning, care, hospitality and working in micro-businesses. If you are lucky, you will get a job in the public sector. Where I live in Dorset the largest employer is the local council, where you will have decent job security and a reasonable wage—if you can get a job there. But of course rural councils are in turn underfunded, and I am happy to be part of a group being led by Graham Stuart in the other place that is campaigning to get better funding out of this Government for councils in rural areas. Of course, the best way out of poverty is work, but only if work pays. Topping up low pay through the tax system by means of tax credits is one good way of achieving that, but better still is for employers to pay decent wages. That is why we should be campaigning for a rural living wage and why we should be retaining the Agricultural Wages Board.
My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about the position of Wales in his excellent opening speech. We have heard from some speakers who support this abolition that farmers are united in their agreement that the Agricultural Wages Board is irrelevant and does not serve any purpose. However, the Farmers’ Union of Wales cites three good reasons for retaining it, saying that it reflects the unique labour requirements of the agricultural industry and that to abolish it would be a retrograde step for an industry which in recent years has been struggling to attract new skills and expertise. The three reasons are, first, that the economic climate in the agricultural industry has made it a less attractive option for young people. In the union’s view,
“rewarding skills, qualifications and level of responsibility is a vital means of persuading high calibre people to remain in or enter the industry”.
Here I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, for the foundation that he has set up and I was pleased to be able to attend its launch. The union goes on to say that,
“reliance on a single national minimum wage will inevitably result in an erosion of talent and skills from farming as more lucrative and less physically challenging professions are taken up”.
The second reason given is that:
“Agricultural workers are required to be flexible in their working arrangements to cover busy periods, fine weather and unsocial hours which are not covered by general employment law provision”.
The union believes that there is a still a vital role for additional minimum rates of pay across the six grades for agricultural workers. The final reason given is that it is an,
“important means of avoiding potential conflict and lengthy negotiations with individual staff”.
People do not want the burden of negotiation that abolition would bring. That is the view of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. It tells noble Lords that not all farmers are by any means agreed that abolition is a good thing.
We have been privileged to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who is a former member of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, but I want to repeat a short passage from a letter written by a gentleman called Barry Salmon, a member of the board who is just about to retire. He is particularly concerned about training and attracting young people—a common theme when I researched this issue. He states in his letter to the right honourable Owen Patterson, the Secretary of State, that if he proposes that the board must go, things like training and a proper wage structure will be lost:
“Come and work in the farming industry, a rewarding industry to work in, one that requires skilled employees, high skill levels will be required and training can be given, a willingness to continue to train to meet new demands is essential, workers must be able to work on their own initiatives and take day to day responsibility for what they do. At busy and demanding times long hours are worked for which overtime rates are paid”,
which, incidentally, is not guaranteed in the minimum wage structure but is guaranteed, whatever you are paid, in the Agricultural Wages Board structure.
“All of which is true but the rewards don’t look likely to encourage new trainees into farming, no pensions, no sick pay, no entitlement to time off for such things as bereavements and worst of all the National Minimum pay scale applies with no formal structure above that to reward training. I cannot believe schools are going to encourage pupils with the good practical skills needed to take up a career in farming”.
He starts to point out some of the other benefits—
Lord Deben
First, I hope that the noble Lord will explain to the Committee that there is a distinction between the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union of Wales, which of course voted in the opposite direction. There is a disagreement.
On the point that the noble Lord just raised, all those elements are in every other industry to which teachers might encourage people to move. Why would they not ask them to go into farming if there were no Agricultural Wages Board but would ask them to go into all these other industries that do not have a wages board? That does not stand up.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord about the unique nature of agriculture. It is right that we have agricultural colleges giving specific training, specifically feeding an industry with the skills that are needed. People need to have that training and understanding of the unique way of life, in terms of working very anti-social hours at times and having to be highly flexible in the way that they work. Some 30% of farm workers have a boss who is also their landlord. There are a number of unique things about agriculture—he disagrees and I respect his disagreement—that I do not know of in other sectors.
Baroness Byford
I apologise—too many years in opposition. I take the noble Lord up on the agricultural colleges and universities—because two of them have become universities recently. I do not think that that has anything to do with what my noble friend was saying. The agricultural colleges are hugely important. They have an important role in encouraging young people to come into the farming industry. But it is a very different industry from what has been described by several colleagues on the other side.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I mentioned agricultural colleges because I am not aware of another sector that has a specific network of colleges for its training. There is something different and unique about agriculture, which is very important. There may be others that other noble Lords want to mention. Maybe if I racked my brains I could come up with them, but I think there is something unique about agriculture.
Other benefits are attached to the Agricultural Wages Board. For example, there is the entitlement to rest breaks, overtime, paid holidays and even the allowance of £7.63 per week for working dogs. There is an on-call and night allowance. All these things are negotiated. They are all part of the reason why agriculture can be regarded as a special case.
Earl Cathcart
I am not very good at employment law; I have to be frank about that. Are you saying that my man to whom I am paying £16,000, which is nothing to do with the wages board or that side of it, does not have holidays, sick pay or all the other entitlements that any other employee in every other walk of life has? Of course he does. In my view it is not the wages board that is protecting him. He has normal employment rules and regulations, enjoyments and privileges.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am most grateful to the noble Earl and his helpful intervention.
Under the national minimum wage legislation, there is no minimum statutory level of overtime. Under that legislation, you have an entitlement to 28 days’ paid holiday as opposed to 31 days under the Agricultural Wages Board. There is also a maximum of 38 days for workers working more than six days a week under the Agricultural Wages Board, with no additional entitlement under minimum wage legislation. In terms of rest breaks, under the Agricultural Wages Board you are entitled to not less than 30 minutes where the daily working time is more than five and a half hours, whereas under the minimum wage legislation—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Will my noble friend give way? I remind him of some of the evidence that came from the Duchy of Cornwall Nursery. The manager wrote in to say that he supports the abolition of the AWB and that “overtime rates are ridiculous”. Does that not give a clue to how some people in the industry will act if the AWB protections are abolished?
Lord Knight of Weymouth
The noble Lord makes a good point. He quotes evidence and I do not need to add to it.
I could go on to help the noble Earl. The final point, which I think is most striking, is the entitlement to paid sick leave and the level of sick pay received. Under the Agricultural Wages Board, all workers, whether or not they are paid the minimum, are entitled to 13 to 26 weeks on full pay after one year’s continuous employment, after which statutory sick pay applies. Under minimum wage legislation, statutory sick pay—currently £85.85 a week—applies where a worker has been sick for at least four days or more and has average earnings of more than the lower earnings limit, which is now £107 a week.
Earl Cathcart
I thought that it had been established that 90% of farm workers are paid above grade 2 in the scales—£6.50 rather than whatever the level is under the AWB. They are not being paid as minimum wage earners. They are getting a proper wage like anybody else who might be employed is getting a wage. I concede that temporary workers are paid the minimum wage, but normal salaried farm workers are paid well above that.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
The important thing to remember is that these legal entitlements for the agricultural sector apply regardless of whether your wages are at or above the minimum level set by the Agricultural Wages Board. These entitlements—for one and a half the usual rate for overtime, for example—are there regardless of what you are paid. That is an entitlement in law and we should protect it. I think that it is a good thing for us as parliamentarians to protect these minimum standards for workers, which would go if the Government were successful with their amendment to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board.
Unfortunately, some people do not act as responsibly as the noble Lords who have spoken and declared their interests as farmers. I point to the case of Chris Blakeney of Marden Management Ltd, who has just recently been in court in Swindon, where he changed his plea to guilty in respect of his activities as a gangmaster supplying 500 workers to farms across the country from his base in Calne. There are bad people around exploiting workers. When this protection goes, that exploitation is likely to grow.
A good argument has been made on this side of the Committee for the retention of the Agricultural Wages Board. What about the arguments against? I looked at the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Marland, the noble Viscount’s predecessor, to my noble friend Lord Stevenson on 19 December, when this amendment was announced. I note the manuscript amendment to the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, in which he said, “I reluctantly agreed to this—decision above my unpaid grade!”. That clearly suggests that the noble Viscount’s predecessor thought that this was all a bit dodgy. I would be interested to know whether the noble Viscount agrees with his predecessor about the dodginess of this amendment.
I then looked at the letter from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, whom I am pleased to see in his place. I think that we have answered most of the questions. The noble Viscount repeated the notion that this will improve employment but, as we have said, the impact assessment—on page 19, in paragraph ii, headed “Employment”—says:
“This effect is highly uncertain, and may therefore not be significantly different from zero”.
The Government anticipate no employment effect at all.
We have heard the arguments around whether agriculture is unique—people take different views on that. We have also heard the concerns about consultation. The lack of consultation on the amendment is truly shocking, given that 154,000 workers are directly covered by it. Four weeks’ consultation is completely inadequate for such a measure. There is then the problem of the number of people who were not included in the list of consultees. Action with Communities in Rural England was excluded. The various training organisations, such as Lantra, were not included. Housing bodies, such as the National Housing Federation and Shelter, were not included, even though the housing committees are being abolished. Even the Arthur Rank Centre was not included, despite the important role that we know the church plays in rural communities.
The consultation has been shocking. The procedure has been ignored. I would have welcomed a four-week consultation if it had been for the ash trees, for which we had an eight-week consultation; that matter was urgent. There was a really good reason for a short consultation on ash tree disease and four weeks would have been great; but we chose to go for eight weeks where there is an urgent need but four weeks to get rid of something that has been in existence since 1917. That makes no sense to me. The proposal is then brought here to Grand Committee where issues debated are supposed to be non-controversial, and we have a big row about whether the board should be abolished.
There is principled opposition and the noble Viscount should now tell us that he will withdraw his amendment and go away and reflect on it. He can then choose to bring it back on Report but it is not appropriate for the Grand Committee.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, this has been a helpful and somewhat lengthy debate, which has included some passionate speeches from all sides of the Committee. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
I will clarify a couple of points. First, in relation to a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Plumb and led to a mini-debate concerning the figures in relation to retaining the Agricultural Wages Board, my noble friend is right to highlight the cost of the board. I have been advised that over recent years, the annual cost of running it has been around £180,000 and, for the ADHACs and the AWCs, the cost is around £20,000. That is just for the record. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, brought up the issue of rates of pay for farm managers. He quoted a rate of £14.10 per hour. I should like to clarify, and I hope he will agree, that he quoted the overtime rates, not the basic rates. The minimum hourly wage rate is £9.40 and the overtime rate is £14.10.
I will address directly some of the procedural issues that have been raised by noble Lords. The first issue was the question of whether the Agricultural Wages Board met the requirements of the Public Bodies Act procedures. This was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, my noble friend Lord Plumb, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Health. The Public Bodies Act is only one legislative route open to the Government to abolish the board. It is not the only route and it is perfectly open to the Government to decide upon another legislative option.
It would be politic to explain a little more about this. The Public Bodies Act created a specific set of arrangements for the reform of a wide range of public bodies by means of secondary legislation, which included the consent of Welsh Ministers, even where they exercised only minor functions. Welsh Ministers have specific, minor functions under agricultural wages legislation, for example in relation to the appointment of members of the Agricultural Wages Board, and ministerial consent was therefore needed to the proposal to abolish the board under the Public Bodies Act. The Welsh Government refused to give consent without powers to set agricultural wages and other terms and conditions being transferred to the Welsh Ministers. The Government could not agree to this for two main reasons. First, we regard this as a non-devolved matter relating to employment and, secondly, this would involve using the Public Bodies Act to extend devolution in a way that was never intended. I hope that that goes some way to explain why the Agricultural Wages Board stood out on its own.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Will the Minister also be good enough to explain to the Committee why it is acceptable for the Government to use the Bill to alter the effect of the Public Bodies Act, whereas it is not acceptable for the Opposition to use the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill to alter the effect of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I note the point that the noble Lord is making but I was addressing purely the issues relating to the Agricultural Wages Board. I do not want to address or make a comparison with any other issue.
Lord Whitty
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that one of the reasons for the change of tack by the Government is the Welsh situation but he is surely wrong in his remarks on devolution.
The Agricultural Wages Board has always been dealt with by the agriculture department. Well before political devolution, there was a separate devolution to the Scottish agriculture department. There is a separate arrangement in Northern Ireland. The employment issue falls to the United Kingdom. There is no difference in agriculture between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so why is the Minister prepared to accept that there should be devolution to Scotland and Northern Ireland, quite rightly, but to deny Welsh Ministers’ request, in the light of the decision in relation to England, to have a devolved body in Wales?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, it is not for me to say it is only that. This is an historical fact, and I was just setting out the background to this. This is why the Agricultural Wages Board has remained separate. Now, in this Bill, we are looking to sort this out.
Lord Elis-Thomas
I apologise; I have been unable to follow the whole debate, as I have been sitting in the National Assembly in Cardiff.
Is the Minister aware of the statement issued yesterday by the Counsel General for Wales in which he proposes to refer the whole matter to the Supreme Court if the Minister persists with the current policy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I note the noble Lord’s comment. I was not aware of that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I remind the Committee that the Companion says:
“Members of the House who are taking part in a debate are expected to attend the greater part of the debate. It is considered discourteous for Members not to be present for the opening speeches, or at least the speech before and that following their own, and for the winding-up speeches”.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will move on to the issues that have been raised about the consultation period. Several noble Lords raised this issue, including the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Howarth of Newport and, indeed, Lord Knight of Weymouth.
The policy on the abolition of the AWB and related committees was first announced in July 2010, so there has been plenty of time for stakeholders and interested parties to make their views known. In particular, key stakeholders had the opportunity to do so during meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Wages Committees. The department felt that a four-week consultation period was proportionate and realistic, given the length of time that the policy had already been in the public domain. This is also in line with the Government’s new consultation principles.
In this respect I will address a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he expressed concerns about those principles. The new principles allow for a tailored approach to the circumstances and needs of a particular case. Twelve weeks is not necessary in every case. The principles say that the timeframes for consultation should be “proportionate and realistic”. The department considers that the timeframe for this consultation was appropriate, given that the policy had been known for some time, as I explained a little earlier.
As mentioned, we also sent the consultation document to 13,000 bodies and held six meetings throughout the country to enable views to be heard. This very much involved Defra, which was also very much involved in disseminating information to those bodies and to many businesses to make them aware of the launch of the consultation.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I apologise for troubling the Minister again, but would he also explain, because I think people in Wales would be very interested to know his account of this, why one week’s consultation was good enough for Wales when four weeks was allowed for England?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I have to say that it was news to me—I have heard it today for the first time—that there was one week’s consultation. It is my clear indication that it was not one week. It was a lot longer than that. I do hope that it was at least four weeks, but I will certainly get back to the noble Lord to clarify this, as it is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in expressing concerns about the consultation responses, also stated that he wanted clarification. On the question of where the consultation responses are, all the responses are publicly available in the Defra library. Moreover, Defra officials specifically alerted the former Unite leader to the availability of the responses.
On the content of the responses, it is worth pointing out to noble Lords that there were 939 respondees, of which 345—37%—agreed with the proposal to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board; some 575—61%—were against, and 2% were “don’t knows”. The main point I want to make is that of the 575 against, 242 came from the same website.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With the greatest respect, I imagine that some of those people represented about 157,000 workers, so it seems to me that that is not at all unreasonable.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
If the noble Lord prefers, I can get back to him—I will, indeed, get back to him—with more details concerning this response. I was purely expressing some facts concerning the response.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
With respect, it is not unusual for organisations to send notes to their members detailing changes that are going to be made and their implications. The noble Viscount seems to be saying that because these figures came through websites—I think he mentioned five websites—somehow they should be discounted. Surely that cannot be right. Is the Government’s new approach to consultation to make judgments about who they are going to listen to and to discount those responses that they do not like?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
With respect to the noble Lord, I did not say that I was discounting them. I was just producing some facts. However, it is strange that such a high number of responses came from the same website. I hope that that is a reasonable view to express. As I say, I shall be delighted to get back to the noble Lord with some clear figures and a response to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised the question of whether Northern Ireland or Scotland had been asked for a view on the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. I should clarify that the Agricultural Wages Board in Northern Ireland and the Agricultural Wages Board in Scotland constitute separate bodies and it is for their respective devolved Governments to take a view on their future.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about the terms and conditions of farmers and their pay and sick pay under the current regime. Having two systems which may apply on the same site for the same organisation is not ideal. This measure obviously covers agricultural workers and will cover others who fall into the non-agricultural sector. Surely it is more confusing and difficult to operate such a system. As I said in my opening speech, farm businesses are increasingly diverse and carry out non-agricultural activities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked why there was a difference between the first and second impact assessments. The first impact assessment was informed by independent research which compared the agricultural sector with the forestry and fisheries sector in order to assess the effect of the Agricultural Wages Board minimum wages. However, this did not allow for the fact that forestry is covered by an agricultural wages order. Since the consultation, the contractors have revised the analysis to correct this.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, does that mean that the Government stand by the second impact assessment? If it does, it undermines everything that has been said in favour of abolition of the wages board and the argument that that will make no difference, given that the second impact assessment says very clearly that over the next 10 years agricultural workers will lose £250 million worth of employment income. Let us be absolutely clear: if the Government, the noble Viscount’s department and Defra—the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, is present—stand by the assessment, the removal of the Agricultural Wages Board will clearly lead to a serious reduction in wages in the agricultural sector.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The intervention of the noble Lord allows me to move on to focus on the impact assessment. I do not recognise the figure that he has brought up. The impact will be between nought and £150 million.
Lord Whitty
To clarify, there is a range, but I am using a figure close to the best estimate which amounts to about £250 million.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I have been sitting here and slowly thinking to myself that I cannot continue to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, making this incredible, disingenuous argument. I am going to go back down memory lane briefly. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was Minister for Agriculture and we had the Burns report.
Lord Myners
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The Chairman has already read from the guidance on participation in debates. The noble Baroness was not here at the beginning of the debate and in that circumstance—
Baroness Buscombe
Good.
I remember so well that when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was in government, the Burns report looked into the future of hunting. The report came back saying that if we lost hunting, the lives of a huge number of people in rural areas would be affected. They would lose their jobs and that would have a massive impact on the rural economy. I remember the noble Lord standing at the Dispatch Box saying “I do not like hunting. I am not interested in what the Burns report says. We are going to get rid of it anyway”. Here is the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talking so much about the need for consultation as if he really cares what the result might be. This is all about dogma. What has been going on this afternoon has been vacuous and disingenuous, and I hope that the Minister will feel strong in his argument and ignore these disingenuous requests to remove the amendment.
Lord Whitty
I am quite happy to have another debate about hunting. I understand, however, that the Prime Minister is not prepared to pursue it. I have not seen the devastation in jobs in hunting since the hunting Act was passed, but let us put that to one side. All I was asking the Minister was whether he stood by his own department’s calculations of the effect on wages in the agricultural sector of abolishing the board. It is a straightforward question on which I would like a clear answer: if he does still accept it then everything we have been saying on this side is correct and there will be a serious detrimental effect. If he wishes to change it, however, I suggest he produces a different impact assessment before we reach Report.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will do my best to answer the noble Lord’s question. Our figures tell us that the impact assessment for new workers will be from nought to a worst-case scenario of £150 million. However, as I mentioned in my opening speech, there is no reason to suppose that the 60% of workers who are currently on a contract will not remain on their existing contract. Noble Lords will know that, if you are an employer, you cannot suddenly change or reduce a contract between two people.
The reality will depend on how farmers use the increased flexibility that will result from the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. Many workers are already paid above the agricultural minimum wage, so there is no reason why there should be a change. Moreover, the underlying labour market conditions suggest that workers will be in demand and farmers will need to offer competitive packages to attract and retain skilled and qualified staff. I am afraid that the evidence is against the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who was claiming that the jobs would not be available and farm workers would be leaving the sector. I do not believe at all that that will be the case.
I am also grateful for the intervention from my noble friend Lord Plumb. It is encouraging to note his comments and all the efforts that he has been making in encouraging new workers into farming. I am also grateful for the intervention from my noble friend Lady Byford who, quite rightly, pointed out the importance of ensuring that there were some good working practices that will be retained within the agricultural sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Myners—who is now back in his place—spoke about the difference between the Low Pay Commission and the Agricultural Wages Board. This is exactly the point: there is no need for two different bodies both assessing low pay issues. That plays into our hands as to why we believe that it is right to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board.
Lord Myners
My Lords, the Minister made what I thought was a rather unnecessary remark about the fact that I was absent from the Committee for not more than five minutes—in a debate that has run for two and a half hours, and I was here for about an hour before that. I will not explain to noble Lords why I chose to leave the Room for five minutes, but for the Minister to make a point on that shows how desperate he is to keep the faith of his supporters.
On the subject of people leaving the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who is no longer in his place, asserted his view that he did not think that the benefits would be passed on to supermarkets. I question that given that in their evidence to the consultation the supermarkets have been hugely supportive. One wonders why they are supportive of this proposal if they do not expect to benefit. If that is also the view of the Government, can the noble Viscount explain to us in very simple terms that if you have a transferred benefit here—taking £250 million out of the rural economy—where is that £250 million going? There has to be an equal and off-setting amount. Where does the Government believe the benefit will accrue?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
First, I apologise to the noble Lord. There was absolutely no derogatory comment intended.
I do not believe that the money will be taken out of the agricultural economy. The whole point of making this change and abolishing the Agricultural Wages Board is to create a more flexible environment and to enable farmers to recruit new workers.
Lord Myners
There is nothing in the Agricultural Wages Board that in any way prevents a farmer from paying more, as indeed the noble Earl explained to us. This is “flexibility” used as a euphemism. It is a flexibility that only moves in one direction. The Minister’s argument simply does not withstand any close and critical examination.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I think I should repeat to the noble Lord that the Agricultural Wages Board has been in existence for 65 years. I realise that that is not necessarily a reason for changing but there are still some great anachronisms within the system. Secondly, part of the point is to release farmers from the administrative burden of the two-tier, dual system. So I stick by my view that this is long overdue and it is right that we should take this step.
The key priority for this Government is to encourage economic growth. The Government firmly believe that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the agricultural minimum wage regime is in the long-term interests of all those within the industry. It will enable the sector to meet the challenges of increasing domestic food production and help secure its long-term prosperity. The abolition of the related Agricultural Wages Committees and Agriculture Dwelling House Advisory Committees in England will also contribute to the Government’s public body reform programme and will remove a number of redundant bodies, as mentioned earlier. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The Question is that Amendment 28ZK be agreed to. As many are of that opinion will say “Content”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, paragraph 8.103 of the Companion states:
“As divisions are not permitted in Grand Committee, decisions to alter the bill may only be made by unanimity. Thus when the Question is put, a single voice against an amendment causes the amendment to be negatived”.
I therefore declare this amendment negatived.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 28ZKB, 28ZKC, 28ZKD and 28ZKE which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayter. I should make it clear that we on this side support the new bankruptcy regime and welcome what is set out in the Bill to try to make progress in this important area, but we would like to suggest some improvements. In so doing, I declare an interest as chair of StepChange, the leading debt advice charity.
We are concerned that the proposed changes to the bankruptcy process, wherein a court-based process is being replaced with an adjudicator, may lead to individuals and sole traders being declared bankrupt when there is actually an alternative debt solution which would be more appropriate for their situation and would have less severe consequences for the debtor. Such miscarriages of justice could lead to the debtor unnecessarily losing assets, including their house, or unnecessarily closing their business, and prevent them getting bank finance for 12 months or longer.
Particularly at this time, we need to be very careful about how the debt relief processes work in practice. Under the new process, as I understand it, a debtor will make an application to an adjudicator. The adjudicator will then determine the application based on two criteria: the jurisdiction criteria based on the debtor’s centre of main interest and whether the debtor is unable to pay their debts. Establishing the centre of main interest is important due to the recent development of bankruptcy tourism, where individuals from states with more onerous bankruptcy regimes, such as Germany or the Republic of Ireland, petition for bankruptcy in the UK in order to be discharged from their debts after 12 months. If the adjudicator is satisfied as to both criteria the order will be made. If the adjudicator is not satisfied that the criteria have been met, they cannot make the order.
The adjudicator will be able to request further information from the debtor, and if they receive information from third parties—for example, a spouse writing to the adjudicator to claim that the debtor was seeking to go bankrupt in order to avoid matrimonial claims—they would be able to decide whether or not to take this information into account. If the adjudicator is satisfied that the criteria have been met after receiving further information, the order will then be made. If the adjudicator rejects the application, the debtor is able to request a review of their file. If, after review, the application is once again rejected, the debtor can appeal to the court.
We need to consider the scale of the problems being faced by people experiencing unmanageable debt. We believe that some 6.2 million households are either in, or are close to having, significant debt problems. Bankruptcy is only one of three formal debt solutions, each of which involves the court, a licensed insolvency practitioner or the Civil Service equivalent. These include debt relief orders, individual voluntary arrangements and county court proceedings. However, many of StepChange’s clients prefer to reach a voluntary arrangement which we broker with their creditors and enter into a debt management plan under which they pay off their debts through us over a number of years. Last year, we returned some £300 million to creditors, and we are on target to counsel some 500,000 individuals this year.
At present, when a bankruptcy application is made to the court, either staff at the filing stage or the district judges or registrars at the hearing have an opportunity to point the debtor towards proper debt advice, and many discover that an alternative debt remedy is more appropriate for them. This may not only prevent miscarriages of justice, as I have already mentioned, but may also save the court, and particularly the official receiver, considerable unnecessary work.
However, we understand that under the new proposals, an adjudicator will not have the discretion to refer a debtor to seek advice and will have no choice but to process all eligible bankruptcy applications without considering whether an individual may be better off using an alternative debt solution.
The Government propose to deal with this concern in the new adjudication process by assuming that debtors will take independent debt advice before making their bankruptcy applications. However, in practice we know that many of our clients can stall over doing something about their debts for up to a year, until something such as illness or reduced earnings tips them over the edge, so to speak. We are therefore very concerned that the procedures to be introduced do not place sufficient stress on the need for debtors to seek independent free advice, with the consequence that the new system will be much less effective at preventing inappropriate bankruptcy applications.
Encouraging debtors to take appropriate debt advice prior to submitting an application will not necessarily ensure that they have all the information that they need in order to make an informed decision on whether bankruptcy is the best solution. Debtors contemplating bankruptcy are understandably under enormous financial and emotional stress and may be unaware of the sources of potential advice: my charity is the leading purveyor of free independent advice, but there are others, including Citizens Advice, and there are also fee-charging operations including, of course, insolvency practitioners.
Furthermore, while debtors may be aware of the gravity of bankruptcy and its implications, they may be unaware that they may qualify for an alternative debt remedy that would cost less, or be free, ensure that they maintain their homes and possessions, and have far less grave implications for their future relationship to credit.
I understand that in Scotland, where we operate as a separate charity, consideration is currently being given to making debt advice mandatory within the insolvency processes there, and I applaud that. I urge the Government to consider whether this would be a sensible step here. It would be possible to legislate to require a debtor to confirm that they have received independent expert advice before making their application. If that is too radical a step at this stage—and I accept that it may be—I urge the Government to think about emulating the Scottish Government to the extent of at least reviewing the whole debt arrangements system before too long. We have a major problem looming, as too many people are bumping along while prices rise, and with the spectre of a return to “normal” interest rates possibly the trigger for a whole range of new problems.
Amendments 28KA and 28KD give the adjudicator the opportunity to stay proceedings and work with debtors while they seek independent debt advice and enable debtors to withdraw their application during the 10-working day postponement period, for example if they are advised during that period that bankruptcy is not the most appropriate debt solution.
When he responds, will the Minister clarify whether the Government will consider ensuring that the online forms to be used in this new system will require debtors to confirm that they have sought appropriate debt advice from the independent and free debt advice charities? Will he also confirm whether there will be an exhortation for the debtor to work with the debt advice organisations such as StepChange, Citizens Advice and IPs to ensure that the advice suggested or required on the online forms captures the best possible options and language for the debtor? Will the Minister also confirm whether discussions are being held with the Scottish Government, particularly the Accountant in Bankruptcy up there whose scheme is very similar to that proposed?
Amendment 28ZKE reflects our concern that discretion for the adjudicator to seek guidance from the court has not been included in the Bill. If the adjudicator were given the discretion to ask the court for directions if they are not satisfied as to whether the criteria for making an order have been fulfilled, this could avoid the review and appeal process, as the court could provide an answer or guidance on complex issues, including cases where a petition may have been presented for an ulterior motive, such as to avoid matrimonial claims.
At present it is up to the debtor to appeal to the court if, for example, the adjudicator rejects their application, and in these circumstances the debtor may face the prospect of two fees—not a palatable prospect if the debtor is out of funds. If the adjudicator had the ability to seek guidance from the courts, we think that many cases may be resolved without the need for the debtor to apply to the court directly and incur additional fees.
Without the ability to seek guidance from the court, the process will also be unnecessarily prolonged and may expose the debtor to additional perils. In the interim period between the initial application for the order and the last resort of an appeal to court, there will be no moratorium from creditor action and debtors could still be pursued by their creditors, with all of the associated stress and anxiety that this can cause. In our view, the drawn-out process could be avoided if the adjudicator could seek guidance from the court in the first instance.
We understand that the Government have discussed the issue with insolvency practitioners and they take the view that it is more important to have a simple system shorn of subjectivity and to a large extent kept out of the courts. Those are admirable aspirations, but when he comes to respond, will the Minister honestly defend a situation where simplicity seems to be trumping individual rights, where difficult judgment calls are eschewed in place of a box-ticking process and where people’s rights to be heard in court are being threatened? I would be willing to meet the Minister and his team if that would be helpful because I hope that we can find accommodation on these matters. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the amendments seek to extend the role of the adjudicator introduced by Clause 63 of the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that the reforms to the debtor-initiated bankruptcy process remove the order-making function from the court, and replace it with a new administrative process. This provides an opportunity to introduce a modern, electronic and more efficient application process, and was indeed first consulted on by the previous Government. A similar process has been successfully operated in Scotland since 2008, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has already mentioned. The adjudicator will be required to consider each application and decide on an objective basis whether or not the criteria for making a bankruptcy order are met. If they are, the adjudicator must make a bankruptcy order.
The first four of these amendments seek to impose a requirement on the adjudicator to consider whether bankruptcy is the right option for the applicant, and whether an alternative debt solution may be more appropriate. The proposal is that the adjudicator should have a discretion to hold off making a bankruptcy order for a period if he or she feels the debtor may benefit from taking further advice.
The amendments may be motivated by a power that the court presently has to refer a debtor who has presented a bankruptcy petition to an insolvency practitioner in a case where an individual voluntary arrangement may be a viable alternative to bankruptcy. I understand, however, that the courts very rarely make use of this power.
I reassure noble Lords that before making their bankruptcy application, applicants will be strongly encouraged to take independent debt advice to ensure that bankruptcy is really the right option for them. My officials will work with the Money Advice Service and providers within the debt advice sector to ensure that applicants have the information they need to make an informed decision. Furthermore, within the electronic application process itself, we propose to include a series of warnings to ensure that applicants are made fully aware of the serious implications of bankruptcy before they make their application. We will also ensure that the process flags up any alternative debt remedies that may better suit their circumstances.
The Government consider that these safeguards are sufficient to ensure that debtors are empowered to make an informed decision as to whether or not bankruptcy is the right option for them before they take the serious step of making a bankruptcy application. The Government believe that these amendments would unnecessarily complicate the process by requiring the adjudicator to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. That would increase administration costs with an impact on the application fee. It would also delay access to debt relief for the debtor, who would have elected for bankruptcy in full knowledge of their other options.
Amendment 28ZKE seeks to give the adjudicator power to apply to the court for directions in relation to any matter arising in connection with the bankruptcy application. The policy intention is to ensure that the system delivers better outcomes by focusing the court’s role and resources on matters of dispute that rightly require judicial intervention and expertise. The onus will be on the debtor to show that he or she meets the relevant criteria. However, the application process will be designed to help the debtor and to ensure that the adjudicator has all the information needed to reach a decision. The adjudicator will also be able to request such additional information from the debtor as he or she considers necessary for determining whether a bankruptcy order should be made.
The Government recognise that complex issues may arise in a small minority of cases, especially around the jurisdictional criteria and where the debtor’s centre of main interests is located in England and Wales. However, persons appointed as adjudicators will have the skills they need to do the job without the need for recourse to the court. It is acknowledged that the court still has a role to play. Where the adjudicator refuses to make a bankruptcy order because the criteria are not met, the debtor will have the right to appeal to the court. That provides a route to court in those cases where it is needed. The court will also continue to determine creditor-initiated bankruptcy petitions, which are more likely to be complex and contentious.
For these reasons, the Government consider that this amendment would confer an unnecessary discretionary power on the adjudicator. In the light of these reassurances about the application process and the recourse to court for debtors, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for that response. I sense within what he has said that he shares some of my aims in tabling these amendments, and I welcome that. However, I am still a bit perplexed. If you are prepared to go down the route of ensuring that those responsible in these processes flag up the options that are available to people—as I tried to explain in my opening remarks, there are many people for whom bankruptcy is the wrong solution; in the rather overused phrase, it is the nuclear option—and you are going to ensure that appropriate warnings are put on to the application forms, we are very close indeed on this point. It therefore boils down to a question of whether there is a bit more discretion in the system than perhaps the Minister is prepared to admit. I find that puzzling.
I tried to explain in my opening remarks that there is an awful gap for a debtor who is attempting to resolve a crisis because the only two options are to trust an adjudicator, and if the decision goes against the debtor, to find, finance and pay fees for an appeal to the court. As the noble Viscount has said, there are areas where the court will be better placed to make these decisions. The other point he made was the need to make sure that, in the first instance, there is sufficient discretion in the appointment of adjudicators who have the sensibility to make sure that people are involved. The noble Viscount has hinted that further discussions may take place between his officials and the appropriate authorities. I would urge that they involve the main bodies that are actually involved in direct dealing with those who have debt problems and not with the Money Advice Service. Obviously it will have an interest in this, but I think we need to speak to the experts in this matter. Perhaps we could have a side exchange on how those discussions go and whether the right people are being consulted. I would then be less concerned about them.
We may have to come back to this issue because to me it feels too tight, but perhaps further experience will be sufficient. On that basis, I shall withdraw the amendment.
“ In section 293 (summoning of meeting to appoint first trustee), in subsections (2) and (3) for “court” substitute “prescribed person”.
In section 295 (failure of meeting to appoint trustee), in subsection (3) for “court” substitute “prescribed person”.”
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, these amendments make minor and technical changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 and relate to the reforms to the debtor bankruptcy petition process introduced by Clause 63. The reforms will remove the existing requirement for the indebted individual to present a bankruptcy petition to court and replace it with a new administrative process. Presently, certain statutory notices are required to be filed at court during the course of a bankruptcy. Most of these requirements are presently set out in the Insolvency Rules. However, a small number of requirements are contained in the Insolvency Act and are the subject of these amendments.
The proposed amendments would ensure that Ministers, in consultation with stakeholders, are able to modernise and make more efficient all of the filing and document inspection processes governing both debtor and creditor-initiated bankruptcies without the need to amend the Act in the foreseeable future. It is anticipated that, where the bankruptcy is commenced by way of the debtor making an application to the adjudicator, documents generated will not necessarily be routinely filed at court. While the Government have no intention at present to change the current policy of filing notices at court in relation to creditor-initiated bankruptcies, it is possible that in the future the Government may be minded to extend some or all of the filing efficiencies introduced in relation to debtor-initiated bankruptcies to creditor-initiated bankruptcies.
The strong policy preference is that such detailed procedural requirements, including those relating to filing, should be in the rules and not in the Act. This is in line with a wider government agenda to consider the overall structure of insolvency legislation with a view to ensuring consistency in what is contained within the primary and secondary legislation. One of our aims is to remove detailed prescriptive requirements from the primary legislation wherever possible. The amendments also make other minor and technical changes that are consequential to the reform of the debtor petition process. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister. I find that these proposals are in keeping with the general approach that has been taken and I have no particular objection to them. I mentioned in my contribution on the earlier amendments that I was much taken by the experience in Scotland; I was trying to suggest that there are lessons to be learnt from there. I make this point, which I think would be worth reflecting on. The new bankruptcy Bill that is about to go through the Scottish Parliament, which I am sure officials are well briefed about, seems to take as its starting point a slightly different perspective to those with debt problems from the one that we are taking in England and Wales. I slightly regret that. I am not overstating it when I say that there is an ambition north of the border—is there not always an ambition north of the border?—to create what is called there, possibly in correspondence rather than in the main line, a financial health service. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on whether there is some element of that in what is being proposed in the totality of the amendments that we have been considering today.
The point that I am driving at is that, if we focus only on the processes when people are already facing imminent bankruptcy or worse, we are not picking up the sensibility that I think is infusing the thinking by the Accountant in Bankruptcy and in the Scottish Parliament on these matters, which is that far greater attention should be placed on the role for public involvement in the borrowing and lending processes that affect individuals. Too many people find it very easy to borrow and extremely hard to save. That balance is completely wrong. We should have a much more balanced approach to how these things operate and how we regulate in a space within which people extend credit in order to provide the sort of services that they wish to use during their lives but at the same time acquire debts that have to be serviced and eventually repaid.
There is a bigger and better conversation to be had around whether the 19th-century and 20th-century notions of debt are as appropriate as they should be in the 21st century to the way in which people operate. At one level—I do not want to extend this debate, but I think that this is an important point to put on the record—there are many instances where we see behaviour in the marketplace that is counterintuitive and absurd. I am thinking particularly of payday lenders. The problems relate to the flow of credit to those who need it and the pressures under which they operate. The fact that people are prepared to take out these ridiculous loans at absurd interest rates and on impossible repayment terms is not a reflection of iniquity on the part of the lenders; it is a reflection of something that is going on in society. We are not tapping into that in the proposals that we are hearing today. Yes, it is sensible to take away the courts’ role as a primary source for all these bankruptcy applications but only, I would argue, if we are also aware of and alert to the other ways in which people can be assessed for indebtedness and helped to find an appropriate way forward. On that basis, I find this general approach right but possibly lacking context. I wonder whether, in his closing remarks, the Minister could make a few comments on that area.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I am very grateful to him for his full response. I very much take note of the issues that he raised concerning the need to provide better help to those who unfortunately get into debt. I think that the best thing to do is to follow up his suggestion to take this further in discussion outside this Committee.
“ In section 298 (removal of trustee and vacation of office), in subsections (7) and (8) for “court” substitute “prescribed person”.
(1) Section 299 (release of trustee) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) for “to the court” substitute “under this paragraph to the prescribed person”.
(3) In subsection (3)(a) for “court” substitute “prescribed person”.”
“(1) Section 415 (fees orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after paragraph (a) omit “and”, and(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “and(c) the performance by an adjudicator of functions under Part 9 of this Act,”.(3) After”
““24ZA Provision requiring adjudicators—
(a) to keep files and other records relating to bankruptcy applications and bankruptcies resulting from bankruptcy applications,(b) to make files and records available for inspection by persons of a prescribed description, and(c) to provide files and records, or copies of them, to persons of a prescribed description.24ZB Provision requiring an adjudicator to make returns to the Secretary of State of the adjudicator’s business under Part 9 of this Act.”
“24B Provision requiring a person to whom notice is given under section 293(2), 295(3), 298(7) or (8) or section 299(1)(a) or (3)(a)—
(a) to keep files and other records of notices given under the section in question, and(b) to make files and records available for inspection by persons of a prescribed description.””
Lord Lucas
“Ownership of licences to copyright
(1) Any natural person who acquires, for value and for his personal use only, the right to use a copyright may, for value or otherwise, transfer that right to any other person.
(2) Any terms in any contract that purport to forbid, place restrictions on or require payment for a transfer under subsection (1) shall be null and void.
(3) Any person who in any way controls the use of a copyright must do all things necessary, without undue delay and without recompense, to effect a transfer under subsection (1) above.”
Lord Lucas
My Lords, in moving the amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment 28B.
Since I tabled these amendments, we have had a Christmas present from the ministry. On 20 December, the Secretary of State was kind enough to announce a package of intentions to reform copyright which entirely supersedes my Amendment 28B. Therefore, I will not trouble the Committee by addressing that because clearly we will see this in a proper and thought through form when we come to the Bill that will follow the announcements made by the Secretary of State. However, we have a small cameo performance on copyright now before we go to bed. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the 28th of this month will be the next day in Committee, since clearly this stage of the Bill is now going to go into 10 sittings. If there is any suggestion that there will be a day in between, will we all receive an e-mail notification rather than having to spot that something has changed on the Order Paper?
It seems to me that copyright is aptly described by Macaulay. A lot of people speak as if copyright is a god-given possession of creative people. It is not; it is a deal done between those who consume copyright material—I both produce and consume copyright material—and those who produce it. In order that it should be produced, those who consume are prepared to let the copyright owners have a limited monopoly on it, but that monopoly is not without terms. It is given in order that it should be available for consumption. The way in which people want to consume copyright material is therefore an important part of negotiating and renegotiating the bargain between users and producers of copyright material.
My firm view, which, to judge from his 20 December announcements, is shared by the Secretary of State, is that we should look at copyright as a means of increasing national wealth, not just of producing a nice little rose garden to enable creative people to live comfortably and have everything exactly the way that they want it. It is a bargain between two sides. It is an agreement to use something that is essentially an evil—a monopoly—in order to enable something good to happen. My view, like that of the Secretary of State, which is covered in Amendment 28B, is that we must from time to time look at the way in which copyright functions in this country and ask whether it is serving the interests of users as well as those of the people who create it. In the case of fair use, quite clearly the rules had begun to fall well short of the way in which people wanted to use copyright material. We all own a reasonable variety of devices. If we buy a copy of Beethoven’s ninth symphony by the London Symphony Orchestra, we ought to be able to listen to it on various devices; we do not want to have to buy separate copies for separate devices. Therefore, we must make it possible for users to do that because that is the way that users want to consume material and that is part of the modern bargain.
Amendment 28A covers something that the Secretary of State has not touched on but which others will be aware of. In the days of books—and long may they continue—when you bought a book, you owned it. You could pass it on to other people, you could sell it second-hand, you could leave it in your will—it was a possession. Now if you buy a book for use on your Kindle it remains the property of Amazon, which can remove it at any time—and does. Amazon strips people of their whole libraries or removes individual books if something has gone wrong with the licensing. You do not own a book; you just have the right to consume it for a while. That is a fundamentally undesirable position when it comes to the relationship between the creator and the user.
Something that is for personal consumption ought to be a personal possession; it ought to be something that we can pass on to other people. We should not allow the position to persist where the balance has been shifted. We have allowed the change in technology to change the balance between the old regime that existed in the case of books, of ownership as a result of payment to one of leasing as a result of payment. We should encourage people to have libraries and pass on intellectual works they have created to other people. That is the right balance between users and creatives. I want to restore the balance in the case of modern technology to where it was in the case of the old technology. Although I know I will not achieve anything this time with this amendment, I hope we will see something, if not from this Secretary of State then a future one. It is certainly a matter I will raise when we next debate this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, it would be a shame not to savour the final quarter-hour of Committee today—although I have probably learnt more about agriculture than I ever wished to. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is still here; he is clearly incredibly versatile in all these matters. Seeing him and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I am afraid that I am reminded of the passage of the Digital Economy Bill, which may or may not be a good thing. As we know from that, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is never knowingly underprovocative, particularly on the question of intellectual property rights, and I am not going to enter the lists with him on the issue of the format-shifting exception that was the subject of the Christmas present he mentioned.
Amendment 28A is an incredibly sweeping amendment that would have a massive impact on the cloud computing industry in the UK, which is forecast to grow from something like £2 billion to £6 billion. It would have an incredibly damaging effect, which makes it highly undesirable for various commercial reasons. Quite frankly, it also happens to be in contravention of the existing EU directive on computer software, which gives the exclusive rights to copyright owners in those circumstances. Of course, there are issues about the ownership of digital content, but this is not the way to deal with them. There are issues about who owns what you have on your iPad or tablet from other manufacturers, but this is an incredibly sweeping way to do it. In the way the amendment is phrased, I doubt whether it will cure the issue by itself.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I rise to resist the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas and to support what my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said. My noble friend Lord Lucas’s argument in relation to Amendment 28A; that if someone has a book they should be allowed to own it, enjoy it and pass it on to others sounds, emotionally, like a good thing. Indeed, I have done that on many occasions among my family and friends. But passing one book among one or two friends is a million miles from what is now possible because of the speed of technology. Because of the digital world we inhabit, the whole of the creative being of that book can be out in the ether and transmitted globally within moments. The creative right is all but destroyed rather than shared in a small and special way. While I entirely understand the emotion behind the idea that we should continue to feel that we can share something we really enjoy, it is neither wise nor sensible to do that in this world because it will deter creators from creating more wonderful books. That is the tragedy of this. It is a perverse consequence of technology.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I wish to thank the noble Lord for his introductory comments and reflect on two points. First, a number of the issues he raises will come up in other amendments and I hope that he will share his wisdom on those occasions as well. Secondly, I must disappoint him in one respect. He suggested that part of what he wanted to say was covered by the Christmas present provided by the additional copyright exceptions and other things that were coming forward and that there might be an opportunity to discuss those in a separate Bill. That will not happen because the Government are, at the moment, choosing to implement those proposals by secondary legislation, bundled in, as the note says, “as few SIs as possible”.
Unless we get a late Christmas present from the Minister, we will have to oppose that because there are very large issues within what has been proposed. Not all of them are unwelcome and we would probably want to get behind most of them. But the way in which it has been done leaves a gap in the expectation outside that there should be a lot of discussion about these things. As has just been said, they affect the very heart of what we are trying to say around our creative economy, how people create and how things are consumed. If we do not get that right, there will be a wave of concern outside. I therefore lay down a small elephant trap for the Minister to fall into then leap out of with one bound later on when we reach that point in the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, it is fair to say that, as a Scotsman, I do not do Christmas presents after Christmas. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for initiating these amendments. Before I continue, I cannot yet confirm the dates for the extended Committee work, but we will make sure that noble Lords hear in good time.
The amendments aim to allow consumers to do more with copyright materials that they have already bought. Amendment 28A seeks to ensure that personal licenses to use copyright can be resold or passed on to another person. This would apply, for example, to those licences that accompany e-books or computer software. This is an important area and one of which the Government are keenly aware. However, the law in this area is still developing. The extent to which resale of licences is already allowed under European law is not yet clear. The cases that have been considered have dealt with specific limited circumstances. I note the comment from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones who described the proposal as incredibly sweeping. Perhaps it is not surprising that I would say that there should be careful consideration before action is taken.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, and less grateful to my noble friends for their interventions.
To my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I will say—as I will likely say on future occasions in this Bill—phooey. One of the effects of cloud computing and the fact that something is not fundamentally located on an individual device makes the whole business of regaining ownership much easier. No longer does one have to deal with something that is passed from device to device and copied into a torrent stream that suddenly goes illegal and cannot be kept track of. In the case of iTunes, it is one enormous great cloud computing lump, and transferring ownership is an extremely easy thing to do if one bothers to write a few lines of code. Technology is moving on and is making the transfer of ownership much easier than it was under the old ways of doing things. I expect that, given proper consideration and thought, this will be quite easy to implement in a few years’ time. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Property: Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the workings of the leasehold valuation tribunal.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, in asking the Question in my name on the Order Paper, I declare that my interest is recorded in the register.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, we have no plans to review the working of the leasehold valuation tribunal. However, later this year, the tribunal will transfer into the newly established property chamber in the First-tier Tribunal, in line with our recently published administrative justice strategic work programme. In addition to improved deployment of judicial resources, the tribunal will operate under new procedural rules, which will continue to ensure that all parties will have greater access to an efficient, proportionate and fairer system of justice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Is the Minister aware that in the Housing Act 1996, when the leasehold valuation tribunal was set up, the aim was to make it within the reach of every leaseholder to be able, for the amount of £500, to bring his case to the tribunal? Is he aware that now many landlords—whether they win or lose, even if they have no hope of costs—are charging their heavy legal expenses back through the management schemes in the blocks of flats?
Lord McNally
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s long campaign on this issue. She was an active participant in the Bill that became the 1996 Act. She is absolutely correct that the right of the managing agent to claw back costs of litigation can be written into leases. This can be countermanded by an application to the court under Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, but that has to be a proactive action by the leaseholder. We are looking at ways to make leaseholders more aware that, if such a clause is written into their lease, they have this power to take action to have it set aside by the tribunal.
NHS: Clinical Commissioning Groups
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the NHS Commissioning Board is discontinuing the poverty element in the funding formula for allocation to clinical commissioning groups.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests on the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that the board has not discontinued the poverty element of the funding formula. The board was concerned that while the formula provides an accurate model of healthcare need as currently met, if implemented it would target resources away from those areas with the worst health outcomes. It has therefore decided to give all clinical commissioning groups the same growth while launching a fundamental review of allocations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation and understand that a flat-rate increase is to be given next year on top of the existing formula. Will he assure me that if the national Commissioning Board, after this review, decides not to go down the route that the previous Secretary of State, Mr Lansley, wanted this review to take—namely, to take money away from the poorer areas and give it to the well off areas—it will see no interference whatever from Ministers in relation to that decision?
Earl Howe
My Lords, that is a very important principle. It is one of the reasons why we felt that the NHS Commissioning Board should be responsible for the allocation of resources to CCGs and not Ministers, to avoid any perception of party-political interference. However, the Government’s mandate to the board makes clear that we would expect the board to place equal access for equal need at the heart of its approach to allocations. That is why ACRA has been charged with developing formulae independently to support the decision that the board takes.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, the first rule of funding is that recipients are never happy with their allocation. Given that, will the Minister assure the House that, with new configurations that we have with public health and CCGs, the model used will regularly be reviewed to ensure that it remains fit for purpose?
Earl Howe
Yes, my Lords. As I have indicated, as regards the NHS allocations, the board is clear that the model needs to be reviewed. That does not necessarily mean that it will need to change; the board will have to keep an open mind about that. Clearly, the board was not happy that the formula as currently constructed best met future needs. As regards public health, I think that we are in a better place. As my noble friend will know, the allocations were announced recently and they provide for considerable real-terms increases everywhere around the country.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, if the Commissioning Board decides to change the present formula, will the new proposal be subject to public consultation before it is implemented?
Earl Howe
My Lords, ACRA, the independent committee, will take advice from all relevant quarters. I am sure that the advice it receives will be taken on board. I do not think that there will be a public consultation as such but, if I am wrong about that, I will write to my noble friend.
Lord Rea
Will the noble Earl reassure us that this new allocation committee will take fully into account the fact that poor people have worse health and, therefore, in an equitable system, it will cost more to include them in the full services that the NHS can provide? Will he reassure us that that will be taken adequately into account and that proper measurements will be made of the health differences between social classes?
Earl Howe
I can give the noble Lord that reassurance. ACRA is not a new committee; it has been long-established, and was a fundamental part of the previous Administration’s approach to funding allocations. I can say to the noble Lord that, by using diagnosis information, the formula that has been adopted for CCGs directly picks up a great deal of the increased prevalence of ill health due to deprivation. It also takes account of the proportion of the population in social housing and in semi-routine occupations, and the number of DLA claimants, which is closely related to deprivation.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Will the Minister assure the House that, if the board is able to find a formula more reflective of local need in terms of poverty and deprivation, the Government will look at it? They appear not to take such factors properly into account when looking at the revenue support grant which provides services for people in poverty. I declare an interest as someone who lives in Preston, Lancashire, whose needs are being met with a government cut. I am sure that the noble Earl would not approve of that.
Earl Howe
I am pleased to say to the noble Baroness that there has been no cut at all in the allocations to clinical commissioning groups. Indeed, there is a real-terms increase everywhere in the country. I can also reassure her that this will not be a matter for Ministers; it will be decided independently by ACRA advising the board and the board taking the decision.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on becoming a privy counsellor.
Lord Cormack
It is a very well-deserved honour. Does he have regular meetings with the chairman of the board, and what plans he has for that?
Earl Howe
I am very grateful to my noble friend. I have meetings from time to time with the chairman of the NHS Commissioning Board, as does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I also meet regularly with the chief executive of the Commissioning Board. It is important that there is that interaction between Ministers and the board if there is to be proper accountability.
Lord Laming
Will the Minister say whether poverty was the only element that was removed and, if so, why was this singled out?
Earl Howe
Poverty was not removed. As I hope I have outlined, there are various criteria reflecting deprivation which are most certainly relevant to the fair allocation of resources. Age is clearly another factor, because it would be difficult to envisage an allocation formula that did not take it into account; it is the key factor in determining an individual’s need for healthcare. That is not to say that other factors such as deprivation should not continue to be considered.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I would add congratulations from these Benches to the noble Earl on his very well-deserved honour which reflects the immense contribution he has made to this House. On the issue of poverty, is the existence of traditional industrial diseases, such as emphysema in mining areas, taken into account in the allocations that continue to be made between CCGs?
Earl Howe
I am very grateful to my noble friend for her kind remarks. The information I have in my brief is as I have stated, in that the indicators reflecting deprivation are quite broad. However, it is for ACRA, the independent committee, to review those indicators to see that the measures are representative and accurate. I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing us towards some other indicators which could be relevant, and I shall make sure that her ideas are passed to the appropriate quarters.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, when the Minister says that the decisions on these allocations are, of course, not taken by Ministers, that is correct. However, can he confirm that it is equally correct that the criteria by which those decisions are made are influenced, judged and promoted by Ministers? Is not the most important thing that he said today that the primary determinant of this should be need? Here I declare an interest, because I had to address this when I was Secretary of State for Health. During the period 1979 to 1997, there was almost an indirect, inverse relationship between increases in funding for areas and their social and health deprivation. I am sure that had nothing to do with the coincidence of voting patterns in those areas of social and health deprivation, but it would be reassuring if he could tell us that that is not likely to happen during the term of this Government.
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are determined that it should not happen. I am as aware as the noble Lord of the perception of party-political bias, and it is highly undesirable that there should be such a perception. That is why, in the mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board, we have stated simply that we believe that the right basis for allocating resources is to place equal access for equal need for healthcare services at the heart of whatever formula the board decides to follow.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, perhaps I may come back to that very important point. The fact is that the advisory committee, presumably following guidance from Ministers and officials, came up with a formula that would have taken money from poorer areas and allocated it to richer ones. That is why the national Commissioning Board decided not to accept it and to go for an across-the-board increase. In the noble Earl’s discussions on the mandate, will he ensure that the Commissioning Board is enabled to come to its own view on these decisions?
Earl Howe
Yes, my Lords. In this case, the board concluded that the formula proposed by ACRA accurately predicted the future spending requirements of CCGs, but it was concerned that the use of the formula on its own to redistribute funding would predominantly have resulted in higher levels of growth for areas that already have the best health outcomes compared with those with the worst outcomes. In other words, the formula on its own would have disadvantaged precisely the areas that the noble Lord is most concerned about. On the face of it, this would appear to be inconsistent with the board’s purpose, which is to improve health outcomes for all patients and citizens, and to reduce inequalities, which is a key aspect of the mandate.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, as patients are to be at the heart of the new NHS from April, will it be the Commissioning Board or the Government who are responsible for advising patients throughout the country of their rights and responsibilities?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the NHS constitution is currently under revision. It is a task for the Department of Health to take forward but, as the noble Lord will know, in the mandate and indeed in the Health and Social Care Act the Commissioning Board is charged with upholding and promoting the NHS constitution. The process of updating the constitution is, of course, subject to full public consultation.
Education: School Leavers
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the statement by the Confederation of British Industry that pupils leaving school should be “rounded” and “grounded”; and, what steps they plan to take to ensure education policies support that objective.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the Government welcome the CBI’s report. We share the view that all pupils should leave school prepared for the next stage of their life in education or work. Our reforms to qualifications, the review of the national curriculum, the raising of the participation age and the introduction of a pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils all testify to this. The academies and free schools programmes give head teachers the freedom they need to achieve the CBI’s vision.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I thank the noble Baroness for that response but does she believe that the Government understand the importance of pupils developing emotional and social skills and that such skills enhance academic learning? I cannot believe that they do understand that because we have now been waiting for well over a year for a review of the curriculum, as well as for a review of personal, social and health education in schools, which has not appeared. Can she say where this review has got to?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s expertise in this subject and to her support for PSHE, which I know is widely shared around this Chamber. It is true that we have not yet announced the outcomes from the PHSE review, which has been extended to take account of the review of the national curriculum. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness by saying that, in its latest report, Ofsted said that 75% of the schools it visited were providing good or outstanding PSHE education. Therefore, although it is not statutory, that figure is encouraging. However, we shall of course be monitoring the situation.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, we are constantly told that we are short of engineers in this country. CBI director-general John Cridland has said:
“Businesses have traditionally focused on education at 14 plus, but it’s clear we need to tackle problems earlier, instead of applying a sticking plaster later on”.
What are the Government doing to encourage exciting and vibrant maths and science teaching at primary schools, particularly those with lower attainment levels?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend picks up a very important point from the report, and it was encouraging to see that now almost one in five maths graduates is choosing to go into teaching. Among the initiatives going on, I highlight one under which eight universities are delivering the two-year master’s-level mathematic specialist teacher programmes, which aim to improve the practice and efficiency of primary maths teaching by upskilling existing teachers who in turn train their colleagues. This year, our funding for that programme alone amounts to £2 million.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Baroness whether the Government have a policy on helping young people in secondary schools to learn about and to acquire what used to be called the soft skills. By those, I mean interpersonal skills, including relationships skills, self-confidence, leadership, teamwork, communication skills and many others, all of which are very important both in the workplace and in raising a family.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Indeed, it is vital that young people come out of school with the soft skills which the noble Lord has highlighted. As far as parenting skills and others are concerned, there are of course different programmes, including the PSHE programme which so many schools are following. How schools address these matters specifically is for each school to determine locally.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that if pupils are to leave schools rounded, they will have studied and practised the arts within the reformed curriculum? Imaginative capacities are increasingly important, both for the employability of individuals and for the competitiveness of businesses.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Of course the arts are of particular importance. We touched on this in Questions and debates earlier this week. The Government fully support this, and there are various funding streams going into support of the arts. The issue seems to be that they do not appear in the EBacc, but of course not all schools do the EBacc. In any event, there will always be 20% to 30% of the timetable for such things as creative subjects, which are so vital to individuals and the country.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint
My Lords, is the Minister able to confirm that any future Statements on the school curriculum, including the English Baccalaureate, will include a greater emphasis on the provision of physical education? The current derisory agreement is that there will be a minimum of one hour per week of physical education. The CBI’s aspirations that school leavers be grounded and rounded may otherwise have different connotations when one realises the serious obesity problems with school beginners rather than school leavers.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend makes her point in her own inimitable way. Of course, PE is an essential component of the school timetable. The amount of time that is spent on it is, again, a matter for schools to determine for their pupils and circumstances. However, particularly following on from the tremendous Olympic and Paralympic Games this summer, we would not wish to see the initiative for sport lost.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, research undertaken by MORI for the Department for Education itself has shown that courses in the creative arts, physical education, design and technology and business studies are now disappearing from schools as a result of the new, narrow EBacc performance measure by which schools will be judged. Will the Government now accept the CBI’s proposal that the EBacc be suspended so that the impact on schools can be properly assessed, before these cuts in courses become irreversible?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the EBacc has already had some very beneficial effects on children from disadvantaged backgrounds; we have seen their levels of attainment improving. The EBacc is not for everybody, and there will be alternative provision. We will certainly be monitoring the impact on the arts, sport, and all those other subject areas which are so important within the educational programme.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, in terms of the roundedness of arts, sport and faith studies, the key issue is: how can the experiences and studies of pupils be recorded and monitored so that they can carry with them a proper record of their achievements and learning in those areas?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. Of course, there will be recording of the sorts of achievements that young people make at their schools that are not subject to formalised end testing. I agree with him and, indeed, with the other questions that we have heard that sometimes those are the most important parts of a young person’s education. It is not necessarily the end exams that tend to show how people can progress; sometimes those personal skills are far more important for a successful and rewarding life.
EU: UK’s National and Trade Interests
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the United Kingdom’s national and trade interests of disengagement from the European Union.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, membership of the European Union is in the UK national interest. We continue to engage actively and constructively with our European partners and play a leading role in a wide range of EU business. The UK benefits from membership of the EU, including from the unrestricted access for UK businesses to a single market of around 500 million customers, which was worth £11 trillion in 2011, and from securing greater market access for the UK at a global level when, for example, it plays a leading role in EU free trade agreement negotiations with third party nations.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for those very interesting statistics but could I take matters just a little bit further? Does she agree that it is absolutely essential for us as a trading nation to keep our alliances, partnerships and businesses throughout the European Union? Against that background, does it not follow that we should not be seen as a reluctant player in Europe, constantly looking for the way out and not the way forward? Could she make that point sometimes to some of our colleagues?
Baroness Warsi
I could not have thought of a better week for such a Question from my noble friend because it gives me an opportunity to say that this coalition Government are committed to playing an active and leading role in the EU, while advancing the UK’s national interests and protecting its sovereignty. Membership of the EU is in the UK’s national interests and it is what this coalition Government believe, but the EU needs to reform to meet the challenges of competitiveness. It needs a stable eurozone and greater democratic legitimacy. It is to that end that the Prime Minister will be making a speech later this week.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, we heard clearly from the noble Baroness about the benefits of being in a position to exploit our membership of the single market. Does she agree with me that it would be inappropriate at present to do anything to disturb that, particularly as sterling is currently devaluing against the much criticised euro, which is improving our terms of trade with Europe and giving us greater potential competitive advantage there?
Baroness Warsi
The Government believe that we can have a better Europe and that Europe can be reformed with a view to increasing those real benefits that come from the European Union.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, when the Prime Minister speaks later this week, will he draw attention, as the Minister has done, to the significance of the single market, which was strongly supported by Mrs Thatcher, to the insistence of many of our closest allies, such as the United States and the leading countries of the Commonwealth, that our influence within the EU is vital to the position of the West in the world’s global discussions, and to some of the outstanding developments in global fields, for example, on climate change and not least on organised crime, which have been successful examples of British influence within the EU and of EU influence within the world more generally?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend raises a very important issue and these are matters that will be raised. It is important that we value our relationship with the European Union. My noble friend quite rightly raises the issue of our place in the world. On foreign policy, for example, I know that the work we did on smart sanctions against Iran’s nuclear programme, against the Burmese regime to encourage democratic reform and against the Syrian regime was possible because we worked collectively.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, the noble Baroness sets great store by encouraging investment into the United Kingdom from the emerging giants of Asia. Following the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday, we will face at least five years of economic uncertainty over our continued membership of the European single market. That is likely to prove a great deterrent to all forms of inward investment just at the moment when jobs and the revival of investment depend on it? Does the noble Baroness agree that in doing this the Prime Minister is not speaking for the national interest?
Baroness Warsi
It may well be that the noble Lord opposite has had sight of the speech and is therefore making judgments based on his opinion of what is in the speech. I await to see what will be in that speech, as do many of us in this House, and I can assure the noble Lord that this Government have done all they can to make sure that when opportunities present themselves, both within the Commonwealth and in the wider world, especially in relation to India, Brazil and China, we have very clearly laid out our store to say that Britain is open for business.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, do the Government agree that we have some 3 million jobs exporting to the European Union but that it has 4.5 million jobs exporting to us? Are we not, in fact, its largest client? When we leave the EU, will it not come running after us for a free trade agreement which suits us at least as well as our present arrangements?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord always has an interesting take on these matters and is in an interesting position to trade statistics. I can assure him that most Members of this House believe that we are stronger for being within the European Union.
Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL]
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Growth and Infrastructure Bill
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Growth and Infrastructure Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 14, Schedule 4, Clauses 15 to 32.
Legislative Reform (Constitution of Veterinary Surgeons Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees) Order 2013
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
That the draft order laid before the House on 5 November 2012 be approved.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 10 January.
European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received. I would also like to respond briefly to points raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, with regard to further EU enlargement in the western Balkans. I reassure the noble Lords that regional co-operation and good neighbourly relations are essential elements of EU enlargement. This was reiterated in the General Affairs Council conclusions of December 2011. The conclusions set out the EU’s expectation that disputes within the western Balkans should not have a detrimental effect on the shared goal of progress towards EU membership.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is unusual that there are no amendments down today. While noble Lords are leaving, could they do so quietly? The Minister is having the courtesy to respond to points made in Committee, and I know that those who took part in Committee will want to hear her courteous remarks.
Baroness Warsi
The conclusions set out the EU’s expectations that disputes within the western Balkans should not have a detrimental effect on the shared goal of progress towards EU membership. The Government support that statement in full.
Croatia, with its recent experience of accession negotiations, can itself play a constructive role in supporting its neighbours on their EU paths. I am pleased to say that Croatia is already doing this, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, highlighted in his remarks in Committee. In addition to the UK’s support for candidate countries, the UK provides expert support through EU peer-to-peer twinning projects. For example, since 2010, the UK has been awarded six twinning contracts in Kosovo, and we have recently been awarded a new project in Montenegro. We have already hosted a delegation of Croatian twinners to explore how we can work together on new twinning projects as partners in the region.
Finally, it is important that the EU’s enlargement process works. Croatia’s successful accession is an important concrete means of maintaining the incentive of EU membership in other western Balkan countries. Croatia’s efforts will highlight that the EU rewards the hard work that underpins countries’ transformations.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful replies to the questions that I have raised, and join with her in saying that it is clearly in our interests that the whole of the western Balkans be brought successfully into the European family. The accession of Croatia on 1 July will certainly be a signal step in that direction, and we join with her in giving Croatia, and indeed the rest of the western Balkans, every blessing on that journey.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL]
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the draft order laid before the House on 22 October 2012 be approved.
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 7th Report from the Constitution Committee
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 22 October 2012 now be approved. I am grateful that we will have longer to debate the order than would normally be the case, which I think will be welcomed on all sides of the House. It certainly reflects the interest that noble Lords have shown in this order, not least the comments and contribution of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee whose report has made a very important contribution to the parliamentary process.
On 15 October last year, the Prime Minister, the First Minister of Scotland, the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland signed an agreement on behalf of our respective Governments that will, if this order is approved by this House, allow a legal, fair and decisive referendum to take place on Scottish independence. I think it important that we acknowledge at the outset of this debate just how far we have come. Your Lordships have discussed and debated this and related issues on many occasions. We all recognise that we face perhaps the most important political choice that people have taken in Scotland in more than 300 years.
Calls for separation from the rest of the United Kingdom are not new, but the process that we are debating today began with the Scottish National Party’s victory in the May 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections and its manifesto pledge to hold an independence referendum. In May 2011, the Scottish Government claimed they had the right to bring forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament, without any role for this Parliament. The Scottish Government proposed the establishment of a separate Scottish Commission to oversee the process, and there was an expectation that there would be a multi-option referendum. Indeed, just 12 months ago, when the United Kingdom Government launched their consultation paper, that was very much still the case.
From the very beginning, this Government acknowledged the political mandate that the SNP had secured for a referendum. However, we also set out our very firm view that any referendum had to be legal, fair and decisive. As I set out to your Lordships just over a year ago, the Scotland Act 1998 is very clear: the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on matters reserved to this Parliament. That includes “the constitution” and, specifically,
“the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England”.
That is why we published a consultation paper on 10 January 2012 which set out the different ways to deliver a legal referendum. Our consultation paper set out the available legislative options and stated that our preferred option was to provide the Scottish Parliament with the legal competence to legislate itself. This received the overwhelming support of those responding to our consultation. More than 70% of respondents agreed that the Scottish Parliament should be given that power. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee in its first report on the referendum in February 2012 welcomed the proposal to use a Section 30 order to confer on the Scottish Parliament clear competence to legislate for the referendum.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving way. On the point that 86% of the respondents supported the UK Government’s position, this position was that the referendum process should be looked after by the Electoral Commission. Why did the UK Government not insist on that being part of the Edinburgh agreement?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
As I shall come on to explain, it is very much part of the Edinburgh agreement. The Electoral Commission is crucially and centrally involved in the oversight of this referendum.
Lord Cormack
I am most grateful to the Minister. According to the agreement, all the commission has to determine is whether the question is intelligible. It is not a matter of whether it is fair, or loaded, but whether it is understandable. Is that sufficient?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the position is that the Referendum Question Assessment Guidelines published by the Electoral Commission in November 2009 set out its approach to reviewing questions for intelligibility. These guidelines state:
“A referendum question should present the options clearly, simply and neutrally. So it should: be easy to understand; be to the point; be unambiguous; avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another; avoid misleading voters”.
That is the Electoral Commission’s guidance to the intelligibility question which my noble friend raised; those are the criteria I expect it to apply having regard to weighing up and assessing the question that has been submitted by the Scottish Government to the Electoral Commission. With regard to this question, we have sought to put the position of the role of the Electoral Commission and the role of the Scottish Parliament on exactly the same terms as would be the case if the United Kingdom Government were proposing a referendum, where we put the referendum to the Electoral Commission for its assessment on the same criteria. I will come on to that in a bit more detail in a moment. It will report to Parliament and ultimately Parliament will decide. We are seeking to put the Scottish Parliament in exactly the same position, vis-à-vis the question and the Electoral Commission, as the United Kingdom Parliament would be in any referendum which the United Kingdom Government were proposing.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Would the Minister care to give his opinion about the question as currently proposed by the Scottish Government, which is,
“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”?
All the polling evidence, and one can consult MORI and others on this, shows that this kind of phraseology is biased and leads towards a particular outcome. It therefore fails the test on that basis.
Secondly, the Minister said that the referendum should be decisive. I am not clear what is meant by,
“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”.
It does not refer to membership of the United Kingdom in any way whatever. I have spoken to some of my colleagues here, who think Scotland is currently an independent country in many senses. Is it not unintelligible, and therefore not decisive in any way?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the key thing is that the Electoral Commission makes that judgment. I have heard the points made—with considerable conviction—by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others, but at the end of the day it is for the Electoral Commission to make that assessment. What it thinks about it, having done the testing on it, is far more important than what Ministers in the United Kingdom Government think.
Until relatively recently, I was the spokesperson for the Wales Office in your Lordships’ House and therefore during the referendum on the extension of powers for the Welsh Assembly. I could see at pretty close quarters the work done by the Electoral Commission in framing the question for that referendum—the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will recall it. I was very impressed—not least because it faced the additional issue of the question being in Welsh as well as in English—by the thoroughness with which the Electoral Commission dealt with that. I was also impressed by the way in which my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Wales responded to the terms of the Electoral Commission’s report.
Lord Kakkar
Was it not the case both that the Electoral Commission looked at the specific question for that referendum and that legislation was brought before this Parliament? Therefore, this Parliament also had the opportunity to look at the question. The question for the referendum in Scotland will not be brought before this Parliament and we will not have an opportunity to look at it. Is it not still the responsibility of this Parliament to take care and to discharge its obligations to the citizens of the entire union?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord is right about the Welsh referendum: the question was brought before this Parliament and was determined by it. However, as I sought to explain to my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Cormack, this order seeks to put the Scottish Parliament in exactly the same position as this Parliament would be vis-à-vis a question for a United Kingdom referendum or a referendum that came under the responsibility of this Parliament. We want to put the Scottish Parliament in that position for the referendum on independence. If we are going to devolve power to do that, it is important that that is on the same basis as if this Parliament were responsible for the referendum. If this order is approved, it is up to the Scottish Parliament to make that judgment, and political consequences will flow from it if it is felt that the wrong judgment is made. We look forward with confidence to the Electoral Commission testing the question thoroughly—as it is indeed currently doing—and to make a report, and we will all be well aware of what the content of that report is. Perhaps I might make progress after I have answered the noble Lord, Lord Williamson.
Lord Williamson of Horton
I comprehend that point, but we have our own Constitution Committee, which has stated:
“We are concerned about whether a referendum on independence will be intelligible unless it specifies that the consequence of independence is Scotland leaving the United Kingdom”.
What comment does the Minister have to make on that point, which is the view of our Constitution Committee? I understand the point that he made about the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, may I very courteously suggest to the House that we hear the Minister’s speech, and that we will all have time to add whatever we want afterwards and to ask him questions to which he can respond at the end of the debate?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful to the noble Countess and, in that spirit, I shall seek to answer questions afterwards. I have indicated what criteria the Electoral Commission uses in determining intelligibility. However, I think that many of us want to get on to actually debating the issues, because we have a responsibility, too, to deploy the arguments so that people are very clear about what the consequences would be.
Following the respective consultations of the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments, a period of discussions between Scotland’s two Governments led to the signing of the referendum agreement on 15 October. It is important that we recognise the significant achievement that this agreement represents: agreement to promote this order that we are debating today to ensure that the referendum is legal; agreement that the independent Electoral Commission should oversee the referendum to ensure that it is fair; and agreement to a single question on independence to ensure that the referendum is decisive.
I have said on a number of previous occasions that there is nothing worse than having a referendum that at the end of it one side or the other can call foul. I believe that the various strands that have been brought together to achieve the agreement will allow us to avoid that. They are a long way from where we were when this debate started in May 2011.
However, we also agreed another key point: once the fundamental requirements to ensure that the referendum is legal are established, fair and decisive, the responsibility for setting out the detail of the legislation should be for the Scottish Parliament. That is a fundamental point of principle on which I have already spoken and on which I will say more.
I will first take your Lordships through the order itself. It is made under Section 30(2) and (4) of the Scotland Act 1998. It inserts a new paragraph (5)(a) into Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Part 1 provides, among other things, that the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. The new paragraph (5)(a) will ensure that the reservation does not apply to a referendum on independence, provided that it meets the requirements that are set out.
Those requirements are for a single ballot paper with a choice of two responses—in other words, a single question referendum on independence, to be held before the end of 2014, and without any other referendum provided for by an Act of the Scottish Parliament to be held on the same day. The order also makes provision in respect of public referendum broadcasts and free mailshots, which otherwise would be outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, otherwise known as PPERA, referendum campaign broadcasts can be made only by or on behalf of a designated campaign organisation. The order applies this provision of PPERA to an independence referendum. This means that the restriction in PPERA as to who can make referendum broadcasts can apply to that referendum.
There are requirements on Ofcom and the BBC in relation to referendum broadcasts. The order provides that the definition of referendum campaign broadcasts includes independence referendum campaign broadcasts in certain circumstances so that the BBC, Ofcom and the Electoral Commission can have the same obligations and responsibilities in respect of the independence referendum campaign broadcasts as they would have in respect of any PPERA referendum broadcasts.
Under the 2000 Act, each designated campaign organisation can send a mailshot to every elector or household and is not required to pay the postage costs for this. This service is provided by the Royal Mail and the costs of this are recovered from the Consolidated Fund. This order applies these provisions in PPERA to an independence referendum. It specifically provides that the cost of the Royal Mail in providing this service will be recovered from the Scottish Ministers.
Therefore, the Section 30 order that we are debating today enables the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a legal referendum. The Scottish Parliament has already considered the order and approved it unanimously. Yesterday the order was debated in the House of Commons and approved without division, and if the order is approved by your Lordships’ House and then by the Privy Council, it will enable the Scottish Government to introduce a referendum Bill that sets out the wording of the question, the date of the referendum and the rules of the campaign for the Scottish Parliament to consider.
This devolution of power will ensure that the detail of the referendum process itself is made in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament. As I have already set out to your Lordships, this is a principle of importance to the devolution settlement. Once a matter is passed to the Scottish Parliament, it is for that Parliament to determine the details of the legislation that follows. That is how devolution has operated since 1999 and this Government will continue to respect that.
The referendum agreement and the Section 30 order set out the framework for the referendum. They ensure that it is legal, capable of commanding the confidence of people from both sides of the debate and of producing a decisive result.
I will now say something about the detail of the memorandum of agreement that sits alongside the order. It is a statement of political intent by Scotland’s two Governments. It commits us jointly to an approach and delivery of the independence referendum that will ensure that the proceedings are fair and that the outcome is decisive.
At the heart of any referendum must lie a set of rules and processes that have the support of both sets of protagonists. For the outcome of any referendum to be legitimate and accepted, both sides of the argument must have faith in all aspects of the referendum. That is particularly true when we are considering the future of our nation. The agreement therefore sets out the commitment of both Governments to the normal rules and procedures that govern referendums in the UK as contained in PPERA.
A core part of the PPERA process is the central role of the Electoral Commission. The two Governments have agreed that the Electoral Commission must review the proposed referendum question and that its report will be laid before the Scottish Parliament, and that process is under way. It is worth reminding the House that since PPERA came into force there have been three referendums held under it: the north-east regional assembly referendum in 2004; the one to which I have already referred in Wales on further devolution in 2011; and the referendum on the voting system for the United Kingdom Parliament, also held in 2011. In all three cases, the Electoral Commission reviewed the Government’s proposed question and provided its advice, and the Government responded by revising the question in line with that advice.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Will the Minister give way on that particular point?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
No—as the noble Countess said, the noble Lord will have an opportunity later, and I will certainly respond. Well, if it is very quick, yes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does this include whether money can come from overseas sources, as well as total expenditure?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
When I respond to the debate I will give a more detailed response to that, but I think that those arrangements are already there under PPERA.
That is what happened in previous referendums such as the 2011 referendum in Wales on further powers for the Welsh Assembly. In that referendum, the Electoral Commission recommended that the spending limit for designated campaign organisations should be set by reference to the expenditure limits that applied to elections to the relevant legislature. In its response to both Governments’ consultation documents, the Electoral Commission provided its view that the model remains appropriate for the Scottish independence referendum.
The Electoral Commission has also met the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to seek their views on the financial arrangements. When the Scottish Government set out their final proposals for financing the referendum campaign in their Bill, they must set themselves aside from their own campaigning interests and recognise that their approach is being watched by all of Scotland, and indeed by the wider international community. This is a point which the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, herself recognised when she said that the poll must satisfy the highest standards. It is only right that we use the bar that she has set to determine whether what is proposed is appropriate.
Both Governments agree that the basis for the franchise will be that for the Scottish Parliament elections —that is, those UK or EU citizens who are resident in Scotland. Again, that is set out in the agreement.
In addition, the Scottish Government propose to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote. I recognise and very much respect the fact that there are differing views on this issue in this Parliament and in this House. My party, the Liberal Democrats, supports the principle of 16 and 17 year-olds participating in all elections; our coalition partners do not. Indeed, there are views on both sides of the Chamber on that issue. However, in devolving the power to hold the referendum, we respect that this is a matter which should be debated and determined by the Scottish Parliament.
Indeed, where the Scottish Government and Parliament have the power to hold referendums and elections already, they have chosen to allow some 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. However, the Scottish Parliament’s decision with respect to health board elections and Crofting Commission elections in Scotland has set no precedent for any elections for which the United Kingdom Government and Parliament are responsible.
I fully expect the Scottish Government’s proposals to be debated robustly in the Scottish Parliament. It will be for the Scottish Government to make their case for this proposal and to deal with the issues that arise.
I can make it equally clear that any decision taken by the Scottish Parliament for the referendum will not affect the voting age for parliamentary and local government elections in the United Kingdom. That remains the responsibility of this Parliament alone to determine.
I turn to an issue which has attracted comment, particularly from the Scottish Government. The concluding paragraph of the Edinburgh agreement contains a commitment by both Governments to hold a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive. It is fair to say that there have been some creative interpretations of that paragraph in recent times, so I want to take the opportunity to restate its clear and very obvious meaning. Perhaps it is worth reminding the House what it actually says:
“The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others, to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum which is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.”
This means that the two Governments will conduct the referendum on the same constructive terms as they work on today. It means that if the referendum follows the path set out in the order and agreement, its outcome will be decisive. It means also that, regardless of what the result is, that constructive relationship should continue as we move forward. I believe that that is good practice and common sense. Paragraph 30 is a statement of our determination to hold a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive. However, it does not and cannot be interpreted in a way that pre-empts the implications of that vote. It is important that everyone is very clear about that reality.
Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom will be the most important decision we in Scotland take in our lifetime. Facilitating a legal, fair and decisive referendum is critical. That is why we consulted on this issue. That is why both the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government spent many hours discussing and negotiating the process. That is why we seek the support of the House today to approve this order.
Debating this order in this House today marks an important step as we move from discussions on process to what many of us want to do—get to the substance of the debate. It is essential that the referendum decision is focused on determining whether Scotland chooses to remain an integral part of the most successful partnership of nations that this world has ever seen and to remain part of a family of nations that works in the interests of all, or whether Scotland wishes to separate and go it alone.
That is not a decision that should be taken lightly; it should be taken after examination of the facts. I strongly believe that, with the support of colleagues across the House, across Scotland and across the whole of the United Kingdom, fellow Scots will join me in autumn 2014 in choosing to stay part of this very valued United Kingdom. I believe that we are indeed better together. In the mean time, I commend this order to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
At end to insert “but that this House calls on Her Majesty’s Government not to make the draft order until the proposals for the date of the referendum, the proposed question and the rules governing the conduct of the referendum have been published and until both Houses of Parliament have debated those proposals”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, if I am ever facing a murder charge, I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will, as a good Scottish advocate, be there to defend me. He has made a very convincing case out of quite a thin brief, if I may say so.
It may be convenient for the House if I speak to both my amendments. Neither amendment is fatal. If the House were to pass them, they would make absolutely no difference to the order, because they are simply advice to the Government. For that reason, I am not proposing to press my amendments to a Division—and out of respect to the other place, which agreed the order unanimously without a Division.
However, that is not to let my noble and learned friend off the hook, because there are some very serious issues. What are we doing here? We are passing responsibility for a referendum that will determine the future of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament, my noble and learned friend would say. But in fact the Scottish Parliament is one man: Alex Salmond. He completely dominates the Scottish Parliament. We are passing responsibility for the conduct of the referendum to a man who has made it his life’s work to destroy the United Kingdom. We are doing so without knowing the question, without knowing the date of the referendum, without knowing the rules on expenses for the conduct of the referendum and without even knowing who is going to be allowed to vote in the referendum. That is after—how many months?—seven months of negotiation between the Government and the First Minister.
We have no commitment whatever from the First Minister that he will abide by the advice of the Electoral Commission. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace pointed out, every other party in the Scottish Parliament has said that it will abide by the advice of the Electoral Commission on the question, and on the rules of engagement and expenses—but not Alex Salmond. I wonder why that should be.
To cap it all, in November the First Minister produced his question. The question that he has suggested, which is contained in my second amendment, is:
“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”.
There is no more committed unionist in this House than I am, but I would be tempted to answer yes to that question. Scotland is an independent country. In 1707, we did not give up our status as an independent country. Indeed, the Act of Union guarantees those aspects of Scotland that make it an independent country. We have our own legal system and our own education system. We have a completely different tradition in many respects. We even have our own languages. If the question were, “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent state?”, then of course I know the answer. It is perfectly clear that it is no. By the way, any question that starts “Do you agree” is by definition a loaded question.
It is extraordinary that you have to get to Article 4(5) of the order, on the very last page, to see any mention of independence. It says:
“In this article ‘independence referendum’ means a referendum on the independence of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, held in pursuance of provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament”.
The order makes it clear that a question framed in terms of whether you think Scotland should be an independent country is, to say the least, utterly misleading.
The Electoral Commission costs a great deal of money. In fact, it costs about half what the Royal Family costs. It has a staff of 129 people but it seems to be incapable of providing the advice on the question, which it has had since 12 November, in time for the House of Commons and this House to have this debate. That is an absolute disgrace. We should have had the advice from the Electoral Commission on the question. In the very fine debate in the other place yesterday, speech after speech centred on the issue of the question, its fairness and whether the Electoral Commission’s advice would be obtained. I asked the Electoral Commission why it could not provide us with the advice and it said that it was allowed 12 weeks and that, with the Christmas period, it was very difficult for it to do so. I have to say that for the Government to bring this order before these Houses before we have that advice is just not acceptable.
As I pointed out to my noble and learned friend, 86% of the responses to the consultation said that the Electoral Commission should be responsible for overseeing the poll. Why have the Government not insisted on that? My noble and learned friend is very good with words and he gives the impression that the commission is overseeing the poll. It is not; it is in a position where it gives advice and the Scottish Government, the Scottish First Minister or the Scottish Parliament may ignore that advice.
We have also heard from my noble and learned friend the suggestion that the determination on the part of the Scottish First Minister to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds will have no implications for the rest of the UK. I find it extraordinary that this order can have rules included that make the position on broadcasting expenditure and on free post absolutely clear but that it apparently cannot make the position clear on the franchise or indeed the role of the Electoral Commission.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
Given the noble Lord’s many valid criticisms of the weak negotiating outcome that the Government have presented to us, which is really what he is complaining about, I do not think that he should underestimate the question of the political legitimacy of the First Minister should he refuse the question that is put forward. I know that that is not the noble Lord’s intention, but in the manner in which he is presenting it he is almost making it a foregone conclusion. We should make the question of fairness and political legitimacy so important in this referendum that if the commission was to recommend a question, which then, for partisan purposes, was refused by the First Minister, that would become a central element of this political campaign. Let it be known now that we would do so, that there will be a cost and that anyone who acts unfairly on this vital question for Scotland will be seen by the people of Scotland to be acting unfairly. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on that. I agree with a great deal of what he has said so far, but we must make sure that, if unfairness is deployed, there is a price to be paid for it by the leader of the SNP.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have considerable respect for the noble Lord. Of course I take his point, but what conceivable reason could Alex Salmond have for not agreeing, along with the other parties, that the Electoral Commission’s advice should be followed unless it was that he wanted to rig the question? The noble Lord says, “Ah, but there will be a political price”, but shall we spend the rest of the referendum campaign saying, “Ah, but the question is unfair”? What happens if we win or lose by a tiny margin? There will be arguments forever after about whether it was a fairly conducted referendum campaign. That is why we need to lance this boil at an early stage. It is no good setting off from the starting line and throughout the race saying, “By the way, this is not a fair race”. We have to win this race if we are to save the United Kingdom.
Just in case the noble Lord thinks that I am being partisan, I should say that I was quite struck during the debate on the order in the other place by what Mr Alistair Darling, the Member for Edinburgh South West, who is playing such a fantastic role in leading the campaign for the union in Scotland, said about passing responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament. He said:
“There is absolutely nothing wrong in that”.
However, he went on to say:
“In practice, the transfer is not just to the Scottish Parliament but to the SNP, which runs the thing as a pretty tight ship—opposition is not usually tolerated—and not just to the SNP, because, as we know, the SNP is very much run by one individual. We need to be aware that that is what we are doing”.
It is absolutely essential that we understand that. Talking about the Edinburgh agreement, he said:
“That suggests that both parties were clear that the Electoral Commission’s role was impartial and that there was an assumption that they would accept whatever it proposes. It is, therefore, disappointing that before the ink was dry on the signatures, we heard from senior members of the SNP that the Electoral Commission could say what it wanted, but it would ultimately be the SNP’s call. That would be unfortunate, in relation to both the wording of the question and the spending limits”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/13; cols. 762 and 764.]
The only thing in that with which I would argue is the use of the word “unfortunate”, for which I would substitute “disastrous”.
There is within elements of the Government and elements of the unionist campaign a creeping complacency which I find really worrying. I keep hearing people saying, “Oh, there is only 33% support for independence”. I ask them to have a look at Quebec. In the referendum for secession there, the position started off with 70% to 75% opposed to secession; in fact, it was 67:33—almost exactly where we are now. By the end of the referendum campaign, the vote against was won by 0.6%. Let us not be cavalier in giving away things that could make all the difference, such as the weighting of the question and the ability of people to get their messages out at this stage.
I point out to my noble and learned friend the causal way in which the Government regard the extension by the Scottish Parliament of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, with all the implications that that will have. I do not have a particularly strong view—actually, I do have a strong view. I do not think that 16 and 17 year-olds should have the vote, but I am open to persuasion. However, what I cannot be persuaded of is that they should have the vote for some elections but not for others. Frankly, saying that the Scottish Parliament has given them elections for the Crofters Commission and that that somehow indicates that there is no precedent for the United Kingdom is an argument of a quality to which I hope the noble and learned Lord will not stoop when he is defending me.
We are suggesting that people in Scotland should not be able to buy a packet of fags or, as someone said in the other place, a packet of sparklers, or a drink in the pub, but that they can decide the future of the United Kingdom. We are suggesting that all of this can be done on the basis of what Alex Salmond decides when he gets out of bed in the morning. This is utterly frightening. If ever there was an example of the tail wagging the dog, then this is it. The franchise should be a UK matter.
My noble and learned friend, in echoing the Secretary of State, is talking nonsense when he expounds this view of devolution. The Secretary of State for Scotland said of the order:
“This devolution of power will ensure that the details of the referendum process itself are made in Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament. That is a principle of great importance to the devolution settlement. Furthermore, the approach here respects another key feature of devolution—namely, that once a matter is passed to the Scottish Parliament, it is for that Parliament to determine the details of the legislation that follows”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/13; col. 745.]
That last is a point made by my noble and learned friend. This is not about devolution. The future of the United Kingdom is not a devolved matter; it is for the United Kingdom. It is true that the United Kingdom Government have decided to amend and use the powers in the Scotland Act to overturn the limitation in order to give the Scottish Parliament that power. I do not have a problem with that, provided that we know what we are getting ourselves into. I believe that we are at risk, given the way in which we are proceeding and the trust that we are putting in Alex Salmond. It is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop and arguing that the chickens will protest if it all goes wrong.
The Scottish Government, simply in any fairness, cannot be a participant and the referee at the same time, especially given that this First Minister has form. He was caught out telling porkies about whether he had had advice on whether we would have to rejoin the European Union if we were independent. He spent taxpayers’ money on preventing people getting, under freedom of information legislation, the facts, which turned out to be that what he had said was not true at all. He has already had a red card. I think that we should be concerned about trust.
Another point on the uncertainties that remain is about the timetable. It is absolutely ridiculous that we do not know the date of the referendum. It has to be by 2014, but everyone says that having to wait until 2014 will be hugely damaging to the Scottish economy and hugely damaging to business, will create enormous uncertainty and will bore us all to death, because we will be talking about this for far too long. We need to get on with it.
My noble and learned friend said that he was anxious to avoid talking about process and to get on with the arguments. If he is anxious to get on with the arguments, why on earth are we leaving these issues of process—the question and the rules of the referendum—open to more and more argument over a longer period? The Scottish Government are not even proposing to publish their White Paper until the end of the year—and presumably the Bill will be published after that—so we will be focusing on process because these matters have not been addressed.
Of course, the First Minister agrees with the Electoral Commission that the Scottish Government will need to be in purdah for only four weeks before the referendum. Given the disgraceful and partisan way in which the Permanent Secretary in the Scottish Office has behaved, and given the way in which Alex Salmond clearly is using his role in the Scottish Government to pursue a political agenda, I think that four weeks is far too short a time.
My noble and learned friend is right to say that we need to resolve these matters and get on with discussing the issues. I have to say to him that the UK Government have got some questions to answer as well. We cannot go on with a situation where, for example, the Ministry of Defence is saying, “No, we are not making any contingency plans as to what to do about the Trident nuclear deterrent if Scotland becomes independent and the SNP keeps its commitment to throw the nuclear weapons out of Scotland. We are not doing anything because we do not think that it is going to happen”. That is not good enough. The department should be setting out what the consequences would be in terms of the jobs lost—around 10,000 in Scotland—what the cost to the English taxpayer would be and what the future of our deterrent would be. That applies to every single government department. They should stop sitting there thinking that it is not going to happen. We have a duty to ensure that the voters know exactly what the consequences of voting for independence would be.
The SNP has a role, too. It needs to make its case. It is extraordinary that we will have to wait until the end of the year to hear how the proposal will work. It has had about 30 years to think about it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble and learned friend says 80 years. Yet we have no response. The First Minister is known as something of a gambler. Ironically, his campaign will be funded on a lottery win, on which, of course, no tax will have been paid. The other part will come from overseas supporters, such as Sean Connery. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made an important point. The Electoral Commission thinks that it is inappropriate for foreign money to be deployed in the campaign, but, once again, Mr Salmond is taking the view that he will not rule that out. Even now, overseas funds are being raised in America. I do not know what it is about the SNP that it has great stars, such as Alan Cumming and Sean Connery, who will do anything to support independence except live in the country that they are arguing should be independent.
I said to my noble and learned friend that I would not press this to the vote but, as I have listened to myself talking, I have been tempted to do so because the case seems absolutely overwhelming. Today, I want an assurance from the Minister that the Government will put pressure on Mr Salmond to answer these issues and to come forward and tell us what the question will be. Most important, we need an absolute commitment that the Electoral Commission will act as referee and its advice will be accepted.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord has called on the Government to put pressure on Mr Salmond. From time to time, it is better for some of us who are perhaps long-term opponents of Mr Salmond to keep quiet about him, but would it not be helpful if the supine Scottish media looked at the SNP and its policies, started to put them under scrutiny and started to ask serious questions about what Scotland would really be like under independence? Should we be asking them to show us that they can do their job properly?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have to say to the noble Lord that I am quite ambitious, but to suggest that I could get him to keep quiet probably is stretching reality. The media are only as good as the information that they are given. If we are honest with ourselves, the pro-union campaign has been a little slow in getting off the mark—by that, I mean the Government—and setting out the facts. We still are arguing about questions, rules and dates, all of which should have been resolved long ago. We should be talking about the consequences for jobs, employment, investment, defence and our future in the European Union. These are the matters that should be discussed. They are the very last things that Alex Salmond wants to discuss because he and his party do not have any answers as to how our financial institutions would be regulated, how we would be able to operate in a modern world and where they would be in terms of asking to join the European Union from a position of weakness.
I fear that I have gone on for far too long. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that this was the most important question in United Kingdom politics for more than 300 years. I find it sad that the involvement of both Houses of this Parliament should be so limited in a question that is so important—he is absolutely right in that respect. It seems to me odd that the mother of Parliaments is being excluded from this process. My noble and learned friend and his colleague, the Prime Minister, went to Edinburgh. They did a deal in a room, which was never discussed by Parliament. There has been no opportunity for us to do anything. I am reduced to moving an amendment that will make no difference whatever. Even then, Alex Salmond is distorting what we say. I know that Members opposite worry about Alex Salmond and the way in which he seeks to present our commitment to the United Kingdom as being in some way anti-Scottish. It is not anti-Scottish to seek to defend Scotland’s right to remain a part of the United Kingdom and to play a proud and honourable role in this process. I beg to move.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, it is a great privilege and challenge to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on a subject such as this. On this occasion he probably has more support from more people in Scotland than he ever did when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. When he started his reminiscences, it showed how long he has been involved with these matters. He mentioned that he was a leading member of the students’ union at the University of St Andrews in the days when Gordon Brown was rector of Edinburgh University. I was student president at Stirling University and a certain Mr Alistair Darling was student president at the University of Aberdeen. As he pointed out, in those days—no doubt because of his own prowess—there were some 1,500 members of St Andrews Conservative Association and only four members of the SNP. This is presumably why St Andrews did not belong to the National Union of Students but followed the policy of absolute separatism in those days. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord said but I am glad he is not pushing the amendment to a vote for reasons that I will explain. It also liberates me to agree with him more than I would have done.
Two distinct questions are being debated around this order. The first is whether the Government made a good fist of the negotiations, the handling of the communication of their argument and the consultation with Parliament. The noble Lord has just given a pretty devastating critique of all three. The second is how we, as parliamentarians, were to respond, and whether our tactical differences over the mishandling of an amalgam or ensemble of tactical questions were sufficient for us to take a strategic decision to vote to renege on that agreement. That would have placed us in an extremely difficult position because, although I agree with a great deal of his criticism, had we taken such a vote, it would have played into the hands of those in Scotland who wish to portray the Westminster Parliament as somehow opposed to this whole exercise.
I just want to make one correction. It was never promised that devolution would stop the aspirations of the Scottish people for independence or separatism or anything else. What was said was that, all other things being equal, it would minimise the chances of the people of Scotland separating themselves from the people of England. That is still absolutely true, although you would have to speculate where we would now be if, throughout the period of Mrs Thatcher and afterwards, we had never given Scotland any degree of devolution, which is the correct way of balancing that.
I will give way to the noble Lord who, in his normal, non-partisan fashion, will deal with questions concerning devolution.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I just wonder whether the noble Lord can tell me what, “devolution will kill nationalism stone dead” meant.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
It meant that the nationalist aspiration of separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom would be defeated. It meant that we would remain a partner in the United Kingdom for much longer than we would if we failed to give an inch to the aspirations of the Scottish people to meet their national consciousness through a degree of control over it. In order to prove his point, the noble Lord would have to argue that, had we not done that, the demand for separation in Scotland would be less than it is now, and I would strongly disagree. However, today I want to try to stress what unites us here, rather than historical differences.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Those people who suggested that devolution would kill nationalism or the SNP stone dead have yet to be proved wrong.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I believe that in the outcome of the referendum they will be proved to have been right. That is why I am optimistic. It is an optimism of the will, although I agree that we have to have pessimism of the intellect and to study contingencies on every front.
That leads me to the one area of disagreement that I have, which I think is important. If we do not understand the premise of what we are arguing, the conclusion will be wrong. It is not technically or politically wrong that many of these issues have been passed by the Government to the Scottish Parliament, because the question here is whether the people of Scotland wish to leave the union. The question in Wales was whether the people of Wales and the Assembly wished to change the relationship of the United Kingdom. There are two distinct things here. One is, when you want to leave a club, that is your decision; the other is, if you want to change the rules of the club, it is not your decision but the decision of everyone inside the club. That is why I believe it is right technically and legally that, following negotiations, many things have been passed down, although I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his estimate of the efficacy of the Government’s efforts in the negotiations themselves.
There were three major areas in those negotiations. One was the timing, one was the clarity and nature of the question, and the third was neutrality. On the timing, I cannot for the life of me understand why those of us in Scotland—and ultimately it is the Scottish people who will be making this decision—who have been debating this issue in some detail since at least the 1970s, and in many ways since 1707, have to wait another two years for a decision on this. I know whom it suits. It does not suit those of us who want an open debate and conclusion of this matter; it suits Alex Salmond. First, he has chosen a date which, he hopes, will be at the fag end of this Government and therefore he can draw attention to the terrible effects of five years of a Westminster-based Tory Government, as he will portray it. Secondly, the referendum will be held after four years of an SNP-led Administration in Scotland, when he can say, “You see, we didn’t frighten the horses”. To boot and for good measure, it will be the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. Therefore, I can see why he would choose to have it on that date, even if it inconveniences the rest of Scotland and two years of further dubiety about the status of our country affects our economic and social welfare. It will certainly not be in the interests of the people of Scotland, the economy or the social structures to delay the referendum that long.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Is he not also hoping for some reflected glory from the Ryder Cup and the Commonwealth Games being held in Scotland in that year as well?
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I do not know. That is possibly the case, but I have given up the psychoanalysis of prominent figures. However, I have to say: be careful. I am not frightened of Alex Salmond and I do not know why we give him the status that he appeared to be given earlier. I believe we should have the confidence to say that ultimately this decision will be made by the Scottish people. We may have a fox in charge but we do not have chickens. We have in the region of five and a half million good strong people in Scotland who will make their own decision after an aggressive argument during, as it now happens, another extended period. On the timing, I think that the Government were weak. If they had truly been speaking to the people of Scotland, they would have said, “Let’s have a decision now. We’ve been debating this for decades”.
Secondly, there were two aspects concerning the question. One was of huge strategic importance and it was whether or not to have one clear question. On that, to give credit to the Government, they stood firm and we have it. We know why the First Minister wanted the other question. It was because he thought it would be more achievable, and the way it was to be achieved was not by him admitting to his fundamentalists that he would have settled for less than full separation. And, for goodness’ sake, I hope that the Government will recognise that we are already a sturdy, independent country. What is being asked for here is separation, not independence. Like any independent person, as a country we can choose, and have done for centuries, to ally and partner with other countries in order to punch above our weight. We did so before the Reformation with France; we did so after the Reformation with the great centres of learning of Europe, such as Geneva; and we did so throughout the British Empire when we ran it—although we can blame the English for the all the ills that ensued afterwards. It would therefore be helpful if the Government referred to this as what it is: a campaign for separation, not a campaign for independence.
Lord Stephen
My Lords, I start by agreeing with the noble Lord on that issue of service men and women of the United Kingdom, and of Scotland, who should have the opportunity to vote in this referendum. The issue was raised yesterday in the other place in many good speeches on this Section 30 Motion. I listened to a great deal of that debate yesterday, and although there was full cross-party consensus on the approval of the Motion, there was also, outside the nationalists, cross-party concern. That concern is shared by me and by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, as reflected forcefully in his remarks this afternoon, and clearly in the terms of his two amendments. Before focusing on that concern, we should recognise the good points of what has been achieved and of this Motion.
Michael Moore, as Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Prime Minister deserve great credit for delivering the Edinburgh agreement. Michael Moore skilfully negotiated, no doubt with the support of my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General for Scotland, an agreement that all sides agree is a good start, and a good way forward. It has been agreed by the Prime Minister, the Scottish Secretary, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that it is central to the principles underpinning this referendum that it should be legal, decisive and fair.
Let us take those tests in turn. First, it will now be legal, by the securing today of this Section 30 Motion and its approval under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. In my view it was pretty clear, but some would say that it was a matter of doubt whether the Scottish Parliament had the legal powers to hold a referendum on independence. It is clear that those powers had not been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that doubt will be removed today by the passing of this order. That is good. Secondly, as has been mentioned by others, it will now be a decisive referendum. There will be one question only. Despite the views, interestingly, of his party, which wanted one question, the First Minister wanted two questions. Clearly, he wanted an escape route. He wanted the cover and protection of a second question on more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but that emergency exit is now being removed. There will be a simple yes/no question, which means that the decision will be clear cut. That is also good news.
We then come to the third issue about fairness, on which I want to spend a little time. It has been covered pretty fully already, but it is vital that the referendum is fair if it is to command respect. We already know the SNP-preferred referendum question. We know the question that the Government in Scotland want to ask and it is not fair; it is a biased question. My noble friend Lord Forsyth helpfully quotes it in his amendment, which asks:
“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”.
That is a rigged question on at least two grounds. I am not a great expert on these psephological matters but those who are explain that if you ask people to agree with you—do you like my tie, do you like my new haircut, do you like whatever principle—they will tend to agree in response.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
They do not think about it for two and a half years.
Lord Stephen
Indeed. Those who know about these matters say that is the first element of rigging of the question. Secondly, and on this I am more familiar because it is surely a matter of law, and of international law at that, is the issue of whether you want Scotland to be an independent country. The correct question, I am told, is whether it should be an independent or a separate state. That is not the wording that the SNP proposes. Scotland is already a country; some people in this Chamber who are fierce unionists have already said they believe it is an independent country.
I am very pleased that the Edinburgh agreement sets out that the conduct of the referendum is to be overseen by the UK Electoral Commission—not a separate Scottish body—which is seen to be fair and objective and neutral. That is wholly good news. I was also greatly encouraged when I saw John McCormick, who many people in this Chamber will know is the Electoral Commissioner for Scotland, being interviewed on this issue by the BBC. He said that it was crucial that the question put to voters was clear, simple and neutral and went on to say, very importantly, that in his view the question was the foundation—the bedrock —on which this referendum would be built. If it was flawed or biased, the whole process would be flawed and biased. I agree with him completely. I do not agree with those who say the question does not really matter and that by voting day everyone will be pretty much clear on what the referendum is about—being in or out of the United Kingdom. It is important that the question is fair and commands respect on all sides from the start.
Some say it would make only a small difference, of maybe 2% or 3% either way. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has referred to the situation in Quebec. Some are saying it would be more than that, some less. Percentages are a curious thing, are they not? If British Airways downgraded its expectations of successful landings at Heathrow by 2% or 3%, international air travel would be killed overnight. If a casino said that a roulette wheel had a built-in bias in its favour of 2% or 3%, I dare say that many gamblers might still take the chance. We should not be gambling, however, with our nation’s future.
Finally, there is the issue of who decides in all of this. Is it the Electoral Commission? No, it is quite clearly the SNP, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament that will decide the question. Can we trust the SNP on this issue? Well, no, because although it is both the player and the referee, it has made clear that the recommendations of the Electoral Commission are not binding on the Scottish Government and Parliament. Angus Robertson, in the House of Commons yesterday, and Alex Salmond, the First Minister, on Radio 4 this morning, have been given ample opportunity to make it clear, as the other leaders in the Scottish Parliament have done, that they would accept the views of the Electoral Commission on this crucial issue of bias and of avoiding anything other than an objective, neutral and fair question.
They have a mantra now, to get them out of the difficult question. The Electoral Commission will advise, says the First Minister. The Scottish Government will recommend and the Scottish Parliament will decide. Of course, as has been said, they have form on these issues of fairness, honesty and integrity—the very recent form that has been referred to, when the First Minister failed to tell Andrew Neil of the BBC the truth about whether he had taken legal advice on Scotland’s EU membership and the Scottish Government then used taxpayers’ money in the courts to resist revealing legal advice that the Scottish Government had never taken. That is the sort of “Alex in Wonderland”, topsy-turvy situation that we are dealing with. There is no honesty, integrity and consistency in a position such as that.
However, there is a deeply serious and worrying point. If this referendum is not based on a neutral question, it will be biased; if it is biased, it will not be fair; and if it is not fair, that will be a breach of the Edinburgh agreement to be “legal”, “fair” and “decisive”. In my view, we will then have a serious constitutional crisis. I trust that can be avoided and that the First Minister can rise above narrow partisanship and set a tone for this referendum that will command all-party respect right across the whole of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. On that basis, we should pass the Motion today, but remain fiercely, ferociously and for ever vigilant about the dangers that lie ahead, which could have such profound implications for both Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom if some of the fears mentioned today come to pass.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, was Deputy First Minister of Scotland and I was First Minister of Scotland, there were probably times when he felt as if he was defending me against a murder charge, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, earlier. I, too, appreciated the eloquence with which the noble and learned Lord introduced our debate this afternoon and his appreciation of devolution. I am also aware that we discuss these issues against hundreds of years of history—this month, in suppers all over the world, we will celebrate that century in which Scotland joined the union, and led the world in literature, science, engineering, philosophy and, of course, also in poetry. However, today, we debate only this order; not the outcome of a referendum and not the overall pros and cons of independence or separation.
I start my brief remarks by saying that I have believed passionately, since that 1979 referendum on devolution, that a devolved Scottish Parliament, inside the United Kingdom, is the best form of government for Scotland. I believe in shared sovereignty, which I believe we have. I also believe that despite the mistakes that have been made and will be made in the future by Scotland’s Parliament—just as this Parliament makes mistakes—Scotland is a better place today for having that devolved Parliament than it was 14 years ago.
However, we are not debating that principle today, nor the principle of independence, but the organisation of a referendum and the legal authority for it. In the 1990s and, after devolution, in the first decade of this century, I vehemently opposed the idea that there should be a referendum on independence because I believed that the uncertainty that it would create would be harmful for Scotland. However, we are in new circumstances and it is absolutely right that we now have that vote, which will decide Scotland’s future. It is time to make that decision, following the outcome of the Scottish elections last year and given the political situation in which we now find ourselves. I supported the Prime Minister last January in his announcement that he wished to see the Scottish Parliament have the legal authority to conduct a referendum and that he was prepared to enter into negotiations to secure that outcome. I supported that position enthusiastically. I thought it was the right thing to do on principle and in practice—a binding referendum is good for everyone.
However, in my view, that referendum has to be based on transparent financing and fair rules, and should have been held without delay. I made a submission to that effect to both the UK Government and the Scottish Government last March. In particular, I say again—I hope the Electoral Commission is listening—that I advocated that we should not have a single question. It is not that we should have two different questions on two different topics but that the question itself—I think the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has made this same point—should be two distinct statements, from which voters are allowed to choose: either Scotland as an independent country or Scotland as a member of the United Kingdom.
That said, we are in a different place today, and I believe strongly in the principle of respect between the United Kingdom Government here in London and the Government in Edinburgh. That agreement has to involve our being willing today to criticise the outcome of these negotiations, but also respect the fact that the Prime Minister and the First Minister have shaken hands on the deal.
I do not want to go back over all the points that have been made but, as others have said, the outcome is that the delay in this referendum will cost Scotland jobs. No one should be in any doubt about that whatever. I have met companies in the United Kingdom, North America and elsewhere that are already delaying decisions about whether to invest in Scotland. They will delay even more between now and the autumn of 2014. The way in which the UK Government agreed to the Scottish Government putting this vote off until late 2014 was a grave error by both Governments that will cost the people of Scotland and the Scottish economy dearly, not just for the next 18 months but for years to come after that.
I do not want to repeat points that were made earlier, but on the rules, an additional point is that this referendum will be divisive enough in Scotland without having rules that are perceived by one side or the other to be unfair. One can already see prominent and reasonable people in public life tearing each other apart, with relationships and friendships breaking down. This will happen increasingly over the next 18 months. To add to that any perception that the referendum is unfair or conducted with unfair rules will, in the aftermath, leave a sour taste in the mouth that will take years to overcome in Scotland, and lead to a lack of acceptance of the outcome unless it is very decisive.
I understand the point that the Government are making. The principle of devolving the legislative authority means that we will devolve the detailed decision-making as well. However I do not think it was politically impossible to strike a deal openly and transparently between all concerned in advance of this legal authority being devolved, which would have secured more details here and now. For perhaps the very first time in the 30 or so years that I have known him, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I strongly agree on that point. I suspect we will not make a habit of it. I understand that he will not press his amendments, but at the same time I think he is wrong even to suggest that we should undermine the agreement that has been reached between the Prime Minister and the First Minister.
When I was First Minister I never really had a position on whether the detailed discussions that took place between me, the Prime Minister and his colleagues should become public or not. Therefore people are perhaps not aware of when we agreed or disagreed, and when agreements were implemented or not implemented. However, there is nothing worse for those who lead Parliaments than to be in a situation in which they strike deals with other leaders but are then undermined in their negotiating position and their ability to implement it. Whatever feelings there are towards this agreement, we need to respect the fact that a deal was done, they shook hands and we now have to get on with the debate. To undermine that would leave an impression of bad faith that would be damaging for the devolution settlement as well as for the referendum campaign itself.
We should endorse the order, but we should express very clearly to the Government that the next time they negotiate with the Scottish Government, they need to negotiate much harder. However, we also need to get on with this debate. We need to make the case that, after 300 or so years—in this month when we celebrate the amazing contribution that Scotland made to the union, which we joined back in the 18th century—it is time to celebrate that and have a positive campaign. That campaign should spell out the dangers but also the hope that exists if we retain our membership of the United Kingdom and do so decisively, putting this whole debate—this division that has plagued us for decades—behind us once and for all.
Lord Nickson
My Lords, perhaps I may make three brief points. I am disappointed on two counts. It is quite right that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is not taking us through the Lobby, but after his inspiring and marvellous speech, it is a disappointment to me that I cannot go through the Lobby behind him to support him. It was one of the great speeches on an issue of huge importance to us all and it has been nobly supported on this side.
It is a slight disappointment and surprise to me that no one from the Constitution Committee of this House, which has produced the report on the agreement, has come to speak in the debate. The report is in the Printed Paper Office. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and it is wonderful to see him. I shall not delay him for more than a few seconds.
Many of us in this Chamber, and many who are not currently in the Chamber, attended a meeting this morning by courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the Minister for the Armed Forces. The meeting was about defence. It was an extremely useful meeting. Many noble Lords who are here in the Chamber made extraordinarily important points. I should like to highlight two of them. One was that it would be extremely helpful if similar meetings could take place with the other great departments of state on the other issues involved. The second was that it would be a very good thing if there was more identification of leadership from No. 10 and the Prime Minister on the Better Together campaign.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the CBI document, The Scottish Government’s Independence White Paper, which came out this week. It lists questions on all the issues to which Members of this House would want to draw attention and provides an encyclopaedic examination for the SNP and Alex Salmond. I commend the document to the House because it covers all the questions to which we seek answers. I look forward very much to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
Lord Crickhowell
Encouraged by the noble Lord who has just spoken, I should like to take the opportunity as a member of the Constitution Committee to put on the record of this Chamber some of the important points that we made in the report that we published on 13 November, a report that has been freely quoted today both by my noble friend and by others.
We made it clear that the Section 30 route that we are taking, rather than using primary legislation at Westminster, has a number of significant constitutional and legal consequences. As we can see all too clearly, and as the report states, it,
“significantly curtails the opportunity of the UK Parliament to have an effective input into the process. The Agreement was negotiated in private between the UK and Scottish Governments … There was no debate in either House of the UK Parliament on the Agreement until after it had been finalised”.
And, as we are learning very painfully this week, we said that,
“neither the House of Commons, the House of Lords, nor the Scottish Parliament will be able to amend the Order”.
We stated at paragraph 21:
“The House may consider that, despite the constitutional significance of the draft section 30 Order, the procedure makes it impossible to ensure fully effective scrutiny … It is hard to avoid the conclusion that more could have been done to include the United Kingdom Parliament in this process”.
We then made a crucial point:
“Neither the draft section 30 Order nor any other part of the Agreement stipulates what the referendum question is to be. This will be”—
as we have learnt—
“a matter for the Scottish Government to propose and for the Scottish Parliament to determine”.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity given by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to debate this issue. He is right to take the view that he has on the amendment and on whether it will be pressed. However, this is a very important debate and, as has been suggested, we must ensure that it is continued.
I want to make two points and then issue a challenge. The first point is about the question. I was invited by the three pro-union—as it turned out then—parties in Scotland to chair a small, expert group on proposing a question that would meet the criteria which we all accept. We had hoped that it would be a group invited by all four of the major parties in the Scottish Parliament, but the SNP declined to nominate someone. Such is the way of life.
We came up with a question that is rather different from the one the Scottish Government propose—different in two respects that have already been commented on. First, we rejected the rubric, “Do you agree?” Rather, we wanted a single statement, “Scotland should be an independent state”: either “yes” or “no”, or “I agree” or “I disagree”. That would very plainly settle the matter.
The second point was, of course, that we used the word “state” and not “country”. The point of the word “state” is that if you have a state, you must have a head of state, a constitution, and foreign relations—whether with the EU or with NATO or, in due course, with the Government in Westminster, not least because of your interest in the Bank of England.
It was suggested to us—we have offered this evidence to the Electoral Commission—that the word “state” is a bit complicated. However, I believe in the electorate. They will take account of what this means. It is not a technical term. As a country, we host the Commonwealth Games; as a nation, we play in the Five, or is it Six, Nations tournament; as a state, we have a constitution, a head of state and, more than that, we must have foreign relations that we negotiate with others. If one says that the electorate will not understand that difference, then they will not produce informed consent or informed dissent. It is up to those of us who are involved in this, and, for example, the wider press, to explain the differences and ensure that people understand what they are voting on. So that is the question. We have submitted that evidence to the Electoral Commission. I do not know whether it will accept it.
My next point relates to the role of the Electoral Commission. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, slipped from one phrase to another. He suggested that in previous referenda there was a question of responding to the advice of the Electoral Commission. It is one thing to respond and accept—which is the phrase he used—but he also used another phrase: that the advice was accepted in line with what the Electoral Commission said. Are they required to go in the general direction, or are they accepting the actual advice?
In the light of that, I want to finish with a challenge. Much has been made of the role of the Scottish Parliament in this. I challenge the Scottish Parliament to debate now, before the advice is out. It must say whether it will accept the advice of the Electoral Commission, and if not, say so—and say why, or why not. Then, at least, we will have the arguments and reasons laid out for the Scottish population to understand what kind of group this is. The Scottish Parliament is not the Scottish Government; it is not the SNP. I challenge it now to debate a Motion that it will or will not accept the advice of the Electoral Commission.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I am content to be associated with the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, to the Scottish Parliament and I am delighted to follow him. The earlier part of his contribution, in which he went through the elements of the proposed question and the criticisms that his expert group had made of it, was helpful and instructive. It complemented nicely the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who spoke with the authority of the Constitution Committee and its helpful report.
That report, although properly directed to a Minister of the UK Government, should really be directed to the Electoral Commission. The fact that the Constitution Committee of this House, with its modest resources, although it has a very distinguished membership, produced such an authoritative and well argued report in a comparatively short time reinforces the criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the Electoral Commission, with all its significant resources, could not produce a report on the same issue in a time that was in step with the important decisions that needed to be made in relation to the process of this referendum.
It will be of no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that even were he to divide the House, I would not have voted for his amendment. That is not because he is not a powerful advocate—he knows the view that I hold of his ability to make an argument—but for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan set out. I just think it would be bad politics at this stage in this process to support such an amendment to the Motion before the House. That is not to say that I do not have a lot of sympathy with many of the arguments that the noble Lord rehearsed, and which have been reflected in other contributions.
As I am speaking so late in the debate, I am in the fortunate position of not needing to repeat many of the points about the question, the role of the Electoral Commission or expenses. There is both the amount of expenses that the Electoral Commission proposes to allow for the conduct of the referendum and the fact that it appears that we have allowed foreign money to interfere with our domestic politics, contrary to everything that I think we would all agree on about not allowing that to happen. There are people taking advantage of that to bring in foreign money to influence significantly the conduct of this decision in Scotland. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that if our regulatory legislation on the conduct of elections has such an obvious lacuna in it that we are allowing foreign money to be used in this way to affect political decisions in this country, it is incumbent on us quickly to close that loophole. As it appears that it is planned that the referendum will take place in late 2014, we have the time to do that. If we can do something to achieve the closing of a lacuna in our electoral regulations to stop this happening, it is incumbent on us to do it. We all agree that we should not allow foreign money to be used in this way and should do something about it.
I intend to concentrate on a small number of points which I think are genuinely additional to what we have already heard. My first point is in support of the noble and learned Lord’s argument that this is being done properly in devolving the power to the Scottish Parliament. I was interested in the irony of the argument that my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan deployed for this: the analogy of those leaving the club being entitled to make this decision for themselves, while those who stay and want to change the rules have to do that with everybody in the club. I may be wrong, but I think the first time I heard that analogy was when it was deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, in making the argument that there should be only one question in this referendum and that if we went on to the issue of devolution max—a phrase that has slipped away from this debate, thank goodness—that was a matter for everybody in the United Kingdom, not just one for the people of Scotland, and that it therefore had no part in this referendum. I agreed with him then. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may be sitting there thinking that there is a degree of irony that this argument was deployed so skilfully by my noble friend Lord Reid to undermine the argument that the noble Lord was making.
However, there is an additional argument as to why it is right, in the circumstances that we find ourselves in politically and democratically, that we should devolve this power to the Scottish Parliament. The current Scottish Government won an overwhelming majority, a majority that overwhelmed all of the other unionist parties in the Scottish Parliament in 2011 on a manifesto that pledged to deliver a referendum on the issue of independence. Of course we can say that was beyond the competence of that Parliament and we can make all these clever arguments, but actually we were left with a democratic problem. The answer to that problem—we have to face up to the political reality of that—is to give the Scottish Parliament the power to run this and then deal with the issues in that context.
My second point is about the way in which we are proceeding. I agree with all of the points that the Constitution Committee has made, which are essentially criticisms of the way in which the Edinburgh agreement was concluded and presented and the lack of parliamentary involvement, scrutiny and engagement in that. But that agreement has now been made. We have to decide whether to respect that agreement made by the UK government leadership and the leadership of the Scottish Government. We have chosen to respect it, and I think that is right. It appears that we have here an order that we have a role to play in, which is what we are doing now. We also have an interesting constitutional linkage between the order and the agreement, the status of which appears to be a matter of dispute. I say that because I understand that the principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government is describing the agreement in a very particular way that is in contradiction to the way in which it is being described here. What is the legal status of the Edinburgh agreement? Can it be used by those who seek now to use it as some sort of legal platform to allow them to do other things, or is it, to paraphrase what the Secretary of State for Scotland said, simply an agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government as to how the referendum is to be run?
That leads me on to my third point, which is directly about the question. I will be astonished, as I think everybody will be, if the Electoral Commission does other than advise the Scottish Government that the draft question that they have proposed is inappropriate and will have to be changed quite radically, for all of the reasons that we have heard. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, in an excellent speech, described it as a misleading question. The fundamental problem with it, from my point of view, is not that it is misleading but that it is leading—leading in the way in which lawyers deploy that word: it is a question that begs its answer. A question that can instinctively be answered yes, as the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, suggested, is a leading question. In certain parts of the conduct of legal proceedings, we have a history and a tradition of not allowing those sorts of questions to be asked because they lead the witness to an answer. We do that for the very good reason that in certain circumstances, when people are engaged in that kind of a relationship with an interrogator, they incline to say what the person wants to hear. So it is a leading question, and I cannot for the life of me believe that the Electoral Commission will say that it is an acceptable question.
The real issue is whether the combination of this order and the agreement that the UK Government have extracted from the Scottish Government lead to the Scottish Government putting before the Parliament that they control effectively a proposal in a Bill for a question that reflects the advice that the Electoral Commission has given. In other words, will they respond properly to that advice? Whether we can have confidence that the man who leads the Government at the moment can be trusted to do that or not, we need to know that there is some form of audit or enforcement of that process that goes beyond our ability to be able, at some future election, to make the nationalists pay the price for what they did then, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said.
In those circumstances, is it legitimate to consider that a refusal to take that advice and an insistence on a question—a question which the Electoral Commission said was entirely inappropriate and leading and misleading for that reason—is reviewable in a legal sense in the light of the agreement that the Scottish Government have entered into with the UK Government? I ask that not because I am such a clever lawyer that I have worked it out for myself, but because I had an informal conversation with one of the leading legal brains in this country, whom I will not identify, who suggested to me that such a decision would be reviewable. If there is a preponderance of that view among other leading lawyers in the United Kingdom, that will be enough to ensure that the Scottish Government behave in the way in which we want them to.
That is an example of exactly the sort of thing that it is quite legitimate for us as politicians and the UK Government to be exploring publicly in this environment. When we debated the Scotland Bill we had concerns about what the Government would agree with the Scottish Government. We set them off, in a sense, with a mandate not to do certain things. They have to be congratulated on coming back and meeting a substantial part of that mandate. The noble and learned Lord who will be responding to this debate deserves a significant degree of credit. The way in which he conducted himself in the early stages of this controversy, particularly the speech he made at the University of Glasgow, changed the whole tenor of the debate in Scotland. He carefully and calmly pointed out the legal basis of the powers of the Scottish Parliament and of the UK Government in the devolution settlement. He did the same thing on Scotland’s potential membership of the European Union, in a speech he skilfully gave in Edinburgh, and changed the debate.
However, there are still some issues for which we could use the same sort of devices to shift in a way that would allow us to have the confidence that this referendum would be legal, fair and decisive when it is conducted.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am not a lawyer and I wonder whether the noble Lord might give me some free legal advice. I asked my noble and learned friend why the Edinburgh agreement was not linked to the order. Perhaps naively, I assumed that it was to avoid any litigation. This whole process was started on the basis of trying to get a legal base that would avoid any legal challenges interrupting the process. Is the noble Lord arguing that there would be the opportunity for litigation if it was linked, or is he arguing that there might be an opportunity even if it was not linked?
Lord Browne of Ladyton
There is at least an issue worth exploring as to whether, with the current arrangement of an agreement—a public agreement, which raises a level of expectation—and the order, if the Scottish Government behave in a particular way, the decision to do so might be judicially reviewable. I do not look forward to the prospect of getting bogged down in litigation which might end up in the Supreme Court, for the obvious reasons of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the Scottish Government. I do not want to resurrect all that, but if there is something in this—I think there may be—the very fact that it is being aired in the public domain with reliable, informed and trustworthy legal advice, such as the sort of advice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, gave publicly on previous issues of controversy, could well settle these issues so that we could have confidence that we were moving forward. That is my point.
My final point is that at one stage not too long ago we were led to believe that the UK Government would deploy their resources in such a way that we would get a series of papers that would set out their view on the implications of independence for Scotland and its separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. That information is crucially important to the debate. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will take the opportunity when he replies to the debate to indicate to the House where we are in the expectation of that. We know that the Scottish Government are deploying all of their resources towards the objective of a yes vote in the referendum in 2014. There is no reason at all why the UK Government, whose policy is to keep the United Kingdom together, should not deploy extra resources in order to achieve that objective. We should be utterly open about that. The sooner the Government are able to do that, to disaggregate that information from the information that only they hold for the rest of us to be able to deploy in this debate, the better. I am delighted that we have this order now because we are getting to the meat of the issue. I am desperate to get to the meat of the issue, but I want to be in a position where I can make arguments that are convincing.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, I would like to touch on three points, first on process, then on content and finally on effect. I want to go back a bit further than we have done so far this afternoon. Today we are dealing with one of the myriad Henry VIII powers that are contained in the Scotland Act. As your Lordships will know, the Act itself was almost exclusively the product of an ad hoc body that called itself the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The fact that it contains so many Henry VIII powers, it seems to me, was the product of an approach that said, “We don’t really know what we eventually want, but let’s make a start and then we can see how it works as we go along”. So far, the Library tells me, Governments of whatever persuasion have been able to unearth 31 powers in the Act and pass 194 amendments to Schedule 5.
Given the state of politics in Scotland, contrary to the expectations of all the wise constitutionalists who set things in motion, the Scottish Nationalists have achieved such an overall majority that the need for a referendum on independence has developed a certain urgency. That need is to determine what the true convictions of the Scottish people are.
The power contained in Section 30(2) is possibly the most far-reaching in the Act. As was pointed out in the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, as we heard earlier, this power has already been used 10 times for things that varied from equality and human rights to the railways. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, the committee also commented that the use of,
“the section 30 route significantly curtails the opportunity of the UK Parliament to have an effective input into the process”.
Today we are asked to pass this outwardly fairly simple order. Noble Lords will notice that it shares one outstanding feature with the Scotland Act 2012. Both are remarkable for what they do not say. This time we have got rather more in the memorandum of agreement, but here we are being asked to pass measures that are not even as yet in secondary legislation. Noble Lords have touched on reducing the voting age to 16, an issue that is bound to have repercussions on all elections that take place in the UK, whatever anyone likes to say. In fact a Bill has been tabled in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who I see is not in his place, when we will be able to look at this issue in the round. Here the issue is tucked away in a memorandum of agreement and we will not spend much time considering it.
The fact that we now find ourselves in a country with a devolved franchise, which is nominally giving restricted powers to other parts of the United Kingdom, appears to mean that the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament can no longer be adhered to. We get framework orders such as this that are merely to approve powers that the Government have already assumed for themselves. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on the Government’s statement in answer to one of Monday’s amendments to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. The amendment asked that the Secretary of State should be able to alter the franchise for elections by secondary legislation. The Minister said that they,
“believe that the franchise for UK elections should remain set out in primary legislation. It would be very unusual to provide for a change to the franchise in secondary legislation”.—[Official Report, 14/1/13; col. 489.]
What about memorandums of agreement? The agreement is such that we have a considerable—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Rather than allow a misunderstanding to continue, a memorandum of agreement does not change the franchise for the Scottish election. If it were to be changed, that would have to be done by means of primary legislation in the Scottish Parliament. Every referendum has its own franchise. The consequence of passing this order is that the franchise would be determined by the Scottish Parliament. There is an agreement that it should first and foremost be the franchise for Scottish elections and local elections. If the Scottish Government wish to extend it to 16 and 17 year-olds, that will require primary legislation in the Scottish Parliament.
The Duke of Montrose
I thank my noble and learned friend for that clarification but the underlying issue still bears consideration. On independence, I think that what we are faced with is that some regard Scottish history as having been a wasted opportunity either after Flodden in 1513 or after the Darien scheme in 1698, and they wish to wipe the record clean and begin again with a new and enlightened polity—centuries of Scottish toil brushed carelessly aside.
We can all see that in the intervening period there have been some remarkable individual Scots whose lives have marked moments of great progress for mankind, including Adam Smith, the framers of the United States constitution and David Livingstone. They can all stand on their own merit but in some ways, backing up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, when we begin to consider what Scotland’s contribution has been in the wider world, the vast bulk of it has been achieved within the union that is the United Kingdom.
Of course, as we contemplate the accumulation of events—the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, raised the same issue—we are now learning that perhaps some of the elements were far from activities of which we should be proud. Overall, though, I maintain that Scotland has much to show for those years, and it is not something that can be easily shrugged off in a moment of enthusiasm for whatever appears new.
The nature of Scotland is such that big opportunities generally have been seen in the wider world outside. We can all see that independence can have a great attraction to the stay-at-home Scots, as long as Alex Salmond can continue to pull in sufficient funds to maintain the level of what we have come to regard as our inalienable rights. However, what can a vote for independence offer to our young people who are pursuing a career path in the corridors of power or in more widespread and influential businesses and marketplaces, or those who wish to establish businesses there? Will they not have to accept that they will be even more regarded as non-nationals in their place of work and increasingly unable to have a vote and influence in what is still their home?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Perhaps I may follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who has spoken so elegantly, as always, in this debate, as I did on a number of occasions during the passage of the Scotland Bill. Perhaps I may inform Members of this House, not all of whom may be au fait with social media, that this debate is being very well covered. Already the key comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friends Lord McConnell and Lord Robertson have appeared on Twitter. That is a very interesting development, and I shall return to that.
The Scottish Government appear to want—I think that we have to be very careful about the words that we use, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in an intervention—to manipulate the way in which things will turn out in this referendum. It is very important to indicate clearly that separation is very different from any kind of devolution. As shown in the recent somewhat confusing vote regarding membership of NATO, the Scottish Government are going out of their way, in wanting to keep the Queen and in hoping to keep the pound, to try to make it appear that this separation, which will be drastic and irreversible, is no different from the vote that we had on devolution. It is completely different and we must keep saying that.
I referred to funding in an intervention, and I hope that we will get a reply. Again, there seems to be an attempt to manipulate or to try to make sure that the outcome moves in a particular direction, with funding coming from all sorts of sources for the yes campaign, particularly from overseas. We need to know that there will be a ruling, not advice, and to know exactly what the ruling will be and who will make it, so that there will be a level playing field.
Another issue that has appeared in social media—it was reported on Twitter—was that Alex Salmond said today, in an interview on Radio 4:
“The first job of the Scottish Parliament would be forming a constitution”.
There is a misunderstanding of what would happen in the event of a yes vote, on which I think almost all of us here agree, although the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has not spoken yet. An assumption is being made—an impression is being created—by the supporters of the yes vote that there would suddenly be independence. I hope that the Minister will indicate that it would be a long and difficult process in relation to issues such as the national debt and a whole range of others that will have to be negotiated.
A separate Scottish state could not be created until there had been legislation in this United Kingdom Parliament. Surely, there would have to be further legislation before there could be a separate Scottish state. The referendum is not enough. The detail would have to be worked out. There would have to be negotiations. Some people have suggested, and I hope that the Minister will comment on this, that there might need to be a further referendum on the acceptance of the negotiations at the end of that. I am not sure if that would be the position but it certainly seems arguable that that could be the position.
My main point relates to the report by the Select Committee on the Constitution, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It covered a number of points. Paragraph 27 of the report states:
“It may be, therefore, that irrespective of the legal status of the MoA as a whole, different provisions within the MoA are capable of generating different levels or different kinds of legal or constitutional obligations or expectations”.
Paragraph 28 states:
“It cannot safely be said that the arrangements proposed put the matter beyond all legal challenge”.
My noble friend Lord Browne has already raised the question of legal challenge in relation to the wording of the question. I hope that the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, does not mind my saying, but earlier I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with him and he indicated that there may be options of legal challenge here as well. I do not think that it should be used as a threat in any way but we should alert people, the public generally and elected Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, to the dangers of that kind of thing.
Lord Crickhowell
While this question was left in the air, we were conscious that at the very least it might be another cause for substantial delay while the legal question was settled.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I think that that has reinforced the point.
I also want to raise the question of 16 and 17 year-olds, as I have done on a number of occasions. I do not think that people have realised—and certainly the Scottish Government have not realised—the practical problems of identifying and putting these 16 and 17 year-olds on the register. It has been estimated that there may only be a few thousand who are ultimately eligible to vote. We should ask the Scottish Government to tell us how they are going to do this. It has already been made clear that they will have to undertake and fund it; we should ask them how they are going to carry it out.
Finally, one particular problem is that there is so much preoccupation with the referendum by the Scottish Government, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, by members of the Scottish Cabinet and SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament—they are so preoccupied with the run-up to it and winning it—that other areas that we have devolved to them are being ignored. The health service is not being properly supervised and problems have already been raised. Some of our Labour colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have brought up these concerns. In education, housing, and social work, problems have been raised that are not being properly addressed. We should say to Members of the Scottish Parliament, and particularly to the Scottish Government, that a whole series of very important matters has been devolved to them and they should not let their preoccupation with the referendum and with trying to win it take their attention away from doing a good job in the areas already devolved.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Forsyth began his speech he said to my noble friend the Minister that if he were on a charge of murder he would happily employ my noble friend as his defence counsel. I hope my noble friend is honing his skills because they may be needed. I get the impression that my noble friend Lord Forsyth has a completely unhealthy obsession with the First Minister of Scotland, and it is not one that I share. It may go back to the fact that they were at university together, but I thought that his otherwise powerful speech was spoilt by too many references to one individual of whom we should not be afraid.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am certainly not obsessed with the First Minister but I think it is legitimate to point out that when my noble friend talks about the Scottish Parliament and so on, we all know that the Scottish Parliament is completely dominated by the First Minister. None of the members of the SNP is able to say a word but by his leave. So it is important to realise that, when we think we are devolving power to the Scottish Parliament, we are talking about giving power to Alex Salmond because he calls the shots.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My noble friend has just repeated the point I am trying to make—that he is totally obsessed by one individual. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who pointed out that, whether we like it or not, the SNP secured the democratic mandate and this order enables it to carry that out and to hold the referendum. For that reason I support the order.
There are lessons to be learnt from the mistake—the misjudgment—that has been made to keep postponing the process to 2014. This has been mentioned by several other speakers. It is important to notice the difference between this situation and the one in Quebec: during the two years that we have been debating this issue, the support for independence has been going down, not up. This is extremely significant. I suggest that the reason it has been going down is that, quite apart from the 35 questions from the CBI which the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, referred to, there have been three major issues on which the Scottish Government have been found wanting. One already referred to is the legal advice—or rather lack of it—on joining the European Union.
I remember the SNP campaigning very strongly on independence in Europe—in other words, it was not only going to join the European Union, it was also going to sign up to the euro. That has suddenly disappeared: I cannot think why. The SNP is no longer advocating joining the euro. That uncertainty about the relationship of a future independent Scotland with the European Union—on which there was an interesting, long interview this morning on Radio 4—is one of the reasons why support has slowly withered away. The second reason, which is related to it—
Lord Reid of Cardowan
Will my noble friend give way? He has helpfully reminded me that there is another implication of that slogan, of course, because just as you can be independent in Europe you can be independent in the United Kingdom. What you are not is separate, which reinforces the points that we made earlier on.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
Indeed, I was going on to say that one of the other uncertainties that has been exposed during this prolonged debate is the question of what currency would be used. If the euro is out, and we are not having a separate Scottish pound because we are going to rely on the Bank of England, what sort of independence is that? So the second bit of unravelling has been on the whole issue of the financing of an independent Scotland.
The third—which has also been mentioned by others so I will not go into detail—is on Trident and the defence role of an independent Scotland. My party and I have long been opposed to the replacement of the Trident system—in fact we were opposed to the initial replacement of Polaris by Trident. That is at least a position of principle, even if people disagree with it. What is unacceptable is for the SNP to say, “We want rid of Trident, but we are quite happy if it goes to Devonport or Barrow-in-Furness or somewhere else”. That is not a credible position. Nor is the position, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, pointed out earlier, of saying, “We would like to join NATO because that makes people feel comfortable, but we will not accept any of the obligations of joining”.
For all these reasons, the longer the debate has gone on—and I have argued before that that was a mistake because people would become bored by it and the uncertainty would not be good for Scotland nor for investment in Scotland—the more the support for independence has declined.
Among those of us who campaigned in the 1980s and 1990s for the restoration of the Scottish Parliament, there was an unspoken assumption that, if we got a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government, then the future Scottish Government and the future UK Government would collaborate in the interests of the people of Scotland. Indeed, it is fair to say that, in the first years of devolution, that did happen. Of course there were disagreements occasionally between the two Governments but basically they were both pursuing the best interests of the people of Scotland. I think the biggest single reason why support for independence has declined is that that does not appear to be the position of the SNP Government. Their position is not, “What can we do together with the UK Government to better the life of the people of Scotland?” It is rather, “What can we do to promote the SNP?”. That is a very different position.
During the Olympic Games, the Scottish Government hired the Army and Navy Club in London, at a cost of £400,000 of our taxpayers’ money, to entertain athletes and others visiting the Games: in fact, very few people went. They could have had Dover House for nothing—a substantial building, right in the centre of London, well known—but of course it belonged to the UK Government, so it did not suit the ideal of the SNP. That is a trivial example of what I am saying—that the motivation throughout has been what is in the best interests of the SNP.
I end with the question that everybody else has been raising about the decision on respecting the judgment of the Electoral Commission. Why is the SNP not willing to say now that it will accept that judgment? It is because it wants to promote the interests of the SNP. The more people realise this, the more the support for independence will continue to decline.
I support this order. I am not complacent about the outcome but I am confident that, because of this constant shifting of position by the Scottish Government, in the end people will say that they do not want to make that leap in the dark.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, every voice that we have heard so far has been a unionist voice. I realise that I may be in a small minority—perhaps even a minority of one—in this Chamber in wishing the people of Scotland well in their quest for independence; none the less, I wish to see a new relationship between the nations of these islands: a new partnership of free and equal self-governing nations co-operating with each other and with partners in the European Union and the wider world.
Today’s debate has involved a series of attacks on the SNP in general and on Alex Salmond in particular, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, a moment ago. It may well cross the minds of noble Lords that it is a little strange that this House—one of the two Houses of the UK Parliament—does not have any voices from Scotland that represent nationalist aspirations, which is, after all, the driving force behind the forthcoming independence referendum.
I fully understand that the SNP has stuck resolutely to a policy of not putting forward nominations officially in the party name—as indeed did my party, Plaid Cymru, until five years ago. The experiences that my party suffered at the hands of a former Prime Minister may well have persuaded the SNP, which might be sympathetic to securing a voice in this Chamber, not to bother pursuing the matter. Noble Lords may well wish to ponder on the acceptability of a system whereby the leader of one party—albeit a Prime Minister—can determine whether another party, with MPs in the House of Commons, can be denied a voice in one of the two Chambers of the British Parliament.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will accept that the only responsibility for this situation lies with the Scottish National Party itself. Many of us have argued that there should be representation in this Chamber. In particular, I have argued that Mr George Reid, the Presiding Officer who succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and who worked with me when I was First Minister, would be an excellent Member of this Chamber. However, because he rightly feels some loyalty to his former party and that party will not put him forward, he is not sitting here. That is wrong, but the responsibility for it lies entirely with the nationalist party, which will not make that decision.
Lord Wigley
I hear what the noble Lord says. Indications that I have had from Mr George Reid may be slightly different from the interpretation that the noble Lord has given. However, I have no doubt whatever that there were those within nationalist Scotland—not necessarily even members of the SNP—who would have been willing to serve the interests of their country in this House. Be that as it may, the fact that they are not here and therefore cannot participate in this debate is unfortunate. That is why I am contributing, although I have no authority to speak on behalf of the SNP and I certainly would not presume to do so. It is not for someone from Wales to tell the Scottish people what is best for them; nor indeed is it for those from England or Northern Ireland to do so. The decision on whether Scotland should be an independent country lies with the people of Scotland and Scotland alone. I am glad that the draft order before us today arises from the Edinburgh agreement, whereby it will be the Scottish Parliament and not Westminster that determines the date, franchise, question, referendum rules and campaign spending limits. The proposed arrangements for the referendum will be initiated by the Scottish Parliament. The Electoral Commission will then have an opportunity to give its views, and those views will be duly considered by the Scottish Parliament before a final decision is taken. That is the implication of the Edinburgh agreement.
I noted one important point in today’s debate relating to Scottish servicemen based overseas. I know that there are SNP MPs and MEPs who are also actively aware of this and I very much hope that a resolution of the issue can be found.
As I understand it, the resolution in the Scottish Parliament supporting this order was passed unanimously by that Parliament. I also understand that every one of the Westminster parties supports the order. This shows how Governments can work together to achieve a sensible outcome, and I believe that it is to the credit of both the Government of Scotland and the Government of the UK that this has been achieved. It is an indication that Governments can, indeed, work together harmoniously. I have no doubt that if Scotland becomes an independent country as a result of the referendum, there will be equally harmonious co-operation between the Governments in London and Edinburgh thereafter. There has been talk today of litigation and judicial reviews but that sits a little uneasily with the type of co-operation that I have just described.
It is truly excellent that there should be such co-operation and that the referendum will be seen as “Made in Scotland”. That gives greater confidence that the outcome, whichever way it goes, will be acceptable to all the Scottish people as a democratic decision taken by the Scottish nation. I am sure that no one in this Chamber from outside Scotland would want to gainsay that or dispute the fact that this should be a decision for Scotland. To that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, is quite correct that the referendum in Wales on providing further devolution is different from the question of independence and raises the question of whether referenda are really necessary for every small step of further devolution. That was not the case with the Scotland Act last year. There are, of course, implications for the rest of the United Kingdom, and no doubt these will be debated during the referendum campaign, as is right and proper. However, they are not issues that should delay the progress of the draft order before us today.
Lord Martin of Springburn
I agree with the noble Lord: we should not personalise this debate. The First Minister has a case to put the same as the rest of us, and we should not attack anyone—particularly the First Minister—on a personal basis.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. Certainly, not all speakers have done that. I noted the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, which was very constructive. It hit a tone that can help to ensure that there is no dispute on matters that are irrelevant to the central question. That central question is whether people want independence. No doubt there are arguments to be had on that and the other issues should be put to one side.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I do not know whether the noble Lord is about to conclude but he has covered everything except one point. It is the main point here and concerns the nature of the question. Does he accept that under any referendum a leading question is an unfair premise on which to base a democratic decision?
Lord Wigley
Yes, of course, I accept that without reservation. The point is whether the question that has been proposed is a leading question, and there will be differences of opinion on that. I have no doubt that the Electoral Commission will give its opinion on the question and of course the Scottish Parliament will take considerable note of what the Electoral Commission says. It would be strange if it did not. However, to suggest that the Scottish Parliament or any Parliament should automatically accept the ruling of a body such as this takes the issue much further. If we were to argue that Westminster should automatically, under any circumstances, always accept the suggestions put forward by the Electoral Commission, irrespective of whether the Government or indeed the whole Parliament agreed with it, that would be unacceptable here, and I suggest that it would be unacceptable in the context of Scotland as well.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
With respect, the noble Lord has set up a straw man. I did not suggest that every recommendation should be accepted. I suggested that if the question is deemed by the arbitration body, which is neutral, to be a leading question, you should make it plain in advance that you will accept that particular piece of advice. The noble Lord says that no one should ever do it, but perhaps I may say that I would do it. If a referendum were being proposed by any Government, including a Labour Government, which the Electoral Commission said was being skewed by a leading question, I would accept the arbitration of the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord implied that he would as well if the question was denoted by a neutral body as a leading question. The question that we have been asking is why that cannot be done by the First Minister and the SNP in Scotland.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If indeed the Electoral Commission were to come out and say in categorical terms that this is a leading question and is totally unacceptable, and that that is clear cut in its opinion, then that opinion must be taken on board by the Scottish Parliament. I have no doubt that it would take good note of any such recommendation. I have faith in the democratic process in Scotland. However, to say that whatever the Electoral Commission says, the Scottish Parliament must accept its ruling as opposed to the decision of elected representatives, is surely one step too far. Be that as it may, I support the draft order that is before us today. I hope that the House will give it a unanimous backing so that we can move forward to the next stage of this process and, ultimately, secure a referendum, whatever the outcome, that is a credit to democracy.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, whom I am very pleased to call a friend, said that his would probably be the only voice advocating independence. Mine appears to be the only English voice in this debate today. We have heard two from Wales and the rest from Scotland. I particularly wanted to take part because this is not a Scottish issue. This is an issue that affects the whole United Kingdom. As I have said in this House before, we all have varied backgrounds, and it is very difficult to isolate the pure Scottish from the pure English. I consider my identity as English, and yet the background of my family is Scottish for centuries. My elder son lives in Scotland with a Scottish wife, and my two grandchildren go to school in Edinburgh. My son considers himself Scottish, so Scottish indeed that he acted as the election agent for the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Steel—because he has gone Lib Dem—in a recent election.
Lord Cormack
Yes, indeed, successfully. That, of course, in its simple way illustrates the fact that within this Chamber and within this country, there are very few of us who can say that we are wholly this, that or the other. It is therefore important that there be English voices in this debate. After all, England is by far the largest country in the union, and we will all be affected for generations to come if, on the anniversary of Bannockburn, the Scottish people vote to sever their links with the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth made an absolutely splendid speech. He has been taken to task by one or two people for being too personal. I would like to dissociate myself from personal attacks but also to agree with the substance of what he said. I know Alex Salmond very well. I met him on the first day that he came into the other place. Quite by chance, my wife and I and our family found ourselves for successive years taking holidays on the beautiful island of Colonsay at the same time as Alex Salmond, and having many an agreeable conversation at the bar. He is an engaging man. Personally, he has many delightful qualities. However, he is one of the two most skilful politicians in the United Kingdom at the moment, the other being Boris Johnson. We underestimate his political skill, dexterity and ability at our peril. We must take him very seriously, and we cannot assume that the referendum will go the way that most of us in this Chamber would like it to go.
As I listened to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, and as he was almost convincing himself that he was wrong not to press this to a Division, so he was almost convincing me. Of course I accept his judgment and I will not attempt to divide the House. However, the agreement that was negotiated was not so much an agreement as a capitulation. The Prime Minister, for whom I have high regard, and the Secretary of State for Scotland had Mr Salmond running rings around them. They conceded far too much. It is a great pity that the Parliament of the United Kingdom in its two Houses will not have a greater say in these crucial decisions that will be taken. The Scottish Parliament will be judge and jury when it comes to deciding the question.
We all know what the question to the Scottish people is. It could be framed in the simple terms, “Do you wish to leave the United Kingdom?”. However, what is being proposed at the moment is certainly, as has been said, a leading question. It invites the answer that Mr Salmond would like. That is why over these next months—we have less than two years—it is important that the series of papers that has been referred to is produced not only by the British Government but by the cross-party alliance that is being spearheaded in Scotland by Mr Darling—an admirable choice, I believe. It must be spelt out to the Scottish people, whose decision this ultimately is—I am not one of those who advocates every citizen in the United Kingdom having a vote—just what they will be losing and what they will be leaving.
I was delighted that the question of the votes of Scottish service men and women, who serve our country, often in extremely dangerous circumstances, was brought up in this debate. They of all people, wherever they are temporarily domiciled, must have the opportunity to cast a vote on the future of the country for which they are prepared on a daily basis to lay down their lives.
It is going to be an extremely interesting and, I hope we can say, good-humoured period. However, the stakes are extremely high. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed to the dangers of bitterness creeping in. Of course, he did so with his background knowledge—knowledge that we all have—that of all wars, the bitterest are always civil wars. This will be a civil war of words, to a degree. It is crucially important that we try to keep it good-humoured. That is why, although it is right to talk about the political skills of our opponents, we do not seek to denigrate them personally as individuals.
I very much hope that there will be an opportunity during the coming 18 months for those of us who have Scottish links, Scottish roots and Scottish branches of our family to play a part in this debate. We need to say to the people of Scotland, “You are a fundamental and integral part of the United Kingdom, and we need you because we need each other”. The United Kingdom is far more than the sum of its individual parts, and there is no individual part that has made a greater contribution to our history and success as a nation than Scotland. We do not want to lose that.
There is no point in resurrecting all the arguments over devolution. I remember them well because I was in the House of Commons when the very first Scottish National Party Member, Donald Stewart of the Western Isles, came—he was a lovely man. I saw all this, and took part in debates in the early 1970s and throughout that decade. Big mistakes were made by both major political parties. The biggest mistake made by the Conservative Party was neglecting to recognise the reality of the first devolution vote. It failed because it did not clear a parliamentary hurdle but it indicated aspirations in the Scottish people. During those 18 years, I was one of a group who went to see Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, to beg that something be done: perhaps we should start having the Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Scotland regularly and frequently; or there should be a consultative assembly of Scottish local authorities. Sadly, she did not want to listen. That was a great mistake.
I will never forget travelling up to Scotland on the sleeper and having a dram or two with Donald Dewar in 1996. I said, “What would have happened, Donald, if we had done that in 1979 or 1980?”. “You’d have shot our fox”, he said, “but it’s far too late now”. We are, as they say, where we are. We have a United Kingdom. There are cracks and fractures and it is our duty collectively to repair them. I am sorry that the order is phrased as it is. I am sorry that so many concessions have been made, but those of us who believe in the United Kingdom all have a duty to fight for its integrity in the year ahead.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, my view of the Edinburgh agreement is closer to the noble Lord’s than that of the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. I scored the Edinburgh agreement a three-to-one win to the First Minister of Scotland. He seemed to lose on the number of questions but he won on the franchise, which is not a very important point; he won on the date, a more important point; and he won on the big point, which is the question itself. It is to that issue that I want to come back. I shall follow what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood and Lord Browne of Ladyton, and ask the Minister for a view on the internal wording of the Edinburgh agreement and its significance. I am referring to paragraphs 8 and 12.
In paragraph 8 we are told:
“Consistent with provisions in PPERA”,
the Electoral Commission will review the wording for its intelligibility. I do not know why these words are there but they worry me. Paragraph 12 has a straightforward reference to the PPERA, which gives the Electoral Commission responsibility for,
“commenting on the wording of the referendum question”.
What is the remit given to the Electoral Commission? The Constitution Committee’s excellent report—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for reading from it—shows that that committee, too, is nervous on that point. It says:
“We trust and believe that the Electoral Commission will be rigorous in assessing the question and will give candid and fearless advice on the wording proposed by the Scottish Government”.
It says that,
“the Electoral Commission will consider whether the referendum question … presents the options clearly, simply and neutrally … we would expect any departure from the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on the wording of the question to be robustly scrutinised. We hope that there will be no such departure”.
I share all those sentiments, obviously.
Why is the word “intelligibility” there? Why is it necessary to have the narrower definition of the role of the Electoral Commission? It is easy to envisage a question that is completely intelligible but also leading or misleading. I am nervous about the role of the Electoral Commission in this respect. I do not want to exaggerate the point. It would be resolved if the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, were accepted. We need to know the view of the Edinburgh Parliament in principle on what it would do—not when it has seen the language but its view of the language produced by the Electoral Commission.
Lord Crickhowell
The noble Lord’s question is particularly apposite as to why this limited reference was made when one considers that the Electoral Commission in 2009 set out the referendum question assessment guidelines, which included:
“Is the question written in neutral language, avoiding words that suggest a judgement or opinion, either explicitly or implicitly?”.
That takes it much further than the question that has just been raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
That is precisely the point that I am trying to make. Is the reference to “intelligibility” in some way limited to it or could it be construed in a court of law as in some way limiting the normal role of the Electoral Commission and its role envisaged in 2009?
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Is not the agreement made between the Prime Minister and the Scottish First Minister a gentleman’s agreement? It is not an international treaty, which can be made only between sovereign states. Although everything that the noble Lord says has every relevance in the moral context, in terms of legal consequence and strict constitutionality it must be the case that it is no more and no less than a gentleman’s agreement, binding, of course, as it is.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
That is where I was going, although I would like to hear the Minister’s answer to my question on how one reads paragraphs 8 and 12 together.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I wonder whether it would be helpful to do so now, as it has been raised. The word “intelligibility” is used because Section 104(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, passed by this Parliament, states, in relation to a referendum question, that the Electoral Commission,
“shall consider the wording of the referendum question, and shall publish a statement of any views of the Commission as to the intelligibility of that question”.
That is why the word, “intelligibility” has been taken from the statute and put into the memorandum. As the noble Lord rightly points out, the Electoral Commission set out in its 2009 guidance and guidelines, which I quoted when moving the Motion, how it intends to go about determining intelligibility. I hope that that clarifies why the word was used. The other matters to which the noble Lord referred, such as ease of understanding, lack of ambiguity and avoiding misleading voters, are part of the criteria that the Electoral Commission has indicated that it applies when undertaking the word, “intelligibility” in statute.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am grateful to the Minister and in some way reassured. It seems to me that we need to keep a close eye on this issue. I strongly agree with the challenge raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, but I think in his normal, consensual, non-polemical way, the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, got it absolutely right. There may be a fox around, but the Scots are not chickens. They are not stupid. If there is an attempt to rig the question, and the advice from the Electoral Commission, speaking to its remit as described by the Minister, is dodged or not responded to positively, it would be a considerable down side with the electorate in Scotland. The question of the question is very important, but let us not exaggerate it. If it is not a straight question the Scots are even more likely to give it a very straight answer.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I rise at this stage in the debate because a woman always likes to get, if not the last word, at least something near to that and it has been a singularly male debate so far. I make that point quite deliberately. If you look at the polling in Scotland, you will discover that, in the course of this debate about separation, women have increasingly become in favour of the union and men have remained static. Whether that is about “Braveheart” or the football, I do not know. The other side of the coin is that women are concerned about jobs and their children’s future. They recognise that there are always those who suffer when there is divorce—and what we are talking about is divorce.
Let me be blunt. If the First Minister thought that there was a majority for the break-up of Britain, the referendum would have taken place by now. We proved in 1997, with the devolution referendum, how quickly a referendum could be done. What the First Minister is counting on is either boredom on the part of the electorate—and there is a very strong chance that that will happen—or complacency on the part of those who favour the union. That has been commented on a couple of times this evening. There is a risk of complacency. I am fed up with taxi drivers telling me that there is no way Scotland is going to vote for the break up of Britain. There is an assumption that it is in the bag. It is not.
During the Scotland Bill deliberations in this House, I said—and I am not one for quoting myself but I quite like this quote—that we wanted a referendum without jiggery-pokery. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, laid out in his excellent speech, what we are discussing this evening is the potential for jiggery-pokery. We have had a bit of it before—and this is not a personal attack. We have had obfuscation on the question of the legal basis of Scotland’s role in Europe; we have had a situation where Hansard in the Scottish Parliament has been altered; and we have had misleading figures given on further education, to name but three examples. This is a critical decision for Scotland and a critical decision for the rest of the United Kingdom. We owe it to all of the people of these islands to make sure that it is done on a sound and sustainable basis so that the day after the referendum each one of us can turn around and say that we won or we lost, and the other side accepts the decision.
I support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said. I could not have followed him into the Lobby this evening, so I am glad he is not testing the opinion of the House, because I believe it would have led to delay. We have heard about the situation in Quebec, and I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has said about the separation support going down, but a week is a long time in politics. Who knows what will happen between now and the referendum in 2014? It is critically important that we put aside petty divisions on these issues, which are much too big for the future of this country.
One very important issue that was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Cormack, and others, is the question of allowing the vote to be made available to those in our Armed Forces. I do not know how they did it in 1945; they must have found a way to do it in 1945. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of a sophisticated democracy to find a way of giving our soldiers, men and women alike, the opportunity to vote in 2014, the year that marks the centenary of the First World War, when many of our families went to fight for a United Kingdom.
The challenge with the order that exists for us is to acknowledge, as a number of us have, that we should have been given an opportunity to debate these matters in this House. It should be recognised that we are a partnership. Those of us who sit in this House are unelected Members—but many of us have served our time at the other end of the corridor and have come from different parts of civil society in this country. We are entitled to a voice, and our colleagues at the other end of the corridor have a democratic right to that voice. It is unfortunate that they were not given that opportunity. I would say, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, that the Prime Minister was either naive or misadvised in the terms that he agreed to in the Edinburgh agreement. The opportunity to get an agreement that allowed for no jiggery-pokery was there, and I am afraid that he dropped the ball—and it is not often that I use sporting analogies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I sense that the mood of your Lordships is to move towards the Front Bench speeches, so I shall speak briefly. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on another brilliant performance; I think he said it all. However, out of what he and other noble Lords have said, I would like to put two simple questions clearly to the Minister, as it will save me interrupting him when he comes to wind up.
Why did the Government not wait for the advice of the Electoral Commission before they brought forward this order? What was the hurry? Secondly, do the Government agree that the leading question, “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”, which other noble Lords have quoted, is not an acceptable question to put to the Scottish people?
Finally, I understand that for many Scottish politicians the whole prospect of a referendum and independence for Scotland is very agreeable to their political ambition and hubris. However, I fear that independence may have a very unhappy result for the people of Scotland. Therefore, I can only rely on the faith that I have in the Scottish people that they will not be that easily bamboozled when the time comes.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie
My Lords, very briefly, and by way of introduction, I believe the referendum will lead to Scotland becoming a better democracy. The process we are involved in at the present moment, and the fact that the Edinburgh agreement was signed in Edinburgh, is a great improvement on what happened in 1921 after a ceasefire in July and fraught negotiations in Downing Street led to a treaty that people probably did not want to sign. The Westminster Parliament has made progress.
I am also mindful of the fact that the original treaty negotiations were held in London in the summer of 1706, and it is a curious phenomenon but the two sides were not allowed to meet. They had to negotiate from separate rooms, sending messengers to each other. We should make certain that we do not remain in that position. At the present moment, listening to the debate, it does slightly sound as though this House wants to talk to the Scottish Parliament without meeting its Members. I hope we can continue to make progress towards proper democratic discussion.
Lord Empey
My Lords, the noble Earl is concerned that people only met at a later stage in separate rooms. People in negotiations that I have been involved in have been in separate nations, separate continents and different places before we actually got together, so we are well versed in “proximity talks”, which I think was the phraseology that was invented to cover those circumstances.
We seem in this country, of late, to have developed referendumitis, because we are looking at a whole series of them now. Indeed, later this week, we may be offered a menu for further referenda. Not wishing to be outdone by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the sole English contributor to this debate, I felt it appropriate for my part of the world to make a few comments, because, as noble Lords have said throughout the debate, all of us would be affected one way or the other. However, the most important thing is that we are a union with component parts, and there is no doubt in my mind that the people of Scotland have a right to choose. The job of this Parliament is to ensure that the choice is fair and that the options are put to them clearly, as has been said many times before.
I will just deal with the order, because noble Lords will all have great sympathy with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has said today. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, who is not in his place at the moment, put his finger on it. Whether we like it or not and whether this Parliament has had enough time to debate it or not—and I think it has not—the fact is that the Prime Minister and the First Minister have shaken hands. Quite frankly, any departure from that at this stage would have cataclysmic results on the implications and how that would be spun in the circumstances. It is done, and whether we like it or not, we have to work with it.
I will also deal with the point of breakdown. When we had our referendum—nearly 15 years ago, believe it or not—I had the task of being co-ordinator for the Ulster Unionist Party’s “yes” campaign. Not only were communities divided but so were families—husbands, wives, sons and daughters—and some of those scars have not yet healed. Let us be under no illusions but that the tone in which the debate is conducted is going to very important for the long-term relationships. People keep telling us today of the implications of the miners’ strike and the differences that arose there, and I know that both communities and individuals remained very divided.
Questions of this nature are extremely divisive, and constitutional questions, certainly where I come from, are exceptionally divisive. What we are witnessing at home at the moment is terribly sad. Sadly, Mr Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein, in his new year message, as reinforced in an article yesterday, is now trying to promote a referendum in Northern Ireland. Under the Belfast agreement, the only question, effectively, is, “Do you wish to be part of a united Ireland?”. Putting that particular, most divisive, issue front and centre as your main campaign for the next few years running up to 2016—the 100th anniversary of the rebellion in Dublin—is irresponsible to say the least in the present circumstances. When we should be talking about our economy and trying to get young people into work, I would have thought that talking about a referendum is the last place anybody wants to be. I deeply regret that.
With regard to complacency, I strongly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, has just said. If you have a 50% turnout, 33% can be 66%. You will get differential turnouts; I have seen it happen. If one side of the argument feels, “Ach, well it will be all right on the night”, but the diehards on whatever side of the argument come out, the percentages in an opinion poll are almost an irrelevance. It is who turns out on the day that matters.
I share the concerns about intelligibility and all these sorts of things. These arguments go over people’s heads. We have had three terms used in this debate already: “country”, “state” and “nation”. If you go and ask somebody for a definition, we all slip in and out of that language in our own parlance. As an Ulsterman looking across the channel at Scotland, to me, Scotland is a country. It has to be a country; if it were not, it would be part of the amorphous landmass of Great Britain. If it is not a country, why does it have its own law, traditions and different languages? Why does it have a history of attitudes, religion and a pioneering spirit and all that goes with that? Of course it is a country. I also think it is an independent country, because it has all those things, which define a country. However, if we get into an argument with somebody in the street about whether a country and a state are two different things, and if we have to go to the door arguing and trying to explain the difference between those things, I fear we are in some difficulty.
All I can say, with the experience that we have had, is that this will be divisive. We have to try to keep the best humour possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, but not underestimating the downsides and implications—and try to keep the argument as simple as possible. I sincerely hope that the people of Scotland will choose to remain within the union, because it would have huge implications for us if they did not. It is their decision, and I respect that, but the playing field has to be level, with nobody manipulating it, and the question asked has to be a genuine question that makes it clear that they are seceding from the United Kingdom. Anything less than that will leave an argument. There are still people in Northern Ireland today who do not accept the referendum result that we had, even though it was won with 71.5%. Because of our cross-community issues, people say, “Oh, well not enough of this group voted or of that group”. I can think of nothing worse or more corrosive than an argument over the process. I sincerely wish the people of Scotland well, but sincerely hope that the Government do not allow anybody to wipe their eye in the months ahead.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, words are important, and I come back to this word “independent”, or “independence”. I agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth—on the hypothetical question that the Scottish Government would like to pose, I would very much like to vote yes because Scotland is, to me, an independent country now within part of the UK. I have been banging on about the use of the words “separate” and “separatism” rather than “independence”, and must ask my noble friend why the Government have used “independence” in the order. Proposed new Section 5A, under Article 3 of the order, refers to,
“the independence of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom”.
That only encourages the Scottish Government to continue using “independence” rather than “separation”. Why are the Government using that wording rather than saying, “Separate from the rest of the United Kingdom”? That would make what we are all talking about and what the Scottish Government actually mean much clearer.
I also echo what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said. I have been longing to ask the question, “Why have we got this order now?”. My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that the Electoral Commission has told him it needs 12 weeks to study the question and formulate its reply. That is in only three weeks’ time, but so much of this debate has been about what the Electoral Commission might have said or might not say. Why have we brought it forward this time? It has been a huge disservice to Parliament, and we have not had the sort of debate that we could have had. It leads one to ask the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. If the Electoral Commission says, “No, that is a leading question”, what are the legal remedies if the Scottish Government persist with their proposed question?
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, this has been quite a lengthy debate. Nevertheless, the contributions have been very weighty; there is much knowledge and wisdom in this House. I would like to draw your Lordships’ House back to why we are here. We are here because the Scottish National Party won an electoral mandate at the previous Scottish parliamentary election. I do not like it but I accept the result. It has the right to support and advocate a referendum. We in the Labour Party support this order and hope to get into the debate as soon as possible, rather than be distracted by the many issues that have been raised today.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, mentioned an ad hoc organisation that advocated devolution. The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, and almost the whole of civic Scotland joined that ad hoc organisation. The difference between what happened then and what is happening now is that there was a broad consensus throughout Scotland about the need for a Scottish Parliament. The Labour Party supported that and, with the help of the Liberals and others, we brought about devolution and the installation of a Scottish Parliament. As soon as you devolve power to the Scottish Parliament, that power is there and it would be foolish to argue and quibble about this and that when it clearly has a mandate and the democratic right to do what they are doing, within generally accepted conventions.
A number of your Lordships have mentioned, quite rightly, the flaws within the deal that came about between the Prime Minister and the First Minister. We feel that one or two things could have been negotiated a bit more firmly. Having said that, the deal has been made, that is what we have, and we should move on from that. Nevertheless, we should note some points. For instance, the Scottish Affairs Committee quite rightly said in its report last week that decisions in the Scottish Parliament should be achieved by consensus and not simply through the use of the SNP’s majority. I keep hearing the phrase “gold standard”. The consensus that we achieved in the 1980s over the issue of the governance of Scotland should surely be the gold standard. I do not want to denigrate anyone’s personality on this, because that is a distraction that will only damage the cause of those of us who support the union.
There are a lot of issues, such as that of granting votes to 16 and 17 year-olds. The Scottish Parliament has the power to do that. There should be a debate about it, but it should not be an issue that prevents or distracts us from scrutinising this order.
On campaign finance and the wording of the question, the key phrase should be that the Scottish Government cannot be the referee and a player. Surely the Electoral Commission will act as an independent overseer of that process?
The point so ably made by my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan is that the Scottish people are not exactly backward at coming forward. I do not think we will be easily fooled; we will spot any chicanery or jiggery-pokery that may come from any party during this process. Sometimes, we in the political world can underestimate the acumen of the public, who keep an eye on politicians.
The wording of the question should be clear, unambiguous and thoroughly tested by the Electoral Commission. Like others, I should like to see the Scottish National Party commit itself to accepting the decision of the Electoral Commission vis-à-vis the wording. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and other noble Lords who mentioned this were right: if we have bitter disputes over this, the bitterness will continue and the result will not be regarded as legitimate. It is absolutely essential that we get legitimacy for that result, whatever it is, and that it should be accepted by all.
A number of your Lordships have rightly mentioned the quality of the contribution and amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. A number of my colleagues have stated they agree with much of his position. As I am a bit of a bureaucrat, one of the things I am concerned about is the practicality of the timeline. It is clear that, although October 2014 seems a long time away, the processes that need to be gone through before then are nevertheless considerable and time-consuming. If any of these timeline targets are not met, the process will be delayed, which would be dangerous. It will seem that obstruction by Westminster has caused the delay, which would be fatal to the cause of those of us who support the union.
Devolution means devolution. I am afraid that is sometimes hard to accept and something that we do not like. The Scottish people decided that they wanted devolution. I accept it, and it should be accepted.
My noble friend Lady Liddell made the point—far better than I am making it so far—by warning that we should not allow ourselves to be distracted by all the niggly points that have annoyed us. We have picked fault here and picked fault there. I do not say that the niggles, doubts and criticisms are not justified, but let us solve them; let us deal with them, get them out of the way and get on with campaigning. The people of Scotland are looking for a campaign where the issues are discussed, not individual personalities. We can then go to the real core of what would happen to Scotland if it separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not mean that as a negative point or to frighten the people of Scotland by saying that Scotland cannot or would not exist without the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course we could: we could be economically viable and we could be a separate state. But we should say to people that we do not want to be separate—to separate from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a union that has served us all well, especially in two world wars.
Again, I echo my noble friend Baroness Liddell. Let us get these issues dealt with. Yes, let us deal with them and debate them, but the sooner we get on to this campaign the better.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I thank also my noble friend Lord Forsyth for moving his amendment which has stimulated so much debate, although I suspect that, even without it, we would have had a considerable debate on the issue. I understand from my noble friend Lady Garden that there have been some 20 contributions, including an Englishman, a Welshman, a Northern Irishman and, regrettably, only one woman.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I offer my sincere apologies to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. It has been a very passionate debate. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, this is not necessarily where we want to be. I do not think that anyone here has advocated a referendum or, certainly, independence. Nevertheless, we recognise and respect the outcome of the Scottish election of May 2011 and the manifesto commitment of the Scottish National Party to have a referendum.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, supported the view that the process was being done properly. I thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell as a member of the Constitution Committee for his contribution. I am grateful not just for the most recent report of that committee on this matter but for the report which the committee produced in February last year following the consultation which the United Kingdom Government launched. In that report, the Constitution Committee welcomed the proposal,
“that a section 30 order be made to confer on the Scottish Parliament clear competence to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence”.
From that flow a number of the issues which have been dealt with in this debate. It is also fair to point out that, in its most recent report on the referendum, the committee stated:
“We welcome the fact that the Agreement reached between the two Governments accords with our previous recommendations. The question of legislative competence is addressed, it is intended that the referendum will pose a single question on independence, and the Electoral Commission will play the lead role in advising on the referendum”.
That is why I cannot accept the argument that the outcome of the negotiations was weak, as it has been described by some noble Lords. As the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons said:
“The Secretary of State and his team are to be congratulated on their willingness to compromise and reach a consensus with the Scottish Government so that the referendum can be held on a basis to which all can consent”.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, mentioned the evidence that he gave to both the United Kingdom Government’s consultation and the Scottish Government’s consultation, where he said:
“I hope that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government will be willing to compromise on all of the key issues to ensure we have a clear outcome in a referendum and an outcome that is accepted by everyone as the fair result of a fair campaign”.
That is what we sought to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, quite fairly, that of huge significance was the fact that it was a single question. I would certainly find myself in some difficulty if I was to come before the House today trying to defend an order or a process that had led to an outcome where there could be more than one question—the so-called multi-option referendum. As the noble Lord rightly said, there is a world of difference between a referendum where one part of the United Kingdom wishes to secede from the United Kingdom, which is a matter, as successive Governments have accepted, for that part of the United Kingdom, and one where there is to be a different relationship within the United Kingdom, with further powers being devolved. That is an important distinction and it is why I am very glad indeed that what we bring before the House today is an order which will provide for a single-question referendum.
It is inevitable in these circumstances that we come to the role of the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about the wording in paragraph 8 of the agreement, which contains the reference to “intelligibility”. I hope that I indicated why that word was used—it is a statutory word, if you like—but of equal importance is the way in which that has been interpreted by the Electoral Commission. Mr John McCormick, who is the Electoral Commissioner for Scotland, said on 9 November, when the Scottish Government submitted their question:
“We will assess the referendum question to see whether voters find it clear, simple and neutral. If it isn’t, we’ll say what needs to be done”.
I shall come to the issue of the question in a moment, because the other issue, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, is the role of the Electoral Commission. Paragraph 12 of the agreement, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, sets out the role of the Electoral Commission in referendums. It states:
“Both governments agree on the importance of the referendum being overseen in an impartial way by bodies that can command the confidence of both sides of the campaign. The Electoral Commission is responsible for overseeing referendums held under PPERA. PPERA gives the Electoral Commission responsibility for: commenting on the wording of the referendum question; registration of campaigners; designating lead campaign organisations; regulating campaign spending and donations; giving grants to lead campaign organisations; publishing guidance for permitted participants; reporting on the referendum process; the conduct of the poll; and the announcement of the result”.
Paragraph 14 of the agreement states:
“Both governments agree that the Electoral Commission should fulfil all these functions in respect of the independence referendum, with the exception of the conduct of the poll”—
which will be done by an electoral management board which has already been established for local elections in Scotland and it is widely agreed across that parties that that should continue—
“and announcement of the result, and the giving of grants”.
The reason why the giving of grants is excluded is that the Scottish Government propose that there will be no grants of public money to the lead campaigns. That is the nature of the oversight by the Electoral Commission which has been proposed.
On foreign donations, it is proposed—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Before the noble and learned Lord leaves the topic of the Electoral Commission—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Well, perhaps, when he comes back to it, he can answer the question whether it was ever part of the British Government’s negotiating position to require the Scottish Government to accept the advice of the Electoral Commission on the question.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I certainly intend to deal with that. It is a fair question which has been echoed across the Chamber in this debate.
Donations from overseas are dealt with by paragraph 28 of the agreement, which indicates that the rules under PPERA will apply. PPERA states that donations of more than £7,500 must be recorded and declared publicly and that donations of more than £500 require individuals to be registered in the United Kingdom. It is intended that these rules will apply in this referendum and the agreement has set that out. In other words, it is the same rules as are agreed under PPERA.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Does that mean that more than £500 can be donated to the campaign from people in England?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I understand that that would be the case, yes.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked why broadcasting and mailshots were included in the order whereas other issues were not. The simple answer to that is that broadcasting and the Royal Mail are outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Legislation brought forward by the Scottish Parliament cannot deal with these issues unless competence has been transferred. That particular part of the order transfers competence in order for the broadcasting arrangements and mailshots to be dealt with.
My noble friend and many other noble Lords asked about the nature of the question. Numerous people have found flaws with the question of whether Scotland is a country, a state or a nation, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, made clear. I do not stand here to defend the question that has been put forward. It is not my job to defend it; nor would I wish to defend it. It is important that that should be a matter for the Electoral Commission, which is why it has been asked to advise.
The United Kingdom Government recognised in their consultation paper that the Electoral Commission’s role in referendums was to consult on the intelligibility of the proposed question and to report to the UK Parliament. We would have come under considerable pressure and criticism if it had been suggested that the Scottish Parliament should be treated in a different way. I will pick up on this point, because it is quite central to a lot that has been said in this debate. I will not go into the personalities, but we know the ability of not only the leader of the Scottish National Party, but in many ways the Scottish National Party itself. One thing that they have quite excelled at—those of us who have been around Scottish politics know this only too well—is their ability to nurse a grievance and to milk a grievance. That is what the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said about the timing of this. We do not want to give them another sense of grievance. If we had proposed that the Scottish Parliament was in some way to be treated in a lesser way with regard to a question after it had gone to the Electoral Commission than the United Kingdom Parliament was treated, we would have given them cause for a grievance.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, was absolutely right to point out that this is a question which will come back to haunt them if they choose to ignore the advice of the Electoral Commission. I know that my noble friend Lord Forsyth said that he did not want this to be two years of picking on points, but it would be quite legitimate, if an attempt was made to put a biased question, for that to be pointed out and for the political consequences of that to be reaped. However, I would not wish, and what we have sought to avoid—and have successfully sought to avoid—is a two-year campaign in which the United Kingdom Government and Parliament are in the dock because we somehow or another have tried to rig the referendum. That is why it is so crucially important that we do not give, and we have not given, any opportunity for the Scottish Government to cry foul and say that we are somehow rigging the situation.
In an interesting article by John Rentoul in the Independent in November of last year, in which he praised my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, he said:
“This sudden removal of the London Government from the see-saw meant that Salmond lost his balance. When Cameron went to Edinburgh in February to announce that he would not try to stop the Scottish National Party holding a referendum, Salmond found that the great London counterweight, against which his career had been built, had been taken away”.
It is important that we do not give that opportunity, or that excuse, for a grievance to be mounted. That is one of the main reasons—a key reason—why we are dealing with this in the same way as we would deal with a question in a UK referendum that had been legislated for by the UK Parliament.
That answers the question about the referee and the player. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who came forward with a question himself. It is up to people with an interest to make their views on this known to the Electoral Commission. Clearly it would not be appropriate from the Dispatch Box to determine the agenda of the Scottish Parliament, but I rather hope that Members of the Scottish Parliament will note what has been said about them having an opportunity to debate this issue.
I will make one further point on this, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. Lots of harsh words could, and almost certainly will be, exchanged in the next two years, and there is potential, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, for a nasty taste to be left in the mouth. That is why there is a responsibility on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the question that is asked is not a source of that sour taste in the mouth. Just as we have sought, as a United Kingdom Government and a United Kingdom Parliament, to produce a scheme and process that will not allow anyone at the end of the day to cry foul—“It wasnae fair”—it is also incumbent on the Scottish Government and, above all, on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that when they devise the rules, procedures and indeed the questions for this referendum, they do not give anyone the opportunity at the end of the day to say “It wasnae fair”. It is important that the outcome of this referendum is decisive and properly recognised as having been fair and properly arrived at by the people of Scotland when they cast their votes in 2014.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is the Minister about to leave the Electoral Commission in his remarks, or will he address the two questions that I, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, put to him?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I had indicated that I would not defend the question that had been put forward. It would be appropriate for the Electoral Commission to indicate that. I was asked about time; as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, there is a timeline. My noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested that the legislation for the referendum would not come until after the White Paper. My understanding is that if this House, and subsequently, the Privy Council, approve the order next month, the Bill will be presented to the Scottish Parliament in March. The Bill cannot in fact be presented to the Scottish Parliament until such time as this order has been approved, which is why the timing of it is as it is.
The important point with regard to the question is that what has been done by this order, in transferring the legal competence to the Scottish Parliament, is such that the nature of the question and the advice of the Electoral Commission will go to the Scottish Parliament. It is not proper, and it would fuel that sense of grievance, if somehow or another we said “We’ll give you the competence to legislate for this, but only provided that we can write or prior-approve the question for you”. That would lead to a very strong sense of grievance, and would put us, who want to argue the case for our United Kingdom, on the back foot in many of the ensuing debates.
I very much hope that common sense will prevail, and that the sense of achieving a decisive outcome will prevail with the Scottish Government and Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, indicated, they will pay a very serious political price if they do not do so.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does the Minister really mean that it was right for the Electoral Commission not to give its advice to this House and the other place on the intelligibility of the question proposed by the Scottish Parliament, and that it would be wrong for us to comment on it? If we had had the Electoral Commission’s advice today—it must be provided by 1 February—quite a long time would have been saved, because we would have known what the position was. Surely we have not got to the position where we are so afraid that what we are doing will be misrepresented that we cannot do our work. Of course we cannot decide the question, but surely it would have been entirely appropriate for us to have the opportunity to comment on the question in the light of the independent advice from the Electoral Commission.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, a number of questions are rolled up into that. First, that is not the obligation of the Electoral Commission—there is no statutory duty or anything else for it to provide the answer by 1 February. I cannot remember which noble Lords made the point that your Lordships’ Constitution Committee had produced a report in a relatively short period of time, so why could the Electoral Commission not do the same?
The task of the Electoral Commission, among other things, is to go out and sample the question, which is not something, with all due respect, that the Constitution Committee intended to do, and neither would we expect it to do so. There is, therefore, a piece of work to be done in testing the question for its intelligibility, whether it is leading or misleading, whether it is neutral or whether it can be understood by those who will be asked to answer it in the referendum. I do not believe, therefore, that there was somehow some obligation on the Electoral Commission to rush that. I can hear the criticisms now if people thought that it had in some way been rushed.
Neither my noble friend nor any other noble Lord will be inhibited from commenting on the report of the Electoral Commission, which will be published and very much in the public domain. I will come to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in a moment. There is no doubt that it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine. There will be every opportunity for voices to be expressed as to what the Scottish Parliament should do in the light of the advice from the Electoral Commission.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
Simply as a matter of fact, the Electoral Commission has advised me that it will publish its report early in February.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is helpful. However, it is important to understand that there is a body of work that it ought to do, and is doing, before it publishes that advice.
The question has been raised about the franchise. As I indicated to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, it is a matter of primary legislation for the Scottish Parliament. If it chooses to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, issues will arise out of that; it will need to ensure that the proper protection is given to minors whose names would appear on a roll. That would be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament in any legislation which it brings forward.
I do not believe that that is the thin end of the wedge. If only legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament was, we would have proportional representation by single transferable vote for English local authority elections, but I have not seen a great rush in the Westminster Parliament to follow the Scottish Parliament in that constitutional development
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Reid, my noble friends Lord Stephen and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, posed an important question about the vote for service personnel. The position is that the members of the Armed Forces and their spouses or civil partners are entitled to vote in elections, provided that they are registered to vote either by means of a service declaration or as an ordinary voter. Members of the Armed Forces will be able to vote in the referendum if they are on the register in Scotland either as a result of an address in Scotland or a qualifying address showing a connection to Scotland, such as service accommodation in Scotland; an address in Scotland where they would be living if they were not in the services; or an address in Scotland where they have lived in the past. The same rules apply to spouses and civil partners of members of the Armed Forces.
On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, service personnel who are overseas at the time of the referendum who would otherwise be eligible to vote will be able to vote by post or by proxy. I understand that the Electoral Commission and the Ministry of Defence run an annual electoral registration campaign to inform personnel and their families in units around the world about such voting matters. I will certainly talk to colleagues in the Ministry of Defence in the next round of prompting of information to ensure that they remind service personnel of the referendum.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, will the Minister check very carefully that that information campaign is timed to coincide with the period during which service personnel would require to register to qualify to vote in 2014? The timescales may well be such that they would miss deadlines. We would all appreciate an assurance that such checking will happen.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is an important point, and I take it on board. It is also important to make clear that service declaration, to which I referred, is now valid for five years, following legislation that took effect in March 2010. Those who have already made a service declaration which gets them on to the Scottish register will have that for the five years after March 2010, so they will certainly have it for the time of the referendum.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am grateful to the Minister for that. Knowing how bureaucracy can ensure that the best laid plans gang aft agley, can he ensure that there is a distinct recognition in the Ministry of Defence that this is different from the normal, annual registration, for this reason: you have go to every serviceman and woman? From what he said, there may well have to be a process to identify those who have the qualifying criteria of having had a residence in Scotland, and so forth. If that process is not started early, we will find, as we did many years ago, before we brought in the new regulations, that for purely bureaucratic reasons, servicemen and women and their families are not adequately informed—especially, as my noble friend Lord McConnell said, in time. That process has to start now. It is quite a big job weeding out, if you like, or identifying people, rather than applying a carte blanche regulation for everyone.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I will certainly ensure that his comments and the general sense of the House is drawn to the attention to the Ministry of Defence. No doubt Questions can be asked to ensure that we live up to that.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Forsyth quite properly said that there should be no room for complacency. That was echoed by other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I could not agree with them more. I have said—although I do not think it was from the Dispatch Box—that the biggest enemy that those of us who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom have is complacency. We must guard against it, not simply because I want to win—I want to win very convincingly indeed. I certainly take the point about differential turnout made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and very much believe that we should guard against complacency.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, asked about information. I suspect that we will not get a completely neutral arbiter, although some bodies are producing evidence from a more neutral point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, who I think is a former chair of CBI Scotland, appropriately raised the pertinent questions that CBI Scotland is addressing to the Scottish Government.
The Government have made it clear that we will be publishing material to provide information, not least about the number of jobs provided by the defence industry and what benefits being part of the United Kingdom bring to Scottish security. It will also set out facts, which are perhaps currently unknown or often just taken for granted. In that regard, it will include the importance of our position in the world. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom which punches much above its weight in terms of our population and because of our history, to which Scotland has contributed. It will talk about the protection of our citizens. It will talk about the many economic benefits to the United Kingdom.
The first of those papers will be published in the next few weeks, and we will publish further papers throughout 2013. I hope that that brings important information, which we will all be able to use in our arguments for the furtherance of the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth and I were both elected to the other place 30 years ago this year, and I have known him all that time. We have disagreed about a number of issues, not least Scotland’s constitutional future, but I have always respected where he comes from on that and the important issues that he has raised this afternoon. One issue on which we can join together is that it is very important that we join together people right across this Chamber who believe that Scotland is better as part of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom is better with Scotland in it; that we share a common heritage; that we share common social bonds; that we have a shared cultural heritage with, fundamentally, shared political values; and that we can defend them much more effectively in an uncertain and challenging world when we are working together. It is in that spirit that I want to argue that case, and I urge your Lordships to approve the order.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, what a wonderful debate we have had. It is pretty clear to me that there is a consensus in all parts of this Chamber— bar one, if I may say so—about the need to have a referendum campaign that is seen to be fairly conducted and where there is no dispute about the result at the end of the day.
As I said at the beginning, I do not propose to divide the House. I think that that would be a huge error on my part, because it might give the impression that we are not as united as we are on these matters. However, I say to my noble and learned friend—we have been friends for a long time, if opponents, which we are not now, although we were earlier in the week; it is very difficult to work out what the nomenclature of this week should be—that he has taken a risk, a gamble, on being able to ensure that we get a decent question and proper rules for the referendum. I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and back his judgment. If it turns out to be wrong, he can expect some very vigorous debates in future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
As an amendment to the Motion in the name of Lord Wallace of Tankerness, at end to insert “and regrets that debate in Parliament on the draft Order is taking place before the publication by the Electoral Commission of its advice on referendum campaign funding and on the proposal from the Scottish Government that the referendum question be ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’, advice which is required to be published by 1st February”.
Health: Medical Innovation
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Saatchi
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps it proposes to take to encourage best practice in medical innovation.
Lord Saatchi
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the usual channels for allowing the time for this debate. I have introduced the Medical Innovation Bill into your Lordships’ House. I will not be covering the details of that Bill in this debate; Second Reading will follow at some point in the year and we can discuss them then. However, this debate may illuminate the context of the Bill and give your Lordships’ House an opportunity to consider the whole complex question of what best practice is in innovation, particularly the application of research and knowledge to patient treatment.
In opening this debate among the judicial and medical experts in your Lordships’ House who have devoted a lifetime to this subject—compared to my own brutally short experience—a certain humility is appropriate. It will be my privilege to hear many noble Lords who are among the great innovators of our time. I particularly thank my noble friend and his team at the Department of Health for their wisdom; Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, for her viewpoint; the Secretary of State himself for making improved survival rates his key priority for healthcare; and the many patient groups, academics and practitioners who have contributed their thinking.
The Prime Minister himself has encouraged British medical innovation in the context of the global race, and the document on diffusion of innovation in the NHS by my noble friend, himself Minister for innovation, is, if he will allow me to say so, a model of agenda-setting by a government department.
Buoyed up by Bertrand Russell’s view that simplification is not always obfuscation and often serves to crystallise the issues, I will attempt first a simple description of the need, and then a specific suggestion of what steps your Lordships may consider to meet that need. I will concentrate on the most emotive word in the English language—cancer—and hope to draw wider conclusions from this area. To express the need, I am helped by an unexpected source, the Father of the House in another place. In his tribute to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee, he used a striking phrase:
“There is nothing more inspiriting in the whole world than a beautiful woman”.—[Official Report, 07/3/12; col. 852.]
I can amend that. There is no more distressing thing in the whole world than a beautiful woman being reduced to a sparrow.
Unfortunately, here is the status quo. A woman is told that her tests are “normal” and to come back in 12 months. She is removed from her home 12 months later and cut and drilled until she loses half her body weight. Wires and tubes are attached to her throat, nose, stomach and vagina. Drugs are given to her that cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and fatigue. They open the path for fatal infections to enter the woman’s body and reduce her body’s defences against such infection. The woman is left for dead, and sooner or later the woman dies. The “process”, as it is called, involves scenes that would not be permitted in a Hollywood horror movie.
I hope that that is a fair description of the need for medical innovation. The screening techniques for such a cancer are inadequate; no reliable early detection method is available, and even if it was, it would improve the overall survival statistics but not the date of death. The treatment regimes, when provided—that is, the drugs, the cycles of their administration and the surgical procedures—are 40 years old. They are also ineffective; cancer quickly develops resistance. Not surprisingly, the survival rate for such cancers is the same as it was 40 years ago—in other words, nought; and the mortality rate is the same as it was 40 years ago—that is, 100%.
This disease is relentless, remorseless and merciless. Its treatment is medieval, degrading and ineffective. Why are we so forsaken? It is said that cancer is so complex that it is beyond the judgment and understanding of the human mind to comprehend its variables. Therefore, through ignorance, we kill people unnecessarily.
If that is true, it is not through lack of trying. Scholars in cancer have long sought general rules about the world as robust as the laws of physics and to verify statements, propositions and putative facts by the results of empirical studies. Unfortunately, it has not worked out quite like that. Instead, we find the stubborn fact that, after 2000 years of human progress, cancer is still outside Newton’s universe where physical laws govern reality.
In the natural sciences, even though, as Popper says, the closest approach to proof is just a succession of unsuccessful attempts at falsification, we can nevertheless make statements in the natural sciences, perhaps without finality but with a certain degree of probability. If I drop these papers, they will fall to the ground. Tomorrow the sun will rise. In cancer, though, the record seems to show that once we express opinions or beliefs or attempt to offer explanations, descriptions or predictions, then error, doubt and uncertainty come to the fore. In cancer you hear it said that, “Every case is different” and, “There is always hope”. Such well meaning sentiments are not science. There is no hope that if I drop my papers they will not fall. These statements are meant to bring cheer to the desperate, but instead the effect is the opposite. They bring despair—the dread revelation that cancer is a realm in which science has yet to achieve sovereignty.
In the end, all attempts to place cancer medicine within the canons of scientific objectivity have failed. There remains an irremediable tentativeness about the logically perplexing question of what is the cause or cure for cancer. Cancer science has not yet found its Newton. Why? There is a powerful deterrent to innovation at the heart of the current system. Economists would call it a systemic failure. Current law is a barrier to progress in curing cancer. Under present law, any deviation by a doctor from standard procedure is likely to result in a verdict of guilt for medical negligence. Current law defines medical negligence as deviation from standard procedure. As innovation is deviation, though, non-deviation is non-innovation. In this way, the fear of litigation for medical negligence is a roadblock to innovation in cancer treatment. The present pre-eminence in law of the standard procedure provides no inducement to progress. The self-interest of medical practitioners, as defined, for example, in doctors’ insurance policies, means that innovation—that is, deviation—is a form of self-harm.
In Clark v MacLennan, an important test case in 1983, the significance of departing from an approved mode of practice was treated by the trial judge, J Pain, as having the effect of reversing the burden of proof, so that once the plaintiff established a deviation the defendant had to disprove an inference of negligence. I quote Crawford v Board of Governors of Charing Cross Hospital, 1953:
“The practitioner who treads the well-worn path will usually be safer, as far as concerns legal liability, than the one who adopts a newly discovered method of treatment”.
In the standard Butterworth text on medical negligence, the authors Nathan and Barrowclough expressed in 1957 the following view, still applicable today, concerning deviation from accepted modes of practice and the ethics of new treatment research and experimentation:
“Medical men cannot be permitted to experiment on patients (Slater v Baker and Stapleton) (1767) ... On the other hand the courts will not press this proposition to a point where it stifles initiative and discourages advances in techniques … a line must be drawn between the reckless experimentation with a new and comparatively untried remedy or technique, and the utilization of a new advance which carries with it unforeseen dangers and difficulties”.
I hope that we can agree with Lord Diplock, who was looking for a better balance to be struck between therapeutic innovation and therapeutic conservatism. He warned of the dangers of so-called defensive medicine:
“Those members of the public who seek medical or surgical aid would be badly served by the adoption of any legal principle that would confine the doctor to some long-established, well-tried method of treatment only, although its past record of success might be small, if he wanted to be confident that he would not run the risk of being held liable in negligence simply because he tried some more modern treatment, and by some unavoidable mischance it failed to heal but did some harm to the patient. This would encourage ‘defensive medicine’”—
that is his phrase—
“with a vengeance”.
I am looking carefully at the time and will therefore bring these remarks to a close. Your Lordships will agree that optimal care is evidence-based care. Evidence-based medicine is therefore standard procedure for the protection of patients. However, as your Lordships are well aware, cancer is the least evidence-based disease of all. There is great uncertainty: either the evidence does not exist or, if it does, it is not clear what it means. Innovation is therefore more appropriate in cancer treatment and the consequences of not innovating are greater—poor life quality, followed by death.
I shall end with this. What can your Lordships’ House do—that is the point of this debate—to encourage the drive towards medical innovation, on which my noble friend has made such a great contribution? The advance of science depends upon the free competition of thought and thus upon freedom; that must come to an end if freedom is destroyed. Are the intellectual problems of cancer insoluble? I do not think so. What is more inspiring, apart from a beautiful woman, than the quest by scientists to explain the world; to find satisfactory explanatory theories—simple theories—and to test them? One of them will cure cancer. We should rise to our feet to applaud the great cancer doctors and scientists, many of them in this House, who are striving by their own best lights to serve the community. Let us erect statues in their honour or build bridges in their name, or parks, or avenues, or airports. Let us encourage them, not frighten them.
Lord Winston
My Lords, it is both a responsibility and a privilege to be the first speaker after the deeply moving speech from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. He carries the respect of the whole House for tabling this debate and has our thanks for the way that he phrased what he said. I feel that my own contribution will be paltry by comparison, but I thought that it would be interesting to look quickly at my own career and think of seven points in it where innovation was an issue. Our excellent Minister sitting on the Front Bench cannot be expected to be responsible for trying to improve innovation in the health service. This is a colossally difficult issue; I will explain why I think so.
The first thing I want to refer to briefly is my involvement in the early days of microsurgery of the fallopian tube. First, that project, which led to about 50 publications, would not have been possible today because the Medical Research Council grant that I got would not be awarded with the current competition. Secondly, it is fair to say that I would not have got an animal licence to practise a surgical procedure, rather than to do it experimentally. There is a neat difference now in how the regulation is. Throughout, there are at least eight issues that conflict to make innovation difficult. One is regulation; one is infrastructure; one is governance; one is industry and its involvement; one is the internal market, supported by both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party; one is clinical training; another is teamwork. Lastly and most importantly, there is the cultural environment. I will come to one other issue at the end, if I may.
The infrastructure for my work with the fallopian tube would not be possible now because I had access then to a workshop in a district general hospital, where Dennis Melrose was producing extracorporeal circulation pumps to improve heart surgery. That is almost unthinkable now. One of the greatest difficulties I had was in getting industrial support for making the microsurgical needles. I could not find a single industry in this country that would make the needles. We made needles with our own hands, under a microscope, that were so fine and delicate that they did not fall to the ground. Unlike the noble Lord’s papers, they actually floated on the air. Eventually, we found a German company which then captured one-third of the world’s ophthalmic market with those needles. There is a message in that innovation.
With regard to trying to translate that surgery into the female pelvis, the big problem now would be governance. What also followed was the issue of having training in teamwork around, to persuade surgeons to work as a team. That has become more difficult now because of the internal market. It is very difficult to prove that a surgical procedure works and is innovative, because it is more difficult to collect the cases together within a health service structure. We have all faced this difficulty for quite a long time. It is not the responsibility of any one Government.
The same thing applies, to some extent, to laparoscopic surgery. I think I was one of the first people to operate using a laparoscope in this country. There would now be a problem with governance; it would be considered risky and unwise, and would take much longer to innovate.
With the present regulatory system, it would also be impossible to see in vitro fertilisation—your Lordships probably know that I have certainly more than dabbled in that—on the books in the way that it is now. It would be very difficult to transfer an egg that you fertilise outside the body into a human patient. It would certainly take much longer to get permission to do that. That is one of the issues. In my own unit, we made a whole series of improvements. We improved the culture media. We demonstrated, for example, the given knowledge that glucose in the medium was poisonous to human embryos but not to any other animal that was experimented on. We could not change those media now, given the current regulatory framework. Even the little changes that one could make—the fact that tungsten light is dangerous to embryos, for example—become increasingly difficult.
I could go on and on but I do not want to spend more than a few minutes and my time is almost up. It would now take much longer to get permission for things such as embryonic detection of genetic defects. I have to declare an interest as somebody who launched a biotech company. One of the problems with that company, which might change the whole field of transplantation with the use of pigs’ kidneys, hearts and livers, and possibly pigs’ lungs, is that it took us more than a year and a quarter to get an animal licence to practise and do the work on just six pigs. It was quite difficult to get the rodent licence before that as well.
I want to say one final thing. The first experiment I ever did was as a result of fraud in my unit. I was asked to go in and troubleshoot by repeating an experiment. It was pure serendipity that we found that there was probably something wrong, with an infection in the vagina of women that might lead to the possibility of a virus being involved. We now know, of course, that the virus is very well established but I did not know what it was at the time. That was a long time ago but one of the issues with true innovation is that serendipity is extremely important. What we can perhaps best all do together is to see how we might improve the culture in which we do our medicine.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I begin my remarks by echoing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I have been a parliamentarian in both Houses for some 16 years now and I do not think I have ever heard a more moving, considerate or emotive speech than that of my noble friend Lord Saatchi. I thank him for it. In so doing, I have to say that some of the issues that he and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, have raised—and that others will raise—are ones that the Minister, with his responsibilities, can begin to address. Last night, I was responsible for hosting a reception for Children with Cancer UK, an organisation that has been running for 25 years and which began because, 25 years ago, childhood leukaemia killed eight out of 10 children who suffered from it. Now, 80% of children survive it. That happened through innovation—through the very things that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned and which others will mention—so there is hope. I would want to give my noble friend that element of hope.
My frustration is with many of our scientists’ inclinations. The means to deliver novel or experimental treatments to patients earlier exists. It is not something that does not exist and, quite frankly, it does not require further legislation. With the support of government and an excellent UK life sciences strategy, we have the means to do exactly what my noble friend wants to see. We do not need more legislation; we need action. We need regulators and funders to recognise that, while their approaches are fine for established research pathways and large populations of patients, they are hopelessly inadequate for new and experimental treatments on small, stratified populations.
There is progress. Both the conditional approval scheme and the named patient scheme are important in the toolbox of clinicians who want to try novel and untried treatments but, frankly, they are rarely used. Indeed, perhaps the Minister, when summing up, can say how often they are used and for what purpose. Perhaps, too, he could tell us what progress is being made on the early access scheme, championed in the UK Life Sciences Strategy, which would allow access to drugs earlier than the current regime permits, especially where the compounds under consideration represent possible therapies where few alternatives are available. Currently, the Government’s ambition for this scheme is two to five drugs per year. Does the Minister really feel that that should be the height of this strategy’s ambition?
Perhaps offering more promise, as the Science and Technology Select Committee heard in relation to its regenerative medicine inquiry, is the issue of adaptive licensing, an initiative that also appeared in the UK life sciences strategy. Adaptive licensing offers a flexible approach whereby regulators, clinicians, patients, the research community and industry are jointly involved in assessing the risks of a given experimental treatment so that a proportionate level of regulation can be determined for the release of novel drugs to patient groups. This proportionate approach recognises, as we move to more targeted therapies for smaller populations where traditional clinical trials will be of limited use, that this approach offers an alternative, more appropriate assessment of patient risk and benefits; but, again, where is the urgency or ambition? The expert group that was set up by the MHRA to look at adaptive licences has met only once, in October 2012. Frankly, if that is the rate of progress, it will be years before we see this opportunity realised.
Finally, I come to regulation and regulators, a topic to which I know many noble Lords will return later. When the Academy of Medical Sciences produced its report in 2011, the Government promised simplified, more unified and smarter regulation. The setting up of the Health Research Authority would herald a new dawn for those who see the regulatory burden—particularly for scientists, clinicians and SMEs working at the edge of discovery—as an obstacle to progress. Far from achieving that aim, the HRA appears to have become a very expensive national ethics service. If anything, regulation has become more complex and more bewildering. Indeed, as one expert witness revealed yesterday to our committee, “It is only accessible if you know where to look”.
Clinicians hoping to use new therapies to save the lives of cancer patients do not have the time, and often do not have the resources, to meet the demands of well meaning regulators and their plethora of never-ending hurdles set up to ensure patient safety. That is the real challenge. Without a more agile, unified and flexible regulatory system, which puts patients at its heart, all attempts to move novel and often untried treatments into patients will fail. In that case, we will fail my noble friend in his cause.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for asking this question so movingly. I feel honoured to be taking part in this debate with such experts. Having a cousin who is research-minded and is a professor, now living in Australia, I want to raise a few points that we have discussed.
Many Britons see their clinical research careers take off after they leave the UK. Some of this is due to the internationalisation of medicine and the growing awareness of how valuable exposure to overseas best practice can be during specialist training. It is a two-way street, so some of the UK’s best specialists come from overseas.
It seems that clinical research comes a poor second after the pressing needs of an overloaded health service have been met. From clinical medical student through resident positions, specialist registrar training and on to first consultant position, it seems difficult to find the time and support for clinical research and development. Apart from a few fortunate centres, where seniors have managed to establish a strong funding stream for R&D, resulting in research fellow appointments, research support staff and so on, there seems to be a poor match between the R&D effort and the acute medical front line. More regional expert centres should be better funded. Steps seem to be needed to recognise where there is already established leadership and to make use of it.
Innovation in healthcare and innovation in clinical research have a symbiotic relationship. Without research there can be no innovation, as there will be no evidence base with which to inform clinical practice. Without that clinically proven innovation being acted on, we will see no advance in clinical practice, no improvement in patient outcomes and less incentive for clinical research to be carried out.
There seems to be frustration from some bodies involved in innovation. For example, Innovation, Health and Wealth promised to:
“launch a national drive to get full implementation of”,
oesophageal Doppler monitoring,
“or similar fluid management monitoring technology, into practice across the NHS”.
This is an admirable policy, but again reality is not living up to intention. Not only is that implementation drive delayed; it has been scaled back. The NHS is also allowing the inclusion of technologies similar to ODM that do not have adequate backing through clinical research and have not been evaluated by NICE. Allowing unproven technology to be on an equal playing field with technology that has been through the rigours of clinical research is both unfair and uncompetitive. It will also result in worse outcomes for patients, lost productivity, fewer savings for the NHS and reduced incentives for clinical research to be carried out in the UK.
Will the noble Earl look again at the ODM implementation plan to ensure that the benefits to both patients and the NHS are realised through proper consideration being given to clinical research? There are so many complicated rare conditions that need new ways of treatment. When medical innovation has come up with the answer, it is vital that patients get the correct treatment for their condition. Nothing is more frustrating for the developers of a treatment and for the patients than when commissioners will not pay, thus holding up treatment and ongoing development.
It is heartening to witness the great support that so many people give to medical research and innovation through charities.
Lord Ribeiro
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Saatchi for bringing this debate on a matter that is very personal to him. I chair the research panel of the Pelican Cancer Foundation based in Basingstoke. One of our members, Professor Bill Heald, pioneered a new technique for removing rectal cancer in the early 1980s. Total mesorectal excision, or TME, reduces the incidence of a recurrent tumour in the pelvis after surgery. Despite many publications, presentations and lectures on his technique, it was not adopted in the UK. The Scandinavians, however, were more convinced of the benefits, and Professor Heald developed a national training programme with them, which was adopted in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden in the early 1990s. It became part of routine practice, resulting in improved outcomes for rectal cancer patients. It was to take another 10 years before TME became accepted as a routine procedure and best practice in the UK, despite it having been first pioneered in England.
So how can we speed up the take-up of new procedures? How can we accelerate translational research? In 2007, the national cancer action team and the Department of Health introduced the LAPCO training programme for teaching laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The Royal College of Surgeons promoted and delivered the programme through its new skills centres and, now, through specialist hospitals throughout England. This initiative proved so successful that I was recently asked to give a keynote lecture in the United States to offer our experience of teaching and disseminating laparoscopic colorectal surgery to the surgical community, and our methodology for assessing skills and accrediting competence to practise the procedure. The invitation letter said:
“It is my understanding that the UK has done this in a more proactive and safe fashion than we have in the States”,
an acknowledgment that central direction, as occurred with TME in Scandinavia and now with LAPCO, can produce best practice and innovation.
For a national programme of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for cancer, we will need about 460 surgeons trained in the technique. This is because we have a large NHS caseload, and it is required to meet the NICE guidelines on laparoscopic bowel resection. We currently have half that number. We need to be able to release doctors and surgeons to train innovative procedures. This requires incentives, the support of the base hospital when they have to go away to learn techniques, recognition of their efforts through clinical excellence awards—which I am pleased to say have been reinstated—and other marks of recognition. These efforts definitely show that you can improve the outcome for patients, and the benefit to them is real.
In a report in 2001, From theory to theatre: Overcoming barriers to innovation in surgery, the Royal College of Surgeons recommended that surgical trainees should be encouraged to participate in ongoing research and to work with multidisciplinary teams. With the support of CMO Dame Sally Davies, who was mentioned earlier, the Royal College of Surgeons has committed to funding five surgical trial centres from 2013, with the aim of recruiting thousands of patients for these trials. As surgeons, we are often criticised for not getting involved in randomised control trials; the comic opera referred to as “surgeons trying to do research” perhaps refers to this.
It is necessary today for us to carry out these trials because the number of trials carried out in surgical discipline comprises less than 10% of those done in cardiology. The trials units will provide expertise to develop multi-centre surgical trials, offer technical support and speed up the delivery of clinical trials. As surgeons, we are trying.
In order to speed up the process, from theory to theatre, it is vital that we involve patients in decisions about innovative treatment. Patients must understand the potential risks so that they are able to give full, informed consent. The process for doing this is in place—we have study design, ethical approval and patient involvement—but it needs to be expedited. We all know how long it takes to get approval to start a new trial. It is important that we do not have to wait the length of time that Professor Heald in Basingstoke did to introduce a procedure which has clearly saved many patients’ lives.
Lord Rennard
My Lords, I first declare my interest through the work that I do with the British Healthcare Trades Association, as in the register. However, the issue that I was asked to raise in this debate is specifically about the provision of insulin pumps.
I am one of the 2.9 million people in this country already diagnosed with diabetes. As a type 2 diabetic, I was first told that my treatment would only be in the form of tablets, but in common with many people who are diagnosed at a relatively early age with what they used to call “mature onset diabetes”, I found that after 10 years or so I also needed insulin injections every day. Now, as our understanding of dealing with diabetes grows, I am advised by my excellent diabetes specialist nurse that I may well need an insulin pump in another 10 years or so in order to be able to maintain good control of my condition.
The prevalence of diabetes is growing, and the period of time over which people need treatment is growing substantially. I am, therefore, concerned that many people with diabetes, who might benefit considerably from the provision of insulin pumps, do not currently find them available on the NHS. A survey not very long ago showed that the average rate of insulin pump provision for people with type 1 diabetes in this country was 3.7%, compared with the then 12% benchmark recommended by NICE and in comparison with other countries, such as the USA, where such provision is estimated at 35%, and Sweden, France and Germany, where it is estimated at 15-20%.
Good diabetes management is, of course, crucial to reducing diabetes-related complications, such as hypoglycaemic episodes and potentially fatal conditions such as heart disease and strokes. Greater use of technologies such as insulin pump therapy can deliver much better outcomes for patients. It can also help to reduce cost savings for the NHS by improving diabetes control, reducing primary care contacts, and reducing hospital admissions and hospital outpatient contacts.
However, the provision of insulin pumps is very patchy and inconsistent. Many healthcare professionals are not trained in supporting patients on insulin pump therapy and, as a consequence, are reluctant to recommend it as a treatment option. The position seems much better in Scotland. The Scottish Government announced in February 2012 that they would invest over £1 million to deliver insulin pumps to patients with diabetes. Over the next three years, their NHS boards will increase the number of insulin pumps available to under-18s, in addition to tripling the number of pumps available across Scotland.
Patients must of course be given accurate information about self-managing their condition, which should include advice on insulin pumps as a treatment option. It is imperative that healthcare professionals are trained in supporting patients to use insulin pump therapy.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on securing this debate. I, too, found his introduction moving, so I thank him for that.
I declare an interest as chief executive of the medical research charity Breast Cancer Campaign and, perhaps more importantly for this debate, honorary president of Cancer52, an alliance of more than 60 organisations—many of which are very small and unstaffed—working to address the issues faced by those with less common cancers who make up 52% of UK cancer deaths, including ovarian cancer.
The promotion of a vibrant research environment is absolutely essential for the development, evaluation and take-up of new medical innovations in our NHS. Research and innovation are vital if we are to ensure better outcomes for cancer patients, which is why I am so proud that we in this House worked hard and successfully to ensure that duties to promote research and innovation were included in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is now equally essential to make sure that these duties are embraced by the new NHS structures as they take up their responsibilities in the coming months. I know that there is much debate about how that will happen.
I turn to an issue that is of concern to many patients: the use of drugs which are off-patent and not licensed for a particular indication, but which could be helpful in new and innovative ways. This is a little related to concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has raised through his Private Member’s Bill. Many noble Lords will have seen the news yesterday about proposals from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to recommend the use of the drugs tamoxifen and raloxifene for the prevention of breast cancer in high-risk patients. The barrier to using tamoxifen for chemoprevention in the UK arises from the fact that the drug is now off-patent and its original licence does not cover the use of tamoxifen for chemopreventive purposes, despite the drug being licensed for this indication in the United States for a number of years. Because existing UK legislation only allows the original owner of the drug to seek to change the indication—even when a drug is off-patent and there is therefore no incentive for the drug company to seek a change at this stage—this means that medical professionals who may wish to prescribe the drug for their patients must do so outside the existing licensing agreement. This is a significant disincentive and we could argue that it is stifling innovation.
Indeed, the draft guidelines issued by NICE yesterday are clear. They state that the prescriber of these drugs should follow the General Medical Council’s good practice in prescribing medicines and take full responsibility for their decision. This means that medical professionals must clearly document that the patient, or whoever has the authority to give consent on the patient’s behalf, has provided informed consent to receive the drugs for chemopreventive purposes.
Although the NICE guidelines are designed to circumvent this problem and make health professionals more comfortable with prescribing these particular drugs for chemoprevention, the best way to eliminate any remaining doubts for prescribers would be for a new avenue to obtain licences for new indications for drugs where there is a clear evidence base of clinical benefit and when they are off-patent. Therefore, would the Minister tell us what avenues the Government are exploring for closing this existing shortfall in the current legislation? Have the Government perhaps explored any possibilities for public bodies such as NICE to seek new licences for off-patent drugs where the manufacturer has no incentive to do so? He might want to write to me on this, but it would be very interesting to hear how this kind of innovation—which is looking at existing medicines and discovering how they might be used in different ways in different conditions —could be made a more nimble, innovative process.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for having described, in a very moving and clear speech, the reality and the horror for patients of illness and treatment, and the difficulty that many patients and their families face while in the shock of realising that life is not as they hoped it would be and has changed in an instant.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has highlighted the push and pull of the dilemma of innovation in medicine. We have a push from research councils to innovate; we have a push in academic medicine, principally in secondary care in specialist services, to innovate, to think and to instigate new trials; and we have a push from industry to come up with developments. However, we have a pull, which is a risk-averse system that is frightened of taking the decision to go with something that looks as if it might be high-risk or to go with the unknown. It is that tension between the push and pull that I think we are caught in the middle of today. Perhaps this debate is really timely, because we need to think about how we should handle that.
I was involved in some of the early trials to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred, of children with leukaemia. I remember some of the children who were in the arms of the failing drugs; I remember them as if it were yesterday. I can see in my mind’s eye the room and the face of the child who then died and having to talk to those parents. However, it was through those trials, through every child taking part, that the face of childhood leukaemia has completely changed. I sincerely say, thank God that it has, because there was a terrible toll before those trials were properly instigated.
Another problem for patients, when they are faced with a disease for which there does not seem to be a conventional treatment on offer, is that in desperation they go off and try to find their own treatment and therapy. It is worth remembering that about half, or possibly more than half, of patients with malignant disease of any type seek help and treatments outside of conventional medicine, going for complementary or alternative medicine—often taking treatments for which there is no evaluation. Some years ago, it was a great difficulty for my team to cope with people who were coming in and saying that they were taking shark’s fin. The ecological disaster, the cruelty to sharks and the total lack of evidence of any efficacy made us come up with a form of words that we could use to dissuade patients from ever even thinking along those lines and discuss with them their use of alternative therapies or medicines. Some things that they pinned great hope on really had no benefit.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on having focused our minds on the patient in the context of themselves as a person and their whole family. He put me in mind of a patient I had at one time who was in exactly that situation. She was a young woman with a rare disease who was clearly dying. We discovered that her children had been fundraising at the school gate for a treatment that they had found on the internet. This treatment had been shipped over from America and she wanted it given to her. There was no evidence base that I could find for it, and I discussed it at length with her and her family, documenting everything—pages and pages of documentation of those conversations. She knew she was dying but she wanted to try it because she knew that her family could live afterwards if she tried it; but if she had not done so, they would not have been able to. Therefore, I undertook to take the whole responsibility on myself for administering it, equipped myself with drugs for every adverse event that might occur, and gave her one dose. There was no adverse effect but there was no benefit either, but after her death her children, who had fund-raised at the school gate, were able to cope better and were glad that she had at least tried it.
We have a system in medicine called the N of 1 trial, which is underused and should be used, particularly where we have rare conditions and genetic disorders, and where we could document and should be documenting what we do. There is a problem, though, for those who instigate such trials in getting them published. I would like to address the publication difficulty in my closing remarks—the difficulty of pooling all the little bits of information that can come from different aspects of medicine.
I think that the N of 1 trial will have an increasing place as we get further into rare genetic conditions and personalised medicine, but the NHS, with its push to embrace research as a core component, is going to have to look at a kind of buffer zone for funding the additional bits of work that need to go along with doing that properly. We also need to have good publication of negative results and we need to publish all the results, including all the adverse effects, when trials fail. Unless all of those emerge, we really will not know the full picture and what we are dealing with.
I make a plea that in this push-pull with which we are faced in medical innovation, there is a real push to have a repository for the results of some of these N of 1-type studies, and a repository for negative results and those that are currently going unpublished.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the clarity and strength of his speech. I am conscious of the medical distinction of many noble Lords here tonight; I participate as a layman.
For the past eight years I have chaired the Institute of Cancer Research, an organisation driven by innovation. The institute, a college of the University of London, employs about 800 scientists from more than 40 countries. According to the Times Higher, we came top of the most recent research assessment exercise. We prize a global-leading drug discovery unit and are proud that over the past six years alone, 16 of our drugs have been nominated as candidates for development. Two months ago, an innovation debate took place at the Royal Society. Professor Paul Workman, head of cancer therapeutics at the institute and the RSC’s entrepreneur of the year, was a speaker. He argued that, although we are making strides against cancer, we are failing to convert our knowledge into outcomes. To be precise, our knowledge of the genomes of cancer cells should be allowing us to develop targeted therapies for patients—what is known as personalised medicine.
There are many reasons why we are not advancing at greater speed. Biotech companies are diminishing because venture capitalists demand profits in three years, when in our sphere it is often a struggle to achieve results within a decade. Pharmaceutical companies should be switching from blockbuster drugs to personalised medicines targeted on small patient groups based on cancer genes, but we suffer from the fact that these pharmaceutical companies are also enduring an era of change, which is typified by the theme of next month’s Pharma Summit in London—namely, “Should pharma cut its losses and get out of R&D?”.
How can we turn our knowledge into targeted drugs? How can we bridge this innovation chasm? The commendable Strategy for UK Life Sciences, which was produced by the Government, urged us to develop infrastructures that connect academics, industry, investors, clinicians and the NHS. Thanks partly to a long-standing relationship with our sister organisation, the Royal Marsden Hospital, that is our model. It has worked well for years in terms of innovation and outcomes. It is vital for it to be taken up in as many places and as many fields as possible.
We also require more investment in drug discovery and development carried out by non-profit groups, especially early-stage drug projects that are too risky for industry and can be advanced quickly only in the lab and with patients. In addition, we require further re-evaluation of regulations and pricing. Patients must have earlier access to drugs. I am told by institute clinicians working in the Royal Marsden that the European clinical trials directive handicaps their work and impedes innovation. The Minister will know that, unfortunately, clinical trials carried out in the UK, as a percentage of the world total, have fallen from 6% to 1.4% during the past 10 years.
Drug discovery and development is the UK’s leading innovation-based business. It is the UK’s most successful manufacturing industry in terms of the surplus it provides for the balance of payments. However, expenditure does not necessarily correlate with inventiveness. I have always upheld the Schumpeter line that innovation is the critical part of economic change, yet Governments have a duty to create the right climate for innovators, and they have plenty yet to do.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, when I read just before Christmas the cri de coeur of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, about the lack of progress in finding cutting-edge treatments for cancer, I had huge sympathy, which has been reinforced by his passionate speech today. I remember a similar sense of anger, frustration and bewilderment at the lack of speedy diagnosis and then effective treatment of my mother’s cancer, albeit some years ago now.
I hoped that the science would move on. I knew how good our scientists and our clinical researchers were, so there was no question in my mind that our scientists could produce results so long as they were given the means and the encouragement to do so. Sadly, the improvements have been patchy and, in some cases, stubbornly resistant. A few months ago, I noted in a debate on pancreatic cancer that there had been virtually no change in treatments over the past 20 years, although it is about not just drugs but early diagnosis and access to surgery.
There are many reasons why progress has been less speedy than we might have hoped. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has identified one important area—the effect of medical negligence claims and the risk-averse culture that they generate—and I wish him good speed with his Private Member’s Bill.
Another area often cited as a brake on innovation is regulation. I declare an interest as chair of the Human Tissue Authority. I want to offer some thoughts on how regulation might be a force for good and need not stifle innovation. It is vital that all bodies involved in the health service do all that they can to facilitate high quality medical innovation. Innovation in medicine leads to improved healthcare and quality of life, and can have significant economic benefits.
Sir David Nicholson’s recent report, Innovation, Health and Wealth, provides us with a clear picture of what needs to change if we are to encourage further innovation in medicine and healthcare. In his report, Sir David makes a passing reference to regulation as a “top-down pressure” on innovation but, importantly, he does not identify regulation as one of his six,
“barriers to innovation in the NHS”.
No one doubts that regulation has value in providing assurance for quality, safety and efficacy, and regulation can sometimes be a driver of innovation. None the less, and notwithstanding the exclusion of regulation from Sir David’s six barriers, it is clear that some regulation, if it is excessive, complex, unclear or inflexible, can impede innovation. I believe that we should review all healthcare regulation in terms of design, implementation and enforcement, to ensure that unnecessary barriers are removed. The regulators should be challenged and, just as importantly, should challenge themselves to ensure that they are not creating barriers to innovation.
I shall finish with a few words about the approach to regulation used by the Human Tissue Authority. Of particular relevance to this debate is our remit relating to the use of human tissue for patient treatment and the development of regenerative medicines, where we work very closely with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The HTA is very supportive of research and ensures that effective regulation supports good practice and high-quality science which, in turn, leads to improved healthcare.
There is no doubt that some of the regulation in this area is complex, primarily because the science itself is complex, as is the legislation underpinning that regulation. Complex does not have to mean burdensome, however. At the HTA we believe that a key role of a regulator is to provide clarity and to support organisations in working through the quality and safety regulations. I urge the Minister to reinforce the point that, if done well, regulation can yield significant benefits. It provides assurances about quality and that products can be used safely for patient treatment. It promotes faith in the efficacy of products. Will the Minister confirm that regulators should be committed to doing all that they can to support innovation in medicine? This is certainly true at the HTA, and I hope that the Minister will encourage all regulators in the sector to have such an enabling approach.
In my last few seconds, I should like to raise a related topic. I learnt this morning of a proposal in the European Parliament that the minimum duration of a medical training programme should be increased to six years. This could have serious consequences for graduate-entry programmes in the UK. Medical schools will probably not be able to recruit arts graduates, and surely we need creative people in the profession if we want to be more innovative, especially when evidence shows that they make as good doctors as do science graduates. Will the Minister take this back to his colleagues and ask them to do all that they can to prevent the requirement being increased in this way before the vote on 24 January?
Lord Patel
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for initiating this debate and for presenting it so movingly. This ought to be the start of such debates. It ought not to be the last debate we have on this subject. I hope he will remain committed to leading us in future debates.
Some of the treatments the noble Lord described, particularly for some cancers, are medieval and this continues to be the situation for some cancers. Treatment for pancreatic cancer, to which the noble Baroness referred and of which both my mother and my mother-in-law died, remains the same. However, there is hope. Some novel and innovative treatments are now being tried out, such as molecular tagging of drugs to get at cancers that are not amenable to conventional treatment. There is also nanomedicine for targeting tumours that are not responsive to current treatments. There are other technologies that I will come to which could be used to target tumours that are not receptive to radiotherapy.
We should also be slightly more optimistic in this country about where our science is today compared with 10 years ago. For instance, we have had 12 Nobel Prize winners in medicine and physiology since 2001. We have to go back to 1998 for the previous one. Not only that, we have Nobel Prize winners in allied disciplines, such as Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan who won the chemistry prize in 2009 for his isolation of the structure of life science-related diseases.
We now have a commitment from the Government to investing in science and having strategies in life sciences and other fields. We should give credit for that. We hope that innovations will come but we must also ensure that regulation is proportionate and is not bureaucratic. We must always keep an eye on that.
There is also the question of investment in translational medicine. One example is in the field not of drug therapy but in cell therapy where big pharma will not invest and small countries do not have the money to do early translational research. There are many examples. One is the use of embryonic stem cells as a therapy for age-related macular degeneration. Currently, the first-phase translation of that is being funded through research councils and charities. The Government should be funding early-phase translation. What plans do the Government have to help with this?
I come now to technological advances and I use the example of focused radiotherapy which is often referred to as “cyberknife”. Of course it is not a knife: it is focused radiotherapy. You cannot use conventional radiotherapy for targeting tumours because you will do more harm to normal cells. Currently, to make that available to a patient who is not amenable to conventional treatment, the doctor will have to ask for finances from commissioners or PCTs. They do not have the expertise to know whether that is indicated for that patient or not, and they may or may not fund it. The Government should be commended for accepting in the Health and Social Care Act that all NHS organisations must have an awareness of research, but it is difficult to find money to fund an expensive, one-off treatment. However, that is sometimes the only thing that is available to the patient. We should support such technologies and make sure that whenever we find that they are not supported, we do something about supporting them. Will the Minister confirm that he will expect commissioners to look at such treatments and innovations in a more favourable way and provide the funding that individual patients require? These treatments are expensive.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for initiating this debate. We should debate some of these issues at length at the Second Reading of his Bill and I wish him luck with that.
Lord Kakkar
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for having introduced this important debate with so much courage and with such intellectual power. In doing so, I declare my interests as Professor of Surgery at University College London, as Chair for Clinical Quality in our academic health sciences centre, UCL Partners, and as an active clinical researcher.
Innovation is absolutely at the heart of improving clinical practice and outcomes for our patients. It is only right that patients, their relatives and the public expect the profession and government to do all they can to ensure, first, that the research necessary to develop innovative treatments and diagnostic strategies is promoted at national and local levels, and that, once we become aware of innovation—be it through research in our own country or anywhere else in the world—it is quickly identified, adopted and placed in clinical practice. Her Majesty’s Government have placed a particular emphasis on this. Driving a research commitment in the Health and Social Care Bill for the first time, ensuring an obligation on the Secretary of State for Health to promote research and development in the NHS, was an important statutory development. We have the commitment of funding through the National Institute for Health Research, the biomedical research centres and their associated units, and the academic health science centres, which all promote early-phase, experimental and clinical research in our healthcare system.
However, Her Majesty’s Government have also recognised the problem of adopting the findings of that innovation and diffusing it more broadly across the healthcare system and across larger proportions and populations of patients. The recent report, Innovation, Health and Wealth, has identified the need for the development of academic health science networks with a clear obligation to ensure that high-impact innovation is quickly adopted and diffused across populations and healthcare systems, and that the recognised therapies that have been shown to have important clinical benefit and are approved by NICE through its guidance mechanisms are applied more broadly across populations for which we are responsible.
We have also heard in this debate that there are important hurdles to innovation in our healthcare system. These hurdles are regulatory, they are potentially legal and they are cultural in terms of the way that clinical practitioners and others work in the National Health Service and healthcare systems more broadly.
With regard to regulation, I should like to ask the Minister about one particular problem that we have heard about today—the European clinical trials directive. I know that Her Majesty’s Government are involved in negotiations at the European level to overcome some of the problems associated with this directive, which has been damaging to clinical research in our country. Is the noble Earl able to give an update on the progress that has been made there and on what changes might be made to this regulation in the future?
With regard to the legal problem, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, identified case law which suggests that there may be anxiety in clinicians’ minds about innovating when it comes to the individual patient in front of them. This may indeed be a very important problem and something that needs to be addressed. As we have heard in this debate, it needs to be addressed in a sensitive and careful way to ensure appropriate innovation and to ensure that clinicians who are in a position to innovate do so effectively but that any deleterious effect is not allowed to take place.
Then there is the question of culture. This is particularly important because much of the debate today has focused on what the views of clinicians and researchers, the healthcare system and indeed the Government may be on innovation. However, we must also look at innovation from the patients’ point of view, as well as that of their relatives. They are right to expect that when they need it most, innovation, wherever it is, is responsibly applied to the management of their case. In all the important work to drive innovation, and the research and development of biomedicine that has been achieved in our country so far, we must be sensitive to the fact that we may not be meeting the expectations of patients—our fellow human beings—when they are at their most vulnerable, and therefore more may need to be done to drive an improved culture for the adoption of innovation and the improvement of practice in our country.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, it is clear that we are all enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for introducing this very timely debate. It was impossible not to be moved by his remarkable personal story, and I respect and admire the motivation that lies behind his desire to see the best possible treatments being made rapidly available for patients. He has certainly stimulated a wide-ranging debate.
I declare an interest as a trustee of the charity Ovarian Cancer Action and as a one-time practising clinician. We have heard from a number of noble Lords about the time-consuming, bureaucratic regulatory pathway that new drugs have to go through, and we should do something about that—I hope that the noble Earl might comment. However, I want to concentrate on how it might be possible to bypass this normal route to approval, and to give patients a drug that has just come out of research. I shall limit myself to cancer patients.
We know that the Government are committed to embedding research in the NHS, although we are a little way off delivering fully on that holy grail across the whole of the NHS as yet. However, it is the case that novel candidate drugs for cancers are being developed all the time, and are being used for patients in many major centres around the country. At the Cancer Research laboratories that we heard about, the Christie hospital in Manchester, the Beatson Institute in Glasgow and centres in most other cities new drugs are being developed all the time. The £200 million cancer fund has been invaluable in making them available for patients. What will happen to this funding when the source dries up, as I believe it might? It is a tragic fact that, despite some remarkable advances, there remain many cancers that have proved terribly resistant. Ovarian and pancreatic cancer, for example, creep up on patients with vague symptoms or none at all, so that diagnosis is often made too late.
The point is, however, that as novel treatments become available, they can be and are being tried. Of course, there are strict conditions. Novel treatments can be given to individual patients only during clinical trials or on a named patient basis, where patients are made fully aware of the risks and dangers as well as the fact that the treatment may or may not help them. They must give their informed consent. Then, the best conditions for giving the treatment must be available. Those involved in the research, who understand the possibility of adverse side effects, should be available, as should the laboratory facilities to monitor the patient’s response. These are the conditions under which it is reasonable to give novel treatments, and they are just the ones that are provided by the NHS in our major cancer centres around the country.
It should be clear, too, from all of this that it is difficult to provide these conditions outside major centres, particularly in private hospitals where the expertise may not be available. Consultants there are often on their own, and do not have the full back-up that would give them confidence. They may feel vulnerable and unwilling to take the risks to which they would be exposed. Furthermore, private funders may be quite unwilling to fund untried treatments or the extra tests needed to monitor the patients.
I come to the problem described by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. It is clear that we do not currently lack the ability to try out novel treatments within the NHS, and I have described the best conditions under which they should be and are being given. However, there are problems of continuing funding, with particular difficulty in private hospitals and in some district general hospitals which lack the facilities. In those hospitals, doctors and their patients need to be made aware of the limitations that exist. When the possibility of a novel treatment arises, patients should be offered the prospect of transfer to a centre where the relevant research is going on and the treatment is being given.
This debate has been invaluable in setting out a set of problems that really deserve our attention. The need to be able to speed through the availability of novel therapies is vitally important, and we must do something about the regulatory burden. However, so far as the use of innovative treatments is concerned, I am not yet convinced that we need a new law to achieve what we want. We should concentrate on spreading information about what novel treatments are emerging across the whole of the service, what treatments are available in our cancer centres, and ensuring the rapid transfer of patients to those centres.
I very much look forward to the noble Earl’s response and I hope that he will say something about many of the other problems mentioned today, such as streamlining regulation, availability of cancer funds and replacement of those funds by some other source. I believe that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for raising the debate, and for giving me my moment in the sun on the Front Bench.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Saatchi introduced this debate most compellingly and very movingly, and I thank him for bringing a subject of such importance to us and one on which your Lordships have considerable expertise, as this debate has amply shown.
Let me start, as many speakers have done, by focusing on the NHS. The unique and integrated nature of the health service has brought many advantages. Since the NHS was established in 1948, innovation has brought incalculable benefits for patients. Treatments have been improved, as has health policy. Inequalities have been reduced. Productivity has been increased. However, while the NHS is recognised as a world leader at invention, the spread of those inventions within the NHS has often been too slow, and sometimes even the best of them fail to achieve widespread use. It still takes an estimated average of 17 years for only 14% of new scientific discoveries to enter day-to-day clinical practice. This is not acceptable. Patients have the right to expect better health, better care and better value from their NHS.
We need to make sure that our staff can get the best, transformative, most innovative ideas, products and clinical practice spread at pace and at scale so that every patient benefits. That cannot happen without innovative minds working with the best resources in a creative and supportive environment. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, reminded us so powerfully, research is an essential part of the innovation pathway. The Government’s investment in basic health research through the Medical Research Council underpins invention, and our investment in applied health research through the NIHR underpins evaluation. Translation of research is also vital for innovation to progress along the pathway. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will be pleased to know that the Government are investing a record £800 million over five years in a series of NIHR biomedical research centres and units. These are translating scientific breakthroughs into better treatments for patients.
Demands on healthcare continue to rise for now and the foreseeable future. We must meet those demands from within our current real-terms funding, while at the same time improve quality. Accelerated change is not so much a goal as an absolute necessity. This means that doing more of what we have always done is no longer an option. We need to radically transform the way in which we deliver services. Innovation is the only way in which we can meet these demands. Spreading innovations in large disaggregated organisations is notoriously difficult. It is one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS. Systematic bottlenecks come with the territory. To make things harder still, technology adoption can be very complex, often requiring significant and disruptive reorganisation. New methods can require different expertise and mean new training, while care pathways have to be overhauled and existing procedures decommissioned. There can be financial barriers or issues of silo-budgeting. Of course, if we are to change this there have to be effective and efficient ways for innovations to reach the patients who need them. This must be across the NHS. That is why implementing the recommendations in Sir David Nicholson’s report, Innovation, Health and Wealth, is crucial. It set out a delivery agenda for spreading innovation at pace and scale throughout the NHS. Its programme is designed as an integrated set of measures that will together support the NHS in achieving a systematic and profound change in the way in which services are delivered.
The innovation landscape before the publication of IHW lacked transparency and accountability; there was variable compliance with NICE technology appraisals, and the picture was confused and cluttered with layers of organisations seeking to serve as gateways for interaction between the NHS, academia and industry partners. Value for money for patients, the NHS, UK plc and healthcare partners was, I have to say, doubtful and innovation was not a central priority throughout the system. IHW seeks to overcome barriers to innovation that have built up over decades, and aims to deliver long-term, sustainable change embedded right at the heart of the NHS. To do that, we need not only to change structures and process but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, reminded us, to change culture and behaviour—and this takes time.
Innovation is a top priority for the new NHS. This was most recently illustrated by the publication of its planning guidance on 18 December which clearly stated:
“All NHS organisations should demonstrate how they are driving innovation and developing delivery mechanisms for long-term success and sustainability of innovation in their health economy”.
To spread ideas right across the NHS means working collaboratively with all those who have an interest. I am completely in agreement with my noble friend Lord Ribeiro on this. This is why we want to see a more systematic delivery mechanism so that innovation spreads quickly and successfully through the NHS. This can happen in a number of ways, in particular through Academic Health Science Networks, or AHSNs. The NHS needs a stronger relationship with the scientific and academic communities and industry to develop solutions to healthcare problems and get existing solutions spread at pace and scale. AHSNs present a unique opportunity to align clinical research, informatics, innovation, training and education and healthcare delivery—exactly the issues highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. They will improve patient and population outcomes by translating research into practice, developing and implementing integrated healthcare services. My noble friend Lord Saatchi will be glad to know that our ambition is for every NHS hospital to be part of an AHSN.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, expressed her view that clinical research was somewhat of a poor relation in comparison to delivery of services. We have done a great deal to turn that situation around. Through its integrated academic training programme, the NIHR has taken a lead in reversing the decline in clinical academic careers. Around 250 NIHR academic clinical fellowships and 100 NIHR clinical lectureships are now available annually for medics. Last month we announced the award of five new NIHR research professorships in the second competition for these awards, and a third round is under way.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, my noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, focused on regulation and the varying degree to which it can be a force for good. I listened with concern to what my noble friend Lord Willis had to say about the Health Research Authority. He is so up to date that I probably do not need to tell him this, but the House may be interested to hear that the HRA is collaborating with other regulatory and advisory bodies, for example the MHRA, to create a unified approval process for the approval of health research and to promote consistent and proportionate standards for compliance and inspection. This should reduce the impact of regulation on research-active businesses, universities and NHS trusts; it will improve the timeliness of decisions about research projects and hence improve the cost-effectiveness of their delivery; and it has the clear support of the Academy of Medical Sciences’ review of health regulation and governance.
My noble friend Lord Ryder rightly focused on earlier access to drugs. That is one of the reasons why we have introduced the cancer drugs fund, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, was kind enough to mention, of £600 million over three years. Clinicians can now proscribe the cancer drugs that they feel their patients will benefit from, and 23,000 patients have already benefited from it. I will write to him on the future of the fund.
My noble friend Lord Willis referred to adaptive licensing. This is a subject in which I have taken a personal interest. It is an important area but, I would say, one in which there are many complexities. He is quite right that the MHRA has convened an expert advisory group to consider matters such as this, and I attended its meeting last October. However, we need pharmaceutical companies to come forward and nominate candidates for adaptive licensing. So far, despite asking, no such candidates have been proposed, but we are pressing forward in that area as fast as we can.
My noble friend Lord Ryder also referred to genomic and personalised medicine, an area of major importance in the delivery of personalised medicine, as he said. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 10 December that the ambition of the UK is to achieve a paradigm shift in the development of high throughput genome sequencing. Our ambition is to sequence 100,000 patients and have a small number of contracts in place to deliver this from 2014. From a standing start, I think that is going to be an impressive achievement, and we are on track to deliver it.
My noble friend Lord Saatchi took us very movingly to the subject of cancer, and a number of other noble Lords have also spoken about it. I fully recognise that, with cancer, screening and the identification of symptoms are vital, and perhaps the single most important thing that will improve outcomes. I will write to my noble friend about this, because all is not lost in this area. We have cause for hope, contrary to what he said, not least in ovarian cancer, where there has been a slow but steady improvement in one and five-year survival rates over the past few years.
My noble friend Lord Ribeiro rightly focused on the slowness of adoption of techniques developed in the UK. I agree that that is the problem. It is one that we are trying to address, but it is a matter of culture, which, as I have said, takes time to change. In addressing long-term culture change, we are seeking to make innovation at pace and scale everybody’s business in the NHS. People throughout the service have to feel ownership of the agenda. The IHW programme is bringing together a community of leaders at different levels in the system who will work together over the next few months to build commitment and ownership in the NHS, to ensure that innovation really is at the heart of the way the NHS does business.
As so often, time is my enemy. I have a number of other things that I would like to have said if I had had more time, not least to my noble friend Lord Rennard, the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham, Lady Finlay and Lady Morgan, and, indeed, others. If they will allow, I will write to them all and to other noble Lords whose questions I have not answered.
I believe we can point to a great deal of progress being made at a time of great change in the NHS, but much more needs to be done to deliver the improvements we need. We must not be complacent, and I am not. We owe it to patients, the public and our stakeholders to achieve that systematic adoption and diffusion of innovation that I have referred to. We are committed to a future in which innovation is a core function of the NHS. That will help us achieve our overall aim, which is to have health outcomes as good as any in the world.