House of Commons

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

Monday 22 June 2015

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business before Questions

Sessional Returns

Ordered,

That there be laid before this House Returns for Session 2014-15 of information and statistics relating to:

(1) Business of the House;

(2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of Time (including Programme Motions);

(3) Sittings of the House;

(4) Private Bills and Private Business;

(5) Public Bills;

(6) Delegated Legislation and Legislative Reform Orders;

(7) European Legislation, etc;

(8) Grand Committees;

(9) Panel of Chairs; and

(10) Select Committees.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effects of automatic enrolment on private sector pension saving.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)]

More than 5.2 million workers have been automatically enrolled in a workplace pension by their employer to date. Since the start of automatic enrolment, workplace pension membership in the private sector has risen from 32% in 2012 to 49% in 2014, a very positive start.

[Julian Knight]

With 135,000 firms set to auto-enrol their employees from January, does my hon. Friend agree that the work of non-governmental groups such as the Solihull-based Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals is key to the successful delivery of auto-enrolment and to meeting the savings challenge of 11 million Britons who are currently failing to put enough away for their retirement?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Our success to date in implementing automatic enrolment could not have been achieved without the significant ongoing support of a number of sectors, including the pensions and payroll industries. Friends of automatic enrolment have played a crucial role in bringing together organisations that are playing a key role in its delivery. Together they have helped the Government improve the process of automatic enrolment and ensure that these reforms work. We thank them for their support so far and their commitment to continuing to work with us as we start the process of helping 1.3 million smaller employers implement automatic enrolment for their workers.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

But will the Minister advise the House of his estimate of the number of workers who are excluded from the benefit of auto-enrolment because of the changes in the threshold over the past five years, and of what proportion of those workers are women?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The Secretary of State is required by law to review the automatic enrolment thresholds in each tax year and may take into account a range of prescribed factors. The review can include considering whether to lower or increase the thresholds or leave them unchanged, as was the case for the current tax year. Freezing the trigger for this tax year will result in approximately 14,000 additional women and 20,000 people overall being brought into pension savings. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, I am happy to write to him with further information.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

18. I welcome the Minister to his post.One way of boosting auto-enrolment further would be to ensure that people were more confident when they came to access their savings that they had the full range of choices that the law now allows. What more can the Minister do to encourage pension funds to offer that full range at an affordable and fair price?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am encouraged by the fact that 91% of people who have already been auto-enrolled have continued to save, which is a welcome step and above initial expectations. We will continue to work with the Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator to ensure that flexibilities, information and charges are all delivering for the consumer.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

When it comes to the reforms that the Government are putting through, particularly on pension freedoms, we are mindful of the attractions of consumer choice but also of all the mis-selling scandals of the past. What assurances can the Minister give that all defined-contribution plan holders will get appropriate advice and that consumers will be adequately protected? It is not clear to us that the appropriate measures are in place.

[Justin Tomlinson]

As I said in response to the previous question, we will work with the Treasury, the FCA and the Pensions Regulator to monitor that closely. We have also brought in a 0.75% cap on charges, which in time will allow an extra £200 million to remain in pension savings.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Adrian Bailey. Not here.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

4. What progress his Department has made on the Disability Confident campaign.

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

12. What progress his Department has made on the Disability Confident campaign.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)]

The Disability Confident campaign continues to play a crucial role in the Government’s aim of halving the disability gap. It has secured support from 360 employers and pledges from 98 organisations to positively change employment practices towards disabled staff. Many colleagues are hosting constituency events, including my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) who did so last week.

[Chloe Smith]

Norwich for Jobs, the youth employment campaign that I founded in Norwich, has hit its goal of helping to halve youth unemployment. We want to turn the power of that local network towards helping young people who are claiming employment and support allowance. Will the Minister join me in calling on Norwich companies to give a young disabled person a chance?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am delighted to hear of the success my hon. Friend has achieved in her constituency with Norwich for Jobs. That is exactly the kind of local initiative that I welcome, and to which I am pleased to add my support. In addition, I hope that her local authority, local enterprise partnership and business community will do all they can to help to promote that fantastic scheme.

[Nigel Adams]

Will the Minister join me in thanking all the employers and speakers who contributed to my first Disability Confident conference in Selby a couple of weeks ago? It was an extremely worthwhile event to organise. Many of those employers will join me for my fifth jobs fair in October. I was particularly pleased because we had a bit of stardust at the event—Pamela Uddin, the star of the BBC’s “The Apprentice”, shared her experiences of coping with dyslexia.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am aware of the very successful event my hon. Friend organised. I congratulate him on the quality of the speakers he secured—it certainly shows that he is no apprentice. We need employers to see that recruiting and retaining disabled people should be the norm, and that disabled people have a great deal to offer in the workplace. Events such as the Selby summit play a crucial part in our drive to get employers involved.

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

Does the Minister agree that an almost hidden element of disability is autism? It is a barrier to so many people gaining employment and a full and confident life.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I have met stakeholder groups, and that message has been made very clear to me. In fact, 42% of disabled people looking for work say that the biggest barrier they face is the attitude of their employer. Through such campaigns as Disability Confident, we hope to inspire more businesses to take on more people with disabilities. We rejoice in the fact that, over the past 12 months, an extra 238,000 disabled people were in work.

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

What support is the Minister offering to specialist and locally based employment organisations such as Northern Rights in my constituency and the East Durham Employability Trust? They have a proven track record of supporting disabled people and people with multiple barriers into work, but have frequently found it very difficult to access funding from the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Again, having met with stakeholders, I can say that local initiatives are clearly key. Each of our individual constituencies has different challenges and opportunities. Part of the Disability Confident campaign is sharing best practice. I would be keen to hear more of the good work going on in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

As part of the Disability Confident campaign, will the Minister work with organisations such as United Response, which does excellent work in my constituency with people who have learning difficulties such as autism, which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) mentioned, so that people with learning difficulties go into every kind of job and all public service? Some are councillors. I want more people with learning difficulties to put themselves forward to be councillors and Members of Parliament.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is why we launched the Disability Confident campaign and why we will continue to drive it forward. I met Liz Sayce of Disability Rights UK. She made it very clear to me: she said that, too often, disabled people are seen as recipients when they want to be net contributors. Local initiatives, sharing best practice, busting the myths and ensuring that people see what a huge amount of talent is available will continue to help to drive up disability employment rates.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

5. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the High Court ruling in June 2015 on delays in personal independence payments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)]

We have taken decisive action to speed up waiting times for personal independence payment claims and are pleased that the Court has recognised the huge progress made. The average new PIP claimant now waits only five weeks for an assessment.

[Alan Brown]

Currently, delays to people receiving PIP causes problems, but the impact of delays on other benefits such as the carer’s allowance and blue badges is hugely significant. Although the Government have made progress, will the Minister advise us as to what the backlog is in terms of numbers, and how many people wait more than seven weeks?

[Justin Tomlinson]

It is important to recognise that other benefits are backdated. We have made huge progress. The backlog has been falling month on month since August 2014, and we are now within where we would expect to be as part of usual business. We are looking at a median time, end to end, of 11 weeks. We will continue to monitor that important issue closely.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to a letter I received from a constituent last week? He says:

“I was recently contacted by DWP to be assessed for PIP…I sent the forms off and within 3 days had a medical assessment at my home…I have to tell you that the process from start to finish was 3 weeks. Is this a record?...Whilst we read a lot in the media I think my recent experience shows the system may at last be improving.”

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Claims are now cleared at four times the rate they were in January 2014. We have quadrupled the number of healthcare professionals, introduced more than 200 new assessment rooms, doubled the number of DWP decision-making staff, and improved IT systems and claimant communication. I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituent has benefited from those improvements.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I welcome the new Ministers to their roles.

The recent High Court ruling found that the delays to PIP were unreasonable and unlawful. They are also undermining the well-being and dignity of sick and disabled people. I know that I am not the only Member who has seen constituents affected not just by inordinate delays, but by poor quality assessments, driving them into hardship and destitution. The High Court ruling should have been a wake-up call for Ministers, but they seem to be refusing to accept that PIP is just not fit for purpose. In the light of that damning judgment, will they halt the roll-out of PIP and initiate a review as a matter of urgency?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Actually, the Court and the Paul Gray review agreed that there were no inherent failings in the system, and significant improvements have been made, which I have already listed. The reality is that some cases were unacceptable, but we must not forget why we introduced PIP. It is a modern benefit that allows thorough face-to-face assessments and will ultimately see a higher proportion of maximum value paid, compared with the old disability living allowance system. We are continuing to make improvements and I will keep a close eye on the issue.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am disappointed by the Minister’s complacency. Earlier this year, Citizens Advice Scotland published research showing that 55% of current DLA claimants will lose out in the transfer to PIP. It is not just sick and disabled people who will suffer—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I thought you were cutting me off, Mr Speaker. The Scottish Government estimate that 450 carers in Scotland will lose their carer’s allowance because of this transition. That will put further strain on families that are already at a disadvantage—

[Mr Speaker]

Too long. Some of these questions require a bit of advance practice and a blue pencil. I have no impediment in my throat: I was trying gently to hint to the hon. Lady that her question was a tad long.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Lady’s views. PIP is a far better system than the former DLA. Under DLA, only 6% of people had a face-to-face assessment, 50% of awards were made with no medical advice, and 71% were allocated lifetime awards, even though one in three cases would change within 12 months—often getting worse, so that people missed out on the appropriate support. We are right to push this and I will continue to keep a close eye on the improvements we have made.

[Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Minister to his post.

My constituency has many isolated rural and coastal communities. What is being done to ensure that assessment centres are more accessible and flexible for people in those communities?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question: he is a real champion for his constituents. We have added an extra 200 assessment rooms. People who find it difficult to reach an assessment room can travel by car as long as it is within 60 minutes; by public transport if it is within 90 minutes; or, by prior agreement with the assessment providers, they can have taxis provided and paid for.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

What a difference a weekend makes. On Saturday, thousands of disabled people marched in protest against cuts in their benefits. The Minister comes here today, trotting out his sunshine stories, while in the real world disabled people are losing benefits left, right and centre. He can remedy that today by saying, “This Government will not cut the benefits of any disabled person throughout this Parliament.” Come on, say it!

[Justin Tomlinson]

We are clear that we will protect the disabled and vulnerable. Let us remember that under the PIP system 22% of claimants will end up getting the highest rate of support, which is higher than the 16% under the DLA. We are doing more to help the most vulnerable in society.

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

6. What support his Department is providing to young people seeking apprenticeships and employment.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

Apprenticeships give young people the chance to reach their potential, giving them the skills and training required to achieve a successful career. The Government have funded training elements of apprenticeships in England, and between 2009-10 and 2013-14 there has been a 40% increase in the number of young people starting one.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative commitment to create an additional 3 million apprenticeships over this Parliament will give young people the skills they need to get on in life? Will she tell the House what she is doing to work with both the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the quality of those new apprenticeships is top notch and improving all the time?

[Priti Patel]

Let me start by commending my hon. Friend and fellow Essex MP for his work in this area, particularly with his local employers, many of whom I have met and know. He is of course right to say that our commitment to create 3 million apprenticeships will give young people the vital skills to reach their full potential. We are already working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and employers as part of our apprenticeship reforms to ensure that Britain’s young people get a quality apprenticeship that will help them to reach their full potential.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

While there are indeed some excellent apprenticeships—there is no doubt about that—sadly, all too often there are employers who use them as, in effect, a rebranded youth training scheme or youth opportunities programme-type arrangement. What will the Minister do to publish details of employers who abuse the apprenticeship system, or does the scrutiny simply not allow for that?

[Priti Patel]

We all know, and this House recognises, that apprenticeships are vital. They give young people the chance to learn the skills to reach their full potential. [Interruption.] I hear an Opposition Member chuntering away. Employers play a vital role in this scheme. I have already touched on the fact that we are working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on our reforms and delivering 3 million apprenticeships. Employers will be at the heart of that, providing quality training and accountability in their role with apprenticeships.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

20. On a recent visit to Fuel Conservation Services in Hednesford, I saw the impact that access to apprenticeships and high-quality training has on young people entering the workplace. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the work of businesses like FCS in offering apprenticeships to young people? [Interruption.] Does she recognise the role that businesses can play in working with the Government on initiatives to tackle youth unemployment?

[Priti Patel]

Let me start by welcoming my hon. Friend to the House as a new Member of Parliament. It is interesting to hear the conversations among those on the Opposition Benches. They do not like success stories, such as that of the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I commend her local business. It is important that the House recognises the vital contribution that employers like FCS make in offering young people apprenticeships. She touches on a very valuable point: they support young people in the transition from school to the world of work, which we know is challenging for young people, and we will support employers in that.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Having served an apprenticeship under a dual system of high-quality apprenticeships, I ask the Minister to accept that employers have to play a much larger role in providing the skills space for our apprentices, and that just expanding level 2 apprenticeships is not sufficient.

[Priti Patel]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. This is all about quality. The quality of the apprenticeships is what we should concern ourselves with: working with employers in particular to make sure that they are giving our young people not just the hopes and aspirations but the skills they require for their own businesses and sectors to enable succession planning within companies and sectors. Also, we have made a commitment to deliver 3 million new apprenticeships, and we are absolutely clear that they should now provide parity with a degree-equivalent qualification. Employers play an important role in delivering that.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

8. What his policy is on maintaining the level of (a) employment and support allowance, (b) personal independence payment and (c) attendance allowance for disabled claimants.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her campaigning in this area. I would like to take this opportunity to offer her my condolences, not having spoken to her before.

I am currently reviewing all policy on welfare. The outcome will be announced when the work is complete, but as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), said, it is our intention to protect the most vulnerable, including the disabled. I believe our reforms demonstrate our strong record of supporting disabled people. We introduced the personal independence payment to ensure more support is going to those who need it. More than 700,000 of those who were, once upon a time, stuck on incapacity benefits under Labour are now preparing or looking for work. Spending on disability benefits increased in real terms, and, as my hon. Friend has said, disability employment increased by 238,000 in the previous Parliament.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the Secretary of State for his condolences.

My advice surgery has received people who are terminally ill, people with life-ending degenerative conditions, people who have been found fit to work despite both conditions, and those on attendance allowance have been told to use their attendance allowance to pay for their second bedroom, so that they are not affected by the bedroom tax. There is huge fear out there in the disabled community. May we have an assurance that those with disabilities will not be further affected by more cuts in welfare benefits?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Our purpose is to protect the most vulnerable. It has been from the beginning, and it will continue to be. There is, therefore, no reason for people to be fearful, and I hope that Opposition Members will not whip up such fearfulness, although I am by no means accusing the hon. Lady of that.

We must review welfare spending, but we want to do so in a way that actually changes lives. We felt that much of the huge increase in welfare spending under the Labour Government—an increase of some 60%—went to the wrong people who were not doing the right thing. That is the key point. Our purpose is to reform welfare in order to get people back to work, and to ensure that those who cannot manage and have disabilities are treated with the utmost kindness and given the utmost support.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

There are many unpaid carers in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that flexible working patterns can be an important part of support for them? What encouragement can the Government give employers and employees who need to embrace such flexibility?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Universal credit will be of enormous help to people with caring responsibilities, and others who are periodically required to be at home, because it will pay to be in work for every single hour. Moreover, under universal credit, as part of the in-work allowances, we have included an extra piece of support for those who care for others, on top of the carer’s allowance.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Disabled people do not want kindness; they want justice, and access to the benefits that can help them to live their lives. Will the Secretary of State give them a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no cuts in their benefits, no cuts in tax credits, and no cuts in the disability premiums that tax credits can bring? Disabled people need those assurances, given that, we understand, the Secretary of State has now agreed with the Chancellor that we are to expect welfare cuts amounting to £12 billion.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let me remind the hon. Lady what happened during the last Parliament, under a Conservative Government. Spending on disability living allowance was up by half in the decade before PIP came in, and just 6% of new claimants had face-to-face assessments. Under PIP, 20% of claimants receive both the higher rates, as opposed to 16% under DLA. Our reforms are about helping those in the greatest need. Let me remind the hon. Lady of something else as well, just in case she has forgotten. We did debate the overall figure of £12 billion, and Labour lost the election. I remember something that was said by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), who is not with us for the moment—I send her my best. She said:

“Labour will be tougher than the Tories when it comes to slashing the benefits bill.”

Is it not a bit of hypocrisy on the part of Labour Members to come here and make their claims, having said that they would be tougher than we are?

[Kate Green]

Labour will be tougher in cutting benefits when that is a response to the wrong drivers of those benefits. What we will not tolerate is cuts in benefits for people who are in work and who need those benefits to enable their work to pay. May I ask the Secretary of State about some of the work-related benefits for disabled people? Will he confirm that there will be no cuts and no downgrading of the payments to people on employment and support allowance in the work-related activity group, and will he tell us whether industrial injuries disablement benefit will be protected from cuts?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady really needs to think carefully about what she says. Labour Members say that they will be tougher than us. Let me give the hon. Lady a simple pledge: we will protect the most vulnerable. There is only thing that is tough at the moment —tough on Labour Members: they lost the election. They had no idea of how they were going to end the deficit, and that is why they are sitting on the Opposition Benches.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

9. What arrangements are in place to prevent child maintenance payments from increasing when a parent is prevented from spending time with their child by the recipient of the payments.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

The issue of contact with children and that of the calculation of child maintenance, although related, are separate. In the calculation, we will reflect the level of care that a parent provides for any child for whom he or she should pay maintenance, but we have no power to direct what the level of care should be. That is a matter for the parents to agree either privately or through the courts.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I asked the question on behalf of a constituent, but obviously many others will be in the same situation. I do not agree that there is no link, because it clearly states on the Child Support Agency website that if someone spends less time with their children, they will pay more in child maintenance. Some people spend less time with their children because, through no fault of their own and with no suggestion of any detriment to the children if they were to see them, the partner prevents that from happening. Will the Minister examine this and stop punishing parents twice over?

[Priti Patel]

Child contact following the separation of two parents is always a difficult and emotive issue, and the child’s needs must be met by both parents, in terms of financial support, when they separate. We are investing in support for parents to help them make more family-based child maintenance arrangements, and we will continue to help and secure separated families so that they can do what is in the best interests of their child. The hon. Lady mentioned that she has a particular case, and I am happy to look into it.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

The Minister rightly said that contact and payment are separate issues. In most cases it is right that a child stays in contact with both parents if they are no longer living together, but I wish to press her on something: it cannot be right that a payment should be linked to a right to see that child.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I said, we know that this is an emotive issue for separating parents, and much of it is arbitrated in the courts system. It is all about balance in terms of parental support and parental access. Access is a matter for the courts, not for the Department for Work and Pensions. As I have said, we as a Department and as a Government are already investing in support for parents to make the right kind of arrangements. We will continue to do so and help separated families so that they can do what is in the best interests of their child.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

10. What his policy is on maintaining the level of financial support provided to carers.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

This Government recognise and appreciate the vital contribution made by carers. We have ensured that carers are central to the Government’s reforms to care and support, and there are stronger rights for carers in the Care Act 2014, which came into force in April 2015. Since 2010, the rate of carer’s allowance has increased from £53.90 to £62.10, and this April we increased the earnings threshold for carers by 8% to £110 a week. The Government are committed to continuing to provide financial support for carers throughout the benefits system.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Young carers in our society perform a vital role, often balancing their responsibility of caring with work or study, yet young carers in full-time education are not entitled to carer’s allowance. What will the Secretary of State do to remedy that injustice?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this was very much the situation when his party was in government—before he starts lecturing us too much on what we have done. We have done more to improve the status of carers, and we support carers enormously. As I said, in universal credit we are adding an extra benefit for them by allowing the work allowances for carers to support them as well. I am certainly happy to look at the particular situation he asked about, and I will write to him.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State will know, the Bath Carers Centre in my constituency does a superb job of supporting carers and their families. What assurances can I give people there as to the Government’s plans on supporting carers in the coming years?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I have said, we did a huge amount to support carers in the last Parliament, and we intend to continue to protect and support them throughout this Parliament. Carers do a huge amount to support people, including in the national health service, and including people with disabilities. This has been our promise and our pledge. We will continue to support carers.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State referred to the shadow Secretary of State; I am pleased to tell the House that she gave birth to a baby boy last Wednesday and that mother and baby are doing well. The Secretary of State referred to disabled people and the effect on them of the £12 billion benefit cuts. It now appears that the anxiety and uncertainty facing carers will be extended, because we will not get the full list of cuts on 8 July; we will have to await a further statement in the autumn. When the final list of £12 billion is announced, will carers be protected from those cuts?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

First, will the right hon. Gentleman pass on our thanks—I mean congratulations—to the hon. Lady on her great news? I have already made it clear that we have done a great deal to support carers, and it is my intention to keep on supporting them. It is worth pointing out that our changes improved the lot of carers over the course of the previous Parliament, and will continue to do so.

[Stephen Timms]

The absence of any reassurance there will give rise to a great deal of concern among carers. May I ask the Secretary of State about working families on lower and average incomes? Will they be better off or worse off once his £12 billion of cuts have been announced?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are looking at welfare, and at how to reform it. When we are ready, I will come forward with an announcement. Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the issue of tax credits. We have had many Labour Members going on about tax credits. I looked up how tax credits were increased under a Labour Government. Interestingly, it appears that just before every election, the Labour Government dramatically increased tax credits—in 2004 by 60%; in 2005, just before the election, by 7.2%; and in 2010, just before the election, by 14.4% and by 8.5%. The truth is that his Government have always used benefits as a way of trying to buy votes. We believe that benefits are about supporting people to do the right thing, to get back to work, and to live a more prosperous life.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

11. What consultation his Department has undertaken with social landlords on the potential effects of the introduction of universal credit and the benefit cap on direct rent payments to landlords.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I instituted a phased roll-out of universal credit, so we would have time to consider any issues that arose and to deal with them. Jobcentre Plus and local authorities are working together with “Universal Support—delivered locally”. We will continue to develop this important partnership to ensure the most vulnerable get the support they need to lead independent lives. We have done a huge number of reviews. We regularly engage with more than 50 landlords across all sectors, which includes meeting social landlords in key areas where universal credit is live.

[Mr Betts]

This issue was raised by Tony Stacey, the chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association. Currently, if a household is in rent arrears and gets housing benefit, the benefit can be paid directly to the social landlord. When universal credit is introduced, if the family also gets a welfare cap, it is the housing cost element that is squeezed by the cap. No longer will the universal credit be paid directly to the social landlord to cover the rent. Can the Secretary of State not see that that could lead to a rise in evictions? Is he aware of the problem, and what will he do about it?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let me be absolutely clear about the importance of universal credit. In the past, housing providers would get the money paid directly to them while the individuals in difficulties sorted themselves out. Under universal credit, they can apply for an extra payment, and that will be done direct. The key point about this is that the housing provider works with the individual family to help them turn around their circumstances, rather than just leaving them as they are and not doing anything about them. All that is being tested under universal credit. People on universal credit will be better off directly as a result of the changes that we are making.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Section 96 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 stipulates that the level at which the total benefit cap is set will be determined by reference to estimated average earnings. How do the Government justify breaking the link between the cap and average earnings by reducing the rate to £23,000?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman should address his question to his Front-Bench team, as they apparently support our move.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

21. With respect to the benefits cap, does the Secretary of State agree that the big picture is about getting people off benefits and into work? The people of South Suffolk feel that the fact that anyone can ever earn more out of work than in work is one of the great social injustices of our day.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I have said, the problem that we inherited was a tax credit system that rewarded people for doing the wrong things, and parked people who wanted to do better on benefits that allowed them not to do any more hours of work. Universal credit changes that: every hour of work pays. Labour has opposed that root and branch, but then it has opposed every other welfare reform that we have introduced, and all the extra jobs that have come about directly as a result.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to congratulate with me people working in Jobcentre Plus in Rossendale and Darwen who have been involved in the roll-out of universal credit? Having spoken to them and to some of their clients, I can say that universal credit seems to be universally popular.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that difficult question. I will, absolutely. Jobcentre Plus staff do fantastic work, do a huge amount to get people back into work, and work with people with difficult conditions, and they welcome universal credit. I will pass on his congratulations to them, and I thank him for asking me to.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

13. If he will make an assessment of the effects of the benefits sanctions and conditionality regime on use of food banks.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

14. If he will make an assessment of the effects of the benefits sanctions and conditionality regime on use of food banks.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

We have looked at the issue extensively, and we agree with the conclusion reached by the all-party parliamentary inquiry into hunger that the reasons for food bank use are complex and overlapping. There is no robust evidence that directly links sanctions and food bank use.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

While all Members of this House will commend the work carried out by charities such as the Gate food bank in Alloa in my constituency, it is absolutely clear from all independent evidence that the sanctions regime is having a heartbreaking effect on people such as David Duncan from Fife, who, as reported in this morning's Daily Record, was sanctioned after missing a jobcentre appointment, despite being in hospital recovering after major surgery following a serious heart attack. Will the Minister commit to an immediate review of the conditionality and sanctions regime to put a stop to this relentless and heartless assault on vulnerable people in this country?

[Priti Patel]

Food banks play an important role in local welfare provision. I do not accept anything that the hon. Lady has said. In Scotland, the number of jobseeker’s allowance sanctions has decreased from 84,000 in 2013 to 55,000—

[Stewart McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Thanks to the Scottish Government.

[Priti Patel]

Well, we are devolving welfare, and we can have this debate next week on the Floor of the House. It is also important to emphasise that the purpose of sanctions is to encourage claimants to comply with reasonable requirements to help them develop and move into the world of work. That is vital.

[Chris Law]

I thank the Minister for her response, but in the year following the introduction of benefits sanctions, approximately 2,500 people were sanctioned in my city of Dundee, leading to a 51% increase in referrals to Dundee’s Trussell Trust food bank, including many parents with young children. The number is rising year on year, despite what she just said about falling figures. Does she not accept that there is an intrinsic link between the two, and that it is an absolute disgrace to have rising food poverty in the 21st century?

[Priti Patel]

Sanctions were in place for a significant amount of time before this Government and the previous Government. Let me reiterate the point, made in the recent Oakley review of benefits sanctions, that sanctions are a

“key element of the mutual obligation that underpins both the effectiveness and fairness of the social security system.”

For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, let me say that we have accepted all the recommendations made by Oakley. This brings us back to the fact that sanctions play an important role in encouraging and supporting people to go back to work.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that those who pay for these benefits through their taxes expect an effective mechanism to be in place, such as sanctions, to ensure that the rules are complied with?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right, because at the end of the day we are speaking about hard-working taxpayers who support and contribute to the welfare system. Of course, we have a duty to support those who are seeking work and who are in receipt of benefits, but at the same time, hard-working taxpayers want to ensure that their taxes are spent fairly.

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

All I know is that those at Mission Trinity, an excellent independent non-political food bank in Goole, tell me that benefits sanctions are driving people to use it. I support the benefit sanctions system, but one issue that seems to be a problem is the consistency with which sanctions are applied. May we have a review of this and ensure that the recipients of the sanctions properly understand the consequences?

[Priti Patel]

I commend my hon. Friend’s local food bank, and him, on the work done in his constituency. If he has specific examples that he would like to draw to my attention, I will happily discuss them with him.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

May I welcome the Minister to her new role? Before the election, we had a most unsatisfactory debate on benefits sanctions with her predecessor. I have to say, Mr Speaker, that in a disappointing election for Labour, the result in Wirral West was one bright spot.



One person in four is now being sanctioned, and sanctions are cited as one of the top reasons for people visiting food banks. Will the Minister take steps to make sure that DWP staff apply the good reasons code correctly and end these vicious and arbitrary sanctions?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome, although I must say I thought her comments about my predecessor were ungracious.

Regarding sanctions, I assure the House that for those in genuine need, hardship payments are on offer, as is support for those who have been sanctioned. Support is there for those who can demonstrate that they require financial assistance to buy essential items. It is absolutely right that in our jobcentres and in the interactions with claimants, we give them the right sort of support, guidance and advice, and I assure the hon. Lady that that does take place.

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today, I would like to remind the House of the progress this Government have made on a groundbreaking programme called social impact bonds. In the last Parliament, we set up the innovation fund, working with young people at risk of falling out of the education system, or even joining gangs. This is a radical departure from the funding systems of the past, in which arbitrary spending was based on inputs. Now, with the impact bonds, money can be put into programmes that are about outcomes. We will bring in the next phase of this work shortly through the Social Justice Cabinet Committee, which I chair.

[John Healey]

In his speech today, the Prime Minister talked about the causes of welfare spending. He had next to nothing to say about low pay, yet the financial modelling I conducted on Labour’s plans for raising the national minimum wage shows that we could save three quarters of a billion pounds on housing benefit and tax credit costs. Surely getting to grips with the root causes is a better way to control rising welfare costs than attacking the incomes of the poorest?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want companies to take a fuller share of paying people a reasonable and decent salary. That is an absolute fact. In the last Parliament, this Government raised the minimum wage twice. It is at £6.50 now, in October it will go up to £6.70, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants it to rise even further. We want companies to pay better salaries, which means less tax credits from us.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

T2. What support is the Department giving young people in my constituency who are seeking apprenticeships and employment?

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

I commend my hon. Friend, who is a strong and assiduous champion of young people and apprenticeships. I assure him that we are engaging with young people in his constituency, promoting nine apprenticeships that are available with his local authority and working in partnership with Kirklees College to promote traineeships. In 2013-14, 616 apprenticeships were started in his constituency.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

We welcome the Government’s belated decision to consult on a charge cap for savers withdrawing their money from pensions. Will the cap apply only to exit fees, or will it also cover recurring charges on investment and income drawdown products? Which? says that that sort of cap could save £10,000 out of a typical £36,000 pension pot, and before her appointment, in March, the new Minister for Pensions said that that sort of cap was needed to protect savers. Will the wider cap be the subject of the Government’s consultation?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman is right in the first part of his question. In the second part, as he knows, the Chancellor announced the consultation, which will go out in July. We have concerns about some companies that may be overcharging, and that will form part of the consultation.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

T3. I was pleased to meet with Disability Support Torbay on Friday to discuss the advocacy, support and advice it gives to many local people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to work with employers to make sure that they are aware of work the Government are doing, such as the Access to Work programme, to help them to employ and retain people with disabilities?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting such excellent local initiatives. In my earlier answers I stressed how important that is. Last year we saw an increase of 238,000 disabled people in work. The employment rate is now 46.3%—up 2.1% from last year—and our Disability Confident campaign will continue to share best practice and signpost further help for local businesses.

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

T5. Following the shameful failure of the Front-Bench team once again to answer a question today, may I ask again why the Government are refusing to publish—even though the Information Commissioner has instructed them to do so—the up-to-date statistics relating to the number of people who have died, having been found fit for work at their face-to-face assessment?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I find it absurd that Opposition Members deliberately try to misrepresent what happens under such schemes. I remind the hon. Lady that it was her Government who introduced the employment support allowance and the work capability assessment, and at no stage did they say that that led to people committing suicide. People in that situation are often in a very delicate and difficult position, and I find it disgraceful that she is going round making such allegations.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

T9. The latest employment statistics show that under this Government record numbers of women are in work, yet there are 2 million more women who would like to be in employment but are not. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues to ensure that the barriers that those women face are being removed?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is right. We are all about ensuring that more women get employment and enter the labour market. On the barriers to women entering the labour market, she will be aware of our work, for example, on shared parental leave, increasing the availability of childcare places, and increasing the provision of childcare from 15 free hours to 30 free hours. In relation to women and pay, the Government will require large employers to publish information on the gender pay gap.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T7. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) is right. Given that on 5 June the High Court found the Department’s actions—this time on PIP delays—unlawful, does the Secretary of State think that he and his Department are above the law? Why does he refuse to publish the details of the number of people who have died within six weeks of their claims for incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, including those who have been found fit for work?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I said to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer), I find it unbelievable that she, the hon. Lady and others have spent all their time trying to make allegations about people going about their work. [Interruption.] She knows very well that the Department does not collate numbers on people in that circumstance. It deals with individual cases where things have gone right or gone wrong and reviews them. It is a crying shame that Labour Members want to go out every day scaring and frightening people. It is no wonder they lost the election.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May I welcome the introduction of the family test and the Secretary of State’s lead on that? What is he doing to ensure that it does what the Prime Minister says it should do, which is change the way Government do business?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

This test will be reviewed through the Social Justice Cabinet Committee, which I chair. We intend, and the Prime Minister intends, that it will have teeth. We want to see an improvement in family life and greater support for those who have to juggle care for their children, care for elderly relatives, and work. Through that process we hope to improve their lives.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T8. In my constituency rents are almost double the English average and the housing benefit bill rose by 50% during the previous Parliament. Does the Secretary of State think that subsidising private landlords to such a degree is a good use of public money?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we deal with housing benefit claims as they come. They support people in both private rented accommodation and social rented accommodation. I remind him that the Government whom he supported introduced the current private rented benefit test. More importantly, under that Government more people out of work and more people in work were claiming housing benefit. Under this Government fewer of those out of work are claiming housing benefit.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

As the employment figures tell us, the work plan is working. Before I came to this place, I ran my own business, and when I saw the same CVs coming back six months or a year later, I would choose to email or call those people and try to give them some coaching. It is a great opportunity for businesses to mentor individuals who are not being touched by the work plan.

[Priti Patel]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on coming into the House. I think she was referring to the Work programme, in particular. She is absolutely right. For us, if the Work programme is to be successful—and it is succeeding; we have record numbers of people in employment because of it—it will be through working with employers to find the right kind of work experience that helps them to fill vacancies and to make a big difference too. Work programme providers have the freedom to design and deliver, with employers, the support that is most appropriate for claimants.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

One of my constituents who has been disabled from birth has had her mobility allowances reduced, so she cannot have her mobility car. She is now housebound, and she says she is being punished because of her disability by the Government. Why is the Secretary of State so keen to be the obedient lapdog of the Chancellor in spreading misery wherever possible to the most vulnerable? This Government are conducting a campaign of harassment against disabled people in our country.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Without having the full details of that case, I cannot comment, but if the hon. Gentleman provided further information I would be happy to look into it. He should remember, however, that under the PIP process 22% of people would be expected to get the highest rate of support as against only 16% under DLA.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that family breakdown is a driver of child poverty as well as many other issues such as addiction, obesity and self-harm, at a cost of almost £50 billion a year, and that therefore investment in strengthening couple relationships, as well as parent-child relationships, makes economic sense as well as being a matter of social justice?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Labour Government did absolutely nothing in this area. We have put huge sums of money into family breakdown support through counselling. We intend to continue that support and make it even stronger.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

My constituency is a pilot area for universal credit. Despite what the Secretary of State has said previously, social landlords are among the many local organisations who are concerned that the proposed seven-day waiting period will lead to some of the most vulnerable of my constituents getting into rent arrears. The Social Security Advisory Committee agreed and recommended that the Government reconsider this proposal, but it was overruled by the Secretary of State. Will he agree to meet the concerned parties, including social landlords, charities and citizens advice bureaux, to hear from them directly? What steps will he take to protect social landlords and their tenants from the effects of this change?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are already talking to many social landlords, who have agreed with us that the improvements we have made are dramatic and helpful, but I am very happy to meet anybody the hon. Lady wants to bring to me.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister explain the Government’s commitment to training in jobcentres? One concern is that there is inconsistency in decisions made. What commitment will be given during the next five years to the training budget for jobcentre staff?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am not altogether certain that I quite understand what my hon. Friend is referring to. If he is referring to the Flexible Support Fund, that is allocated deliberately so that jobcentres can make local decisions about the kind of training that they need to give. If he has a particular problem, I am more than happy for him to write to me or come and see me.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

My constituent, Mr Geoffrey Thomas, found that the DWP was deducting £8.43 from his ESA because it falsely claimed that he had taken out £400-worth of social loans. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a disgraceful way to have treated my constituent? Will he make urgent inquiries to make sure that this is not happening to any other people across the country?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a constituency case, and I would be very happy to discuss it with him and look into the details.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

This weekend I had a discussion about the difficulties that those suffering from mental health conditions face when trying to access support, specifically in relation to budgeting. What support is available, particularly in the most difficult cases?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of mental health conditions, which is a particular priority for us. Through the Access to Work scheme, we have introduced a lot more measures to increase support and provision for those trying to get into work and while they are in work. That is partly why 35,000 people benefited from that scheme last year, up by 4,000 on the previous year.

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

Six-year-old Ellie Mae Brownnutt tragically died on 8 May from Batten disease; her brother Caleb also suffers from the condition. The parents of children with Batten disease still have to fill in forms for DLA every three years, even though there is no cure and, sadly, death is inevitable. Some conditions are exempt from that requirement and some are not. Will the Minister meet me, representatives of the Batten Disease Family Association and people affected by other degenerative conditions to discuss how this situation can be changed?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue—I know he has been a real champion for the cause. I am happy to meet him, but he should remember that the reason we do reassessments, where appropriate, is that sometimes conditions get worse and support for them will therefore increase. We would not want people to miss out, as they did under DLA.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Earlier, the Minister pointed out that we have brought in a 0.75% cap on private pensions that are subject to auto-enrolment. That is excellent news. However, there is also abusive behaviour more widely in the industry. Do we expect that cap to be extended to non-auto-enrolled pensions?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

At the moment, the cap sits with automatic enrolment, but I am happy to hear the case for extending it. As I said earlier, we will consult on this issue in July and I am happy for my hon. Friend to make some kind of report or submission.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Since 2010 there has been a big fall in the number of apprenticeships in technical sectors, including IT and construction. Does the Secretary of State accept that if his Department is serious about addressing the need for high-paid jobs in this country, he has to do a lot more about young people’s skills?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I absolutely agree, and am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of apprenticeships. Under the previous Government there were 2 million more apprenticeships, and this Government have made a commitment to 3 million. As the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said earlier, we have also introduced a degree-level apprenticeship. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely on the money: we want to do more about apprenticeships, and if he spots something that will be helpful to us I am happy to see him about that.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

People with mental health problems can find it incredibly difficult to get a job and stay in employment. What are the Government doing to help?

[Justin Tomlinson]

That issue is being picked up through the Access to Work scheme. The changes we have made recognise the challenges for people with mental health conditions both while they are in work and with maintaining work. I formerly employed someone with a mental health condition, so I know what a valuable contribution such people can make, often needing only small changes and bits of support.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! We are graced with the presence of the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, from whom we will now hear.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has just extolled the virtues of his Department’s support for people with mental health problems, but in reality we know that too many people with mental health issues are coming through the Work programme and not getting work. Is it not time that, for the benefit of those people and of the taxpayer, some of his Department’s money was devolved to local areas so those people can get better support and get into proper jobs?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Like Mr Speaker, I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. This is absolutely an area where we want to take things further and do more work. Mental health conditions are one of the big issues stopping people getting into work. We want to do more on that, and have more treatment and more support through jobcentres. I am happy to discuss that.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I welcome some of the statistics given earlier by the Minister for Disabled People. Does he agree that Disability Confident events could be rolled out across the whole country, and will he consider holding an event at which MPs from across the House could hear from him and DWP staff about how those events are held and the advantages they have, so that we can all help this great cause?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister could put an answer in the Library of the House, which might be quicker.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Thirteen MPs have already held events in their constituencies. We can all play a vital role in promoting opportunities for the wealth of talent that is available and willing to go into work.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Peter Grant.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State may be aware of a report on the front page of today’s Herald about a recently retired employee who took advantage of the Government’s changes to pension regulations and as a direct result was scammed out of his entire pension provision of £360,000. What steps are his Department taking to make sure that the changes it has introduced do not simply allow gangs of criminals to declare open season on our pensioners?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised that specific case, and I would like to hear more from him about it, as I have not read that report myself. We are doing a huge amount under the consultation and we want to look more at scams and how to stop them. I will very much be making those representations to the industry and will, if necessary, bring in relevant legislation.

Onshore Wind Subsidies

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

15:34

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on ending new subsidies for onshore wind.

The Government are committed to meeting objectives on cutting carbon emissions and to continuing to make progress towards the UK’s 2020 renewable energy targets. The renewable electricity programme aims to deliver at least 30% of the UK’s electricity demand from renewables by 2020. We are on course to achieve that objective. Renewables already make up almost 20% of our electricity generation and there is a strong pipeline to deliver the rest.

As we decarbonise, it is imperative that we manage the costs to consumers. Although renewable energy costs have been coming down, subsidies still form part of people’s energy bills, and as the share of renewables in the mix grows, the impact gets proportionately larger. One of the Government’s priorities is to bring about the transition to low-carbon generation as cost-effectively and securely as possible.

The levy control framework, covering the period up to 2020-21, is one of the tools to help to achieve that. It limits the impact of support for low-carbon electricity on consumer bills. We have a responsibility to manage support schemes efficiently within the levy control framework to ensure that we maintain public support for the action we are taking to bring down carbon emissions and to combat climate change.

Government support is designed to help technologies to stand on their own two feet, not to encourage a permanent reliance on subsidies. We must continue to take tough judgments about what new projects get subsidies. Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is an important part of our energy mix.

In 2014, onshore wind made up around 5% of electricity generation, supported by around £800 million of subsidies. At the end of April 2015, there were 490 operational onshore wind farms in the UK, comprising 4,751 turbines in total. Those wind farms have an installed capacity of 8.3 GW—enough to power the equivalent of over 4.5 million homes.

The electricity market reform delivery plan projects that we require between 11 and 13 GW of electricity to be provided by onshore wind by 2020 to meet our 2020 renewable electricity generation objective, while remaining within the limits of what is affordable. We now have enough onshore wind in the pipeline, including projects that have planning permission, to meet that requirement comfortably.

Without action, we are very likely to deploy beyond that range. We could end up with more onshore wind projects than we can afford, which would lead to either higher bills for consumers or other renewable technologies, such as offshore wind, losing out on support. We need to continue investing in less mature technologies so that they realise their promise, just as onshore wind has done. It is therefore appropriate further to curtail subsidised deployment of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore developers with those of bill payers.

This Government were elected with a commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind and to change the law so that local people have the final say on onshore wind applications. Colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and, additionally, my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), have led the way in calling for this. Six weeks into this Government, we are acting on that commitment. Alongside proposals outlined within the new energy Bill to devolve decision making for new onshore wind farms out of Whitehall, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has set out further considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development in England so that local people have the final say on onshore wind farm applications.

I set out to Parliament on 18 June proposals to end new subsidies for onshore wind, specifically in relation to the renewables obligation, which will be closed to new onshore wind from 1 April 2016—a year earlier than planned. My Department’s analysis indicates that, after taking account of an early closure, onshore wind deployment under the RO will be in the region of 11.6 GW. With that capacity, and the capacity of onshore wind projects that have received support through the new contracts for difference, we expect about 12.3 GW of onshore wind to be operating in the UK by 2020, supported by the levy control framework, which will provide about 10% of electricity generation. That puts us above the middle of the deployment range set out in the EMR delivery plan, which provides our best estimates of what we will need to meet the planned contribution from renewable electricity for our 2020 targets.

I have proposed a grace period that will continue to give access to support under the RO to projects that, as of 18 June 2015, had planning consent, a grid connection and acceptance and evidence of land rights for the sites on which their projects will be built. We estimate that about 7.1 GW of the onshore wind capacity that has been proposed across the UK will not be eligible for the grace period and is therefore unlikely to go ahead as a result of the announcement on 18 June. That equates to about 250 projects, totalling about 2,500 turbines, that are unlikely to be built.

Therefore, by closing the RO to onshore wind early, we are ensuring that we meet our renewable electricity objectives, while managing the impact on consumer bills and ensuring that other renewables technologies continue to develop and reduce their costs. Consumer bills will not rise because of this change. Indeed, the onshore wind projects that are unlikely to go ahead could have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. I believe that we have drawn the line in the right place.

In advance of this announcement, I and other Ministers and officials discussed the proposals with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We want to hear the further views of the devolved Administrations, as well as of industry and other stakeholders. This is just the beginning of the process, and we will continue to consult them as we move towards implementation.

The changes to the renewables obligation do not affect remote island wind proposals, which would not have been in a position to receive RO subsidy even under the previous timelines. I will say more about how future CfD projects will be treated in due course. However, I am conscious that 68% of the onshore wind pipeline relates to projects in Scotland. I will continue to consult colleagues in the Scottish Government. Indeed, I am meeting the Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, on Wednesday. Because we are implementing these changes through primary legislation, they will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, including by Members representing Scottish constituencies.

On contracts for difference, we have the tools available to implement our manifesto commitments on onshore wind and will set out how we will do so when we announce our plans for further CfD allocations. I will shortly be considering options for future support for community onshore wind projects that might represent one or two turbines through the feed-in tariff, as part of the review that my Department is conducting this year. I do not wish to stand in the way of local communities coming together to generate low-carbon electricity in a manner that is acceptable to and supported by them, including through small-scale wind capacity. However, that action must be affordable as well as acceptable.

Clean energy does not begin and end with onshore wind. Onshore wind is an important part of our current and future low-carbon energy mix, but we are reaching the limits of what is affordable and what the public are prepared to accept. We are committed to meeting our decarbonisation objectives. The changes that I have outlined to Parliament will not change that. I look forward to having meaningful discussions with industry, other stakeholders and colleagues in the House and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on how we will move forward.

15:43

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement today at 2.22 pm.

It is only four days since I heard the Secretary of State on the “Today” programme, explaining her Government’s policy changes to onshore wind. That was followed by a written statement later that morning, along with a written statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government on the same subject. Today, she has been forced to come to the House because of the confusion and concern that she has caused. There is concern about the Government’s commitment to our renewables targets and to supporting value for money. There is confusion as to how her policy will apply in practice, and confusion across the renewables sector, where certainty to encourage investment is paramount.

I made it clear to the onshore wind sector before the general election that, although I did not support a cap, a clear pathway to being subsidy-free was an outcome I wanted, so why do I have doubts about the Secretary of State’s announcements? We know, despite the fact that something like 69% of the public support onshore wind—it is the most popular of the renewable energy-generating supply technologies—[Interruption.] It is true. We know that the Secretary of State wants to appease many of her Back Benchers, who seem to hate onshore wind, although one of them is making money out of a solar farm. The election promise of a cap on onshore wind was music to their ears, although they were probably not aware that nearly 1,000 projects had planning permission. It is not clear to me and many others whether the sum of all the Secretary of State’s rhetoric really adds up.

The Secretary of State has proposed a grace period for projects that, as of last week when the written statement was made, had in place planning consent, access to the grid and land rights. Can she confirm that, according to her statement today, that means something like 75% of onshore wind projects with consent will go ahead? The changes to the rules will have to be done through primary legislation, and it could be at least six months between last week’s statement and Royal Assent.

Can I ask the Secretary of State whether, as part of her consultation, she is open to projects that have planning consent, a grid access offer and all land rights sorted before Royal Assent being able to continue with the RO arrangement to 2017? In last week’s press release, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said that up to 5.2 GW of onshore wind power could still qualify, but other estimates are much lower.

In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to 11.6 GW, putting us in the mid-range of fulfilling our 2020 targets for renewable energy. Does that include the 5.2 GW figure? If 5.2 GW is an overestimate, that presumably makes meeting our target less likely. Given that we found out last week that we have already missed our interim 2020 EU renewable targets, that is extremely concerning. What discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about how many local or neighbourhood plans are required to identify areas suitable for wind energy? What additional costs may be incurred by councils having to pre-empt planning applications to avoid a company challenging a decision? Out of interest and in the interests of a logical argument, why do these changes to planning policy not apply to all energy generation?

UK-wide energy policy has enabled all of us to share the risks and rewards of developing new and old forms of energy. While Scotland makes up just over 10% of UK households, over 30% of operational onshore wind projects are located in Scotland because of the amount of wind and the contribution of UK-wide bill payers, so it is understandable that Scotland will be worried about the impact on jobs and investment there. What will the Secretary of State do to give confidence to colleagues in the devolved institutions that there will be a genuine process of consultation?

Despite the Prime Minister’s warm words on tackling climate change in this most important year of global negotiations, this Parliament has hardly begun and the cheapest form of renewable energy is already under attack, and other renewable investors are worried that they will be next. I want our country to go forwards, not backwards. This debate is not about hot air; it is about jobs, manufacturing and investment opportunities at risk across the sector. In her answers today, the Secretary of State needs to convince us that she understands what is at stake.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. May I first take the opportunity to remind her that this policy was well set out before she heard me on the “Today” programme? It was in the Queen’s Speech, in the manifesto and the Prime Minister had referred to the fact that a Conservative Government would take this action. I have in no way been forced to come here. I chose to come here to make a statement after a number of colleagues wanted the opportunity to have their voice heard in support of what is happening. I am delighted to give them the opportunity to do so.

The right hon. Lady chose to question the Conservative party’s commitment to addressing our climate change obligations. Fortunately, she gave me the opportunity to talk about that just 10 days or so ago, when one of the first Opposition-day debates of the Parliament was about climate change. I was able to tell her and the House about the Government’s commitment to meeting the targets and the commitment of the Government and the Prime Minister to getting a deal in Paris this year. We are committed to ensuring that we deliver on our decarbonisation targets but, just as importantly, we are committed to getting a global deal. We do not want to do this alone. We need to provide leadership in the EU and internationally to ensure that our effort is truly leveraged so that we can get that result at the end of the year.

It is disappointing that the right hon. Lady chooses to throw confusion where none exists. I think I was very clear in my statement about the gigawatts involved and the range that we were targeting, but I repeat for her that we hoped to have 10% of electricity generation from wind by 2020, and we are reaching that target early. That is a key reason for ending the subsidy for onshore wind now. We wanted to fall in the middle of the range, and in fact it looks likely that we will be slightly towards the upper end. Having achieved that, it is right that we do not put further pressure on people’s bills. Unlike her and the Labour party, we believe that we can do this in a cost-effective way. We are absolutely committed to supporting renewables, but we want to do it by the most low-cost pathway we can.

In answer to the right hon. Lady’s question about regulation, and particularly planning permission for different sources of energy, it is right that different sources have different types of regulation and fall under different planning regimes. Part of what we are trying to do is to encourage new energy sources, in order to meet our targets and lead to cost reductions. That is why we have different set-ups for different sources—to get the best outcome for both our targets and bill payers.

Finally, the right hon. Lady asked me about Scotland. I have no doubt that I will be answering questions from Scottish National party Members, and I look forward to taking them and addressing them. I have had many conversations with the devolved Administrations, and I look forward to taking further questions from them.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

May I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and encourage her to ignore the hot air coming from the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the Opposition on this subject?

I thank my right hon. Friend for all she is doing to prevent Lincolnshire from being carpeted with wind turbines, which nobody in my constituency wants. Will her Department be prepared to publish on its website a list of all the projects that her announcement will affect, so that people in Lincolnshire and across the country who do not want to see the countryside carpeted with turbines know whether individual projects are going ahead?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his question. I know that he has felt, representing his community, that there has been too much deployment in his area. I recognise the support that he has provided in helping us to develop our policy.

Each developer will need to contact the Department for us to give a complete answer, and we will work with developers to ensure that it is clear which projects are within the provisions and which are not. At some stage —my hon. and learned Friend will have to give me a little time—that will be published on the website.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for early sight of it.

The Secretary of State said that, six weeks into this Government’s time in office, they were acting on this policy, and of course they are, but that does not make it right. She said that we were reaching the limits of what is affordable. We agree—we have reached the limits of what is affordable in the strike price and subsidy for nuclear. She said that we have reached the limits of what the public are prepared to accept. I think the public have already reached the limit on the failure to decarbonise and tackle climate change.

This decision is simply wrong, and the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) was instructive. The Government are prepared to publish all the projects that are pulled; I hope the Secretary of State will also publish all the jobs that are lost and the investment forgone because of the decision. [Interruption.] I hear a lot of chuntering. I think we are getting to the truth now—Government Members simply do not like renewables. They would rather see the costs of nuclear decommissioning passed on to future generations.

We are concerned mainly about the damage that the decision will do. The announcement places at risk a huge investment pipeline conceived in good faith by developers under the rules previously in place. Is the Secretary of State aware that the decision has a disproportionate impact on Scotland, and that it puts investment at risk? She appears to be aware that around 70% of the onshore wind projects in the current planning system are in Scotland. On that basis, is she aware of what Niall Stuart, the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, has said? He said:

“Cutting support for onshore wind would be bad for jobs, bad for investment and would only hinder Scotland and the UK’s efforts to meet binding climate change targets.”

Is the Secretary of State not concerned at all that, currently, £3 billion-worth of onshore wind projects in the pipeline in Scotland are at risk with so sudden a closing of the renewables obligation, that that will do incredible damage, and that it will put at risk investor confidence not simply in offshore wind, but in the wider UK energy sector?

I agree with the Secretary of State that the subsidy cost of renewables must decrease, so that both renewables and climate targets are achieved at the lowest cost and so that consumers are protected, but is she not concerned about the danger of a headlong rush to scrap subsidies for onshore wind, the cheapest large-scale renewable technology? Has she ignored comments from the industry, not least from Keith Anderson, the chief of ScottishPower Renewables? He said:

“Onshore wind is clearly still the most cost effective large scale way of deploying renewable technology in the UK. Economically, you would therefore question, why in God’s name would you want to bring that to a premature halt?”

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I feel confident that the hon. Gentleman is in his last sentence, and much nearer the end of it than the beginning.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am indeed, Mr Speaker.

The Secretary of State said last week that up to 5.2 GW of onshore wind capacity would be eligible for a grace period. We found out later that that figure was only 2.9 GW. Today, she said that 7.1% would no longer be eligible for subsidy. Why did she not come clean last week with the proper figures?

[Amber Rudd]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that I believe he has failed to accept any of the points I have made about the Government’s commitment to addressing climate change, our commitment to keeping the bills down and our commitment to delivering a variety of renewable energy sources. It is not just about onshore wind.

The hon. Gentleman also failed to acknowledge that, in some environments, there is too much pressure on communities in respect of onshore wind. I gently quote to him Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism. In 2007, he said:

“Wind farms have…a very heavy environmental footprint”

and

“also…release…substantial quantities of methane from peat landscapes…many other forms of renewable energy are the future—not unconstrained wind farms”.

I agree with him on that. We must recognise that, sometimes, when Members of Parliament choose to fight for their community, they take a different view from that of the national party. I am here representing the views of Members of Parliament as well as the national party. We believe that our policy addresses communities and keeps bills down.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, although this is a welcome measure, other things will be needed to control bills and tackle fuel poverty? Is it not interesting that only the Conservative party in the House cares about the consumer and wants to get the bills down?

[Amber Rudd]

My right hon. Friend is characteristically on the money. Addressing that is absolutely our aim. We are trying to reduce emissions and give a variety of renewable energy, and to ensure that individuals who look at their bills when they get home see that they continue to come down.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

How much investment and how many jobs will be lost to the economy of the south-west of England as a result of the Secretary of State’s decision?

[Amber Rudd]

The investment in renewable energy over the past six years has been £7 billion a year. We are committed to ensuring that the UK is the leading country in developing renewable energy. We have been particularly successful in offshore wind—we have more offshore wind than the rest of the world put together and hope to become a serious exporter of it. Renewable energy is important for jobs and important for building on our commitments.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement and it is great to hear that we are on course to meet 30% of our electricity generation from renewables. She is right to divert the resources into less mature technologies, but can she reassure my constituents that that will not mean that we see a further expansion in very large-scale field solar across south Devon? Perhaps we will see more support for community energy schemes, and I hope that she will take me up on an offer to visit Totnes to see how those work in action.

[Amber Rudd]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and her constituents sound very similar to mine. We share the desire to make sure that we address the issue of climate change: the problem is that we do not want large-scale solar. In fact, large-scale solar has already been taken out of the renewables obligation, but we are trying to support solar so that we have as much as possible through community energy, on people’s houses and on other buildings. There is a great opportunity there.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The IMF recently reported that Britain subsidises its fossil fuel industry to the tune of more than £1,000 per household, whereas onshore wind is just £10 a household. If the Secretary of State is serious about affordability and climate change, why is she not tackling fossil fuel subsidies, instead of slashing wind—one of the most popular and affordable of the energy sources?

[Amber Rudd]

I urge the hon. Lady to take a look at that report. I also saw those statements and found them so extraordinary that I asked for a copy of the IMF report. I would be happy to have a discussion with her about it. It is not a direct subsidy in the way that we understand it, although it is an important point. It is right to reduce the use of fossil fuel, especially in its dirtiest form, but the real danger is health and environmental impact, and that is why we need to get rid of the subsidies.

[Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

At the planning stage, a photomontage never really gives an accurate picture of the visual impact of turbines. Will the Secretary of State consider making it compulsory for applicants to fly a blimp in order better to show the real height of any proposed turbine?

[Amber Rudd]

That is a novel suggestion to me: I am not familiar with the workings of blimps. I look forward to further advice on the issue.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Last Wednesday, tens of thousands of campaigners came to London to ask us to do more on climate change. What do we tell them now about the Government’s priorities as they cut subsidies for renewables and increase them for fracking?

[Amber Rudd]

I also met constituents and leaders of the march in my Department. I think we should tell them the truth, which is that the Government continue to be the greenest Government ever. We will deliver on our climate change targets, and we are committed to getting a deal in Paris. I urge the hon. Gentleman to stick to the truth.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Now that my right hon. Friend is abolishing subsidies on the least uneconomic form of renewables, may we assume that she proposes to make corresponding reductions in subsidies for offshore wind, which impose a two or three times greater burden on the cost of living, especially for poor households?

[Amber Rudd]

I am sorry to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but we will not reduce those. Now that we have a market-led system through the CfD, we are able to push for a reduction in prices—I know he will approve—and in the CfD auction last year that was very effective in getting the price down.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

May I suggest to the Secretary of State that it would be really helpful if she could publish as much information as possible on the risk analysis she has made of the decision to phase out the subsidy early? Some fear that as we are already behind on the interim targets for the 2020 renewables targets, and given the jeopardy that might put on our climate change obligations, we need to see how well the proposal has been tested, given the risk that some of the projects might fail and undercut it. There might also be a transfer to more expensive renewals should any projects fail. It would help my Committee and others if as much information as possible could be published, so that it can be properly examined.

[Amber Rudd]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. I look forward to getting to know him better. I am sure I will have the opportunity to do so at that Committee.

We do not agree that we have not met our targets. I understand that it was reported as such and I will take an early opportunity to write to him to set that out. I take to heart his advice to make sure we publish as much as possible, above all to win everybody’s confidence that what I am saying is absolutely achievable.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, which I assure her will be widely welcomed across north Wales. Does she agree that onshore wind power has for too long been the low-hanging fruit of renewable energy and has therefore been grossly over-subsidised? Does she agree that her statement today opens the way for advancing more innovative forms of renewable technology, such as, for example, tidal lagoons?

[Amber Rudd]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s support. I agree that this should give us the opportunity to diversify into other forms of renewable energy—that is one of the key reasons for doing this. We do not want to continue to spend too much money on onshore wind, while we have to harbour our resources, look after the bill payer and make sure we have the greatest opportunity possible to support other forms of renewable energy.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

The strike price agreed for nuclear power is £92.50 per MWh at Hinkley Point, which is more expensive than the £82.50 per MWh for onshore renewables. Onshore renewables do not leave future generations with the cost of decommissioning nuclear facilities and waste. Why are the UK Government proceeding with such an irrational decision?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to make two points in response. First, our energy needs to be a mix. We cannot purely have renewable energy; we need the base-load stability of having nuclear or some oil and gas to make sure we can deliver regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. That is still an important part of our mix. Secondly, the decommissioning issue he raises is included in the price.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

May I join hon. Members from across the House in welcoming the Secretary of State’s statement, which will certainly be popular in my south coast constituency? Does she welcome the £9.5 billion investment in offshore wind since 2010, showing that that area of the sector still has lots of room to grow?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Offshore wind has continued to deploy very successfully and prices are coming down. We are delighted that the UK is such a leader in this area and has the real prospect of exporting to other countries as a leader in renewable offshore energy.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

By ending support a year earlier than the right hon. Lady’s Department promised only eight months ago, the Government are sending yet another message to investors that the UK is not a stable regulatory regime in this area. Does she accept the calculations that show onshore wind is not only the cheapest form of new low carbon energy, but that for every pound of development cost, 98 pence is spent creating new jobs in the UK—jobs that were projected to double to 37,000 by 2023 had that support continued?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman fails to incorporate the fact that all that support costs money. We cannot ignore the fact that, obviously, people want subsidies if they are on the receiving end of subsidies, but we have to ensure that we get the good measure of it. He is wrong to say that this Government said this and that Government said that. The fact is that we said, in our manifesto, that if we had a Conservative majority we would deliver this. The industry was not surprised by the outcome here: we committed to ending new subsidies for onshore wind and that is exactly the promise we have kept.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned our hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), my parliamentary neighbour. He and I have worked both individually and together to ensure the best interests of our respective constituents in relation to unsightly and unwelcome wind farms. Will she ensure, in discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, that there is imposed on future wind farms a minimum distance between the wind farm or the turbine and human habitation—from dwellings?

[Amber Rudd]

I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has been an active campaigner on this issue. As he will see, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is present, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has taken his comments to heart.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

May I return the Secretary of State to the issue of job losses? Would she like to put on the record how many of the 19,000 people who are employed in the onshore industries will lose their jobs as a result of what she is proposing?

[Amber Rudd]

The right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that the United Kingdom is one of the leaders in renewable energy. We continue to invest in and to support a variety of renewable energy sources, and they will continue to provide jobs. It is up to the Government to ensure that we spend the money wisely to maximise the delivery of renewable energy, and, of course, the delivery of new jobs as well.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

This news will be welcomed throughout North West Hampshire, not least because the Secretary of State has said—twice, I think—that the final say will be given to local communities. Can she reassure those worried communities that that means that they cannot now be overruled by the Planning Inspectorate?

[Amber Rudd]

Yes, I can.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Investor confidence is key. On the day that this announcement was made, I was in north Wales for the opening of Gwynt y Môr, the second biggest wind farm in the world. All that the investors could see was a Government who were not committed to wind and renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State tell us, for the benefit of the onshore wind industry—including companies such as West Coast Energy, which is in my constituency—whether there will be a new round of contracts for difference, and, if so, whether onshore wind will feature in any part of it?

[Amber Rudd]

I said in my statement that, in respect of contracts for difference, we would be implementing the terms of our manifesto.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

As it is local communities that will have to deal with the visual impact of wind farms, should they not have the final say on this and other visually intrusive forms of renewable energy, such as large solar farms?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the key purposes of this arrangement is to involve local communities so that they feel that they have a right to say how their environment is being affected.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State carried out an economic impact assessment to establish how the small business community and the supply chain will be affected by this abrupt and confused change in Government policy?

[Amber Rudd]

One element of small business that will probably be pleased with the outcome is the tourist industry. Many Members campaigned against the expansion of wind farms on the basis that they affect tourism, which is important to many small businesses.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State will know, since 2010 our country has increased renewable energy production by 300%, or a factor of three, and has increased it by more than any other OECD country. However, we must also make progress with other forms of decarbonisation. Is the Secretary of State still committed to the advancement of Hinkley Point C, which will produce more carbon-free electricity than all the wind farms that are currently being deployed?

[Amber Rudd]

The answer is yes. We need new nuclear energy in order to provide stability. We need to expand our renewables while at the same time having stable alternative sources of energy, and we are committed to Hinkley Point.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Can the Secretary of State tell us how cutting subsidies for onshore wind energy is providing leadership in the EU on the decarbonisation of our economy, as she claimed in her statement?

[Amber Rudd]

Providing leadership in the EU—and, indeed, internationally—means meeting our targets, demonstrating that we can meet them in the most cost-effective way, and liaising with other countries in order to show them how we are doing that. The point of the announcement is that we will still be meeting our targets.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Obviously I welcome the statement and thank the Secretary of State for it, but does she recognise that the way in which onshore wind subsidies and developers have gone about their business has destroyed people’s faith in renewable energy as a whole? Indeed, in communities such as Winwick, Kelmarsh, Watford and Crick, which are in my constituency, one struggles to find people who support any type of renewable energy, given the way in which it has been handled by onshore wind developers.

Will the Secretary of State please tell us how many of the wind farms that are in the pipeline will be connected to the grid? That could provide relief for a host of communities that might be affected by onshore development in the future.

[Amber Rudd]

May I, again, pay tribute and homage to my hon. Friend, who campaigned so hard and led on this issue? I know his constituents will be delighted with this outcome, although I am disappointed to hear that the impact of wind farms has made them negative about renewables in general. I hope we can win them back by our policies that will increasingly involve them. I urge individual Members who want to know what the impact is on developments in their constituency to write to me and I will try to get that information.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that the Government’s priority was

“to bring about the transition to low-carbon generation as cost-effectively…as possible.”

Does she not recognise that onshore wind is the most cost-effective renewable energy production form?

[Amber Rudd]

I would make two points on that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that as part of our target to have affordable renewable energy we aim to have 10% coming from wind by 2020, and we are on schedule to deliver that. We have to harbour our resources. There would be no point in saying, “It has come down in price. Let’s put all the money over there.” That would be the wrong thing to do. We have to deliver a mix of renewable energy. Offshore wind is beginning to come down in price, we have plans for carbon capture and storage, and new initiatives are coming out the whole time. This is an exciting, changing area and we need to harbour our resources to make sure we can support the right outcomes.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I just want to tell my right hon. Friend that my constituents will be delighted. I am thinking of those in the north whose villages have been blighted by the Cotton wind farm—they cannot sleep and cannot sell their houses. In the south of my constituency, we have large solar farms coming at us left, right and centre. She will have made a lot of people very happy, so we thank her.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Which would cause more environmental damage to the Cheshire countryside: a wind turbine or a fracking rig?

[Amber Rudd]

I am happy to say that a single wind turbine will still be allowed, if a community wants it. We are very keen to support community energy. As for shale exploration, we are at an early stage and we will have to wait to see how the community responds.

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

Constituents on the north of the Isle of Axholme, who will shortly be surrounded by 100 turbines, will be very happy with this announcement. I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, but I urge her to go further on individual turbine applications. Many landowners in my constituency put in one application and get approval, and then put in another and another, so it is death by 1,000 cuts.

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I will look out for that eventuality.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

The established wind farm on Scoutmoor, adjacent to my constituency, has a lifetime of only 25 years. What is the Secretary of State’s long-term plan for renewable energy when existing wind farms have to be decommissioned?

[Amber Rudd]

The extraordinary thing about renewable energy is that it is such a fast-moving field. Nobody knows which will be the dominant renewable energy, able to supply cost-effectively, in 20 to 25 years’ time—no, less, in 10 or 15 years’ time. Perhaps we will have developed storage—perhaps carbon capture and storage will be coming on line. There are so many unknowns in this area that I urge the hon. Lady to keep an open mind about different sources of renewable energy, just as this Department does.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for a very clear statement and for her responses on communities and tourism. My constituency contains a mountain range known as Mynydd y Gwair, forming a backdrop to the first area of outstanding natural beauty. Planning permission for one of Wales’s largest wind farms has been granted by Swansea’s Labour city council, against the wishes of a clear majority of local residents and farmers. Does she agree that that cannot be right and that remedying such absurd decisions by allowing communities to decide these sorts of things is essential?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend’s experience seems to validate the approach that we are taking, whereby local communities will have much more involvement and choice in those decisions.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Notwithstanding anything the Secretary of State has said this afternoon, the pipeline of projects in Scotland is now at risk, as are the jobs of 5,400 people employed in the sector. Will she look again at the impact these proposals will have on Scotland and the wider UK economy, and think again?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady must bear it in mind that this is a manifesto commitment. The UK has made the commitment—[Interruption.] I appreciate that she would like a different arrangement, but the arrangement that we have put in place will have an impact on subsidies throughout the UK. I am happy to listen to my Scottish counterparts on how different arrangements might be put in place within the changes that I have set out.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr McDonald, for an aspiring statesman, frenetic gesticulation is a tad unseemly.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. As my right hon. Friend knows, I had a role in the development of neighbourhood plans at the very beginning. If local communities decide not to pursue wind turbines, will she reassure me that she will give precedence to those neighbourhood plans over anything else in the planning system?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I know that he was the great man who developed the neighbourhood plan. He is absolutely right that the neighbourhood plans will be the central tome on this, and they will allow communities to have the authority that they need on the planning decisions that would be impacted in this situation.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State explain how she reconciles giving local people the right of veto over wind turbines, but denies them exactly the same right over shale gas fracking or a nuclear power station next door?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this right being given to communities was not in place when wind farms were originally introduced. We now have enough wind farms, and that right has been put in place. The same is the case for other sources of energy that do not need it now. It is right that we have a different approach for a different type of energy that is at a different level of maturity.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for bringing forward this great decision? I pay homage to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), whose fight to get rid of these wind farms has been exemplary. Have there been any thoughts on decommissioning these wind farms over the next 15 years? Some have been up for 10 years now, and I would hazard a guess that that has probably cost more than many nuclear power stations.

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. It is in part of the proposals. We are aware of, and involved in, the decommissioning plans. No one quite knows when the decommissioning will take place, but we will keep a careful eye on it.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Given the Prime Minister’s respect agenda, may I ask what cognisance, if any, the Minister took of the impact of her decision on Scotland, particularly on my constituency of Argyll and Bute? Is she aware of, and does she care about, the damage that this decision will have on the fragile rural economies of Scotland and the inevitable job losses that will follow?

[Amber Rudd]

I have had several discussions and meetings with Fergus Ewing, and I will continue to do so. Jobs in the UK are incredibly important. It is Britain that is open for business. We will continue to ensure that renewable investment flows.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

May I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement? I thank, too, the previous Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who fought an incredible rearguard action, calling in such applications that would have blighted the view of Southwell Minster for generations to come. If communities are to have their say, to keep it simple, will the Secretary of State encourage and support Rushcliffe Borough Council, which wants to declare itself a wind turbine-free council and protect the vale of Belvoir for ever?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestion. Councils will have the final say. If that is how they put it, that is up to them.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State not a little bit concerned about the impact on investor confidence that this decision might have not just with regard to onshore wind but across the renewables sector? Given that onshore wind and its supply chain accounts for £1.7 billion of gross value added, how does she anticipate filling that gap in investment?

[Amber Rudd]

Investors will have seen the manifesto and will have heard the words of the Prime Minister last year when he said that, under a Conservative Government, there will be no onshore wind subsidies. They will have known that our target was 11 GW to 13 GW by 2020, and they are likely to have known that wind was deploying faster and more effectively than people had thought, partly because it was on the receiving end of those subsidies. Continuing to get investment in renewables and ensuring that Britain is open for business and remains at the front of delivering renewable energy will continue under this Government.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

May I take the rare step of agreeing with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)? She said that Back Benchers would be pleased with this statement, and I assure her that I am absolutely delighted with it, but most importantly, so will the vast majority of my constituents and those across mid-Wales and further afield. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the amount of money that scrapping the renewables obligation will save this country?

[Amber Rudd]

I am delighted to make my hon. Friend and his constituents happy. Closing the renewables obligation one year early is likely to save hundreds of millions of pounds.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State has not said whether she has been apprised of any particular implications in the context of Northern Ireland, not least in the setting there of a single electricity market for the island. She has promised consultation and says that she wants consultation with the devolved Administrations, industry and stakeholders, but given her certitude, how might that consultation have any influence on her position?

[Amber Rudd]

I have had meetings and conversations with my opposite number in Northern Ireland. I will continue to do so and I respect the views of those involved, which differ from ours on what we are trying to implement. I have been working with them to see whether it is possible for Northern Ireland to implement and fund the subsidy.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the cost of an application can be vast, including seeking approval from national air traffic control systems. When such applications meet ferocious local community opposition, is there any way in which she can assist applicants to withdraw the application? They often press on with the application to try to recover the cost of gaining air traffic control approval as well as other environmental assessments.

[Amber Rudd]

I do not think that there would be a role for Government in that. Having heard the announcement today, however, developers might take a different view.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

Given the consultations and discussions with the Scottish Energy Minister that the Secretary of State has outlined, what have the Scottish Government been advised will be the impact of the proposals on Scotland’s target of generating the equivalent of 100% of electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020?

[Amber Rudd]

I am happy to say that this change to the subsidy regime will not impact on the UK target. I have had no further discussion with my Scottish counterpart on the Scottish Government’s target.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Large numbers of my constituents in Montgomeryshire will welcome today’s statement with huge relief. Mid-Wales has been saved from desecration. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that onshore wind subsidies will not apply to any proposed wind farm that does not currently have planning permission?

[Amber Rudd]

As set out in my statement, the onshore wind subsidy grace period is available only to wind farms and wind farm applications that have planning consent, a grid connection and land rights.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I, too, had several constituents come to see me for the climate change lobby last week and the Secretary of State’s statement will leave them at a loss. Will she respond to the CBI’s comment that

“cutting the Renewables Obligation scheme early sends a worrying signal about the stability of the UK’s energy”

market?

[Amber Rudd]

I would say to the CBI, which I will be meeting and with which I am sure I will discuss this issue among other things, that this is a stable environment for renewable investment, as we have set out the ranges and targets we would like to achieve and we are meeting them. This Government are the first to have set out a levy control framework so that investors can see exactly how much money we are committing. It is partly because we as a Government are determined to look after money so carefully that we are making this change to ensure that we stay well within the levy control framework.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If I am to accommodate remaining colleagues in the exchanges on the statement, brevity is now of the essence.

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

A former Secretary of State, who went on to become Leader of the Opposition, once said that to object to onshore wind farms was akin to antisocial behaviour. Thank goodness we now have a Secretary of State who listens to constituents in rural areas like mine. Inevitably, councils will be challenged at appeal by highly paid barristers. What assistance will the Department give to small councils, so that they can fully understand the new powers that they have been granted?

[Amber Rudd]

I say to my hon. Friend, who has done so much to campaign against wind farms in his constituency, that the statement is very clear. If his councils want any further clarification, they should write to me and I will make sure they get a clear response.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Last week, in his encyclical on climate change, the Pope said,

“continuity is essential…policies related to climate change…cannot be altered with every change of government.”

With him, I would like to ask the Secretary of State this question: what would induce anyone at this stage to hold on to power, only to be remembered for their inability to take action when it is urgent and necessary to do so?

[Amber Rudd]

I urge the hon. Lady, when she has the chance to talk further with Pope, to let him know that we will meet our commitments, and today’s announcement is part of our plan to make sure that we do so. There is no change to this Government’s, this Department’s and this Prime Minister’s commitment to addressing dangerous climate change.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I welcome today’s statement, as will many residents of my constituency, which has borne more than its fair share of the brunt of the wind turbine industry. Will the Secretary of State consider a “two strikes and you’re out” policy for developers who keep coming back again and again and tweaking their applications, costing local councils hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees and causing prolonged distress for local residents?

[Amber Rudd]

I think my hon. Friend, who makes a good point, will find that under the new regime as announced today and last week, the community have the final say, and councils will be in a much stronger position to make that clear to any developers that approach them.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Is the Minister aware that another of the “best of both worlds” offers to the Scottish electorate was the onshore subsidies? Given the effect of the proposals on investment in Scotland, that is a challenge, as pulling investment was not part of her party’s manifesto. Does the Minister agree with me that this announcement is the equivalent of another broken promise to the Scottish electorate?

[Amber Rudd]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Having Britain open for business is incredibly important. Scotland has a lot of wind farms and has received a lot of investment. I am sure that with this Government in charge, investment will continue to flow to Scotland in all sorts of ways.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My constituents will be delighted that we now have a Conservative Government, as under a coalition Government we would never have had this statement or this excellent Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. I have it clear in my mind, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Borough Council of Wellingborough turns down a planning application for a wind farm, its decision cannot be overturned by the Planning Inspectorate?

[Amber Rudd]

Yes, I can confirm that.

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

Labour Members are rightly concerned about job losses and job insecurity, and that is not restricted to onshore. Given that the doubling of carbon tax by this Government on 1 April is likely to be the final nail in the coffin of the coal mining industry—almost 1,000 jobs at Hatfield—does the Minister recognise the need for a long-term plan to identify a diverse energy mix in the interests of the nation?

[Amber Rudd]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s view on the need for a diverse energy mix. We want to support renewables to make sure that we meet our renewable targets and encourage diverse forms of renewable energy, but we also need certain other types of energy to ensure we have the base-load available at all times of the day.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

The Scout Moor wind farm, to which the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) referred, dominates the skyline for thousands of my constituents. An application to extend it even further has been submitted, but not determined. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the extension will attract subsidy?

[Amber Rudd]

Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to write to me about that example? I will make sure that he gets a reply.

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

We worked very hard in Hull to bring Siemens to the city to develop the offshore renewables industry. Does the Minister understand how the current approach, and the previous approach in relation to solar, is not at all helpful to long-term investment in renewables?

[Amber Rudd]

I am slightly amazed that the hon. Lady chooses to approach the matter in that way. It is a great success of the previous Government that we now have the Siemens plant in Hull, and we support that, the employment it offers and the export potential that we hope will develop there. We are encouraged by the fact that there is more investment coming into offshore wind and we will continue to support it.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

In the mix of renewable energy, tidal energy has huge potential, popular support, leisure sector spin-offs, innovative technology and export potential. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the direct and indirect potential for job growth from tidal energy will be much greater than any job losses from her announcement today?

[Amber Rudd]

I certainly agree that tidal and marine energy is an exciting part of a future energy mix. As my hon. Friend is aware, we are continuing to do our due diligence on various tidal projects.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I associate myself with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). The Secretary of State will be aware that the position of the Scottish Government is that technology such as tidal power and wave power, which were prevented from being properly developed by a former Conservative Government, are where the long-term future of our energy lies. Can she therefore confirm that the entire value of the subsidy that is going to be clawed back from wind farms will be reinvested in the accelerated development of these long-term permanent technologies, or are we simply seeing a repeat of what her party did to Scotland in the 1980s, when a flourishing and potentially world-leading renewables energy sector was deliberately sacrificed to get it out of the way of the nuclear power lobby?

[Amber Rudd]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the proposal, which is that the onshore wind subsidy will not go ahead after March 2016. That is not money that is being clawed back; that is money that is additionally not being added to people’s bills. On another matter, I agree with him that we would like more success in the whole marine energy area, and it is partly because we want to make sure that we have sufficient support available for other technologies, such as marine and tidal wave, that we have to make this choice.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In response to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the subsidy regime for large-scale solar farms was also going to be cut. What is there to stop an applicant for a large-scale solar farm parcelling up that application into four or five separate applications, thus qualifying as a small-scale unit?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is right that we have ended the large-scale solar farm issue in terms of applications for the renewables obligation, but I have concerns about exactly the possibility that he has raised, and I will address it in the feed-in tariff review that I will be conducting this summer.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

The Huddersfield Civic Society, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Natural England, the National Trust, local artist Ashley Jackson and the Campaign to Protect Rural England have major concerns and are opposing a huge wind farm development high up on moorland in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm that local people will have the final say on this major development?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that list of supporters and I can indeed give him that confirmation.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

In south Wiltshire the primary concern is about large-scale solar farm applications. Can the Secretary of State outline the implications of today’s announcement for residents of Downton who came to see me about this recently?

[Amber Rudd]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier. We will be looking again at how solar farms get access as part of the feed-in tariff review. They are no longer eligible to access under the renewable obligations.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I refer Members to my declaration of interests. I welcome the announcement. On Friday my constituent Peter Stephens asked whether the forthcoming international deliberations on climate change would have the effect of unpicking the changes that the Secretary of State set out today. Perhaps she could clarify that.

[Amber Rudd]

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend and his constituent that we remain committed to our targets under the Climate Change Act 2008. We remain committed to being the greenest Government ever and to making sure that we are the No. 1 place for renewable energy investment.

Points of Order

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

16:40

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will be aware, following the recent Penrose report, the House is expecting a statement before the summer recess on arrangements for compensating those affected by the NHS contaminated blood scandal. I have been sent a copy of a letter from the Health Secretary which was reported in the Sunday Express yesterday, in which he states:

“Any additional resources found for a settlement will be taken away from money spent on direct patient care for patients in the NHS”.

As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, I am particularly concerned by this new approach. Has the Health Secretary indicated whether he intends to make a statement on this matter, as details of the settlement and its financing should surely be made to this House first?

[Mr Speaker]

I can certainly confirm that the House should be the first to hear the detail of whatever the Government decide upon. I have received no advance indication from the Secretary of State that he plans to make a statement. It is a matter for him to decide whether and when to do so, but perhaps the hon. Lady’s point of order will prompt thinking about the speed with which such a statement might usefully be made.

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, I asked a topical question of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It was a simple question, in which I asked “why the Government are refusing to publish—even though the Information Commissioner has instructed them to do so—the up-to-date statistics relating to the number of people who have died, having been found fit for work at their face-to-face assessment?” In the Secretary of State’s non-answer, he referred to me making “allegations” and making a reference to “suicide”. I did neither. How can we get a simple answer without false allegations being made about me and about another Member behind me? As you know, Mr Speaker, I am profoundly deaf and do not always pick up everything.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for the manner in which she has raised it. I have no responsibility for the content of ministerial answers. It is a judgment for any Minister how to respond. She has made her point in her own way, with force but also with dignity, and it is on the record. It is for Ministers, as it is for any of us, subsequently to reflect on what they have said and to decide whether they have anything to add to it or to subtract from it. I cannot say more than that, but if the hon. Lady remains dissatisfied and wishes to correspond with the Secretary of State or to approach him in some other way, it is of course her prerogative to do so. I thank her very much for what she has said.

[Marie Rimmer]

And I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the respectful way in which you have answered my question.

Education and Adoption Bill

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Speaker]

I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the acting Leader of the Opposition.

16:43

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

At the heart of this Government’s commitment to delivering real social justice is our belief that every child deserves an excellent education and that every day that they spend in school should be one that helps them to fulfil their potential. The Bill introduces new measures to improve school standards across the country. It also delivers on our commitment to establish regional adoption agencies, in order to help some of our most vulnerable children find loving homes.

Thanks to the hard work of teachers across the country, the reforms of the last Government and the innovations pioneered by the Government before that, championed by the former Schools Minister Lord Adonis, we have seen dramatic improvements in English education. Since 2010, 100,000 more six-year-olds are on track to be confident readers because of our focus on phonics; the EBacc has led to a 71% increase in pupils taking core academic subjects at GCSE; and there are now 1 million more pupils being taught in schools that are good or outstanding—a record high. In short, expectations have been raised, standards have been restored, and teachers and parents have been empowered.

But there is more to do. No child should have to put up with receiving an education that is anything less than good, so we must go further. The Bill will bring forward legislation to strengthen our ability to intervene more swiftly in failing schools and to properly tackle, for the first time, schools that are coasting. The measures in the Bill are designed to speed up the process by which underperforming schools are transformed, ensuring that there is no delay in giving our children the education they deserve.

Across the world, Governments are recognising that teachers and leaders in education know best how to run their schools. This Government are no different. We believe in a school-led system where experts have greater freedom but within a strong framework of accountability. That is why we want more schools to benefit from the freedom that academy status brings.

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

Is the Secretary of State worried about the number of people who are saying that when students have challenges such as special educational needs and autism, the school cannot cope? We need a much broader basis of help of the kind that does not get delivered by individual, fragmented school systems.

[Nicky Morgan]

I think that Members in all parts of the House would very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that children with special needs or disabilities must get the best possible education that will enable them to fulfil their potential. That is what the education and healthcare plans introduced under the previous Government are all about. As an hon. Member interested in education, he will know that we are seeing more collaboration between schools of all types across the system. Seventeen per cent. of the free schools set up under the previous Government deal with alternative provision and children who have special educational needs. Working with other local schools, they are providing a very innovative and exciting education.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

On the point about an individual school achieving a big difference, a strong academy sponsor in my constituency turned round a school known as Grace academy. Will the Secretary of State applaud the initiative of Solihull council to turn all the secondary schools on its council estates into academies by building on the good experience from that one leader?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be generous enough to recognise the huge contribution that talented and innovative sponsors are bringing to academies and schools up and down the country. Like her, I welcome—

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

I will finish answering this point, and then I might give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I welcome the fact that schools, academies and sponsors across the country are ensuring that young people in Solihull, as in other local authority areas, are receiving an excellent education.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will make some progress.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Secretary of State is extremely courteous and I am extremely grateful. I am a supporter of academies where they are the right solution for a school, but in my area the academies perform less well than the local education authority schools, so it is clear that school improvement is a lot more complicated than simply forcing schools to become academies. What does she have to say to that, and what is her plan to turn round academies that are themselves underperforming?

[Nicky Morgan]

Without going into the detail of all the schools in the hon. Gentleman’s area, I would say that sponsored academies are often the weakest schools in an area—they may have been failing or in special measures for a long time—and then a sponsor comes in and works with them to make improvements right across the school for the benefit of its young people. I will come on to talk about the moves that we make as a Department, working with regional schools commissioners, where there are issues relating to academies.

Academy status enables us to move quickly to replace poor governance in failing schools under the guidance of an expert sponsor, and it gives strong leaders the freedom to make decisions that will work for the young people in their care. That is why we have turbocharged the last Labour Government’s academies policy since 2010. When Labour left office there were just over 200 sponsored academies; there are now more than 1,400.

We backed the sponsored academy programme because we could see that it worked for parents, teachers and, most importantly, young people. It is a matter of profound regret that the Labour party now appears to have arrived at a position where it is prepared to deny young people in schools that are not up to scratch the benefits that we know academy freedoms can bring.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No, I have given way sufficiently. I will make some progress.

The evidence shows that schools in sponsored academy arrangements improve their performance faster than maintained schools. By 2014, results in sponsored secondary academies open for four years were on average 6.4 percentage points higher than results in their predecessor schools. Over the same period, results in local authority schools were an average of 1.3 percentage points higher than in 2010.

Prior to academisation, the situation facing Manchester Enterprise Academy, for example, was bleak. A history of underperformance, falling rolls, financial challenges and weak leadership had put it at risk of closure. Becoming a sponsored academy has turned it around. From being the lowest attaining secondary school in the area, it is now the highest performing against all key measures. In 2009 only 30% of pupils achieved five good GCSEs, compared with 59% in 2014. All of that has been achieved alongside the recovery of £1.9 million from the school’s budget over the past three years. Sponsored academies are also increasing the rigour of education, with more pupils focusing on the key academic subjects that will prepare them for life in modern Britain.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No, I am going to set out the results first.

The first sponsored primary academies had been open for two years by the time of the 2014 results. Their results increased by 9 percentage points during that time—double the rate of improvement in maintained schools during the same period. These are schools such as Great Yarmouth primary academy in Norfolk, which became a sponsored academy in September 2012, having had nine headteachers in as many years. The school was frequently in and out of special measures with performance below the floor standard. The community had lost faith in the school, but becoming an academy changed that. Performance has radically improved and the school has gone from strength to strength. Last year Ofsted judged the school good, with outstanding leadership.

We want more schools to achieve those rates of improvement. I was delighted to hear that the former Education Secretary, David Blunkett, will be directly contributing to that in his new role as chairman of the David Ross Education Trust, an academy sponsor operating more than 30 academies across the east of England, the east midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside. The former Secretary of State recognises that, in that role, he has the opportunity to

“help shape policy and collaborative improvement and directly impact on the education of over 10,000 young people.”

It is reassuring to know that there are still some in the Labour party who support the academy programme and put young people above partisan rhetoric.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I wonder whether the right hon. Lady is going to offer her support.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The interesting thing about the Bill is that it gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene where schools are failing pupils. I have four examples of pupils who have been excluded from academies and other schools without their parents being given a right to appeal. That is breaking the law. Will the Secretary of State amend the Bill in Committee to ensure that pupils who are excluded have their rights protected? That is one way in which she can ensure that every pupil has the right to an excellent education.

[Nicky Morgan]

The right hon. Lady is welcome to write to me about those specific cases. If those young people were not given the right to appeal, they certainly should have been. However, it is important to be on the side of teachers and those in charge of schools who make decisions about exclusions. It is also important to make sure that there is the right education provision for those young people who, for whatever reason, cannot be in mainstream schooling. We are seeing that provision as a result of innovations in our school system.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No, I will make some progress.

I turn now to regional schools commissioners. As the number of academies grows we must ensure decisions are taken by those with a real understanding of what works locally, which is why we have devolved decision making on academies to a regional level. Eight regional schools commissioners were appointed last year to oversee academies across the country. The education measures in the Bill will be enacted by those commissioners, supported by the advice of the outstanding headteachers who have been elected to regional boards. Regional schools commissioners will be acting on my behalf and I will be accountable to Parliament for the decisions they make. The headteachers on those boards are all experts in their areas, with years of experience across the school sector, backed by other schools in their area. As headteachers of strong schools, they know what it takes to make a school effective.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to make his points when we get to his speech. Those headteachers know what it takes to make a school effective and are in a good place to make decisions about the necessary action in any struggling school.

Regional schools commissioners will guarantee that decisions about intervention are made by people with real local knowledge, not by people sitting in Whitehall, ensuring local accountability while allowing academies to enjoy the autonomy that is so critical to their success.

[Tristram Hunt]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No. The hon. Gentleman is about to make a speech in which he will be able to demonstrate why he wants to move the amendment.

[Tristram Hunt]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No. I am going to make the case for the Bill, and the House will then have the opportunity to listen to the hon. Gentleman. I understand from today’s press that he would take a different approach: instead of trusting experts and heads, he would recreate local education authorities on a grand scale. I am sorry to say that he has shown once again that he is unable to resist the constant itch of the Labour party throughout the ages to seize back power from professionals on the ground and give it instead to politicians and bureaucrats.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that it is complete nonsense to pretend that Opposition Members are totally opposed to academies. She is trying to invent a ridiculous political dividing line when none exists on that issue. The truth is that some schools that are academies perform well and some schools that are academies perform poorly. In my constituency, the schools that have consistently performed worst are both academies and her Department has done nothing at all about it. There are good schools and poor schools in the maintained sector; the real crisis in education is in teacher recruitment and the quality of headteachers, and her proposals and speech have absolutely nothing to say about that.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members are in favour of academies, in which case they should go into the Lobby tonight to support the Bill, which makes it clear that we will not tolerate failure in schools across this country and will take swift action, regardless of whether they are academies or maintained schools. The Opposition’s amendment is muddle-headed because they have tried to find a reason to oppose the Bill, but they cannot. The hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members do not understand what is needed to tackle failure and have found a spurious reason to table an amendment. If they support academies, they should join us in the Lobby tonight.

[Wes Streeting]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No. I am going to turn to failing schools.

No one in this House can argue that we do not have a duty to transform failing schools. For those schools, urgent action is required, and the Bill introduces tough new measures to turn around failing schools from day one. In the past, such transformation could be delayed or even blocked altogether by pressure groups or unions with ideological objections to transferring power from town halls to outstanding heads and teachers.

The Bill makes it clear that an academy order will be issued for all schools judged inadequate by Ofsted, enabling them to become sponsored academies. The Bill sweeps away bureaucracy and loopholes that currently mean it takes, on average, more than a year from the day that a school is judged inadequate to the day that it opens as a sponsored academy.

For some schools, it can take even longer. The Warren comprehensive school in Barking and Dagenham had never been judged better than satisfactory by Ofsted. In February 2013, Ofsted said the school required special measures once again. It took eight months for the governing body to vote against becoming an academy. The then Secretary of State decided to pursue academy conversion, which the governing body and local authority challenged through the courts. The school eventually opened as a sponsored academy, 19 months after Ofsted deemed that it was failing to give pupils an acceptable standard of education. While adults bickered and delayed, the young people in that school had to spend almost two academic years in a learning environment that was failing them. That cannot be right.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and for that example. Does she therefore believe that her predecessor was wrong to listen to the parents, governors and local authority in the case of Snaresbrook primary school, which serves pupils in my constituency? It was deemed inadequate and was going to be converted into an academy, but after listening to the evidence put forward by parents, pupils and the local authority, it is now in the local authority family. Was the previous Secretary of State wrong to do that?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and welcome him to the House, as I have not heard him speak here before. I cannot comment on the individual circumstances, but my predecessor did not have the option to make an academy order. We will not tolerate the failure of schools. There will be conversion because the academy process, by bringing in a strong sponsor, makes the difference in turning around schools, many of which have languished under local authority control, failing for months on end.

As I was saying, what happened at the Warren school cannot be right. By issuing an academy order straight away, we will ensure that a long-term solution is in place as soon as possible. To further tackle unnecessary delays and ensure swift progress to academy status, the Bill introduces a new duty on governing bodies and local authorities to actively progress the conversion of failing schools into academies. That will send a clear and unambiguous message to all parts of the system that any unnecessary delay is unacceptable when it comes to improving the life chances of our children.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

There is a lot in the Bill that is good and academies are clearly part of the solution, but so is fair funding. We have talked a lot about that and the previous Government made a commitment to move to a fair funding formula. Will the Secretary of State advise us on whether we will make progress on that soon?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that funding is not at issue in the Bill, but it is important to all schools up and down the country. My hon. Friend might be aware that it was discussed a great deal at Education questions last Monday in this House, when I referred to our party’s clear manifesto commitment to make progress with fairer funding for our schools. I thank him for his support on that and know that it is an important issue to Members in all parts of the House.

Let me be clear about failing academies: failure has to be tackled wherever it occurs. We support academy status because we see that it works, but where individual academies are struggling, we do not hesitate to take swift action. The statutory legal framework that is being amended in the Bill applies only to maintained schools. Academies are not governed by the statutory framework because they are held to account through a legally binding contract known as a funding agreement. Each funding agreement sets out the controls that are in place for holding the trust to account and the mechanisms by which the Government can intervene to address concerns.

As I have set out, academies are generally performing very well and have progressed faster than their maintained school counterparts. Last week’s Ofsted figures reported that, of the more than 4,600 academies, 1,400 of which are sponsored academies—schools that were set up to transform some of the toughest cases of underperformance —only 145 are judged inadequate. However, as I have said clearly, one failing school is a failing school too many. That is why we have a tough regime to tackle academy failure, which allows us to intervene much more rapidly and effectively than we can in maintained schools.

Open academies are carefully monitored by regional schools commissioners and we take robust action where it is needed. As well as issuing 107 formal notices to underperforming academies, we have intervened and changed the sponsor in 75 cases of particular concern. The results of such intervention are evident.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am interested in what the right hon. Lady has to say about failing academies because, as she will know, the regional schools commissioner is involved in one academy in my constituency that Ofsted judges to be inadequate. Will she define what she means by a “coasting school”? That is important because we tend to think of schools as failing when they perform at a relatively low base, but is it not the case that a school can be coasting if it does not push highly academic pupils as hard as it can so that they achieve the best that they can?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. An awful lot of Members want to speak and the interventions are getting very long. If we keep them shorter, everyone will, I hope, get a chance to speak.

[Nicky Morgan]

I will, of course, adhere to that restriction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and take only a limited number of interventions.

For the second time in a week, I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I will talk about coasting schools in a moment, because they form an important part of the Bill. He is right that this is not just about tackling failure, but about stretching the most able and ensuring that all children make the progress that they are more than capable of.

I was talking about examples of failing academies. Thetford academy was put in special measures in March 2013. The Department replaced the sponsors and brought in the Inspiration Trust, which took the school on in July 2013. The results in the next academic year showed that the number of students achieving five GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and maths, rose by 10 percentage points. A few months later, in December 2014, Ofsted judged Thetford to be “good with outstanding leadership”. The report described the school as “transformed beyond recognition” and said that the trust’s leadership and support had created a

“strong culture where only the best is good enough.”

That is why the Opposition’s amendment is without merit. I suspect that the shadow Secretary of State knows that himself, but having failed to identify sufficient Members of Parliament to support either him or the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) to stand for the party leadership, he knows he has to take up the aggressive anti-choice, anti-academy rhetoric of some Opposition Members and their union paymasters.

Let me deal now with coasting schools, as I was asked to do by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. Alongside strengthening powers to intervene in failing schools, the Bill provides for the first time measures to tackle coasting schools. As the Prime Minister so clearly put it, “just good enough” should not be enough for anyone’s child. How we will define coasting schools has already generated considerable interest. I welcome the level of engagement from this House and outside it. To support the Bill’s passage, we will ensure that draft regulations on the definition of coasting are available in Committee for Parliament to scrutinise.

Let me set out the principles that will inform the definition. First, I want to make it clear that the definition will be based on pupil performance data and not on a single Ofsted judgment. Where a school is judged to require improvement by Ofsted, it will not automatically fall within the coasting definition. Secondly, the definition will take into account the progress pupils make—whether they achieve their potential based on their starting point and whether, as we discussed, the brightest are being stretched and the less able properly supported. Finally, the definition will be based on performance over three years, identifying schools that have been coasting over a period of time, rather than through a single set of results.

I emphasise that the Bill does not propose any automatic interventions for coasting schools. Coasting schools will be eligible for intervention, but regional schools commissioners will have the discretion to decide the most appropriate course of action. Some coasting schools may have the capacity to improve sufficiently and, where that is the case, they should be given the opportunity to get on with it, without distraction.

Other coasting schools may require additional support and challenge from a national leader of education or a strong local school. By creating this new category of coasting schools, regional schools commissioners will have the power to pair those schools that need to improve with educational experts who can help them along the way. When—and only when—a coasting school has no credible plan or is not improving sufficiently, it is right that regional schools commissioners are able to instigate academy conversion to ensure that pupils and parents get the world-class education they deserve.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No, I am going to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point, both at the end of this debate and in Committee.

I would like to emphasise the continuing role we expect local authorities to play, alongside regional schools commissioners, in challenging their schools to improve. Local authorities should take swift and effective action when failure occurs in a maintained school, using the powers they already have to issue warning notices, and replace governing bodies wherever necessary. Last year, 90 warning notices were issued by local authorities, but we know that some local authorities have never used their powers. That is why the Bill proposes to give the same warning notice powers to regional schools commissioners. Such notices will give a school the opportunity to tackle the concerns in the first instance, or face necessary intervention where serious concerns remain.

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because he will have a chance to tell his hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State what he would like him to ask.

Our expectation is that local authorities should work alongside regional schools commissioners to prioritise the schools in greatest need and decide the most appropriate powers to deploy in each case. The education measures in the Bill are about ensuring all children have the same chance to fulfil their potential, expanding opportunities and bringing real social justice to our country.

Let me deal with the part of the Bill that concerns adoption. During the previous Parliament, the Government took decisive action—[Interruption.] It is a great shame that some Opposition Members—and certainly Opposition Front-Bench Members—do not want to listen to what I am saying about an important part of the Bill that deals with adoption. Opposition Back-Bench Members are listening to what I am saying about the important provisions on adoption.

During the previous Parliament, the Government took decisive action to reform an adoption system that was too bureaucratic and time-consuming, leaving children waiting for far too long or causing them to miss out on being adopted altogether. To drive improvements, we have established the National Adoption Leadership Board, chaired by Sir Martin Narey; given £200 million to local authorities through the adoption reform grant; invested a further £17 million in the voluntary adoption sector; and launched a £19.3 million adoption support fund to provide therapeutic support to adopted children and their families.

The numbers prove that those reforms are working. Adoptions have increased by 63% in the past three years, from just over 3,000 in 2011 to more than 5,000 in 2014. Children are also spending less time waiting to be adopted, with the average time between coming into care and being placed with a family down by nearly four months. Those are achievements to be proud of.

The current system is not working as well as it could, however. It is still highly fragmented, with about 180 different adoption agencies, many of which operate on a very small scale.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

I will if it is about adoption.

[Bill Esterson]

It is. I think it was remarkable that the Secretary of State would not give way to my Front-Bench colleague.

Adoption is the right outcome for only a relatively small number of children who end up in care. Although the measures in the Bill on adoption are undoubtedly welcome, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, for more than 90% of those children, fostering, residential care or kinship care is the right option? The Bill says nothing about that, which raises concern that adoption is being considered the gold standard, when it should actually be only one of a range of options, which should be considered in full.

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course, the routes available for giving children a loving, permanent, stable home were considered in full towards the end of the previous Parliament during the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014. Adoption is important, because it gives children a stable upbringing and permanence so that they can progress with their lives and meet their full potential. The Bill addresses one particular aspect of the adoption system that is not working as well as it could, but he is right. Of course the courts will consider all the different options before they get to the point at which adoption agencies operate.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the rationalisation of the large number of agencies and councils? It seems absurd to me, given the number of children affected, that such a bewildering number of bodies are involved in this vital process.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will talk about that and about why we are bringing forward our proposals. In the first three quarters of 2014-15, 20 local authorities or local authority groups recruited fewer than 10 adopters, and 58 recruited fewer than 20. Similarly, six voluntary adoption agencies recruited fewer than 10 adopters and 10 recruited fewer than 20 adopters. That means that we now need to address the issue.

As I said, the House spent significant time considering adoption during the passage of the Children and Families Act. At that time, the urgent crisis facing the adoption system was the failure to recruit enough adopters. The sector has responded positively to the challenge, and I applaud and thank it for its efforts in doing so. However, we are now facing challenges that go beyond the original one of recruitment. There are still 3,000 children waiting for adoption despite there being enough approved adopters across the country, and we also need better adoption support. At the moment, the specialist support that many adopted children need to address the effects of abuse and neglect in their early life is simply not available in their area.

In response to my hon. Friend, actively encouraging local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to join forces and work together will act as a triple win. It will give councils a greater pool of approved adopters, make vital support services more widely available to adoptive families and better target the recruitment of adopters. It will also provide better value for money for the taxpayer.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

In my previous life I placed a number of children for adoption. Quite often, mental health problems were one of the key things that needed to be tackled, because of people’s experiences before they came into the care system. Does the Secretary of State accept that mental health remains a major issue that is not being widely tackled within the care system? Children who have been through the care system are five times more likely to take their own life. The Bill does nothing to address that. Can we please consider that at some point in the passage of the Bill?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I have mentioned the £19.3 million adoption support fund, which the coalition Government set up and to which the current Government have a clear commitment; £1 million of that has already been spent on supporting 200 families. I am absolutely certain that mental health care and support will rightly be a part of how that money is spent. She is absolutely right. The reason for having the fund is exactly to support those families who have done the right thing by adopting children but who need that additional support to help those children to deal with their previous experiences. I welcome the hon. Lady’s interest. I do not know whether she will be a member of the Bill Committee, but given her previous experiences, I am sure the Minister will welcome hearing from her.

We want to work with the sector to deliver our vision and will provide £4.5 million of support this year to assist with the transition to regional adoption agencies. I am delighted that many key voices in the sector, including leaders from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, Adoption UK and the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, have expressed support for that vision.

For those who do not make that step, we need a backstop power that can be used to direct local authorities to come together. That is why the Bill introduces a power to direct local authorities to have certain adoption functions carried out on their behalf by another local authority or adoption agency.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, especially because I have not been able to hear all of her comments on the Bill. That part of the Bill concerns me. I wonder whether she can reassure me and others who are concerned about the zeal with which some local authorities pursue adoption, and reassure us that the measures she proposes will not shortcut the system. I have a very upsetting case in my constituency. Surrey County Council was adamant and determined that it would have children adopted. The parents were extremely distressed, as I was. I hope my right hon. Friend can reassure the House on that point.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I am sure that, in our casework, all individual Members of Parliament have come across examples of very difficult family situations. Decisions are made independently by the courts—it is clearly not for politicians to second-guess those decisions. Clearly, the courts will make decisions in the interests of the children. There are procedures and appeals, and the families are represented, but there are times when adoption is the right route for children to be in a stable, loving and permanent home that will enable them to fulfil their potential. The provision in the Bill is simply about making that process work better.

I am coming to the end of my speech and am conscious of the number of Back Benchers who want to speak in the debate. The measures in the Bill are driven by a simple objective: to provide world-class education and care that allows every child and young person to reach his or her potential, regardless of background. We want every child to go to a local school where they learn the knowledge and skills they need to succeed. To achieve that, we need the legislation, which is intolerant of both failure and mediocrity when it comes to our children’s education.

Alongside an excellent education, every child deserves a stable and loving home. To ensure that the thousands of children who are currently waiting to be adopted get that, we need powers to increase the scale on which our adoption services are delivered. Our plan for a world-class education and care system is working, but there is a lot more to do, because this one nation Government want to ensure that every young person, wherever they are born and whatever their background, gets the very best start in life. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ views both during today’s debate and in Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Secretary of State for Education, I should tell hon. Members that I am going to put a time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench contributions—it will follow immediately after the shadow Secretary of State.

17:18

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, while supporting the sponsor academy programme and recognising that no parent wants their child to be schooled in a failing, inadequate or coasting school, declines to give a Second Reading to the Education and Adoption Bill because it fails to set out measures for dealing with inadequate academies.”

It is a privilege to speak in the Chamber under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendment is in my name and those of my right hon. Friends.

I agree with the Secretary of State that every parent wants to give their child the best start in life, and that a single day spent in a failing, inadequate or coasting school is one day too long. Parents and pupils are not interested in a four-year improvement project for their schools, and our country cannot wait for a long turnaround.

As the pace of global competition quickens, the demand for an educated workforce intensifies and we confront the gearshift of a digital economy, getting our schools and colleges educating pupils properly is more essential than ever. Swift action, no excuses, doing what it takes—that was the inspiration behind the Labour party’s sponsored academies programme a decade ago, and we still believe in their ability to tackle entrenched educational disadvantage. We believe in zero tolerance of poor standards and complacency. We believe in professional autonomy and high expectations. Sponsored academies were and are modern, comprehensive state schools—a classically Labour response to a classically Labour commitment to social justice and equal opportunity.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Given the shadow Secretary of State’s welcome commitment to improving schools as quickly as possible, can he tell us whether his recent agreement would bring about those improvements more quickly or more slowly?

[Tristram Hunt]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. One of the issues before us today is the evidence for improvement, and looking at what works. It has long been the practice of the Labour party to focus on what works, and we need to focus with clear precision on whether the Bill will deliver the educational improvement that we all want to see.

We would like to have supported the Bill, but following the Conservative party’s rejection of cross-party talks on 14-to-19 education last week, we face, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—the best part of Dudley—pointed out earlier, more partisan, dividing-line politics. Rather than taking politics out of our education system, the Secretary of State seeks to divide the House for the sake of ideology. Worse than that is the narrowness of her vision.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As the shadow Secretary of State and his party seem to agree with the aims and main purpose of the Bill, why not vote for the Bill tonight and then table strong amendments to deal with the issue of how to tackle failing academies? The Secretary of State might even accept some of those amendments.

[Tristram Hunt]

Given that the Secretary of State will not even take an intervention from Opposition Members, it is unclear whether she would be willing to accept reforms.

When the late Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher— the right hon. Gentleman will enjoy this point—first became Education Secretary, she told her permanent secretary, “I am worried about the content in schools, rather than the structure.” Sadly, this Education Secretary is wholly uninterested in what is taught and how it is taught: her first legislative act is yet more structural change. The Government have nothing to say on Sure Start, on effective early-years support, on smaller class sizes, on high-quality teaching, on strong school leadership, on reforming accountability or encouraging school collaboration. They have zero interest in parenting, attachment and early child development.

Education has moved on. The leading jurisdictions around the world are not responding to the 21st century challenge with top-down, target-driven centralism: they are devolving power, broadening the curriculum, learning to let go and unleashing excellence, not mandating adequacy.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Secretary of State failed to meet parents from St Andrew and St Francis School, who want to appeal against it being forced into academy status based on a flawed Ofsted report?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, not least because Ofsted removed more than 1,000 inspectors last week because it did not think that they were up to the job. It is no good Ministers saying, “We can centralise and govern this from the centre. The man in Whitehall knows what is best”, and then refusing to meet parents, activists and communities to be held to account for their decisions.

There is concern across the educational spectrum. Earlier this week, we saw a letter from the headmaster of Rugby school—so not a natural Labour supporter—who pointed out how the new curriculum is leaving children

“ill-equipped for a future that will place a premium on creativity.”

The challenges we face in terms of productivity, skills, social mobility, wellbeing, character and attainment are so much greater than the Government seem prepared to accept.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend also aware that we face a recruitment crisis, because teachers are overworked and underpaid? If we carry on treating people with disrespect, they will not want to work in the profession.

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) made a very powerful intervention in the debate on this subject last week. As the labour market tightens and workloads grow, we will see more teacher shortages and recruitment crises.

We seek to highlight these crucial omissions and to improve the Bill before it receives a Second Reading. As it stands, the Bill fails to set out measures for dealing with inadequate academies and offers no reassurance on the quality of academy chains. It offers a reductive approach to school improvement without a decent evidence base. We regard the centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State as unhealthy and arbitrary. I regard it as wholly opposed to traditional English forms of self-government. The Labour party is passionate about cross-party collaboration when it comes to education, so let me begin by focusing on areas of agreement.

The Labour party supports efforts to speed up the adoption process. Children put up for adoption number among the most vulnerable members of our society. We know that delays can be hurtful. We accept the principle that every step should be taken to minimise the harm a malfunctioning adoption system can sometimes cause vulnerable children. We do, however, have some questions and concerns to put to the Secretary of State.

First, on reorganisation, will the Secretary of State explain how the proposals will proceed by consent, given that proposed new section 3ZA would grant the Secretary of State significant powers of direction? We are not opposed to that per se—the Labour Assembly in Wales has carried out a successful consolidation of adoption powers across different local authorities—but it would be helpful if she could provide more clarity on the process.

Secondly, we have some concerns about hard-to-place children. There are some extraordinarily brilliant small and specialist voluntary sector adoption agencies that carry out tremendous work placing more challenging young people with families. I firmly believe we should retain their contribution to our adoption system.

Thirdly, I encourage the Secretary of State to set out more detail on how the proposals affect the roll-out of the national adoption support fund and whether there are any plans to extend the range of services that money can be spent on.

Finally, reflecting on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), we hope that as early as possible in this Parliament the Government will bring forward proposals on other permanent arrangements. The commitment to reforming adoption is laudable, but we would like to see it matched with a commitment to reform long-term foster care, kinship care arrangements, special guardianships and a closer look at the role of grandparents.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I am concerned about the oversight function of local authorities. All too often when prospective adopting parents come before a committee, social workers might have one view and the councillor on the committee a different view, and the councillor almost always gets overruled. Is this something that the Secretary of State should look at?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point about accountability procedures, and that is certainly something we will look to take forward in Committee.

We are happy to debate those clauses and other issues in Committee, but glaring deficiencies elsewhere necessitate our reasoned amendment: the shoddy, slapdash incomplete proposed legislation placed before the House today is unworthy of a Second Reading. When the first word of the first clause on the first page of the Bill—“coasting”—is yet to be defined by the Government, they are showing an extraordinary discourtesy to this House. Such is the extension of the Secretary of State’s powers over schools deemed to be “coasting” that I would have thought they knew what they were talking about. Today, for all the lofty principles, we still have no workable legal definition.

As it stands, “coasting” could mean anything: Ofsted results, progress data, attainment scores. In fact, it could just as easily relate to any passing whim of the Secretary of State. Too many children swinging on chairs? Coasting. Too many kids studying the humanities, of which we know the Secretary of State disapproves? Coasting. Too many teenagers aspiring to apprenticeships? Coasting. We just do not know what the answer is, but what we do know is that this is no way in which to approach the serious job of reforming our schools system.

I fear that there will be a confrontation between what the Department for Education regards as coasting and what Ofsted regards as a good school. If Ofsted has classified a school as good and the Department says that it is coasting, where does that leave the schools inspector?

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The definition of “coasting” is not the only thing that is missing from the Bill. A number of other things are missing from it, including references to addressing the teacher recruitment crisis or the school places crisis. Moreover, the Bill makes hardly any mention of parents, although those two issues are very much on their minds. Why do two out of five newly qualified teachers leave the profession within five years, and why are parents of three and four-year-olds so anxious about school places?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. All that we have here is yet more relentless focus on structural reform rather than on the real issues that are affecting our education system. To be fair, however, the Government do mention parents in the Bill: they mention removal of the parental voice.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Did the hon. Gentleman not hear the Secretary of State say that the definition of coasting would be based on pupil performance data?

[Tristram Hunt]

Does the hon. Lady mean the progress 8 data, the EBacc data, or the data relating to free school meals? Again, it is very unclear what the Conservatives are going for.

The tragedy is that we would like to support action to engage with coasting schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made a valuable point about how we should define a coasting school. A coasting school could be good or outstanding if one would expect greater achievements from its pupils. We want early intervention to deal with coasting schools. Intervention was part of the reason for the success of the London challenge programme which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) did so much to deliver, and which did so much to increase attainment in the capital before the Government scrapped it.

It is not the job of Oppositions to give a blank cheque to Governments. We are seeing something similar to the Government’s collapsing Childcare Bill, in which they could not define the funding terms, could not say what constitutes full-time work, and could not explain child ratio rates. They should have done some work before introducing that Bill.

[Mr Anderson]

Work has already been done in the House. The Education Committee published a report in January, and the Department for Education published a statistical working paper just before the general election, in which it said that it was currently impossible to carry out any reliable statistical evaluation when it came to whether academies were better than traditional schools. What we have here is an attempt to ignore the facts and push through an ideologically driven agenda, which is typical of the Tory party.

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend has made an extremely valuable point about the excellent report produced by the cross-party Select Committee. I shall say more about it later.

The same haphazard approach is apparent in the Bill’s failure to deal with different types of school, such as academies and maintained schools, in a fair and consistent manner. There is a great deal in it about inadequate maintained schools, but what about inadequate academies? They do not face automatic interventions. As the Secretary of State knows, 145 academy schools are currently rated “inadequate”. Indeed, eight converter academies have been in special measures since 2013, and all eight remain with their original sponsor. The Sir John Gleed School in Lincolnshire is a converter academy that was rated inadequate in April 2013, and is still inadequate. I make that at least 783 days of inadequacy too many, which is too much for the Labour party.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

When the Department for Education was asked about quality gradings for academy chains, its response was:

“The disclosure of this information would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.”

The Department does not want any transparency when it comes to judging those academy chains. Why will Ministers not, in this Bill, allow academy chains to be judged like maintained schools?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We are talking about taxpayers’ money, so where are the transparency and accountability on expenditure? Why are parents and pupils at failing academy schools less deserving of fast and effective state intervention than those in the maintained sector? The Labour party believes every child should have a good education in every classroom and opposes this ideological protection of certain poorly performing schools.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I am baffled, because the hon. Gentleman has mentioned several things in the Bill he supports yet he is unable to support measures to speed up improvements to failing schools.

[Tristram Hunt]

The question is: what is the best mechanism for dealing with improvements to failing schools? The hon. Lady is new to this House, but I urge her to read the Select Committee’s report, because if she did, she would find that the evidence behind it is a lot more complicated than she suggests.

There is nothing in this Bill to deal with coasting or failing academy chains.

[Mrs Spelman]

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

I will give way in a moment. Let us take as an example the case of a school such as St Peter’s Academy, on the border of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), looked after by the Woodard Academies Trust, which makes a mockery of the Department’s ability to intervene quickly and spot failure. In February last year, the diocese of Lichfield education board, which co-sponsors but does not operate the school, wrote to Education Minister Lord Nash about its concerns about the Woodard Academies Trust. The DFE conducted a short review and concluded that everything was fine, but everyone in Stoke-on-Trent knew that it was not. Indeed, we all told that to the regional schools commissioner, who had no effective grip on the situation at all. In January, the school was downgraded into special measures, meaning that more than half of the Woodard academy chain schools are now in, or have recently been in, special measures. No wonder the Lichfield diocese no longer has trust in Woodard. This Bill does nothing for the pupils of St Peter’s or schools like it in failing academy chains.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time and is giving a good example of how to take interventions. He correctly says that this situation is of huge concern and has been for some time, but where do parents go? They complain, as do we as Members of Parliament, but the complaints fall on deaf ears because of the structure, which seems to be the be all and end all for the Government—it is all about the structure. This structure does not help parents and, most importantly, it does not help pupils get on in life.

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a strong and valuable point. This is further evidence of the atomisation and fragmentation of the English schools system, which is affecting the standards of pupils in schools in Stoke-on-Trent and right across the country. We think that the Secretary of State needs to start putting the interests of pupils above party politics.

[Mrs Spelman]

rose—

[Tristram Hunt]

I am now delighted to give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Mrs Spelman]

The explanatory notes state:

“Clause 12 inserts a new section…into the Academies Act 2010. The new section allows the Secretary of State to revoke any Academy order…for example if the Secretary of State decides it would be better to direct the local authority to close the school.”

The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that there are no new powers in this Bill to deal with a failing academy, but surely that is not what the explanatory notes say.

[Tristram Hunt]

This Bill gives an extraordinary amount of new powers to the Secretary of State, but the Government are asleep on the job. Why have they not acted on St Peter’s school or on the Woodard academy chain? We do not dispute that this Bill gives a great deal of power to the Secretary of State; we just do not think that she is competent to act on the powers that she has been granted. The whole purpose of this Bill is to narrow school improvement—effectively to reduce it to academisation.

As I have already argued, Labour supports academisation as one option for effective intervention in failing schools. The evidence of the sponsored academies programme is clear. We also accept the evidence from the Sutton Trust and others which shows that progress for disadvantaged pupils continues to be faster at those schools than it is at other schools. Had Labour won the general election—we can but dream—I would certainly have expected our new directors of school standards to force through conversions of failing maintained schools and be answerable for those decisions.

When scrutinising this legislation, we do not need to question whether some sponsored academies have a positive impact on progress, standards and achievement. We know that they do. The key question is: why would the Secretary of State constrain herself in clause 7 to this method alone—this one policy of academisation—for school improvement? The reality is that some of the fastest improving schools in the country are maintained schools, particularly in the primary sector. Schools such as the Wellfield Community School, which I was delighted to visit with my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), went from special measures to good without converting. The extraordinary Hartsholme Primary School in Lincoln jumped from special measures to outstanding. Indeed, between 2012 and 2014, Ofsted data show eight maintained schools going from special measures to outstanding and 201 maintained schools going from special measures to good.

Academisation is not always the answer. Post-conversion inspections show that 8% of primary sponsored academies and 14% of secondaries are currently rated inadequate. The best chains, such as Ark or United Learning, are an important architecture for spreading high standards, but chains such as Woodard and E-ACT show that poor performance and complacency are just as easily exported. Pupils at schools run by Prospect Academies Trust were wholly let down by this Government, and children under the Park View Academy Trust in Birmingham were, arguably, put in danger of radicalisation.

The Sutton Trust report shows that the variation between academy chains is “enormous”. It found that the rate of progress for disadvantaged children was lower than the average across all state schools in around one half of the larger academy chains. As was pointed out, the Education Committee report on the academy programme found that the evidence is not sufficient to draw conclusions on whether academies in themselves are a positive force for change.

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I commend him for that. He has drawn attention to the fact that, in the report, it is very clear that the Labour academies were a success—the evidence has been taken over a long enough period to make that judgment. We should rightly praise the previous Labour Government for their intervention and their selective use of academies as a school improvement measure. We took evidence from the Charter School movement that suggested that only a small number of schools should convert at a time. Does he agree that one fundamental problem is that the Government have tried to change too many things at once within the education system and have converted too many academies?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Interventions are getting very long. The hon. Gentleman is on the speaking list, so he may want to save his gunpowder for when it is his turn to speak. The interventions need to be much shorter. Otherwise, we will not get everybody in.

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point that there should not be a hierarchy of school type. What makes a difference is strong school leadership and great teaching in the classroom, which can be there across a range of different schools. At Committee stage, we will introduce amendments on a quality threshold for conversion. I am talking about a guarantee that only academy chains with a proven track record should be eligible to sponsor new academies. We want Ofsted to be allowed to inspect academy chains as it does in relation to local authority school improvement functions. What is there to hide? We want shorter funding contracts and for academy freedoms to be extended to all maintained schools as well as measures that challenge the stranglehold of poor academy chains by making it easier for schools to change their sponsors—a Bosman ruling for schools introducing autonomy back to the chains. In short, we want action on inadequate academies and encouragement for maintained schools with a strong plan for improvement.

We also wish to see an end to the continued and accelerating process of centralisation in education policy. When I read clauses 8 to 11 of the Bill, my first thought was to wonder whether the Education Secretary had reinstated her predecessor’s poster of Vladimir Lenin in Sanctuary Buildings. The proposed crackdown in those clauses on governors, parents, councillors, teachers and heads who merely wish to express an opinion in a free country on the future of their school is something to behold. As the Prime Minister’s former guru, Mr Steve Hilton, said of this Government’s approach to education:

“The Soviet comparison is an apt one—using central command to try and run a vast system. Of course you can squeeze some results out of it and muster some sign schools are improving. But is it the big transformation we want to see to prepare for the 21st century? No”.

Steve Hilton was right. These clauses are an extraordinarily statist attack on civil society and the individual’s ability to express dissent.

[Suella Fernandes]

(Fareham) (Con): I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s accusation of Soviet-style centralisation on the part of the Conservative Government. What is his opinion of the hundreds of free schools that have been set up over the past five years, devolving power and decision making to local groups of volunteers to start up schools where they see a need?

[Tristram Hunt]

The hon. Lady was not listening. That is not my comparison; it was made by Mr Steve Hilton, who was the Prime Minister’s policy guru. I am just quoting him. Once upon a time, there was an idea called the big society of which the right hon. Gentleman was in favour.

Whatever else we might scorn about the Tory party’s approach to localism, we realise that devolution is valuable. The devolution of transport, skills and health powers to Manchester is a good thing, but there are few things more important to a community’s pride and prosperity than its schools, so why do schools stand in such stark contrast to the devolution offered so far as part of the northern powerhouse initiative? We believe that it is time that decisions to do with new schools and intervention in failing schools were made at a combined authority level. Regional schools commissioners are far too distant to understand the distinctive context of every school and community in their region, and we share the criticism from the National Governors Association of the capacity of commissioners to carry out their functions effectively. In Committee, the Labour party will seek to reshape the Bill with a series of pro-devolution amendments. It is called parent choice, something that the Conservative party used to believe in.

The success of the Labour party’s sponsored academy programme came through a deep and balanced understanding of how we improve schools and tackle educational failure. Our reforms sat alongside the challenge programmes, the National College for Teaching and Leadership, Teach First and sustained investment in teaching and learning. In contrast, the Conservative party offers a 10% budget cut for schools, rising pressures on places, larger class sizes, closing Sure Start, teacher shortages, excessive workloads, a collapse of professional support for head teachers, and a widening attainment gap between the poorest children and their better-off peers. The consequences are already being felt by the most disadvantaged in our society, and the terrible judgment of the Teach First charity is that

“things are getting worse for poorer children, instead of better.”

The Bill does not do enough to close the gap, raise standards, challenge complacency, unleash innovation or inspire our teachers. It is because we are ambitious for every child in every school in England that we will press our reasoned amendment to a vote.

17:49

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I rise to speak in my capacity as Second Church Estates Commissioner, but first I would like to build on the comment I made in response to remarks made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). My local authority chose to make all the schools in my constituency academies, and the parents of 7,000 pupils have chosen to have their children educated in the borough of Solihull, so localism and parent choice exist. The only bone of contention for me is that, had the per capita funding those children would have enjoyed were they educated in Birmingham and Coventry, where they reside, followed them, £1,300 more per pupil would have been available. My local authority would very much like that anomaly to be addressed. In health, the money follows the patient; by the same token, in education, it would be good to see the money follow the pupil. I totally support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) to ensure that the schools funding formula is adjusted to achieve fairer funding.

The Church of England family of schools is a key part of the education system and dioceses are committed to maintaining high standards and developing capacity across its 4,700 schools in a strategic way. Some 65% of the schools have fewer than 210 pupils, and the Church of England currently runs more than half the small primary schools in England. Although 80% of its schools are in the good or outstanding categories, the Church faces the same challenge of raising standards in the remaining 20%. Schools that are eligible for intervention are defined as those in categories 3 and 4 under Ofsted, so I believe that the idea of coasting is underpinned by the evidence to which the Secretary of State referred.

The Church is not opposed to academisation; it sees that an academy with a strong sponsor can often be the way in which a school improves. The general shift toward multi-academy trusts, rather than single autonomous schools, is largely welcomed by the Church of England, particularly in the light of the number of small rural schools. In its report “Working Together: The Future of Rural Church of England Schools”, published in October last year, the chief education officer of the Church of England said that he is convinced of the need for schools

“to form effective structural partnerships and collaborations”

if some of them

“are to survive into the future… Collaborations are not a means to avoid closure, but are for mutual benefit”.

It is important that strength and capacity are maintained through a strategic approach, rather than decisions being taken on a school-by-school basis. It is the very coherence of the Church family of schools that enables the Church of England to make a significant contribution to education in this country. I therefore seek assurances from the Secretary of State that the Bill and the associated regulations and guidance explicitly recognise the duties of the dioceses and school trustees, who have to preserve the Church of England character of their school. Under the Bill, regional school commissioners will have authority to require a school to become an academy; however, they may have only a limited understanding of the position of the diocese in relation to Church schools. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to decide who serves on the interim executive body of a failing school. Can she reassure the Church that that body will have regard to the ethos of faith schools, as in clause 5?

The Bill grants new powers to the Secretary of State to require failing schools to enter into a variety of collaborations or a federation with other schools. The Church already has a number of federations, such as the Trinity federation and the Pilgrim federation in the Norwich diocese, which are a mix of Church and voluntary-aided schools. They demonstrate how the individuality of each school has been maintained, which should allay the fears of the National Secular Society that the Church might in some way dominate the non-Church schools. The Church will continue to develop diocesan and Church school-led multi-academy trusts in a way that offers the opportunity to build strong partnerships within the Church school family and that welcomes community schools, as well.

It is important to ensure that the new Government powers of intervention do not limit the Church’s ability to control its existing schools and promote new ones. The Church should still be able to take its own steps to improve the quality of its own provision. I hope that the Government will continue to work with the Church of England and the Catholic Church to ensure that the Bill and any related regulations and guidance meet these concerns.

17:54

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I am delighted to have the support of so many of my colleagues here today as I make this, my first speech to the House. I am honoured to be here representing Glasgow North West, the area where I grew up and where I have chosen to raise my own children.

Glasgow North West does not have the lochs and islands of Argyll and Bute, or the mountains of Skye and Lochaber, but what it does have are some of the most beautiful sandstone buildings anywhere in these isles. Madam Deputy Speaker, I invite you take a stroll along the avenues of Broomhill and past the tenements of Thornwood to enjoy these delights. So inspired was I by this architecture that I left my previous job as a physics teacher to retrain as a stonemason. Perhaps I could offer my services to this building and save the public purse some money. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Glasgow’s dedication to science and engineering has ensured the Clyde’s rich tradition in shipbuilding is world renowned, but there are only two shipyards remaining: Govan and Scotstoun, which is situated in my constituency. When BAE Systems builds ships in Glasgow, it is not mere tokenism; it is because it knows it has one of the world’s most highly skilled workforces at its disposal. When the contract was recently awarded for the Type 26 frigates, my reaction was, “Why not more?” We certainly could be building more if it were not for the obscenity of nuclear weapons.

Glasgow is famous for its love of sport. Only last year, we hosted the hugely successful Commonwealth games, when athletes and visitors were treated to the warmth and hospitality of our Glaswegians, and to the outstanding summer weather we always enjoy. [Laughter.] I take this opportunity to congratulate my neighbours the Glasgow Warriors rugby team, who were recently crowned the PRO12 champions. They are the first Scottish team to win an international trophy in the modern professional era.

I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr John Robertson, who worked hard to serve Glasgow North West for nearly 15 years. He is rightly lauded for his amendment to the 2009 Welfare Reform Bill that ensured that people registered blind or partially sighted could claim the higher level of disability living allowance. John was first elected in a by-election in November 2000, following the untimely and tragic death of Donald Dewar. The name of the seat at that time was Glasgow Anniesland. I am hugely honoured to be representing the same part of Glasgow as Scotland’s first First Minister. It was Donald’s push for devolution that started Scotland on the political journey that has led to the election of me and so many of my colleagues.

I am proud to have been part of Scotland's world-famous comprehensive education system. The 1496 Education Act required every parish to provide a school. This resulted in Scotland making a significant contribution to the period of enlightenment, when the modern world we know today was developed. Today, Scotland still has more universities per head of population than any other country in the world. The value we place on educating our future citizens cannot be overstated. The Scottish Government have ensured that university education is a right that is based on the ability to learn, not a privilege for those who can afford to pay.

Our proud tradition in education is not historical—it is alive and well today. In Scotland we have a new progressive Curriculum for Excellence which starts at age 3 and continues to age 18, ensuring that our students are well equipped as they move beyond school. Although I welcome the UK Government’s plan to follow the Scottish lead in increasing childcare provision for three and four-year-olds, the requirement that both parents must be working means that many children in need of a good start will miss out.

People in Glasgow are struggling under the continued onslaught of austerity. In some parts of my constituency one in every two children is born into poverty. Teaching in a comprehensive school, I was only too aware of the impact this has on the prospects of our young people. I have seen too many talented students struggle because they are hungry, because they cannot study in a damp house or because they have to go out and work to supplement the meagre household income. I have heard the word “aspiration” used repeatedly in this House. Try having aspirations when you are living on the edge of destitution.

I know the difference that great teaching can make to schools and to pupils, but all too often hard-working teachers who are battling to deal with society’s failings are blamed for not doing enough. This has to stop. Unless we start valuing teachers for their contribution, making a school an academy will not change anything, and the crisis in education will only deepen. As a teacher I always had great ambitions for my pupils, but the most important thing a teacher can give to their students is self-confidence. Last September’s referendum may not have returned the result I hoped for, but it did restore the confidence of a nation. We now have an engaged electorate who were brave enough to take a break from the status quo and turn to a different type of politics.

Because young people had the vote in the Scottish referendum, they did the unthinkable. They started talking about politics—in the dinner hall, in the corridors and playgrounds and, if they were brave enough, even in some classrooms. The importance of this cannot be overstated. They threw around ideas, arguments and counter-arguments in an entirely safe environment without the influence of older adults, workmates or mainstream media. Could it be that the real reason this House is opposed to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds is that our young people may start to challenge old ideas?

Thomas Jefferson famously said:

“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.”

We on the Scottish National party Benches are here to ensure that the vision we have for the young people of Scotland is realised. Our dreams will become our children’s reality. Tapadh leibh.

18:03

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, not least because it is the first one on education since I was elected as Chair of the Education Committee. My first task is to thank all those who voted for me, to whom I am immensely grateful. As we go along, either they will regret it or that number will swell.

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), the education spokesman for her party. I have already talked to her about a range of issues. Her speech was very moving and very impressive, not least her reference to the first First Minister.

Coasting schools are not a new issue. We have known about coasting schools for quite a long time. Ofsted produced a report during the previous Parliament about the “long tail of underachievement”, which was in effect a reference to coasting schools. It focused on schools in rural and coastal areas, predominantly primary schools, but that was not its only concern. We need to get it on the record right now that we have always known about coasting schools. They have been a big problem for two reasons. The first is that they have affected our capacity as a nation to be productive. One of the key reports I intend to undertake through the Education Committee is on productivity so that we can tease out the ways in which we can improve our productivity. The second reason is social mobility, which is a key objective of any good Government. It is certainly an objective of the present Government.

A central issue is the definition of a coasting school. It revolves around the word “progression.” Are children progressing? How do we identify whether they are or not? Are they doing so at the right speed? When we discuss the detail of the definition, I hope there will be an emphasis on mechanisms to establish whether children are progressing in school. I believe it is necessary to examine, over a period of time, how children are operating within the teaching and learning framework in their school. “Progression” is a key word to keep in mind.

Failing schools are fairly obvious because they are judged to be inadequate. A red light goes on and that school has to be dealt with. My concern about saying that once a school becomes inadequate it is therefore failing is that there might be some pattern that we need to know more about. It would be as well to look at the definition of a coasting school to see how the school became inadequate. That should inform the debate.

I have spoken quite a lot about governance and governors. In the previous Parliament, I set up the all-party group on school governance because governance is one of the key elements in whether a school is going to fail and how it deals with the road towards becoming a failing school or, more importantly, becoming a better school. I welcome the clauses that look into intervention and deal with what an interim executive board looks like, how governing bodies are going to be treated, whether they will stay in place and how they will look during the process of improvement. We need more detail not just about how that will operate, but about the make-up of a school governing body and what it will look like in future. I give notice that I will re-present my original governance Bill, which I have talked about previously.

The other aspect on which we do not have enough detail is the role and capacity of our regional commissioners. We need to know more about how they will operate and what tools they will have to do the tasks that are so necessary to tackle schools that have been identified as coasting and therefore require intervention. One task that the Education Committee will want to do is examine the role and capacity of regional commissioners. It would be of great benefit to our understanding of the process if we knew exactly what regional commissioners would look like in two or three years’ time. We need to start plotting that journey now.

On the leadership of schools, the question is always what we do with the head and senior members of staff in a failing school. Again, that should be thought about carefully during the Committee stage of the Bill. I urge all members of the Committee to focus on that.

Last but not least, on adoption, the central point must surely be—

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way before he gets to the adoption section of his speech, and I congratulate him on becoming the Chair of the Education Committee. What does he think about the conclusion of the Committee’s report published earlier this year, which stated that it was still too early to say how much the academies programme had helped to raise standards? Ofsted has said the same thing: there is no evidence that the academies model is the best way of improving standards. So why are he and his party so adamant that that is the way forward, and why are they closing down parental consultation at the same time?

[Neil Carmichael]

This is actually about whether we should intervene in coasting schools. The hon. Lady is rightly talking about what happens next. We have already heard from those on the Labour Benches that they are quite proud of the academies programme, which they started, but what we have to do is perfect it. That is one of the tasks that underlies this legislation. The Education Committee also looked at whether academy chains should be examined, and we concluded that they should be. We will revisit that matter to ensure that it has been properly tested and discussed.

On adoption, I do not want the Bill to result in people ending up becoming candidates for adoption because that is the easiest route to take. We need to ensure that the adoption process after the decision that a child is to be adopted is made better. That is in line with the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). He talked about the risks involved in going down the adoption route when the existing parents were unhappy with the process.

Given those considerations, I welcome the Bill.

18:11

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Last September could well turn out to be the most important month in my life. I began the month by announcing that I intended to seek the Labour nomination for Mayor of London, and I am hoping to achieve that by this September. More importantly, towards the end of the month, I slipped out of the Labour party conference following the speech by the former Leader of the Opposition—that had nothing to do with his speech, by the way—and made my way to meet my new daughter, whom my wife and I had just adopted. I am here today to raise issues about adoption.

There are just under 70,000 young people in the care system in our country. I see that the Minister with responsibility for adoption, the Minister for Children and Families, is in his place. He will know that it is important that couples with their own birth children should feel able to adopt. I congratulate the previous Government on their success in speeding up the system and in stating that we should not hold up adoption, particularly for black and minority ethnic children, solely on the basis of finding adopters of the same race. Much progress has been made, and we are now seeing many more children being placed for adoption instead of languishing in the system. The Minister did a considerable amount to achieve that, as did the former Secretary of State.

However, there are many foster carers, many children in residential care, and many kinship carers, and they do not feature in the Bill. That is a matter of concern for those outside this place who play such an important role in the lives of looked-after children. If we are serious about finding those children a home for life, it is important that we attract couples with birth children to the adoption process. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about how we are going to achieve that within the system.

We must also do considerably more to support families adopting children who are from much harder target groups than the traditional baby daughter or baby son. They include children with tremendous disabilities, children with profound mental health problems, black and minority ethnic children and children who are older at the time they become available for adoption, some of whom have reached their teenage years. This is a real difficulty in our system, but again the Bill says very little about how those children can successfully find a home.

I am not saying that it is appropriate for all such children to be adopted, however, and there are concerns about forced adoption. There are countries, certainly in Europe, where forced adoption is unusual. We must give better support to poorer parents, for example, and to those with drug or alcohol problems. We must support them so that they are better able to parent their children. It is important to stress that this debate is taking place against a backdrop of huge cuts to local government, which are having an impact on children’s services, on budgets for social workers and on the means to support those parents so that they can continue to parent their children, hard though that might be.

I hope that the Minister will also say a little more about what is envisaged for regional adoption agencies. There are some very good agencies out there—I was supported by one of them—and there are bigger agencies that could do more. Some local authorities are already working in consortium to try to attract parents. Also, many children are clearly best suited to being adopted outside their local area because of the complexities surrounding their families.

Will the Minister also say something about the strengths of our maintained school system? It is a matter of tremendous concern that Ministers seem to want to talk only about chain and sponsored academies and not about converter academies. It limits the argument somewhat if they do not acknowledge the fantastic schools in the maintained sector. In the end, the debate must always be about standards and children, and not about structure.

18:17

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. It is a pleasure to follow such a fine maiden speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). It will not have escaped your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not the only Berry on these Benches. Indeed, I am not even the only J. Berry. It has become clear over the past few weeks that, if nothing else, I can look forward to a career redirecting the post of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry).

On the campaign trail, I was asked more than once whether there were any politicians in the family—a slightly odd question, I thought. I answered no, but I have since commissioned my sister, Jane, to do a little bit of research, as she likes family history. It turns out that one of my forebears did give distinguished service to my party, although not as a Member of this House but as a butler at one of London’s Conservative clubs.

I am only the second Member to be returned by the Kingston and Surbiton constituency. The seat was created in 1997 from two seats: Kingston, which was previously held by Norman Lamont, and Surbiton, which was held by Richard Tracey. Both have had distinguished careers since 1997, and I am sure the same will apply to my predecessor, Edward Davey. Having won the seat in 1997, Mr Davey turned his majority of 56 into one of more than 15,000, a considerable feat that my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Byron Davies) and for Derby North (Amanda Solloway) will be seeking to replicate.

I have no doubt that Mr Davey enjoyed 18 years incumbency in Kingston and Surbiton as a result of hard work and dedicated service to his constituents, and that is something that I am working hard to emulate. As well as being Kingston and Surbiton’s MP, Mr Davey served as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the last Government. His enthusiasm for wind farms might not have blown away all hon. Members on the Government Benches, but I hope that this Government will continue his and the previous Government’s drive to ensure better energy efficiency through home insulation.

Kingston is where England began. In 925 AD, King Athelstan was crowned in Kingston upon Thames, which sat on the border of Wessex and Mercia. Wasting little time, within two years he had conquered the kingdom of the Northumbrians, thereby becoming the first king of all England. I shall spare the blushes of Members of this House from the Scottish, Welsh and Cornish regions by skating over his later military victories.

My constituency does not end with Kingston; it takes in Tolworth, Hook, Chessington, Malden Rushett, Old Malden, New Malden, Norbiton, Surbiton, and parts of Worcester Park. South West Trains permitting, on a journey of less than 20 minutes from Waterloo, you can enjoy a walk down a beautiful stretch of the River Thames in Surbiton, the best retail shopping outside Oxford Street in Kingston, an afternoon’s entertainment at Chessington World of Adventures, and, in the evening, a Korean barbecue in New Malden, which has the largest Korean population in Europe.

Like Tom, Barbara, Jerry and Margo, many people in my constituency enjoy the good life, but many do not. Whether it is the inability to get on the housing ladder in London, the inadequacy of our congested train services, our congested roads, the shortage of primary school places or busy GP surgeries, there are significant issues that need addressing in Kingston and Surbiton. There is much to be done, and I will never shy away from that task.

Most urgent are the issues of transport and schools. Vast swathes of my constituency were created because of the arrival of the railways, but now most of our stations are antiquated, with an unacceptable lack of disabled access. Kingston and Surbiton lie in zone 6, when logic and fairness dictate that they should be in zone 5. Commuter services are massively overcrowded. The 7.59 am train from Surbiton is the second most overcrowded train in this country. It is not acceptable that a commuter who gets on a train as early as 6.41 am cannot get a seat. Declaring an interest, I should point out that I try to take that train myself. I should also note that my wife reminds me almost every morning that we would have got a seat if we had got up earlier and got on the 6.35 am. We need significant investment in our rail infrastructure in Kingston. I will, along with others, be pushing for the extension of Crossrail 2.

If Kingston expanded because of the railways, people now move to our royal borough because of its excellent schools. I had the pleasure of visiting St John’s Primary School on Saturday and Southborough High School this morning. Like these two, almost all the schools in my borough are rated either “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted. Perhaps a victim of our own success, we now need more quality school places in Kingston. The £4.5 million of funding for extra school places given by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary in the months before the election was very welcome, but we need entirely new schools, not just bulge classes and expansion of the schools we already have. I will work with the Department for Education, the Education Funding Agency and free school providers to do my best to make sure that happens.

It is fitting that I should make my maiden speech in a debate about education, since that was my parents’ profession. Their own parents, like so many in Middlesbrough in the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s, worked in the ICI factories in Billingham. Were it not for the education that my parents received, particularly at the grammar school in my father’s case, I am quite sure that I would not be standing here today. Their education enabled my parents to get on in life—my mother as a special needs teacher and my father as the principal of a teacher training college.

I was reminded that shortly before my father’s retirement, my parents had the pleasure of going to a garden party at Buckingham Palace. Before the party started, my parents took a stroll through Green Park and saw many of the other lucky invitees enjoying their lavish picnics of smoked salmon and champagne. When they found a bench, my father reached into his Safeway carrier bag and produced a Vitalite tub of tinned mackerel sandwiches and a flask of coffee. I have no doubt that as they sat there on that bench in Green Park, my parents were able to reflect on how far they had come from their modest beginnings in Middlesbrough.

It would have been a source of immense pride to my father to have been able to watch me give this speech today, but sadly he died just two days after I was selected. Ever the optimist, he was perhaps the only person to predict that I would win the election. Shaped by his experiences in life and teaching, he believed passionately that education should be the great social leveller. I am proud to support this Bill today because I believe that this Government are putting education and social aspiration at the centre of everything they do. That is why I am proud to be a member of this party and this Government.

18:24

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry). I am fairly sure that his dad would be proud of him today. I know that both he and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) will make a valued contribution during their time in this House.

Although I have concerns about some of the measures in this Bill, there is much that I welcome. I start by paying tribute to the teachers across Tameside and Stockport, covering my constituency, because they do a good job and we should always remember the work that they do in our communities.

We always remember the good and the bad teachers, never the mediocre ones. I want to tell a little tale about a young person living in Denton who was in year 10 taking GCSE English. He had a teacher who perhaps would not be described as a good teacher, and classroom behaviour was not brilliant. By the end of year 10, that pupil only had one English essay at grade E; everything else was incomplete because the class had been completely disrupted. In year 11, that same pupil had an outstanding English teacher, Neville McGraw. We remember the names of really good teachers—in this case, because that year 11 pupil was me. Had it not been for Neville McGraw at Egerton Park Community High School in 1990, I would not be standing here with a GCSE in English, because my grades had plummeted. That is not because I was not able enough—I was; I came out with a good GCSE; it was because of the classroom behaviour, the lack of discipline and the fact that the teacher was not inspirational in the way that Neville McGraw was. I should like to pay tribute to Neville McGraw for my GCSE in English.

The Secretary of State knows that I talk at length about the problem of coasting schools being not just those that are under-performing or performing at a low level. I am just as adamant that secondary schools must do their best for all pupils, including highly academic pupils. I declare a bit of an interest because I am an associate director on the governing body of Denton West End Primary School in my constituency. I have been a governor of Denton West End for 20 years now; it is an excellent primary school. Lots of children leave that school with really superb standard assessment tests at level 5 and level 6, and yet when they go on to secondary school they do not do their very best. I want to impress on the Secretary of State the fact that schools can coast at a relatively high level. If children who left primary school with level 5 and level 6 SATs are not coming out of secondary school with A and A* grades, then that school is doing just as much of a disservice to those children as a low-performing school.

In my constituency we have some outstanding schools, as recognised by Ofsted, including St Mary’s Roman Catholic Primary School and St Thomas More Secondary School. They have the same catchment area as other schools in my constituency that are rated “requires improvement” or “inadequate”. The Secretary of State will know that I have two academies in my constituency—Reddish Vale High School and Audenshaw Academy. I declare an interest in that my son goes to Audenshaw Academy, so as a parent I am very interested in what goes on there. The regional schools commissioner, Paul Smith, is tackling the issues at those schools. I have been working with Paul and with the governing bodies of both schools to try to get a satisfactory outcome.

I impress on the Secretary of State the need to tackle failing academies as much as failing maintained schools. I do not see in this Bill some of the stronger measures that I would like to see so that we can tackle failing academies and bring all schools up to a decent standard.

[Robert Flello]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. One issue I have with academies is that they have a body of directors with no democratic input. I am concerned about one particular headteacher who is also a director, but there is no way to get to the heart of what is going on in her school because the other directors are protecting her. Does my hon. Friend share my concern?

[Andrew Gwynne]

Absolutely. When there are concerns about a school they must be investigated and tackled appropriately.

That leads me nicely on to the issue of the statutory responsibilities of the directors of children’s services. I have talked to the children’s services directors in Tameside and in Stockport, who both raised their concern that they are statutorily responsible for all children within their borough but lack the tools to do much about poor school standards in academies. I want to see their role strengthened, in liaison with the regional schools commissioners, so that they can work together to drive up standards in all schools in both of those boroughs.

It would be unfair to say that all academies in my constituency are failing—they are not. Only today, Ofsted declared that Hawthorns special school in Audenshaw—I implore Ministers to visit it, as it is my favourite school in my constituency—is outstanding across the board. That shows what a brilliant school can do. The service the school gives to the children is excellent, and I pay tribute to Moira Thompson, the executive principal, and all the staff.

I say to the Secretary of State that, whatever the framework, the issue is not structures but delivering a good education for children. This is about real aspiration —we talk about aspiration, but education is about raising aspiration. We should be relentless on standards and on getting the best for all children, so that no child is left behind. That is why we need a concerted effort to make sure that the kind of experience I had in 1990 is not repeated in any other school in this land.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his perfect timing. For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that I was rather more lenient than usual with the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), because I was aware not only of it being his maiden speech but of the very particular nature of the matter he was addressing. However, even people making a maiden speech are required to stick very strictly to the six-minute time limit. The time limit also applies to the next hon. Member, although it is certainly not his maiden speech.

18:33

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). I am sure his former schoolteacher would have been proud of what he said. I found much to agree with in his speech, although it was possibly an error of judgment to describe one school in his constituency as a favourite—he may get some letters and emails from governors of other schools.

If I were an Ofsted inspector I would declare both maiden speeches this afternoon absolutely outstanding. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on them—they were very powerful speeches.

I will talk about adoption. I very much welcome the rationalisation we will see as a result of the Bill. Quite a few parts of the charitable and not-for-profit sector could do with some rationalisation. Perhaps it should happen from the bottom up, but from time to time it requires a nudge from the top, so I welcome that measure. There are some wonderful adoption agencies in the United Kingdom, but there are a lot of them and we would like them to work more closely together.

The broad thrust of my short speech is that I want to put the case for families who adopt to have better access—perhaps even priority access—to services later in life. Most of the input to, scrutiny of and support for the adoption process comes up front and in the immediate aftermath of the adoption. After that, it is all too common for families who have adopted to feel abandoned as events begin to unfold in the precious young life in their care over the months and years ahead. My remarks chime with the intervention by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who talked about her own experience in this matter.

I have come to that conclusion based on a number of constituency cases, as well as the experience of a member of my wider family who has adopted a child. I can well remember attending the families day for would-be adopters, at which it is stressed that in almost every case any child being adopted will have gone through at least three major traumatic episodes—abandonment, violence or abuse of some other kind. It is for that reason that the significant decision is taken—it is never taken lightly—to intervene and take that child away and hand him or her to another person.

Watching TV programmes about people now in their 70s trying to reconnect with children they handed up for adoption in the 1960s perhaps gives us a false impression of modern-day adoption. In those days, more often than not, a young mother was forced to hand over a much loved baby within just a few days of birth, because of societal or parental pressure; those children would often go on to flourish in their new homes. Today, a child handed over for adoption has probably—not in every case, but probably—already experienced trauma of one kind or another, possibly lasting months or years. It is almost certain that the trauma of those early years will find its way to the surface one, five or 10 years later.

In truth, adopting a child involves a giant leap of faith. The new parents do not really know much about that child, their DNA, what drugs or alcohol the natural parents may have been on, or the truth about the trauma that he or she suffered and its impact on that young life. It is perfectly understandable why it is that hard-pressed social services departments breathe a sigh of relief once a child is adopted—I can imagine that happening—and move on to their next crisis. I do not blame them: they are very hard pressed. That is one reason why clause 13 could transform adoption, if there is a greater rationalisation in the adoption services.

I believe not just that rationalisation is important but that we need to go further. I welcome the recent decision that looked-after children, including adopted children, will get priority treatment in accessing the school of their choice. I also welcome the fact that they attract the pupil premium. My argument—and this could be the Bill to make this happen—is that looked-after children should receive priority treatment from other services, particularly mental health and social services, all the way through their lives.

Why would that be fair? First, the whole point of our welfare system is surely to put vulnerable people back into the position that the rest of us are in. Secondly, as I have said, it is almost inevitable that where there has been trauma in a young life there will be personal repercussions later on that will require particular attention and support. Priority access to health and other support services would help both the child and the hard-pressed, good-hearted people who have opened their home and taken the child in. Thirdly, we are talking about a statistically small group of people. The impact on everyone else would be minimal, but on that small group it would be significant. Priority treatment should last not just through the teenage years, but for life.

As the Bill wends its way through its stages here and in another place, I hope some positive things might be added. In particular, I ask the Front-Bench team to think about giving children who have been adopted priority access to services later in life. I realise that there are many positive stories about adoption—my own family is determined that ours will be one of them—but we should not underestimate the scale of support needed as a child comes to terms with the trauma of early years.

18:39

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this debate. As usual, the previous maiden speeches have been of the highest quality and are a hard act to follow, although I feel obliged to point out that Scotland is a nation, not a region.

As someone who has lived in my constituency for my entire life, it is a real honour to represent Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and to be here to speak on behalf of my constituents.

Too often when we get elected, we do not pay tribute enough to the thousands of volunteers who work tirelessly on our campaigns, so I would like to put my thanks on record to the people who helped me to get here. This is particularly poignant for me because sadly, my campaign manager, John Mackay, died a couple of weeks ago; his funeral is this Friday. Such was the effort he made for the SNP that he was given a lifelong achievement award back in 2007, but even so, he was still working hard for the party until he passed away. When I asked John to be my campaign manager, he initially said no, but such was the mark of the man that he came back to me the next day and said, “Alan, I’ll give it one more go.” So thanks to John, and obviously, his last campaign was a successful one.

As the new SNP MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Cathy Jamieson, who worked hard for her constituents. Although only a one-term MP here, she represented part of the area at the Scottish Parliament, so she has worked at a parliamentary level since 1999. She also acted as a Government Minister, serving at the highest level in Scottish politics, and I wish her well for the future.

Let me describe my constituency for the House. Kilmarnock and Loudoun is a mix of rural and urban and it has a proud history, with vibrant and resilient communities. The fantastic rolling countryside means that in my constituency people can go for great walks, ride on great cycle tracks and paths, ski all year round at a dry ski slope, participate in motor sports, or fish—but you cannae go hunting. People can also try their hands at the only gowf club in the world, so there is lots to see and do in my constituency, and I urge hon. Members to pay it a visit.

Moving on to people and places in my constituency, as the UK moves to remember the 200th anniversary of Waterloo, I advise the House that one of the two French standards captured at the battle was captured by Ensign Ewart from Kilmarnock, and that another hero of that escapade was Hugh Hutchison, who came from the village of Galston.

Kilmarnock Academy is one of the few schools in the UK to provide two Nobel prize winners—Lord Boyd Orr from Kilmaurs, and Sir Alexander Fleming from the village of Darvel, who discovered penicillin. The first gas street lights in Britain were provided in the village of Muirkirk, which also pioneered tarmacadam roads. The village of Crosshouse provided a three-time Labour Prime Minister in Australia. We have Dunlop, which is home to the famous Dunlop cheese; Stewarton, where David Dale was born and grew up; the village of Fenwick, with the oldest known co-operative society; and Catrine, which is one of the original mill towns in Scotland and had one of the original cotton mills. We also have the villages of Sorn, Lugar, Logan, Gatehead and Knockentiber, which have been closely associated with the coal mining industry, in line with many other communities in my constituency.

If I may, I will make the obligatory football reference. My constituency has the oldest professional team in Scotland, Kilmarnock FC. Killie FC are currently celebrating the 50th anniversary of their historic league championship win, as the only non-city team in Scotland to win the league championship. Sticking with football, recently I was at the Scottish junior cup final, where I witnessed Auchinleck Talbot win the cup for a record 11th time. Last year, Hurlford United won the cup as well, so there is a good football pedigree in my constituency.

The constituency is also Burns country. The bard moved to Mauchline, where he met his wife, Jean Armour. Kilmarnock gave us the Kilmarnock edition of Burns’s early works, and that is what set him on his way. Probably not so well known to the House is that a minister from the village of Newmilns—my original home village—persuaded Burns not to emigrate to the West Indies. Thanks to my constituency and that combination of events, we are able to enjoy Burns, and I would like to quote one of his greatest phrases:

“That Man to Man, the world o’er,

Shall brothers be for a’that.”

For me, that is all about equality, but we can see how that does not chime with what is happening in this House at the moment. Equality is not cutting £12 billion from the poorest in our society. It is not doing what happened last week, when a vote in this House deemed that some people in this country are not equal and should not be able to vote. I think that is an outrage. Where is equality, when we have the House of Lords next door? There is a democratic deficit and I cannot believe that the Tories want to address that by cutting the number of elected representatives rather than the number of unelected representatives. Where is equality when we have people depending on food banks? We have heard today that there is a clear link between sanctions and food banks, despite what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said earlier.

Equality should be underpinning this debate on education. As we heard earlier, education should be a right, not a privilege. We should not put a glass ceiling on aspiration through financial constraints. That is why in Scotland the Scottish Government continue to support the poorest in society to make sure that they have access to education.

18:45

[William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), and the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who all made excellent maiden speeches.

I am grateful, as a former teacher, to be afforded the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this debate. Only time will tell if my audience this evening is as receptive as my former students, or indeed, whether the Secretary of State will rate my speech, through the lens of Ofsted, as either “Outstanding” or “Good”—or perhaps “Requiring Improvement”, although I hope not “Inadequate”.

It is the greatest honour of my life to have been elected to this House as the Member of Parliament for my lifelong home of Hazel Grove. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Andrew Stunell, who retired at the last election. Sir Andrew had been an assiduous Member for the constituency since 1997 and was held in high regard by many. He secured a reputation as a strong constituency MP, which is something I seek to emulate. I wish him and his wife, Gillian, a happy retirement.

Since arriving at this House, I have been very disappointed by hon. Members’ geography skills—there is clearly some work to be done there, Minister. When I say “Hazel Grove”, the question all too often has been, “Where’s that?” Saying “Near Stockport” helps some. “Near Manchester” helps a few more, but so far “The North” has sufficed for most. Indeed, several hon. Members have inquired not “Where?”, but rather “Who?” this newbie by the name of “Hazel Grove” is—only to be disappointed that she is not one of “Cameron’s cuties”. “Hazel Grove” is not simply my weekend name; it is the constituency of my birth, where I was educated and have lived all my life.

If the orientation and name of the constituency confuse hon. Members, the fact that it contains numerous and varied villages and small towns besides Hazel Grove itself will only muddy the waters further. From Bredbury and Woodley in the north to High Lane in the south, and from Marple Bridge and Compstall in the east to Offerton and Great Moor in the west, the constituency is united by a rich history and strong community spirit.

It was Marple where John Bradshaw, lead judge at the trial of Charles I, heralded from. The same place gave Agatha Christie the name of her eponymous detective heroine. Lacking inspiration one day, her train pulled into Marple station and out of the window—there it was, and the character of Miss Marple was born.

Parts of my constituency feature in the Domesday Book. In 1066, Bredbury, Romiley, Norbury and Ludworth collectively generated a total taxable income of £7. I am pleased to inform the House that living standards, as well as tax receipts, have risen in the area considerably since then, not least in recent times, because of Her Majesty’s Government’s long-term economic plan.

The name “Hazel Grove” came about in 1836 as a rebranding exercise. The old name, “Bullock Smithy”, had somewhat negative connotations. It was infamous for drunkenness and criminality—indeed, the number of pubs and alehouses rivalled the number in the Palace of Westminster. In 1750, the Methodist leader John Wesley preached in Bullock Smithy, describing it as

“one of the most famous villages in the country for all manner of wickedness.”

Quite what he would have made of the Westminster village, I am not too sure. However, he was kinder to another part of my constituency, Mellor, describing the views from the foothills of the Pennines as “paradise”.

As Hazel Grove is a commuter district of Greater Manchester, the issues of travel, public transport, road and rail links receive a great deal of attention from local residents. I have long campaigned for improvements to road schemes and the A6 to M60 link road in particular is something that I am keen to see delivered. Other priorities of mine will be to champion improvements in local healthcare, including in mental health provision.

I also hope that my experience as a teacher will stand me in good stead for pursuing improvements in education for our children, so that they can get the best start in life and fully develop their talents. I would like to place it on the record that the children I have taught and worked with have been the single greatest inspiration to me: their creativity, humour and resilience are truly qualities to be cherished.

I am pleased that the new Government intend to further improve education, particularly in the area of funding by protecting the total schools budget and introducing a fairer funding formula, so that similar pupils get the same funding, no matter what part of the country they live in. The Bill concerns raising the standards in our schools still further through their conversion to academies, where that is deemed to be the most appropriate course of action. Part of the Government’s plan for education over the next five years is to tackle coasting schools. For some of those schools, becoming an academy may be the best route to sustained improvement. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has made clear, where head teachers have a plan and the capacity to deliver it, they will be given time to improve on their own.

I welcome the approach that has been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in engaging with the teaching profession. A collaborative approach is the best way to secure improvements. The Workload Challenge was a positive step from the Government and I would like to see more of that approach. We need to take seriously the issue of teacher retention and morale. Above all, we must endeavour to make the Ofsted process more something that is done with, rather than done to, schools.

It has been a pleasure to make my maiden speech in the House today. I am proud to support the Bill, delighted to speak in this debate and honoured to serve my constituents in Hazel Grove.

18:51

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Rydw i yn ddiolchgar i’r Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and the many other Members who have made excellent maiden speeches.

It is indubitably an honour, without precedent in my family, to address the House today. I am deeply humbled that the people of Dwyfor Meirionnydd have invested their faith in me as their representative. I will strive to be worthy of that trust.

I am very aware that I follow in the footsteps of many illustrious Members. The regions that form the constituency of Dwyfor Meirionnydd have sent exceptional Welshmen to London, in their midst Tom Ellis and David Lloyd George, and two giants of the Welsh national movement, Dafydd Elis Thomas and Dafydd Wigley.

My immediate predecessor, Elfyn Llwyd, was elected in 1992 and contributed greatly to Plaid Cymru’s parliamentary reputation for punching above our weight. From my first day here, it has been evident that Members and Officers of the House alike held him in the highest regard. Elfyn contributed extensively to improving legislation for victims of domestic violence and stalking. He was an advocate of the rights of veteran soldiers. He will be remembered as a foremost critic of the Iraq war, who called for the impeachment of Tony Blair. That role continued in his scrutiny of the Chilcot inquiry, which, disgracefully, we still await.

The pinnacle of the constituency is the greatest mountain of Wales and England, Yr Wyddfa. Hill forts and castles stand as bastions of our heritage, but first and foremost it is a landscape whose history is treasured in the names of farms and fields.

Welsh is often referred to as the oldest language of Britain. That is quite true, but we should be wary of the implications of romantic archaism and redundancy. Where I live, Welsh is not an optional extra; the majority of people speak and use the language in every aspect of their lives. Someone who speaks both Welsh and English inherits two cultures and two societies, and is the wealthier for it. Welsh is not my first language, but it is my home language.

Cheek by jowl with its natural beauty, Dwyfor Meirionnydd bears the scars of its industrial past. The slate and granite quarries, a number of which are still in production, were major employers. The narrow gauge railways that linked them to the coast now carry a freight of visitors. In the hands of dedicated amateurs, attractions such as the Ffestiniog railway provide valuable training opportunities for young people. Tourism is our major industry: from classic bucket-and-spade, blue-remembered beach holidays to high-adrenaline mountain-bike routes, surfing, zip-wires and underground trampolines.

Although a region must play to its strengths, we should be alert to the disturbing truth that, while official unemployment is relatively low at 1.7%, more than 50% of employed people earn less than the living wage. Well-paid employment prospects remain greatly dependent on the public sector. Regardless of whether that is sufficiently “aspirational”, in the popular vernacular of Westminster, the prediction of ongoing job losses as all publicly funded bodies see their budgets slashed will stifle economic growth across the constituency.

The region has been the home of major developments in energy production. Maentwrog and Ffestiniog power stations were the first of their kind in capacity and innovation. Trawsfynydd nuclear power station ceased production in 1991. The Snowdonia enterprise zone seeks to create employment to replace jobs as decommissioning winds down in the next few years. Recently, Llanbedr airfield was placed on a shortlist of six possible sites to be the home of Britain’s first domestic space hub. Landowners are alert to the income potential of renewable energy schemes, regardless of what we heard this morning, although the National Grid needs to be improved to permit additional generation. The same can be said of high-speed broadband, which is yet to reach a number of rural communities and farms.

Agriculture is, of course, the backbone of many of our communities, in the sense that it supports social activities and maintains year-round spending in the local economy. The upland family farms of Eryri are integral in maintaining the landscape’s fragile ecological balance. Of equal if not greater importance is the fact that the quality of the lamb and beef that they produce is excellent.

Education gives our young people a ticket to hope and a career, but the lack of decent salaries and affordable housing closes the door on their return. Work and the means to buy a home are essential. Rural hinterlands are at risk of becoming a low-income combination of conservation museum and adventure playground, to be serviced by the locals on the minimum wage and enjoyed by those who have made their money elsewhere.

I would like to say a few words about the Bill. For the past 22 years, I have been involved in education as a teacher, college director and local authority education leader. The House will, of course, be aware that in Wales, education is a devolved matter. As a result of Labour’s handling of teaching and learning since the advent of devolution, standards of education have gone from a respectable level to a situation where Wales has slid down the PISA rankings to the worst in the UK and 40th out of the 68 member countries.

Plaid Cymru is committed to public services for all. The reason we will oppose the Bill if there is a vote, even though education is a devolved matter, is that the growing privatisation by stealth of education in England through the increased number of academies has implications for the funding of Wales via the Barnett formula.

I am one of three Plaid Cymru Members, the first woman to represent my party in Westminster and the first woman to represent the communities of Dwyfor Meirionnydd. The Welsh national movement has its roots in my constituency. Plaid Cymru was established in the town of Pwllheli in 1925. The village of Capel Celyn in Meirionnydd was drowned by Liverpool Corporation 50 years ago. That sparked an awareness that our communities were expendable and that what we valued was of little significance to the great and the powerful. The flooding was inflammatory and caused a national awakening in Wales. We are here now, as we were then, with the best interests of Wales at the heart of all our endeavours.

18:57

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this House. I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken so far. There have been some informative speeches and it is great to hear that every Member is as passionate about their own constituency as I am about mine.

The Thornbury and Yate constituency and its predecessor, Northavon, have been served by some outstanding Members, including Lord Cope of Berkeley and my immediate predecessor, Professor Steven Webb. I pay tribute to Professor Webb, who served as a Member of this House from 1997 to 2015. He will be remembered in particular for his work as Minister for Pensions in the coalition Government, which included overseeing major reforms of our pensions system. Locally, Professor Webb was a hard-working and dedicated Member of Parliament. I will exert every effort to emulate his dedication to our communities in south Gloucestershire.

Thornbury is a beautiful market town that has this year, once again, been named one of the top places to live in the UK by The Sunday Times. Yate, which predates the Domesday Book, is home to more than 35,000 residents and was the birthplace and early home of J. K. Rowling.

If one travels to the east, one comes to Pucklechurch, where, on 26 May 946, Edmund, King of all England and grandson of Alfred the Great, was stabbed to death by a local thief who was exiled by the King. If one goes north-east, one comes to Wickwar, where the old brewery used a water wheel powered by a local spring to create electricity, making it the first village in the country to have electric street lights. If there is one thing that I can bring to the House, it is the ale of the Wickwar Brewing Company, which will shortly be available in the House of Commons bar.

If one travels further west towards the River Severn, one finds the beautiful villages, towns and hamlets surrounding Alveston, Olveston and Tockington, and south-west from there, one will find the communities that surround Frampton Cotterell and my home village of Westerleigh. The constituency is my home and I am proud to stand here as its new Member of Parliament.

I am delighted to make my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Education and Adoption Bill. As somebody who attended one of the 15 original city technology colleges, I can testify that having a good-quality education helps to provide young people with the best start in life. It should be part of the duty of our society and this Government to inform young people after they leave education about the opportunities available across all sectors, including in retail.

After leaving education, I worked in every position in retail—from butcher to market stall trader, cleaner, caretaker, shelf stacker, till worker, store manager and, most recently, south-west area manager. I have cleaned floors, sat on the tills and pulled pallets. I hope that I can in some way reflect the challenges that young people face in the workforce, and I fully intend to bring that experience to the Floor of the House.

There is one short story I would like to share—one that speaks volumes about the talents of our young people. In 2013, I went to meet some new apprentices during their day in college. I turned up at 9 am and asked one young apprentice, Danny Murphy, how he had got to college that day. He said that his travel to work was slightly different that morning. The lorry had been late the previous evening, so he had got up at 3 am, walked from his house at 4 am for an hour in the rain to get to the store to work the delivery, before getting to college for a full day’s study. He was 18 years old. I am very pleased to say that Danny has now finished his apprenticeship, has an NVQ level 2 in retail and is part of the management team running that store. He is a great example of how giving our young people the skills, the responsibility and pride in their work allows them the opportunity to succeed.

I have to confess to being slightly surprised to find myself here, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, the only person more surprised than me was my employer. I phoned them up the day after the general election and said, “I think I have a bit of an issue—I have just been elected as the Member of Parliament for Thornbury and Yate and I am not coming back.” They took it with incredible grace—so much so that, when I look back in years to come, I might be surprised and a little disappointed at how happy they were to hear the news that I had been elected and would not be returning to work.

It was Adam Smith who, in 1776, wrote that Britain was

“a nation governed by shopkeepers”.

I am a shopkeeper, I am proud to support this Government, and I will bring the same energy and passion from the shop floor to the shop Floor of this House.

19:01

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on sharing his experiences with us. I am sure he will bring real value to the House. I also thank the other four new Members who have given their maiden speeches today.

I have to say that I am intrigued. This is the Second Reading debate on the Government’s one piece of legislation addressing standards in education. We are left with a draft Bill that looks at a very narrow definition of something called “coasting” and proposes yet another top-down reorganisation in education, rather than looking at the causes of the unbelievable pressures on our schools at this time and at what would really make a difference to children’s education. Those pressures include the cuts to support services provided by our local authorities, the recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, the incredible pressures under which teachers are being put, and the funding crisis that many of our schools are experiencing. It is the causes that we should be debating today and what will really turn around the lives of our nation’s children and improve schools. Instead, we have to debate something called “coasting”. Even at this moment, we are denied the opportunity to have a clear definition of what that actually means.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising other issues and the causes of the difficulties, including recruitment and retention. A number of head teachers in my constituency have highlighted the increasingly challenging times they are facing as they try to recruit teachers and get teachers who have not been trained. They are finding it difficult to fill vacancies and are having to pay expensive introduction fees to agencies. That is having an impact on morale and team spirit in schools.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend raises so many of the issues that are impacting on school standards today and the vital profession of teaching. We really must take heed of what she has said.

My second bemusement is that the Government talk about the urgency of improving standards in education, yet they are legislating only for schools currently under local authority control. Why is it acceptable that there are 133 failing academies on this Secretary of State’s watch? That certainly raises the issue of why the standards in those academies are not being questioned in this Bill. It is important to improve the outcomes for all children through the Bill. Why are alternative providers—perhaps even local authorities—not insisted upon for those schools?

There is a lack of evidence behind the Bill. The Education Committee proved that there is absolutely no evidence of net improvements in standards in primary and secondary schools that have become academies. Ofsted determined that other initiatives such as the city challenge were far more effective at improving standards. One educationist said:

“schools fail for a number of reasons and simply changing their structure may not address the whole picture”.

Therefore, in view of the evidence, why has there been this ideological move to turn more schools into academies? Tragically, after listening to parents, governors and heads of schools in York, it seems that schools are now seeing this as an inevitable process and are therefore debating whether it is better to jump before they are pushed and to have some control of the process in the meantime—and that includes even our outstanding schools. They are concerned that they will lose more resources; schools in York are seriously underfunded as we fall below national funding levels. The plea I have heard from all heads in York who have raised the issue with me is that the Government should do everything they can to improve school funding as the priority for raising standards.

I could stray into talking about the funding issues in further education, which are also having an impact on our education system. It is pointless to mend one part of the education system without looking at the challenges that will come later. However, I will return to the mainstay of the debate: who is now in charge of our children’s education?

Parents spend most of their time with their children—school holidays, weekends, mornings and evenings—yet the draft legislation is trying to take them out of the education-making process and is instead inserting the very remote Secretary of State. If this Government are at all serious about devolution and parental engagement, they will give a real voice to parents in the future of their children’s education. No one can have the interest of their children’s success closer to mind. Every parent wants to do what is best for their children.

In York, as we have debated the academisation of Millthorpe school and Scarcroft and Knavesmire primary schools—outstanding schools, I might add—it is the parents who have wanted all the information to hand to understand the best path for their children. We are about to enter the same debate at Hempland primary. Why detach schools from parents? Surely we should be involving them more. Why, instead, place the powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, who may know about what happens in Loughborough but will not know about the issues faced in the corners of York Central?

We should strengthen the parents’ voice, empowering parents’ involvement in their children’s education, and listen carefully to the issues they raise. In York, parents have called for a ballot over the multi-academy trust conversion exercise—one that Labour would have granted, but now denied by the Tory-led coalition council. We have to give parents the information they need, trust their expertise and give them a voice and the respect they deserve. After all, localism must be about trust.

I want to mention teachers and support staff and to put on record my sincere thanks for their outstanding dedication to our children, as they work day and night, often under extreme pressure, in giving their all. Teachers and support staff—not just heads—must also have a say. They cannot be told how important their professionalism is in one breath and then not be trusted to make the best decisions for children in the next.

The whole Bill—whether the education or the adoption clauses—boils down to trust. Are we going to trust the true professionals and the parents to determine what is best for children, or place everything in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is, after all, not an educationist?

19:08

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I am particularly pleased to be called to make my maiden speech in this important debate and to follow so many other excellent maiden speeches. I know that you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if, before I turn to the subject matter of the debate, I make one or two comments about my constituency.

Mid Dorset and North Poole is home, and it is a beautiful place in which to live and work. It stretches from the historic Saxon town of Wareham in the south to Wimborne Minster in the north; and from Bere Regis in the west to Bearwood in the east. I am honoured to have been elected as the Member of Parliament for such a beautiful place. It is where I have chosen to live and to bring up my family.

I am the third Member of Parliament for Mid Dorset and North Poole, a seat that was created in 1997, but I am the first to make my maiden speech from the Government Benches as part of a majority Conservative Government. It gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to my predecessor, Annette Brooke, who in fact was my Member of Parliament for the past 12 years. She had a reputation for being an assiduous constituency MP and working tirelessly on behalf of her constituents, and many people have told me of the hard work that she carried out on their behalf. It is my pledge to my constituents to work as hard as Annette, if at all possible, and first and foremost to be a good constituency Member of Parliament.

Beautiful as my constituency is, it is not without its challenges. Time does not permit me to touch on more than one or two of those, but I will touch on infrastructure, starting with roads. The A351 stretches from the Bakers Arms to Wareham and beyond, and if you have had the pleasure of visiting Purbeck, Madam Deputy Speaker, you may well have had the misfortune of sitting on that particular road. It does not affect just tourists and businesses; it affects most especially the residents who have to cope with it daily. The A31 runs from east to west and back again, and only last week there was yet another fatality on that stretch of road. Finally, the A350 runs from north to south across the constituency. I pledge to work with my colleagues across Dorset to seek improvements where that is possible.

I want to touch on the railways as well. There is the opportunity to improve the speed of our trains from Waterloo to Dorset, and to build upon the heritage railway of Swanage by linking it into the main line.

Of course, infrastructure is not just about roads and railways, it is also about broadband, a subject that is particularly hot in Dorset and which is just as important for my constituency. There is a disparity across the patch, and even within one village—I declare an interest; it is my own village of Lytchett Matravers. There are speeds of 0.8 megabits per second in the part where I live, but in the better part there are speeds in excess of 30 megabits per second. That disparity is particularly frustrating for my constituents. It is also frustrating for my wife who, even as I speak, may be trying to live stream these proceedings and watch this maiden speech—although if she misses it, that may well be a blessing in disguise. More importantly, it affects our businesses across Dorset, whether they are large, medium or small. Each and every one relies upon the internet, and they struggle to compete if they cannot even make that connection.

Turning to the subject matter of today’s debate, there are many excellent schools in Mid Dorset and North Poole, and education is the key to opportunity and social mobility. A number of schools have already converted to academy status, and I have time to mention but one—the Magna Academy in Canford Heath. It is the most recent school to convert. It has a magnificent new building, and it is beginning to get the results to match. But in Dorset, we struggle with a lack of fair funding. Schools in Poole and Dorset are among the worst funded across the whole country—Poole is the second worst funded area and Dorset is in the bottom 10. I am not asking for preferential treatment for my constituents, simply for a level playing field. After all, all schools are judged against the same criteria regardless of the disparity in resources. I am delighted that our manifesto commitment was fairer funding, and I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State repeat that pledge in the House a few moments ago.

Time does not permit me to expand much further, but coming from a family of teachers—like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), both my parents are teachers—it would be remiss of me not to put on record the hard work and dedication of all our teachers.

I pledge to fight for fairer funding for our schools; I pledge to fight for fairer infrastructure across Dorset; but most importantly I pledge that all I do, I will do first and foremost for my constituents.

19:14

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on making a great maiden speech, and I sincerely hope that his wife got to see it.

I will focus my remarks on clause 13, which relates to adoption, but before I do so I want to raise an ongoing concern that I have with the Government’s overall approach to children’s social care. There seems to be an obsession with reforming adoption services in isolation from all the other vital services that surround the adoption process and have an impact on it. Adoption is, and should always remain, the absolute last resort for any child and the end of a long process. Before it is even considered, a lot of work needs to be done with the child, the birth family and agencies. In the best-case scenario, that work can improve circumstances at home, repair relationships and mean that adoption is no longer necessary, resulting in a child remaining with their birth family or birth parents, which is an outcome that I think we would all rather see.

It is simply a mistake to focus on adoption to the exclusion of early intervention and other services that could keep a family together. Focusing on improving how children’s services work, reducing the administrative workload on social workers so that they can spend more time with families, and resisting the temptation to cut early years services such as Sure Start could prevent the need for adoptions. I find it concerning that when I have asked questions of Ministers and the Government in the past, they have shown little inclination to protect early years and child protection services, yet now they expect local authorities to restructure their adoption services, with all the costs that that will entail. Would the money not be better spent at the beginning of a child’s journey through social services, rather than towards the end?

It is important to remember that continuing support for families who have adopted is vital to help children and families adapt to their new lives. Will the Government therefore consider ensuring that special guardians are entitled to the same ongoing support as families who adopt?

I am continually disappointed that the Government are not making the necessary fundamental reforms to our court process, because it remains in court, not in social work departments or adoption teams, that most of the delay for children is caused. From my professional experience, the court process is one of the biggest barriers to timely adoption. It can be dragged out over years and years. Despite all the advice that is issued, it is still common for multiple assessments to be ordered on the same case, with the sheer number of parties involved meaning that cases drag on and on. The Bill would have benefited from measures to deal with the court process, but without those measures it is likely to fail in its goal of making adoption a quicker process.

I am open to the aims behind the Bill, but I am concerned about the detail and about what the changes might mean in practice. The Bill states that an authority’s functions may be taken on by either another local authority or another adoption agency, but there is nothing to say how the Secretary of State will choose which is the preferred option. If the power in clause 13 were to be used on a wide scale, it could result in adoption services being removed from the scope of local authority duties in many areas of our country. Will the Minister explain whether that is the preferred option, or whether adoption services will remain in local authority control unless there is simply no other option?

There is also little clarity in the Bill about when the Secretary of State will use the power in clause 13. We are told that it will be used as a last resort when local authorities fail to integrate adoption services on their own, but that is not made plain in the Bill. How long does the Department for Education think an authority will be able to take before it is considered to be dragging its feet?

What is there to prevent the Secretary of State from using that power as soon as the Bill takes effect? It does not appear that she will have to justify her decisions in any way at all. Nor is there any clarity about how a regional adoption agency should be defined. Would it mean one or two neighbouring authorities working together, or would it mean creating an adoption agency for the whole of the north-east, for example? They are very different propositions, and the Government need to make their intentions clear.

I would like assurances that the powers will not be misused as part of a conscious attempt to shift children’s services out of local government and towards independent providers. One of the more worrying and yet under-reported moves the DFE made during the last Parliament was opening up children’s services to outside bodies, which lack the expertise or experience to carry out the delicate work of child protection. To me, the Bill seems like another move in that direction. If the Secretary of State uses the powers to require adoption to be taken over by outside agencies, how will she guarantee that they are qualified and have a track record in delivering adoption services?

The Minister genuinely cares, and I am hopeful that he will respond not only to the questions I have asked, but on the wider issues I have noted. He knows and I know that our children deserve far better.

19:20

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and the excellent maiden speeches we have heard today.

One key theme of the debate is adoption. I am pleased that we are giving airtime to the subject. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who spoke passionately. It is an important issue for him to focus on as Chairman of the Education Committee.

First and foremost, I commend the Bill and the intention to reduce the time that children spend in care. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Minister for Children and Families, whose extensive experience as a family law barrister and his personal experience make him so well suited to his brief. I pay tribute to his excellent work with children in care through the Who Cares Trust. He will know as well as anyone the tragic situations that are played out in the family courts every day. I know he is doing his utmost to improve the situation for children and families.

One increasing concern, particularly in my constituency, is the number of children who are taken into the care system every day. It has increased dramatically in recent years. It has become a pressing social issue that we cannot ignore. It has a huge cost to families in human misery, it has social and economic costs to society, and the cost to a child of a life in care.

More efficiency and speeding up adoption is a positive step forward, but it is not a solution in itself. We must look at how we tackle the problem of children entering the care system and think about different benchmarks of success. Increased numbers of children being adopted is not a measure of success, but fewer children entering the care system is.

Before the tragic case of baby Peter Connelly, adoption was always seen as a last resort. There are plenty of examples today when that is not the case. We see judges condemning the social engineering of social workers who judge, assess and find fault with parents. As the Secretary of State rightly said, the decision to remove is for the courts, but the courts can rely only on the evidence put before them. All too often, that evidence is the opinion of a number of professionals who are so anxious about the post-Baby P culture that they act pre-emptively through a fear of missing potential harm.

I believe that the solution must be to work more closely with families to help them stay together safely, and to ensure that we recognise that the best place, if at all possible, is the natural family. Many children experience terrible trauma when they are removed from their natural parents, with whom they have developed a strong and reciprocated bond.

In my experience of working with adoption panels and families who have lost their children to state care, it is wrong to assume that all parents whose children are taken into care are neglectful, dysfunctional or subhuman. Too many people make that assumption.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I declare an interest, having worked as a psychologist in a school. I would be interested in the hon. Lady’s thoughts on access to psychological assessments in the process and, as was mentioned earlier, the priority given to access to mental health services in looked-after and accommodated services.

[Lucy Allan]

We should provide mental health support to all children going through the care system.

I should like to tell hon. Members a story about a case I worked on. A mother had two children, both of whom were removed when she went to seek help because she believed she could not cope with the parenting of her young toddler. That family ended up completely broken: one child was adopted, and the other was placed into a series of different foster placements and is now awaiting a long-term placement. The judge in his case described him as a well behaved child. He was a pleasant, successful child at school—he was delightful in every sense—but now, having experienced six sets of foster carers in three years, placement disruption is occurring over and over again. That once happy, delightful boy is physically attacking his foster carers, swearing and attacking other children at school. No one can argue that the result is in the best interests of that child, even if the motivation behind those actions was the right one. His life was turned upside down. We can only guess at the trauma, bewilderment and rage that he must have experienced at the break-up of his family.

For many, the loss of their child to the state is a bereavement—there is a total sense of loss and grief, accompanied by rage at the injustice of being judged wanting as a parent. We do our best as parents, and some of us do not do as well as we would like. We should hope that, when the state presumes to judge us, it should also assist us to be the best parents we can be.

Too many grieving parents go on to stem that emptiness by having another child, and then another child. Sequentially, those children are taken into care, but at what cost and for what misery for those children and families? I am delighted by some of the work being done on that. I pay tribute to the Minister, particularly for his social care innovation programme and the financial support being made available to the mothers I have described. I have had a case of a mother who had 10 children taken sequentially into care. That was of no benefit to her or to anyone else.

I conclude by saying that it is not the role of the state to presume to decide what makes for a fit parent. The situation is far more complex than that. We should not hope that we can ever replace the natural bond and the benefit of being within a family setting. I urge the Minister to continue his excellent work to strengthen families and ensure that they stay together to provide the best possible situation for children as they grow up.

19:28

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), and to hear such wonderful maiden speeches from new Members. The House will be well served over the next five years. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) is not in her place, but I should tell her that Welsh is the oldest language in Europe—it says so on the tea towel I got on one of my many holidays in Pembrokeshire.

This is a debate on Second Reading, and I want to speak about the principles of the Bill rather than the individual clauses, but I will address my remarks to three specific matters: coasting schools, the duty to make academy orders, and local authority joint arrangements for adoption.

Education should be about the best interests of our children. Ultimately, society benefits from that, but I am struggling to find it in the Bill. I find the term “coasting schools” incredibly demeaning. Not only that, but the Secretary of State does not define it in the Bill and chooses to introduce regulations to do so. I should like to know from the Minister what advice he has received from parliamentary counsel on whether that term is clear on the face of the Bill and whether it sets out Parliament’s intentions as to what it means. If the Bill were a contract, it would be void for uncertainty. Has the definition been agreed with Ofsted? The Secretary of State outlined some of the measures that she will introduce in regulations, but could those regulations change? Could the definition of a coasting school change? Is this the same regime as the Ofsted regime? My concern is the effect it will have on children, teachers and other staff at those schools that are identified as so-called coasting schools.

What about the Joseph Leckie Academy in my constituency? It was promised £17 million under Building Schools for the Future, which was then cancelled. It then entered a bidding war, and managed to receive £4 million. It needs a further £4 million to remove the asbestos and build a new classroom. More than 50% of the children are in receipt of school meals and are struggling to achieve, despite their best endeavours. Would it be fair for the school to be identified as coasting? That cannot be right.

What about the academy order? The Secretary of State needs to listen to parents and staff, not slap an academy order on a school. Members will know that we receive letters from many constituents who cannot get their children into their first choice of school. Amazingly, the Bill says that parents should not be consulted, so the very people who know about a school will not be allowed to have a say. In this country, we consult, we do not dictate, and that is one of the key areas that judges will look at in considering whether a decision is lawful. The Government have already laid the foundations in that area, however, by restricting judicial review.

I hope that in Committee Ministers will look at how parents and governors can have a say. One of the issues that was raised in the election was how we can increase the pool of diversity for governors. It is the governors who have a say on how a school is run, who hold a head to account and who are critical friends. Evidence is a key area. What is the evidence that a school performs better as an academy than as a maintained school?

On adoption, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State can require a local authority to make arrangements for someone else to carry out its functions. That will take functions away from elected local government. It is right that adoption should be speeded up, and the Minister for Children and Families has done much to improve the face of adoption. I pay tribute to the work that he and his family have done in that role. Perhaps Mr John Timpson should be the face of a public campaign on adoption.

It is a scandal that children have to wait a long time to be adopted, but at the end of the day the social workers will make the assessment. It is therefore concerning that the Government have refused to fund the College of Social Work—the very place that is needed to promote social work as an important profession. Where will we get the extra, properly trained social workers who will fast-track adoption? They step in when adoption goes wrong and they have to deal with families all the time. They deal with many issues—and their job is getting more and more difficult—from addressing child abuse to helping people with mental health issues and disabilities. All those areas have faced budget cuts. What are the figures for adoptions that have not worked out, and how will those families be supported? What support will be in place for the fast-track adoptions? Will such families be exempt from the bedroom tax?

One part of the Government—the Treasury—wants devolution revolution, but the Secretary of State has placed herself above the wishes of parents and reserved powers so that she can transfer functions away from local authorities. The Government are like the Hydra in Greek mythology—all the heads are doing and saying different things. The Bill is not in the best interests of children, parents and families—the very people the Government were elected to serve.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am now increasing the time limit to eight minutes for those who wish to take advantage of it.

[Valerie Vaz]

Oh!

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry about that.

19:34

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches this afternoon, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), whose constituency I know well.

The education section of the Bill is primarily about accelerating school improvement. In the verbal jousts across the Floor, I fear that we sometimes forget what or who we are talking about. I ask hon. Members to imagine their own child attending a failing primary school. Their child might be failing to learn to read and write, but perhaps nobody does anything about it. Perhaps no one notices or seems to think that it matters. That goes on for two or three years, the child gets further and further behind, and may never catch up. Then it is too late, and the child becomes one of the one in five children who leave primary school unable to read and write properly.

Over the last few years, the Secretary of State and her predecessor have made bold decisions to put into practice what the research tells us works in education systems around the world. They have increased transparency and accountability. They have increased the focus on the quality of teaching and the calibre of teachers and school leadership. Huge progress has been made in making teaching a more attractive profession. For example, for three years in a row, Teach First has been the top recruiter of graduates from elite universities, and a royal college of teaching is in the pipeline.

Hundreds of schools have more autonomy through the academies and free school programmes, and it is autonomy that gives good school leaders and their staff the chance to innovate—the key to success in the very best school systems around the world. Head teachers I have spoken to tell me how much they value the extra autonomy that their school being an academy gives them. Around the country, struggling schools are being helped to turn around, whether well-known examples such as King Solomon Academy and Durand Academy in London, or less dramatic but equally important improvement stories, such as the Abbey School in my constituency. With so much going in the right direction, what matters now is ensuring that every school is part of it. If a school is failing its pupils, there is no time to lose, because each day, term or year a child is in a failing school is another opportunity lost in that child’s education.

Although the Government are right to give extra attention to failing schools, we must not overlook schools that are doing well. My constituency has many good and outstanding schools, but the area suffers from below average education funding. While some schools around the country receive £8,000 or so per pupil, most of my schools receive half that amount. They have made savings, including making staff redundant, and one school is now facing the choice of which of three modern languages —French, German or Spanish—to drop. If we aspire to excellence in education, we should not have schools facing such choices. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurance last week that the funding formula will be reviewed, but I press her to ensure that that happens as soon as possible and, while the review is being carried out, that help be considered for financially struggling schools to tide them over.

19:38

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) mentioned the freedoms that academies enjoy and, undoubtedly, the academies legislation provides for additional freedoms. But most of the freedoms that heads in academies have used could have been used when the school was maintained. That was the finding from the evidence that the Education Committee took. The legislation has not led to wholesale change in how such freedoms are used.

Several hon. Members have talked about coasting schools, which is one of the issues of greatest contention in the Bill. The Education Committee looked at the issue of coasting schools, and we found that schools that were doing well—with a good or even an outstanding Ofsted grading—were not necessarily doing the best by their students. A coasting school can be doing very well, but should be doing better, and the difficulty for Opposition Members is understanding exactly what is meant by “coasting”. Is the Secretary of State targeting schools that are already doing well but should be doing better, or is she looking at schools that are perhaps not doing so well by their children? The definition needs to be addressed in Committee.

What should we be looking at today on Second Reading? I would hope that any proposed legislation on education would consider how education can deliver long-term prosperity and success for our young people and for our economy. Education is a critical factor, if not the critical factor, in determining how well young people are prepared for the wider world, in particular the world of work. Employers look to us to deliver an education system where young people can turn up at work and be ready to get going and to contribute, yet throughout the five years of the previous Parliament the Education Committee heard again and again from employers that far too often that is not happening. Young people are not coming out of school prepared for the world of work. Work experience is one example of where things have gone backwards in the past five years.

The Select Committee produced a number of inquiries. On more than one occasion, it came up with evidence which has been mentioned by many Members: the most important factor in providing great education is the quality of teachers, in particular head teachers. That came up in the inquiry into great teachers, but was repeated again and again in the past five years. What is happening in the world of education to deliver great teachers? The education element of the Bill looks at making academisation easier, but it has nothing to say on the quality of teaching. That is a great pity.

It has been suggested by many that the Government want all schools to become academies. Given that the term “coasting schools” is so broadly defined, it occurs to me to ask whether that is really what the Government are trying to do. By failing to define it, are they saying that they want all schools to become academies, without being quite so bold as to actually state that? If that is the intention, Ministers really ought to say so. Perhaps the Minister, in winding up, will confirm whether that is what he wants to do. From what he has said in the past, I think that is his intention.

[Kevin Brennan]

On that point, I wonder whether my hon. Friend saw recently in Tatler—I am sure he is an avid reader—the comments of the headteacher of Wymondham College in Norfolk, Mr Melvyn Roffe? He said that he had been told becoming an academy would mean more freedom and autonomy, but what happened was the reverse. He said:

“We have had more control from central government rather than local government…I don’t believe he”—

referring to the former Education Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—

“intended academy status to reduce autonomy. I wish he had the courage to say there are schools doing a good job and they should be allowed to do a good job.”

He regrets the college becoming an academy, so it is not always the case that heads welcome it.

[Bill Esterson]

Like my hon. Friend, I am of course an avid reader of Tatler. The Select Committee found that schools in multi-academy trusts or chains did not have the autonomy they thought they would have, and that everything was controlled from the centre. The Government prided themselves on localism in the past five years, but if anything they reduced local accountability by removing councillors’ responsibility and involvement. Localism in its widest sense has been reduced because everything became even more centralised, either through people running multi-academy trusts, or because every one of those schools is controlled, ultimately, from the desk of the Secretary of State in Whitehall. The creation of just eight regional schools commissioners does not go very far, given that there are more than 4,000 academies—or 500 each. That is centralisation. My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which should concern us all.

The Select Committee concluded that the Government should review the lessons of the rapid conversion of secondary schools to inform any future expansion. It highlighted the fact that a programme devised by Labour— as I said earlier, the Labour academies have been a great success according to the evidence presented to the Committee—for a small number of secondary schools was not necessarily appropriate for primary schools. The Government have completely failed to address that point. They acknowledged the point in their response to the Committee’s report, but did not have an answer. The international evidence suggests that the expansion of the academies programme was exceptionally fast and perhaps something we should be concerned about.

We would all say that, alongside having the very best teachers, school improvement should be a priority. The Labour programme of academies was an example of massive investment in school improvement, with many successes. The best example of school improvement over an extended period in recent years was undoubtedly the London Challenge. London schools went from being the basket case of schools in the country to being shining examples of success. That was based not on academisation, but on collaboration between teachers, institutions and local authorities. The Government, when they came into office, should have looked far more closely at the success of the London Challenge and spread it around the country, instead of being hellbent on the rapid expansion of an academy system that was not designed for the purpose it is now being used for.

On adoption, I mentioned earlier my disappointment with the relevant elements of the Bill, which, although there is nothing wrong with them per se, do not mention other forms of permanence for children. There is no mention of foster care, residential care or kinship placements. That is a missed opportunity. It leaves nagging doubts regarding the Government’s intentions for all children. As many as 75,000 children are in care at any one time. The Government have pulled the funding for the College of Social Work, which again leaves grave doubts about the future of the profession and its ability to support children, including those being put up for adoption.

There are many questions to be answered, whether on adoption or education. I am sure we will probe them more deeply in Committee.

19:47

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), whose powerful speech made a big impact on me. I would have liked to talk about adoption, but I will concentrate on schools today.

I welcome the new categorisation of coasting schools. Having worked as a lay Ofsted inspector, I know exactly what those sort of schools look like: schools that are not stretching every child and are happy to just reach the minimum level. I have been rung up by parents asking me why their very nice primary school has been classified as inadequate, and why their great teachers were not doing as well as they thought they were. Schools would be classified as inadequate because bright children were getting level 4 rather than level 6, and other children were getting level 3 when they should have been getting level 4. It is these schools that have been classified as inadequate. They were not failing their children completely, but they were coasting and not doing a good job.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Lady, a former lay inspector, raises a very interesting point. When she was inspecting a school, would she have been able to give it a good or outstanding rating, but still find it to be coasting?

[Mrs Drummond]

No, under the old system it would be a failing school if it was coasting. Nowadays, it would be seen as an inadequate school. In terms of terminology, coasting is much more acceptable to parents, teachers and schools. A school cannot be said to be inadequate when children are still learning to read, write and do mathematics but are not doing as well as they should be doing. That is how I see a coasting school, but I know we are going to develop this. I have some concerns about how coasting schools will be evaluated. The Secretary of State said that they would be evaluated on the basis of more data, but I should like that evaluation to be widened slightly to include Ofsted inspections. Perhaps there could be mini-inspections to ensure that all the data were available.

Let me give an example. We consider the school of which I am a governor to be a rapidly improving school, but its current level is “requires improvement”, and the local authority sent us a warning letter last year because we had missed the overall target by just 1%. It was the maths that had let us down. However, the children have made very good progress throughout their time at the school.

Nearly all the children arrive at a level that is well below the average, and a large number are eligible for free school meals. Last year we had several level 6 results, and many level 5s. One reason for our not achieving higher results was the fact that children covered by our autism provision were included in the results. Children with special educational needs find tests very stressful, and often do not meet national standards in any event. I should like to see much more provision for such children, whether they are included in the overall results or treated differently. I should also like to see a completely different system of assessing, in particular, children with autism. Other children arrived during the school year speaking English as a foreign language, and it is difficult for teachers to raise such children to national standards. I should like to see a much more holistic approach to the categorisation of schools.

There is a new curriculum and assessment system, and schools are still settling down and working out how the new levels—exceeding expectation, at expectation or below expectation—will operate. The Department needs to help schools with those new levels, which are still quite confusing as schools develop their own methodologies. It is right for them to be able to do that, but no clear national guidelines have been provided. The results of school evaluations often hide the true picture, and I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that they are fair.

I agree that schools must become academies if their local authorities are weak. Portsmouth City Council was deemed to be the sixth worst authority in the country in this context, and during the 10 years the Liberal Democrats were in control, there was very little political will to improve educational standards. That has begun to change over the past year, under the new Conservative administration.

In many instances, when Portsmouth schools have become academies, children’s education has improved. I mentioned the Charter Academy in my maiden speech. In five years, its GCSE pass rate has risen from 3% to 85%. The local authority wanted to shut down the school, which is in an area of great deprivation, but fortunately the old head teacher saw its potential and brought in Ark Schools, which I consider to be one of the pinnacles of academy provision. I am pleased to learn that it has recently taken on some primary schools in Portsmouth as well. I recently visited Ark Ayrton with my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools. The head teacher of the primary school that it took over was extremely reluctant to allow the school to become an academy, but was forced to do so. She now says that it was the best thing that she could have done, that she wishes that she had done it a long time ago, and that she is receiving incredible support from Ark. Ark Dickens has taken over another school in my constituency—again, in an area of great deprivation—and I look forward to seeing a difference in children’s education there.

I have spoken before, outside the House, about the poor performance of my local authority. I agree with the National Union of Teachers that it should be the job of local authorities to assist schools, but where they are failing, we need an alternative, and free schools are providing that alternative. I am grateful to academies for giving some of the children in Portsmouth the education that they deserve, along with aspiration and the tools that will enable them to realise their ambitions.

19:53

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

Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your re-election as Chairman of Ways and Means. It is a pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond). I was also pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), whose predecessor was and is a great friend of mine and was well liked throughout the House. He is sadly missed.

I support the amendment, because I believe that the Bill could have been much more ambitious than it is. It fails to provide a clear definition of a coasting school. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), have expressed concern about coasting schools. I am struck by the fact that the Secretary of State has come to the House and—as she has done on five previous occasions—failed to provide a definition. I do not think it right for us to have to wait until the Committee stage of a Bill that includes the term for the Government to define it. What does the amorphous word “coasting” mean? Is it based on exam results, progress measures or Ofsted ratings? What defines a coasting school? We still do not know. That strikes me as a worrying feature of the Bill.

The Bill is important, and there are parts of it that I commend, but I believe that it has not gone far enough. We need to be much more ambitious and bold when we talk about education in this country. There is a massive difference between the levels of attainment of those who are receiving free school meals and their more affluent peers, but the Bill does not address it.

In 2009, the Centre for Development and Enterprise, a South African organisation, published a report entitled “International Best Practice in Schooling Reform”. It was based on workshops that had taken place in Washington D.C. Global education experts examined more than 100 school systems across the world to establish what worked in improving education and what did not. The report concluded that giving schools more autonomy was an “ineffective reform”. In fact, it argued that

“time required by school leaders to manage and run autonomous schools takes time away from supporting teachers and supervising the system”,

to the detriment of education outcomes.

It is not a question of more funding, which evidence shows does not work past a certain level. The Bill talks of converting failing or coasting schools to academies, but it should be about meaningful reform and the following of best practice all over the world. Unfortunately, it is sadly wanting in that regard.

I believe that there are five things that we must get right if we are to ensure that our education system improves. First, there must be a new appreciation that the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers. There is no more important lever for the improvement of student outcomes than teacher quality. The world’s top-performing systems recruit talented people and train them intensively. Teaching must be considered a prestigious profession and teachers must have all the support that they deserve. They should have competitive starting salaries and adequate remuneration for excellence, which can be affordable if the remuneration curve remains shallower than it is in other professions. Those who do not meet strict criteria, however, must be forced to leave teaching, or asked not to join in the first place. We should reward and support good teachers and make it significantly easier to get rid of bad ones.

Secondly, reforms must focus on improving teaching skills and changing classroom practice. According to the report from the Centre for Development and Enterprise, if teachers are given effective support and in-service training, student performance can be significantly improved within three to six years. Continuous professional development applies to other professions, so why can it not apply to teaching? Problems arise when teachers come straight out of university, do not interact with their peers and have no examples of excellence. The best systems in the world—those in Belgium, Finland, Hong Kong, Japan, the Netherlands and New Zealand—improve teachers’ skills by bringing professionalism, mentoring and apprenticeships back to teaching. They have comprehensive feedback systems which enable teachers to learn from their mistakes and improve in problem areas.

In 2007, Eric Hanushek of Stanford University found that the only way to increase the economic output of school leavers was for students to learn effectively and to be taught well. We can achieve that only by supporting our teachers, and ensuring that teaching is a highly skilled, attractive career option that supports and constantly seeks to improve the people in it.

Thirdly, there is leadership. The best education systems recruit and train excellent head teachers—people with intrinsic leadership skills. I would wager that the best-performing academies are those with the best head teachers. Even in my south Wales constituency, where we have no academies, the best schools that I visit usually have the best head teachers. These people should be supported to become effective leaders, and not just effective educators. We must get this right, because without effective leadership the reforms will never be embedded.

To improve education we must look at not just the people, but the environment in which children learn, and that brings me to my fourth point. The Royal Institute of British Architects report “Building a Better Britain” makes the case that good school design could have a direct impact on reducing maintenance costs and improving student wellbeing and attainment. For example, its evidence suggests that ensuring that corridors are designed so that they are not too narrow can significantly reduce bullying. Good design of schools delivers value not just now, but in the future.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, high performance requires that every child succeeds—not just the select few in the schools chosen, but every child, everywhere. From Land’s End to John o’Groats, from Treginnis to Lowestoft, all students need to be well educated and must be given the teaching they need to fulfil their ambitions. We need standards and measures of success relevant to the needs of our country. We need effective mechanisms to help schools to achieve those standards. Pressure without support does not yield better performance. We need to make sure that targets are being met. We need to identify the obstacles to success and put in place strategies to overcome them.

To reduce wide disparities in education and in the country at large we must overcome huge challenges. We must reverse decades of socio-economic problems keeping those in poorer areas from achieving their potential. The harsh reality is that the circumstances of someone’s birth are often to their greatest detriment in terms of how well they will do at school or how well they will do in life. We can help to overcome that. We can change the sad fact that being born poor means someone is likely to stay poor, but we can do so only with great teachers, with great schools and if we make the right choices and follow the evidence. The Government had a real opportunity in this Bill to set out an ambitious plan for Britain, but, unfortunately, they have been found wanting.

20:01

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I have listened with admiration to many of the maiden speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of this House and to the speeches of many new Members. Clearly, we have a breadth of experience in the education sector in this new Parliament, and that is so important.

There can be nothing controversial about a desire to give our children the best start in life, whatever their background and wherever they live, and this Bill seeks to do that. Although more than l million more children are in good or outstanding schools than was the case in 2010, 1.5 million pupils are still taught in schools that do not meet those necessary standards.

I would like to discuss three critical elements of the Bill. First, it rightly recognises that a mediocre education is not good enough. As parents, we all want the best for our children and our Government should strive to deliver it. This Bill acknowledges aspiration, ensuring that schools will regularly assess their own performance and standards, and that they must never be complacent.

The second point is about control. This Bill is not about taking powers away from schools, but about giving them autonomy—and quicker. If schools become academies, they will have greater control over what they teach, when they teach it and who teaches it. We must recognise that the best people to run schools are teachers, and the excellent work of those teachers must be recognised.

Finally, the third point is about the people who lead our schools and help others that are failing. We recognise that, in building good schools, we need good and inspirational teachers, and I hope the profession will welcome the use of expert teachers to help drive coasting schools forward. The 1,000 national leaders of education are a vital component of those plans. They are the outstanding headteachers who work with schools in challenging circumstances to support school improvement. We must support and enable less good schools to learn from the best. In that respect, I wish to mention a school in my own constituency. Bottisham Village College, an outstanding school, is helping a local school, Netherhall School, which is in need of improvement. That is the sort of collaborative action that nurtures development. To improve our schools, we need partnerships: between local and national Government; between outstanding schools and those that are failing and coasting; and between trusts and management. It is not by standing still and doing nothing that we will improve our standards—it is by taking action and working together.

When we talk about what we want from our own children and from our students, we talk about aspiration, about the importance of learning from others and about aiming high, not settling for mediocrity. Those principles apply to schools, too, and they are the principles at the heart of this Bill.

20:05

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating hon. Members who have made their excellent maiden speeches today.

We share the Government’s desire for excellence in all schools, irrespective of whether they are voluntary aided, academies, free schools or whatever. I listened to the Secretary of State’s praise for sponsored academies, but the inconsistency and glaring omissions of this Bill are highlighted by the fact that the only sponsored academy in my constituency is also the only secondary school deemed to require improvement. Why did the Bill not include the incorporation of academy chains into Ofsted inspections?

I wonder how many more schools in future years are going to be a cause of concern or deemed to be “coasting”—whenever that term is explained—before the growing challenge of teacher recruitment and retention is going to be properly addressed by this Government. How many inspiring teachers such as Neville McGraw, who taught my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), are going to be leaving the profession in the next few years? That is the issue of greatest concern to heads of schools in Hounslow, the borough covered by my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).

I have also met a number of parents in recent months who are concerned about the extent to which their children are being taught by supply teachers. Yesterday, I spoke to the mother of a year 9 pupil in an outstanding school who had had five different supply teachers last week. At another great school, a science specialist school, a head of science cannot be recruited. What does this mean? Headteachers often find that they have only one or two applicants for each post and sometimes none at all. Some vacancies go on term after term and have to be filled with agency staff—expensive agency staff. In secondary schools in our borough, most subjects are now classified as shortage subjects, with there being a severe crisis in maths and science. Some schools struggle to appoint technology teachers, and home economics is a disappearing subject. Those pressures are going to get worse as the EBacc is rolled out. A further issue we face is that the immigration rules are not helping the retention of teachers who are doing well and teaching inspirationally, but are not going to be able to stay in the UK.

All of that leads to massive staff turnover, inconsistency in teaching standards and increasing dependence on supply teaching. Our party shares the Secretary of State’s passion for standards, so why did she say nothing about this crisis? Instability and vacancies in schools negatively affect academic progress and pastoral support. Those who have left or are considering leaving the profession are demoralised by the pressures. In addition, all schools in Hounslow are expanding and we have new schools opening this September and next September, which only adds to the recruitment problem. One head hold told me, “Filling a science post in London is like trying to snatch honey from bees. In the end the students lose out significantly, no matter how much time and energy you put into supporting and developing teachers who are struggling.”

The crisis has several elements, all of which we feel the Government should address, with greater priority than just finding new ways of intervening once things have gone wrong. First, teaching is a graduate profession, but not enough UK graduates are choosing teaching. In London, the private sector economy is picking up, as is the availability of higher paid jobs, which carry greater esteem than teaching. That is why teaching should be marketed as a valuable and worthwhile profession. We need more graduates to want to be teachers, and an even higher proportion of our best graduates to see the value of teaching as a long-term career. There needs to be a clear way into a teaching career. Several headteachers have told me that the routes into teaching are too complex and confusing, which creates yet another barrier to those graduates considering teaching as a possible career.

Schools Direct has not produced the desired number of quality trainees. Teach First, while providing high quality entrants, has issues with career retention. Researchers in education programmes have had major problems in the delivery of teacher trainees. One local school, Brentford School for Girls, has tackled the shortage of science teachers in a different way. The head told me at the summer fair on Saturday that the school has recruited good science graduates into unfilled posts, and it will train and develop those young people to be teachers. Those applicants were all keen to teach but had been confused by the routes of application, so they welcomed the school’s approach.

I was told that the reduction in university training places is a major worry. Cuts in postgraduate certificate in education training places in supposed non-shortage subjects, such as history and business studies, have severely limited training places, even though there are some very high-quality graduates wanting to train in those areas. There is currently a major shortage of geography graduates going into teaching, yet the subject will be compulsory for those not doing history in the EBacc. On top of that, post-16 budget cuts mean that teachers are being asked to do more, thereby adding to the pressures and increasing the haemorrhage of already pressurised staff.

A third issue for us in London is the cost of living. Last week, the Minister for Schools said in the Adjournment debate on teacher recruitment and retention that there were no problems recruiting young teachers in London. There may not be a problem with recruitment, but there is certainly one with retention. Several heads in my constituency say they are having problems retaining teachers who want to buy their own home. Those teachers have to move well away from London to get new jobs elsewhere in order to buy their own home. The lack of urgency from the Government on the housing crisis leads me to believe that that problem will only get worse.

Finally, let me turn to teachers’ morale. Recently, I have met many good teachers who want to leave the profession because of the workload generated by the plethora of sudden unplanned changes and the persistent berating of the achievements of teachers, pupils and schools by Government and the media. That is another complaint of headteachers. They told me that they are trying to keep their schools going when they are questioning their own capacity to continue in the profession, given the relentless pressure that they are under and the negating of their professionalism by this Government.

Inaccurate derision of the profession by the Government has a long-term impact on perceptions, and it discourages young people from considering the profession despite their own positive experience in the schools that they attended. It undermines the morale of senior staff and headteachers. Will the Government please stop undermining the morale of those who work long hours to ensure that our children get a good education? They should set a good example and use positive language—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call Suella Fernandes.

20:13

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and I congratulate hon. Friends and hon. Members on excellent maiden speeches.

Aspiration is today’s buzzword. The reason why the Conservatives won the election was that we embodied the real sentiment of that word. What does aspiration mean? For me, our education reforms are the engine of aspiration and tackle social inequality at its root cause. Our one nation party says to every child that it does not matter where they start; they can get ahead through self-empowerment, taking responsibility and hard work. Nowhere do those values ring more loudly than in our schools and in this Bill.

In 2010, after 13 years of a Labour Government supposedly supporting education, two in five 16-year-olds left school functionally illiterate or innumerate. In a country where we have some of the best schools in the world, that is a shocking disgrace. It is therefore just and essential that the Government have powers to intervene in failing and coasting schools, and those powers are enabled in this Bill. We all know what coasting schools are. They are schools in affluent areas where there is no incentive to achieve beyond a C, D or borderline pass. One reason why I am so proud to support this Bill is that we are the only party—

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Suella Fernandes]

I wish to make progress. We are the only party that is courageous enough to talk honestly about failing schools. We have done that in the past by giving people, volunteers, teachers and parents a say in the solution.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Suella Fernandes]

I will not give way. Teachers are wonderful, but endemic weaknesses in the system stop our children getting the best. I have seen at first hand how our reforms have addressed the problem.

[Kevin Brennan]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Suella Fernandes]

No, I will not. I teamed up with a group of teachers to set up a free school in Wembley, my home town. Led by Katherine Birbalsingh, an inspiring headteacher, the school has some of the best staff in the country. As chairman of the board of governors, I can say that our aim is simple: to bring excellence and a private school quality to the inner city. I grew up in the area, and attended a state school at the beginning of my education. Teachers went on strike, discipline was poor and expectations were low. After designing the vision of a knowledge-based curriculum, we secured approval and Government funding.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. Earlier in her remarks, she said that everyone knows what a coasting school looks like. Would she care to name for us the coasting schools in her constituency?

[Suella Fernandes]

I will not name any schools, but I have adequately defined the features and the hallmarks of coasting schools. It is clear that further guidance will be forthcoming.

After designing the vision of a knowledge-based curriculum for the free school in which I was involved, we secured approval and funding from the Government. We recruited staff and found a building. I am proud to say that Michaela Community School opened its doors last September to 120 12-year-olds and it is transforming their lives. Many of the children come from neighbouring council estates or areas such as Harlesden and Willesden. They have the chance to aim high because of inspired and innovative teaching. If one walks through the corridors, one can hear a pin drop, because pupils are quietly learning in their classrooms. I invite Members here to join them for lunch and they will see how polite they are. If they take a bus in the area, they will spot them by their impeccable uniform. Whether it is the practice of appreciation at lunchtime or the rigorous learning, Michaela Community School has been made possible only because teachers have been set free to teach and set high expectations. It was teachers, not the state, who saw a need and took action.

[Rachael Maskell]

Why has £241 million been spent on free schools in areas that do not have a crisis in school places?

[Suella Fernandes]

A key criterion for gaining Government approval for a free school is to establish need. There needs to be an established deficit in school places, which is evidenced in the data, to form part of the application.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Suella Fernandes]

I will make some progress. My point is that it was teachers, not the state, who saw the need and took action. Those teachers who exercised strong leadership were set free to teach the subjects about which they were passionate. They had freedom over staff, and over spending. That freedom is bolstered by the reforms in this Bill and is at the heart of aspiration.

20:19

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) on her speech. She spoke with singular clarity about her educational viewpoints and her constituency.

I declare an interest as the chair of governors of an academy school based in the city of Brighton and Hove. I have spoken before in this House about my journey through education, leaving school lacking the qualifications needed to succeed in life and therefore having to return to secondary school at the age of 25 to start over again. I approached the Bill with an open mind about its publicised aim of challenging underperformance throughout the education system. For me, excusing underperformance in schools rather than challenging it has always been a source of intense frustration, even anger, due to my own experiences.

There are many reasons to excuse failure, such as poor school performance, students living in areas of deprivation or the difficult family circumstances of some students, but for me those are barriers to overcome rather than reasons to excuse poor attainment. A student who graduates before overcoming those challenges will carry them into adulthood and for the rest of their lives, so I wholeheartedly support having a radically higher sense of ambition for young people. However, the Bill stands out more for what it does not cover than for what it does. It focuses on the performance of local authority controlled schools, which are, in educational terms, one part of the challenge we face, but in reading it one might be forgiven for thinking that they are the only challenge.

I have some sympathy with the need to tackle the lack of ambition in some local authority departments, because I come from Brighton and Hove. Today, Ofsted released its findings on the education authority where I live, and judged that it “requires improvement”. A year ago, a Local Government Association peer review stated that the authority

“lacked ambition for young people”

and was not supporting school improvement with the vigour that was needed. After two such warnings in one year, I firmly believe that enough is enough. Every young person has the potential to succeed, but some need help to get there. People who do not share that belief have no place in running education systems and that is my warning to Brighton and Hove education authority as it responds to those challenges.

Underperformance is not the sole preserve of local authority education systems. If this Government truly cared about rooting out and challenging coasting schools, they would extend the reach of the Bill to include other organisations. The first would be underperforming academies, particularly good schools that are being held back by being locked into low-performing academy chains. Why the Government are not introducing measures to release them from the contracts with the same rapidity as the maintained schools covered by the Bill is a mystery to me. The second group would be coasting private schools that are registered with the Charity Commission and receiving tax breaks. They should also be expected to deliver the same improvements as those demanded of maintained schools.

I also have concerns about clause 8, which covers consultation. As chair of the governors of an academy, I feel strongly that links to the surrounding community beyond the students and parents are incredibly important for the success of the school. The predecessor of the school I now chair was in special measures at the time of the conversion and the consultation time was therefore limited, but the powers granted to the Secretary of State by the Bill will enable similarly rapid conversion for coasting schools. Unless a rapid consultation is carried out with extreme skill, that will disempower the school community and could well hinder the improvement that is needed and desired.

Academisation is one tool among many in improving local education. Others include improving teaching standards, better leadership and improving whole family approaches to education. Each of those is a means to an end, not an end in itself, but because the Government have prioritised the academy programme above other methods of tackling coasting schools, the future of individual schools has become an ideological battleground rather than a place where communities come together to express their ambitions for their school and for the next generation of young people. That is why the Bill is too limited and ideological to warrant our support.

20:24

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate those hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches this evening. In particular, I was intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) about his experiences with Ofsted. I want to return to his words during my speech.

This afternoon, Labour has been accused of being ideologically driven in our concerns about the Bill and in our reasoned amendment. I believe that the opposite is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about Greek mythology, and I might invoke that myself and describe the Bill as something of a Trojan horse. Among all the talk of standards and of improving schools, I think that there is another hidden agenda, which is the philosophical aim of taking the delivery of public services away from the public sector. I think that is one of the Government’s real motivations.

The Bill vests greater centralised power in the Secretary of State, who appears to have decided that forced academisation is a golden bullet to improve school standards, but proportionally more academies are at “requires improvement” stage or below than local education authority schools. There is therefore evidence of an ideological drive from the Government, because their stated aim is to create at least 1,000 new academies during this Parliament, whereas the number of schools that are failing is about 250. The gap between those two figures suggest that this is about ideology rather than standards.

That gap must be why the Secretary of State has chosen to move the goalposts by introducing the new concept of a coasting school, although of course we do not know at this stage where she has moved the goalposts to. Accountability switches from parents and the local community via its council to the Secretary of State, meaning more centralisation from a Government who say one thing but do the opposite. It means fewer parental choices and less involvement.

One in four academies have seen their headteachers depart in the past year, prompting fears of a leadership crisis. Indeed, according to figures from UHY Hacker Young, which audits academy accounts, the figures are higher among secondary schools. The survey showed that although some of the departures are due to retirement, a tougher inspection regime and failing morale among headteachers were largely to blame. UHY Hacker Young said that the situation was putting potential heads off applying for the top job, causing an imminent recruitment crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about the recruitment crisis in the teaching profession and she was absolutely right, but if the Government’s aim is to force the academisation of schools and bring in superheads, where will all these superheads come from if we cannot recruit heads for existing schools?

The Government will turn to forced academisation for ideological purposes, despite there being no evidence that it will work or that it will address the problems of leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke passionately about the importance of leadership.

Let me return to the role of Ofsted. I understand that a firm inspection regime is needed, but there is despair in the teaching profession at the way Ofsted and the Government constantly change the goalposts for the targets that schools and teachers are expected to meet. There is a reliance on too many bare statistics, and teachers in Chester tell me that they are spending not enough time teaching and too much time reporting on how they are teaching. One very experienced school governor—of an academy, I hasten to add—in Chester last week spoke to me of a

“cold wind of an obsession with accountability, measuring performance. It’s all quantitative…. With Ofsted there is a fear of failure rather than a celebration of success.”

That reminds me of what Sir Michael Wilshaw was quoted as saying in January 2013, I think, in The Guardian:

“if morale is at an all-time low, then that is a good thing because that means that management”—

he is referring to schools’ management—

“is doing its job.”

To some, that may sound like the smack of firm leadership; to me, it sounds like a licence for workplace bullying. It is no surprise that 40% of teachers leave in their first five years on the job.

If teachers are to inspire our children, they have to feel inspiration themselves, and beating that inspiration out of teachers in a quest for figures and ticking boxes, all the while berating them as potential failures, will do nothing to raise standards. What will? Quality teaching and inspirational leadership make all the difference. The Government should be building leadership, not forcing heads out simply to justify academisation.

Last week, I visited an academy in my constituency, Mill View primary school, which under inspirational head Susan Walters has twice been rated outstanding, but it has achieved that rating because of the teaching and the leadership that she and her governors provide. She believes firmly in supporting her staff and in having a clear vision and goals that are understood and that all the staff buy in to. She shares responsibility within the school and she shares credit for success. She will drive staff forward, but their wellbeing remains her personal priority. She keeps parents engaged as well, whether using their expertise to help the continuing professional development that she provides for her staff, or perhaps planning school trips.

Chester Bluecoat primary is one of the most diverse schools in my constituency, with more than 20 languages spoken. Headteacher Vince O’Brien focuses on putting each child at the centre of their own learning programme and has maximised use of the school’s building environment to inspire the children’s imagination. Of course, he has also built a strong team of teachers and teaching assistants. Perhaps it is time we let teachers get on with the job they trained to do.

We should trust our teachers and not dangle the sword of Damocles over them. We should change the culture from threats and blame and fear of failure to one that aspires instead to celebrate success. The Bill does nothing to address the real problems in education; it only takes us down the blind alley of forced academisation driven by the Government’s ideology and not by a desire to raise standards. It raises more questions than it answers and provides yet more churn and change where stability is required. I cannot support the Bill’s Second Reading.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think it would be appropriate to raise the time limit on speeches to 10 minutes.

20:31

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. I congratulate all those on both sides of the House who have made their maiden speech today, and done so very well.

I have an interest in the debate as a primary school governor, at Grove primary school in Chadwell Heath, and as a councillor—an unpaid councillor, I should emphasise, given recent media reports—in the London borough of Redbridge, so I have several different perspectives on the Bill.

I want to respond first to a comment made by the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), in her enthusiastic speech, on the record of the last Labour Government. The Conservatives really need to decide whether they are the heirs to Blair, championing the school reforms that they are happy to laud in the misguided hope that we will feel uncomfortable or embarrassed by the fact that during our 13 years in government we made an enormous difference or whether they want to talk down the record of the Labour Government. They really cannot have it both ways.

As one who went to school under the last Labour Government and saw the improvements that were made, I am proud of the fact that we transformed the fabric of our schools through Building Schools for the Future. The secondary school I attended is now unrecognisable. It is an academy and its results have improved enormously. I am proud of the programmes the Labour Government introduced, such as the sponsored academies programme, which has delivered investment and greater freedoms and autonomy for our schools, excellence in cities and the London Challenge, tackling poor school performance, increasing educational achievement and tackling the inequality and educational disadvantage that hold back too many people, in particular those from the most disadvantaged families. I am also proud of initiatives started when we were in government, such as fast-track teaching and the major recruitment campaigns such as “Those who can, teach”, as well as the introduction of routes such as Teach First. Not only did we improve the quality and quantity of people entering the teaching profession, but we raised the standards and status of the profession.

That stands in stark contrast to the record of the five years of the coalition Government in terms of low morale and teachers leaving the profession in droves because of dissatisfaction caused by the Government’s reforms and the extent to which Ministers, for political gain, are happy to beat up on the teaching profession in the hope of bumping up a few points in the opinion polls. The present Government should show some humility about the record they inherit from the coalition. Ministers should come to the Dispatch Box with more answers about how to address the problems than we heard last Thursday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) raised these issues in her Adjournment debate.

This is the first education Bill that we have had from a Conservative Government since the 1990s, and it says an awful lot about this Conservative Government and their aspirations and breadth of ambition for our schools that the Bill is so thin and so ill-defined. If the Secretary of State for Education, when she was at the Dispatch Box earlier, had not been so busy providing a running commentary on the Labour leadership contest—perhaps she is launching her own gambit for the Conservative leadership contest that we will see in the next couple of years—maybe she would have had time to provide a little more definition to a Bill whose Second Reading she expects us to troop into the Lobby and vote for this evening.

Not only does the Bill think small, but it continues the mistakes of the previous Government. There is a misguided focus on one part of the system, local authority maintained schools, and one solution, academisation. I have no doubt that for some schools conversion to an academy and bringing in new leadership and new funding is the right way to turn around people’s life chances through improvement in the quality of provision at the school, but as so many Opposition Members have said this afternoon, that is just one route towards improvement. I challenged the Secretary of State earlier with a case study from my own borough, where Snaresbrook primary school was deemed by Ofsted to be failing. Action was already being taken by the local authority in partnership with the governors, the parents and the pupils, and as a result of those efforts the school was already on the path to improvement, with renewed leadership and a re-energised and refocused governing body. To have forced academisation at that stage, as the Bill would require, would have disrupted progress.

The Secretary of State’s predecessor was right to listen to local people, parents and the Conservative-led local authority at the time and conclude that it was right for the school to continue as part of the local authority family because it had a clear sense of how it would move forward. I am pleased to report that Snaresbrook primary school has made considerable improvements within the local authority family.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I have listened with care to the eloquent representations that are being made, but is it not dangerous, whichever side of the argument one is on, to paint one era as being rosy and another era as being grim? Under Labour, it is a fact that standards slipped. In the PISA league standards we went from 8th to 28th in maths and from 7th to 25th in reading. Although I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman’s school bucked that trend, it is correct to say that these are—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should resume his seat. Interventions must be short. He cannot make a speech, only a quick intervention in order to allow the person who is speaking to respond. If he wanted to make a speech, he would have been better off putting his name down. That is good advice. I am sure he has finished speaking. Is that correct?

[Alex Chalk]

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for the intervention, because the hon. Gentleman makes precisely the point that I am trying to make and reflects the narrow-minded ideologically driven view that the only route to improvement is academisation. That is exactly what the Bill presents us with. What we had before was the flexibility to look at the particular circumstances of a school and decide whether it was right that it should be converted to an academy or remain part of the local authority family, or whether other means for improvement should be considered. The Bill would remove the flexibility that the previous Secretary of State exercised in the case of the local primary school in my borough and would compel it to become an academy, which may or may not be the right way forward. If the hon. Gentleman is on the Bill Committee, perhaps I can gain his support for amendment along those lines.

Other hon. Members have referred to the oversight and inspection of academy chains. Following on from the intervention, it is right that there are some fantastic academy chains which are providing great service to the schools within their family—chains such as Ark and the Harris federation, which are in the business of education for the right reasons. They want to tackle educational inequality and improve life chances and educational outcomes, and those chains do a fantastic job. But I still cannot fathom why Ministers are not listening to the concerns that have been raised by the Sutton Trust and Sir Michael Wilshaw, and even some of the evidence produced by the Department itself, which is that we are doing some schools no service at all by trapping them in academy chains that are failing them. Why do we not open them up to the rigour of inspection? Why do we set academy chains apart and not require them to achieve the same high standards and undergo the same inspections as others do?

This is the contradiction in the Government’s approach. They present Labour Members as taking a narrow-minded ideologically driven dogmatic approach, but it is actually the Government that are taking that approach. It is they who are making an assumption that academy chains can do no wrong, whereas we acknowledge that there is good and bad right across the mixed economy of education. We can accept that. Why cannot the Government do so, and why are they not addressing that question in the Bill?

Contrary to what the Government have said, academies do not always outperform local authority-maintained schools on educational improvement. Of course anyone who wants to skew the statistics in a certain way can draw the conclusion that they want, but the Government should look at the research produced by the National Foundation for Educational Research and others, which compares schools like for like. If we compare similarly performing schools, like for like, and examine them within the context of local authority-maintained schools or academy chain schools, there is not much difference between the two. If there is to be a more evidence-based approach to the debate, Members need to examine the evidence rather than simply parroting propaganda produced in a remarkably poor fashion by the Whips of the governing party.

Finally, I want to mention the definition of “coasting”. The hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) gave the House what she thought was a very good definition of the term, and in some cases I might even agree with her. I know that she is being billed as a rising star in her party, but with the greatest respect, she is not yet the Education Secretary. We have not heard a definition of coasting schools from either the Secretary of State or Ministers, even though their Bill is now before the House of Commons for its Second Reading and the concept of coasting schools is at its centre. Perhaps the hon. Lady should be on the Government Front Bench, because she is providing the answers that her Ministers are not. For now, however, we have absolutely no idea what coasting schools are, how they will be judged and measured, and how the Secretary of State will intervene to improve them apart from through forced academisation, which I have already said might not be the best way forward. Why on earth those on the Treasury Bench expect us to troop into the Lobby with them to support the Second Reading of such a half-baked Bill I do not know. They need to be a bit more reasonable in their expectations.

The Bill also says absolutely nothing about the people on the fringes of education. For example, there are 17,000 pupils in pupil referral units, only 1.4% of whom will get five good GCSEs. Where do they figure in the Bill? How are their needs going to be addressed? And of course, the Bill is simply looking at the problems that exist now, rather than at the education system of the future. For the Conservatives’ first education Bill since they entered Government to have such a narrow focus shows a real lack of imagination. In this century, this country will have to work and compete very hard on the global stage for the jobs of the future. That will require all our young people to go through an excellent, world-class education system that thinks hard about pedagogy and about the manner and the environment in which we teach in a rapidly changing world. There is absolutely nothing about that context in the Bill. It is a narrow, ill-defined Bill that is unworthy of a Second Reading. I might have been in the House only a short time, but I know a half-baked Bill when I see one. It is time for our coasting Ministers to provide better definitions before turning up with such a Bill.

20:43

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I rise to support clause 13, which promotes best practice on adoption through regional adoption agencies. First, however, I should like to congratulate my Cheshire neighbour, the Minister for Children and Families, on his promotion to Minister of State, and pay tribute to him for the excellent work that he led in the previous Parliament to improve the adoption process and the support for adopters and adopted children. It is clearly in recognition of that that he has retained his portfolio, and he is bringing forward this further initiative today with undiminished vigour. I know that he grew up with some 90 fostered or adopted siblings and that he understands these issues intimately. He understands that living in a loving family can give a child the best possible start in life.

Real progress on adoption has already been made as a result of reforms initiated by the previous Government. In 2014, 5,000 children were found the permanent home that they needed—a record increase of 26% on the previous 12 months. The increase in the past three years has been a combined 63%—a remarkable achievement reflecting an improvement in the life chances of thousands of children. That has been achieved through implementing determined improvements, initiated, as I say, by the previous Government. Clause 13 follows on from that.

Since 2010, a number of adoption support reforms have been introduced so that the families can be confident that support will be provided if needed. These include placing responsibility on local authorities to inform prospective adopters and adoptees of their rights to assessments of need and entitlements to other adoption support services; improving access to specialist therapeutic services through the £19 million adoption support fund; extending entitlements on priority schools admissions; access to the pupil premium; and reforming adoption pay and leave.

In 2013 the adopter approvals process was reformed to ensure that prospective adopters could be assessed and approved more quickly. Most approvals now take place within six months—or should do. The new assessment process is just as rigorous as its predecessor but is structured to ensure swift and appropriate progress. The Department for Education has ensured that there has been continued improvement in opportunities to support matching children to adopters. That includes the work of the national adoption register service and the provision of exchange days and adoption activity days.

The Department funds First4Adoption, which is a national information service for adoption in England. The Department has also provided £17 million in additional funding over 2013-16 to help voluntary adoption agencies to recruit and approve more adopters, including those who can meet the needs of children who are harder to place. The Government have provided local authorities with £200 million over 2014-16 to support adoption reform on the ground and improve the recruitment of adopters. Last year, the Department and First4Adoption worked closely together in developing promotional resources in order to reach out to anyone interested in adoption. It is particularly important—the Minister is aware of my concern about this—that adoption is promoted to women with unplanned pregnancies as an option for them to consider. In 2014, the introduction of the Adoption Leadership Board headed by Sir Martin Narey has helped to drive further progress in recruiting new adopters.

Tremendous progress has been made, but more needs to be done. More than 3,000 children are still waiting to be adopted—to be matched with new parents. Sadly, more than half have already spent 18 months in care, despite enough approved adopters being readily available. Ministers are right to try to address this; it is so important because it is a matter of social justice. Children who experience a loving, stable family home in their early years are more likely to replicate that in later life in their own homes. Sadly, that is also the case vice versa. Children who do not experience supportive family life often experience other unfair disadvantages that are drivers of poverty, educational and employment challenges, physical and mental health issues, addictions, and debt and relationship problems often lasting well into adult years.

Clause 13 is important in promoting, as it will, best practice across regions. When trying to place a child from, say, east Cheshire for adoption, there is surely no reason to focus on east Cheshire families if a loving family in west Cheshire, or indeed nearby Staffordshire, provides the answer. Many of the current boundaries are arbitrary. I am pleased that Ministers want to break this down and ask local authorities and local adoption agencies to work collaboratively and creatively on the recruitment, assessment and approval of prospective adopters, and on decisions about the placement of children with families and ongoing support.

I understand that in the United States a form of “adoption speed dating”—my term—allowing children to meet prospective families is proving more successful than anticipated. Prospective adopters might have a particular picture in mind of the kind of child or the age of the child they want to adopt, but given the chance to meet several children in an informal atmosphere, they often realise that they can widen their ideas, and successful matches from such events are at positive levels. That is the kind of creative thinking that the Bill seeks to encourage.

I was surprised to discover that there are as many as 180 different councils and agencies recruiting and matching children for adoption. That number seems incredibly large, especially as some provide adoption for a relatively small number of children. The number of agencies must be bewildering for would-be adopters, so the possibility offered by the Bill for the rationalisation of those numbers should promote the sharing and increase of best practice, as well as assist would-be adopters.

Of course, there are currently no barriers to councils working together to streamline adoption services, so I am pleased that there are examples of good practice to lead the way. For example, Warrington, Wigan and St Helens councils are already working together in the north-west. I am pleased that councils will be able to draw on external expertise to make their arrangements. Coram, a successful voluntary adoption service, already works with councils, including Harrow, Kent and Cambridgeshire councils. They—and, more importantly, local children—are already benefiting from those joint-working arrangements.

I am pleased that the Minister is on record as stating that he would prefer regional adoption agencies to spring up organically and be organised locally—as opposed to being imposed by Whitehall—and in a form chosen by the local authority and/or registered adoption society. We are all agreed that, in this policy area, one size does not fit all, so I welcome the fact that the Government’s approach reflects that.

I know we are using the term “regional adoption agencies” to describe the outcome of the reforms, but it is worth saying that they do not have to meet some fixed definition of “regional”. Ministers have said that local councils are free to organise themselves however they see fit, as long as they achieve sufficient scale to drive the efficiencies we all want to see. New regional adoption agencies can work across county or regional boundaries, minimising the delays in matching children with new homes. We all know that is critical, as a few months can be a very long time in the life of a young child, with their attendant needs for development, security and a loving family. I welcome the Government’s commitment to practical and financial support to help to deliver those changes. I am confident that, with that support, the majority of local authorities will see the advantages of joint working.

Evidence suggests that councils tend to look for adopters in-house before looking for them in other councils, which can result in children waiting longer than need be for new families. The Bill’s proposals are therefore important, as they will produce a culture change. The Government are sending out a clear message that that should happen—hence the proposal that councils should form regional agencies voluntarily but that, through new powers, the Government could, if need be, require councils to combine their adoption functions if they fail to join services voluntarily within the next two years. That underlines the determination of the Government to see these changes happen.

I urge all Members across the House to support clause 13—indeed, I have heard no valid arguments as to why we should not do so.

20:53

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who I think kicked this sorry excuse of a Bill into next week.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on their maiden speeches today. It’s a lovely feeling when you’ve nailed it—I know what it’s like.

I come to this debate as a governor of Thorpe St Andrew school—an outstanding local authority school; I am very proud of it. I will direct my contribution to the education component of the Bill, starting with what I believe is one of its overarching aims, namely, to build on the work of the Education Act 2011. If that Act could be described as the ignition of an engine to drive the dismantling of our public education system, this Bill is intended to turbocharge it—as the PM might say, “Fire up the Quattro, Nicky!”

In my constituency of Norwich South, the vultures are not just circling in anticipation of the Bill’s passage; they are already hacking away at the juiciest cuts. The Inspiration Trust has its beady eye on the Hewett local authority school and the £60 million of land that it sits on—land that belongs to the people of my city, not to what is little more than a corporation masquerading as a so-called educational charity. A secretive, unaccountable corporation in all but name, it has links to the very heart of this Government in the form of Theodore Agnew—a Conservative party donor and non-executive board member initially at the Department for Education, but now at the Ministry of Justice. I am sure that irony has not been missed by the parents and pupils of Hewett, who have seen little in the way of justice when it comes to having a say in their school’s future. That situation will be faced by many more communities if the Bill is passed in its current form.

In saying that, I recognise that there are good and decent academy chains out there, such as the academies run by the Co-operative Academies Trust, which are genuinely accountable and act in the public interest to improve the education of our children. Alas, the Inspiration Trust is not one of them. The Bill worsens rather than improves the chances of holding it to account.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the other problems with the Bill is the lack of academies and sponsors who are able and willing to take on the number of schools that the Government intend to convert? The Co-operative can take on only so many schools. Is he concerned that the schools he describes in his constituency may have little choice other than to be forcibly taken over by the trust that he mentioned?

[Clive Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an important and alarming point. Like many other trusts, the Inspiration Trust has already gobbled up tens of millions of pounds worth of public land and buildings and now, emboldened by the Bill, it finds its appetite whetted for yet more pickings.

Last year, using freedom of information requests, an investigation by The Guardian revealed that academy schools have paid millions of taxpayer pounds into the private businesses of directors, trustees and their relatives.

[Rachael Maskell]

Given the case that my hon. Friend described from his constituency, does he agree that there are real points of concern in the Bill about the weaknesses of consultation not just on academy status, but on the identity of the sponsors?

[Clive Lewis]

My hon. Friend is right: there is neither sufficient consultation nor sufficient scrutiny.

Even a report for the Education Committee, with its Government majority, has said that

“checks and balances on academy trusts in relation to conflicts of interest are still too weak.”

Sadly I see nothing in the Bill to remedy that, and much to make it worse.

The Committee also questioned the so-called not for profit branding being used by many trusts and called for more regulation and greater transparency. Instead, the Bill offers less of both and fast-tracks academisation, removing any form of consultation and robbing communities even of the enfeebled fig-leaf consultations that the Academies Act 2010 offered.

A great Member of this House, the late Tony Benn, suggested five questions to ask those in power. I would ask them of the Inspiration Trust and many other academies. What power have they got? The answer: too much. Where did they get it from? From those on the Government Benches. In whose interests do they use it? Judging by the money that Theodore Agnew is pumping into the Conservative party, I speculate that it is not in ours. To whom are they accountable? According to the Education Committee, no one in particular. And the most important question of all: how do we get rid of them? We cannot.

I see nothing in this Bill that seriously challenges that glaring lack of democratic accountability. As Tony Benn said:

“Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 685.]

That goes to the heart of my argument about why we must oppose the Bill. This is not just a smash and grab on our public schools, their buildings, equipment and the very land they sit on, but an attack on the values that we on both sides of the House should hold dear—the values of democracy, accountability and transparency, especially when dealing with the allocation and use of public funds and giving local communities a real say in their children’s education.

A total of 145 academies are currently rated as inadequate, but nothing in the Bill deals with that. With the Education Committee this year saying that there was no evidence academisation in and of itself has improved educational standards, we have to question why the Bill is before the House. I cannot believe that it is on the basis of a fair and open-minded assessment of the best interests of our constituents and their children. It is their interests that I represent, however, and in their interests that I shall vote against the Bill and, instead, vote for the Opposition amendment. I urge the House to do the same.

20:59

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow so many excellent maiden speeches, especially those by Government Members who are former teachers and who called on the Secretary of State to tackle the crisis of morale, recruitment and retention among teachers, which they have obviously experienced. It is also an incredible pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who made excellent contributions on the principles of what I and many colleagues believe to be a Bill that fails to address its professed aims.

The guiding principles of any education Bill that leaves this House should be to improve the life chances of our children. It therefore troubles me that the Government are intent on pursuing academisation at all costs, regardless of the evidence or the potential impact on pupils, particularly the most disadvantaged. My broad concern is that the Bill will force the Secretary of State to force academisation, regardless of the specific circumstances of the school and even if there is a clear alternative path to improvement.

When the last Labour Government introduced the academies scheme, it was intended to offer greater resources, new leadership and a fresh start to struggling schools. That principle has been abandoned in the Government’s programme, which instils competition in the education system and imposes almost complete centralisation. Indeed, the Bill finally removes the local authority, governors and, most shockingly, parents from the consultation process, denying them a voice completely.

As hon. Members have indicated, clauses 1 and 7 not only increase the power of the Secretary of State to force academisation, but introduce a statutory duty on her to issue an academy order for any school rated inadequate by Ofsted. The Government have estimated that the process will lead to an extra 1,000 schools being converted into academies over the course of this Parliament. That will constitute the largest wave of forcible academisation since the inception of academies.

We have had little assurance from the Government that forcing the academisation of swathes of our schools will improve those schools or the life chances of their pupils. Indeed, as we have heard, finding sponsors who are capable of driving improvement in at least 1,000 new academies will not be easy. Voices from across the sector have raised concerns over whether the academy chains on offer are capable of driving improvement. The Sutton Trust, in its 2014 report, found that

“a majority of the chains analysed still underperform the mainstream average on attainment for their disadvantaged pupils.”

Even the Education Committee, just this year, concluded:

“Current evidence does not allow us to draw conclusions on whether academies in themselves are a positive force for change.”

Does that not get to the heart of the matter? In a headlong rush to pursue academisation at all costs, the Government are ignoring the evidence and failing to take account of the specific circumstances of schools. Surely the Secretary of State should be compelled to force academisation only if the evidence supporting academy status is overwhelming and largely unchallenged? The reality is anything but that.

If the Bill is allegedly about driving school improvement, surely the Secretary of State should at least operate consistently by signalling a move towards driving improvement among academies too. However, there is no parallel requirement for the Secretary of State to act if an academy is shown to be failing. There is not even provision for Osted to carry out inspections of academy chains, despite the Sutton Trust reporting that the poor results of some academy chains represent a “clear and urgent problem”.

Is the Bill not a clear case of the Government putting ideology first? That is particularly important, given the pressures that schools are currently under. Is it really wise to impose wholesale structural change on a school if the issues that are contributing to its underperformance are nothing to do with the structure of the school? The problem of school places and the vexed issue of teacher recruitment and retention, which I and hon. Friends have raised in this House on a number of occasions already in this Parliament, will not disappear upon academisation. Forcing the academisation of schools will do nothing to address those, the most significant of issues for our schools and children; in fact, it may even exacerbate the crisis.

With Department for Education figures showing a 33% under-subscription of teachers in the core STEM subjects for the year ahead, and with schools in my constituency not receiving a single application when putting out national adverts for science teachers, how does the Secretary of State expect the Bill to address the teacher shortage that is fast turning into a crisis? Surely, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), it would be better to have a Bill before us that focused on tackling the very real issues that our schools face—a Bill that put evidence at the heart of any changes. Instead, we have a draconian Bill that causes a further massive centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State.

If the Government’s primary interest is to drive up standards, I am afraid that this Bill would not pass that very test. With very little evidence to suggest that academisation drives up standards and with the Government doing nothing to drive up standards among failing academies, it seems wrong-headed for the Government to make the entire focus of the Bill a push to academise—regardless of whether it will improve schools or the life chances of schoolchildren. With such significant issues facing our schools and children, I am afraid that this Bill constitutes a missed opportunity to tackle the educational inequalities that scar many of our constituencies and to ensure that we have schools fit to provide the next generation with the education they deserve.

21:05

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate hon. Members who have made their initial contributions in today’s debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), and particularly for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). He and I between us have doubled Labour’s representation in the east—from not a lot to, sadly for us, not quite enough.

The Bill claims that schools should do better, and no one is going to disagree with that, but the real question is whether the Bill provides the best way to go about it. Representing an education city, where nearly 1,500 young people are attending schools rated as “less than good”, if one trusts that definition, I find that to be a question well worth asking.

The trouble is that the Bill does not address some of the obvious problems, such as inadequate funding. As a Cambridgeshire Member, I can hardly stand up today without pointing out the chronic long-term underfunding from which Cambridgeshire schools have suffered by comparison with other areas. It is worth pointing out that, partly as a consequence of foolish decisions made in the past by Conservative county councils, today’s young people should not be made to pay for the political errors of previous generations. As the Government consider the national funding formula, I urge them to create a long-term change that will correct this imbalance. The last Parliament saw some limited progress in that area, and produced a welcome, although relatively small, sum for Cambridge schools. This progress, however, will need to be improved massively if we are to bridge the funding gap that has so weakened investment in schools for decades.

I would ask—I am not entirely sure that it will be achieved—for any changes made to be done in an equitable way across the country, rather than being just a further cash grab at other parts of the country that have already suffered and lost out heavily. I would ask, too, that any such funding changes do not reduce the minimum funding guarantee for the most disadvantaged schools, where such an impact would again mean the worst-off schools disproportionately bearing the brunt of Government meddling in education.

I suspect that that point will resonate with many of the people I meet in schools—the headteachers, teachers and support staff to whom I speak regularly. The problem with the Bill, as so many others have noted, is that further structural change is not what is needed to improve schools. What we need are good teachers, good leaders, good support staff and a whole team highly motivated, well rewarded and well regarded. Sadly, we are a long way from that. As we have heard, a record number of teachers left the profession last year, and, as a combined result of these incessant cuts, the attack on morale and the exodus of over-worked teachers, even in a prosperous city such as Cambridge, 7% of the teaching workforce is unqualified, and in some schools, it is double that number.

[Christian Matheson]

Is my hon. Friend aware that these problems are not just happening in Cambridge? The headteacher of one school in the Chester area has for financial reasons been unable to appoint a qualified modern languages teacher, while a music teacher who happens to have a French A-level is teaching early-years French. The head of modern languages in that school has expressed concern to me that the children affected might be lost to languages for ever. That is entirely because of a lack of qualified teachers—and that is due, in turn, to a lack of resources for appointing them.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is shameful that in one of my schools one in seven teachers is unqualified, and parents are horrified by that. I entirely endorse his comments.

Another issue that is not addressed in the Bill is the bizarrely named Priority School Building programme, which appears to be neither a priority programme nor a building programme. As we discovered last week, its rate of achievement is running at something like 5%. In my constituency, we have the rare occurrence of a new build that is currently under construction, but to such an incredibly low standard that the school has had to sell off its own assets to fund a widening of the corridors. The original plans would have made them so narrow that it would have been a depressing building. Far from lifting standards and inspiring pupils in a disadvantaged area, it would have made the situation worse.

[Rachael Maskell]

At Tang Hall School in my constituency the children are freezing in the winter. They have to wear hoodies, and they are still not warm. Will that not have an impact on standards in that school, and should investment not be put into improving school buildings to improve standards?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed it should, and that resonates with those of us with long memories who remember what life was like under the Conservatives 20 years ago. We thought we’d got past that, didn’t we? If improving schools rather than cutting costs were the Government’s aim, they would be building to the highest standards, not the lowest.

I will conclude by reflecting on the acute pressure on school places, another issue that has not been addressed. In Cambridgeshire, which is a high-growth area, we expect to see a massive increase in numbers in the coming years. Is it not extraordinary that this pressing issue barely gets a mention in the Bill? It is not just a Cambridgeshire problem, because the situation is similar across the country. Why are the Government not addressing it?

A discussion on education is always welcome, but the Bill fails to address the issues that matter. Frankly, the problem is not so much coasting schools as a Government who do not understand the problem and so inevitably get the wrong answer—we could say, a Government who require improvement.

21:12

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have heard much discussion from Members on both sides of the House today, and a lot of questions have still not been answered. We are still trying to find out what “coasting schools” actually means. That term is central to the new powers provided in the Bill. Does the Minister not feel that the definition of that term should have been included in the Bill, so that we could be clear about the exact powers that we are voting on?

One of my biggest issues with the Bill is the huge number of powers that are being passed over to the Secretary of State, many of which are to be taken up by the regional schools commissioners, who have performance targets as part of their remit. Is there not a conflict of interest if those commissioners are to be rewarded for academising schools?

[Clive Lewis]

The regional schools commissioners report to the headteacher boards. In my constituency, one person who has been appointed to the headteacher board is Dame Rachel de Souza, who will now be making decisions on which schools will be academised and where there will be free schools. Does my hon. Friend not feel that there is something inherently wrong with that?

[Kate Osamor]

I totally agree, and that is what I want to ask the Minister. Does he not think that such people are wearing two hats, and that there is a grey area that needs more explaining?

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I say to the hon. Lady and to the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) that the Inspiration Trust is one of the most successful academy chains in the country and is transforming the quality of education in the part of the country that the hon. Gentleman represents. If I were in his shoes, I would go and see the Thetford academy and some of the other schools—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Minister, I want you to save some speech for later.

[Kate Osamor]

I would ask the Minister to be open, and to ensure that those of us representing constituencies where that could happen feel that it is above board. Until such time, that question will float. I would like him to answer it.

[Louise Haigh]

The debate is not just between my hon. Friend and the Minister. A great many other stakeholders should be involved in the process when academies want to take over schools, not least parents and governors. Does she agree that it is appalling that parents have been completely removed from the consultation process in academies?

[Kate Osamor]

Parents should be totally involved in the education of their children. In the new academisation process, parents are not on governing bodies, which is itself an issue that the Minister should look in to.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something curious—I welcome it—about the development of regional schools commissioners? Some of us will remember that, when the process first started, many of us suggested that things could not continue with everything being done from the centre. We now have regional schools commissioners. Does she agree that we might end up with that being further sub-divided—we might end up with something that is remarkably like local education authorities?

[Kate Osamor]

I totally agree with all the interventions apart from the Minister’s. On that ground, I will not support the Bill.

21:16

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is an early hour for me to be speaking in such a debate, but I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Labour Opposition to the Bill.

We have had a very good debate and a great number of contributions—in the end, we had, I think, 30 contributions from the Back Benches. We heard from the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), and the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who is in her place, made her maiden speech. I join those who have congratulated her on it. She told us that, prior to coming to the House, she had been a physics teacher, and had then decided to retrain as a stonemason. She offered her services to the House in the massive refurbishment that is likely to have to take place in years to come. I have to tell her—she may be disappointed—that, if she is not engaged by the House of Commons as a stonemason, unfortunately the Labour party will not be in need of the services of a stonemason for the foreseeable future, and probably never in the future will we need her services. I congratulate her on her maiden speech, which was extremely effective and fluent. I hope she makes many more such contributions during her time in the House.

We heard contributions from the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and a maiden speech from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), who is not yet back in his place. I am sure messages are being sent to hon. Members in the various corners of the building and that they are working very hard to return for the winding-up speeches.

The hon. Gentleman’s maiden speech was very fluent. He reminded us that he is not the only Berry in the House. [Interruption.] I welcome him back to his place. Before he arrived, I was just saying how much the House enjoyed his maiden speech, which I congratulate him on. I understand the problem he has been encountering with his parliamentary mail as a result of not being the only Berry in the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) and I share similar but not exactly identical names. On new year’s eve a couple of years ago, I was very briefly knighted by the Daily Mail online as a result of the similarities of our names. I had to explain that I was more shovelry than chivalry, and that the knighthood probably was not intended for me.

We also had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who movingly told us about the GCSE English teacher who made a great contribution to his life and future prospects. My hon. Friend is right: it is the quality of teaching that counts, so research shows, more than the quality of or the differences between schools. It is the difference between teachers in schools that is even more important, and we should all seek to raise the standing and quality of the teaching workforce. As a former teacher, I often meet ex-pupils in all sorts of places. They have not yet made any complaints, but I doubt that I would ever get as great an endorsement as the one my hon. Friend gave to his English teacher. I am sure that he will be very proud of the mention he got in the House.

We had speeches from the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), who spoke about adoption; from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown); and from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), who also told us that he was a former teacher and brought his expertise to the debate. I was going to say “Llongyfarchiadau” to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), but she is not yet back in her place—that is not her fault because the wind-up speeches started early. She made an impressive maiden speech and I congratulate her on it. I also congratulate her on her mastery of the Welsh language for someone who was born in London. It is far greater than mine, even though I was born in Wales.

We also had a maiden speech from the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), and he told us of his experience in the retail sector. We have that in common, as I was once a Saturday boy in Marks and Spencer, as well as a warehouse cleaner in Fine Fare, at 48.5p an hour, which shows how long ago it was—long before the Labour Government brought in the minimum wage.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), although I must correct her slightly. She referred several times to the Bill as “draft legislation”. It is understandable why, as a new Member, she might think it is a draft Bill, and many hon. Members have pointed out that it has the lack of quality of a draft Bill, but it is the actual Bill. This is what the Government have introduced, and they are asking us to give it a Second Reading. I am not surprised that she has decided not to support it tonight, given that in her eyes it is only a draft Bill.

We had a contribution from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson)—I am glad to see him in his place—who told us that his wife struggles to get our proceedings on broadband in his constituency, so that she can watch his speeches. I recommend the BBC Parliament channel, where his wife could join dozens of other viewers in enjoying our proceedings. [Laughter.]

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) spoke passionately and with great knowledge about adoption. We heard from the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who is not yet in her place. I am sure she will be with us shortly. We heard a very fine speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who put her finger on the shortfalls in the Bill. In particular, she emphasised its illiberality, and I will return to that issue later.

We had contributions from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who brought his great experience from the Education Committee, and pointed out that the Bill does not seem to be based on the Committee reports published earlier this year.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), who is in her place, told us that she had been a lay inspector, and I very much welcome the expertise she brought to the debate. In responding to my intervention, she showed the difficulty with the vagueness of the definition of coasting. She seemed to suggest that only inadequate schools could be deemed to be coasting. Obviously, there is a lot more we need to tease out in Committee on what exactly the Government’s thinking is on this matter. A lot of hon. Members seemed to suggest that they knew what a coasting school was, but there seemed to be very different interpretations of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke passionately about the importance of education and in particular the quality of teaching, and we heard from the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) emphasised that the Bill is deficient in not dealing with the key issue of teacher shortages, which we predict will be a problem in the next few years. The hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) made a very fine speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who spoke passionately about schools in his constituency and the need for all of us to be passionate about school improvement.

We had a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) made a brilliant speech and put his finger right on the problems in the Bill and why it is not worthy to be placed in front of the House of Commons. We had contributions from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). He took the trouble to congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches by saying: “It’s a lovely feeling when you’ve nailed it—I know what it’s like.” He did not add, “even if I say so myself.” He raised extremely important and powerful points about conflicts of interest and the use of public funds and public resources. I am sure we will hear more about that in the weeks to come.

We had a very fine speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). There were contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who spoke extremely well about schools in his constituency, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor). There were 30 contributions in all from the Back Benches and it was an excellent debate.

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

Fairer funding is vital to my area. Do the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party back the F40 fairer funding campaign that is so key to my constituents in Northumberland?

[Kevin Brennan]

I recommend to the hon. Lady the very good debate we had on this matter in Westminster Hall just before the end of the previous Parliament. I spoke for the Opposition and said we absolutely support fairer funding. If she would like to consult that debate—it is not the subject under discussion today—she will see our position in more detail.

We have had a very good debate. I will deal principally with the education part of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) dealt with the clauses on adoption, but there are a few points in relation to adoption that I would like to put on the record. I understand that the solution put forward in the Bill is extremely similar to the one the Government withdrew last year when the measures were put in front of the House of Lords. If I am wrong about that, I am sure the Minister will correct us in Committee, but it does seem that this is perhaps a second bite of the cherry. We will be interested to know from Ministers, if that is the case, why they have come back with this having withdrawn similar proposals extremely recently.

We are concerned about the impact on small specialist agencies and we are also worried about those children who may not be suitable for adoption. I am disappointed that the Bill has so little to say about special guardianship, kinship care, grandparents and long-term fostering. We will want to take up those issues in Committee.



I hope that Members on both sides of the House agree that, fundamentally, all of us—heads, teachers, support staff, governors, parents and even politicians—want the best for our children. I was going to say “politicians, and even parents”, because parents’ rights have been rubbed out by the Bill, but I decided against that in favour of trying to try to establish a point of consensus at the outset of my speech. If all of us want the best for our children, however, why do the Government consistently pursue paths that are not based on evidence of what is best for our children’s education? We have reached an extraordinary state of affairs. A Bill that was cobbled together during the two weeks after the election has been presented as if it were the answer to all the educational problems in the country, although it patently is not. As the Education Committee said earlier this year,

“the Government should stop exaggerating”.

The Bill has been so rushed and so inadequately drafted that it does not even provide a definition of its central term. Its first clause, on page 1, permits intervention in “Coasting schools”. We agree with the proposition that everyone should seek to tackle underperformance in schools, even schools that may be superficially performing well. Indeed, we championed it in government through, for example, the London Challenge and national challenge programmes. We introduced sponsored academies because we saw them as one way in which entrenched under- performance could be tackled, although not the only way. However, the Government have included the word “coasting” in the Bill without being able to tell anyone what it means. They have not been able to supply draft regulations to explain it in time for this debate, and I understand that they have now announced, through the usual channels, that they will not be able to supply such regulations in time for the start of the Committee stage. Perhaps we should rename this the Adoption and Education Bill, given that Ministers will have to deal with it back to front in Committee owing to their inability to provide a definition of “coasting” in time.

This is no way in which to make law that affects the education of millions of children throughout the country. A Bill should not be introduced when the Government cannot even explain or give a definition of its central term. I am reminded of a scene in the film “The Wrong Trousers”, starring Wallace and Gromit, when Gromit has to lay the track when the train is already racing along apace. If the Government cannot define “coasting” at the point when we are debating the Bill in the Chamber, they obviously deserve their own “inadequate” rating.

Why does the Bill have nothing to say about academies? Everyone who is involved in education knows that a school is a school, and that its success is built not on the nameplate on the sign outside, but on the quality of the leadership and teaching within. If the answer to turning around a failing school is always to make it an academy, what is the answer to turning around a failing academy? As the Secretary of State acknowledged recently, there are many of them—145, at the latest count—including IES Breckland, which is managed by a for-profit provider, and which has been deemed inadequate for more than a year without its sponsor being removed. So much for the right hon. Lady’s statement that

“a day spent in special measures is a day too long where a child’s education is concerned.”

That is not the case, it would seem, when the child attends an academy that is run by a favoured foreign edu-business. A fundamental flaw at the heart of the Government’s approach is that they do not even entertain that question in the Bill.

Why do the Government not listen to the Conservative councillor David Simmonds, the chairman of the Local Government Association’s children and young people board? He recently said:

“Hundreds of schools, often in disadvantaged areas, are being turned around thanks to the intervention of local councils.

It’s clear that strong leadership, outstanding classroom teaching and effective support staff and governors are the crucial factors in transforming standards in struggling schools.

We want to see bureaucratic barriers that have for a long time prevented councils from intervening swept away…We need to ensure that we focus our resources on ensuring there are enough outstanding school leaders, rather than on structures and legal status, as it is this which makes the difference we all want to see.”

That sounds to me like common sense from a Conservative councillor at the sharp end trying to deliver a quality local education, rather than the proclamations of remote Conservative Ministers who take their cue from right-wing think tanks and policy wonks with an ideological axe to grind.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Councillor Simmonds has also added to the debate about school places, particularly in London, where he is a representative? So many parents raise with us daily, in surgeries and emails, their worries about their three and four-year-olds. Indeed, we also need to be predicting that when they turn 13 there will be a secondary school crisis.

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree with that and say to my hon. Friend that teacher recruitment and the problem she raises are serious lacunas in the Bill.

The comments I cited sound like common sense from a Conservative councillor because this Bill is not only severely undercooked, but breathtakingly illiberal and in direct opposition to the Government’s professed desire to devolve power to communities. Let us be clear about this: the Bill seeks not only to extend the power of the state, as exercised by the Secretary of State, who is not even listening, to impose its will locally, but to remove the ability of local communities to object to, or even to make representations against, the exercise of that state power. We can see that she does not like to listen because she will not listen to local communities or even to the debate in this House. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but what of power wielded by the state without even the right to make representations against its use, which in addition creates a duty to conform, comply, co-operate and promote the exercise of that state power? How have we reached a state of affairs in Conservative education policy where that is regarded as democratically acceptable? It would seem that not only does the Prime Minister not know the meaning of the words “Magna Carta”, as we saw on David Letterman’s TV show, but, as Tony Hancock might have put it, the poor Hungarian peasant girl did after all “die in vain”.

This is a horrible little Bill in so far as it extends to education. It is more of an election slogan than a piece of genuine education statute, written in a rush, out of a need to do something rather than the need to do the right thing. It could be so different: we could be recognising that real school improvement is based on the sort of approach taken by Sir David Brailsford, who took the Great Britain Olympic cycling team to such great heights. It could have been based on teamwork, collaboration, and a passion for excellence, success and the accumulation of marginal gains, not on a fetish with structures and policies that are unfounded in evidence. Perhaps we could have an educational equivalent of NICE—the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—and have a national institute for clear evidence in education policy, which would put a stop to the educational quackery of Ministers, which leads to the empty “exaggeration” so heavily criticised earlier this year by the Education Committee. Then, perhaps, we could agree with a vision based on that insight I mentioned at the outset, which is that deep down we all want the best for our children.

We should therefore have a vision where we promote partnership and collaboration to raise standards, with an inspection system where quality inspectors provide challenge and support, rather than having low-quality private contractors. We could have a system where standards trump structures and where every child matters. Despite the claim in the explanatory notes that the Bill intends

“to improve education for all children”,

those in coasting or failing academies are ignored by the Bill. We could have a vision where: parents are listened to; teachers are trusted; school admissions are made fairer; special needs are taken seriously; genuine social mobility is promoted; more than the one pathway to success—GCSE, A-level and then university—is valued and promoted; more than data matter; and exams are not used as a tool to narrow education but as an instrument to accredit broad and balanced learning. We could have a system that believes in more than teaching to the test.

To be an educator or a teacher is an incredible privilege. It is one that I was fortunate enough to enjoy for many years. It is a very hard job. It is much harder, believe it or not, than being a Member of Parliament, and it is so much more than what is envisaged in this dreary Bill. To be a legislator is also a privilege, and we can do much better than this.

21:40

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

This has been an excellent debate on issues that could not be more important to hon. Members and to the country. In 2010, the coalition Government inherited a legacy of stagnation. The voices of complacency told us that all was well—key stage 2 results were rising and GCSE grades were inflating. But the reliable data told a different story. International benchmarks consistently showed that our schools were failing to progress, while those elsewhere—in Poland, Germany, Austria and Estonia, for example—were leaving us behind.

The adoption system was too bureaucratic and time consuming and left some of our most vulnerable children waiting too long. We were not prepared to accept the status quo. Our reforms of education and adoption over the past five years have been the most radical and far-reaching for a generation. They have led to dramatic improvements across the country.

Today, 100,000 more six-year-olds are on track to become confident readers as a result of our focus on phonics. Some 200,000 fewer pupils are persistently absent from school compared with five years ago, and more than 1 million more children now attend a good or outstanding school than in 2010.

The work of the Minister for Children and Families to improve the adoption system meant that, last year, more than 5,000 children were found the permanent home that they desperately needed—a record increase of 26% in just 12 months. It is now around four months quicker for children to be placed in a stable loving home.

Such improvements have been secured thanks to the hard work and expertise of teachers, social workers and adoption teams. They are all motivated by the same passion for building a fairer society, in which every child reaches their potential, regardless of their background. Despite their efforts, too many children are still not getting the start in life that they deserve. Even after the rapid improvements of the past five years, 1.5 million children still attend schools that are less than good.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Schools in my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills are a key issue. I welcome this Bill. May I put in an early plea for a ministerial visit, so that I can show the Minister the good things and the challenging aspects of the education system in my constituency?

[Mr Gibb]

I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Chief Whip is in his place, and I am sure that he will allow an early visit.

[Wes Streeting]

The Minister is more than welcome to visit my constituency, as he did during the election campaign. I very much enjoyed playing the recorder with him. Given the stab that Government Members have made at defining a coasting school, will he put us out of our misery and give us his definition of a coasting school? He has not yet told us.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman will just have to be patient. I will say a bit more about that later.

By strengthening our ability to turn around failing and coasting schools, the Bill will ensure that more children receive a good education, regardless of background, neighbourhood or circumstance.

The adoption system remains fragmented and inefficient. Around 180 different adoption agencies currently recruit and match adopters to children in need of a caring, stable home. That over-localised system cannot deliver the best service to some of our most vulnerable children. We are therefore introducing regional adoption agencies, which will work across local authority boundaries and in partnership with voluntary adoption agencies, to find the right homes for children without delay. That policy was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), who spoke powerfully about the need for ongoing adoption support.

We had some excellent speakers and speeches in the debate, but we also had one not so excellent speech from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who wanted to know when he could see the definition of the word “coasting”. He should not be so concerned about the definition of “coasting”, because his performance today falls squarely in the “failing” category, which is very well defined. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we intend to publish draft regulations on the definition of coasting schools for full parliamentary scrutiny in Committee. We can be clear now about the principles that will underpin the definition. This is fundamentally about social justice and a coasting school is one in which pupils are not reaching their potential. Will the hon. Gentleman support that definition?

[Tristram Hunt]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he now provide us with the legal definition of a coasting school, given that we are voting on his Bill in exactly 13 minutes? What is the legal definition?

[Mr Gibb]

We have made it very clear that the hon. Gentleman will see the legal definition of a coasting school on the first day in Committee. He will have plenty of time to table amendments to clause 1 in Committee.

We have had some excellent maiden speeches today, including that from the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who cited the recent education initiative in Scotland, the 1496 Education Act, and pointed out the challenge of having aspiration when living in destitution. Of course, only aspiration and education provide an escape route from destitution. That is the whole objective of our education reforms.

In a moving maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), I was struck by his Reginald Perrin-like commute on the 6.41 from Surbiton. I noted also that his parents were both teachers, and we were all—[Hon. Members: “There he is.”] He moved—perhaps on the 6.41 from Surbiton. We were all saddened to hear that his father died soon after his selection as a parliamentary candidate. The same thing happened to me in 1996.

[James Berry]

May I follow my maiden speech with a request that the Minister meet me and other new colleagues who are passionate about increasing social aspiration through education, so that we can share with him our experiences and examples of best practice locally?

[Mr Gibb]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. That sounds like an invitation to meet in the Palace of Westminster, so I am sure that the Chief Whip will allow it to happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton made very clear his commitment to education and high aspiration for all children, which I have no doubt were inspired by his parents. We also heard a passionate maiden speech from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who had some interesting ideas about how we can ensure a Conservative majority in the House of Lords by culling some of the Labour Members.

In a humorous maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), a former primary school teacher, fretted about how his first contribution would be rated by Ofsted, but I can tell him that the Secretary of State has intervened and graded his first speech as outstanding. He is right to believe that real Ofsted inspections should be done with and not to schools.

In an honest and thoughtful maiden speech, the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) pointed out that the education system in Wales is sliding down the international league tables. That country has steadfastly refused to follow the reform programmes that we have introduced in this country.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that when I was on “Any Questions?” with Carwyn Jones, who is the leader of the Welsh Government, he told me and the listeners to BBC Radio 4 that the Labour Welsh Government had taken their eye off the ball on education? His words, not mine.

[Mr Gibb]

I think Mr Jones is absolutely right, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

In a funny and self-deprecatory maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) described how he was slightly taken aback by the ease and grace with which his employer took his resignation from the company on his election to Parliament. He made a serious point, however, about the importance of a good-quality education to a good start in life—something this Government are committed to giving to every young person.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), in an excellent maiden speech, expressed concern about the quality of broadband in parts of his constituency. Given the quality of his speech, I do hope that his wife managed to live stream it. My hon. Friend has already become an active member of the F40 group and today he again made the compelling argument for fairer funding. He also mentioned apprenticeships and, more broadly, the value of people working their way up to gaining experience in work. The Government are committed to 3 million apprenticeship starts over this Parliament, building on 2.2 million starts since 2010. These are real, paid jobs with real training.

A number of Opposition Members claim that the Government are wrong to pursue sponsored academy status to turn around failing or coasting schools, but it is the success of the academies programme over the past five years, and indeed before that, that gives us confidence that this is the right approach. The chief inspector of schools, in his annual report, wrote that:

“Overall, sponsor-led academies have had a positive and sustained impact on attainment in challenging areas”.

That is backed up by results that show that sponsored academies are improving their performance faster than maintained schools.

[Christian Matheson]

Is it not the case that Ofsted recently dispensed with the services of up to 40% of its inspectors? Does not that call into question the quality of some of the more recent school inspections?

[Mr Gibb]

Including the outstanding grade awarded to St Martin’s Academy in the hon. Gentleman’s Chester constituency? I would not be too scathing about Ofsted judgments if I were him.

Secondary schools that have been academies for four years have GCSE results that are, on average, six percentage points higher than results in the predecessor school. By comparison, results in local authority maintained secondary schools are, on average, 1% higher now than they were in 2010. For example, Outwood Academy Portland in Nottinghamshire became a sponsor-led academy in June 2012. In 2012, the proportion of pupils achieving five good GCSEs was just 57%; last year, the figure had jumped to 76%. There are many more examples that show how a school being an academy improves academic standards.

The Bill is about social justice. It is another important step to ensuring that all our state schools are delivering the quality of education currently found in only the best and that our adoption system is swift and efficient, so children can escape the unhappiness of a life of neglect or the uncertainty of life in care as swiftly as possible.

This Bill is about one nation—more action to ensure that schools in weak local authority areas such as Knowsley are as strong as schools in the best performing parts of the country; further progress to ensure that every child is a fluent reader by the age of 6, not just at Ark Priory Primary Academy in Ealing, but in every school in the land, and that every child is fluent in arithmetic and knows their times tables by the age of 9. We want every parent’s local secondary school to be preparing their children for life in a competitive world, and giving their children the best academic education, the best GCSEs, the best preparation for work, college or an apprenticeship, and the best preparation for entry into the best universities. We want that standard to be high in north Yorkshire, Blackpool, London, Birmingham, the west country and throughout the nation, in rural areas and on our coasts. That is what we mean by one nation.

We want those standards for everyone, regardless of social or economic background. That is what we mean by social justice. It involves taking on the vested interests, which is why in this Bill we are asking for the powers to say no to those who frustrate or delay improvement—enemies of aspiration and rigour. If hon. Members across the House believe in social justice, and if they believe in a one-nation education system, I urge them to support this Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:56

Division 22

Ayes: 193

---

Labour: 191
Independent: 1

Noes: 308

---

Conservative: 306
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Education and Adoption Bill (Programme)

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Education and Adoption Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 14 July 2015.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(George Hollingbery.)

Question agreed to.

education and adoption Bill (money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order no. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education and Adoption Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(George Hollingbery.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps I can appeal for the co-operation of colleagues. They should follow the example of the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who is leaving the Chamber in a most decorous manner, as is his wont. If colleagues are, unaccountably, declining to stay to listen to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), perhaps they could leave quickly and quietly so that we can hear the thrust of his case on stone theft.

Stone Theft

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

22:11

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I am delighted to have been granted this Adjournment debate on stone theft, which is plaguing my local communities in the Colne and Holme valleys and Lindley. There have been some light-hearted comments about the unexplained disappearance of a certain slab of stone with writing on it towards the end of the general election campaign; however, for my constituents, stone theft is extremely serious. Our heritage is being systematically dismantled.

Stone theft in my beautiful part of West Yorkshire has reached epidemic proportions. For the past two years I have been receiving weekly reports from my local West Yorkshire police of multiple stone thefts. Many constituents have told me of their first-hand experiences of this ever-increasing crime. Homes, schools, farms and places of worship have been victims of thieves snatching building materials. Roof tiles, topping stones on dry stone walls, York stone path slabs and many other types of stone are being systematically stolen. Some are clearly being sold on. Others are being used by rogue builders so that they do not have the expense of sourcing their own materials.

Scapegoat Hill Junior and Infant School was targeted by stone thieves twice in less than a fortnight. Slates were stolen from the school roof overnight. They were replaced at great expense, but just a couple of days after the scaffolding had come down they were stolen again.

Places of worship have been repeatedly targeted. A freedom of information request by my local newspaper, the Huddersfield Examiner, to West Yorkshire police has revealed that since 2012 building materials have been by far the most commonly stolen items from religious buildings in my area. Shockingly, the figures show that thieves have targeted places of worship in Kirklees 132 times in the past three years. Earlier this year, 200-year-old Yorkshire stone paving slabs were ripped up from Christ Church in Linthwaite. Replacing them cost in excess of £2,000. Nowhere has been safe from this crime.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this crime is far more prevalent than people appreciate? Last year, in my own village of Pendleton, Mr Tony Ormiston had eight slabs removed from his backyard. It seems to me that stone theft is not taken as seriously as it should be.

[Jason McCartney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is why I wanted to highlight this issue. The problem is of epidemic proportions in my constituency, where we have so much wonderful stone, whether it is on pathways or stone walls, or on buildings and places of worship. That is why I wanted to bring the matter before the House.

A constituent from South Crosland has told me how distressing it was when just two weeks ago vehicles pulled up in the middle of the night at their farm and thieves took away the topping stones of their boundary walls. Those walls have marked the boundary of their farm for hundreds of years. The toppings on the walls are very old black-faced local sandstone and hard to replace.

Another constituent from Colne Valley told me that the theft of stone slates is totally out of hand in the valley and has asked for the sale of stone to be registered in the same way as scrap metal. I shall come to that in a moment. Meanwhile, just up the road in Leeds, in the past year, Leeds City Council has replaced £50,000-worth of York stone stolen from pavements across the city—an increase of more than 50% on the previous 12 months. That comes at a time when local council budgets are tight. It is costing tens of thousands of pounds, and as I have said, these are far from victimless crimes.

I am proud that the coalition Government acted very quickly to tackle metal theft. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, which requires dealers to hold a licence to trade and gave councils powers to deal with rogue businesses, slashed the number of metal thefts. The targeted operations against unscrupulous scrap metal dealers, in conjunction with police and local agencies, resulted in more than 1,000 arrests for theft and related offences, and police seized more than 600 vehicles involved in that kind of criminality. Statistics show a 40% fall in the number of offences in the first three months after the passage of that Act, to the end of March 2013, compared with the three months to the end of June 2012, so the action taken then was incredibly successful against metal thefts. We are looking at that sort of action to try to curb the crime of stone theft.

I would like to praise West Yorkshire police for their action so far in tackling the epidemic of stone thefts in my part of West Yorkshire. They have launched a campaign using SmartWater. The Kirklees safer communities partnership acquired funding to protect walls in the area with SmartWater—for those who do not know, that is a uniquely coded forensic liquid that shows up under an ultraviolet lamp. It means that stone merchants or police can easily identify whether stone is stolen, and if so, it can be traced back to its original location. Letters went to hundreds of homes, warning residents of the dangers of stone theft and advising ways to protect their home and property. A similar project that operated in my area recently led to a temporary reduction in incidents of stone theft.

Many of these thefts take place in broad daylight with thieves posing as workmen—sometimes they are even brazen enough to wear dayglo jackets—so vigilance is definitely required. In the last week, West Yorkshire police have had a publicity campaign with Yorkshire’s world-famous landscape artist Ashley Jackson highlighting that the theft of stone from our beautiful stone walls causes great damage to our countryside and our heritage. I have the leaflet here, which says:

“Yorkshire Stone. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. Our landscape is not replaceable so let’s stop the thieves from taking it. Stone theft and the removal of old stone tiles from roofs might look innocent activity. Examples of where this could be happening include a rural location, outside a church, from someone’s garden or in the middle of a town or village. You have no way of knowing if it is a job of work or a theft.”

The police advise:

“See it, note it, let’s hang on to our Yorkshire.”

That is the scale of the problem. I appreciate that this is not as straightforward as tackling metal theft, as the materials are not always sold on immediately for cash. However, I will finish with three specific policy requests. First, I would like there to be a dedicated stone theft taskforce, like the one that was set up to tackle metal theft in 2011. Secondly, I would like there to be a national and regional awareness campaign so that householders and businesses that deal with stone, tiles and paving slabs check where they are from, and so that the public can challenge those who pose as workmen in dayglo jackets, whether they are ripping up stone pavements or taking off roof tiles. Finally, I would like to see an increase in the fines that are handed out to those who are convicted and the introduction of exemplary punishments to deter these extremely antisocial criminals.

Our heritage is being stolen, brick by brick. Let us tackle the scourge of stone theft, as we did metal theft.

22:22

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to reply to my first Adjournment debate of the Parliament. The subject caused some smirks among my colleagues when I mentioned it to them, but they would realise that they were wrong to do so if they knew what was happening in their constituencies and in Colne Valley.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on securing this debate. His comments concentrated on heritage and high-value stone. In general, stone has become a very expensive commodity. It is used in myriad different ways in our communities. Often, people do not know whether it is old or not, because it can be made to look old and it matures quickly.

Stone theft is not new, but has been going on for many years. Once, I was a young man, Mr Speaker, and as a fireman in Essex, I would go and fish off Canvey island on my off days. Many Members will know that Canvey island flooded badly back in 1952. I used to beach-cast off the point and sometimes, in the early hours, just as it was getting light, I would suddenly see some characters creeping around. I was sure that they were not fishermen, because I knew the community quite well. In fact, people were stealing stones from the breakwater—the walls that protected an area that is prone to flooding. That was some 30 years ago. Mobile phones were not available then and it was difficult to report it. When I had conversations with the police, which firemen often did, they said that it was known to them, but very difficult to handle.

This is an opportune moment for my hon. Friend to bring this matter to the House. As he said, the Government acted quickly on scrap metal and iron. Appallingly, some historic pieces of wrought iron vanished from our streets and communities, just to be melted down for scrap. In my constituency, people were injured in industrial areas when they fell down places where the grates had been removed. People walking their normal routes to work in the morning, particularly during the winter, went straight down the drains. That was very dangerous indeed.

As this is such an important issue, people would be right to assume that West Yorkshire and other constabularies are doing their best to tackle it. I will rule out nothing that my hon. Friend has asked for this evening. We are already working on two of the three things he asked for and I will touch on those in a moment. However, it is much more difficult than introducing the sanctions and licensing that we brought in for metal, as I am sure he understands.

The chief constable for my area, Chief Constable Andy Bliss of the Hertfordshire Constabulary, heads up the efforts against heritage theft in the United Kingdom on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I have raised this matter with him and he knows about it, not least because the milestones were stolen in my constituency. You know my constituency well, Mr Speaker. I have the great privilege of having Watling Street, the Roman road, going through my constituency. Interestingly, we got back the milestones that were stolen from it, but it was the public who were the eyes and ears in that.

We often think of neighbourhood watch as being in our towns and cities, but it is vital in our rural communities as well. Over recent years, neighbourhood watch has come together well to tackle such thefts, particularly from farms. SmartWater has helped to prevent expensive farm machinery from being stolen, often to order. I am pleased to hear that West Yorkshire police is using SmartWater, which requires infrared light to see that something has been marked.

It is not just about stone, and it is not just about heritage; it is about slate; basically, where people feel they can make a profit, they steal. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have legislation on the statute book. Across the country, police forces are aware of the problems and are treating them seriously. As Policing Minister, I say to the 43 authorities under my control that they need to take this matter enormously seriously. I expect it to be brought up and addressed at the next chiefs’ meeting.

The Crown Prosecution Service already has 14 specialised prosecutors in this area. I will meet the Solicitor General in the next couple of days to ensure that we know exactly where they are based, and I will then write to my hon. Friend. I do not want to give out too much information about where they are based, because we need to surprise some of those people who think they can get away with whatever they feel like. We need to have some high-profile prosecutions and ensure that the full force of the law is brought down on them.

The impact of this sort of theft is not isolated. It is not just a theft on a farmer or on a local authority or on the breakwaters that protect our coastline. As has been alluded to, it is about where the money could have been spent otherwise. If people are involved in this sort of criminality, they are often involved in other sorts of criminality. One thing we must ensure is that we have a publicity campaign. When people purchase these stones, they need to ask where they come from. It is often the case that if we start asking questions, the people standing on the doorstep trying to sell them to us vanish quite quickly—I was asked recently whether I wanted cash-in-hand building work done on my house, and when I told them what I did for a living, they vanished rather quickly. They were obviously not from my area. It is important to recognise that we, the public, have a responsibility as well; it is not just an issue for the police and prosecutors.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

One big issue in my constituency during the two years of my listening campaign was rural crime. That was a pressing problem, particularly in the east Northamptonshire villages. The Northamptonshire police are dealing with it in two ways. The first is through introducing a parish special scheme, which will have a “volunteer special” on the beat and available to local residents so that they can have some reassurance and be able to report things. The second is that we are seeing much more cross-border policing through the “futures” policing scheme, which I think is welcome. Does the Minister agree that what we need is more police officers out on the beat, catching criminals and deterring crime on a continual basis?

[Mike Penning]

That is a leading question. Let us start with the first point. The specials play a vital role in our communities. Long before I was the Policing Minister, I had the pleasure of launching in my own constituency not only rural specials, but mounted rural specials. Members of the rural community felt that they were able to be out there protecting their own livelihoods and homes. Even though we have had these difficult times of austerity over the last five years, there are in percentage terms more officers in uniform on the beat than there were before 2010—and, of course, crime has dropped by 20% across the nation as a whole. We must not be complacent: as crime changes, police forces must change the way in which they detect different sorts of crime. I cannot think of a better group of people to serve as rural specials than the people who live in the constituency, who know the people that live there and actually feel part of the community. Anybody listening to this evening’s debate—I am sure there will be millions—can hear my encouragement: please sign up to be a special; it is never too late to do so; the age restrictions on the specials are very generous.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on his successful Adjournment debate. He asked for exemplary sentencing. Does the Minister agree with me that exemplary sentences just might wake up the criminals to the fact that what they are doing is a crime and might also deter others?

[Mike Penning]

If I could just finish my point about the specials, I will come back to my hon. Friend’s point.

The point about specials has been proven in the House. Two of our colleagues have been specials in the British Transport police until recently, serving their community in parts of London.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about sentences, but we have to catch people first and ensure that we understand the value of the products that have been stolen and the effects on the community. That is why, as I said earlier, the CPS is so important. We have specialist prosecutors, but the judiciary also have to understand the will of Parliament, which is probably one of the best reasons for reiterating tonight that stone theft is such a serious crime. It is often organised crime, which is another part of my portfolio. Organised crime does not always mean millions and millions of pounds of goods being stolen, but in my opinion orchestrated crime such as we are discussing is organised crime.

It is important that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House. I was slightly concerned when my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley indicated right at the start of his speech that a certain stone that the Labour party owns may have gone missing. If so, I understand that it has not been reported to the police. However, we are talking this evening about high-value stone, not a stone that was a complete waste of time and effort, even though Great British craftsmen probably made it for the Labour party.

On a serious note, our heritage is what we are sent here to protect, whether it be here in this great House where we are lucky enough to work, a piece of milestone on Watling Street, the A5, in my constituency, or something in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who are here this evening. We must highlight to our communities that it is their job, as well as the police’s job, to ensure that we catch the criminals in question, that they are prosecuted and that the full force of the law comes down on them.

Question put and agreed to.

22:31

House adjourned.

OBSERVATIONS

Monday 22nd June 2015 Petitions

Urgent care centre at Chippenham Hospital

Monday 22nd June 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the Chippenham constituency,

Declares that an urgent care centre at Chippenham Hospital is needed to improve access to urgent health services and to relieve pressure on nearby Accident and Emergency departments.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to fund an Urgent care centre at Chippenham Hospital as proposed by Chippenham’s GPs.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Duncan Hames, Official Report, 25 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 1544.]

[P001486]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Health:

In October 2013, the Prime Minister announced a new £50 million challenge fund to help improve access to general practice and stimulate innovative ways of providing primary care services. The first wave of 20 pilots was announced in April 2014.

The Government asked NHS England to lead the process of inviting practices to submit innovative bids and overseeing the pilot schemes.

NHS England invited GP practices to submit their ‘expressions of interest’ (EOIs) to be one of the first wave of pilots in December 2013, before selecting the final list of successful schemes in April 2014. Twenty pilot schemes were selected that are benefiting over 7 million patients across more than 1,100 practices.

A wide variety of innovative ideas are being tested including extended opening hours, more ways for patients to access services and new services to better support patients with complex needs.

Further funding of £100 million for 2015-16 was announced by the Prime Minister on 30 September 2014 for a second wave.

NHS England launched the second wave of applications to become a pilot following the September 2014 announcement on 29 October 2014. Applications to become a wave two pilot closed on 16 January 2015 with 156 applications received.

NHS England confirms that no further bids were received in relation to urgent care centres in Chippenham. The configuration of local health care services is the responsibility of the local clinical commissioning group (CCG), and I am informed by NHS England that Wiltshire CCG is considering its plans for the development of Urgent care services at Chippenham Hospital.

Written Statements

Monday 22nd June 2015 Written Statements

Monday 22 June 2015

Gifting of Equipment to the Kurdish Regional Government

Monday 22nd June 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

I am laying a departmental minute today concerning the gifting of military equipment to the Government of Iraq (GOI), including the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). This is at the request of the KRG.

The UK is providing extensive support to the GOI in the continuing fight against ISIL, with the gifting of equipment forming a significant part of this. Previously, HMG has gifted 50 tonnes of non-lethal support, 40 heavy machine guns and nearly half a million rounds of ammunition to the Kurdish Peshmerga. The latest equipment to be gifted to the Peshmerga consists of additional medical supplies. The supplies will consist of items such as tourniquets, bandage kits and dressings for wounds and will fill a significant gap in their resources, leading to the preservation of life and proper treatment of injuries sustained in combat.

It is estimated that the total cost of the equipment will be approximately £600,000, although this may change dependent on the need of the KRG.

[HCWS45]

G6 Dresden

Monday 22nd June 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from the six largest European Union countries held its most recent meeting in Dresden on 1 and 2 June 2015. Representatives of the United States of America and the European Commission attended for part of the meeting.

The summit was chaired by the German Federal Minister of the Interior, Thomas de Maiziere and I represented the United Kingdom. The other participating states were represented by Jorge Fernandez Diaz (Spain), Teresa Piotrowska (Poland), Bernard Cazeneuve (France), and Filippo Bubbico (Italy). The USA was represented by Alejandro Mayorkas (Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security) and Loretta Lynch (US Attorney General). The European Commission was represented by Dimitris Avramopoulos (Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship).

The first two sessions took place on 1 June. The first consisted of a discussion on the upcoming JHA Council and organised crime, with a focus on burglary and vehicle theft. On the latter, the hosts explained that both crimes are on the increase in Germany and are often committed simultaneously by organised gangs who move around Europe. A number of other countries have experienced the same problem. In the UK car crime and burglary are falling. The second session was a discussion on co-operation on migration and refugee policy with third countries. The Commission set out its proposals. In the ensuing discussion, G6 members exchanged views on the scale of the problem facing EU, the scale of the response needed and the importance of member states fulfilling their obligations under the Dublin regulation.

On Tuesday 2 June, the third session covered Islamist terrorism with a focus on current developments and the prevention of radicalisation. Germany, along with other G6 countries, has seen large numbers of residents leave to fight in Syria or Iraq. A number of those have subsequently returned and discussion focused on how best to prevent member state nationals leaving their home countries and how best the movements of foreign fighters can be monitored. The fourth session was a discussion on international co-operation on cyber-crime. As technology progresses and cloud computing grows, cyber-crime is becoming an increasingly borderless crime. The G6 members discussed how best we are able to co-operate to address the problem and considered the implementation of the Budapest convention on cyber-crime.

In my interventions, I outlined the large amount of work the UK is doing to address the current migratory pressures including supporting regional protection programmes, the deployment of UK vessels in the Mediterranean and our work to disrupt the groups carrying out organised immigration crime. In that context, I reiterated the UK’s opposition to mandatory burden sharing at EU level. During the session on organised crime I highlighted the opportunities that are offered by the proactive use of the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SISII) to identify lost and stolen vehicles. When discussing the prevention of radicalisation I highlighted the need for the G6 countries to challenge the ISIL narrative and disprove the claims ISIL make. I also stressed the need for the passenger name record (PNR) directive to allow member states to share information about the passenger movements, including those of foreign fighters, and the importance of allowing the collection of data on flights within the European Union. At the final session on cyber-crime I reiterated the UK’s support for the implementation of the Budapest convention and the need for international co-operation given the international nature of the crime.

I announced at the meeting that the next G6 will take place in the UK in November 2015.

[HCWS46]

House of Lords

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Monday, 22 June 2015.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Oaths and Affirmations

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

14:36

Lord Elystan-Morgan took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

General Practitioners

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Baroness Wheeler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of general practitioners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on Friday the first steps of a new deal for general practice. This includes working to increase the primary and community care workforce by at least 10,000, including an estimated 5,000 more doctors working in general practice. We will do this through promoting general practice as a career, increasing training places, encouraging people to return and considering how best to retain staff.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome the Minister to his first Questions in the House. I thank him for his response and for whatever role he played in bringing about Friday’s announcement, ready for this Question. The Health Education England incoming chair recently told the Guardian:

“GP recruitment is what keeps me awake at night”.

Under this new package, will he have to wait until 2020 to get a decent night’s sleep or will the Government take note of the urgent call from the Royal College of General Practitioners for a clear and costed plan, and a timescale for turning it all into reality, so that we can make progress from now onwards?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Baroness will know that NHS England recently published its Five Year Forward View, which is a five-year plan for the future. It will encourage much more care, delivered outside hospitals, in the community, and that will require larger input from general practice. I am very pleased to tell the noble Baroness that we are committed to 5,000 more doctors working in general practice.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I wonder whether he agrees that the Government are being very complacent on this issue. I passed my GP surgery in a small ex-mining town in the north-east this weekend. On the door I read that there were 11 or 12 sessions in the next month when the GP practice would not be open—that is, from Monday to Friday. Is it not true that the model is broken and that young doctors coming into GP practice do not want to be partners and have the responsibility of running a small business as well? Is not the model broken? When we look at what is going on in areas where health outcomes are poorer, is it not urgent that the Government pay more serious attention to that?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Baroness speaks a good deal of truth. The model that we have been working with since 1948 in this country is largely broken. We have to deliver more care through vertically integrated units of care, not just independent hospitals. Over the next five to 10 years we will see a huge consolidation of primary care. The old cottage industry model of general practice is probably broken. The Five Year Forward View recognises that and the Government have committed £8 billion to see that forward view put into practice.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, I do not know where the Minister spends his time, but where I come from, in the country, you have to travel 18 miles to a hospital or a GP practice at the weekend. That is very difficult when you have groups of elderly people. In the rest of the country—even in the city where I spend my city time—GPs are now saying that practices are to be closed and people are waiting three weeks for an ordinary assessment. Can the Minister tell us why the Government are not seeing what is happening on the ground and taking more urgent action?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The Government are committed to seeing 5,000 new GPs. This is probably the biggest expansion of primary care that we have seen for many years. It is not just 5,000 GPs but a further 5,000 people working in primary care, including physician associates, practice nurses, physiotherapists and other allied health professionals.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that, although the analysis that the noble Lord has given us is very accurate, the solutions that he seems to be putting forward are not very clear? Can he say what incentives he and his colleagues will offer young medical students beginning their training to encourage them to go into general practice? It is fine to say that we will train 5,000 more doctors, but we cannot force them into general practice if they do not want to go.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Baroness is quite right. After five years as a medical student, they then do two foundation years before making the choice whether to become a GP or to go into specialist medicine. That is a crucial time to persuade young doctors that there is a good, long-term career in general practice. Health Education England and NHS England are putting huge resources into persuading young doctors at that stage in their career that there is a good future in general practice. I say to the noble Baroness that there is no doubt at all in my mind that, if we run the clock forward five years, more care will be delivered in primary practice and in the community than in acute hospitals.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I declare inside information, in that my daughter is a trainee GP. I asked her about these issues last night. In Cheshire and Wirral there are vacant training places with no GP trainees to take them. On asking her why people did not want to go into general practice, she said that it is the growing burden of bureaucracy and administration. What do the Government plan to do about that?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The right reverend Prelate is right. Many GPs are concerned about the level of bureaucracy in their practices. As he probably knows, we have reduced the number of QOF indicators by a third—that is, by 40—from a staggering 120. This is a big concern. NHS England is looking at other ways in which we can reduce the bureaucracy. If the right reverend Prelate’s daughter has any ideas, perhaps she will be kind enough to give me them.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

What is the position as regards assistants in surgeries? This morning, we heard about the shortage of nurses that we are going to have. The abolition of the SEN position has been fatal, as a lot of the right people who wanted to enter nursing have not done so because they do not have the necessary academic qualifications. However, would not these SENs now be extremely valuable in taking some of the workload, particularly form filling, off GPs, who are burdened with huge amounts of paperwork?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My noble friend is quite right. We are looking carefully at introducing a new position of a qualified nurse who would not have to have the same academic qualifications as existing nurses. As she may know, we are also introducing a new position of physician associates, who will be able to take some of the burden off GPs.

European Union Membership: Science and Technology

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of withdrawal from the European Union on investment in science and technology in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to investing in science and making Britain the technology centre of Europe. We have a clear mandate for reform and will hold an “in or out” referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union by the end of 2017.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

Since Peers on all sides of the House as well as the Financial Times and scientific institutions now agree that there should be more technologically advanced companies with UK ownership, does the Minister agree that this objective is threatened by the loss of European-funded research if the UK leaves the European Union?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Not at all. Our position is very sensible. We are looking for an improved position in a reformed Europe to end uncertainty. The Government’s plans involve various areas, including increasing economic competitiveness. Science and innovation are clearly vital ingredients in that economic competitiveness.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness be so kind as to provide the House with clear figures on the benefits that British universities and researchers have obtained from the European Budget over, say, the last 10 years, and the prospective figures for the rest of the present budgetary framework period that runs up to 2020, which would be put at risk if a negative result arises in the referendum to which she has referred?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I do not have the exact figures the noble Lord is asking for. However, in the latest EU Innovation Union Scoreboard, the Commission noted that the UK’s performance was 9% above the EU average in 2007 and 15% above the average for 2014. But the point is that we are looking for an improved deal in a reformed Europe. When the Government have a deal, that will be the time for a full discussion and debate on these issues.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, we really need to get better at this. All of us have a responsibility to make Question Time work. It is not just down to me to help the House; it is the responsibility of everybody. My noble friends behind me are calling for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. As noble Lords know, it is not for me to decide who speaks in this House; it is for the House to indicate whose turn it is. I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, then from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, as we have not yet heard from a Liberal Democrat this Question Time.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Are the Government aware of the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, which show that in 2013 the UK gave the EU some £14 billion net? Is there any reason why we could not invest in this and other worthy causes out of the huge saving we would make on withdrawal? Indeed, does that figure not prove that there is no such thing as EU aid to this country at all?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Your Lordships may also be aware of the improvements in the budget that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made at the end of 2013. But the whole point of the debate today is that we are focusing on renegotiation with the EU to get the best possible deal for the UK in a reformed Europe, which we hope to be able to recommend, although obviously if partners stonewall and refuse to compromise, we can rule nothing out.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, does this vital matter not illustrate how hazardous it is to embark on a renegotiation exercise driven more by party interest than by national interest? Will the Government commit to doing a full review of the risks and impact of a possible Brexit sooner rather than later, before we have a rather erratic negotiation exercise?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, our negotiation is all about getting the best deal for the British people and then offering them a clear choice. The right question is not about detailed assessments but about a choice on membership in the key areas, and that is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is busy securing for us.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says about EU funding and assessment, but will she comment on the fact that although the science budget was protected from government cuts, five years of ring-fencing have effectively reduced UK science spending by around 15%? Is the Minister concerned about that?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, in our manifesto we made a long-term commitment to science capital investment; that is,

“£6.9 billion in the UK’s research infrastructure to 2021”.

Of course, the past five years have been a difficult time, but that is because we have been tackling the financial crisis that, sadly, we inherited. But we want Britain to be the best place in Europe to innovate, to patent new ideas and to grow companies.

[Baroness Boothroyd (CB)]

I refer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I quite understand that the Minister would not have in her brief all the figures he requested, but I wonder if she will place her answer, giving the details, in the Library for us all to see.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question and I will of course look at the noble Lord’s detailed questions and provide what information I can on R&D, without speculating in a way that I think would be inappropriate at this vital stage of the negotiations on Europe. I think the Prime Minister is rightly not showing his full hand at the moment because he needs to pursue key areas of reform in this vital negotiation.

Education: Free Schools

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to review the governance and oversight of free schools.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, free school proposer groups go through a rigorous process before they are allowed to open a school. Free school trustees are subject to company and charity law. They must also comply with the terms of their funding agreement. As new institutions, free schools are monitored by departmental education advisers and the Education Funding Agency. In the small number of schools where issues arise, we have taken swift and decisive action.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome her to her new role on the Front Bench. I am pleased to hear that the Government are beginning to recognise that the scandals that have occurred in the past in free schools, including financial irregularities and extremist teaching, could not continue uncontrolled under the Secretary of State’s centralised power grab. However, the new model now being proposed, which includes regional schools commissioners, is only part of the solution. How can they really know what is going on at a local level when they could be supervising something like 3,000 schools each once the Government’s plans are rolled out? Is not the real solution a major devolution of power and resources to those who really can deliver school improvement across the education system?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome but I am afraid that—as she would probably expect—I do not wholeheartedly agree with many of the points that she raised. She is absolutely right that in the small number of cases where free schools have faced issues, swift action has been taken, but that does not paint the full picture of the great work that is going on in these schools around the country. For example, 74% of free schools inspected by Ofsted have been judged good or outstanding and, in fact, free schools are more likely to be judged outstanding than other schools. Regional schools commissioners are playing an increasingly important role in the oversight of free schools but I assure the noble Baroness that parents across the country are welcoming these schools, which are offering a high-quality education to their pupils.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Has my noble friend, whom we all welcome to her duties, seen the comments made recently by Liz Kendall, one of the contenders for the Labour leadership, who said that those who promote and open new free schools deserve credit, not criticism?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I have indeed—and it just goes to show that I am very willing to support some of the comments made by the Benches opposite. I say once again that free schools, increasingly run and set up by teachers, can be set up only where parents want them. That is why they are proving so popular. Not only are they offering a great education to their pupils; they are helping raise standards across the system and having a particular effect on those low-performing schools in their areas.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness went to school in Northern Ireland. Why does she think that the Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland have not followed the example of free schools?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I hope that once the devolved Governments hear of the outstanding success of free schools, they will indeed decide to take up this policy. I am very happy to repeat the statistics, but perhaps I could mention several of the outstanding free schools that we have seen: the Boulevard Academy in Hull, Becket Keys in Brentwood and Derby Pride Academy, which is helping the most disaffected young people get back into education. These are the success stories of free schools and I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating the hundreds of teachers around the country who are working so hard to improve education in this country.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister, whom I, too, welcome, care to comment on the fact that free schools are being opened in areas where there is no great shortage of places and that other areas cannot get the funding to meet local parental demand? Surely a Government who were committed to all children’s education would look at the need for places rather than at some sort of Conservative philosophy therein.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

First, I reassure the noble Baroness that in fact 96% of free schools approved since January 2014 are due to open in areas with a need for more school places. Secondly, I think that she would agree that some parents, year upon year, have had only underperforming schools for their children. That is not an option. They deserve the opportunity to have as good access in their area as any other parent. Free schools are offering parents that option. The vast majority are opening in areas where places are needed but they are also helping to raise standards, so that every child has access to a good local school.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Does my noble friend agree that if some free schools are underperforming, parents and people in those areas should also have a say in what happens to that school in the future, and that if they want it to rejoin the local authority oversight scheme, they should be able to do so?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said, where free schools are underperforming we have been able to take swift and decisive action. No school should be underperforming. All children deserve a high-quality education and that is why, in the very small number of cases where we have seen problems, action has been taken to improve the situation.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend not agree that the hostility of the Benches opposite to free schools is somewhat inexplicable, considering that so much of the valuable groundwork on free schools was done by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who sits on those Benches?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Yes, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, among others. As I said, free schools are delivering a high-quality education to young people across England. There are some fantastic examples. As I said, their results are really speaking for themselves.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

The Minister is talking about free schools, but will she join me in saying that there are many thousands of teachers in state schools working equally hard and providing excellent education to children, such as my children, who have had a very good education? The rhetoric seems to be, “Free schools good, state schools bad”. Will she dispel that rumour?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am delighted to join in the congratulations offered by the noble Baroness to hard-working teachers in outstanding schools across the state sector. As I have said, every child deserves the opportunity of a good education. Free schools are one way in which this can happen, but there are many excellent local authority schools. Let me reiterate: free schools are also producing high-quality education, with 74% rated good or outstanding—but I am happy to congratulate all hard-working teachers on their fantastic effort.

Family and Relationship Support

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:01

Asked by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which Minister has responsibility for family and relationship support policy; and what steps they are taking to deliver the commitment in the Conservative Party Manifesto 2015 to invest at least £7.5 million a year in relationship support.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

In asking the Question, I declare an interest as vice-president of the charity Relate.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)]

My Lords, I am the Minister responsible for family and relationship support policy. We are working with several organisations to develop and deliver provision. This includes preventive support, help for those experiencing difficulties, piloting relationship education in perinatal classes, and supporting local authorities to improve family relationships. I confirm that the total funding for this in 2015-16 is at least £7.5 million. We are currently planning how to make the most effective use of this funding.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

I thank the Minister for her Answer and welcome her to her new role. The last time I counted, there were five government departments with a direct interest in family relationships: indeed, six if you count the Home Office’s interest in domestic violence. Given this fragmentation and the fact that relationship breakdown is estimated to cost the country some £46 billion per year, what mechanisms will be used at Cabinet level to ensure that family policy is co-ordinated across government, and how will each department be held to account for the family test announced by the Prime Minister last year?

[Baroness Altmann]

I can inform the noble Baroness that the family test will be applied to all new policies that are being developed by government, and it will be strictly applied. The idea at the moment is that we transfer the Department for Education’s responsibility to the Department for Work and Pensions so that these policies are more integrated for the benefit of the families who we are trying to support.

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

Has the Minister considered the plight of Muslim women, who are very often home-based and therefore not likely to go out to seek advice? Are there any provisions for dealing with Muslim women in their own homes in order to counter what violence there is, which in some cases could be quite considerable?

[Baroness Altmann]

The noble Baroness asks an important question. We are working with a number of different organisations to ensure that the relationship support that we deliver covers a whole variety of different types of relationship, including Muslim relationships and those where there is an element of domestic violence. I reassure the noble Baroness that that is being included.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

At the family summit last August, the Prime Minister indicated that the budget for family relationship support would double to £19.5 million, whereas the Conservative manifesto in May merely referred to “at least £7.5 million”. Can the Minister confirm that there is a budget line in the DWP departmental expenditure limit for fiscal year 2015-16 that has at least £7.5 million in it? How long will that programme last, and is it exempt from the forthcoming budget cuts?

[Baroness Altmann]

I can confirm for the noble Lord that the commitment to £7.5 million per annum is a firm one, and we will be spending at least that amount. The total government-wide spending for family, parenting and relationship support is approximately £6.5 billion, with a number of different programmes, including the troubled families programme, help and support for separated families, the innovation fund and, of course, childcare support. In our manifesto we have guaranteed funding for relationship provisions every year over the Parliament. We were the only party to do so.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to what I think is her first Oral Question and I look forward to debating with her on DWP matters. The Minister mentioned the family test, which the Prime Minister announced in 2014 and that was going to be five questions that all policy or legislation across government would have to be subjected to by civil servants before Ministers would sign them off. Today’s papers are full of reports that, according to the Prime Minister, tax credits for children will bear the brunt of the £12 billion welfare cuts. Could she tell the House whether that policy has been subject to the family test and, if so, what the result was?

[Baroness Altmann]

Clearly there is speculation in the papers about all sorts of things. I certainly cannot comment on that particular issue, but I repeat my assurance that all polices are subject to the strict family test.

[Lord Fink (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to her new post. I want to ask about support for families in terms of advice. A recent Department for Education report tells me that each £1 spent on advice yields approximately £11.50 in savings to the taxpayer as well as adding to family stability. Could my noble friend confirm that paying for such continuing intervention will be part of the Government’s plan?

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Studies have indeed suggested that the amount that we are spending yields £11.50 for each £1 spent, which is of course excellent value for money. We are continuing to rationalise some of the contracts, and have introduced a 20% payment-by-results scheme. We are ensuring that we continually monitor the effectiveness of all the policies that we have introduced under this programme and will continue with challenging stretch targets as well.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness to her new role. Is she prepared to confirm that the current funding will be used for the whole spectrum of relational support as well as for the valuable services targeted at the effects of family breakdown?

[Baroness Altmann]

The whole spectrum of relationships is covered in our spending programme for relationship support, including same-sex couples and older people—a whole, wide range, as I indicated to the noble Baroness. So yes, I can confirm that.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)

15:08

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Devolution: report
Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out a strategy to ensure that the devolution opportunities provided for in this Act are effectively available to all parts of England, including rural and coastal areas.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. I am also pleased to see that it has the support of the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Teverson. I will also speak to Amendment 2.

Amendment 1 calls for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on a strategy to secure the implementation of the devolution opportunities provided for in this legislation and to ensure that it is effectively available to all parts of England, including rural and coastal areas.

I start by making it clear that we support devolution and have a strong track record to prove it. In government, we delivered the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act. Indeed, had things worked out somewhat differently in May, we would now be working on an English devolution Act. We want this Bill to succeed in helping to reverse a century of centralisation, although we have some reservations about how far and how fast this Government seek to go in practice. Too many decisions affecting local communities are made in Westminster, so people do not have enough influence on things that matter to them, from getting the right skills training and setting local bus routes to supporting local business. We are signed up to the potential benefits of devolution and the positive benefits it can bring for growth, more efficient services and the greater empowerment of local communities.

We recognise that devolution is not one size fits all. Different parts of the country may want different configurations of functions over different timescales. However, we are clear that devolution should not be limited to just some of our great northern cities—the city regions or metros—important though they are with the spur they can give to growth. We want to devolve powers to towns, smaller cities and counties, too. We want the Bill to be as relevant to Cornwall, Norwich, Bristol and south-east England councils—there is a southern powerhouse there, too—as it is to West Yorkshire, the east Midlands and Leicester.

As we all recognise, this is a framework Bill written in very broad terms. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee says it is too broad—we will perhaps return to that point on Wednesday. The Bill could enable the transfer of a whole range of unspecified local authority and public body functions to differing combined authorities, including mayoral authorities, over unspecified timescales with unspecified funding arrangements.

To the extent that the Bill builds on existing legislation, particularly the 2009 Act, there is of course an established process for the creation of combined authorities, but changes resulting from Clause 10 are much less clear in terms of process. It is accepted that ultimately any devolution deal must involve the agreement of participating authorities but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes visiting with the cheque book, we do not know how much of the negotiation will be a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

As it stands, there is a considerable lack of transparency in how the opportunities provided by this legislation are to be taken forward, or indeed how wide or narrow those opportunities are—hence the need to spell out the strategy for its implementation. It seems as though the process will continue like the city deals, with bespoke deals settled behind closed doors and with key powers resting with the Secretary of State. Key judgments of the Secretary of State about whether the effectiveness and efficiency of functions are improved will not, it seems, be subject to appeal. There is no timescale within which proposals for combined authorities must be considered and no indication of the order in which they will be considered. We know that the process of city deals tested the capacity of government departments, yet we have seen no impact assessment of how the implementation of the Bill might affect them in terms of their capacity to cope and their operating with the consequences of devolved functions and budgets.

Of course, much depends upon local authorities coming forward with proposals and upon the quality of the proposals, but what assessment has been made of the numbers of deals that the Government can handle in any one year and at any one time? What is their expectation in this regard? What is the plan to actively encourage authorities to bring forward devolution proposals, to share good practice and to build capacity? Will the Government publish guidance on how local authorities may bid for new powers and responsibilities and the criteria which will be taken into account when dealing with these applications? How will they prioritise which proposals they will work on first? Do they have a current work plan and, if so, which authorities are involved?

15:15

We know from the arrangement with Greater Manchester the scope of powers and responsibilities which the Government are potentially prepared to devolve and the funding streams which they will consider transferring. Can the Minister tell us whether they are to go further in any respect? What proposals, if any, are there for further fiscal devolution? What is the total funding that the Government expect or are prepared to devolve over the course of this Parliament?

At present, there are concerns that the process is being led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, choosing which authorities to engage with and encourage. If that is the case, how does it fit into an overall strategy which genuinely opens up these opportunities to all authorities? Will the Minister tell us who is actually leading on this for the Government? The need to have a clear strategy is obvious. The offer to have conversations with those who show an interest may be a start but it is not good enough.

Amendment 2 sits alongside this and calls for an annual report about devolution for all areas within England undertaken pursuant to the Act. It calls for it to be laid “as soon as practicable” each year, although it might reasonably be argued that there should be a little space for the first report. If comprehensive devolution is to be effective, we would expect to see a multiplicity of arrangements under way, not just one standard model. The notion of an annual report is not to constrain the process with lots of bureaucracy; there is a strong case, surely, for Parliament being regularly informed about how the wide scope which the Bill enables is actually being used. Are the Government delivering on the strategy?

The amendment is not prescriptive but the report should obviously itemise the local authorities and combined authorities with which devolution deals have been entered into and the broad shape of powers and budgets that are transferred, as well as what is in the pipeline. It should also deal with outcomes over time—how the devolution deals are impacting on growth, on services and on helping the public finances, and, crucially, whether fair funding is in operation to ensure that devolution is not accompanied by impoverishment. Such a report would clearly also have to be an indicator of the progress of the expressed policy of the Government that devolution deals should be available to counties and to rural as well as metropolitan areas. Accordingly, it should report on the orders and procedures arising from the Secretary of State’s decisions and requests for orders received from authorities, combined or otherwise. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 1 and 2: indeed, my name has been attached to them on the Marshalled List. I declare at the outset my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association.

I made a number of very positive comments about the importance of devolution into England from Whitehall when we discussed the Bill at Second Reading. It remains an aim that we share with the Government. The amendments we have tabled for today and for the next two days in Committee are meant to improve the Bill and make it stronger.

These are two important amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, this is an enabling Bill. Therefore, it is important that it can enable and is not so restrictive that it prevents good proposals from local areas being approved because they do not fulfil over-strict criteria set out in the Bill.

The Bill needs to be able to meet the needs of areas as diverse as metropolitan areas, smaller cities and towns, rural areas and coastal areas. I said at Second Reading that one size could not fit all, so it matters that there is enough room for manoeuvre within the Bill to permit different sets of proposals to succeed. To this end, Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report to explain within three months how it is proposed to meet the diverse needs of all parts of England, and that is welcome. Amendment 2 would enable Parliament to review the success of the Act on an annual basis. It would enable us to learn how effective the Act was in enabling non-metropolitan areas, for example, to secure devolved powers and responsibilities.

I hope that the Minister will feel that these two amendments add to the Bill rather than detract from it, and that therefore they can be supported. From discussions that are going on outside the House, it is clear that guidance is required by local authorities and others on how councils can request new powers and responsibilities. Criteria need to be clearly stated—both the terms of devolution and the process by which it can be achieved.

I conclude by raising issues that have been brought to our attention by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It has given us a number of extremely important comments and it would be helpful to the Committee to know whether the Minister plans to bring forward amendments on Report to reflect those comments. I draw the Committee’s attention to three of them. One is in paragraph 10, which is very important in its context, in that it comments on the very wide powers to define the scope of functions that may be conferred on a combined authority and how they might be used. The committee points out, secondly, that there is no requirement in the Bill for anyone other than local authorities to be consulted on the effect of changes in the location of functions. I draw to the Committee’s attention, in particular, business organisations, which clearly would have an important stake in the decisions that were made. The third point is in the area of overview and scrutiny—the power to define membership and who, in particular, is to be chair. It is very important that we follow the affirmative procedure here, and we have tabled a number of amendments that we hope will assist in meeting the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

That is all that I want to say at this stage of the debate but I hope that the Minister will feel in a position to agree that Amendments 1 and 2 enhance rather than detract from the Bill.

[Lord Heseltine (Con)]

My Lords, the one clear message from the two speeches that we have heard so far is the unanimous view that the direction of travel from central government back to local people is welcomed on all sides of the House. In the view of many of us, it is long overdue and much to be welcomed.

I have the privilege of acting as a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and, in that capacity, perhaps I see something of the response to the Government’s proposals in a way that persuades me that the questions asked by the two noble Lords are not pressing in the need to amend the legislation, because in the wide community affected by the Bill they already know the answers to the questions that are being posed.

The most important question, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised, was about the generality of the application of this legislation throughout the whole of England. There is not the slightest doubt in any local authority—or business community—of which I have any knowledge that the door is open for all of them. Indeed, not only do they know, but I cannot remember a period in which there was such intense activity at every local level in the form of meetings, discussions, plans and ideas to prepare them to take advantage of this new opportunity. Without naming names, self-evidently the trail has been blazed by Manchester which, let us be frank, has been working on these ideas for decades. There are unitary counties in a very different part of England which are equally apprised of the opportunity. We can understand that the questions are not only being asked but answers are being positively sought. I would be very surprised if, over the course of the discussion and debate on this legislation, we do not see significant suggestions coming forward from local people about how to take advantage of the opportunities.

The second point that both noble Lords made reflects the diversity of opportunity from different parts of the English political scene. The fact that both noble Lords recognised this point clearly argues against the proposals that they wish to inject into the legislation. It is precisely because there are such different features that, were the Secretary of State to produce a strategy, it would either be so general as to have no real meaning or, in practice, it would be so prescriptive that it would prevent the very devolution that the House is trying to achieve. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He has a clear understanding of how these matters work, but if you ask for an impact study by a government department about how the devolution would work, what is that department going to do? It is going to do what government departments always do: it will lay out all the complexities which the department wants to see answered in a way that prescribes the solutions that Members of this House are unanimous in wishing to see emerge from the locality. The more you ask central government to set the pace, the more prescriptive you will become. I see many noble Lords who have spent their life in local government. We have been around this track before. We have been around it decade after decade, and the more you ask central government departments what they think, the more detailed the answers will be, and that is precisely what we do not want. What we want is to say to the communities that make up England, “You know best how you could administer the framework of local decision-making, you know the strengths and weaknesses that make up your community, and it is therefore for you to address the diversity and complexity in putting forward your proposals”.

My reading of the situation is that there are not clear answers in many cases. There are not clear answers about the boundaries of these areas, which is one of the reasons why we have overlapping boundaries for the LEPs. There are not clear answers about whether an authority should be committed to one unit or another or whether it could be associated with more than one. In making progress, the Government are right to say we should wait until we have the local plans before us before we try to model those plans into what conforms to central departmental thinking.

This is a new concept. Noble Lords will know all too well that we have told local authorities and imposed upon them every manner of solution over decades, and many of us have played a part in trying to achieve just that. This is a new approach. In a sense, if you are to trust people with responsibility, you have to trust them with the opportunity to make mistakes—that goes with the new freedoms we are talking about. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords in this House will not seek to be prescriptive from the very start, because that would frustrate the very purpose for which this legislation is designed.

15:29

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not sure whether to speak on this first group of amendments or on the second. However, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, have encouraged me to speak on this amendment. I agreed with everything he said, apart from his conclusion that the reports are not necessary. The point of this amendment, as I understand it, is to open up the debate and the issue about the variety and possibility of many forms of devolution, and I am sure that in that respect we are on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. However, there are problems, and it would be very helpful if, as early as possible, we could get a steer from the Secretary of State and his Minister in this House as to the Government’s thinking.

Mid-sized cities outside the north are driving economic growth, but many face barriers to their full potential. They may have tight boundaries, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said; they may have rural neighbours; and they may also be shire districts without the full range of unitary powers. My local authority, Norwich, has artificially tight boundaries of 137,000 people within a built-up area of 270,000 people, and services 1 million people for professional services, shopping, administration and leisure. Boundary extension has naturally been resisted by our rural neighbours, who enjoy our services and a lower council tax, but who gain from the overspill business development generated by the city but located outside it because of those boundaries. Partnership arrangements, such as the city deal based on the greater Norwich area, are and have been our way forward.

So devolution, as all your Lordships have said, will differ not only within and among the north but among mid-sized cities. The unitaries—Southampton and Portsmouth, Bristol and Plymouth, and Luton—have far greater powers and resources than cities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Exeter, and Norwich, which are trapped in two-tier shire structures. So the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, are both absolutely right to want bottom-up proposals that will fit the needs, potential and geography of our inconveniently untidy country. Combined authorities will make sense for most of us, but with whom we will combine—with other towns and cities, adjacent rural districts, and perhaps with a chunk of county involvement as well—and with what additional powers, responsibilities and finance, will all vary from place to place, and rightly so.

I do not doubt—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said—that the Treasury may try to tidy it all up, indulge its obsession with size, and seek in the long term to superimpose unitary, uniform shire counties or some such at some point, much as the Colonial Office parcelled up Africa along tidy lines after the First World War, with disastrous effects. I hope that the Secretary of State will ask—we certainly will—for a more respectful attitude to the history and identity of our country if that is the Treasury’s future route.

However, as many of us in the House will remember, we have been here before. Before 1974 I served in a very different local government. Norfolk stretches some 70 miles from Great Yarmouth to Wisbech, and 50 miles from Cromer south to Diss, and in Norfolk then we had a unitary county borough—Norwich—the boroughs of Great Yarmouth, Kings Lynn and Thetford, and urban and rural district councils, as well as parishes. Although each tier had certain statutory responsibilities and powers, partnership between the two counties, the county of Norfolk and the county borough, founded the University of East Anglia, and Norfolk bought into Norwich’s international airport and its FE college. Education, however, was devolved to one large borough, Great Yarmouth, and agency powers were devolved to other boroughs—other UDCs—reflecting local knowledge of what worked best.

Function, in other words, was shared, bought, devolved, delegated or delivered according to the individual service, local geography and the wishes of local people. It worked well. Large swathes of our services were better then than now. With more powers, we focused on city needs and our business rates were reinvested in our local economy. Of course it was untidy and offended Whitehall—but then Norfolk is and sometimes does. It was local, it was government—and every reorganisation since has made local government less local and less government, so we have bigger and bigger authorities but with the authority to do less and less.

I am not suggesting that we return to the pre-1974 patchwork; this is not meant to be an exercise in nostalgia but to show that patterns of partnered, combined, devolved and delegated arrangements have a long history and can be a flexible, sensible and well-tested response to our varying geography. We want and need devolution that fits our sense of place.

Can the Minister say how devolution might work now in two-tier shire authorities such as Norwich, Cambridge, Exeter and many others? We have in place a city deal, delivered for example through the Greater Norwich area partnership, bringing together Norwich, its two adjacent districts which share in the gain from our economic growth, and the county council. Norwich already pools its community infrastructure levy receipts to help fund economic investment in the Greater Norwich area. Cambridge City, I understand, similarly partners South Cambs and Cambridge County Council. Exeter, I learnt today, is working with East Devon and Teignbridge district councils towards a combined authority or possibly an economic prosperity board.

What might work for us are combined authorities—as we are not unitaries—within larger combined authorities: not a hierarchy with big authorities supervising smaller ones, but concentric rings of combined partnerships, with a recognition that different services need different geographic scale and therefore a different combination of authorities. We do not want to overlap. We want to pool and to work in partnership. In my patch there could be three combined authorities: an inner ring with the combined authority of the Greater Norwich area could nest within a wider combined authority of the county—and that, in turn, would be part of an East Anglian combined authority of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridge.

The smallest combined authority of the partnership would handle economic development, housing and local transport, with one team advising the joint programmes of the four authorities, building on city deals. The Norfolk-wide combined authority would look at transport links with Cambridge or the A47 route to the Midlands, or at health and its interface with social care, or education, skills and training and so on. The three counties as a combined authority would become an expanded LEP—local economic partnership—where business especially is strongly represented. Like the former East Anglia Economic Planning Council on which I sat, it could shape our strategic regional choices.

In health, for example, every county needs its district general hospital but only one regional burns centre—a regional decision. When Aviva in the last few months was determining its UK future, it worked not with the combined authority or the county of Norfolk but with the LEP. It chose that level of strategic responsibility. Added into the LEP could be blue-light services and digital infrastructure—and I would like to see integrated into that regional structure more democratic accountability of our regional quangos. There would be a combined authority around a mid-tier city, within a combined, wider county partnership, which in turn would form a combined regional authority. That would work for us, combining both local and strategic initiatives and value for money.

I conclude with some questions—and they are not rhetorical. Does the Secretary of State agree—indeed, does the Minister agree—that the clustering of specialist knowledge and skills in mid-sized cities is vital for our economic growth? If so, will he accept those mid-sized cities, as in these amendments, need devolved economic powers and associated budgets for business support, employment and housing and transport connectivity? Would he agree that this requires fiscal powers, devolved skills money, retained business rates, power to CPO land and grant ourselves planning consent so that the gain from that land is further reinvested in economic growth and not privately appropriated, transport money to enhance site development, and wider planning powers?

More specifically, would he consider allowing such combined authorities to have urban development corporation powers—new town powers, if you like—allowing us those additional powers to acquire land and finance development? If he would, and given that quite a number of mid-sized cities on which economic regeneration in this country will depend are not unitary, would he therefore consider new models of combined authorities, including combined authorities within combined authorities in concentric rings? At the very least, would he support pilot schemes that build on our existing collaborative models? Would he welcome proposals from us to that effect?

We really want to work with the Secretary of State and I hope and believe that he wants to work with us—he has shown every sign of wishing to do so. Our local Norfolk maxim is, “Do different”. I paraphrase that as “Making a real difference”. We really could transform life chances as we work in partnership to promote the economic growth that our city, county and country need. I hope that the noble Baroness will move this agenda forward on our behalf.

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak very reluctantly, because I live in Scotland, not down here, and therefore the local authorities that I am concerned with are those in Scotland. But I think that there are lessons to be learned, not for this Bill, oddly enough, but for Scotland from this Bill and the amendments that we have tabled. The fact is that what we have in Scotland, where the first example of devolution arguably began, is a centralisation of power in Edinburgh rather than the genuine devolution of power downwards from the Scottish Parliament. That is something that we have to be very wary of. We have seen one police force for the whole of Scotland, one fire service for the whole of Scotland and one ambulance service for the whole of Scotland. We have also, however, seen local authorities curtailed because they have little or no control of their own finances. As somebody said to me very authoritatively, Glasgow and South Lanarkshire, where I live, are having problems finding the money to buy jotters for school kids next year because local authorities have been so hidebound in the money that they have available to spend.

As I said, I am reluctant to speak on this, but it is a very strange anomaly that a Conservative Government are introducing a Bill that extends democracy in England, whereas a so-called left-wing Government in Scotland are curtailing consistently the powers and democracy in that country.

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but am encouraged to do so by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, because I agree with it.

If you give my former colleagues in Whitehall and their political masters an opportunity to be more specific, they will do so by being more prescriptive and will constrain—we should avoid that. However, my former colleagues are a touch cleverer than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and I well know, because they will also be looking to win back some of the powers that they are in danger of losing by including in other legislation greater constraints and more prescriptive requirements. If I look at some of the draft legislation that is about to make its way through this House, I can see evidence of that already happening. I am concerned about that, partly because I have not seen, over the last 20 or 30 years, that the Department for Communities and Local Government—or for the environment, or whatever it has been called—has been very good at ensuring that, in other parts of government, devolution happens. I fear that on this occasion, too, that will be the case and we will debate this Bill at great length, but other Bills and other parts of government will seek to prevent real devolution from happening.

If we are going to monitor what is happening on devolution, let us do it not only in respect of this Bill but across the legislative piece. Let us ask those questions about every Bill that comes to this House. We were talking earlier in Questions about having a family test. Let us start thinking about having a devolution test, which we apply to every single piece of legislation that comes before the House.

15:45

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and I am a strong supporter of the Bill: I believe in the thrust of this measure. The Secretary of State, Greg Clark, ably assisted by his special adviser the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, have a unique opportunity to establish the consensus that we need much more devolution in England, and we have the means through this Bill to enable it to happen in the flexible way that is necessary.

However, in supporting the amendment—the main thrust of which, as I read it, is to say, “Don’t just focus on the big cities but focus on the whole of England”— I make two points that relate to interests that I should declare. I am pro-chancellor of Lancaster University and a member of Cumbria County Council. I will deal with my points on the basis of my interests, which might be the simplest way.

Lancaster University scores very highly in the ratings of the top 10 universities in many of the league tables, as do other universities in the north such as York and Durham. But there is an issue about whether the focus on cities and universities as a source of economic regeneration, which they undoubtedly are, will disadvantage some of the excellent universities we have in the north in favour of the big metropolitan institutions in Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. That is a real concern. For instance, the catapult centres, which Vince Cable sponsored when he was Secretary of State for trade and industry, tend to be based in the big city universities, so there is an issue. I am sure there is no intention to discriminate against the universities that are not in the big cities, but there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

My second point concerns Cumbria. Cumbria is a complex county of only 500,000 people, and has a two-tier local government structure. My noble friend Lady Hollis is nodding vigorously, but she may not agree with what I am about to say. There is no obvious city driver in the whole of Cumbria. My home town of Carlisle was a great county borough, and I remember being terribly upset when the county boroughs were abolished in the 1970s, but as a city of some 70,000 people, it is too small to build a city region around. The other main population centre is Barrow-in-Furness, right at the other end of the county. The economic geography of Cumbria is very diverse, with a strong tourism industry in the east of the county and the home of the British nuclear industry in the west, in and around Barrow in what used to be called West Cumberland. It is a question of how to bring these two diverse interests together.

A strong case can be made on efficiency grounds for the creation of a unitary council for Cumbria, or possibly two unitary councils, one for the south and one for the north. This is what the county council thinks, but I am afraid to say that so far we have not been able to establish a consensus on it with our district colleagues. This is quite a major issue because in terms of economic development it is very difficult when basically all the planning powers rest with the district councils, not with the main strategic authority. There is also a huge cost issue. We all know that large savings will have to be made in local government over the next few years. Cumbria estimates that it will have to cut around £80 million from a budget of approximately £500 million. If we had a unitary council, experts have estimated that a quarter to a third of those savings could be achieved through streamlining local government—that is, getting rid of the duplication of chief officers and reducing the number of councillors. Cumbria, with its population of half a million, has more than 350 county and district councillors. That is not a sensible model, and we have to find a way of bringing together these diverse interests.

One way that would not be good for bringing them together—it is in fact a polarising move—would be to impose an elected mayor on the county. An elected mayor would inevitably result in one part of the county, the rural or the industrial part, feeling that it was unrepresented. We must have a more consensual form of governance in such a diverse area.

I turn to the need for better health services because in NHS terms, Cumbria is one of the three real crisis areas. The Government, through the initiative of Simon Stevens, are putting in a team from on high in the NHS to try to sort out the difficulties there. But that necessary reconfiguration of health services in the county will not work without a very close partnership with and integration of social care. We need a new structure to deal with the new challenges.

My view is that while, yes, the Bill represents a great opportunity, and yes, Cumbria should seize it, if we find that there are vested interests in local government that will not come together to actually sort the area out, there is a responsibility on central government of some sort to look at what can be done. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, when he says that if you ask Whitehall to do things you get uniform solutions. His experience is vast, but this is how things have gone in my experience as well. I will be proposing an amendment to Clause 10 when the time comes, but we need to see whether we can resolve this issue. For counties such as my own, we need decisive action to sort out what is at present a really messy situation.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for not speaking at Second Reading. I was unable to get here for the start of the debate, but I have listened to the speeches so far on this amendment. I kind of want to change the perception of looking at this purely through the prism of Whitehall. As a council leader and someone who started the city deal in Sheffield during my time as leader of Sheffield City Council, I know what it is like to deal with Whitehall and civil servants. Believe me, no matter how wide or broad the legislation or the aims and aspirations of Ministers in Whitehall, civil servants have a knack of closing you in. I saw that in city deals and I also saw it when I was helping rural councils in Staffordshire on their city deals. Civil servants started with a broad aim for what that city deal was about and narrowed it to one or two issues. There is always the hand, or the steel fist, of Whitehall trying to dictate what happens.

That is why I support the amendment. The amendment makes it a categorical principle of the legislation, and of the enabling legislation, that all parts of England should be able to take up such powers. Based on my experience at the sharp end as a leader of a council and negotiating with Whitehall, I can foresee what will happen if this is not written in as a principle: rural areas will be forced to coalesce around cities. Most Ministers talking about devolution talk about the metro cities, not even just the big cities. It is a really important principle that the freedom and the opportunities will be available to all areas in England. If that is so, there is nothing wrong with the amendment prescribing that. It will not stop anything but it would make it clear that civil servants have an obligation through this Bill to make sure that all areas of England have that right.

I have seen from the other side that whatever the intentions of Ministers, or of the Bill, unless this is written into the Bill rural and coastal areas will be forced to go with large cities. In certain areas, some people may wish to do that and may win, but in other areas it would be completely inappropriate. I see nothing that would stop or restrict in the amendment; it is just a matter of principle that will make sure that if I were an elector, a business, a councillor or council leader in a rural or coastal area, my rights would be enshrined and protected rather than trampled on by the heavy feet of certain civil servants.

16:00

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a brand new Bill, starting in this House and in its first day of Committee. Pretty well everyone in the House will recognise that the arguments and points that have been made so far are very old arguments from discussions that have been had in local government and related matters for as long as any one of us in this House has been involved in such matters. That is not to be disparaging at all, because they are extremely difficult questions about local authorities’ powers and boundaries, and about the balance between central and local government. There will never be a neat, easy solution to these issues, and to that extent I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said: we cannot be too prescriptive.

My two noble friends seem to have been arguing in diametrically opposed directions, although I am sure they will find a way to finesse those arguments. I have more sympathy with the view of my noble friend Lady Hollis. I am not sure that I would want to see concentric circles, but I can certainly see the case for a focus on a city region with substantial powers. The other view from my noble friend Lord Liddle was more of a wider, unitary local authority. The scope for discussion in Committee will be pretty wide-ranging.

I am here to make a very simple point at this stage. I broadly support the Bill’s intentions, as everyone else who has spoken does, but the odd thing about it is that although it is in many respects very generous to local communities in devising and determining their own proposals for what form devolution should take, the one respect in which it is extremely prescriptive and in no way allows any local diversity or difference in circumstance whatever is in the first phrase of the Bill’s title: that whether you like it or not, mate, you will have a directly elected mayor. Surely there is a choice to be made here. I make no bones about it and it is an argument that I will develop at the appropriate point. I do not like the idea of directly elected mayors. I am happy to say that whenever the people of Britain have been asked to express their views on these matters in local referendums, they have been more inclined towards my view than that of those who wish to prescribe directly elected mayors.

I put this simple question to the Minister: why, for most of the contents of the Bill, is there is an acknowledgement—entirely in line with what most speakers, but in particular the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, have said—that different circumstances apply in different parts of the country and that you will never quite be able to determine from Whitehall precisely what form devolution should take, except in this crucial respect? I am not randomly picking out one particular aspect; the Bill is largely about providing for directly elected mayors. It is the first part of the Bill; it is there in the title. Why on earth can there not be a lack of prescription in this area, particularly in view of the repeated expression of view from people, when they are asked, that they are not at all keen on this form of local government?

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. I listened with great interest in particular to my noble friend Lady Hollis about concentric circles. The Bill is prescriptive in some important respects. It refers very early on to “a combined authority” and a mayor of a combined authority, which appears not to allow for a more complex arrangement of functions between local authorities that might wish to be part of more than one combined authority. That appears to be inconsistent, first, with the Bill and, secondly, with having a mayor of a combined authority. Those are matters that no doubt we will turn to again later on.

I wish to comment briefly on the position in Yorkshire with regard to rural and coastal areas and the complexity of the arrangements. A noble Lord is present who is a former leader of Sheffield City Council. I am sure that he will contribute during the Bill’s passage. There is a very strong case for making the two conurbations of South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire into a combined authority, leaving North Yorkshire, the East Riding and Hull Humber to decide separately what they want to do. There is a case for the two metropolitan areas of West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire to combine together to rival the strength of Greater Manchester.

Of course, the truth is that in Yorkshire, as in many parts of the country, the strength certainly of West Yorkshire is that it has North Yorkshire to its north and South Yorkshire to its south. Without them it would be a much diminished conurbation. Therefore, of enormous importance to the future development of West and South Yorkshire are the arrangements for North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull. It would be enormously damaging to the Yorkshire region if North Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull did not have strong combined-authority or local-authority powers—many of the powers that the conurbations seek.

There is an understandable temptation for rural areas such as North Yorkshire to want to remain independent, but noble Lords may be surprised to hear that there is a lot of discussion in North Yorkshire about the merits of coming much closer to West Yorkshire, East Riding and Hull. One of my concerns about the Bill is that the understandable haste to have mayors alongside these strengthened devolved authorities will make more difficult the gradual bringing together of parts of Yorkshire. Once you have a mayor of South Yorkshire and a mayor of West Yorkshire, they are not likely to want to go in with North Yorkshire. If North Yorkshire had a mayor, it would be much more reluctant to give that up and combine with West Yorkshire. Therefore, in our later discussions on the Bill I will counsel that there is a disconnection between granting more, genuine devolution to parts of our local areas and necessarily divorcing that for a while from mayoralties, not because mayoralties will not come about but because once you establish a combined authority with a mayor it will make bringing authorities closer together all the more difficult. It will depend on working together, not being part of a community together.

My view from the conurbation of Leeds and West Yorkshire is to recognise wholeheartedly the importance of strong devolution in our rural and coastal areas, but Yorkshire without its coastline or its dales and moors would be greatly belittled. I would like to feel that the Bill will enable all parts of my region to be strengthened and even, although this will probably strike terror into the hearts of people at the Treasury, offer the possibility of moving towards a Yorkshire region, because that makes enormous sense. If we can countenance, as we have, a semi-independent Scotland, why should we resist a strong Yorkshire? Just because regional devolution was originally a Labour idea and got kicked into touch, I hope that it will not necessarily be kicked into touch on ideological grounds. There would be an enormous amount to be said if it was. To secure that would require statesmanship and long-term strategic thinking but would result in a devolution to that part of England that would, in my view, be greatly welcomed in large parts of that great county but would also lead to a viable, vibrant and strong economic and social community.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the points they have made, particularly my noble friend Lord Heseltine, who appears to have answered most of them right at the beginning.

Amendments 1 and 2 would insert two new clauses placing statutory duties on the Secretary of State to provide reports to Parliament setting out his strategy for ensuring devolution opportunities are available across England, and annual progress updates. I agree that there are merits in the Government being clear about what the devolution offer is to all areas and about future devolution agreements between local areas and the Government following local areas developing their proposals.

We have set out, not least at Second Reading, our broad strategy for devolution in England. Our intention is to ensure that there are devolution opportunities available to all parts of England, including rural and coastal areas, counties, towns and, indeed, cities. Many noble Lords have alluded to this. We also want to ensure—and I can give noble Lords this commitment—that no one place will be prioritised over another. Rural, city, coastal—we want to hear from all areas with their proposals. We want to hear from Norwich just as much as Nottingham, and we want them to tell us how it might work. We are not going to prescribe. I should have perhaps asked between Second Reading and now whether noble Lords who are making suggestions about certain areas speak for those areas—I do not know, and I am not assuming anything—but we want to hear from those areas about how they see devolution working. I cannot stress that enough, really.

As some noble Lords have said, some of the existing city regions include large rural and coastal communities; for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, the Sheffield city region has rural communities within and around it, including the Peak District; and the North East Combined Authority includes Northumberland. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also made a point about areas being forced into hooking on to other areas. The Bill does not force anybody to do anything; it enables areas to do what their ambitions are. We have been clear that our approach is for areas to come forward with proposals that address their specific issues and opportunities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned business clustering, which is vital for growth. Clustering is what leads to growth and supply chain enablement. The Bill is enabling legislation which will provide the legislative framework to give effect to the different aspects of devolution deals—and they are different—and we are listening carefully to debates on the Bill to ensure that it does this.

Turning back to the specific amendments, I agree that it is important that Parliament should be able to question and hold the Government to account, both on their pursuit of devolution and decentralisation and on the progress being made in those areas that have agreed devolution deals. There are already mechanisms, such as Parliamentary Questions and debates, by which Parliament can ask Ministers to account for anything within their remit. These are opportunities that both noble Lords and Members of the other place rightly take regularly.

I was asked about our response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We intend to respond in full before the end of Committee stage. But as that committee recognised, the Bill is an enabling Bill providing the primary legislative framework needed to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitments in full. It also made a point about ensuring that the overview of scrutiny—something which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is keen on—is effective, independent from any majority group on a combined authority and transparent. The Bill provides powers for us to make provision about all these matters and we are very interested in hearing views from all concerned about how the scrutiny could be as effective as possible.

15:29

On the devolution deals, the secondary legislation to complement each deal will be scrutinised through the affirmative process by both Houses and approved by them. This process involves an Explanatory Memorandum describing the deal in some detail being laid before Parliament. A process for evaluating the progress on deals will be discussed with each area on a case-by-case basis. For example, as part of the devolution deal in Greater Manchester, there will be a requirement to put in place an extensive programme of evaluation agreed by the Treasury. I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, in his place and I am sure that he will contradict me if I say anything wrong about Greater Manchester. Those evaluations will be public documents, available to all Members of the House, as well as to those with an interest in the area and the progress it is making. Accordingly, I do not believe that it is necessary to place statutory duties as sought by these amendments on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on these matters. This would be a duplication of a well-tried process.

Let me turn to other points made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked who is leading on the deals across government. The Secretary of State for Communities, the right honourable Greg Clark, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are working closely together to discuss deals with areas and Ministers—including myself—have met interested councils. On the question of capacity, this has been progressed with support from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, building on the progress made on devolution in the last Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also asked what bids we are receiving. We do not see these devolutionary requests as bids but as a two-way process between government and groups of local authorities. It is important to make it clear at this stage that it is not a bidding process and therefore, as I have said, there are no priorities and no areas come second to others.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked about having combined authorities within combined authorities—the concentric circles—to manage different services. You cannot have a combined authority within another combined authority, but two or more combined authorities can of course work in partnership. There can be unitaries or two-tiers within a combined authority, but you cannot have a combined authority within a combined authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked whether Lancaster University would be secondary to some bigger universities in bigger cities. If Cumbria feels that the university and skills and jobs should be a priority aspect within the deal, the Government would welcome its proposals and would want to hear from it. The noble Lord also talked about the economic geography of Cumbria being very different. We fully recognise that every place is unique and different from every other place; that is why the Bill is an enabling Bill so that those differences can be reflected and come forward. He also said that there is perhaps not a consensus on the issue in his part of the world; of course, consensus is crucial, as is leadership and agreement.

I have some more explanations. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked why the Bill prescribes for a mayor. Elected mayors can provide an effective single point of accountability where major powers are devolved to cities. However, this offer certainly does not limit in any way the devolution proposals that areas can make, and we will consider any and all proposals. I think that I have made that point previously.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, talked about fiscal devolution. We have already agreed with Greater Manchester about the retention of 100% of additional business rates, providing a very powerful incentive to drive local growth, but we are not ruling anything in or out at this stage. We are very interested to hear from all areas how they see fiscal devolution working. With those assurances—

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether I might take her back to the comments that she made about the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which I sit. I think she said that your Lordships’ House would have an opportunity to see the Government’s response to the important recommendations from that committee before the end of Committee stage; perhaps she would confirm that. I draw her attention particularly to the recommendation in paragraph 29—it is rather different from the others, which are very detailed—in which the committee says:

“In line with our conclusions in paragraph 22 above, we consider that, if the Government believe that the negative procedure is the appropriate level of scrutiny for particular categories of modifications of primary legislation, they should specify those categories in clause 55”.

There is a wider issue here, which the committee draws attention to: in parallel with the consideration of the full Bill, we also have an LRO on some specific powers, which I understand was prepared before the general election—certainly before the Bill was being prepared by the current Government. I wonder if the Minister can give some assurance to your Lordships’ House that these two quite separate exercises will at some point be brought together. Otherwise, the lack of co-ordination is a matter of concern to the committee and, I think, will be a matter of concern to Members of the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can confirm just what the noble Lord thought he heard, which was that we would be responding before the end of Committee stage and that the LRO would be incorporated into the Bill.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, as we are in Committee we have ample opportunity to extend the discussion on this. Did I hear the Minister correctly when she said that you could not have combined authorities within combined authorities?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, my Lords.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

In that case, I suggest that she is wiping out the possibility of effective devolution over half of shire England. Only if you are a fairly large unitary, possibly in combination with some adjacent districts, can you offer the full range of services, from the very local to the very large. With the two-tier structures that we have—and no one is suggesting a complete overhaul of local government—you cannot do that. Therefore, you have to have appropriate partnerships or appropriate combined authorities for different issues, requiring a different sense of scale. Perhaps you will need a smaller one for local housing, local transport, local skills training and connectivity issues, but a bigger one for the interface between health and social care, for example, and a still bigger one for major transport and planning issues, as with a LEP. If the Minister is saying that you cannot have combined authorities within combined authorities, that strategy of having services appropriate to size and scale of partnership is denied us. Counties are perhaps too large for personal services but probably too small now for strategic services. I sympathise with my noble friend on Yorkshire, for example; we could do the same in East Anglia.

I ask the Minister to reconsider. Whether she uses the phrase “combined authorities within combined authorities” or says that there is an “economic prosperity board” here, a “combined authority” there and a “consortium” somewhere else—I really do not care what the nomenclature is—what matters is that we have the capacity to deliver services at the size and scale appropriate for the services that they are, working in partnership. If she says that we cannot have combined authorities within combined authorities, we can say goodbye to effective devolution for two-tier shire county England.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness. We have mechanisms to deliver services of different scale. The whole point, for example, of the Greater Manchester devolution deal is that devolution delivers what is not possible at a very small level. That is why the local authorities came together: first, to form the combined authority and, secondly, to do the devolution deal with government. But it does not preclude districts from being involved in, say, shire deals. There has to be agreement.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Forgive me, but can I just pursue this point? This will not work. I am sure that other noble Lords have experience of shire county England. For example, in my county of Norfolk, with seven districts, three of us are working together around the big city to deliver more than 50% of the jobs in Norfolk—the focus around the city, the former county borough of Norwich, is perhaps the main difference between us and Cumbria. Some other districts, such as King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, look towards Cambridge, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. They do not wish to be involved in such a strategy even if they could be.

However, there are other, countywide issues in which the greater Norwich partnership would play its part along with others to try to benefit the whole county in delivering peripatetic, rural-focused services. Beyond that, there are bigger decisions, such as those relating to Aviva and major transport issues, which can only be delivered at LEP level. This means that we must have flexibility. If this Bill means anything, it is about having flexibility to suit the localities and the geographies of different parts of the country.

The Minister must take each proposal on its merits. If there is something wrong with our proposal, fine, let us discuss it and negotiate it. I am perfectly content with that. But what she cannot surely do at this stage is rule out a possible structure that reflects the needs of many two-tier districts—as far as I am aware, Cambridge and Exeter may well be in the same situation, and Norwich certainly is. She is saying to us, “You cannot do, with your knowledge, with consent and in partnership, what makes the best sense for your greater area, for your county and for your region”.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think we agree but have perhaps got our wires crossed. It is an entirely flexible process. If Norwich and the surrounding areas want to come up with what they see as the best proposal for that area, the Government are here and listening. I am saying that there cannot be combined authorities within combined authorities under the law, but the whole purpose of this enabling Bill is to allow areas to come forward with the proposals that they see as the best. There has to be agreement across the piece.

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify one of her remarks? She talked about the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government being the accountable Ministers for these local deals. One of the great attractions of the Greater Manchester deal is that £6 billion is being transferred from the health budget to work within the Greater Manchester scheme. Where does the Health Secretary sit in the accountabilities for some of these schemes?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I understand the health and social care aspect, Greater Manchester has agreed a memorandum of understanding with NHS England. The Secretary of State for Health runs the relevant department.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which I will come back to in a moment, and I thank all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, which has been very well informed.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support for these amendments. I think we were in agreement that this is not about one size fits all. That was not a point of difference between anyone who spoke today. He made reference to the Delegated Powers Committee and we will doubtless come on to debate that later.

The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said that the direction of travel is right and that we are agreed about that; indeed we are. He said that the country already knows what is on offer. With great respect, is that universally the case? I am certain it is for some councils and authorities, but does everyone really know what is available or what the process is? I would question that. He made reference to Manchester blazing a trail. What it has done has been illustrative of what can be achieved.

16:30

On the question of prescription, the only prescriptive thing in my amendment was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. It is about seeking to ensure that these opportunities are effectively available to all parts of England, whether rural or coastal. That is the only prescription. Yes, I suppose you could say there is prescription in the need for a report, but that was the level we talked about. We cannot just assume in all this that the Government are passive, lying back while whatever local authorities want just happens. Clearly, the Government have a responsibility in relation to funding and to understanding the consequences of devolution Bills that take power and budgets away from them. We cannot just say that central government does not count, which I think was part of the tenor of the noble Lord’s contribution.

My noble friend Lady Hollis, as ever, made a powerful case for mid-sized cities and combined authorities within combined authorities. I am sure that that issue has not gone away. My noble friend Lord Maxton referred to the fact that in Scotland a seemingly left-wing Government are restraining support for devolution to local people, but the Conservative Government in England are seeking to do the reverse. That is an interesting state of affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, made a very interesting point. He talked about being beware of central government pulling back on this and asked about a devolution test for every part of policy developed. That seems to have some merit. My noble friend Lord Liddle talked about the disadvantage for some universities that are not in our great cities and, where you have unitary councils, the difficulty of getting a consensus to take advantage of what is effectively Clause 10. My noble friend Lord Grocott reminded us that we have been here before but said that the Bill is extremely prescriptive on the matter of elected mayors. Indeed, that point was continued by my noble friend Lord Woolmer, who talked about it being prescriptive around mayors and the challenges in moving towards a Yorkshire region.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, did not say much about the issue of capacity. There is a danger that we brush aside the prospect of government departments dealing with a whole range of inquiries that could—if the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is right—start flooding in. How will the Government handle that? Presumably, they do not have a whole raft of civil servants sitting around just waiting for these things to hit their desks. There is a constraint, and there must be some form of prioritisation in dealing with these matters. I accept that that prioritisation will not necessarily push rural communities to the back of the queue, but there must be some basis on which to handle this.

The noble Baroness said that we do not need a regular report as there is always the prospect of parliamentary Questions and the alternative of parliamentary debates. However, I say to her that I have tried that in the past and it does not really work. An authoritative report, available to Parliament, is the proper way to go on what we are all agreed is a fantastic opportunity. Parliament should have the chance to evaluate this as it progresses. As I said, this has been a good debate but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2 not moved.

House resumed.

Energy: Onshore Wind

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, with permission I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about ending new subsidies for onshore wind.

“Mr Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a Statement on ending new subsidies for onshore wind. This Government are committed to meeting objectives on cutting carbon emissions and to continuing to make progress towards the United Kingdom’s 2020 renewable energy targets. The renewable electricity programme aims to deliver at least 30% of the UK’s electricity demand from renewables by 2020. We are on course to achieve this objective. Renewables already make up almost 20% of our electricity generation and there is a strong pipeline to deliver the rest.

As we decarbonise, it is imperative that we manage the costs to consumers. Although renewable energy costs have been coming down, subsidies still form part of people’s energy bills and, as the share of renewables in the mix grows, the impact gets proportionally larger. It is one of this Government’s priorities to bring about the transition to low-carbon generation as cost effectively and securely as possible. The levy control framework, covering the period up to 2020-21, is one of the tools to help achieve this. It limits the impact of support for low-carbon electricity on consumer bills.

We have a responsibility to manage support schemes efficiently within the levy control framework to ensure that we maintain public support for the action we are taking to bring down carbon emissions and combat climate change. Government support is designed to help technologies stand on their own two feet, not to encourage a permanent reliance on subsidy. We must continue to make tough judgments about what new projects get subsidies. Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is an important part of our energy mix.

In 2014, onshore wind made up around 5% of electricity generation, supported by around £800 million of subsidies. At the end of April 2015, there were 490 operational onshore wind farms in the United Kingdom, comprising 4,751 turbines in total. These wind farms have an installed capacity of 8.3 gigawatts—enough to power the equivalent of more than 4.5 million homes.

The electricity market reform delivery plan projects that we require between 11 and 13 gigawatts of electricity to be provided by onshore wind by 2020 to meet our 2020 renewable electricity generation objective while remaining within the limits of what is affordable. We now have enough onshore wind in the pipeline, including projects that have planning permission, to meet this requirement comfortably. Without action, we are very likely to deploy beyond this range. We could end up with more onshore wind projects than we can afford, which would lead to either higher bills for consumers or other renewable technologies, such as offshore wind, losing out on support.

We need to continue investing in less mature technologies so that they realise their promise, just as onshore wind has done. It is therefore appropriate to curtail further subsidised deployment of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore developers with those of bill payers. This Government were elected with a commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind and also to change the law so that local people have the final say on onshore wind applications. We are now acting on that commitment.

Alongside proposals outlined within the new energy Bill to devolve decision-making for new onshore wind farms out of Whitehall, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has set out further considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development in England so that local people have the final say on onshore wind farm applications.

I set out to Parliament on 18 June proposals to end new subsidies for onshore wind, specifically in relation to the renewables obligation, which will be closed to new onshore wind from 1 April 2016, a year earlier than planned. My department’s analysis indicates that, after taking account of an early closure, onshore wind deployment under the renewables obligation will be in the region of 11.6 gigawatts. With this capacity, and that of onshore wind projects that have received support through the new contracts for difference, we expect around 12.3 gigawatts of onshore wind to be operating in the United Kingdom by 2020, supported by the levy control framework, providing around 10% of electricity generation. This puts us above the middle of the deployment range set out in the EMR delivery plan—our best estimate of what we would need to meet the planned contribution from renewable electricity to our 2020 targets.

I have proposed a grace period which would continue to give access to support under the RO to those projects which, as of 18 June 2015, already have planning consent, a grid connection offer and acceptance, and evidence of land rights for the site on which the projects will be built. We estimate that around 7.1 gigawatts of onshore wind capacity proposed across the United Kingdom will not be eligible for the grace period and are therefore unlikely to go ahead as a result of the announcement of 18 June. That equates to around 250 projects, totalling about 2,500 turbines now unlikely to be built.

Therefore, by closing the RO to onshore wind early, we are ensuring that we meet our renewable electricity objectives, while managing the impact on consumer bills and ensuring that other renewables technologies continue to develop and reduce their costs. Consumer bills will not rise because of this change. Indeed, those onshore wind projects unlikely now to go ahead would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. I believe that this draws the line in the right place.

In advance of this announcement, I and other Ministers and officials have been discussing these proposals with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. I now want to hear the further views from devolved Administrations, and also industry and other stakeholders. This is just the beginning of the process and we will continue to consult them as we move towards implementation.

The changes to the renewables obligation do not affect remote island wind proposals, which would not have been in a position to receive RO subsidy even under previous timelines. I will say more about how future CfD projects will be treated in due course. But I am particularly conscious of the fact that 68% of the onshore wind pipeline relates to projects in Scotland. I will continue to consult colleagues in the Scottish Government. Indeed, I am meeting the Scottish Energy Minister, Fergus Ewing, on Wednesday. By implementing these changes through primary legislation, they will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, including from Members representing Scottish constituencies.

With regard to contracts for difference, we have the tools available to implement our manifesto commitments on onshore wind and will set out how we will do so when announcing plans in relation to further CfD allocations. I will also shortly be considering options for future support for community onshore wind projects that might represent one or two turbines through the feed-in tariffs—FITs—as part of the review that my department is conducting this year. I do not wish to stand in the way of local communities coming together to generate low-carbon electricity in a manner that is acceptable to them, including through small-scale wind capacity. However, that action must be affordable as well as acceptable.

Clean energy does not begin and end with onshore wind. Onshore wind is an important part of our current and future low-carbon energy mix, but we are reaching the limits of what is affordable and what the public are prepared to accept. We are committed to meeting our decarbonisation objectives. The changes that I have outlined to Parliament will not change this. I look forward to having meaningful discussions with industry, with other stakeholders and with colleagues in the House and in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on how we move forward”.

16:44

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement received in the House of Commons today on ending new subsidies for onshore wind. This is quite a regrettable outcome from the election—but I would say that, wouldn’t I? But I say that for a number of reasons in this context.

It seems to me that this policy demonstrates quite how out of touch this Government are with the UK as a country. Onshore wind must be viewed as predominantly a Scottish and Welsh industry. On any metric, Scotland dominates it, yet here we have a Government with a wafer-slim majority trying to push through some dog-whistle policies to appease a very small, but very vocal, number of Back-Bench MPs. The net effect of that is to destabilise investor confidence in the UK’s renewables industry. It is not just the onshore industry that is now understandably upset by the Government’s moves in this direction. The deputy director-general of the CBI has said:

“Cutting the Renewables Obligation scheme early sends a worrying signal about the stability of the UK’s energy policy framework. This is a blow, not just to the industry, and could damage our reputation as a good place to invest in energy infrastructure”.

Those are serious allegations, and I am afraid that this policy, no matter how you try to dress it up as being in favour of consumer cost-cutting or enabling us to meet targets in more cost-effective ways, is simply a response to a very political problem which could and should be sorted out at local level.

The announcement about cutting the subsidies was accompanied by changes in planning laws which are incredibly restrictive. There is absolutely no need to go further and destabilise investor confidence in the way the Government have done. The new planning policies require that local plans identify sites suitable for wind farms and planning can go ahead only on those sites. This will severely limit projects coming forward and is sufficient on its own to ensure that people who want to rule out onshore wind in their local areas can do so. There is no need to introduce such a blanket, nationwide policy which will have serious repercussions for energy policy across the UK.

I have mentioned Scotland, and I am grateful that the Statement said that consultation is ongoing, but what is likely to happen as a result of this policy is the splitting apart of UK energy policy, as I am sure that Scotland and stakeholders within Scotland will not accept that the Government have authority to dictate that no more support can be given to this growth industry.

One of the defences is cost-effectiveness. It is simply not true that if you rule out one of the most cost-effective sources of renewable power you will save customers money. In fact, a hint about why that is not true is in the ministerial Statement. By ruling out onshore wind, we will be spending more money on less cheap technologies to meet our targets. In fact, the Government are encouraging this by saying that they need to protect offshore wind. In the latest auctions for contracts for difference—which we will come on to in a second, as there are implications in this measure for them too—it was clear that onshore wind came in at around £80 per megawatt hour and offshore wind at £120 per megawatt hour. That is not an insignificant difference. By ensuring that we rule out onshore wind, we will naturally see more money spent on offshore wind as we move to meet our targets.

On the subject of targets, I think that the Statement is breathtaking in its complacency. We are not on track to meet our targets. The target is that 20% of our energy should come from renewable sources by 2020. We are now approaching 5% of energy coming from renewable sources. It is important to note that there are three distinct policies that help us to meet that target. There is the electricity market reform package, which introduces a new system of support and which shut down the renewables obligations. That is the subject of this Statement. Two other polices are needed to get us to our target: the renewable heat incentive and the renewable transport fuel obligation. Both those policies are failing. They are not on track to get us to the target we need to reach. Electricity is the one area where we can say that we have seen success, yet here we are cutting off at the knees one of the most important contributors to success in that policy. Will the Minister please give me an undertaking that he will go back to ask his officials what will occur in the event that the renewable heat sector and the renewable transport sector fail to deliver? How will we compensate? Can we look again at the need for more electricity sources to help us meet those targets? In those circumstances, should we not look again at the most cost-effective sources of renewable electricity, which definitely include onshore wind?

We have touched upon the fact that another policy support beyond the renewables obligation offers support for onshore wind: the contracts for difference. Can the Minister confirm that there will be further auctions for contracts for difference between this Statement and the passing of the Bill, which will be needed to enact these new policies? Primary legislation and all the changes that it involves takes time. Will we see continued granting of contracts to onshore wind in that period, and can the Minister please endeavour to provide clear information to the industry should companies wish to switch from the RO to the CfD process to continue with their projects?

As today’s Statement says, around 250 projects which might have gone ahead under the RO are now unlikely to happen. It seems evident that a large number of those will already have had a significant amount of investment in them to get them to the stage of being ready to be built. We owe it to those developers who have done so in good faith to enable them to transition to a new support system before we rush to cut away the support that they were given not many years ago. In fact, we all debated the transition to cleaner energy in our discussions on the energy market reform proposals in the Energy Bill passed under the previous Government. That was not long ago and yet here we are, so soon after an election, radically shaking things up once again, creating uncertainty and dissuading people from seeing the UK as a place for inward investment.

Today it is onshore wind; tomorrow—who knows? Solar energy, offshore wind, biomass—you name it, everything seems to be in question. If there are enough Back-Bench Tory MPs who dislike something, it seems that it will be cut off at the knees. I am greatly disappointed by the Statement today.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I eagerly anticipate what the Minister will say after our contributions. There is no doubt that the Conservatives, now governing alone, are sending very poor signals to the renewable energy sector. Therefore, although it is regrettable, I thank him for making that very clear at the beginning of this Administration.

The repeated Statement does not include the text that the Secretary of State added at the Dispatch Box, in which he paid tribute to the Conservative MPs who have been the most vociferous about onshore wind—a part of the energy mix that receives less support than Hinkley Point but is part of an accelerating part of our whole renewable energy generation mix.

The Government say that they were elected with a commitment to end new subsidies, but surely not to do so prematurely and without consultation, creating confusion among the investor community and industry, causing concern among those whose jobs may be now at risk, and putting in doubt our carbon reduction ambition. Niall Stuart of Scottish Renewables—where, as the Statement says, 68% of those in the pipeline are located—is right to say that the Government’s actions are bad for jobs and for investment.

Given that the Government plan for this to be implemented by primary legislation, what exactly do they want to hear as part of the consultation? It seems very obvious that they have made up their mind, not only on the policy but also on how it will be delivered. How can it be the “beginning of the process”, as the Statement said, when the Government seem to have a closed mind? What if Parliament believes that there is too much confusion in the grace period, and that before making the announcement there should have been consultation with the stakeholders and others involved who potentially could lose their jobs and their income? What if Parliament believes that this should be implemented only after Royal Assent—and when is that anticipated, because it is not clear?

The Secretary of State’s Statement in another place stated that any developer or investor now needs to contact the department to find out if they may be part of the estimated 250 projects. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that I read that with a degree of incredulity. How on earth can it be good government policy to announce it, state how many they estimate are in the pipeline, and even say that more than two-thirds of those are in Scotland, and that any investor or developer who wishes to know if they are part of this now needs to contact the department to find out whether it will indicate whether they are to be in the grace period? The Secretary of State said that this may take some time. Can the Minister say how long it will be before we get clarity and when the list of sites will be published?

Finally, the Secretary of State was also unable to say—and I regret that the Minister has not indicated in the repeat, either, of course—whether a jobs and supply-chain sector impact assessment was carried out before this decision was made. Surely this must have been done. The Government cannot make such a decision without doing some form of impact assessment about the effect on people’s livelihoods, on reputation within the investor community and on the 68% of those in the pipeline that are in Scotland. If an assessment has not been carried out, it is an astonishing piece of work from this Government. Will the Minister confirm whether an assessment has been carried out and will he publish it?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the two contributors, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, from their respective Front Benches. I will try to deal with the points they made. In essence they seemed to be making the same point: that they had been taken by surprise by this announcement. I cannot imagine why. The policy was in the manifesto. It was not a dog-whistle policy, as the noble Baroness suggested. We are not in the business of rerunning the general election; we will be doing that in five years’ time—with the inevitable same result if nothing is learnt by the parties opposite. This should not be a surprise to anybody.

To deal with some of the specifics, this will not hit investor confidence. Some £42 billion has been invested in renewables, nuclear and CCS since 2010. I send out the message that renewables are a vital part of the mix of our energy supply and will be into the future. As I said, this policy was in our manifesto and I do not think that anybody should be surprised by it. In terms of industry, you only have to look at Siemens investing money in Hull in the offshore wind industry to know that industry is very well aware of the commitment of this Government to renewables and indeed to the agenda in Paris on climate change.

The noble Baroness said that this could be decided at local level. This is exactly what is happening. There will be further discussion with the devolved Administrations; discussion has already been going on. It is true to say that Scotland is, in terms of the percentage, affected more than the rest of the United Kingdom, as it has been from the benefits—61% of wind energy has been deployed in Scotland, so it represents roughly the same amount. Again, that should not come as a surprise to anybody.

This decision that we have made—the Statement presented in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—represents an important way of tackling the fact that if we do not take this action it will result in higher bills and/or other renewables not being brought on stream. In terms of investor impact, there will be new jobs with other renewables—and if we had not taken this action, we would not have been investing in the other renewables.

In relation to contracts for difference, the Secretary of State made it clear that we would be bringing a Statement forward on that. It has been extremely successful in terms of value for money, as I think noble Lords across the House will be well aware.

16:59

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, this strikes me as a most deceptive announcement. The deceit lies in the fact that rather than being aimed at reducing the cost to consumers—as it proposes to be—the announcement is in truth aimed at appeasing, as we have heard, a Back-Bench Conservative lobby averse to what it regards as unsightly wind farms. The cost of offshore wind-generated electricity is reckoned to be £120 per megawatt hour, whereas the cost of onshore electricity is reckoned to be £80 per megawatt hour. Clearly, the interests of economic efficiency would be best served by preserving the subsidy for onshore power and reducing that for offshore power. The interests of the environment would be best served by preserving the subsidies for both. Could the Minister tell us how our electricity demand can possibly be met in the absence of onshore power being fostered in the way that we all assumed it would be?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, first of all, the noble Viscount makes the same point about this being a response to Back-Bench opinion. This is actually in response to the country’s opinion, as reflected in the Conservative manifesto, which was voted upon at the general election.

The noble Viscount is right about the current cost of offshore wind being more expensive than onshore, although I notice that that difference in cost has sometimes been exaggerated. The cost of offshore wind is falling. Certainly, it is important we realise that, for some of these new technologies, the costs will fall further. Therefore, I am bound to say that this is the reason we have made this decision. It is important that we balance the interests of the bill payer and the interests of new technologies against the fact that onshore wind has been highly successful and will continue to be so. These contracts are on a 20-year basis, so it is not as though wind farms and the contribution that they make will suddenly disappear.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this announcement. To the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, who suggested that he did not understand what was happening in the rest of the United Kingdom, I gently point out that her party was reduced to one seat.

My noble friend said that Scotland had benefited from this onshore wind subsidy, but I have seen the industrialisation of the countryside in Scotland take place, in a country that is absolutely dependent on tourism. That is not just because of the windmills but because of the huge electricity pylons that are required to convey this electricity across the country. This Statement will be very much welcomed.

The other thing that I would like to point out to my noble friend is that, in removing this subsidy, he is ending what has been the biggest transfer of wealth from the poorest in Scotland to the richest in Scotland because of the fact that these subsidies, which are being paid to large landowners, are reflected in the bills of the people who have to meet the cost and are undisclosed. Therefore, I believe that this is a great step forward.

I urge my noble friend to look at the next racket, which is biomass, where people are being paid huge subsidies and given large interest-free loans, again at the expense of ordinary people who cannot afford these capital investments and who have to pay the bills. I hope that this is the first step in a process that sees people in Scotland and in the United Kingdom being treated fairly in this issue of renewables.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that contribution. It is right to say, as he has done, that opinion in Scotland certainly is not all one way and there are split views on the usefulness and so on of onshore wind.

In relation to his more general comment about renewables, the Government are committed to making sure that we have a balance of interests between affordability, security and clean energy. That remains the case. Renewables are very important going forward to ensure that we meet those three aims, as a department and a government.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, there is something that I cannot quite understand. The Minister said that he was going to consult the Scottish Government. What is he consulting on if the decisions have already been taken?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the Secretary of State in another place made it very clear that discussions have been going on with the devolved Administrations about the rollout of the policy, and that will remain the case. On Wednesday, she is meeting Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Energy in the Scottish Parliament, to further those discussions. In relation to one or two comments that have been made about consultation, I should also say that there is a dialogue with industry and interested parties—not consultation but a dialogue—about the rollout in relation to the grace period.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a long-term adviser to a fund that invests in many sectors but also in renewable energy.

I can assure the Minister that this will be very damaging to investor confidence. I spend a lot of my time talking to global investors in renewable energy who have been frightened by a number of things. The Minister will know what happened recently in Italy, where the Italian Government retroactively changed the solar regime. A few years previously, something similar happened in Spain. I am asked over and again whether investors can have confidence in the British Government in relation to grandfathering rights and showing consistency in this area, and I am afraid that this will rattle investor confidence in renewables. As the Minister will know, wind farms take a long time—typically eight, nine or 10 years—to go through the process. The announcement today will severely undermine the economics of many companies that have already invested a great deal in wind farms going forward and cannot recoup that investment.

Secondly, can the Minister explain the rationale for picking on this particular form of renewable energy when, as a number of other speakers have made clear, it is by far the cheapest form of renewable energy?

Finally, what is the rationale for allowing local people to have the final say in respect of onshore wind and have that apply here but not in respect of other strategic infrastructure or other kinds of power plants?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, in relation to investor confidence, I can only repeat the point that over £42 billion has been invested in renewables since 2010 along with nuclear and CCS. There has been a massive investment of £11.4 billion in two years in the solar PV sector and it remains the case that we are committed to renewables. I cannot speak for the retroactive action in Italy; this is not retroactive.

On the second point made by the noble Lord, he will be aware from mid-Wales just how unpopular these large wind farms can be. That was very much a feature of the last election. That is why it was singled out in the way that it was.

With regard to costs, it is true that the cost of onshore wind is cheaper, but one reason for that is that it was the first in the field and so it is a more developed technology. That is why we are looking at other technologies, and the costs of offshore wind and other costs—solar and so on—are coming down as well.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I confirm what my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed said earlier—I concur with him in his interpretation of how this will be seen in Scotland from a political point of view. The question is: what assessment was made before this decision was taken about that subject as well as the investment implications?

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that it is nonsense to say that this will not affect investor confidence in the future—that is complete nonsense. Wise people such as Keith Anderson of Scottish Power make it perfectly clear what the consequences will be. The Government should have listened to him before they took this decision. To what extent will this decision expose Her Majesty’s Government to compensation claims or judicial review?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord—he will know as well as anyone else—of the importance that we attach, as do the people of Scotland, to having a single energy market.

Sorry, I am afraid that I have lost sight of the particular point that the noble Lord made.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

It was on compensation.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the important point about the grace period is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has set out what we think is the right balance between the change of policy and shift of emphasis, and the interests of the consumer and the bill payer. We believe that those projects which have planning permission, have a grid connection which has been accepted and have a right of ownership are in a special position, while others are not. My right honourable friend has said in another place that she is happy to enter into a dialogue with the industry, and that is ongoing. It is about getting the balance right, and we feel we have done that. That is one reason why we have not rushed this announcement because we have spent some time on it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, this is welcome in the interests of future energy balance, but can my noble friend clarify exactly which subsidies are to be ended next April? Are they just the RO subsidies, or are we talking about subsidies for back-up power stations—which of course are necessary to make the whole system run—energy access roads, transmission lines, switching stations and grid connections? Or are they merely the RO subsidies rather than the other ones?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, it is merely the RO subsidy.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I must declare an interest as the president of Protect Nocton Fen, a group which has been set up in Lincolnshire to protect us from 20 turbines, each one of which would be twice the height of the cathedral, which is just seven miles away. I thank my noble friend for the Statement, but I would ask him if I can go back to my supporters in Lincolnshire at the weekend and tell them that the tremendous threat to some of the most historic views in the whole of Europe will now be removed.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that contribution. The interests of consumers and those of people who are concerned about the impact on the landscape have certainly informed the discussions. It is important that we take people with us on energy policy. He is right to cite the example of Lincoln Cathedral, which I think was once the tallest building in the world. However, the reason this is being done is not solely because it was part of the manifesto. It was in the manifesto because we are already delivering in terms of people’s needs in relation to onshore wind; it is already delivering significantly. The costs next year will be more than £1 billion in terms of what will be paid out in subsidy, and that will be going on for the lifetime of the programme. It is not as if onshore wind will not be a significant part of the mix, and of course there is the importance of other renewables. But yes, we have very much in mind the interests of people throughout the country who are concerned about the growth of onshore wind.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, if and when the new subsidies are ended, we will have 6,000 or 7,000 subsidised windmills. Can the Minister remind the House for how long the subsidies for these thousands of wind turbines are going to be guaranteed, and what the total cost will be over their lifetime? If the figures are not available, could the Minister write to me?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. I do not have the specific figure, but it is certainly billions of pounds, and the typical lifetime of a contract or a subsidy in relation to a wind farm is 20 years. But I would remind the House that this is for an important purpose. It is in order that we can reach our decarbonisation targets, and we are determined to do that by getting the mix right. This is about balancing the interests of the consumer and keeping bills down—which I think we would all want to ensure as much as possible—with the interests of ensuring that we have clean and secure energy. As I say, it is about getting the mix right, and I believe we have done that.

[Lord Donoughue (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that from the Government’s own projections the cost to consumers of these subsidies for windmills and solar, which I believe are currently running at 5% of household energy expenditure, will treble to 15% by 2030? Does he agree with the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research, a greatly respected body, that such green taxes are deeply regressive and by 2030 will amount to £226 per household? That constitutes a heavy burden on the ordinary householder.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am entering dangerous territory when I am asked to agree with a left-wing organisation. What I will say to the noble Lord is that the cost is immense, but the cost of doing nothing is even more immense. We are determined to get the balance right so that we have clean energy and we are protecting the planet, but at the same time bills have to be affordable—we are very conscious of the fact that some people struggle with their bills—and we have to have security of energy supply.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on making this announcement. Does the Minister agree that the beauty of rural Britain is one of our great national assets, and that the march of wind turbines has in certain respects in certain areas greatly damaged that beauty for a long time—a generation in many cases? More important, does the Minister agree that there is plenty of industrial land on which wind farms can be erected? I drove today through Dagenham, where there are three very large turbines, and where there is room for another dozen or so easily. Does he agree that, rather like building land, where there is plenty of brown land—according to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Riverside, there is enough brown land to build 1 million houses—we should focus wind farms in areas where they do not cause an adverse impact on our national beauty?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My noble friend makes an important point about the beauty of our country and our landscape. I do not want to enter into a dispute about different parts of the country. I remind noble Lords of the importance of taking public opinion with us. Clearly, in terms of future wind farms, the number will now be restricted by the Statement. Other renewables, of course, do not have the same impact, and it is very important that we carry those forward into our energy mix, ensuring three things of which I remind the House: affordability, security and clean energy.

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

The Minister said that one of the reasons for this decision is a commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto. Was that manifesto supported by the voters in Scotland?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, we are one country.

[Lord Williams of Elvel (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord agree that it would be wise to stop talking about subsidies? Subsidies come from the taxpayer. What comes from wind farms is for the consumer, not the taxpayer. This is in fact a tax, and should we not refer to it honestly as such?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point. It is, indeed, a transfer of tax—a subsidy—from the bill payer rather than from the normal taxpayer of income tax, and so on. We all know what we mean. It is a subsidy but I remind noble Lords that it is there for an important purpose because we need to ensure that we hit our renewable targets—I hope exceed them—and make a contribution to the climate change agenda that is coming forward in Paris.

[Lord Sanderson of Bowden (Con)]

When my noble friend’s right honourable friend speaks to the Scottish Government on Wednesday will she remind them that nuclear power is very important in the overall scheme of things for energy? Just because the Scottish Government refuse, through their planning powers, to renew Hunterston and Torness, surely that is a retrograde step.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. Nuclear is an important part of the mix which we rely on throughout the country, and we will continue to do so. There is no hope of meeting our targets without the contribution of nuclear throughout these islands.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would agree that there is another reason why this move is to be welcomed. He talked about democracy and giving more regard to local people’s opinion, and the amount of subsidy has a direct bearing on that. I have some experience of this. Local people trying to fight one of these wind farms—in my case, overlooking Offa’s Dyke and a grade 1 Humphry Repton landscape—have seen such financial benefits to developers that it is very hard for them, standing on their own, to raise the money to fight developers and landowners who have a huge financial vested interest. Apart from anything else, this will at least level the playing field.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has taken a great interest in this from a mid-Wales perspective over a period of time. Strangely, he comes to it with a different angle from that of the noble Lord, Lord Birt. It is important that we are conscious that it is very often difficult to take on, in a David-and-Goliath way, a large energy supplier. That is true across government: we need to be conscious that it is sometimes difficult for people to challenge decisions. I remind the House once again that I believe this represents the correct balance of honouring our manifesto and ensuring that we have a balanced answer to the question of energy supply—that it is affordable, secure and clean.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

17:20

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

3: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Devolution of powers
(1) The Secretary of State may by order confer the power to exercise any functions that may be required on a combined authority established under Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (economic prosperity boards and combined authorities).
(2) An order under this section may only be made where a proposal for the combined authority to exercise these functions has been made to the Secretary of State by the appropriate authorities.
(3) The Secretary of State may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if he believes that the proposal made by the appropriate authorities—
(a) does not provide sufficient democratic accountability over the functions to be exercised;(b) does not have the support of local authority electors within the appropriate area; or(c) would risk the proper functioning of local government within the relevant area or parts of the relevant area.(4) The Secretary of State may not, in making an order to enable a combined authority to exercise functions under subsection (1), require the combined authority to elect a mayor under section 107A of the 2009 Act.”

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I said on Amendments 1 and 2 that we should avoid being overly strict on what structure and governance can be proposed and approved, but we need to be very careful that, in not being too prescriptive, we do not end up giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to do whatever he wishes. There has to be a set of principles by which proposals can be judged. We have set out four in this amendment: democratic accountability, the support of local government electors, the need to avoid risk to the proper functioning of local government within the area of the elected mayor, and that it should not be an automatic requirement that there is an elected mayor.

We should note the context here. In Greater Manchester there is to be an elected mayor without either a referendum or a full consultation with local people, and with an interim mayor elected by a handful of council leaders, not by the general public. There appears to be little evidence of positive public consent to the governance structure. Indeed, a referendum on an elected mayor in the city of Manchester received a no vote very recently. We need to be very careful that we do not introduce new structures that, because they lack democratic legitimacy, could put at risk the devolution of power that we want to achieve. The Government have to explain why, if an assembly is right for London, it is not right for Greater Manchester and other parts of the country.

As they stand, the proposals in the Bill run the very serious risk of creating a one-party state in some parts of the country without adequate checks and balances in the governance structure. Let me explain. It would not be good for democracy or for accountability for an elected mayor from one party to be able to appoint a deputy mayor of the same party from the combined authority, and then to chair that combined authority—dominated by that same party—with the overview and scrutiny function led by a chair of that same party and dominated by members of that same party. This is dangerous, because the only connection with the governance of the combined authority for an elector is to vote for the mayor, but nobody else. We want to change the electoral process to include the combined authority itself. That is because we do not wish to replace one form of centralism with another. This is about accountability, which cannot be guaranteed with the proposals that the Government are making. Our amendments are designed to improve the Bill’s failures in this respect.

Let me be very clear: this is not about refusing to accept the concept of elected mayors. The concept can work, with the right governance structures around such a mayor—indeed, the Government have a mandate to introduce them. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to assume that the election of one person for the whole of a combined authority area would of itself be sufficient to secure public consent to the new arrangements.

We must amend the Bill to improve it in order to make the proposed structures more accountable, with checks and balances which everyone understands. We shall therefore examine the way in which overview and scrutiny will work, particularly as regards the rights of the public, the press and the media to obtain information, and the rights of opposition councillors to call for papers. We do not want to end up with meetings of combined authorities in which the business is conducted in secret pre-meetings composed of just one party, and then announced to the press and public as decisions in short public sessions with little debate or discussion.

All our amendments to the Bill are tabled with the aim of improving it and enabling it to earn broad public consent. It needs to be amended to achieve that and the requirements and safeguards recommended in subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 3 are extremely important in that regard. In moving Amendment 3, I have spoken also to Amendments 9 and 10.

[Lord Heseltine (Con)]

My Lords, I have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and I know of his long experience and dedication to this cause. However, I disagree with the consequences of what he is asking your Lordships to accept.

We are looking at a system of local government which has not delivered the necessary standards in a whole range of fields. In my life as a politician, I have seen how we have ruthlessly taken power away from local government and centralised it in Whitehall departments. I see present many noble Lords and noble Baronesses who supported that. The reason we did that was because the standards of local provision were in our view inadequate. We may have been wrong, but whether it was my party and the Housing Corporation, which I think was established in the 1970s, or the academies which the Labour Party introduced under the leadership of Tony Blair, the same basic premise has always applied—namely, that local government was not up to the job of delivering the services to the standard that central government believes in.

We now have an historic opportunity—it is historic, as we discussed on Second Reading—to create locally a standard of service and a scale of delivery which can produce results which reflect local strengths and weaknesses, and which is of a different order from that which exists today. The great dilemma I hear expressed is that, time and again, noble Lords taking part in this debate assume that we are trying to recreate powers for local government as it is. That would be a great mistake and would not command the support that the thrust of this Bill is trying to achieve.

We are trying to create organisations of a scale and resource, and with the leadership qualities, that can compete on a world scale. We are looking at the départements of France, the states of the United States and the Länder of Germany. We know that to maximise the endeavour of this country we must have the ability to compete in a whole range of activities—education, economic generation and perhaps health—so we are looking to attract men and women who command respect and have the capacity and the leadership qualities to change the public perception of local government.

We hear about accountability. What accountability is there in local government today? The noble Lord referred to a “one-party state” but two-thirds of the constituencies that elect another place never change allegiance. The battles are fought in the marginal constituencies. In a vast number of councils in this country, the councillors never change from one party to another. A significant number of councils do not change allegiance either. So if one is talking about changing, the present system does not do it.

17:30

If you are going to move to a new sense of scale and responsibility, the only international precedent of which I have any knowledge is that you have to have one person elected to do the job. We are told that there have been referenda which have not supported this view. That is perfectly true. What were those referenda all about? They were about tiny numbers of people whipped up by the party machines and the local councillors in order to preserve the status quo, and they reflected the total public disenchantment with the process. It is not as though we are changing a much-admired institution. There is not this great body of local enthusiasm for what is going on.

The first step, if your Lordships will follow me, in moving towards a directly elected leadership is to look at that and say, “Well, what we really ought to do is to circumscribe it with all sorts of things called accountability or double-checking or deputy mayors”—whatever it may be—and all those things have the same consequence of trying to rebuild into the new opportunities the constraints that have made the present system as ineffective as it often is. These amendments, understandable though they may be in terms of the way we presently operate, actually tend to consolidate the processes that we have in this country today and not improve or replace them in a way that is necessary.

As every noble Lord will know, over a century at least we have in this House and another place ruthlessly taken powers away from local government. Local government is the creature of central government. Time and again we have changed the pattern, we have changed the structure and we have changed the financial distribution arrangements, and never once has anyone suggested that we should consult the people. We just took the powers away. We changed the arrangements. Never once, except perhaps with London, did somebody suggest that we ought to consult the people. Now we are offering to give the powers back. We are offering to say to local communities, “You design the most effective structure to govern yourselves. You tell us how you think it would best be”. What are we now being asked to do? To start constraining it in order to make sure that we tell them how it can be done and what the limitations are.

I suggest to the House that those of us who believe passionately in recreating a form of local administration that is modern, of a scale and accountable, comparable with the battles we have to fight on an international scale, should not constrain it with the same sorts of problems that have bedevilled the existing structure, which we broadly know has to be replaced.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is perhaps the best-qualified special adviser ever to have occupied that position. He is a unique spad, but that is no reflection on the legions of other spads who have found their way into positions in your Lordships’ House or elsewhere.

With great respect to the noble Lord, his argument is not entirely convincing. On his argument, we should have an elected Prime Minister rather than an elected Parliament. Perhaps that might not be a bad idea in the circumstances but as a matter of principle I would not have thought that he would subscribe to that. When he talks about the legitimacy of an elected mayor, he seems to overlook the turnout in the most important mayoral elections of all, in London. As I recall, that has varied between 35% and 45%—marginally above the average local authority election turnout, which I guess is in the upper 30s and lower 40s. That does not suggest that that office has any greater legitimacy than that of council leaders.

I ought to refer to my local government interests. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I have been leader of Newcastle City Council. There are other very experienced council leaders around the Chamber, although not, I think, on the Government Benches—apart from the Minister, of course, who has her own brief to deliver—although there are experienced local government members of the Conservative Party in your Lordships’ House from time to time.

The noble Lord also implies that somehow the people are being consulted, but that is not what is happening. They are not going to be consulted. The offer apparently will be made that, “You will have a certain set of powers providing you have an elected mayor but we are not going to ask you to vote on whether or not you have an elected mayor”—perhaps because all but one of the authorities that chose to have referendums a few years ago decided against it, and perhaps also in the light of the turnout in the elections for the other post that was much bruited by the present Administration, elected police commissioners, where the turnout was even more risible than that for elected mayors in London.

The noble Lord’s support for local government in various forms has manifested itself over the years and I do not for a moment take away any of the credit that he deserves for his interest in and support for local government, although he himself admits it was somewhat qualified by the circumstances of the day. But I do not think that what he is suggesting is acceptable, in the sense that we are going to have effectively two tiers of local government across the country or across such parts of the country that do the deal that the Government are offering to them. I do not think that division of local government is going to reinforce local democracy; I think it will weaken local democracy.

Local government is essentially place based. The problem with some of this is that whereas there are major functions which need a wider canvas, as it were, to be dealt with—one thinks of transport, elements of economic development and the like—other services are intrinsically local and much more closely community related. I repeat what I said in an earlier debate about size. The Norfolk area, as we heard, runs 70 miles from north to south. It is greater in the north-east, embodying in the North East Combined Authority two county areas and five metropolitan districts—not a single city, not even just a city region but a complicated set of areas like that; and the same will apply in other parts of the country where this might take place—and that will devalue the immediacy of local government and the community-based services of local government, and that would be a blow to our general democracy.

It would be unfortunate if the line that the noble Lord has argued was to be adopted, in the sense that you would get a deal only if you accept that. I do not entirely concur with everything the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, says but I think there is merit in much of his argument and I fear that the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, frankly overstates the democratic element, which we want to see conserved and, indeed, improved in local government.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I have developed huge respect for the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, over the years following the work that he did in Liverpool Toxteth and his overseeing of that very significant project, which I was able to visit some 25 years ago. But I want to speak specifically to the wording in this amendment because I am unable to understand why the noble Lord takes exception to it. Amendment 3 says:

“The Secretary of State may”—

I stress, may—

“refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if he believes that the proposal made by the appropriate authorities … does not provide sufficient democratic accountability … does not have the support of local authority electors … or … would risk the proper functioning of local government”.

It does not say that the Secretary of State will refuse if the proposal made by the authorities does not provide sufficient democratic accountability. All that is happening here is that the Secretary of State is being given discretion to make a judgment, based on whatever information is brought before them. They are not required to do so because suddenly the electorate in an area are saying, “We demand that this procedure does not take place”. It is for the Secretary of State to make a judgment and to use his or her discretion. If the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, had read the amendment in that light, I would have thought that he may have taken a more flexible view of it.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Beecham and to challenge, with some trepidation, the history of local government over the last 30 or 40 years which was offered to us tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. I think I would not be unfair to him if I suggested that he made two main arguments: first, that local government was in disrepute and, secondly—with the implication that this was a consequence of the first point—that there had been increased centralisation because local government could not be trusted or did not have people of sufficient quality or merit to carry out the functions of local government. I remind the noble Lord, although I am sure that he knows this perfectly well, that actually he has it the wrong way round.

What we have had since 1974 is several reorganisations and a poll tax which took millions of people off—and effectively destroyed—the electoral register. Then, within the course of the same Parliament, that was reversed and there was a new form of funding: the council tax, which had its own inadequacies. We have had the effective nationalisation of the business rate—although it was not effective but ineffective, with some seepage back to local authorities on the grounds of “earned autonomy”. I find the arrogance of such a statement appalling. Even in the last five years, we have had our resources cut by some 40%. Then the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, wonders why local government does not have the same effectiveness and high standing in the community that it had in the 1960s and 1970s. We could even go back to Joe Chamberlain in the 1880s and the like. The noble Lord has got it back to front. Central government—my party is guilty as well—has had a campaign, in the name of the sovereignty of a parliamentary, united system, to bring the powers back into central government.

The reason is that whichever Government are in power, over the course of a few years the battle in local government swings to the other party. Then we had Mrs Thatcher telling local government, “Take your tanks off my lawn”. She said it to the universities and the lawyers, and she said it to local government. That political will was matched by the Treasury’s will to turn local government into what were essentially post-boxes—agencies for central government wishes and responsibilities. That is what happened. It is not that we were in disrepute and, as a result, tried to make amendments and take powers to the centre. Since the 1970s, central government has sliced and sliced away at local government’s responsibilities, finance and functions, and its standing in the community. Central government must take responsibility for what it has done. I will give way to the noble Lord although I have not quite finished.

[Lord Heseltine]

I am most grateful. I think that the noble Baroness is perhaps not old enough to know this but the real problem was the Redcliffe-Maud inquiry of the 1960s, which the Labour Party of the time established, and which set out the model for local government in this country. It replaced 1,400 local authorities with about 60 and it is towards that model, created by a Labour Government of the 1960s, that we have been progressively moving.

17:45

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I do not disagree that Redcliffe-Maud was a sizeable problem. I did quite a lot of work on this and thought that the Senior minority report looked at one stage as if it was going to be the main way through. As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, will also remember, before that there was the Kilbrandon report on regional government, which some of us were also involved with. So we both have long memories of what has happened to local government, going right back to the mid-1960s. The point I am trying to establish—and I am not trying to say that it is one party especially, rather than the other—is that by taking slice after slice of local government authority, responsibility, functions and resources, central government have knowingly and with collusion undermined the local government that we all want to see. I am sure that the noble Lord is right that we want to see that local government revived. That is healthy and appropriate, but what you should not do is to say, “You can only have that revived local government on my terms, of having an elected mayor, if you want that earned autonomy of the combined authorities”.

I was a local authority leader, first as a councillor in the county borough and then the district. I was also a county councillor, et cetera. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, that as the leader of my local authority, directly elected in my ward by my constituents and, further, directly elected by other councillors, there was nothing I could not do that I could now do as mayor. In addition, I had the support of a majority group, I could share power and devolve it down through committee structures, which a mayor would not so easily be able to do, and I had the full financial backing of that local authority. As a leader, and with consent, I effectively had more power, potential and resources than any elected mayor as presently prescribed by Whitehall would have. So I say to him that one model does not fit all and we cannot decide that we want autonomy and bottom-up, local decision-making in some territories and not in others. If individual local authorities or groups of local authorities want an elected mayor, I will cheer them on. If they decide that it is not right for them, the Government in London, and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, should give them the respect and dignity of their choice. That is what localism is about.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, you will be pleased to know that I am not going to get into this discussion about what happened in the 1960s. My memory certainly does not stretch as far back as that, having been born in the 1970s. I would like to speak about what business is looking for from local decision-makers. My interests are noted on the register of interests. As somebody who in her real life—before life in politics—started and ran three businesses, of which I am still involved in two, it is important for me to have heard today from the Federation of Small Businesses that its members are in a robust mood. It did a survey and two-thirds of small businesses are hoping to grow moderately or rapidly over the next year. That is great news and, to some extent, is a response to the policy that has been pursued in this area over the last four or five years.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Heseltine for the tremendous amount of work they did under the last Administration to make sure that the building blocks were put in place, with the benefits that we are seeing today. Much of the work on devolution had already been started. Certainly in West Yorkshire, where the businesses I am involved in are based, the first agreement on devolution was already in place. Indeed, as we scrutinise the Bill, agreements and discussions are ongoing about what that devolution deal will look like now for West Yorkshire or the much broader Yorkshire region. Those decisions have still to be made.

The only question I would raise is this: is what we are going to create, or what we are asking for, going to assist or get in the way of business? Is the extra bureaucracy that we want to put in place in the name of democratic accountability going to help create jobs, which is what ordinary people want, or delay their creation? Is the consultation that we think is so vital before we put these structures in place going to help businesses to grow, or is it going to slow things down and therefore detract from this robust mood that small businesses up and down the country are showing?

Time is of the essence. I know from my own involvement with the regional growth fund and its payment to businesses in Yorkshire—I am involved in two manufacturing businesses, which manufacture furniture and ingredients respectively—that when an order comes through the door, no one waits for you to get your act together and discuss it with the LEPs and the RGF, and for them to make a decision and come back to you to tell you about timescales and ensure that everything has been properly consulted on. These opportunities do not come along often. Therefore, we should not stand in the way of these structures being created quickly, of local decision-makers being able to respond quickly, of getting money into businesses and getting them to invest more in expanding and—playing upon this robust mood that the Federation of Small Businesses is talking about—creating the very jobs we need for the economy to keep growing. Speaking from a user’s perspective, in scrutinising this legislation, let us enable, rather than creating further layers of bureaucracy.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, I cannot recall the 1960s; I was born in that decade, so my period is rather similar.

The noble Lord has always been a big figure in local government during the entire time that I have risen up and been involved in it, but I have to say that I think his analysis on this is wrong. I say that because my starting point is that, although some people might say that this is just semantics, the Bill is not really about devolution but about decentralisation. It is fundamentally a decentralisation of responsibilities from certain bodies to a combined authority or a mayor. The noble Lord talked about international comparisons, whether it be the Länder in Germany or the cities in the US, or elsewhere, where they have not just a nameplate saying “mayor” but real fiscal powers. When I was leader of Sheffield City Council it would have made no difference whatever whether my nameplate said “leader” or “mayor”; I would have been pulling levers with nothing attached because all the fiscal powers were in Whitehall. That is the important point that is missed by the Bill.

While I agree that it is a step in the right direction, we should not kid ourselves that under the present fiscal arrangements a mayor will be the silver bullet that will give local areas the autonomy and power to be authors of their own destiny in the way that some are suggesting in this debate; something more fundamental is required. Having said that, if we are going to go ahead within the boundaries of the Bill as it stands, then nothing in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Shipley would stop a mayor or powers being created if that was what the local area, along with the Secretary of State, so wished. As the noble Lord said, all that the amendment says is that the Secretary of State “may” refuse an arrangement that has been proposed if it,

“does not provide sufficient democratic accountability”.

What is wrong with strong democratic accountability? We have it here in this Parliament, and I would expect it in local government. All that the amendment says is that not only would strong economic powers be taken into consideration but there would be strong democratic oversight of the powers invested in, possibly, one person. That is reasonable.

In the amendment, the second reason why the Secretary of State might refuse a proposal would be that it,

“does not have the support of local authority electors”.

To go ahead without the support of the electors would be rather strange in my part of the world, where only a few years ago the electors rejected a mayor but now it would be imposed upon them if they wished to have these powers. I hear the Minister when she says that a mayor would not be imposed, but I ask her about the report in the Birmingham Mail on 1 June about the Chancellor saying to the leaders of the West Midlands that,

“only elected mayor will guarantee full funding and powers for West Midlands”.

If that is not a prescriptive approach, what is? So there is prescription within this if you are going to get full funding powers. How would the people of South Yorkshire and Sheffield feel, having said that they, including businesses, did not want a mayor, only to have one imposed in order for limited powers to be decentralised from Whitehall to the area?

There is a third reason in the amendment why the Secretary of State may refuse a proposal. Wherever powers are devolved or moved within the existing structures, whether from national or local government, that should not destabilise local government. There is nothing wrong with that. There are still functions that councils will have when there has been the shifting of the existing chairs on the deck, which is all that the Bill actually does. If there were some fiscal powers, then it would be a devolution Bill. However, if those chairs are going to be moved, it is really important that some of the functions are kept with each individual council. It does not mean that financially they cannot continue to carry out what will be significant statutory functions.

The final subsection proposed in the amendment is about the mayor. I have already spoken about this: a nameplate is not going to change how a place is governed. If it was so significant, why have some councils that had already moved to a directly elected mayor moved back? It has not been the panacea that some would suggest. I advise the Minister to think very carefully about a Bill that puts so much reliance on a name without thinking about significant fiscal powers being moved downwards—which, after all, is what makes a difference.

I end by saying that I think the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, argues my case for me. He talks about the powers of local government in the past, the engines of economic growth and social change. However, they did not have mayors or a single democratically elected person; they had the powers that central government has taken over. I accept that some of those responsibilities and powers will go, but without looking at the fiscal powers that make the difference we will be back here in five or 10 years’ time having the same discussion, because that is the key that will make the change, not the name on a nameplate.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with every word just said by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who has almost provided the framework in which we have discussed this amendment. I seem to recall that it was not a Labour Government who brought forward the legislation following up Redcliffe-Maud.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Peter Walker.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds]

It was Peter Walker in the Conservative Government, but that is history. If I have understood the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, it was that over the years local government has fallen increasingly into disrepute and lost the confidence of the people, and that is why everything went to the centre. Now it has been decided that we are going to devolve some real powers back to these discredited bodies that no one has any confidence in, but we are not going to give them the power; we are going to create one elected person in each area, called the mayor. In place of dozens of discredited local councillors—in the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—there will be one credible, powerful mayor.

18:00

In my experience, local councillors are well regarded in their communities, including by community groups, faith groups and the local media. Not every single person is a bad apple, and there are bad apples everywhere—including in this place and along the corridor. Overwhelmingly, people respect their councillors. They work very hard with greatly constrained powers nowadays. Without participating in the blame game, I would go so far as to say that they are probably better regarded than Members of Parliament, even though on the whole, in my experience, Members of Parliament are well regarded in their local constituencies. The House of Commons has got a bad collective name in recent years but when you ask people about their Member of Parliament, overwhelmingly they are well regarded. Therefore, I do not buy the argument that local councillors are not well regarded or cannot be trusted with more powers. The question is: what is the best way to organise and have control over areas with a combined authority? I hope we do not start from the position, “Heaven forbid that it should be through local councillors”.

Many noble Lords will have shared my experience that when combined authorities start to work and bring together the leaders of the relevant boroughs or metropolitan districts, they work very well together. They understand each other’s problems, are willing to compromise and are willing to try to take things forward. My understanding and reading of what is going on in the areas that are now combined authorities is that it results in responsible collective consideration of major issues and bringing about well-founded polices. In the north of England, as we were discussing the other day in the transport debate, leaders of councils from across the whole area have come together to discuss transport and economic policies.

We can, in my view, trust leaders of local authorities, the councillors to whom they are most immediately responsible and their electorate. The question remains whether we need an elected mayor to add something to that. The first thing I would say—again, from my own experience—is that there would be great revulsion from electors if they were told that there had to be an elected combined authority. Outside London, there is no stomach at all for another tier of elected bodies. Therefore, it will be a mayor, if there is one, operating in conjunction with a small number of leaders of local authorities. What would a mayor bring to add to that? That is an important question. In West Yorkshire’s case, there are five local authority leaders working closely together; in South Yorkshire’s case, there are four. It is not at all clear and I do not believe that the current set-up is not well regarded. In Yorkshire—certainly West Yorkshire—the press, other media and local councils fully understand how combined authorities work. A mayor will not add to that at all.

With the exception of being concerned that the amendment might lead to the idea of having an elected assembly for a combined authority, I think it is well intentioned and can be supported. I do not object to it on the same grounds as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—that local authorities and local councils cannot be trusted and have lost people’s confidence and that a mayor is needed to restore the electorate’s confidence in some way.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, this is my first intervention on the Bill. I apologise for that. Looking around the Chamber, I think that I am the only veteran of the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill in the other place. We assembled a Committee of 29, 27 of whom were London Members—I will come back to that in a moment.

My late noble kinsman was not only a Minister of Housing and Local Government for four years—what would now be Secretary of State for the Environment—but a close friend of the late Lord Maude, to whom others have alluded in this debate. In so far as we are obliged to indicate our credentials in an instance such as this, I will simply confess that I served for 18 months on Camden Council at a time when 18 months on Camden Council seemed like 18 years. I therefore regard it as being a reasonable credential. Until I was 72 years of age, I had had a London address the whole of my life.

The Greater London Authority Bill Committee, which is analogous to what we are engaged in today, had 20 Labour Members on it, seven Conservatives and two Liberal Democrats. I bring them in because it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who introduced this amendment. Both of the two Liberal Democrats who served on that lengthy Committee also served in the recent coalition. They served with distinction on the original Bill. As I said, only two of the 29 were not London Members.

One of the consequences of that was that it was an extremely well-informed Committee, and a Bill which arrived with us with only about 270 clauses ended up having nearer 430. To go back to remarks that my noble friend Lord Heseltine made much earlier this afternoon, that occurred because Whitehall did not really know as much about London as the people who were elected Members in London. We London Members introduced a great deal of totally relevant material into the Bill, and I have no doubt at all that we greatly improved it in the process. It had more than 400 clauses by the time it came out of the House of Lords because, although in Committee in the House of Commons officials were saying to Ministers, “Minister, you must resist this amendment”, the amendments which were sensibly introduced in the House of Commons were then picked up in the House of Lords. As a result, we ended up with a Bill with more than 400 clauses. I have no doubt at all that the Bill was greatly improved in that process, but it did take time. I would not begrudge time on this particular subject, so important is it.

I am not sure whether I have helped in any way either side of the argument with my comments, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Heseltine that this is a spectacular opportunity and I hope we can collectively seize it.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has just made, but I will return to the issue of the comparison between the work done by the committee to which he referred and the eventual statute that emerged in a later group of amendments.

I can remember the 1960s. Indeed, I was elected a county councillor in 1964. I think I am right that the then Conservative candidate for Tavistock, my neighbouring constituency, was none other than a very young, sprightly Conservative called Michael Heseltine. What I admire so much about the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is that, like William Gladstone, he gets more radical as he gets older. He may not appreciate that particular compliment but it is a genuine one.

I return to the tone and content of his earlier contribution, which really set the main argument for this part of the Bill and for this amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Shipley, myself and others. If I may say so, there is an inherent contradiction in what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said. On the one hand, he was determined to let local people free to make their choice as appropriate to their particular needs. That was very much the theme of his peroration, which is in character with what he has sought to do over recent years. Yet, at the same time, he said that we must somehow impose a one-size-fits-all elected mayor on that local decision-making process. He argued for local determination but at the same time said, “Oh, but we must impose the one-man-band mayors”.

I think that we should trust the people. That was another good Conservative slogan of yesteryear. I am, for example, really concerned about extending this process beyond the first tranche of combined authorities into other areas. It has been a major theme throughout the House that we should see this happen not just in the five existing combined authorities but throughout the country. We should let the people of Cornwall be free to decide what they wish to do. That is why my noble friend Lord Teverson and I put our names to this amendment in particular.

As it happens, in Cornwall there has already been a very successful and substantial reorganisation of local government to avoid a lot of the duplication that came from the 1960s and 1970s—to which the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, referred. We have a unitary authority. It is now beginning to work extremely well. It is making substantial savings by avoiding duplication between different levels. That is the right answer for Cornwall. I am not saying it is the right answer for everywhere else but I am absolutely convinced that to impose on that, before they can get any further devolution or decentralisation of power, a one-size-fits-all elected mayor would be plumb crazy. Much more importantly, it would go right against what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, sought to suggest to your Lordships that we should do: let local people decide how they can best be governed.

It happens that in Cornwall we have a distinct identity, integrity and leadership. There is a tradition of cross-party and cross-community leadership. It would not be appropriate to insist on having one particular person, presumably on a minority vote as that is how first past the post tends to produce representation, where there is already plural representation and leadership, and where that is very popular. The noble Lord’s and the Minister’s party, certainly in Cornwall, would be locally absolutely determined to stand alongside others of us who feel that the imposition of a mayor before we can achieve any greater level of decentralisation and devolution would be entirely wrong.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, rightly referred to the dangers of delay. If, for example, Cornwall was not allowed to move until it accepted the imposition of an elected mayor, that would have a devastating effect on the encouragement of investment and the growth of businesses in Cornwall—which is not a wealthy part of the country and desperately needs new initiatives.

Noble Lords on all sides of the House are very much with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, when it came to his peroration. What we find difficult is how to match that up with the apparent contradiction that he insists that we have elected mayors throughout the country before we can move into this new, devolved arrangement.

18:15

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with great interest to the speech from my noble friend Lord Heseltine earlier because I was a councillor in the 1980s and the 1990s, when he served with great distinction in the Conservative Governments of the time. I was a councillor in the same part of the world as the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Beecham, who spoke earlier—the north-east of England—although I was not on the same authority. I also never had the chance to be council leader, as they did, because I was a Conservative in Gateshead. In fact, not only did I not have the chance to be leader, for many years I was the only Conservative out of 66 councillors.

That of course was a difficult time in local government: a time of rate capping and when the Governments of the time took considerable powers away from local government. At the time, I was a cheerleader for that. I thought that many local authorities were dominated too much by ideological, left-wing councillors and that ratepayers—ordinary men and women—needed protecting from some of those people by methods such as rate capping and the removal of those powers. I now believe that I was wrong and that it was a mistake to do that. Since then, events have proved that. So I fully support the Government’s aims now in seeking to return those powers by devolution to local authorities. I hope that they will be able to take matters further and devolve considerably more powers to local authorities. The mayor model is the right way to do that. It was in the Conservative manifesto and for that reason alone the Government should do it; Governments should stick by commitments they have made.

However, that is not the long-term answer to the problem. We have seen declining rates of participation in local government elections for many years. Most people do not bother taking part in those elections. I think the reason is that most electors have worked out that it does not really matter in most cases which councillors they have because councillors have their ability to act so constrained by national legislation and the fact that the vast majority of their finance is supplied by national government that it does not make a lot of difference whether electors participate in local government elections.

It is not in the scope of the Bill, but ultimately the only way to regenerate properly local democracy will be to reform the system of local government finance so that, once again, electors have a considerable stake in their local authorities and it actually makes a difference to what is delivered locally and, more importantly, what they must pay out of their own pocket for those services—then we would regenerate local government, and that would make a big difference.

That is not in the scope of the Bill and it is a very controversial subject. Clearly there are no easy answers to it, but ultimately that would be the way to regenerate local government. As a first step, the Government are going the right way. They are reversing the path of many Governments for a number of years in accumulating power towards the centre. It is a good first step and I wish them well in their endeavours.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said in his analysis of the problems facing local government. He is quite right that local government has been denuded of its powers over decades. He is quite right that many councils simply do not change political colour during elections. However, the solutions to those challenges provided by the noble Lord are not ones that I personally agree with, as they do not provide an adequate response.

The first challenge is that councils do not change political colour. Well, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, neither do two-thirds of constituencies during a general election. They never change political hands. That political problem is resolved by having not a mayoral system in local government but a different electoral system. A fair voting system would provide the opportunity for people to elect differences. At the moment, under the current system, they do not have that opportunity. The second issue that—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

We have heard reference to the electoral system, which is not an uncommon reference from the Liberal Democrat Benches. There is an idea that it is only under first past the post that people are returned regularly from the constituency and we have the notion of the safe seat. I can think of no seat that is safer than being number one on a list for a party, as is the case, for example, in the proportional representation system that we have for the European Parliament. I understand that the Liberal Democrats consider this an improvement on the first past the post system but I, for one, consider it a step backwards, precisely for the reason the noble Baroness argues against safe seats under the first past the post system.

[Baroness Pinnock]

Fair voting in my description is not the list system, which I regard as just a fancy way of changing from first past the post. The proper fair-voting system enables the electors to choose, rather than putting the power in the hands of the political parties as the list system does. My idea of fair voting puts the power in the hands of the elector, but I digress.

The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, also referred to the difficulty of the loss of power by local councils and the solution being this great big single figure who would somehow make all these big, strategic decisions in a combined authority. I have to say that in West Yorkshire, where I have been a councillor for many years—over 25 years, and leader of Kirklees Council for part of that time—a mayoral model simply does not provide the solution that he is looking for. A combined authority is not going to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, wants, which is get decisions made quickly so that small businesses can invest. What a combined authority is primarily about is making big, strategic—and therefore, by definition, long-term—decisions for that area. We are talking about a local government function which will set out a transport infrastructure for the next 20 or 30 years. It is about setting out planning and economic regeneration schemes for the next 20 years. It is about bringing in inward investment, which takes by definition many years. It is about dealing with carbon control, which by definition takes many years. That will not be achieved by having a single, big figure because all those decisions by definition require two elements. One is public consent, because it will mean big changes to the geography of a local area. The second is big investment of public money, which by definition, in this country at least, requires big accountability. That is why I am totally opposed to a mayoral model.

The second element of this is that the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was describing a mayoral model which is simply not that described in the Bill. In the Bill the mayoral model is not this big figure who will somehow paint the future Utopia for an area. The mayor in the system as described in the Bill is the chair of a committee made up of the leaders of the constituent councils of the area. That, to me, is a very different system from that which the noble Lord describes.

My third point about the mayoral model is that if one lives, as I do, in Yorkshire, when anybody talks about the mayoral model the word “Doncaster” immediately comes to mind. I have to say that Doncaster has not had its many problems and challenges resolved by having a mayor. If fact, many would argue that having a mayor has actually made the problems worse. To suggest a mayoral model to people in Yorkshire—or my part, West Yorkshire—leads us down the path of further denigration of local government.

The fourth thing I would say about the mayoral system as it applies in West Yorkshire is that we have all had this idea—it is in the descriptor of the Bill—whereby somehow we have a single city, as we have in Manchester, and all the hinterland is drawn into it. That might work well in Manchester. In West Yorkshire, as I reminded noble Lords at Second Reading, we have not one but four cities, each of which regards itself, quite rightly, as a great city. We have Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield, which is the former county town of the West Riding, and, at some distance from the rest of West Yorkshire, the great city of York. To have a single mayoral model for those great cities will not be acceptable to local people, because they know that the consequence of a mayoral model is to be ruled by Leeds. If you go to York and say, “Actually, folks, you are going to be ruled by Leeds”, they will turn to you in horror, especially if, as we are being told, there can be no proper accountability for that person.

We must accept the will of the people, which in referenda that were held in West Yorkshire was a big and resounding no. This was not because the referenda were taken over by the political machines, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said. Actually, we could not get people to go and vote, because they were not interested. What local people want out of this combined authority is an accountable system that will consult people locally, take up their ideas, give them some passion and enable them to get West Yorkshire going again. The heart of the industries of the north of England is in West Yorkshire; we want to make the most of it—we will not have a mayoral model imposed on us—and we want the fiscal powers from central government in order to achieve that. Currently we have a mayoral model to be imposed and no money to go with it. A better solution would be to have fiscal powers and to throw the mayoral model into the bin, where it belongs.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, I am very encouraged by this debate. One always tends to worry as the years go by that one’s views have become rather fixed and stagnant. My opposition to directly elected mayors is of long standing and my earlier depression was reinforced by the fact that, as I understand it, at the moment all three political parties’ leaderships are committed in one way or another to directly elected mayors. It is always a slightly worrying state of affairs when all three party leaderships seem to be in agreement, but most contributions from the Back Benches that I have heard in both the debates we have had today on the Bill have expressed reservations about directly elected mayors. I suddenly feel that the pendulum may be swinging. It certainly did a long time ago as far as the electorate were concerned—we know that. The electorate say no, no, no, no and an occasional yes when they are asked about directly elected mayors. Is it just wishful thinking or is parliamentary opinion, at least in this House, changing on the issue? If it is, then I think it is for very good and sound reasons.

I do not want to be in any way disparaging about people who support the idea of directly elected mayors. One or two are sitting close to me at the moment. I acknowledge that this phrase that we all use and are all committed to—“democratic accountability”—can take many forms. In truth, it takes two forms more than most others. That is to say, it can be achieved via what we would broadly refer to as a presidential system, or through a parliamentary system. Both have forms of democratic accountability.

18:30

In this country—I am not saying that it is true for every country, but I think that I know this country pretty well—the parliamentary system is the one that I prefer. It has stood the test of time. Although local government is obviously very different from central government, none the less historically it has been a variant of the parliamentary system that has obtained in local government—that is to say, that the executive comes out of the legislature. I know that it is rather grandiose to say that a local authority is a legislature in the same sense as Parliament, but that is from where the executive springs. I much prefer that form of democratic accountability, certainly in comparison with the idea of direct election of the executive.

I do not think that anyone here is going to argue that the Prime Minister should be elected, so we can at least say no to that idea. But some would say that in some circumstances we should have directly elected leadership of local government. Direct election is great when the vote takes place, but the problem arises between one vote for the president/mayor and the next vote for the president/mayor, which can be four, five or six years later. In fact, it is not even laid down in the Bill, unless I have misread it; the Bill does not actually dictate the interval between mayoral elections. So the electorate get consulted, but that is the only occasion when they do, whereas with any kind of parliamentary system including local government—it is a long time since I was a councillor, but my word it worked—the executive is accountable day in and day out, in a sense. It is accountable to the elected councillors and the elected councillors are, in turn, all individually responsible to their own electorates. That seems a much richer form of accountability than a one-off every four, five or six years, or whatever the interval is determined to be.

I am moving from a position of saying, “Well, let each area decide for itself”. I have been convinced by my own speech, actually, that maybe there should be a system whereby central government says, “No, we’ve decided that the parliamentary system is the right one for us, so we are certainly not going to tell anyone at a local level that they must have a system different from the one that we have. We think ours is democratically accountable”. I am moving rapidly away from the position of the permissive possibility of maybe some areas having directly elected mayors and others not, to saying that central government should probably say, “We think it’s a pretty good system—we think it’s the one you should have in your areas, where your executives are answerable to the council”. That is the democracy that works centrally and, in my experience, the one that works locally. Give me a parliamentary system over a presidential system any day of the week.

[Lord Smith of Leigh (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise somewhat reluctantly to participate in this debate. I declare my interest as leader of Wigan Council and a member of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority—so maybe I have a little experience there. I am also a vice-president of the LGA, and perhaps my contribution will show that, whatever party they are from, vice-presidents of the LGA do not always agree with each other. I have been a councillor only since 1978, so I am a mere stripling compared with some people here, and I do not intend to go back over my version of local authority history. However, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, was right—there has been increased centralisation for a number of reasons. Partly, it was to do with mistrust of local councils. The irony is that, having given the pass to Whitehall, has Whitehall done any better? The answer is no—and in many cases, it has done a lot worse.

In facing the current austerity, there is more innovation going on in local government than in any other part of the public service. We actually have to deal with the problem on a day-to-day basis, and we are not doing it by simply slicing bits off as we might have done in the past. We are thinking radically about what we need to do and how we do it, and how we engage with the community. It is good.

In Wigan, there is a Labour council. Whatever I have done over the past five years, I have done it from my own perspective. I have always done something in Wigan that has, quite frankly, reflected my political values. I think that we get that difference in local authorities.

Electoral participation has gone down in local government, but my goodness it has gone down in national government, too. It is a real problem for the country that we do not get people to think that what we do as politicians is important.

In my experience of trying to get devolution from Governments of different colours, what is on offer now is the only thing that has been real. In the past, we got sympathy in Greater Manchester from Ministers but, frankly, they did not have the determination to get it through departments. Now we have a Government who are actually beginning to break that down and who are offering us some devolution.

The combined authority, which the last Labour Government set up—and a lot of us are trying to say this—is a new way of working. It is not working as in the past but working in a new manner. I think that the Minister will say that in Greater Manchester different parties sat down together to work in a consensual manner for the good of the conurbation. At one stage, when I was chairman, we had five Labour and five opposition members, but we worked together through that issue. As the electoral cycle has swung in other areas the balance is now eight to two, but we have not changed the style in which we work. I have still not had a vote as chairman of the combined authority, and if I did have one I would think of it as a failure.

It is about the leadership provided by leaders, who need to think how they can make an area more economically viable—because that is the objective. In Greater Manchester we have the twin aims of growth—clearly, everyone has that aim—but also reform of public services.

In Greater Manchester, over the last summer and into the autumn we had a long debate about how we saw the future of our governance. We came to the conclusion that the system that we had was not working properly, and we needed someone separate from the leaders—and we have 10 leaders in Greater Manchester. There is a view that Manchester is one city with nine outriggers, but Bolton would not regard itself as a suburb of Manchester and neither would Wigan. In fact, parts of where I come from, in Leigh, do not regard themselves as part of Wigan. With all those obstacles to overcome, we do it in a different way. It is not as though Manchester was some wonderful, single city where we can all work together. We do work together, but we need someone who is going to be independent of local authorities who can help to get it through, with more powers and responsibility, and be an executive for Greater Manchester rather than someone representing a district.

In the autumn, we met the Chancellor, who offered us a deal, with significant devolution—a bit more than we thought we were going to get; although we knew that we were going to get quite a lot, we got slightly more in some areas. There was a price—it was a deal—and the price to pay was to have the elected mayor. My noble friend Lord Grocott will be pleased to know that I am not the greatest fan of the elected mayoral model but, quite frankly, the prize was worth it—it was worth getting more powers and devolution to be able to influence the lives of ordinary people in Greater Manchester and not have all the decisions made by Governments and civil servants who live in Surrey, and so on. We wanted that change; we wanted it to happen.

And it is not one size fits all. The model that we are going to work in greater Manchester will be different from the elected mayor model in London. The elected mayor in Greater Manchester will be subject to the wishes of the combined authority and will not be superior in lots of ways. That is important. It is not one size fits all; it is what you want to make it. We want to make it a model for governance that can deliver significant change for Greater Manchester.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, it falls to me to give the Opposition’s official position on this amendment. I hope that in doing so I do not disappoint too many of my noble friends. Overall, we are not able to accept this amendment as it stands. There are a number of issues to raise, but there is the prospect of recasting the amendment by the time we get to Report so that we may well be able to accept it.

Subsection (1) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 3 must be subject to further consideration of the report by the Delegated Powers Committee which has crossed over this issue because it focuses on orders and delegated powers and talks about whether that broad order-making power is appropriate. Subsection (2) suggests that any order or a proposal must start with the combined authority and then go to the Secretary of State. My understanding is—my noble friend may be able to confirm this—that this is an iterative process. In any event, if that unwittingly stopped additional powers going to a combined authority after it had been set up simply because they were initiated by the Secretary of State, that would be a backwards step.

On democratic accountability, I am not sure from what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said whether this is an integral part of the elected assembly. We have a debate coming on the elected assembly in due course, and I will hold my comments generally until then, but I will make the point that if we were to accept the amendments’ proposition of an elected assembly, which I would oppose, we would end up with a situation in which we would have first-past-the-post elections for members of the combined authority, a supplementary vote system for the elected mayor and STV for assembly members. That seems unnecessarily convoluted.

We see circumstances where an elected mayor might be entirely appropriate, but we do not believe elected mayors should be prescriptive and mandatory. We think it should be for local areas to make their own judgments. That is the thrust of the amendment which will be our next business, but I shall deal with it now rather than have a repeat of this debate. The amendment I proposed to move was to make clear that there must not be an inevitable linkage between having the full benefit of the devolution provisions of the Bill and the acceptance by a combined authority of an elected mayor. It is accepted that devolution deals entered into ultimately involve an agreement, and if an elected mayor is included, it could be said that it is with consent. However, if there are circumstances where that is a clear red line for the Government—it was clearly so in the case of Greater Manchester, as my noble friend Lord Smith outlined—our amendment was seeking to address and negate that proposition. It is difficult to implement at the margins because there is an iterative discussion going on. I shall take this opportunity to be clear where the Government stand on this, but before doing so, I should make it clear that strong visible leadership is essential to the success of devolution. That leadership could well come in the form of an elected mayor, and combined authorities should have the opportunity to choose that course if they think it is right for them, but they should not be forced to have an elected mayor if they consider that an alternative leader model suits their circumstances. This view is consistent with the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, in his No Stone Unturned report.

18:45

The view expressed by James Wharton, the Minister in the other place, seemed to be more restrictive. In a Westminster Hall debate he said:

“If they want the Manchester model—the exciting package of powers that we are already delivering to the Greater Manchester area—a mayor will be a requirement of it. We in the Government believe that that needs to happen, and we will insist on it. If they want something less, then we can have a discussion about what that might look like”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/15; col. 79WH.]

Will the Minister tell us what “something less” amounts to in practice? What powers would not have to be taken up for the insistence on an elected mayor to be dropped? Will the Minister say what criteria will be applied in making that judgment? I am not seeking to be difficult but am genuinely trying to help people understand the opportunities which may be available to them. We have heard from the Southern Policy Centre, for example, that for some it may be genuinely more difficult to have an elected mayor model simply because of the geographical configuration of the area and the nature of the councils. If so, what are the limits on the devolution to which they might aspire? Clearly, without an elected mayor there will be no process under the Bill to allocate the exercise of specific functions to individuals and, particularly, no basis on which to transfer the PCC functions.

I am sure that the Minister will wish to take the opportunity to dispel the suspicion that the obsession with elected mayors has little to do with effective leadership models and more to do with the hope that they will deliver a political outcome different from the elections of the constituent authorities. The Minister grimaces at any doubtless unworthy suggestion, but I will be pleased to hear from her on that.

So far as the amendment is concerned, as it stands, for the reasons I have outlined, we cannot agree with it, but there may be the prospect, if the noble Lord feels so inclined, to recast it for Report. Elected mayors have been the substance of our debate on this group. We believe there should be no prescription but they should not be ruled out. That may well be what some authorities choose and believe is right for them.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, first, I apologise for having to leave during Second Reading; I had to shuffle out with a really bad back. I have no problem with the name—as the song says, “What’s in a name?”—but the hallmarks of devolution must be three important pillars: powers and responsibilities; resources and fiscal autonomy; and accountability. When the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, came to Merseyside following the Toxteth riots, he was given the title Minister for Merseyside. He was able to lead that first stage, the beginning of the regeneration of Merseyside, because he had the resources and the power to do so. That is hugely important.

I wind the tape forward and look to a period before combined authorities when on Merseyside we had what was called the Merseyside co-ordinating committee. It was made up of the leaders of the Merseyside authorities from Labour and my party. There were no Conservatives. There was real leadership among that group. We wanted to have a tram system. The Labour Government at the time would not give us the resources or the powers, and the ill-fated tram scheme never happened because we lacked those opportunities.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, that cities can be turned around, even if they have not got the resources or powers, by sheer determination of leadership. Leadership is a very important part of that equation. You only have to look at how over the past two or three decades Manchester has turned itself around, often against imposition from central government, by the sheer dogged determination of the leadership of that city.

Again, it surprises me a little that Manchester chose not to have an elected mayor for the city. For the combined authority, a sort of agreement has been reached. It surprises me that a Conservative Government are not in favour of democratic accountability or of letting the people decide—oh, sorry; there was that bit about mayors in the manifesto, that well-read document that we all got copies of, and which we all debated and discussed. That surprises me.

One can look around and see numerous examples littered around, not just across the world but across the UK, where there has not been political accountability, and we have seen the excesses caused by the corrupting influence of that power. You only have to look back to the 1960s and 1970s and what happened in the north-east, where there was not proper accountability. You only have to look more locally, recently, to see what happened where there was no proper accountability. Therefore in any proposals there has to be good accountability. I will end by reminding noble Lords that Disraeli said that lack of accountability would lead to the death knell of democracy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made various points on these amendments. Amendment 14 was also touched upon, so I will touch upon it but not delve too deeply into it, because we will discuss it later on.

Amendment 3 would insert a new clause into the Bill for the devolution of powers to combined authorities, enable the Secretary of State to refuse to make such an order if he considers that specified criteria are not met, and prevent the Secretary of State requiring a combined authority to elect a mayor. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to require that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the local government electors of the area of the proposed or existing combined authority have been consulted by the appropriate authorities on the area’s proposal to adopt a devolution deal with a mayor.

While we certainly share the aim of devolving powers to combined authorities, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to include these provisions in the Bill. The provisions in subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new clause are broadly consistent with Clauses 5 and 6, but there are critical differences. First, the proposed new clause provides for “any functions” to be conferred on a combined authority. Our policy is certainly to devolve wide-ranging functions, and indeed the Bill provides for any functions of a public authority to be conferred on a combined authority. However, I suspect that to have simply “any functions” is too broad.

Secondly, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause is not necessary. The Secretary of State always has a judgment as to whether or not to make an order. More importantly, specifying criteria in this way risks creating a tick-box exercise. It does not reflect the context in which the provisions of the Bill will be used: that is, to implement bespoke devolution deals agreed with areas.

On each of the criteria specified, subsection (3)(a) of the proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider that the democratic accountability is strong enough to support the devolution of powers. This is clearly important, and it will be an important part of the consideration by the Secretary of State when negotiating and agreeing devolution deals with individual areas, and when considering laying a draft order. Clearly, Parliament will consider the issue very carefully when deciding whether to approve the draft order. For example, a central part of the Greater Manchester devolution agreement is a reformed governance system. The agreement stated clearly:

“Strengthened governance is an essential pre-requisite to any further devolution of powers to any city region”.

At this point I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, whose work on this over years has got us to the point where we are, as well as the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and of course my noble friend Lord Heseltine—although the noble Lord, Lord Smith, steered this so beautifully through Greater Manchester. He is absolutely right; it was not because we were of the same party. We worked together as different parties. There was a period when the AGMA, as it was then, was hung, but largely we have worked together for the betterment of the city, which is why we got the trams; my noble friend Lord Heseltine saw that there was leadership in Greater Manchester.

However, to get back to these amendments, it would be wrong to present the considerations as a box that needed to be ticked. Subsection (3)(b) of the proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider the level of support from local government electors. The Government are keen to consider proposals for the transfer or devolution of powers, supported by the appropriate strong and accountable governance. I consider the approach in Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill to be preferable. These require that all appropriate authorities must consent to any devolution or transfer of powers before it can be made. Therefore, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about anything being imposed—and any other suggestions about anything being imposed—are quite wide of the mark. Nothing is imposed on anyone, or any local authority that does not want it.

[Lord Scriven]

The Minister says that, but let us take my own area of South Yorkshire as a practical example. There will be four local leaders, all of the same party, which through a whip system will control the four local authorities within that area. Therefore, even if the vast majority of local people were against it, the party system could force it through, and if it went through, it could not be reversed once the local electorate had had their say at the election. Rather than talking in general, can the Minister think through carefully the practicalities of areas such as mine, where it will be down to four people, who could force it through within their local authority by using the whip system?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, technically the noble Lord is right—it is down to four people—but they are elected by their local council groups, and their local councillors are elected by the electorate. This was explicit in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the general election, whether anybody read it or not—although I hope that some people did.

Going back to what I was saying—which makes the very point that the noble Lord raised—this means that those who have been democratically elected by the local authority electors are making this decision on behalf of those who have elected them. That is representative democracy, which is the bedrock of our local democracy. In devolving powers and reaching devolution agreements with areas, it is right that the Government deal with those elected to represent the area—those with a democratic mandate—rather than in some way trying to go over the heads of the elected local representatives and reach their own view on what the local electorate want.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I am still not clear on this. If, for example, out in shire England, three local authorities of different political persuasions are working together in what is effectively a city deal and an extended partnership, and they seek to have greater powers devolved to them, would that be compulsory, or would the Secretary of State have the power to insist that they can do that only if there were an elected mayor?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, if that situation arose, those three local authorities would enter into a discussion with the Secretary of State in the same way that Greater Manchester did, or any other area might do. They would reach agreement with the Secretary of State as to what the appropriate level of accountability was for the level of powers being devolved. There would be a separate conversation that would happen with each area; it is a bespoke deal with each area. That is why the legislation is enabling in the way it is, because nobody will—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I will ask the Minister about this matter again, on the detail of the amendment. The Bill states:

“The Secretary of State may by order provide for there to be a mayor for the area of a combined authority”.

In taking that decision, would the Secretary of State have in mind what is in subsections (3)(a) to (c) of the proposed new clause in the amendment?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it would be entirely between the Secretary of State and those local authorities. I am sure that he would have in mind precisely what powers they wanted devolved and the level of accountability that that would require. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can I come back on the question posed by my noble friend Lady Hollis? It seems to me that the opportunity for the Secretary of State to provide for there to be a mayor relates to a combined authority, and the authority for that comes in Clause 1 of the Bill. The arrangements that my noble friend may have been talking about would not necessarily have involved a combined authority—it might be some other configuration of councils—and I do not think that the power to cause there to be an elected mayor rests in Clause 10.

19:00

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are powers available under other local government Acts. For example, the Localism Act can provide such a thing that the noble Baroness alluded to. I hope that in some way answers her question.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, forgive me, this is Committee stage and I would not behave like this on Report but I am still not clear. If the Minister is saying that this could be a condition, then across a lot of southern England there will not be combined authorities with urban centres under one political control, surrounded by rural areas under a very different control which may outnumber them numerically, and where that would be reflected in the election results, but where the energy is coming from the city. In combined authorities where currently three leaders on relatively equal terms negotiate, agree and work with each other and the system works, at least some of them will not be willing to go that step further into a combined authority with an elected mayor who has the backing of only one party and in which the energy is disjoined from the voting numbers. I can assure the noble Baroness that not that many combined authorities will be able to generate the economic growth that she wishes to see if that is the price they have to pay.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this Bill provides for combined authorities. Perhaps I originally misunderstood what the noble Baroness was referring to. Other local government Acts would provide for other types of powers to be devolved down but not in the way that this Bill provides—for example, through the Localism Act. It is important to understand that nothing would ever be imposed on a local area. The area would have to want it to happen. It would have to be a combined authority under the terms of the Bill and everyone would have to agree.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us that the Bill applies only to combined authorities. Can she confirm that? I want to return to a question asked by my noble friend Lady Hollis on whether a mayoralty will be insisted on by the Government in discussions with a combined authority. It was said that that would be a matter for individual discussions. Surely the Minister and the Government must have some guiding principles? Surely the Government cannot enter into discussions with a range of combined authorities with different scales, resources, problems and issues and not have any basic principles to which they are working? Otherwise it would be a matter of great unfairness. One combined authority would not have to have a mayor to be granted certain powers while another one could be told that it had to have a mayor to obtain exactly the same powers. I say to the Minister again, and I am sure we will keep returning to this: surely the Government must have some principles in mind of what powers would trigger this requirement to have a mayoralty.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, because these are bespoke deals, it will be very much a conversation between the local areas and the Secretary of State. The Government are clear about two things: first, any proposals have to be proposals for growth and, secondly, they have to be fiscally neutral within the Government’s spending envelope that would have usually gone into those devolved matters. We have deliberately avoided specifying and putting down criteria because it is a bespoke deal between local areas and the Secretary of State. So no prescriptions are laid down; it is a matter for discussion between the local areas and the Secretary of State.

I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, because I talked about the Localism Act but actually councils can resolve to have an elected mayor under the Local Government Act 2000. I just want to correct that mistake.

There have been different views on local government over the past decades and the past 150 years. I was a baby of the 1960s so cannot remember some of the reorganisations that took place then, but my noble friend Lord Heseltine made the compelling point that government has centralised over a period of 150 years. No matter how it has done it and how it has been prescribed, it has ever increasingly pulled power towards the centre. This is our golden opportunity to reverse that and it is the right thing to do.

We are now pursuing an unprecedented process to reverse that and we demand an accountable form of governance to support the powers being devolved. We have made it very clear that we want to hear from areas on their proposals. As to opposition to mayors, we are not trying to impose them anywhere but, where mayoral powers are devolved, there must be a clear, single point of accountability. International experience shows that where cities have a mayoral model it is a powerful form of governance, and the Chancellor has said that we will devolve major powers only to those cities which choose to have a mayor.

Going back to subsection (3)(c) of the proposed new clause, it is already part of the Secretary of State’s consideration about whether to establish or change an existing combined authority. The Secretary of State has to consider whether there is convenient and effective local government.

Finally, the provision in proposed subsection (4) seeks to prevent the Secretary of State imposing on a combined authority the Government’s model of an elected mayor. This is unnecessary. The Bill requires that all appropriate authorities must consent to governance change, as I said before. The Secretary of State could not and would not impose a metro mayor on any combined authorities that did not wish to adopt such a model.

[Lord Scriven]

My Lords, if a combined authority asked for powers similar to those of the Manchester deal, would the Government seek to impose a metro mayor on that model or would another form of governance be acceptable?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government would not seek to impose a metro mayor, as I have repeated several times. That combined authority would have a discussion about what powers it sought to be devolved and what form of governance it wished to introduce. It would have a metro mayor only if there were agreement between that local group of authorities and the Secretary of State. Nothing would be imposed.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry to come back on this but it is an important issue that we need to get clear. Let me go back to what the Minister James Wharton said in the Westminster Hall debate:

“If they want the Manchester model—the exciting package of powers that we are already delivering to the Greater Manchester area—a mayor will be a requirement of it. We in the Government believe that that needs to happen, and we will insist on it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/15; col. 79WH.]

I accept that, if the alternative is no deal at all, it could be argued that there is not an insistence. However, it seems to me that it is very clear from the position of the Minister at the other end that the Government will insist on it in certain circumstances. We are still trying to fathom what “less” will be required for that insistence not to take place. Surely it is clear that there is an insistence if an area wants a deal.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government certainly would want it, but with the agreement of those local authorities. Greater Manchester has not had a mayor imposed upon it; it has agreed that a metro mayor will be the accountable person.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds]

Surely that is a misuse of language. My noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh made it clear that, in his experience, when it came to it, the price was worth paying—his words—to have a mayor in order to get those powers. Surely it is a misuse of language to say that it was up to them. Surely that was a condition of having, if we can call them this, the Manchester powers. What my noble colleague from Sheffield asked the Minister was, in short hand, whether in order to have the Manchester powers a combined authority would have to have a mayor.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, if I could repeat the point, the combined authority agreed with the Secretary of State that the mayoral model was the model of governance that it would agree to have. Greater Manchester did not have that model imposed upon it. It agreed with the Secretary of State that that would be the model that it would go with. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, will correct me if I am wrong.

If I could make some progress—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I cannot just let that slip away. There is a clear difference in interpretation of what is intended between what was said in the Commons and what is being said from the Dispatch Box here. I think that we need something in writing. Perhaps the Minister should write to Members and explain exactly what the position is. We need to know what it really is and not be left in this very confused state.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will try to clarify again. It is certainly true that, for the full suite of powers to be devolved, such as in Greater Manchester, the Government would expect there to be a fully accountable person. The model that Greater Manchester agreed to was a mayoral model.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

“Insist” was the word that was referred to by my noble friend on the Front Bench.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot be more clear that that was the system that Greater Manchester and the Secretary of State agreed would be the accountable model.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I know that the Minister is doing her best and this is absolutely no criticism of her, but we are getting very discordant messages from the Commons end and the Lords end. I am no more clear now than I was an hour ago whether, if an area wishes to be a combined authority and exercise certain powers to promote the national agenda of economic growth, a mayoralty may be a condition imposed on it by the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it may well be a condition that is agreed to rather than imposed. I hope that that makes sense.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry, but will the Minister tell me what the difference is between imposing something in return for getting those powers and actually coming to a genuine agreement on the model and the powers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, imposition is different from agreement—I think we can all agree. No combined authority will have anything imposed upon it. It will have to agree mutually that that is what is to be the accountable model.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

If it does not agree, it will not be a combined authority with those powers. Therefore, it is an imposition.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is not an imposition. It has to be agreed. The Secretary of State does not want to impose anything on anyone, but he does want to see full accountability for the full devolution of powers.

[Lord Beecham]

You go into a shop and there are two items for sale. One of them has a price tag—the price in this case is a mayoral authority—and the other is a different, cheaper item. If you want the bottle with mayoral authority, you have to pay that price. Is that not the position? In that sense, there is not really a choice, is there?

19:15

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, no one is going to force you to buy that bottle—it depends on what the bottle contains.

If I could, I will make some progress. I cannot even remember where I was—if noble Lords could just indulge me, I will find where I was up to.

I want to get to Amendments 9 and 10. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may make an order to provide for there to be a mayor for a combined authority if a proposal has been made by that area. The Secretary of State must gain consent from each constituent local authority before an order can be made. It is open to the local authorities, when developing proposals, to decide to consult their electors at this stage.

Government policy is to devolve far-reaching powers to local areas and it is clear that, if areas are to have such powers, they must adopt strong governance and accountability arrangements. Where major powers are devolved to cities, there must be a single point of accountability. People need to know who is responsible for decisions that affect them and their local area. A directly elected mayor will provide this point of accountability.

It is up to an area’s democratically elected representatives to decide whether they are interested in taking up the devolutionary offer we are making, with the benefits that that will bring to the city’s people and businesses. My noble friend Lady Warsi talked quite compellingly about businesses and business growth in her area of Yorkshire. She asked where the view from businesses was. I am sorry to hark back to Greater Manchester again, but local enterprise partnerships, which are made up largely of businesses, should be at the heart of the process and conversation that the combined authority has, as they are in Greater Manchester. They are business led and, in many ways, cannot wait for the growth opportunities that it will entail.

Imposing a statutory consultation requirement on the authorities, as this amendment would do, risks delaying or derailing potential devolution deals, as my noble friend Lady Warsi points out. These deals are about firing up our cities, towns and counties so that they can become economic powerhouses, and backing businesses so that they can create thousands of jobs for people.

I will turn to some other points that noble Lords made, without taking up too much time. My noble friend Lady Warsi asked whether this extra bureaucracy in the name of democracy was going to help businesses. The Government do recognise that no two places are the same. People who live, work and do business in a local area know best what that area needs to prosper and grow. Through the bespoke devolution deals, the opportunities for businesses to further shape local business are significant. This is a very compelling offer.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked why an assembly was only for London. The issue of an elected assembly arises in a number of amendments this evening but I will touch on it here. We do not want—and I am confident that few in our cities and counties would want—a new tier of government with more politicians. London is quite different and it would be wrong to see the London arrangement as suitable for other places. My noble friend Lord Brooke’s comments were very helpful in making that point.

I hope with all those assurances that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. In one sense, we have had something akin to a Second Reading debate—it has lasted just on two hours. On the other hand, it has proved extremely helpful in identifying what some of the issues are. I concluded from it that many issues will have to be resolved between now and Report. So much is in the phrasing—the words that are used.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for twice reminding us that Amendment 3 is a clarifying amendment. It simply asks the Secretary of State to ensure that certain criteria are in place before making a decision. I had not thought when I drafted the amendment that this would prove quite so controversial and lengthy a debate. However, there we are.

I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. He was very critical of local government, relating largely to the 1980s, about which there was a great deal of truth. I pay tribute to his work with the Urban Development Corporations which revived so many of the cities in England. The difference here is that I am trying to talk about legitimacy and accountability. Indeed, in her reply, the Minister talked broadly in the same field. For me, this is about making the proposal in this Bill sounder in terms of public acceptability and legitimacy and in terms of making accountable those who are in positions to spend very large sums of public money.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, and the Minister talked about us trying to create a new layer of local government, but that is not the case. The Bill itself reinforces the combined authority layer of government and provides for a mayor and deputy. That is a function of the Bill, not of our amendments. The question is whether areas outside London should have unaccountable mayors while London benefits from a proper system of scrutiny by directly elected representatives. We will have a discussion about this when we read the relevant amendment. The assemblies that we propose would not have many members, but they would play a vital role in speaking up for citizens and communities against a potentially very powerful mayor who must be subject to scrutiny. That takes me to my next point.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Lord said that what he proposed would not have many members, but it would work out at something like 50 members for Greater Manchester—five per area—which is double the number of the London Assembly.

[Lord Shipley]

Indeed, it is 50. Of course, there are a number of issues around the selection of those numbers. We have identified in that amendment—we will have the opportunity to examine this in greater detail when we reach the amendment—that there are different populations in the authorities. It may be that some other number is more suitable. We would be perfectly happy to discuss that. But the question comes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said a little while ago. The Minister thanked him for his hard work in producing the current position in Greater Manchester. I pay tribute to our members in Stockport for their involvement in helping to bring Greater Manchester together. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said that somebody has to bring it all together, if I recall his words correctly. But I would be happier if it was not somebody but some body. The question at the heart of this is whether one single person is the right answer or whether a body of elected people is the right answer. We will have to discuss that further when we reach that point in the amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was correct in his comments about Clause 1, given the report that we have considered today. That will certainly need to be revisited. But in addition to that, it is my intention, with the leave of the House, to recast that amendment for Report stage. If in so doing we are able to have the usual discussions around how it might be helpful to the Government in terms of its phrasing, we would be happy to enter discussions on that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Clause 1: Power to provide for an elected mayor

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) An order under subsection (1) shall not be used as a condition for the transfer of local authority or public authority functions.”

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, a moment ago I touched on Amendment 4. The other amendments in this group are Amendments 5, 6 and 7. Given the hour, I will not reopen the Amendment 4 debate. We will, I know, return to it.

Amendment 5 is a small amendment clarifying the consequences of the appointment of an elected mayor who becomes a member of and chair of the combined authority. The amendment seeks to ensure that by virtue of being chair the mayor does not automatically have any casting vote in the affairs of the combined authority, although of course, depending on the number of members of that authority, that is clearly a matter that could be agreed. Will the Government explain why they consider that an elected mayor should always be the chair? Leadership skills required to deliver a change of dynamic growth in complex situations will not inevitably be the same as those to engage and persuade individual members, who are likely to be powerful and able individuals in their own right.

So far as the Government’s expectations on governance go, looking at the Manchester agreement, it appears that for non-mayoral functions decision-making will be by way of one member, one vote, including one for the mayor. Interestingly, the Manchester agreement requires the mayor to consult the combined authority cabinet on: strategy, which could be rejected on a two-thirds vote; spending plans, again amendable on a two-thirds vote; and the spatial framework, which needs unanimous approval. Would the Government expect these constraints on the mayor’s freedoms to be the norm in any agreement?

Amendments 6 and 7 enable the revocation of an order that provides for a combined authority to have an elected mayor. This is consistent with the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and an amendment that we both supported in a debate in the last Session in relation to Bristol. If a combined authority has a mayoral model and wishes to change it, there should be the right to do so. We accept that the consequences of unpicking a mayoral combined authority will not always be straightforward, especially if PCC functions have been devolved to the mayor. Clearly, there should be protections against chopping and changing every few years, but potentially being locked into an arrangement, particularly when it might be accepted by all as not working, does not seem to be a sensible position to end up with. I beg to move.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 6 and 7. I am a former leader of Bristol City Council and have raised this issue in the House before. The fact that a city may opt to have an elected mayor does not mean that the city wishes to keep the mayor in perpetuity. Some allowance should be made for the authority, whether or not it is a combined authority, as in this case; I will return to that later in the Bill when I refer to existing city authorities. It seems to me that the people who are being governed need to be able to express their view. In Bristol, a petition has been signed by I do not know how many thousands expressing the wish to have the right to change the system. That does not necessarily mean that they are rejecting the mayor. I know the mayor well because he is a former colleague. I would not wish this to be an intervention that talks in any way about the specifics of the situation in Bristol, but I support the amendment because local government is constantly changing. That does not mean to say that you would want to change frequently, but if we are to govern by consent, as many Members have said in our debates, people must be reassured. The Minister has already said that the Government will not impose mayors on authorities and the amendment is in that spirit: it says that, should there be a mayor, the combined authority will have the chance to set up proceedings to ask the Secretary of State to revoke the order and thus change the system.

19:30

[Lord Heseltine]

My Lords, we are trying to create world-class prestigious authorities to negotiate on behalf of our major urban areas a massive range of opportunities. I ask the noble Baroness what she thinks about having a directly elected Bristol mayor in Tokyo negotiating a billion-pound investment for the city when, in the fortunes of life, the mayoralty is relatively politically unpopular—and they will be, as we all are. The Japanese negotiators will say, “It is all very well for you to come all this way, but you may not be the mayor in six months’ or a year’s time. We have seen someone from one of the German Länder where there is no question about their future. They all know where they will be. So I am sorry, Mr Mayor of Bristol, you go home and sort out your future and then come back to us”. That is a classic example of exactly what we are not trying to achieve in the new dynamism of localism.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the noble Lord help us out? The fact that a mayor has to be elected means that the individual’s circumstances are uncertain at certain times. The noble Lord is surely not suggesting that we should do away with elections for elected mayors.

[Lord Heseltine]

The mayor would be speaking in his position as an elected official and in normal circumstances he would be able to refer to his successor as representing a policy that was the Bristolian policy. If the issue is, as suggested, that the mayoralty may go and a completely new form and structure of government take its place, what is to say that the devolved responsibilities that had been associated with the mayor would be retained after the abolition of the mayoralty? It injects a degree of uncertainty that is wholly unrealistic in the competitive world in which this country is engaged.

[Baroness Janke]

I would like to respond to that. Basically, at the moment there is huge confusion about mayors. The meaning of “mayor” depends on the context. I know a mayor of 500 residences in France—he is still the mayor. We have a Lord Mayor of Bristol and there is the Mayor of Bath. The Bristol mayor, should we have a combined authority, will not be the mayor of the combined authority because the other authorities will not support that. I think that we are getting really hung up on the business of the name. Under the system of governance, I as a leader had exactly the same powers as the existing mayor. What we are talking about in terms of devolving powers is actually about power, not about personalities and names for civic leaders, and not about vesting individuals with celebrity and enormous powers over public money with no accountability whatever. The people of the city and the people of the combined authority are paramount. They are the electors and, if they want to change the system of governance, we should listen to them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendments 4 to 7 address the role of a mayor in the combined authority and I shall take each amendment in turn. Amendment 4 sets out on the face of the Bill that the introduction of a mayor for a combined authority area would not be a precondition for the transfer of functions to combined authorities. The Government’s policy is to devolve far-reaching powers to local areas and is clear that, if areas are to have such powers, they must adopt strong governance and accountability arrangements. We want to hear from areas what their proposals are, what powers and budgets they want devolved to them and what governance arrangements they think are needed to support those powers and budgets.

My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his speech in Greater Manchester on 14 May that:

“We will transfer major powers only to those cities who choose to have a directly elected metro-wide mayor”.

This amendment would frustrate the Government’s announced policy. My noble friend Lord Heseltine has made the point well with examples from other cities around the world. Where such powers are conferred on an area, there needs to be a single point of accountability. People need to be clear about who is responsible for decisions affecting their day-to-day lives, whom to look to when actions are needed and who is to address things that have gone wrong. That we have this offer most certainly does not preclude us from engaging with all areas to consider their proposals for devolution. We are happy to have conversations with any area. The Bill does not limit in any way the devolution proposals that areas can make and the Government will consider any and all proposals from cities, counties and towns for greater local powers.

Amendment 5 seeks to clarify that the mayor, who will be the chair of the combined authority, would not have the automatic right to a casting vote in the process of decision-making in the combined authority. I agree with noble Lords that it is not for the Government to prescribe whether a metro mayor would or would not have a casting vote or second vote. This Bill is an enabling Bill. It does not set out the detailed constitutional arrangements for the mayoral combined authority. It is for areas to decide what voting arrangements would be most appropriate to provide strong, accountable and transparent governance. While the mayor will be the directly elected figurehead for the area and will chair the combined authority, it does not follow that they should necessarily have a casting vote within the combined authority. Indeed, none of the current combined authorities, when they were formed by order, decided to give the chair or vice-chair a casting vote in decision-making. In summary, the Bill as it stands does not give the mayor or the chair of a combined authority the right to a casting vote.

Amendments 6 and 7 seek to amend Section 107A(7) of the 2009 Act to allow the Secretary of State to make a further order under that section to revoke the post of mayor for a combined authority, following a request by the combined authority. As the Bill stands, the office of mayor can be revoked only if an order is made to abolish the combined authority itself under the existing powers in the 2009 Act. This is to ensure that where a devolution deal including a mayor is made with the agreement of the authorities involved, and major powers are devolved, a mayor will be present to provide the powerful point of accountability. It ensures that these governance arrangements cannot then be removed, leaving the area with the powers but without sufficient and robust accountability. Should an area wish to tear up its deal—we would hope that no area would ever wish to do so, given that it would be detrimental to the people and businesses of the area—this Bill allows for the mayor, the combined authority and the deal to be abolished. I cannot envisage that this situation would ever arise or that local leadership would allow it to happen.

With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments are not necessary.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the debate and other noble Lords who have participated. I think that we have probably given this issue airing enough for tonight, although no doubt we will return to at least part of it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendments 5 to 7 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.39 pm.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:40

Asked by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very well supported debate and the time limit for contributions is three minutes. As soon as “3” comes up on the clock the time is up. This is very important so that we can hear from the Minister. I very much hope that your Lordships will assist.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to be able to ask the Government what assessment they have made of the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I think that I am right in saying that today is the anniversary of news having reached London of the success of the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo. Of course, there are no graves or memorials to the many soldiers who lost their lives at Waterloo. Indeed, the First World War was the first occasion when individual graves were achieved for individual soldiers. That was thanks to the efforts of Sir Fabian Ware and the establishment of the Imperial War Graves Commission, as it was in 1917, under royal charter, which said that it should maintain “fit provision” for war dead in perpetuity.

The commission has done that with very great distinction. The scale of the operations is truly immense: graves and memorials for 1.7 million victims of World War I and World War II in 23,000 different locations in 153 countries. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is responsible for maintaining, to a quality which I am sure many noble Lords will have seen for themselves, the equivalent of 994 football pitches in every corner of the globe. To do that it has some 1,300 staff, 1,080 of whom are gardeners, stonemasons and blacksmiths, with great expertise in horticulture, engraving and ironmongery. Indeed, in France, which I had the privilege of visiting privately earlier this year, there are even third-generation gardeners who come all the way from the First World War. In France the position now is peaceful but the commission also operates in some very dangerous locations, such as Gaza and the Sudan. I spoke to the director-general when I said that I was going to try to get this debate. I asked her, “What is your biggest problem today?”. She said, “My biggest problem today is that our gardeners’ hut in the Sudan is occupied by insurgents”.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has done a magnificent job in encouraging schools and visitors—1.6 million people every year visit the graves and memorials. Many of them are children. This organisation is not looking backwards; it is looking forwards with the use of new technology and apps to educate children and make sure that the next generation is involved in remembrance. It is a big challenge for it around the globe, but there is a particular challenge in the United Kingdom, of which I must say I was completely unaware, in that there are some 308,000 service men and women who are commemorated in the UK at 13,000 different locations with 170,000 graves. Of course, there are the great memorials at Chatham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Tower Hill and Runnymede. That is the largest number in any country outside France.

I visited the battlefields of the Somme with my then-to-be son-in-law—now my son-in-law—earlier in the spring, just to make sure that he was okay and that we got on all right. I have to report that he is extremely okay and very interested in military history. We were able to look at the work that has been done on the battlefields of the Somme and for the Canadians at Vimy Ridge. It is magnificent. Even now, when bodies of soldiers are occasionally found, there is care and effort made through DNA to trace the families, to remove the names from those who are listed on memorials as unknown and put in place a grave and marker for those individuals. Each memorial has documents enabling relatives to find easily the place for their former loved ones.

Less well known are the operations in Palestine, Salonika, East Africa and north Italy—the forgotten corners of some foreign fields. There is the security challenge that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has to meet in Libya, Syria, Gaza, Yemen, and in Iraq, where there are 54,000 Commonwealth war dead at 13 sites. Getting into Mosul today is pretty well impossible. In Baghdad North Gate the commission has been responsible for 511 new headstones, and in Basra 40,000 graves are in need of urgent attention. Nothing seems to faze this organisation and nothing seems to make it cut corners or reduce the very high standards that it sets.

I am conscious of the fact that many people wishing to speak in the debate have more knowledge and background than me. My purpose was simply, as an astonished bystander, to pay tribute to the work that the commission does. Many of our institutions are under attack in our country and many are subject to criticism. However, it is hard to do anything other than praise this organisation for a job well done—an organisation that does not seek publicity or to promote itself, but can take real pride. I ask my noble friend the Minister to acknowledge the work that it does, and to assure the House that there is no question but that it will continue to obtain the necessary government support and resources to continue that work and to meet its obligations under the charter to ensure that this continues in perpetuity.

19:48

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on securing this debate. I say at the outset that I agree with every word that he said about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The number of speakers in this debate indicates in what high regard the commission is held by Members of your Lordships’ House, and I am delighted to have this opportunity to say my own thank you to it.

I have two relevant interests to declare: the first as co-chair of the War Heritage All-Party Parliamentary Group and the second as a member of the Government’s World War I centenary advisory group. It is in respect of both those bodies that I want to speak this evening, because they are related to the Great War centenary. In 2013 the all-party group that I chaired started discussing with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission the possibility of mapping war graves in the United Kingdom—which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to—to see whether there was a possibility of linking those to parliamentary constituencies.

The mapping was carried out by volunteers from the In From The Cold Project, and at the beginning of November 2013, all MPs and Peers received an email from Jeffrey Donaldson MP and me, as co-chairs of the group, giving access to a drop-box site from which they could source war graves by constituency or administrative area. Of the 650 constituencies in the UK, around 640 contain commission sites, usually located within cemeteries and churchyards. The remaining constituencies contain war memorials, and these were listed for the relevant MPs with the information taken from the Imperial War Museum database.

The data sheets provided the MPs with a means of accessing the war graves situated in their own constituencies, and provided a unique opportunity to assist constituents and to work with local schools and interest groups. We suggested a number of ways in which the MPs could engage with schools in their communities, such as schools selecting names on war memorials and linking them to casualties on the commission’s website in order to follow their stories. Schools could “adopt” a headstone, and trace the casualty on the commission’s website and through the Public Record Office. They could hold Remembrance Day services at commission sites, rather than just local war memorials. Sites with a cross of sacrifice or a stone of remembrance particularly lend themselves to that. Communities were encouraged to “adopt” sites that require maintenance. There are quite a number of those in overgrown churchyards.

An invitation was issued to Members to visit commission sites. That resulted in around 150 visiting the war graves in their constituencies, all of them accompanied by commission staff. We are about to start discussions with the commission about repeating the programme of visits, particularly for new MPs and also for Members of your Lordships’ House who have not already been.

My three minutes are up. I commend the noble Lord for having this debate, and the work of the commission.

19:50

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for initiating the debate. I put my name down to speak because I want to pay tribute to the outstanding quality of the commission’s work. The noble Lord spoke about the distinction and scale of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission; I concur absolutely with that. I pay tribute, too, to the quality of its website. For those of us researching local history for our areas it is extremely user-friendly. I thank it for that.

However, it is the very high standard of maintenance in its cemeteries that I particularly want to commend—indeed in this country, where there are graveyards and churches with Commonwealth War Graves Commission graves and headstones. I notice that the attention to detail and to quality maintains headstones very well. At the slightest sign of damage or wear the headstones can be replaced. The mowing around the Commonwealth War Graves Commission headstones is also to a very high standard—usually much better than may be possible for churches to undertake. The point is this: wherever we are in the world, the standards are always the same and always very high. I congratulate the commission on that.

All this is partly to do with the quality of the staff it employs, who clearly take pride in their work. They have great knowledge of what happened in their areas and can explain to those who visit all that they know of the battles that took place, of the nature of those who fought in the area and of those who lost their lives. For that, the staff should be thanked and congratulated.

I want to say, too, that I find the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s sensitivity in planning issues to be particularly impressive. A couple of years ago I visited the most northerly Italian World War II cemetery in Udine. I could not find it. I was surprised to find it next to a petrol station in the car park of a hypermarket—I spotted it in a copse of trees. When I went in I assumed I would be subject to the noise of car engines, of people and chatter and so on. Actually, it was a haven of peace and calm. From the inside, it was like any other cemetery that I have visited.

This weekend I shall be on the Somme with a group from Newcastle and the north-east to erect a memorial to the 16th Battalion the Northumberland Fusiliers, the Newcastle Commercials, on the church at a little village called Authuille in the centre of the Somme battlefield, where the losses of the 16th Battalion were particularly severe on 1 July. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission provides enormous leadership for those who seek to enhance the memory of what happened. I commend the commission for achieving that.

19:54

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, have an interest as a member of the Government’s First World War centenary advisory committee. I join, too, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, on securing this short but important debate. It is important because there are very powerful reasons for recognising and supporting the outstanding work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Those reasons were most powerfully brought home to me 11 years ago this month. I was in Normandy for the 60th anniversary of D-day. We were waiting in the Commonwealth Cemetery at Bayeux for the Queen and President Chirac to arrive for the start of the ceremony and I was talking to a group of cadets from the Air Training Corps. They were bright, enthusiastic young people, mostly around 17 years of age, who were helping with the administrative arrangements and looking after the veterans.

We were standing by a row of headstones and I asked the cadets whether they had really looked at the inscriptions. They had not, but they then started to read them in detail. They found words such as “Private Joe Smith, Died 9 June 1944, Aged 18 years”, “Private Arthur Brown, Died 10 June 1944, Aged 18 years”, “Aged 18 years”, “Aged 19 years” and so on. I could see from their eyes that for the first time they really understood: these were not just names from history. These were young people, much of an age with the cadets themselves, who had met their deaths in those days of June 1944. For the first time, the cadets truly understood this and thus made a personal connection with the past.

The same, of course, is true of the First World War. The three-quarters of a million who died were not just names on a wall or on a gravestone; they were not just appalling statistics. Each was an individual, and a lot of those individuals were not much older than those whose names we read in Normandy. Some would perhaps have gone on to be statesmen or diplomats, some to be businessmen, doctors or lawyers, artisans or farmers, factory workers or labourers. But it did not matter: the gravestones made no distinction of rank or status, and rightly so. For in that awful democracy of death, who dares say that any one potential life lost was worth more than another? They all loved and were loved. They all had hopes, aspirations, frustrations and disappointments. They all had value, and the full value of their lives was unrealised.

Herein lies one of the greatest achievements of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The graves that it maintains and the headstones above those graves allow us to connect not just with the conflicts of the past, but with the people caught up in those conflicts, with the costs of those conflicts and with the individuals who paid the price. In the study of history, war can too often be represented mainly by the sweep of great events, but even in this technological age war is a very human business and the cost, even when the carnage is greatest, is measured in individual lives. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission helps us to realise and appreciate that basic truth. It enables us, young and old, to make the human connection. Its work enables us to say not just “We will remember them” but “We will remember them as the individuals they were”. Those who paid the ultimate price in the service of this nation deserve no less.

19:58

[Viscount Bridgeman (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for initiating this very important debate. I wish to speak briefly about the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s care for Irishmen’s graves, particularly from the First World War. I speak as a member, at least in the last Parliament, of the British-Irish parliamentary group.

In the 80 years following the establishment of the Irish Free State, the official policy of the Irish Government was to expunge from the national consciousness any participation in that war of men from the south of Ireland. Not unnaturally, it was politic for the families of those men to follow their Government’s lead. I am advised by the CWGC that it cares for 8,500 World War I battlefield graves from the two southern Irish divisions and 7,200 from the Ulster Division. It is probably true to say that because of the previous attitude of the Irish Government many of the graves of men from the southern Irish regiments would not have had a visit from any of their compatriots—let alone members of their family—for virtually a century.

Since the transformation of British-Irish relations in the wake of the peace process—culminating, of course, with the visit two or three years ago of Her Majesty the Queen—one of the more heartening developments has been the reawakening in the Republic of interest in the history of the southern Irish contribution. For many families the story has been similar; forebears who were treated as black sheep and airbrushed out of family histories have been in effect rediscovered.

So in the context of this debate I would like to pay particular tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the close and cordial relations it now has with the Government of the Republic, and in particular—which is a little known fact—for the responsibility it accepted from the outset for the upkeep of no fewer than 3,342 graves in the Republic of Ireland of Irish soldiers who fought in the British Army, most of whom would have died of wounds in hospitals in Great Britain and Ireland and would have been moved at the families’ request and at their expense to be buried with the familiar Commonwealth war graves headstone alongside their families in the Republic.

20:00

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, last week my wife and I were at Waterloo for the commemorations of the 200th anniversary of that battle, and we saw the unveiling of the magnificent new monument to the British Army at the Hougoumont Farm.

When I looked at the memorials, plaques and the other commemorations of those who fell, I was very struck to note that all of them were of officers—not just of officers but of officers from the smarter regiments such as the Guards and the cavalry, not from the Royal Waggon Train. There were no memorials for the non-commissioned officers or the other ranks; they were just the generic memorials. As others have said, it is impossible to overstate the importance of what was the Imperial War Graves Commission and is now the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, in making clear that equality of sacrifice requires equality of commemoration. I think of my maternal grandfather who was a major in the Royal Artillery buried at Cabaret-Rouge—a rather odd name for a cemetery—in northern France. He lies there with the men from his battery who fell in the same engagement and at the same time. This change that the War Graves Commission introduced reflects but also promotes an important change in our society. It embodies the principle that all are equal regardless of race, religion or social standing.

When I lived in Brussels as a Commissioner for many years, my wife and I found ourselves frequently taking visitors from home to the battlefields and cemeteries. They were always moving. They never palled. The shock and horror conveyed by the rows and rows of headstones made an impact whenever one saw them. Those headstones bring home the huge price paid by men and women—the fallen and their families—from all over Britain and the Commonwealth in the fight to resist tyranny and domination on the continent.

We are no longer a very religious country, but just as the great medieval cathedrals stand witness to the piety of an earlier age, and to the enduring values of the Christian religion, so must the graves and memorials of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission be eternally maintained in order to do exactly what the noble Viscount just said. It is very important that they should be maintained just as the cathedrals have been maintained. In this, happily, more peaceful age, we owe it to those who gave their lives to bring that situation about to ensure that this country always plays a constructive role on the continent in which so many of those graves are situated.

20:03

[Viscount Slim (CB)]

My Lords, I look to Asia in my short speech. I thank the noble Lord for initiating the debate.

In Burma the Army was nearly a million. It had men of every religion in the world and of none and who spoke some 30 different languages, which was quite a problem. It was totally integrated with the air forces who came from Britain, India, Canada and America. They fought together, trained together, carried each other’s wounded and died together. It was agreed that they would all be buried together in one cemetery down in Rangoon. You experience a very poignant and great feeling when you go into this cemetery. Hindus and Sikhs, of course, cremate but their names go up on the memorial. Muslims bury, Christians bury and Jews bury.

If you switch quickly to Kohima in Assam, you will find among the Muslim graves two stars of David commemorating two Jewish officers of the Royal Welch Fusiliers. There is a lesson there for the people of Dewsbury or anywhere else in this country— this is not multiculturalism with ghettos but total integration.

The second thing about the war graves concerns the people who visit them. I took an old lady to Kohima who had never left England or flown. Her husband—a sergeant—had been killed. I took her into the cemetery with one of my sons and said to her, “Don’t stand beside the headstone and the burial place of your beloved husband; sit on the grass. You can sit here for two or three hours or all night if you want. My son and I will stay with you”. The point of this is that, when she eventually got up three hours later, she was a completely different woman. She was in her 80s. Her eyes were bright and she had been crying. I heard her say—perhaps I should not repeat this but it was so moving—“Darling, I am sorry it has taken me 25 years to get here to see you”. But she was alive again. The effect of visits of widows, parents, whoever is absolutely vital: please let us keep this up.

I get fed up with the three-minute speech limit we have in this House. We really must improve our technique. This is the second debate where I have only been allowed to speak about something vitally important for three minutes. The Front Bench ought to have a damn good look at themselves.

20:07

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend on securing this poignant debate. I, too, concur with everything that he said. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Imperial War Museum, a post I hold, sadly, for only another eight days, when those baleful words “term limit” strike.

As we have heard today, the work of the commission is vital because there can be no more visible symbol of loss, sacrifice and courage than the cemeteries it maintains. Following on from the point made by my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, its work has always been based on one very fundamental principle originally outlined by Sir Frederic Kenyon in his report a century ago for the new Imperial War Graves Commission on the different approaches that might be taken to commemoration—that of equality. It matters not what rank you were or how you fell: all are treated the same in the eternity of those remarkable cemeteries.

As a trustee of the IWM, I would like to thank the commission for its effective partnership with us. We have worked incredibly well together in the nearly 100 years since we were both formed in 1917. We shared a beginning and share as much today. Together we have helped bring together all the dimensions of remembrance for the nation through, most recently, the First World War centenary to VE Day and beyond. Indeed, the commission is in so many ways a model of how to make effective partnerships work. The IWM is just one of the many organisations it works with. Other partners exist in veterans’ organisations, battlefield tours and in many museums across the globe—from the Juno Beach Centre in France to the Thai Burma Railway Centre.

One of the key areas of partnership is in photographic services. These have been crucial to the act of commemoration since the British Government first started getting requests for photos of graves at the height of the fighting in World War I. By 1917, 17,000 requests for photographs of graves had been filed. Today the War Graves Photographic Project continues that work. Over the years it has issued 1.6 million photos, allowing many to share in seeing the resting place of a family member even if they cannot visit.

I would also like to pay tribute to the work the commission has done in supporting the IWM’s Lives of the First World War digital project and working tirelessly on joint educational projects. The commission has an excellent website, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, and Discover 14-18 is a key part of the centenary commemorations. It all began last August and will continue until November 2018, allowing a new digital generation to learn the lessons of conflict.

A young soldier called John William Streets died on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, aged 31. He had hoped to become a poet after the war but all he could do was write poetry in the trenches. He wrote one poem with a good deal of foresight about the cemeteries that would one day criss-cross northern Europe and so much of the rest of the globe. He wrote:

“When war shall cease this lonely unknown spot

Of many a pilgrimage will be the end,

And flowers will shine in this now barren plot

And fame upon it through the years descend”.

Long may the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, whose important work we celebrate today, ensure that the fame of the fallen continues to shine on those cemeteries.

20:11

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, as a former ex officio commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for obtaining this debate and enabling me and many other noble Lords to pay tribute to a jewel in the nation’s crown.

The tireless work of the commission’s gardeners in cemeteries all over the world is rightly admired by all who see it, and greatly appreciated by the relatives of those whose graves and memorials they maintain so devotedly. Although all different, every commission cemetery I have seen has the same air of dignified simplicity, honouring its motto: “I will make you a name”. Every nation has its own way of burying its war dead but for me the Imperial, now the Commonwealth, War Graves Commission way is supreme: everyone, whatever their rank or service, has the same headstone to which relatives are able to add some words of their own.

My assessment of the work of the commission can be summed up in two words, captured in two anecdotes. As a commissioner, I was invited to a showing of the film the commission made about its work following World War II, appropriately called “I Will Make You a Name”. When it ended, there was total silence, broken by the chairman, who asked if anyone wanted to say anything. Sue Ryder, another invitee, said, “Gosh”, immediately followed by her husband, Leonard Cheshire, who said, “No, more than that: gosh, gosh”.

My personal “gosh, gosh” commission grave is not in a cemetery but in its garden just north of Anzac Cove at Gallipoli. When our troops were withdrawn in January 1916, they were told to kill all the animals they could not evacuate. Some could not bring themselves to do that and turned their charges loose on a peninsula that remained unattended until 1919, when the Imperial War Graves Commission and its French and Turkish opposite numbers returned to bury their respective dead. Amazingly, some of the animals survived and were taken back into service by the commission. One pony, called Billy, eventually retired and when he died was buried in a marked grave where he once grazed.

I hope the Minister will agree that whatever the pressures on the Government, in the spirit of “gosh, gosh”, they will do nothing to diminish the ability of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to honour and care for those who gave their all on behalf of our great country.

20:14

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. I wholeheartedly associate myself with his comments and those of others about the importance of the role of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the brilliant and imaginative ways in which it fulfils its obligations.

I will make three quick points. First, I studied military history at university and an important element in the study of conflict is the examination of the collateral damage to society: the destruction of many family units, of course, but, more importantly, the damage to civil society as a whole, which can take generations to repair. While of course it is absolutely vital and right that we should continue to commemorate the personal sacrifice of millions, in my view the commission has an equally important role in reminding us of our history. After all, those who do not remember the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat them.

Secondly, my noble friend Lord Forsyth and other noble Lords referred to the scale of the sacrifice. My military history professor had a statistic that I will share with the House: if the British and Commonwealth war dead from the First World War alone were lined up in column of route three abreast, as the head of the column passed the Cenotaph in London, the rear would be somewhere between Middlesbrough and Newcastle.

Thirdly and finally, because what gives the work of the commission its poignancy is so personal and so tightly woven into our society, I will give a personal example. In so doing, I am very pleased to be able to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. My godmother’s father was killed by a Turkish sniper at Gallipoli. Colonel Palmer, as he was called, was commanding a battalion of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment. One of his junior officers was a certain Lieutenant Slim. Colonel Palmer’s body was lost after the Allies evacuated the Gallipoli peninsula so his only memorial is on the big memorial at Anzac Cove. Lieutenant Slim, of course, went on to other and greater things.

20:16

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)]

My Lords, I speak as honorary Commonwealth war graves commissioner for the federal Republic of Iraq. I thank very much indeed the wonderful team at Maidenhead, where I worked particularly with John Nicholls. In the rather unprepossessing situation of the federal Republic of Iraq, already an entire cemetery at Basra has been almost 99% recovered. That is absolutely magnificent. Moving on to Maysan, that is rather more difficult as the governor there was in the process of building over the war graves. We are now about to recover 4,000 war graves in Maysan. I thank the Maidenhead people very much indeed, and I bring to your Lordships’ attention the fact that the people of Basra and Maysan are just as proud of these graves as we are; they really care. This is a matter of local pride and national heritage. We have a shared sacrifice and suffering, and in that a shared future. It is for that reason that I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. In Maysan province, for example, we had a guardian who, with his father, his grandfather and his great-uncle, has been looking after every single piece of paper since the early 1930s. That is the commitment that the Iraqi people have made to the war graves of the Commonwealth.

20:17

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when I put my name down to speak in this debate I was inspired purely by my image of what the war graves mean. I realise that the main reason that I did so was that they are individual graves. They are not monuments or something telling you that something great happened. Let’s face it: the thing about monuments is that we do not put them up for our defeats, do we? Here, we put up something for each individual person. As has been said time and again by all speakers in this debate, it is the fact that we remember those people as people. As the old quote says, if one person dies it is a tragedy but a million people dying is a statistic.

The war graves do not allow the dead, who died on an industrial scale, to become a statistic. That just does not happen. The image, whether you see it in the flesh, on film or in a picture—the row upon row of graves—means that you know there was an individual attached to each of them. This means that we can remember the history, and our interpretation of history changes over time. When reading up for this debate, I discovered that it was felt in the 1960s and 1970s that as the veterans of the Great War disappeared, interest would diminish. Indeed, for those who remember “Steptoe and Son”, Steptoe senior was not a great example to us all of a wonderful remembrance of the First World War. As this image disappears, it becomes something else: a way back into history and the individuals connected to it. Unless we are prepared to throw away a cultural asset of the first order, we must make sure that it is maintained and that we always remember.

If the Commonwealth War Graves Commission were replaced, it is difficult to see how anything could possibly do the job as well. I hope that when the noble Earl responds to the debate—I can just about remember when he answered me on a subject other than health—he will assure us that the Government will ensure not only that this work is carried on, but that the cross-party consensus clearly displayed here today is maintained and developed to enable it to be carried on in future.

20:20

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for securing this debate. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is funded proportionately in relation to war casualties by its six Commonwealth member states and, on this basis, the British Government currently provide some 78% of the commission’s funding. Can the Minister confirm that the funding formula is related to those who died for whom there is a known grave, and does not include those for whom there is none? Can he also confirm that no Government, including our own, can make a unilateral decision to reduce their funding in actual amount or percentage terms without the agreement of all the other Governments involved?

Graves are maintained in 23,000 locations in just over 150 countries. In the United Kingdom, there are 13,000 different locations of which 10,000 have fewer than 10 burials. Some 4,500 maintenance agreements for the CWGC war graves are in place with local authorities, churches, councils, contractors and individuals. These agreements result in the CWGC graves being properly tended and cared for but unfortunately, given the significant cuts in local authority budgets, the difficult financial situation and limited number of active congregation members in some churches, the rest of the cemetery or churchyard in which the CWGC grave is located is often far from well looked after. That can have an adverse impact on the setting for Commonwealth War Graves Commission graves, however well tended they may be. Is this an issue of concern to the Government, and if so do they intend to pursue it?

Although the Commonwealth War Graves Commission commemorates those who died up to 31 December 1947 and not beyond, its work continues. With the centenary commemoration of the First World War, the number of people visiting the British world war cemeteries in France and Belgium has never been higher. The CWGC website provides information on the burial place or commemoration site of every British or Commonwealth soldier killed in the First and Second World Wars. The number of identification cases sent to the CWGC where someone believes they have worked out who is in an unidentified grave has risen nearly tenfold in the last 10 years. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was not founded until 1917, and some have estimated that as many as 10,000 names of those killed may still not be included in the records. When such cases are verified, the CWGC adds the name to a memorial, and each year the remains of around 30 British and Commonwealth troops dating back to the world wars are still being discovered. Some can be identified but all are buried with full military honours at a Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has helped us, continues to help us and will help future generations not to forget a vital part of our history. It ensures that the nearly one and three quarter million Commonwealth service men and women who died in both world wars are not forgotten.

20:23

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for tabling this Question for Short Debate and for giving the House the opportunity to give due recognition to the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Last year we paid national tribute to those who fell in their millions in World War I, at the centenary of the start of what was justifiably known as the Great War. It is now 70 years on from VE and VJ Day, and we are remembering those who fell fighting for the Commonwealth in the Second World War, liberating Europe and the Far East from tyranny. Recently this year we also paid tribute to the thousands who perished in the seas and on the rocky hillsides of Gallipoli. All this shows the importance that we all place on the act of remembrance, so it could not be a more apposite time to have this debate and to recognise the excellent work done by the commission, especially with its own centenary coming up.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the value and significance of what the commission does. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission ensures that 1.7 million people who died in the two world wars will never be forgotten. Its cemeteries and memorials are designed to be a lasting tribute to the war dead, and places where visitors can come to remember their sacrifice. The commission cares for cemeteries and memorials at 23,000 locations in 154 countries. Its principles, laid out in 1917, that no distinction should be made on account of military or civil rank, race or creed, are as relevant today as they were almost 100 years ago.

At the same time, we also have a responsibility to maintain what the commission’s founder Sir Fabian Ware described as that “immortal heritage”. With regard to the fallen:

“Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn”,

yet the gravestones of the fallen are prone to the vagaries of climate, pollution and even vandalism, so conservation and maintenance is an ongoing task. Each year around 20,000 headstones are either replaced or repaired. As well as existing graves, sometimes new stones and even new graves are required to inter the remains of those brave souls only recently discovered, as has been mentioned in this debate. In 2010, for example, 250 Australian and British casualties from the Battle of Fromelles required the construction of an entirely new cemetery, Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery in northern France.

The CWGC is at the heart of World War I centenary commemorations and, working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will support the UK Government in their delivery of a series of high-profile state-level events, the majority of which will take place at commission locations, to mark key World War I anniversaries. The focus for commemoration of the Battle of Jutland will be Lyness in the Orkneys, and Thiepval will host the event for the Battle of the Somme. The CWGC aims to mark these centenaries appropriately while engaging new generations in the importance of ongoing remembrance of the war dead and of visiting their sites.

Although when you think of a Commonwealth war grave cemetery you almost automatically think of those in Flanders and France, there are, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, more than 300,000 Commonwealth service men and women who died in the two world wars who are commemorated in the United Kingdom. Their graves, numbering some 170,000, are to be found at over 13,000 locations. In addition, some 130,000 missing Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and Merchant Navy casualties are commemorated on the great memorials at Chatham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Tower Hill and Runnymede. This is the highest total of world war commemorations in any country other than France, yet most people are completely unaware of this commemorative legacy on their doorstep. These widely dispersed and varied war graves are maintained directly by the commission’s staff or through more than 4,500 maintenance contracts and arrangements with individuals, contractors and burial and church authorities.

The CWGC has been working with the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group, the education community and local communities to raise awareness of this nationally important commemorative heritage and to encourage communities to use these places as part of their efforts to remember those who died. New signage to help people identify sites containing war graves is being erected at more than 3,000 locations. Education and outreach initiatives are also under way. In the UK, the CWGC is aiming to raise awareness, appreciation and use of the war graves and memorials that exist here. It also seeks to raise understanding and acceptance of the fact that war graves in municipal cemeteries or churchyards cannot be maintained in the same way as those in dedicated war cemeteries—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The unique approach to war graves in the UK—with the vast majority of graves scattered in burial grounds not owned or controlled by the CWGC rather than in military cemeteries or plots—means that they must inevitably be dealt with differently from the war cemeteries directly owned and managed by the CWGC overseas.

The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, highlighted the power and importance of visits. With so many locations, it is only natural that some are more visited than others. As a result of the public engagement in the World War I and World War II anniversaries, visitor numbers to the major cemeteries and memorials on the former Western Front are at an all-time high, yet many cemeteries get few or no visitors at all. Some places, such as Palestine, Salonika, east Africa and northern Italy, despite being significant visitor destinations, get few or no pilgrims to the war graves there. We would like to encourage visitors to take some time out when abroad, see if there is a British cemetery nearby and, if so, visit it. The level of sacrifice in both world wars is such that there are a very large number of such locations.

As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, rightly said, we should not forget that behind every single headstone and name on a memorial is a person, with a family, friends and a story to tell. The two world wars were global conflicts, and the contribution of the entire Commonwealth was vital to allied success. However, the sacrifice of men and women from undivided India, the West Indies and Africa is known but not extensively written about or recognised. Many of them are interred in the commission’s cemeteries. The CWGC has produced a series of award-winning education resources that attempt to address this overlooked aspect of our shared history, thereby ensuring an inclusive commemoration of the war dead.

The Government will never forget their responsibility towards the commission, and I reassure noble Lords that we remain committed to maintaining current levels of support in line with the official inflation rate. Apart from the UK, five other Commonwealth countries —Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and India—contribute to the cost in proportion to the number of graves that they have. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about unilateral funding reductions, and I am pleased to clarify that each of the CWCG member Governments has an equal say in the running of the CWCG. The UK contribution amounts to almost 80% of the total annual funding, which in 2015 was in excess of £47 million. In addition, the MoD provides £1.3 million to the CWGC for the cost of maintaining 20,000 Boer War graves in South Africa and a further 21,000 non-world war graves around the world.

As well as its numerous ongoing tasks, I know that the CWGC will be particularly busy this year. Arrangements are in place for the CWGC to continue the maintenance of post-war graves in cemeteries at Rheindahlen and Hanover as British forces withdraw from Germany. Discussions are also taking place on the maintenance of graves in the Falkland Islands. The commission continues to transform its business, delivering efficiency and financial stability, and making sure that the money it receives can go further.

The commission should be in no doubt of the value of its work to the Armed Forces, to the nation and to future generations. For almost a century it has played a critical part in the vital work of remembrance. It has made sure that those who fought for our freedom are given the honour and dignity they deserve in death. I know that all noble Lords will want to join me in giving the commission our thanks for everything that it does.

20:34

Sitting suspended.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

20:39

Amendment 8

Moved by

[Lord Smith of Leigh]

8: Clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(9) An order under subsection (1) shall provide that remuneration for the elected mayor shall be determined by an independent remuneration panel established by the combined authority for that purpose.”

[Lord Smith of Leigh (Lab)]

My Lords, we come to the tricky issue of what an elected mayor is worth. We know what the public perception is about politicians being paid and what they are worth. Local authority members are currently controlled by the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003, which require each local authority to establish a scheme which involves setting up an independent panel to determine members’ remuneration. A panel would normally consist of a small number of individuals who can come from different parts of a local community—business, the third sector and so on—or have wide experience of local government. All this simple amendment does is provide for the same process for an elected mayor where one is chosen.

It would be wrong to be too prescriptive about the criteria. If the panel is to live up to its name and be independent then it needs to set its own criteria, but I am sure that it would take into account the size of the area, the level of functions being devolved and the pay levels within local authorities. The public at large has little faith where politicians determine their own allowances and expenses, so this amendment proposes that we get an independent panel to do that and show that it can be done in an independent manner and be made more publicly acceptable. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, we have tabled Amendment 13, which would short-circuit the need for an independent remuneration panel by setting the sum of pay and compensation of the mayor of a combined authority to be no larger than that of the leader of a constituent council with the highest total pay and compensation package. That is the conclusion that we reached.

I am not convinced that simply adding another independent remuneration panel will necessarily produce the right answer. I have grave doubts about the way in which independent remuneration panels do their work. That is not to say that individually they do not do a good job. The difficulty is that they come out with very different answers depending on the authority they are in. There are a number of occasions when one cannot satisfactorily explain why they have arrived at their conclusions. Nor do I like the fact that councillors are then required to vote for their own remuneration, because they have to agree to the recommendation of the independent remuneration panel. Presumably, the members of the combined authority would have to agree with the conclusions of an independent remuneration panel established under Amendment 8.

I am for a simple solution here, but I am perfectly happy to enter into further discussions about it. Simply adding an 11th independent remuneration panel in Greater Manchester does not seem to me to provide a helpful solution. If speed is of the essence, one simple solution is to tie the pay of the elected mayor to that of the highest-paid council leader. We can look further at that as we move towards Report but at this point I prefer the conclusion that we have reached in Amendment 13.

20:45

[Lord Heseltine (Con)]

My Lords, I am on the side of the councillors. Giving rough figures, I can say that the chief executives of our bigger authorities earn something of the order of £200,000 or £250,000 a year. They are by any standards in the top decile of income groups in the areas that they administer. The leaders of the councils—this relates to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the highest pay—who are there for seven days, for 24 hours, suffer the utmost strain and have to deal with every crisis get between £30,000 and £50,000, or something of that sort. What conceivable rationalisation is there to think that we can run the components of our economy—the great cities—by limiting the remuneration of the people in charge to one-fifth of what the executives get? Of course, it is not just the executives; within the apparatus of these great conurbation authorities, a stack of people will earn more than the leaders.

I come from the breed of the despised politician, as everyone in this House does. I know that we should all pay for the privilege of giving our services and we would still be from the despised breed of politician. But if we are going to start this thing properly, can we not get some sort of international comparison as to what people could reasonably expect to earn from one of the most responsible and exciting jobs on offer—running a great city? There is no amendment that I would wish to support, but when this matter comes back on Report perhaps we can look at what can be done to address this fundamental imbalance.

An argument that I would pose in favour of such a new look is that, if you expect someone to earn £40,000 for an enormously testing and strenuous job, what sort of person are you going to get? Anyone who is trying to make a career for themselves as a young, enterprising person is going to say, “If I give everything, my family is going to live in a very modest way because I am never going to be paid in the public sector anything like what I could earn in the private sector”. You cannot blame the breadwinner in a family for therefore concluding that this is not for them. But of course there are the rich and the retired, who have pensions and who have accumulated whatever resource is necessary, or who have inherited money. They can do it—and I am not in any way precluding them from doing it—but I do not think that they should have a monopoly on the easy choice. Then there are those whose company or whose union will subsidise somebody to do it—and I have no objection to that. I believe that people should be able to earn remuneration outside their chosen profession. But by every definition that you introduce into this, you narrow the choice: first, you will not pay anything like the going rate that ought to be paid for a job of this sort, then you constrain the candidates who can come forward.

I fully appreciate that it is no use leaving this matter to local people, because they will come under the same sort of pressure from the media—the envy and all the stuff that characterises the debate. The solution that I would put before your Lordships for consideration is that there should be a linkage, either with a Minister of State in government or with a senior Civil Service grade. That would go a long way to meeting a reasonable expectation of reasonable remuneration for this vastly exciting job.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

We have heard wise words from my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. I am very nervous of combined authorities setting up independent panels. I am nervous of their make-up. Who is going to decide their members? We are going to see differences between different combined authorities in different parts of the country. If we are going to have leadership of these combined authorities, we have to make sure that nobody feels that they cannot go forward because they are financially restrained.

I vividly remember becoming leader of Liverpool and the remuneration being considerably less than I was receiving in my professional job. I could not afford to do the job full-time because of that, so I worked in my professional job and did three days, two days, two days, three days, and it was absolutely killing. It was not the right way to lead a city. Just so nobody complains, any proportion of my leader’s allowance I gave to charity, so I was not making anything on the deal. However, that should not be the case. We should make sure that we have some mechanism, and the solution from my noble friend Lord Shipley and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is the way forward.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate. Our starting point is to favour the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh for there to be an independent panel. I accept that there are issues. The noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Heseltine, made points about making sure that it is truly independent, and there is no reason why that independence could not take account of international experience as well. A potential issue about the linkage is that the role of the mayor will not necessarily be constant and homogenous between different authorities. Sometimes the function of the mayor might be the full Monty, as it were, but sometimes it might be much less so. Therefore, we are going to have to have some form of assessment if we are going to do that fairly. It is reasonable for there to be further thinking around this.

Linking pay to the pay of the highest-paid leader of a constituent council could be a route, although in a sense what this amendment says is, “The Secretary of State decides but it must be no larger than”. That seems to put the onus back on the Secretary of State, so the principle we would support is some independent assessment, taking account of the real value of the job. I entirely accept that this would be a very powerful and important job.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the intentions behind these amendments, and noble Lords have made very valid points. I have just asked for some comparator salaries for city or conurbation mayors. The London mayor earns nearly £144,000 a year, and the Bristol mayor earns nearly £66,000.

There are already statutes in place regarding independent remuneration panels and the remuneration of elected members. A combined authority’s constituent councils are required by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to establish and maintain independent remuneration panels which make recommendations to local authorities regarding the remuneration of elected members to which local authorities have to have regard. To take my noble friend Lord Heseltine’s point, there is nothing to stop them making international comparisons.

It would seem that to make provisions for a combined authority to establish its own independent remuneration committee merely to determine the remuneration of the elected mayor would be introducing an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and would take away some of the flexibility that this Bill offers to those areas that seek to establish a combined authority. Further legislation, the Local Transport Act 2008, enables the Secretary of State to make provisions about the remuneration of, and pensions or allowances payable to or in respect of, any member of the combined authority. That includes making provision about the remuneration—that is, the allowances—of a metro mayor, including the part to be played in setting those allowances by independent remuneration panels in the combined authority’s area. As this power already exists, we consider it unnecessary to make further regulations in connection with the remuneration of elected members. With those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Smith of Leigh]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this very brief debate; it is about time we hurried up a bit on the Bill.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, about local authorities. I decided, earlier in my career, that I would eventually become a full-time local politician and therefore I lost out on my chosen career—I probably would have been paid more money. I am sure that the noble Lord made sacrifices; if he had gone into business and used his strategic mind there, he probably would have earned a lot more money than he ever did as a Cabinet Minister or an MP. So we all make choices. It can be a dilemma, because sometimes people have to say to their families, “I really enjoy doing this job, but I’m not going to get paid as much as I might in another job”. The Minister will recall that her successor as leader of Trafford had to make that personal choice. That was a very sad loss for others, as he was making a very good contribution, but he decided that he needed to support his family more. So we make those choices.

We also need to think about the fact that the new mayor and the new combined authority’s work needs to be judged in the cockpit of public opinion. If it is perceived that people are getting overpaid, that will detract both from the reputation of the mayor and from the work of the elected members.

This is a difficult issue, and certainly we need to think about it. If we just leave it to local members to decide, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, they will be totally criticised for that, and that would be unfair. However, we also need to respect that not all those positions will be exactly the same. The theme of the Bill has been flexibility, so in a sense there needs to be flexibility there. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendments 9 and 10 not moved.

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

11: Clause 1, page 2, line 25, leave out “must” and insert “may”

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, before I address these amendments, I should address the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Smith with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. The noble Lord had a very distinguished business career before he entered the Cabinet. It was so successful that he even invited me to the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Haymarket company—I cannot quite remember the name. It was a very well-attended and impressive occasion, which I think was held at the Grosvenor House hotel. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, need not feel in the slightest that the noble Lord was subjected to great hardship before entering the Cabinet. He took very great care to build up a very successful business before he did that. I only wish I could say the same for myself.

On the relevant amendments in this group, Amendments 11 and 12 are designed to introduce flexibility into the response to the situation arising when a constituent authority, part of a combined authority, withholds consent to the proposal to have an elected mayor. The Bill provides that in those circumstances the Secretary of State must order the removal of that authority from membership of the combined authority. Instead of this being a requirement, under Amendment 11 it would become an option for the Secretary of State to consider. Much, after all, may depend on the nature of the powers and functions to be devolved to the combined authority, or in any event exercised by it. There might, for example, be some functions which all the members of the combined authority might agree should be exercised collectively, but which might not be included in the Government’s package, relating to residual functions retained by the constituent councils.

For example, a particular devolution deal might not cover the provision of, say, sports or cultural facilities, which could, however, conveniently still be addressed by the combined authority. In such circumstances, the amendment would allow the Secretary of State to limit the particular authority’s voting participation in the combined authority to matters not included in the agreement with government. You would have a sort of binary system which would allow the combined authority for some purposes to function outside the deal where that would not therefore require the removal of the combined authority. It would be a matter of discretion for the Secretary of State.

20:59

Amendment 12 would provide such an authority as might be subject to a Secretary of State’s decision the right to make representations to the Secretary of State. To be honest, I am not quite sure what that would avail, but it is perhaps sensible to indicate that there should certainly be representations and consultation before any such decision was made.

The Chancellor appears to have made it clear—and we have heard much about this tonight—that combined authorities which prefer not to have a mayor will not be given powers on as generous a scale as those which accept the condition. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what would be offered to such combined authorities. Where does the test lie in general terms? That would, to some degree, give a background to these amendments and, indeed, this relevant part of the Bill.

Amendment 23 is a probing amendment which deals with the provision in subsection (6)(a) of new Section 107D, under which the Secretary of State may make an order providing,

“for members or officers of a mayoral combined authority to assist the mayor in the exercise of general functions”.

Can the Minister enlighten us as to what sort of assistance the Government are contemplating in this provision and what would be the process for making an order? For example, with whom would the Secretary of State consult? The mayor? Presumably. The combined authority? Probably. The overview and scrutiny committee? Perhaps the Local Government Association, if these are general matters? Does subsection (6)(d), which provides that the Secretary of State may,

“provide for the terms and conditions of any such appointment”,

apply to the appointment of a political adviser only—because that is what the clause says—or to any appointment designed to “assist the mayor”, whatever that means? Again, perhaps the Minister could enlighten us. It may be that this might be a matter subject to further thought so the Minister could write to us and deposit the letter in the Library in the ordinary way if she is not able to answer the question tonight. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in the situation where a local authority does not consent to a combined authority adopting a mayor, the Bill requires that if the Secretary of State makes an order to enable the mayoral model to be adopted, the Secretary of State must remove the non-consenting local authority from the combined authority. Amendments 11 and 12 would change this requirement to an option that the Secretary of State could choose to take and enable a local authority in this position to make representations.

I appreciate the intention behind these amendments but, as we have said, the Government are open to discussing devolution proposals from all places. We want areas to come forward with proposals, developed and proposed by local areas. If a local authority within an existing combined authority does not want to have an elected metro mayor, we believe that it should neither be forced to do so—going back to discussions earlier—nor be able to veto the rest of that combined authority from adopting this model. This is what the Bill does.

Amendment 11 would give discretion to the Secretary of State as to whether to remove the non-consenting local authority when making an order to provide that the combined authority area has a mayor. This would in effect mean that the Secretary of State can force the local authority to remain within the combined authority, which we do not believe is appropriate.

Amendment 12 enables a local authority which has been removed from an existing combined authority, by virtue of its non-consent, to make representations. We also believe that this is not necessary. The Secretary of State must gain consent from each constituent local authority before an order can be made to enable an existing combined authority area to have a mayor. It is open to the local authorities when deciding whether to consent to make any representations they wish to.

Amendment 23 would omit new section 107D(6)(a) to remove the power of the Secretary of State by order to,

“provide for members or officers of a mayoral combined authority to assist the mayor in the exercise of general functions”.

As the Bill stands, this provision allows for the mayor to be supported in his or her executive functions, in the same way that council officers support an elected mayor or leader of a council. For example, the mayor may set the strategy for the combined authority and officers would support the mayor in drafting, preparing and publishing any necessary plans. Removing this provision risks creating arrangements that would hinder the delivery of the mayor’s executive functions and hence frustrate the very purpose of a devolution deal. Mayors will be clearly identified as the accountable figurehead and be answerable to their electorate for any function they undertake or are assisted in undertaking, so it will be clear where the responsibility lies.

With all these assurances, I hope the noble Lord will agree that the amendments are not necessary.

[Lord Beecham]

To respond to the first point, obviously the Minister—or those who helped to prepare her speech in response—did not take into account the case that I actually put, which was in relation to an authority, under the provisions of the Bill as it stands, being totally excluded from a relationship with the combined authority on matters that are not the subject of the deal. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to look at that aspect of it, which is really the thrust of the amendment. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Amendments 12 and 13 not moved.

Amendment 14

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

14: Clause 1, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
“107BB Requirement for an elected assembly to form part of mayoral combined authority
(1) An order under section 107A must make provision for an elected assembly (“the Assembly”) to form part of any mayoral combined authority.
(2) An elected assembly provided for in an order under section 107A must, in particular, provide that—
(a) the Assembly shall consist of P members (“Assembly Members”), where P is equal to the number of constituent authorities within the area of the mayoral combined authority, multiplied by five; (b) each constituent authority shall be an Assembly constituency;(c) each Assembly constituency shall elect five Assembly Members;(d) each Assembly Member shall be a member of the combined authority.(3) Schedule 5BA (which makes further provision about Assemblies) has effect.”

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I mentioned that I currently serve on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I very strongly support the committee’s recommendations to the House. I think I should apologise to the Minister, and indeed to the House, by saying that, in referring to two of the paragraphs in the committee’s report that refer to affirmative and negative process, I ought also to have referred to paragraph 61, which is much more important, and to which the Minister responded. I was very grateful for that response. I think I should put before your Lordships, and on record, the recommendation in paragraph 61:

“We note that the Government have introduced the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, currently before this House, and that provisions in that Bill relate to the same policy area as that addressed by the LRO. It seems to us that operating in one policy area through two separate legislative vehicles, which are progressing in parallel though at different speeds, presents particular difficulties to the House in considering the combined effects of the changes proposed”.

The Minister was one step ahead of me because she responded to that point, and I am very grateful to her. But now, on record, both of us are clear as to what that issue was. I am grateful for the assurances that she gave.

It may be that, in response to the debate on this group of amendments, the Minister can give us a clear idea of the timetable for bringing together these two very important developments on comparable issues relating to devolution and local government structures.

I see from the department’s note to that committee that there are repeated and very welcome references to the need for democratic accountability. With that in mind, I hope that the Minister will therefore respond positively to our amendments, particularly Amendments 14 and 17, to which I now speak. My noble friend Lord Shipley has already referred in general terms to these amendments, and we think that they are extremely important. They deal, of course, with Clause 1, along with a new schedule, and go to the very heart of the Bill.

During Second Reading, and to some extent again today, colleagues in all parts of your Lordships’ House expressed serious concerns at what I regard as the democratic deficit inherent in concentrating powers in the hands of one person. It is that which I fear weakens the Government’s promise of improved accountability. What we seek to achieve is a level of direct democratic accountability comparable to that now enjoyed in London. I challenge Labour and Conservative Members of your Lordships’ House to argue either that the Bill provides better accountability for the people of the areas concerned than that experienced by the people of London or, alternatively, that the inhabitants of at least the first tranche of combined authority areas up in the north do not deserve the same level of democratic accountability. It is surely patronising and divisive to say that what is needed for London is not needed outside London. Certainly, that is not in the spirit of effective devolution. Our amendments are designed to adapt the now well-established governance system, bringing together citizens, boroughs, an Assembly and a mayor for London to make it appropriate for these new authorities.

Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, explained with what care and huge scrutiny and attention the legislation for London was considered. All those who have looked again, as I have, at the requirements for the Greater London Authority and for the mayor, will recognise that that was indeed an important parliamentary exercise. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that we should examine it with care.

Amendment 14 simply articulates the principle that there should be an assembly in each of the mayoral combined authorities. It provides for each local authority area that makes up the combined authority to contribute five directly elected assembly members to the total. This would mean that a combined authority with only two constituent councils would have a small assembly of only 10. A large authority would have a larger assembly. But in view of the comments made earlier, for clarity, I should explain that we have at this stage not ruled out additional representatives indirectly appointed by constituent authorities. However, this is just one option for further discussion. Each assembly member, properly elected, would be a member of the combined authority in their own right.

Amendment 17 takes the Committee through the detailed arrangements for the way in which these assemblies would work. As the Committee would expect of an amendment from these Benches, we would provide for members to be elected by the single transferable vote. It also provides that all those entitled to vote in the election for mayor would also be entitled to vote in the election for assembly members. Most critically, this new schedule seeks to mirror the accountability arrangements set out in the Greater London Authority Act for assemblies to hold mayors’ feet to the fire—to hold them effectively to account.

Members of this House who have been members of the Greater London Assembly would certainly tell us that its current functions should be strengthened. I agree, not least in relation to budgets—I know that my noble friend Lord Tope certainly takes that view, too—yet the provisions in the GLA Act are so much stronger in terms of accountability than anything the Government are currently proposing in this Bill. If the Government are at all serious about accountability, therefore, these provisions must be the starting point for holding mayors accountable for what they do on behalf of the wider community. The GLA arrangements would give statutory rights, for example, to assembly members to ask questions of the mayor and senior employees of the authority and have them answered. They would also provide for the assemblies to set up committees and these could be particularly important in relation to, for example, the PCC powers that the Government wish mayors to take on.

The Minister must have before her a brief setting out manifold technical difficulties and reasons for resisting this attempt to make a simple, easy-to-read-across between these authorities and the GLA, so I should say up front that we do not say that our drafting is the last word—of course it is not. It is merely the first word. That is why we have a parliamentary process. That is the whole point of having Committee followed by Report and Third Reading. But Sections 50 to 65 of the GLA Act should be recommended reading for all of us if we are looking for some sort of template for how to ensure that the combined authorities are accountable and therefore capable of taking on greater power. The tried and tested clearly gives a real advantage in terms of empirical evidence, compared with just simply hoping for the best.

In summary, this set of amendments seeks to give full expression to the Government’s declared intention to provide the effective exercise of new responsibilities and powers in a way which is answerable to the local population of the area concerned. It gives practical expression to the local democracy initiatives set out earlier so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine. It is surely essential to address this; otherwise, the development of the policy as set out in the Bill is not going to be popular and will fail in terms of democratic accountability. Irrespective of how the overview and scrutiny committees are constituted or chaired, they would certainly not fulfil the Government’s promise to make the combined authority,

“democratically accountable to local people”.

Without the tried and tested assembly system to provide effective accountability, we are indeed in danger of creating new one-party states, as my noble friend Lord Shipley put it earlier, with the mayor, the deputy mayor and a vast majority of indirectly appointed members of the combined authority from the constituent authorities, all of the same political persuasion. Without the safeguards in our amendments, your Lordships’ House will be conniving at the creation of new elective dictatorships—new rotten boroughs, if you like.

This solution will be particularly appropriate for areas like Norfolk, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred, and indeed to my erstwhile area in Cornwall. That is because if we move beyond the first tranche of combined authorities, areas such as those would expect a degree of democratic accountability. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, in his place, as indeed he has been throughout our debates today. He made a very important contribution in the debate on Second Reading. He referred to,

“the need for transparency and public scrutiny”.

He continued:

“the Bill could lead to a concentration of power in the hands of one political party. We have seen all too recently—I am thinking of Tower Hamlets—what can happen when too much power is put in the hands of one person without effective scrutiny.—[Official Report, 8/6/15; col. 707.]

I agree entirely, and I hope the Minister will too. She has said this evening that her aim for this legislation is strong and accountable democracy. I agree with that as well, but I do not see it in the Bill as it stands, and therefore I beg to move.

21:17

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has mentioned my name and has therefore implied that I support his amendment, perhaps I may put him right. My main concern is to ensure scrutiny, and there are many ways of skinning the cat. I think that we can look forward to more detail at some stage about how the scrutiny committees can do their work. I am not convinced in London that an elected assembly does the job, and I am certainly concerned about there being a new layer of government, which I think will complicate everything. Although I share the noble Lord’s view about transparency and scrutiny, I cannot support his amendment.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to this group of amendments, to two more of which, Amendments 25 and 26, I have attached my name. I do not want to repeat what my noble friend Lord Tyler has said in relation to Amendments 14 and 17, other than that I agree entirely with him. This really matters because it will bring a fuller elected element into the creation of the mayoral combined authority. At present, the direct connection between the ballot box and the mayoral combined authority is only the mayor, a single person with a direct mandate. For the combined authority to succeed, it needs greater legitimacy. Our Amendment 14 suggests five directly elected members to the combined authority from each of the constituent councils, and we propose election by single transferable vote because, without it, you will not get the multiparty representation that we need to prevent a one-party state arising. Taken together, this set of amendments would prevent the one-party state, which is what we have been talking about today. No doubt we shall look at this further on Report, along with Amendment 17, which explains some of the detail behind Amendment 14.

Let me briefly mention Amendments 25 and 26. I well remember the Bill to establish police and crime commissioners going through your Lordships’ House a few years ago. It was then seen to be a full-time position. Here:

“The Secretary of State may by order provide for the mayor … to exercise functions of a police and crime commissioner”,

along with all the other things that the mayor will undertake. There is a question of workload. Our discussion on this has been inadequate to date—at least on the evidence provided by the Government on the ability of a single person to undertake the functions of a mayor and a police and crime commissioner, handling social care and health, transport, economic development, regeneration, skills, housing and strategic planning. Putting all that in the hands of one person, even with delegation to a deputy mayor and perhaps to other members of the combined authority, seems an enormous, indeed impossible, workload. Our proposal would mean a slightly larger combined authority—and directly elected—and seems a better way to proceed.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and support Amendments 14, 17, 25 and 26.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is often said, as the noble Lord opposite did, that it is not good to have another level of government and that people in this country think that there are enough levels of political classes, so we should avoid having more. I agree with that to a degree, but by having an elected mayor we already have that extra level of government. If we are to have it, and this Bill lays out that additional level of government, we should have one that is accountable and is of a good and proper quality to bring that level of government to account.

This amendment would do exactly that. If we are to have this extra level of government, which appears to be right at this time, and to make combined authorities work for the benefit of their larger regions, we should indeed have much greater accountability. That accountability—multiparty, and independents as well as parties within the process—is exactly as the amendments lay down. It is absolutely critical for good and credible government. More important perhaps is that we do not come back in five years to correct a mistake that we may have got into by having local authorities that are completely inward looking, self serving, uncritical and that lose the confidence of their populations. That would mean that this important experiment of devolution had failed.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments seems to cover two different areas: first, whether there is a need for oversight of a democratically elected mayor; and secondly, the proposed way of dealing with that. This will clearly vary depending on the part of the country we are in. In my view, the way in which an elected mayor, if there is one in a combined authority, will be held to account is by the constituent local authorities, their elected representatives and the leaders of those authorities. The idea that you need another elected body to hold those people to account seems crazy to me. I think of myself many years ago as leader of Leeds and of West Yorkshire. The idea that there would be another elected body that would hold this mayor to account and that I took no part in it is simply not credible. It simply would not work. Indeed, it would not be effective at all; there would be a great deal of conflict.

So, first, such an arrangement is not necessary to hold an elected mayor to account, should there be an elected mayor. For the record and as I said at Second Reading—despite my earlier remarks, which may be misunderstood—I can understand that a combined authority may occasionally wish to have a mayor. Many will not, but some will. Secondly, the particular arrangement proposed could lead to very odd results. Take my area of West Yorkshire. The local enterprise partnership includes four of the five metropolitan districts of West Yorkshire, plus three shire districts outside that include Skipton, Harrogate and Selby, plus North Yorkshire. Having five elected persons per district would give the area containing Selby an equal number to Leeds. I suggest that that would not be democratic and it would not be understood. I do not care what the system of election would be; it would be very undemocratic and unbalanced.

Trying to find an arrangement that leads to an elected process in addition to having leaders of strong and powerful local authorities—taking the amendments as they are—does not stand up. First, they are not necessary, and secondly the proposal as made in detail is not workable. I therefore oppose the amendments.

[Lord Smith of Leigh]

My Lords, the problem with these amendments is that they want to impose a London-based solution on different parts of the country but they are not imposing a London executive mayor model. The GLA works to hold the elected mayor to account. How well it does that is open to question. I have never been to a GLA meeting but I have watched a bit on television. It was not the most riveting television I must say, but it did not seem that the mayor was particularly well disposed towards the scrutiny he was receiving, so I am not sure that it has even been that successful in London.

My noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds got this absolutely right: outside of London, the combined authority is a very different body. Whereas it works collaboratively and collectively to do things for the area, the 10 leaders in Greater Manchester are still advocates for their own areas. They want to work together, but if something was not in the interest of their particular area they would ensure that the mayor was fully abreast of that opinion. That is where the difference is: we would suddenly tag on, to an effective meeting of already 11 people, 50-plus others from across Greater Manchester. What kind of meeting is that? It would not be an executive meeting; it would simply be a talking shop. We do not need more talking shops. We want to make sure that this devolution really works. That means getting hold of the powers and putting them in in effective ways.

Democratic accountability in our area will be through elected local authorities. That seems to me what is missing in London: we have a big gap between the mayor and the boroughs. That is what does not work in London and what will work in the new combined authorities.

21:28

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Woolmer and Lord Smith for basically setting out our position on these amendments. We do not believe they are appropriate. It seems to me the key point that has been made is that you cannot draw a parallel between the London model and where we are with these combined authorities because you have members of the combined authorities—not via this election process but directly representing the constituency authorities—who are involved in holding an elected mayor to account, if there is one, through the two-thirds rule on the budget et cetera, but who collectively, as my noble friend said, have functions for which they are responsible. If you go down the route of adding to those elected members, what precisely is the role of those members in comparison with the members who are already there by virtue of the indirect arrangement? Therefore, I do not think that the model fits and it is unhelpful to try to make it fit.

There are other issues as well, perhaps of less consequence, but the proposal is for an assembly only for mayoral combined authorities. What about other combined authorities if there are no mayoral functions? They would still possibly have the same range of functions but this solution is not offered here. The assembly seems to be offered whatever level of devolution is given to the mayor. In some cases there may be full-blown powers for the mayor, including in PCC matters; in others that is not so, so to have the same arrangement in each case—or to propose it—does not seem to make sense either. However, that is not the substantive point. I think the substantive point is that made by my noble friends.

In terms of the numbers, as we heard, in Manchester’s case we could go from 11 members at the moment, including the mayor, up to 61, whereas London, as we know, has only 25. I appreciate that those figures could be adjusted but it is still a big increase. What is the role of those members who are going to come through the system on this basis? Are they just there to scrutinise? How does their role differ from that of the other combined authority members?

If you look at the number of combined authorities which may be created—some are already under way—there is Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, and South Yorkshire, and there are prospects for east Midlands, south Hampshire, Bristol and Leicester. Who else might follow? How many assemblies are we seeking to assemble here? As I said earlier, we have a proliferation of voting systems: first past the post for the council elections; a single transferable vote proposed for the assembly; and the supplementary vote for mayors. I am sure the electorate will be able to cope with that over time but it does not seem to me a great example of clarity and linking with the electorate.

Others have already mentioned the fact that there is an overview and scrutiny committee but that is not the only way that scrutiny is exercised. As we know—the Manchester agreement sets this out very clearly—combined authority members have a role of potentially restraining the mayor.

I wish to make a broad point. I can understand Liberal Democrats having a particular view on the voting system. They may think that it is unfair and that it does not produce a proportional outcome. I make no particular comment on that. However, it seems to me wrong to potentially fetter the situation that we are talking about here with a proposal just to balance up for doing something which in their eyes may seem to be a deficit in the arrangements that would otherwise be in place. It seems to me wrong to use this process for those purposes. So, for a variety of reasons, I do not think this is the right way to go and we certainly will not support it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for some very measured and sensible comments on these amendments. First, I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on the DPRR committee. As I indicated earlier, we will respond before the end of the Committee stage, which is next Monday. The committee has recommended that the LRO be subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure. With this procedure, the expectation must be that the LRO will not come into force, if Parliament approves it, until late 2015. However, as I have already indicated, we are now seriously recommending including the LRO provision in the Bill—so I hope that that helps him—and it will overcome the difficulties identified by the Delegated Powers Committee.

Amendment 14 provides that an elected assembly must form part of a combined authority. It seeks to insert into the Bill new Schedule 5BA, which provides that the functions and procedure of the elected assembly are the same as those for the London Assembly. I understand the intention behind the amendment. First and foremost, I understand that those who are proposing this amendment want a bigger role for the ballot box. They see that this is provided in the London mayoral model, where there is an assembly that holds the mayor to account.

However, London is unique. Greater Manchester is unique. Greater Manchester is not London and London is not Greater Manchester. This is not in the civil servants’ notes. All of us from Greater Manchester are very clear about that point and clear that we do not want additional tiers of government. I am confident that other local areas probably feel the same. We do not want to create additional bureaucracy, which would cost the taxpayer money. The devolution of powers to areas will instead create efficiencies and allow each area to find its own creative solutions to the particular challenges it faces in securing long-term sustainable growth.

In order to hold the mayor and combined authority to account for their decisions and actions, the Bill provides that all combined authorities must have one or more overview and scrutiny committee drawn from the members of the constituent councils. Like the London Assembly, these overview and scrutiny committees can require the mayor, officers and members to attend their meetings and answer questions. I am sure that we will discuss the role of scrutiny more fully when we examine the later clauses of the Bill. We are determined to ensure that scrutiny is as strong and robust as it can be. That scrutiny provides the real protection against the fears of a one-party state, and must be seen to be effective, transparent and independent so as to maintain public confidence in the institutions and governance arrangements to which we will be devolving wide-ranging powers. I reiterate my earlier offer—because the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, was on his way out of the door when I was making it—about any suggestions that noble Lords might wish to make on how we ensure that scrutiny is as robust as possible.

However, we do not want, and I am convinced that few in our cities and counties will want, a new tier of government—a new tier of politicians. The experience of the metropolitan county councils, which my noble friend Lord Heseltine abolished through the legislation he introduced, shows the problems and weaknesses of having inevitably competing tiers of politicians. That said, I believe that with the right legislative framework for allowing areas to draw together scrutiny committees with a broad membership and strong powers, the future governance arrangements can indeed fulfil the aims of those proposing these amendments that public confidence will be maintained and, more importantly, that devolution will work, benefiting the local communities that it serves.

Amendment 17 sets out the electoral arrangements for an elected assembly, using a single transferable vote model. This is a complex electoral system that would be costly and time-consuming to implement. As noble Lords have pointed out, we would have a very confusing array of arrangements for local elections. Introducing STV for all local elections would require significant changes to existing electoral boundaries and could not be introduced, even if it were desirable, within any short timescale.

Amendments 25 and 26 would require the assembly to resolve, by a simple majority,

“for the relevant combined authority to enable the mayor to take on the functions of a police and crime commissioner for that area”.

Notwithstanding the explanations I have already given as to why we would not want there to be an elected assembly for a mayoral combined authority, we consider that there is no need to require any additional body to approve the transfer of police functions to the mayor. The transfer of police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor forms part of the devolution deal and is actually analogous to the situation in London. The Bill requires that all the appropriate authorities in an area would have to give consent before an order to transfer police and crime commissioner functions could be made. Hence we are clear that the transfer of PCC functions will be a matter on which the combined authority and/or its constituent councils must agree.

I can also reassure noble Lords that in order for the mayor of a combined authority area to take on PCC functions, the Secretary of State will be required to lay an order setting out the detail of how PCC functions will be transferred to the mayor, and Parliament will have the opportunity to fully consider this. With these explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. I and my colleagues warmly welcome the assurance she has been giving us—she repeated what she said earlier—because we regard the way in which the Bill will provide for “robust scrutiny”, which I think was the Minister’s phrase, as absolutely critical to its success. We welcome any discussions that can take place before, during and after Report because it is critical to the Bill.

I modestly and tentatively suggest, at this time of night, that when the Minister says that she and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, are the “we” who have decided that they do not want to have elected members looking at this, they are not all the people of Greater Manchester. We have to be careful in this House about assuming that, because there has been no attempt yet to look at this in the wider community, somehow the leaders of party groups in particular areas can speak for the whole population of that area.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I want to clarify that the point I made was that we in Greater Manchester—not me and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, but we as elected members, as I was—did not want additional layers of bureaucracy or tiers of government.

[Lord Teverson]

Perhaps I could intervene on that to say: but of course not. The people who tend to be involved do not like the boat being rocked, which is part of the problem. The establishment of a political area are the last people who would want greater accountability through another body. Regrettably, that is the way in which politics works: we are defensive about our own seats of power, and that is the danger of this proposal. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Tyler.

[Lord Tyler]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. He makes his point very well.

I say to the Minister that I think she was probably not involved in any discussions about the Greater London Authority Bill, when these sorts of arguments were also advanced by the leaders of Labour councils in the boroughs of London. They were fearful that the electorate might have other views about priorities. I also suspect that the Mayor of London would be only too pleased to have a scrutiny committee that had no democratic mandate, as it is in the Bill. The next Mayor of London may or may not have a view on that, too. I simply make the point that, if it was good enough for London, we should at least seriously examine whether these new combined authorities are going to have a sufficiently effective mechanism for holding the mayor to account. I do not believe that the Bill provides that at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and others think that we can develop that proposal and it may be that by the time the Bill has finished its passage through your Lordships’ House, we have somehow managed to give the scrutiny committees that sort of role. I have to say that, as things stand, the Bill does not provide for that. I was disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, was not along with me on this because he had a serious point, and I suspect that we may have some discussions and come to an agreement about how to provide this by some means. However, what really worried me was when the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said that the combined authority would have an executive meeting function. Not so: in my mind, the mayor is the executive. If the leaders are simply there to back up the mayor, who may well be of the same persuasion politically, that will be no scrutiny. It will not be accountable.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I do not believe that the noble Lord is right on that issue. This is one of the differences between London and the combined authorities that we are talking about. The combined authorities will have members who are appointed by the constituent elected authorities, and they as well as the mayor will have functions to perform. It is not only the mayor, if there is one, who gets all these functions; it is other members of the combined authority as well. That is the situation that I do not think the noble Lord has taken into account in his analysis.

21:45

[Lord Tyler]

But that is exactly the problem.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords—

[Lord Tyler]

I think I am still responding; I hope that is right. I think the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is in a major constitutional confusion on this. You cannot have both sides, the mayor and the constituent authority, exerting executive authority in some form without, in the words of the Minister, effective, accountable democracy—I think that was her phrase.

The time is late, and I am not suggesting that we have the perfect solution. I have already said that this is our first attempt to do this, and maybe we can develop a better one. However, I say to those who are opposing our proposal that, if they are seriously saying that the governance of London is somehow defective and therefore we cannot look at it as a proper model for what should go in this Bill for major conurbations in other parts of the country, and that somehow the people of the north do not deserve the same degree of democratic control over the executive, I wish them to say so publicly.

For the time being, I suggest to the Minister that we should look more carefully at the way in which a mayor is held to account. In those circumstances, and with the assurance that she has given us that we will return to this on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, just before we conclude this aspect of the Bill, I confirm that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is actually right. Secondly, to say that the London arrangements are not right for other places is not to say that those arrangements are defective but, rather, to say that what suits London does not necessarily suit other places.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed.

Schedule 1: Mayors for combined authority areas: further provision about elections

Amendment 14A

Moved by

[Lord Beecham]

14A: Schedule 1, page 13, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert—
“2 (1) A mayor’s term of office shall be four years.
(2) Elections shall be held on the ordinary day of election in the election year for the relevant local authorities.
(3) When the office of mayor is first established, the Secretary of State may by order make provision for alternative arrangements for the mayor’s term of office and the date of the election to the extent necessary to allow synchronisation with other elections.”

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, Amendment 14A is a manuscript amendment arising from the recently published report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Although it is a manuscript amendment, I did not write it myself; if I had, the Public Bill Office would not have been able to read it. It is, however, as noble Lords will see, in printed form. It embodies the position taken by the Delegated Powers Committee on the organisation of elections. The amendment derives from paragraph 6 of the report, which I quote:

“Given the importance of the functions which a mayor is able to exercise, and the emphasis placed by the Government on the democratic accountability offered by an elected mayor, we do not consider it appropriate for the Bill to delegate to subordinate legislation the ordinary length of a mayor’s term of office or the ordinary election dates”.

I say in parenthesis that that is precisely what paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, about the timing of elections, in fact sets out. The report continues:

“It seems to us that any power to provide for those things in subordinate legislation should be limited so that it can only be exercised to the extent necessary to allow synchronisation with other elections, when the office of a mayor is first established”.

Hence the provisions of Amendment 14A: that a mayor’s term of office should be four years; that elections should be held on the ordinary day of election in the election year for the relevant local authorities—I contrast that with the disastrous turnout in the elections for police commissioners, which took place in a cold dark day in November; no doubt that contributed to the minuscule turnout, though perhaps that was not the only reason—and, finally, that when the office of mayor is first established, the Secretary of State should by order make provision for the alternative arrangements for the mayor’s term of office and the date of the election to the extent necessary to allow synchronisation with other elections. That tidies up that particular area.

The other amendments are of a rather different character. Amendment 15 would allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in a mayoral election. For many of us, I think the only satisfying part of the referendum process in Scotland, apart from the outcome, was the very high participation rate, particularly among 16 and 17 year-olds, who were allowed to vote. In our view, it is highly desirable that young people should be encouraged to take an interest in politics from an early age. We also argue that citizenship should play a more prominent part in the education agenda—the Lord Speaker’s efforts to encourage Members of this House to address schools and young people generally are a small but important part of that process. Giving those young people the vote at an early age—after all, they are able to pay taxes, be employed and so on—seems to me to be absolutely right. We have to acknowledge that young people are not the quickest to register in any event, so the earlier we can get them into the process, the better. Their future will be very much affected by the work of combined authorities and other aspects of local services.

The final amendment, Amendment 16, would simply require any new legislation to be in force six months before it is due to be implemented, so that there will not be a great last-minute rush to sort out the physical arrangements of elections and they can be planned well in advance and with efficiency. That applies both to the electorate itself and to returning officers and the like engaged in that process. In my submission, these are sensible, tidying-up arrangements to facilitate the smooth operation of whatever process will be involved if we get to holding elections under the terms of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on all these amendments. As he said, Amendment 14A reflects the concerns of the DPRRC, to which I referred earlier. I am sure he is right in saying that this should be in the Bill, and I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept that. It would be consistent with what has already been recommended, and I understand from what the Minister has said that she has effectively welcomed the committee’s recommendations.

So far as Amendment 15 is concerned, as your Lordships’ House will know, I have brought forward, twice now, a Bill to comprehensively reduce the age of the franchise to 16 for all elections. As the noble Lord said, it was a triumphant success in Scotland. It is now also in legislation ready for any comparable referendum in Wales, and I understand that the Prime Minister himself has said that he expects a vote in due course on a general extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds.

My only concern about Amendment 15 is that it is specific only to this one form of election. I think that is a great mistake. We on these Benches will be bringing forward a later amendment to extend this throughout local government. There has been far too much ad hocery and too many piecemeal attempts to deal with the franchise. Imagine if the extension of the franchise to women had been done on this piecemeal basis, with parts of the United Kingdom doing it in different ways to other parts. Imagine if it had been said, “Only in mayoral authority elections are we going to allow women to have the vote immediately. Others will have it at another time”.

One objection to Amendment 15 is sorted out by our Amendment 48, through which we would extend the franchise to all 16 and 17 year-olds for all local government elections.

I do not want this to sound smug, but we have been consistently in favour of this policy and very much welcome the arrival of the Labour Party in support of it. I think I am right in saying that some other party north of the border has also joined the bandwagon. Nothing should be read into that: it is simply that we take pride in the fact that the sheer advocacy of this logical extension of the franchise is now getting new recruits. In the meantime, I hope the Minister will respond positively to Amendment 14A. Perhaps she would like to keep her firepower for dealing with the wider issue of 16 and 17 year-olds for when, at the very end of consideration in Committee, we get to Amendment 48. In view of the time of night, I leave it there.

[Lord Beecham]

As the Minister implied, jumping on the bandwagon with the Liberal Democrats is not generally a fruitful proposition. Indeed, the concept might be an oxymoron. We are certainly adopting a somewhat Fabian approach to the extension of the franchise. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord’s broader amendment has been regarded as within the scope of the Bill, but if it has then so be it. We would certainly look to an extension of the franchise but for the purposes of what we are discussing here the amendment we have drafted is correct.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the Bill currently stands, the ability of the Secretary of State to set the timings of elections by order allows for the fact that there is no single pattern of local elections across the country with which a new mayoral election may be synchronised. It also recognises that devolution deals would be bespoke and therefore it is possible that different arrangements may be sought by and agreed with different areas. For example, an area may wish its mayoral election to be held in a year where there are no council elections while another area may wish to combine mayoral and council elections. While we expect that the majority of areas will wish the mayoral term to be four years—the same as councillors—we would not want to rule out the possibility of, say, a five-year term, the same as Parliament, if that is what a particular area wanted.

The essential point is that, whatever arrangements are adopted, they will be put in place only after this House and the other place have debated and approved them. Moreover, these provisions in the Bill replicate those for local authority mayors in the Local Government Act 2000. The 2000 Act also provides a default position so that, if the order-making power is not exercised, a mayor’s term is four years and the election takes place on the ordinary election day, the first Thursday in May in the relevant election year—that is, the election specified in the Act for different classes of councils. However, that is a default position, as indeed was recognised in the report by the DPRRC. Rather than setting out a default position, the amendment proposes a more restricted arrangement that applies in all circumstances other than when the office of mayor is first established. Given that the purpose of the Bill is to implement bespoke deals, it would be inappropriate to include such an inflexible position. However, we are prepared to look at whether to include in the Bill some genuine default provision. This would not in any way curtail the scope of the order-making powers in Schedule 5B but would be the provisions that apply if an order were not made.

Amendment 15 would change the franchise for those entitled to vote for mayor in a combined authority area to include 16 and 17 year-olds. The Bill provides that the franchise for electing these mayors, which would have been established as an integral part of an agreed package of powers to be devolved to the combined authority, should be the same as that for electing councillors in any electoral area situated within the combined authority. The voting age in those areas is 18. More broadly of course, the voting age for parliamentary elections is set at 18. Beyond that, the voting age in most democracies, including most member states of the EU, is also 18. In the EU, only Austria allows voting for 16 year-olds.

We have heard arguments for a change in the voting age. However, my concern is that that is part of a wider debate and it would not be appropriate—as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said—for any such change to be implemented in these quite specific circumstances. I have concerns as well about the administrative complexity of running an election in an area based on a register that would include 16 and 17 year-olds and running other council elections or referenda in the same area, quite likely on the same day, on a different basis with a different franchise. These are circumstances in which the risk of confusing the electorate is very real and this can only weaken, rather than strengthen, our local democracy. There is a wider national debate to be had about the electoral franchise, but I am clear that the specific circumstances of the Bill are not the place for it. Accordingly I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

22:00

Amendment 16 provides that, for the election of mayors in combined authorities, any secondary legislation on the conduct of that election and the questioning of that election should be in force at least six months before it is required to be implemented. This follows clear principles recommended by the Electoral Commission, which we would definitely consult—indeed, which the Bill requires us to consult—on any provisions regarding the conduct of this election.

I should start by being clear that the Government recognise that it is important that electoral administrators and campaigners have good time to understand how electoral law works before it is applied. Our intention is that, where we make legislation affecting an election, wherever possible it is in force six months before that election. Where the circumstances are such that this six-month period is clearly important and there can be no risks or downsides in making this six-month period a statutory, mandatory provision, Parliament has done this. An example is the power in the Representation of the People Act 1983, under which an order may be made changing the ordinary day of elections so as to be the same as the date of the poll for the European parliamentary elections.

I have concerns about whether it is always appropriate to be governed by a specific timeframe. While recognising the need to ensure the legislation is passed in plenty of time, where we are dealing with complex rules already in place and a minor modification is recognised and widely agreed to be needed, we should not be unable to make that change because of some statutory requirement such as this amendment would insert. Perhaps I can reassure noble Lords that the elections for the mayor of a combined authority would be run on the same well-established principles as other mayoral elections. The conduct rules for these elections will draw on those used for the conduct of other mayoral elections, which are tried, tested and fully understood by electoral administrators and will be familiar to all concerned.

Our expectation is that the first of the elections for a metro mayor will be in May 2017, a timeframe that ensures we can consult the Electoral Commission properly, as we are bound by the Bill to do, and put appropriate rules in place.

I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beecham]

At this stage, I am prepared to accept that, but I hope that the Minister might have a rather quicker consultation with the Electoral Commission and, indeed, will respond to the report of the Delegated Powers Committee with a view to seeing whether, on Report, it is necessary to produce amendments for decision then. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment tonight.

Amendment 14A withdrawn.

Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Amendment 17 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.04 pm.