House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on rail electrification in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
This Government’s rail investment strategy is historic in its scale and ambition, and will benefit passengers in both north and south Wales. We are electrifying the Great Western main line all the way to Swansea, and we are developing the north Wales main line through a £43 million programme of modernisation and investment.
Christian Matheson
The Department for Transport seems to be making precious little progress on the Crewe to Chester-north Wales coast electrification, so will the Minister get together with his DFT colleagues and perhaps the Welsh Assembly Government, and I will even come along myself, to get a full engineering survey to find out the costs and the timescale for the electrification process, which is so important to the growth of the area?
Guto Bebb
I understand the importance of the north Wales main line to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the whole of north Wales. We are engaged in a £43 million programme of investment and modernisation and we are seeing the benefits of that investment. For example, there has already been vast improvement in services from Chester to Euston, which also benefits north Wales. I would thoroughly welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with the hon. Gentleman as part of our strategy for a north Wales growth deal.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the recent decision by the Office of Rail and Road to permit regular new direct rail services from north Wales and Chester to Manchester airport? Does he agree that journey times remain too lengthy? With that in mind, will he encourage Network Rail to increase line speeds and pave the way for electrification by prioritising the replacement of Victorian signalling systems—works that had been due for completion last year?
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend touches on the crucial point. I pay tribute to his work since he came into the House. I remember his first Adjournment debate on north Wales transport links, in which he talked about the importance of the north Wales rail line and the A55. He is right to highlight the fantastic investment from Arriva Trains, which will see a tripling of the services from Llandudno in my constituency to Manchester airport. That development is most welcome to people in north Wales. I thoroughly accept that we need to modernise the signalling system, which is why we have a £47 million programme of investment during control period 5 and control period 6. That has slipped somewhat, which is a shame, but it is interesting to note that it did not preclude the decision by Arriva Trains to increase its services dramatically.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Secretary of State was serving as the Under-Secretary, he met my predecessor to discuss the Pencoed level crossing, which causes a significant amount of chaos in the town and the Ogmore constituency. Will he agree to meet me and constituents from Pencoed to carry on those positive discussions about improving the Pencoed crossing?
Guto Bebb
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I am aware that the Wales Office has been working with local government and the Welsh Government in relation to the Pencoed issue. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman—after all, my first by-election was in Ogmore. It was a very wet by-election. I would be delighted to meet residents of Pencoed once again.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
There is great momentum in north Wales and north-west England to improve transport links. This is a time for the Welsh Government and the UK Government to work together to improve those links. May we therefore have candour? The £43 million that the Minister referred to was actually investment by the Welsh Government, so will the UK Government step up to the plate and invest a penny piece in infrastructure in north Wales? That would be very welcome.
Guto Bebb
It is important and imperative that we work together—the Welsh Government, local authorities and the UK Government—in developing transport links throughout north Wales. That is why we have opened the door for a north Wales growth deal, on which we are working in partnership with the Mersey Dee Alliance and the North Wales Economic Ambition Board. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a real, effective change in north Wales will depend upon co-operation between Westminster and the Welsh Government.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The new Welsh Government are ready; cross-party and cross-border, Members of Parliament and local authorities are ready; and most important of the lot, we north Walians are very ready. May we have a commitment for proper electrification so that we end up with a growth deal that is worth the name?
Guto Bebb
It is imperative that we look carefully at the best value for money from investment in our transport infrastructure. I accept that there is a need to work together, but I also highlight the fact that the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses this morning called for more action from the Welsh Government. We hear that £200 million has been allocated for the A55, for example, but we have yet to see any action. We do need to work together; finger-pointing does not help.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
2. What steps the Government are taking to support the steel industry in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for the work he did when he was Secretary of State for Wales in all matters supporting Wales, but particularly in relation to the steel industry?
We are doing everything we can to support the sale of Tata Steel UK, including offering support to potential buyers worth hundreds of millions of pounds. Our discussions with buyers, the Welsh Government and the unions continue, and we stand ready to negotiate with the preferred bidder to ensure the future of steelmaking in Wales and across the UK.
Stephen Kinnock
As we know, a critical meeting is taking place in Mumbai later today, and the future of the industry is hanging in the balance. What measures have the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Cabinet taken to ensure that a viable and sustainable pension scheme is developed as a result of the sale of the business? Can he assure the House that it will be sustainable for the 130,000 members of the scheme?
Alun Cairns
I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Business since his meetings with Tata in Mumbai. Pensions are rightly one of the issues under consideration, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend highlighted them at the outset, when he said that pensions, plant and power were three of the issues that needed to be addressed. Pensions are an extremely complex issue and cross a number of Departments, but we are determined to find a way through in the interests of the members, the trustees and the company.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
8. The sale of the steelworks is at a critical stage. It is crucial to the survival of the plant that both Governments act with purpose to support a successful buyer. Has my right hon. Friend agreed a way forward with the First Minister and the Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay to ensure that that is the case?
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he is doing in his constituency, where a number of steelworkers reside, and for the responsible way in which he has pressed issues that are fundamental to a successful steel sale. I met the First Minister earlier this week, and we absolutely agreed that this issue is our priority. We are determined to continue in close dialogue and to work closely together to secure the sale.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
We on the Opposition Benches are solidly with the steelworkers who will be marching through Westminster today. The European Parliament has voted against giving China market economy status. Will the Secretary of State press his colleagues in the Cabinet to agree to higher tariffs on Chinese steel?
Alun Cairns
I look forward, like the hon. Gentleman, to meeting the unions that are marching through Westminster later today. Of course, we are determined to work with the unions and with Tata. However, market economy status for China is separate from the capacity of the European Commission to introduce tariffs. Where tariffs have been introduced, they absolutely work. There are 37 trade defence measures in place at the moment. On wire rod, for example, imports are down by 99%, and I could highlight a range of other speciality steels. So let us not confuse market economy status and the capacity to introduce trade defence measures.
Hywel Williams
Steel was a significant element in Wales’s £5 billion-worth of exports to the EU in 2015—that is in fact a third of the whole Welsh Government budget. Will the Secretary of State now make the positive case for the advantages to Wales’s businesses, jobs and profitability of remaining in the European single market and the European Union?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: 69% of steel produced in the UK is exported to the European Union. Access to that single European market is fundamental to the steel industry, but it is also fundamental to attracting a buyer. That was the very point I was seeking to highlight to business leaders in Swansea last week.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The steel produced at Port Talbot is transported to Corby and used to produce steel tubes. What steps are Ministers taking to make the case that it is vital to keep that supply chain together as one?
Alun Cairns
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he represents the interests of his constituents. He recognises the interdependency of all these plants—the site in Corby, the site in Port Talbot and other sites across the UK. We talk to suppliers regularly because we need to maintain confidence that they will be able to continue to buy steel. We are determined to find a buyer that is in the interests of workers and the economy.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman inspired by the minor miracle that has taken place in Newport, where Mr Sanjeev Gupta and his enterprising workforce have brought the dead Alphasteel company back to productive life? Is not this spirit of entrepreneurship, co-operation among the workforce, hope and confidence the way to stage a renaissance of the entire British steel industry?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman is right that the interest of Sanjeev Gupta in Liberty Steel demonstrates the dynamism in the industry and the great opportunity that is out there. Liberty Steel has reopened a plant that closed some time ago, and it sees that there is a future in British steelmaking. I hope that we will continue to use that momentum to secure steel for the whole of the Tata operations across the UK.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Given the Secretary of State’s previous answer on the effectiveness of tariffs, why do the UK Government keep being at the head of a blocking minority for reform of the lesser duty rule? Is it not the case that they simply have not done enough to save the British steel industry?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman is confused about the impact of the lesser duty rule, which relates to the framework. There are currently 37 trade defence measures in place. Where the European Commission has acted within the lesser duty rule, it has had a significant effect, be it in rebar, wire rod, seamless pipes or cold-rolled flat products. I could highlight a whole range of speciality steels where the tariffs are working within the lesser duty rule, because otherwise there would be an impact on other manufacturers and other costs. We need to work within the rule because it currently operates effectively.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
3. What assessment he has made of the financial accountability of the Government in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
In order to become truly accountable, the Welsh Government need to take responsibility for raising more of the money that they spend. That is why, as part of the Wales Bill, we will devolve income tax powers to the Welsh Assembly. I look forward to continuing to work alongside the Welsh Government to implement those powers.
Karl MᶜCartney
I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that while the Welsh Government are profligate in many ways, the reinstatement of the Aberystwyth to Carmarthen railway via Llanbedr Pont Steffan will be helpful to the entire Welsh economy. Such spending would be welcomed by all the citizens of Wales, who realise that investment in transport infrastructure is a precursor to economic prosperity.
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are several examples of the strange priorities shown by the Welsh Government. Investment in railways is a priority of the UK Government, as shown by the electrification of the line from Swansea through to Paddington. That in itself will provide greater opportunities for rail travel, such as the upgrade of the valleys lines, which, in turn, provides a knock-on, positive effect on more rural communities.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Air passenger duty has already been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is shortly to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but despite this, the Budget did not propose that it be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Will the Secretary of State support the devolution of air passenger duty, and if not, why not?
Alun Cairns
Rates of taxation, including air passenger duties, are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who always keeps levels of taxes under review. The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Treasury is looking at this matter and will report in due course.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
13. A few years ago in Boston, Massachusetts, a few revolutionaries said, “No taxation without representation”, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the Welsh Assembly takes advantage of the Wales Bill and applies its own income tax?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the continued interest that he shows in Wales. I want the Welsh Assembly to be a mature legislator taking more responsibility for the money that it spends by raising money itself. On that basis, it will become truly accountable to the people of Wales, and will have to look differently at the sorts of spending priorities it has and the commitments it makes.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the effect in Wales of the Government’s measures to support small businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
Small businesses are leading the economic recovery in Wales. There are now 30,000 more small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales, employing 65,000 more people than in 2010. With SMEs accounting for over 99% of all businesses in Wales, the UK Government fully recognise their important contribution to the growth of the Welsh economy.
Sir Henry Bellingham
The Chancellor’s recent Budget announcement that business rates for the smallest businesses will be either greatly reduced or removed has gone down very well. It will have huge advantages for small shops in particular. What steps are the Minister and the Secretary of State taking to make sure that businesses in Wales will also benefit?
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that the business rates announcement was welcomed by small businesses in England. The Wales Office is calling on the Welsh Government to replicate the steps taken in England, in order to ensure that small businesses in towns and cities across Wales benefit in the same way from the changes that are being implemented in England, which will allow them to grow and to employ more people in Wales.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Welsh Government have done well in attracting inward investment, but in terms of business confidence and Brexit, what will the UK Government do to shore up certainties about the Swansea bay lagoon, electrification and supporting Swansea with a city deal?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Wales Office is working very closely with the Treasury to develop a Swansea city deal, which will include the electrification of the main line to Swansea. We are also proposing a review of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon in order to look at its viability and to ensure that it will provide value to the taxpayer if it is developed.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
Some 242,000 jobs are directly or indirectly dependent on a successful tourism industry. Will the Minister concede that we could boost those small businesses either by reducing VAT on hospitality and tourism or by raising the threshold on which they pay VAT?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman is a champion of this issue and has been ever since I have been in this place. I share his view of the tourism industry in Wales: it is a success story of which we should be justly proud. It is important that the case is made to the Treasury, but I stress that the tourism industry in my constituency and in that of the hon. Gentleman is doing extremely well at present, regardless of any changes to VAT.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
As the Minister well knows, many small businesses in Wales are highly dependent on the steel industry and will have been anxiously awaiting the outcome of today’s meeting in Mumbai. The terms of the package that his Government propose will be crucial to any potential deal, so will he confirm that they will do everything it takes to secure a successful future for our steel industry?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the steel industry not just to direct employment but to the supply chains in both north and south Wales. I assure her that the Wales Office and the UK Government are doing everything in their power to ensure that the steel industry and its skilled supply chain are protected in the future.
Nia Griffith
Many of our small businesses will also be concerned about the EU referendum, not least those in the Welsh agricultural sector, which received some £350 million a year from the common agricultural policy. The Minister has previously confirmed that, in the event of a Brexit vote, there is absolutely no certainty that his Government would replace those EU funds, so does he agree that it is in the very best interests of Welsh farming and the broader Welsh economy that we vote to remain in the EU on 23 June?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the agricultural industry to Wales. Almost 60,000 people are directly employed within the sector, and more than 95% of all Welsh agricultural exports go to the European Union, so I fully subscribe to her view that the Welsh agricultural sector will be protected if we vote to remain in the EU.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
5. What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of employment in Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
The labour market in Wales is going from strength to strength. Last week’s figures delivered a hat-trick of good news for the Welsh economy: employment is up to a new record high, unemployment is down to its lowest level since 2008, and the number of people on the claimant count continues to fall.
Maria Caulfield
Do not the Minister’s figures show that the Government’s welfare reforms are working in Wales and helping employment for ordinary people?
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister will have seen this week’s Treasury assessment of the impact of withdrawal from the European Union on the UK economy. Could he give us his view of the impact of withdrawal on the Welsh economy?
Guto Bebb
The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of my position on this issue. I believe quite passionately that the Welsh economy is stronger for being part of the European Union. Whether for our manufacturing industry, our agriculture industry or our small businesses, I think the stability and certainty of being part of the European Union are good for Wales.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
The unemployment level in Cardiff North is at a record low of 1.7%. Does the Minister agree that to support this trend and keep unemployment down, the new Welsh Government have to deliver on infrastructure promises such as the M4 relief road and the south Wales Metro, towards which this Government have given hundreds of millions of pounds?
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend has been a great champion for the capital city of Wales since he was elected to this place. The £500 million contribution of the UK Government to the city deal in Cardiff will be essential for employment, growth and the continued success of Cardiff, but we need to keep up the pressure. The question marks over the M4 relief road are a barrier to growth in south Wales, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise his concerns about those delays. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. A great many people in Wales will be attending to our proceedings, and I must also inform the House that today we are visited by the eminent figure Cardinal Charles Bo from Rangoon in Burma. We want to impress him not only with the quality of our interrogation but with the decency of our behaviour, so a little less noise would be helpful.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
6. What the Government’s plans are for the future of S4C.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I was delighted to visit S4C last week to see at first hand the exciting developments at the channel, including the launch of its HD service in time for the European championship. I am sure we all wish Chris Coleman and the boys well.
Jonathan Edwards
What assurances can the Secretary of State give us that the UK Government’s review of S4C will not be compromised, as it will be conducted after the BBC’s charter review? Can he confirm that all options will be on the table, including securing an independent financial stream for S4C funded from revenues raised for public service broadcasting, and from direct Government support?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that a fundamental principle is operational and editorial independence. The BBC White Paper offers protection and support for S4C, but, of course, there is a review ongoing that will look at all these matters, such as governance and financing, in order to secure a long-term future for the channel. [Interruption.]
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
S4C is crucial to Wales, and particularly to the Welsh language. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh language is too often seen as the secondary language in Wales? It is not a secondary language; it is at least equal first.
Alun Cairns
This Government have a strong record of supporting S4C, and previous Conservative Governments have a strong record of establishing S4C, introducing the Welsh Language Act 1993 and turning around the decline in the Welsh language that we saw previously. We should be rightly proud of the language of our culture and our heritage—a true Conservative policy.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
7. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on Wales of the UK leaving the EU.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
9. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on Wales of the UK leaving the EU.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
At the February European Council, the Government negotiated a new settlement, giving the United Kingdom a special status in a reformed European Union. As I said in my speech in Swansea last week, I believe that Wales and the UK will be stronger, safer and better off remaining in a reformed European Union.
Richard Arkless
Eighty per cent. of Welsh farmers depend on common agricultural policy payments from the European Union, and the vast majority export their goods to the European Union. Given that Wales receives £245 million more from the European Union than it puts in, what assurances can the Secretary of State give us that the loss to those farmers will be plugged by the UK Government in the event of Brexit?
Alun Cairns
The Welsh economy is showing some spectacular employment figures at the moment, with more people in work than ever before, the claimant count falling and an unemployment rate well below the UK average. This economic success is based on a stable economic policy, and all the independent forecasts from the OECD, the IMF, the Governor of the Bank of England and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor show that there would be a negative impact should we leave the single European market.
Stuart C. McDonald
EU programmes such as Erasmus bring enormous benefits to young people in Wales, broadening their experience and strengthening their employability. Does the Secretary of State agree that ensuring Welsh students can continue to benefit from such programmes is just one of the many good reasons to vote remain?
Alun Cairns
I would like to advise the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Erasmus programme was developed by a Port Talbot man some years ago. It has provided fantastic opportunities for students across Europe to share best practice and broaden the base of their knowledge. Of course, the European Investment Bank has also invested hugely in higher education and the new campus at Swansea University, worth more than £450 million, has benefited from such diversification.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
The Secretary of State will surely have seen yesterday’s Cardiff University report showing that Britain pays nearly £10 billion a year net to be part of the European Union. Does he agree that, under the Barnett formula, that money could leave Wales £500 million better off if we vote leave on 23 June?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend is of course failing to recognise that independent forecasters—whether the IMF, the OECD or the Governor of the Bank of England—have talked about the negative impact Brexit would have on the Welsh economy. A £2 billion reduction in the scale of the economy, costing 24,000 jobs, is a step we cannot afford to take.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Is it the case that Wales Office special advisers recently had a meeting with representatives of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, and if so, what did they discuss?
Alun Cairns
We of course discuss a range of issues that affect the Welsh economy. A Brexit vote would of course affect the Welsh economy in a negative way, with a £2 billion cost to the Welsh economy, costing 24,000 jobs. As we speak, we are seeing some spectacular employment data, but they are based on strong economic foundations and access to 500 million customers across Europe.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
11. Given that Wales is already underfunded by the Barnett formula and the UK Government, what detailed guarantees can the Secretary of State give that the £245 million actually reaches Wales?
Alun Cairns
I do not necessarily recognise the basis of the question. The hon. Lady forgets the historic funding floor, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced at 115%. That demonstrates the strength of the commitment that this Government are showing to Wales.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the fact that Toyota has made it clear it will continue to manufacture in the United Kingdom, including at its engine plant in Wales, regardless of whether the British people vote to leave the EU on 23 June?
Alun Cairns
I certainly recognise the comments made by Toyota. It has specifically said that
“British membership of the EU is best for our operations and their long term competitiveness.”
Of course, it is not only Toyota; 150 component industries in the automotive sector depend on companies such as Toyota and Ford which all want us to remain part of the single European market.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a bit ahead of himself. There is a process to be followed. He can wait his turn.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 May.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—as always. The Prime Minister is attending the G7 in Japan, and I have been asked to reply on his behalf. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Maria Caulfield
I am sure Labour Members will disagree, but the first priority of any Government has to be the defence and security of our country, so will the Chancellor outline the steps this Government are taking to replace our Trident nuclear deterrent?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first duty of the Government is to defend the country. For almost 70 years our independent nuclear deterrent has provided the ultimate insurance for our freedom. We will review our Trident deterrent, and bring forward votes in this House; we ask MPs from all sides of the House to support this vital commitment to our national security. When she stands up, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), representing the Labour party, should indicate that support today.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
We look forward to the vote on Trident—he should get on with it.
Given the overnight news of the French authorities’ dawn raid on Google, investigating allegations of aggravated financial fraud and money laundering, does the Chancellor now regret calling his cosy little tax deal with the same company “good news” for the British taxpayer?
Mr Osborne
It is good news that we are collecting money in tax from companies that paid no tax when the Labour party was in office. The hon. Lady seems to forget that she was the Exchequer Secretary in the last Labour Government; perhaps she can tell us whether she ever raised the tax affairs of Google with the Inland Revenue at the time.
Ms Eagle
Obviously, the Chancellor has done a bit more research this time. I regard that as a compliment.
From that answer, I think the Chancellor is far too easily satisfied with his cosy little tax deal. I note that even the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) labelled that deal “derisory”. The British public think it is even worse. Despite all the rhetoric, on the Chancellor’s watch the tax gap has gone up, and his tax deal with the Swiss raised a fraction of the revenue that he boasted it would. The Office for Budget Responsibility has blamed the lack of resources in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so why has he sacked 11,000 tax staff since 2010, and when is he going to give HMRC the resources it needs to do a proper job?
Mr Osborne
We increased resources for HMRC to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. We have introduced a diverted profits tax so that companies such as Google cannot shift their profits offshore anymore, and have made sure that banks pay a higher tax charge than they ever did under the last Labour Government. I come back to this question. The hon. Lady was a Treasury Minister. She stood at this Dispatch Box. She is asking me what we have done to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. When she was Exchequer Secretary, did she ever raise the tax affairs of Google? We should know that before she asks questions of this Government. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members must calm themselves, and remain calm. Members on both sides should take their lead from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who always sits calmly and in a statesmanlike manner. That is the way to behave.
Ms Eagle
We all have a great deal of respect for the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). The Chancellor of the Exchequer will know that the Exchequer Secretary deals with taxes on vices, not on Google. I did my job in taxing vices when I was in the Treasury. The Chancellor will be judged on results. He has been in office for six years. Given that France is demanding 10 times more from Google than he is, the public will make their own judgment.
Labour is campaigning to ensure that the UK remains in the European Union because that is the best way to defend rights at work as well as jobs and prosperity, but the Conservative party is split right down the middle and is descending into vicious acrimony. Last week the Minister of State for Employment called for Brexit, so that there could be a bonfire of workers’ rights. Does the Chancellor agree with her, or does he agree with Len McCluskey that a vote to stay in the European Union is the best deal for Britain’s workers?
Mr Osborne
First, the hon. Lady has confirmed that when she was in the Treasury she asked absolutely no questions about the tax affairs of Google. As she knows—we agree on this—I think it is better that Britain remains in the European Union, so why not now have some consensus on other issues, such as an independent nuclear deterrent? Let us have a consensus on that, and on supporting, rather than disparaging, businesses. Let us have a consensus on not piling debts on the next generation, but on dealing with our deficit, and a consensus that the parties in this House should have a credible economic policy.
Ms Eagle
I think the Chancellor has just agreed with Len McCluskey.
The former Work and Pensions Secretary said this week that the Chancellor’s Brexit report should not be believed by anyone, and he branded the Chancellor “Pinocchio”, with his nose just getting longer and longer with every fib. Meanwhile, the general secretary of the TUC said that the Treasury report gives us
“half a million good reasons to stay in the European Union”.
Who does the Chancellor think that the public should listen to? His former Cabinet colleague, or the leader of Britain’s millions of trade unionists?
Mr Osborne
It is no great revelation that different Conservative MPs have different views on the European Union. That is why we are having a referendum, because this issue divides parties, families and friends, and we made a commitment in our manifesto that the British people would decide this question. If the hon. Lady wants to talk about divisions in parties, I observe that while she is sitting here, the leader of the Labour party is sitting at home, wondering whether to impeach the former leader of the Labour party for war crimes.
Ms Eagle
I am glad that the Chancellor agrees with Frances O’Grady, but it is a pity that he cannot get half his Back Benchers, and most of his own party, to agree with him. Given that the former Work and Pensions Secretary has just called the Prime Minister “disingenuous”, and that the former Tory Mayor of London has called him “demented”, I would not talk about Labour splits. The Chancellor should get his own House in order before he talks about us.
Following the Chancellor’s second omnishambles Budget earlier this year, I see that his approval ratings have collapsed by 80 points among his own party. Given that he seems to be following a similar career path, is it time that he turned to Michael Portillo for advice? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This question will be heard. Those prating away should cease doing so. It is stupid, and counterproductive.
Ms Eagle
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, the former would-be leader, Michael Portillo, said of the Queen’s Speech:
“After 23 years of careful thought about what they would like to do in power, and the answer is nothing…There is nothing they want to do with office or power…The government has nothing to do, nothing to say and thinks nothing.”
Even this “nothing” Queen’s Speech has caused a revolt on the Chancellor’s Back Benches, and forced yet another U-turn to avoid the first defeat of a Government on their legislative programme for 92 years. Does that tell us all we need to know about this Prime Minister and Chancellor? It seems that they cannot even get their Back Benchers to vote for nothing without a fight.
Mr Osborne
I will tell the hon. Lady what we have done in recent weeks: we have taken another million people out of tax; we have frozen fuel duty; we have cut business rates for small businesses; we have seen the deficit fall by another £16 billion; we have delivered a record number of jobs; and we have introduced a national living wage. That is what we have been up to. What has Labour been up to? She talks about U-turns. They have turned the Labour party from a party that gave Britain its nuclear deterrent to a party that wants to scrap it; from a party that created the academies programme but now wants to abolish all academies; and from a party that once courted business but now disparages it—the prawn cocktail offensive is just plain offensive these days. As a result, it has gone from a Labour party that won elections to a Labour party that is going to go on losing elections.
Ms Eagle
With 29 days to go until the most important decision this country has faced in a generation, we have before us a Government in utter chaos—split down the middle and at war with themselves. The stakes could not be higher, yet the Government are adrift at the mercy of their own rebel Back Benchers, unable to get their agenda through Parliament. Instead of providing the leadership the country needs, they are fighting a bitter proxy war over the leadership of their own party. I notice there is no “outer” here: all the Brexiteers have been banished from the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] It is nice to see the Justice Secretary here. I think the Chancellor has put the rest of his Brexit colleagues in detention. Instead of providing the leadership the country needs, they are fighting a bitter proxy war over the leadership of their own party. Instead of focusing on the national interest, they are focusing on narrow self-interest. What we need is a Government who will do the best for Britain. What we have got is a Conservative party focused only on itself.
Mr Osborne
The hon. Lady talks about our parliamentary party. Let us look at her parliamentary party. They are like rats deserting a sinking ship. A shadow Health Minister wants to be the Mayor of Liverpool, the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) wants to the Mayor of Manchester, and the shadow Home Secretary wants to be the Mayor of both cities. When we said we were creating job opportunities we did not mean job opportunities for the whole shadow Cabinet. They are like a parliamentary party on day release when the hon. Lady is here, but they know the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) will be back and it is four more years of hard labour.
Today, we are voting on a Queen’s Speech that delivers economic security, protects our national security and enhances life chances for the most disadvantaged. It does not matter who stands at the Dispatch Box for Labour these days. They are dismantling our defences, they are wrecking our economy and they want to burden people with debt. In their own report published this week, “Labour’s Future”—surprisingly long—they say they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the working people of Britain.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Q5. What a privilege it is to be called by you, Mr Speaker. If the remain team have their day on 24 June, I shall have to apply by email to Herr Juncker to ask a question. Airbus is a wonderful example of European co-operation —European, not EU—with fuselages built in France and Germany and wings built in this country. Planes cannot fly without wings. Our remaining inside or outside the EU will have no effect on this business, for, as the Chancellor knows, it is trade and the hard work of businessmen and businesswomen that creates jobs and prosperity, not politicians and bureaucrats. It is their job to nurture growth and enterprise—[Interruption.]
Richard Drax
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is their job to nurture and not to make threats to business, enterprise, jobs and aspiration?
Mr Osborne
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that jobs and enterprise are created through the ingenuity of private businesses that we in the House should support and nurture.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Lachlan Brain is seven years old and attends the Gaelic medium primary school in Dingwall in the Scottish highlands. Next week, the Home Office—I see the Home Secretary briefing the Chancellor—plans to deport him and his family, despite the fact that he arrived as part of a Scottish Government initiative backed by the Home Office to attract people to live and work in the region. The case has been front-page news in Scotland and raised repeatedly in the House. What does he have to say to the Brain family and the community, which wants them to stay?
Mr Osborne
As I understand it, the family do not meet the immigration criteria, but the Home Secretary says she is very happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman on the details of the case.
Angus Robertson
I am sorry but this has been going on for weeks and that answer frankly is not good enough. Appeals have been made to the Home Secretary by the Scottish First Minister, the local MP, the local Member of the Scottish Parliament and the community, and it is wall to wall across the media of Scotland, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly knew nothing about it. The problem in the highlands of Scotland is not immigration but emigration. Even at this late stage, will the Chancellor, who knows nothing about it, speak to the Home Secretary and Prime Minister and get this sorted out?
Mr Osborne
As I said, the Home Secretary will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the details of the case, but may I make a suggestion to the Scottish National party? It now has substantial tax and enterprise powers, so if it wants to attract people to the highlands of Scotland, why does it not create an entrepreneurial Scotland that people want to move to from the rest of the UK in order to grow a business and have a successful life?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Q6. Why is the Chilcot report not being published before the EU referendum? Is it because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not want the public reminded, ahead of the EU referendum, of how the Government of the day and the establishment are prepared to produce dodgy dossiers, make things up and distort the facts to con the public into supporting something they otherwise would not?
Mr Osborne
No, it is because it is an independent report and the inquiry team decides when to produce it.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Q2. In the spirit of consensus, may I say that few things unite the House more than a concentration on the periodic reviews of the Boundary Commission, which are studied with fierce intensity and result in covetous eyes occasionally being cast on neighbouring constituencies? We note, however, that the electorates of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster have declined precipitously and against all logic. Does the Chancellor believe that the Prime Minister should be concerned about this? If so, what should he be doing?
Mr Osborne
I thought the hon. Gentleman was the Member of Parliament for Ealing North. The Boundary Commission is doing its work and drawing up boundaries independently—that is a good thing about our country—and we will see its initial proposals later this year, I think.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Q11. Will the Chancellor join me in congratulating Barnardo’s, the UK’s oldest and largest children’s charity, which this year celebrates 150 years of supporting and protecting vulnerable children? Does he agree that young people need support beyond the age of 18 to maximise their life chances and that the Government’s new care leavers covenant, which extends the duty of care to 25, is therefore a fitting way to build on Barnardo’s proud history of giving young people the best opportunities in life?
Mr Osborne
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that Barnardo’s is a brilliant charity and that we should all congratulate it on the work it does. We have a huge responsibility to people who are in the care of the state, which does not end when they are 18 years old. That is why we are announcing new measures in the Queen’s Speech to include support from a personal adviser, for example, until these people are 25 and to make sure that other bodies such as local authorities have a care for those people, bringing all the opportunities to their attention. This is part of the life chances strategy, which lies at the heart of this Queen’s Speech.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q3. The Chancellor wanted a march of the makers, and today hundreds of steelworkers are marching to Parliament for their future and for their communities. Why do the Government back China’s bid for market economy status against the interests of British steelworkers? Why does this Chancellor block changes to the lesser duty tariff against the interests of British steelworkers? When will he set down an industrial strategy to put British steelworkers’ interests ahead of his own?
Mr Osborne
Our thoughts are, of course, with the steelmakers and their families at this very difficult time. [Interruption.] If we take a step back, we can all acknowledge that there is a global crisis in the steel industry, with tens of thousands of jobs lost across Europe alone and many tens of thousands beyond that. We are taking specific action today to help Tata, Port Talbot and related works across the country. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has been to India with the First Minister of Wales in a cross-party effort. Nationally, we have taken action to reduce energy charges on energy-intensive industries; we have taken action to ensure that there is more flexibility with emission regulations; we are doing everything we can to help this industry at a very difficult time, including making sure that there are tough tariffs on Chinese dumping. As a result of the tariffs introduced on rebar steel, those imports are down by over 90%.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Q12. Will the Chancellor confirm reports in the press today that former Labour Minister, Lord Sugar has joined the Government as our new enterprise tsar? Does he agree that this is a sign of people abandoning Labour for the prosperity, security and jobs offered by this Government? Will the Chancellor finally confirm that he has no new plans for a sugar tax?
Mr Osborne
I can confirm that we have hired Lord Sugar to advise on enterprise. He will bring his knowledge and expertise to that task. Apparently, Lord Sugar has told the Labour party, “You’re fired.”
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Q4. I have a 14-year-old autistic constituent, who got on very well at primary school, but since moving to secondary school, its uncompromising one-size-fits-all approach has left him with a special school as his only option. What will the Chancellor do to make sure that when the independent expert group looking at initial teacher training reports back, Ministers will ensure that specific autism training forms part of their curriculum?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Lady raises an important issue, and I think she will receive a lot of sympathy from colleagues of all parties. The Education Secretary shares her concern and has personally raised the issue with the chair of the initial teacher training review, Stephen Munday. My right hon. Friend has stressed the importance of ensuring that teachers are properly trained to support young people with special educational needs and specifically autism. As a result, the chairman will include recommendations in the report on how core teacher training should cover special educational needs. The report will be published shortly.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Q15. My local clinical commissioning group is currently consulting on its appalling plans to downgrade A&E at Huddersfield Royal Infirmary. Does the Chancellor agree with me and with thousands of “Hands Off HRI” campaigners, led by Karl Deitch, that all options should remain on the table and that a plan B must come forward to keep good-quality local health services?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is a strong champion of his local area, and we all know that Huddersfield Royal Infirmary has been struggling with the private finance initiative contract that it signed under the last Labour Government. Any service changes must be made by the local NHS, and must be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better outcomes for patients. It is right for these decisions to be made by local clinicians rather than by politicians, but they must meet the four key tests that have been set out: they must demonstrate public and patient engagement, have the support of GP commissioners, be based on clinical evidence, and take account of patient choice. I expect the local NHS to consider all those options in reaching any decision.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Q7. The House of Commons Library estimates that 4.9 million UK citizens live or work in other countries, yet in my surgeries, week in, week out, I meet constituents from overseas who cannot obtain visas, residency or citizenship here. The whole of Scotland is outraged at the threat of deportation facing the Brain family. What, in the Chancellor’s view, is the difference between an economic migrant and an expat?
Mr Osborne
I think all the hon. Gentleman is demonstrating is that we do have border controls in this country, and that we do have immigration rules that need to be complied with. That is a very important aspect of the European Union’s Schengen area agreement, which we are not part of, and I think that it is part of the special status that we have in the European Union.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Will the Chancellor join me in welcoming the crew of HMS Duncan—the last and best of our Type 45 destroyers, which is currently moored in London for the commemorations of the battle of Jutland—some of whom are watching from the Gallery today? Will he also support the work that is being done by the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant to ensure that all our armed forces and their families have the very best housing that we can offer them?
Mr Osborne
I certainly join my hon. Friend in welcoming the crew of HMS Duncan, and in celebrating all that they do on behalf of this country to keep us safe and to represent Britain around the world. In return, we owe them a duty of care, and the armed forces covenant enshrines that duty. No such covenant existed before we came into Downing Street, and now that we are in Downing Street we are honouring our promises to Britain’s armed services and to the Royal Navy.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q8. Not content with just trebling tuition fees, the Government want to raise them even higher. Why has the Chancellor changed his view since 2003, when he said that tuition fees were a tax on learning?
Mr Osborne
Back then, the Labour party was voting for tuition fees. The difference is this: we have learnt our lesson, and Labour Members have forgotten theirs. As a result, we have a credible higher education policy that is giving us the best universities in the world, a record number of students, and, crucially, a record number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds—which the Labour party said would never happen—and, in contrast, Labour Members have a completely incredible policy to abolish the tuition fees that they themselves introduced and create a £10 billion hole in the public finances. It is time that they were straight with students and made it clear that that is completely unaffordable, and that we go on funding our higher education system and asking graduates who are going to earn more, on average, than other taxpayers to contribute to their education.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
St Albans and many other areas in the south and east value their green belt. According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, 3 million people may come into this country if we remain in the European Union. Would the Chancellor like to suggest which bits of the green belt—about a quarter of a million acres—will be needed, and where they will be? We need to provide homes and infrastructure for those people.
Mr Osborne
We have made a clear commitment to protecting the green belt, and the planning laws that we have introduced, and propose to introduce, meet that commitment.
My hon. Friend and I disagree on European Union membership—and I have seen no particular evidence from the leave campaigners that immigration would fall; indeed, they seem to be telling some communities that they would let more people in—but let us at least agree on this. We will have a referendum, and, in the end, it will not be up to my hon. Friend or me to decide. It will be up to the British people.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Q9. No one should underestimate public support for the BBC. In the last week, more than 200,000 people have signed a petition about the removal of the recipes website. The Government may have been forced to pull back from some of their more extreme proposals, but there is still plenty to cause concern. Will the Chancellor agree to hold a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House, so that Members of Parliament can provide the parliamentary scrutiny that the charter renewal properly deserves?
Mr Osborne
We want a great BBC—a great public broadcaster—and we have agreed a deal with the BBC that it has welcomed. The specific issue that the hon. Lady raises was an operational decision by the BBC, not a decision taken by members of the Government. I have made the observation that we have a great national public broadcaster in the BBC but we do not want a great public newspaper in the form of the BBC. As newspapers increasingly move online, the BBC—as it has itself acknowledged—wants to be careful about what information it has on its website, so that we can also have a flourishing private press. I think that the BBC has got that balance right.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Chancellor explain why the House of Commons Library and ONS figures for 2015 clearly show that although we export 44% of our goods and services within the single market, we run a disastrous loss or deficit on those exports of £68 billion per annum, up £9 billion since last year alone, in relation to the other 27 member states, whereas Germany runs a profit or surplus of a massive £82 billion in relation to those same 27 states? Is not that a bad deal?
Mr Osborne
We are a massive exporter of services; our services represent 80% of the British economy. We are home to one of the most successful car industries in Europe, and we export cars to the continent. We are also home to the world’s second largest aerospace industry and part of a European supply chain. That is why those leading businesses are in favour of our membership of the European Union. My hon. Friend and I disagree on this issue, but we stood together on a manifesto to have a referendum and to let the British people decide.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Q10. Headteachers and NHS and private sector employers in my constituency are telling me that they have few if any qualified applicants for a range of skilled roles, and that too many experienced staff are leaving. The single most common reason for this key worker crisis is the cost of rental and purchased housing in west London, which the Government’s housing policies will not address. Even the subsidies to buy—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to have to say to the hon. Lady that we now need one sentence with a question mark at the end of it, and it had better be a short one. Sorry, but we must press on.
Ruth Cadbury
Will the Chancellor acknowledge this recruitment and retention crisis and do something about it?
Mr Osborne
Of course, we have 25,000 more clinically trained staff in our national health service, but I completely agree with the hon. Lady that there is a challenge of housing in London. I met the new Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, earlier this week and we are going to see where we can agree on policies that will help to address that issue.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm to bludgeon the British voter into supporting a European Union that they do not really like, how can he justify planning to break the law? Is he aware that the Public Administration Committee has now published three legal opinions from Speaker’s Counsel—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I hope that this sentence is coming to an end and that there will be a question mark at the end of it. Very briefly!
Mr Jenkin
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Public Administration Committee has now published three legal opinions from Speaker’s Counsel that make it perfectly clear that it is illegal for the Government to keep their pro-EU propaganda up on Government websites during the purdah period?
Mr Osborne
Of course the Government will comply with the law and the Government websites will comply with the purdah rules. We are confident that they do so. May I make a general observation? My hon. Friend and I have fought for this referendum and it is now taking place. There are huge issues at stake about Britain’s economy, Britain’s security and Britain’s place in the world, and we have perfectly honourable disagreements on those big issues. Let us debate the substance rather than the process, so that the British people can feel that they have had a range of opinions and can make their own minds up.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Q13. The care sector faces a crisis made worse by the Chancellor’s failure to fund increases in the minimum wage properly. The 2% social care precept does not cover all the costs, so the Local Government Association asked the Chancellor to bring forward £700 million of better care funding from 2019 to this year and next year to help with the increased costs. Will the Chancellor listen to local councils and will he fund his own minimum wage policy?
Mr Osborne
Of course, we always listen to local authorities and are in dialogue with them, but we have given them the power, which many have used, to apply a social care precept, which came in in April in many areas. At the same time, we have put more money into the better care fund, and we are therefore confident that social care is funded. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that more needs to be done to help the social care sector, and the key thing here will be integration with the national health service over coming years so that the service is much more seamless for our citizens.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
At the Conservative party conference last year, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the future that we, the state, provide for children in care was shameful—the dole and an early grave or the streets. Yesterday, the Prison Reform Trust, of which I am a trustee, produced a report identifying that far too high a proportion of children in care come into contact with the criminal justice system. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Prime Minister ensure that policies are implemented right across Government to prevent unnecessary contact between children in care and the criminal justice system, so that those children can have a good future?
Mr Osborne
My right hon. and learned Friend speaks powerfully. We of course must have a care system that does the very best for children who find themselves in it. As I said in reply to an earlier question, the Queen’s Speech contains measures in that respect. The other thing that we are doing with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is reforming our prison system so that, yes, people are punished for crimes, but that they also have a chance to rehabilitate themselves. That is one of the social reforms of which I am proudest to be part.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q14. A Southampton letting agency has recently been banned from trading for three years for not giving tenants their deposits back, using them for other purposes. Letting agencies are almost completely unregulated, and it is pot luck whether Southampton residents actually get a fair deal. Does the Chancellor intend to do anything about that?
Mr Osborne
We are looking at what we can do to make sure that people who rent have proper consumer protection, including protection from landlords who withhold deposits unreasonably.
Petition
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I rise to present the petition that has been collected by my constituent, Margaret Smethurst, following my Adjournment debate on 26 February concerning planning issues relating to the Haughton Green area of my constituency. The petition has 167 signatures. It is accompanied by an online Change.org petition that has 1,338 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Haughton Green and Denton,
Declares that the fields of the former Two Trees High School in Denton should be protected from unwanted development; and further that the site should be preserved for the benefit of the environment and future generations.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretaries of State for Education and Communities and Local Government to protect Haughton Green and Denton’s open spaces, and prohibit unwanted development on the former site of Two Trees High School.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001697]
Points of Order
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Yes, points of order. It is usually at least a three-course meal in my experience. We will start with Anne Main.
Mrs Main
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just heard the Chancellor say that we should debate the substance and not the process in our debates on the EU referendum. As I let you know this morning, Mr Speaker, I have tried to do exactly that. I have written numerous questions, but I am basically getting answers that say, “Talk to the hand.” I approached the Procedure Committee, which admitted that I have not had substantial answers, or indeed any answers, to some questions. What more can be done? The Government are trying to muzzle those of us who are trying to get to the truth of all this. They are trying to ensure that we do not get any answers. The Government are acting disgracefully, and I am ashamed at their behaviour.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of its thrust. I also note that she has expressed her disappointment in the Government in very forceful terms. She is most assiduous in pursuing this matter, and I say to her that it is, to put it mildly, regrettable that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is late in responding to a request from the Procedure Committee. That should not happen. If there is a Whip on the Treasury Bench, he or she should note that it is frankly unacceptable. If there is not, that message should be relayed to the relevant Whip sooner rather than later. I am sure that the lapse, which will be very unsatisfactory, not least to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and his colleagues on the Committee, will have been noted on the Treasury Bench. I hope that it will be duly communicated to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
If the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has tabled questions that are orderly—they would not be on the Order Paper unless they were adjudged to be orderly—they should receive replies and quickly. My advice to the hon. Lady is to look for those replies each day from now on. If she does not get them, I rather imagine that she will return to the subject. In the interests of propriety, however, the Department should now provide those answers. Its performance is unsatisfactory. I do not want to use the word “shameful”, but it is unsatisfactory.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the House had a comprehensive debate on the Government’s foreign policy and, in particular, its role in arms deals with Saudi Arabia. I put it to the Government that an urgent investigation should take place, following new evidence showing that UK bombs have been used in Yemen. At yesterday’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, the Foreign Secretary stated that
“the Ministry of Defence is urgently investigating the allegations, and I believe there will be an urgent question on this subject shortly.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 395.]
This morning, the Ministry of Defence gave a statement to the BBC World Service that contradicts the Foreign Secretary’s comments yesterday. The MOD statement says:
“We are not launching an investigation, we are seeking urgent clarification from Saudi Arabia as to whether or not these weapons have been used in the recent conflict and that is our usual policy.”
Have either the Foreign Secretary or his office asked you whether he can come to the House to clarify the position?
Mr Speaker
No, no request to issue a clarification has been made to me. If memory serves me correctly, the line of the Government that no investigation is under way was put by the Defence Secretary in response to the urgent question yesterday—that is my recollection—although, as the hon. Lady says, that is a different stance from that proffered by the Foreign Secretary at oral questions. It is not entirely novel for there to be different statements on the same subject emanating from representatives of different Departments. If a Minister thinks, in the light of the facts, that he needs to correct the record of what he said—I think the hon. Lady has the Foreign Secretary in mind in this context—doubtless he will do so. If he does not, it is presumably because he judges there to be no need. In that situation, the hon. Lady must table questions if she wants further elucidation, but it would be useful to have clarity on the matter.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 19 May, the shadow Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), visited Sawley in my constituency, where she gave a radio interview in which she described one of my constituents—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must ask the hon. Lady what on earth what was said outside the Chamber could possibly have to do with me in the Chair.
Mr Speaker
All sorts of things reflect badly or well, but it has got nothing to do with the Chair. If the Chair took responsibility for what people said outside this Chamber, I really would have a very, very large responsibility indeed. It is very kind of the hon. Lady if she wishes to invest me with that sort of imperial power, but I do not think I have it and I doubt the House would want me to either.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) raised the issue of the Brain family in my constituency, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied by saying that he would write to my right hon. Friend. This family are due to be deported in the next few days, and I am concerned about the timeliness of a letter, if that was to be written to my right hon. Friend. What routes are open to me to make sure that this case is urgently addressed, through the Home Secretary, to respect what was put in place at the time the family came here—that the post-work study visa would be in place—so that we do not deport this family, who are a credit to the highlands?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My short answer to his inquiry is that if the matter is urgent, in his judgment, he knows the recourse available to him, and it would then be for the Chair to judge whether the matter was urgent. Perhaps we can leave it there for now. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) is stirring in his seat. [Interruption.] No, he does not have a point of order. Well, it is one thing to play with one’s own hair, but it is another thing to play with somebody else’s. I wondered whether there was a point of order brewing from the right hon. Gentleman, but there was not on this occasion—another time. I am sure he was being helpful.
Debate on the Address
Education, Skills and Training
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
“but respectfully regret that the Gracious Speech contained proposals to enable further increases in tuition fees; believe that there should be no further increases in tuition fees; and further believe that no good or outstanding school should be forced to become an academy.”.
I am reeling from the prospect of public hair playing and from considering whether we should have a rule against it in this House.
Last Wednesday, we saw the age-old ceremony of the State Opening of Parliament. It was all done with the usual pageantry, and it was timed and executed to perfection as we have all come to expect. The only flaw was the one thing over which Her Majesty has absolutely no control, and that is the actual content of the Gracious Speech. When the Speech was finally unveiled, after all the build-up and ceremony, it was yet another anti-climax. It outlined a mere 21 Bills—this from a majority Government barely one year into their five-year term of office. They are running out of steam before our eyes.
We could sense the dismay on the Government Benches. The Speech was hastily described as “sparse”, “bland”, “threadbare”, “pretty thin gruel”, “uninspiring”, “managerial” and “vacuous”, and that was the verdict of the Government’s own underwhelmed Back Benchers. Others were less diplomatic. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), so recently a senior Cabinet Minister, called it “watered down”, blaming a Government who have surrendered to the “helter-skelter” of the EU referendum campaign. Former Tory Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo was even more scathing about the first majority Conservative Government elected since 1992. He told Andrew Neil:
“After 23 years of careful thought about what they would like to do in power, and the answer is nothing.”
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady think that the introduction of the national living wage is nothing?
Ms Eagle
The introduction of the national living wage is a con, because it is not a living wage. An increase in wages is obviously welcome, but it does not apply to those who are under 25. The national living wage describes itself as something that it is not, so we have a healthy degree of scepticism about how useful it will be.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady consider as “nothing” fairer funding for our schools, which will affect many Members not only on the Government Benches, but on the Opposition Benches? The Labour party once supported this policy. What is its position now?
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady accept that the volume of legislation is not an indicator of the quality of government, and a little legislation on schools would not go amiss now?
Ms Eagle
I certainly agree that quantity is not all. I will come on to some of the detail of those Bills as I make progress with my speech.
Michael Portillo went on to say:
“The Government is in total paralysis, because the only thing that matters to the Government now is the saving of the Prime Minister’s career”—
by—
“winning the referendum.”
In what will be a damning epitaph of this Tory Administration, he said that the majority that the Prime Minister secured last year is “all for nothing”. He said:
“The Government has nothing to do, nothing to say and thinks nothing.”
We have this “nothing” Queen’s Speech before us. We have a few eye-catching announcements designed to distract attention from the emptiness of the Government’s programme. We were presented with the possibility of driverless cars on our roads in four years’ time and even private spaceports, but there is still no sign of a decision on the much more pressing issue of airport capacity for the travel that millions must now undertake.
We were told that there would be a legal right to access digital broadband, but there is no clear route to resolve the scandal of this Government’s total failure to provide adequate digital infrastructure for all. Despite being the fifth largest economy, we still languish at 18th in the world for broadband speed.
Perhaps it is a sign of just how toxic things are in the Conservative party that even this self-described “uninspiring, managerial and vacuous” legislative programme has already caused yet another Tory Back-Bench rebellion.
Ms Eagle
No.
The Government have already caved in by agreeing to an amendment to the motion which will exempt the NHS from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. We on the Labour Benches have long called for the Government to exempt the NHS from trade deals, and we are glad that they have now agreed with us.
It is interesting to see what this divided shower of a Government are now able to agree on. The only things on which they seem to be able to unite are flogging off valuable public assets such as the Land Registry, which actually makes us money, and unleashing the full force of the market in higher education. This rebellion on TTIP follows other Government U-turns and defeats on areas such as: forced academisation; cuts to tax credits for the low paid; cuts to personal independence payments for the disabled; pension tax relief reform; the solar tax; the tampon tax; Sunday trading; watering down the fox hunting ban; closing the wildlife crime unit; scrapping their own criminal courts charge; welcoming some child refugees to this country; and housing. The list does not even include the Chancellor’s latest Budget fiasco, which remains unresolved, and seems to be a £4 billion hole in its arithmetic.
Lucy Frazer
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am surprised that, six minutes into her speech on the subject of education, skills and training, she has failed to mention that the first paragraph of the Queen’s Speech was about life chances. Given that the Queen’s Speech talks about education in prisons, when we know that half of the young people in prison have no education at all, a fairer funding formula for schools and social care, it is clear that it has some real substance.
Ms Eagle
I will get on to those points, but this is a debate on the entirety of the Queen’s Speech, and I am entitled to say what I like about any little bit of it. The hon. and learned Lady can make her own speech if she catches the Speaker’s eye, and I will thank her if she lets me make mine. I am here to make the point that I want to make, and I intend to do so.
The emptiness of the current Conservative agenda outlined in the Queen’s Speech is apparent in the public relations hyperbole that accompanied its announcement. Once more, we have to “mind the gap” between rhetoric and reality. Although the Government boast about their credentials as a “one nation Government”, they are cutting support for working people and giving the richest a tax cut. They think £450,000 for a starter home is affordable, and they are doing nothing effective to solve the housing crisis or the problem of soaring rents. They boast of a life chances agenda, as indeed the hon. and learned Lady has just done, but this is what is happening in 2016 in Tory Britain: homelessness is soaring; millions are forced to resort to food banks just to eat; Sure Start centres are closing; the attainment gap is widening between different areas of the country; and millions more are struggling to see their doctor, and cuts to funding mean that that is likely to get worse.
The Prime Minister’s self-proclaimed life chances agenda is either a joke or a con. How do the Tories improve life chances by abolishing student maintenance grants for the poorest, increasing tuition fees and barely mentioning further education colleges in their plans? How do they create opportunity by underfunding education and constantly fiddling with school structures while ignoring low morale, the chronic teacher shortages and the growing pressure on school places? The Government’s proposals for improving life chances must be judged in the context of their funding settlements for education, as I mentioned earlier. The 16-to-19 age group has seen a real-terms fall of 14% in its funding provision since 2010, and education capital spend has fallen by 34%.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I hesitate to interrupt such an enthusiastic and positive speech. The hon. Lady is having a busy day. Perhaps she would be kind enough to rally a little support for the Hereford university project, which will deliver the life chances that I know that she and I can unite in supporting.
Ms Eagle
The hon. Gentleman should invite me to come and visit the university. We can go together so that I can see what is going on in Herefordshire.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that there is likely to be an 8% fall in funding per pupil between now and 2020 in the schools sector, after a modest 0.6% rise in funding per pupil in the previous Parliament. It cannot be said that I do not put the figures accurately on the record and give the Government credit where it is due—0.6% for the first five years of the coalition, and minus 8% for the next period. Both adult and part-time education have seen huge falls in numbers participating because people cannot afford to pay.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
One of the things that this Government are trying to do through their new Bills is to introduce new universities, which will give so many more people an opportunity to get the education they need. Students across the country are concerned about the current threat to our universities, with unions going on strike and disrupting teaching and exams. One of my daughters is about to take her finals. Does the hon. Lady agree that such strikes are not acceptable behaviour?
Ms Eagle
The first thing to say is that some of the threats are from the so-called new providers, which are untried and untested. We will have to look closely at the detail of the Bill when it is debated, and I am sure we will talk about that aspect.
By the way, I would like to acknowledge the fact that the Minister for Universities and Science has taken the place of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who is on his way to Mumbai to help talk to Tata about the crisis facing the steel industry in our country. It is about time. I wish the Secretary of State all the best with the work that he is doing. It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in his stead.
There is nothing in this Queen’s Speech on the growing funding crisis affecting schools. There is no mention of adult up-skilling, which is a particularly difficult omission. Without action in these areas, we will not tackle the critical skills emergency which is holding back our economy. Unfilled vacancies have risen 130% since 2011, with skills shortages accounting for over a third of unfilled vacancies in key industries.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady, not least for once describing me on the Floor of the House as a Eurosceptic martyr. On skills and technical and vocational education, why does she think it has taken a Conservative Government to open a new university technical college in Peterborough—it is opening in September—whereas in benign economic times we saw under Labour massive increases in youth unemployment and the young people who did not want to go to university left on the sidelines?
Ms Eagle
I am glad to see that despite being a Eurosceptic martyr, the hon. Gentleman is still alive and kicking and doing his thing on the Tory Back Benches. It was the Labour Government who started university technical colleges, and I am glad that he will have one in his own area. He is being rather churlish in talking about our record, when we created the university technical college concept.
The Government have a very large target for apprenticeships, but 30% of those starting do not finish the course, and 96% are level 2 or 3 apprenticeships, with very low numbers attaining higher degree level apprenticeships. I understand and recognise that level 2 and 3 are very important to attain, but even more important for the future health and wellbeing of our economy is expanding the higher degree level apprenticeships, and quickly.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will remember that in the previous Parliament I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill. Is not a real opportunity being missed? With public procurement and major engineering projects in particular, we ought to be getting more bang for our taxpayers’ buck, with proper, decent, high-quality advanced and further level apprenticeships tied into those procurement contracts.
Ms Eagle
I could not agree more. I am an admirer of my hon. Friend, especially as I have seen the recent pictures of him abseiling down a very tall building, so my admiration has grown even more. His Bill was an extremely good one. It is important that the Government think much more carefully than they have done to date about how they can tie in the money that they spend on public procurement with skills creation. The Business Secretary will have to do that if he is to deliver a prosperous future for British steel, and he should think about doing it in many more areas. There is a taboo that needs to be broken.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share the concern of those who are worried that the Government’s 3 million apprenticeships target will be achieved only if the quality of what is offered in those apprenticeships is diminished?
Ms Eagle
I am afraid I do share that worry about the very large quantitative target that the Government have set and, by all accounts, want to pass. When I talk to business, which I do regularly up and down the country, that obsession with quantity rather than quality causes some real worries. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us today that he has ways of dealing with that. I have come across some extremely dubious practice, if I may put it that way, in relation to the term “apprenticeship”. I am glad that the Enterprise Act 2016 has closed that loophole. We now need to see pretty effective enforcement or we will carry on seeing misuse and abuse in that area.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady accept that social clauses within public sector contracts, which have worked very effectively in Northern Ireland and Scotland, could be used much more widely? They do not contradict EU rules so that excuse cannot be used, and they could be a way of ensuring that public money is used to ensure that the country’s skills base is increased.
Ms Eagle
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is right that social clauses in procurement contracts have an important role to play. I make one observation, which I have made over my time in Parliament: those involved in public procurement can be very risk-averse. All too often they do not think about the extra things that they can get out of the money that the Government are spending and committing to particular projects, and they often use the excuse of EU procurement rules as a reason for not being creative enough in the way that they pursue procurement.
No one argues with the stated aim in the Higher Education and Research Bill of widening access and participation in higher education. That is what we all want to see. However, the Opposition object strongly to the approach that the Government have taken in both the White Paper and the accompanying Bill. The Business Secretary appears to believe that the solution to widening participation is to inject market forces into the provision of higher education, allowing new untried, untested providers to start up, achieve degree-awarding powers and secure university status, and he wants to force students to pay for it all through higher tuition fees.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really excellent speech. Does she agree that these reforms to higher education and this deregulation put at risk the excellent reputation of UK higher education institutions internationally—a reputation that helps us to attract so many international students to this country?
Ms Eagle
There is, if I may call it this, a “brand issue” with particular suggestions in the White Paper and the Bill. Again, the Opposition will want to study in great detail, and ask a lot of serious questions about, the potential consequences of what the Minister has suggested in the White Paper and the Bill.
There is absolutely no evidence that such competition will lead to higher standards or a better solution for students; indeed, it is likely to entrench privilege and elitism even more in the system. The proposal before us in the Queen’s Speech deregulates entry to what the Government clearly now see as a market in higher education. As my hon. Friend said, that is taking a gamble with the UK’s international reputation for providing the highest standards of degree education. It also means that any student studying at one of these probationary degree-awarding institutions—whatever they are going to be—will be taking a very personal gamble too. It is unclear what will happen if it all goes wrong or who will pick up the pieces.
After trebling tuition fees to £9,000 a year, the Government now wish to raise them again. They have chosen to remove the cap on tuition fees and to tie the capacity to raise fees to very dubious proxies for what they have called “teaching excellence”. Nobody objects to teaching excellence; it is like motherhood and apple pie, except that motherhood and apple pie are a lot easier to define. We can see motherhood, fairly obviously, and we can see apple pie—usually we have cut it open to check there are no blackberries in it—but it is a lot harder to know what teaching excellence is.
The Government have chosen various proxies, such as graduates’ subsequent employment records, student retention and satisfaction surveys. There are many reasons why people have good or bad subsequent employment records, and many of those have absolutely nothing to do with the teaching excellence of the schools or universities those people attended. For example, some people with disabilities are routinely discriminated against in our labour market, and is difficult for them to have a successful subsequent employment record. That may have absolutely nothing to do with the way they were taught or with the excellence of that teaching.
Likewise, many women have very different subsequent employment records from what they might have had if they had not left work early to have a family. It is also well documented that those from the black and ethnic minority communities are discriminated against in our labour market. When one looks at the figures, it is clear that many people from those communities who have exactly the same qualifications as others are discriminated against and have less successful subsequent employment records. So using subsequent employment as a proxy for teaching excellence already begins to break down.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Has the hon. Lady seen the clear statement from Universities UK saying that it welcomes the plan to maintain the value of fees and that it looks forward to working with the Government to develop the teaching excellence framework?
Ms Eagle
I have talked to Universities UK, and it has grave concerns and reservations about the route the Government are taking—for some of the reasons I am outlining now. Of course Universities UK will work with the Government—it has a White Paper in front of it, and there will be a Bill on the Table of the House, which it will want to make the best it can be—but I would not take that kind of endorsement for blanket agreement.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Lady also agree that it will be difficult to sell the concept of higher fees for students when many universities have not got to grips with the inflation in salaries at their higher levels? Many students will simply see fees as a means to fund huge wage increases for people at the top of universities.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. In circumstances where we know that one of the biggest single factors affecting the education of children and young people is the quality of teaching, does she agree with the principle that it is appropriate to ensure that we have excellence in teaching and that we improve teaching if we can?
Ms Eagle
Yes, but I am talking about how we measure excellence and what it means. If the hon. Lady were so concerned about the excellence of teaching, she would be looking at Sure Start and what is happening with early teaching. She would also be looking at the problems we have with teacher recruitment and at a range of other things. Nobody in the House disagrees with the concept of teaching excellence; the question is how one defines and measures it, and that is what I am trying to deal with now.
We have talked about subsequent employment. The other two proxies the Government have chosen are student retention—that is reasonable—and satisfaction surveys. Again, there are reasons why a student is not satisfied with an institution that may have nothing to do with whether it teaches in an excellent way. A lot more work will probably have to be done on these proxies if they are to have any meaning whatever. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, because the concept is very dubious at the moment.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), many people have given evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee inquiry into the teaching excellence framework. Many of the university vice-chancellors who gave evidence were very clear that they wanted to work with the Government to make sure that they can prove and improve their institutions’ teaching excellence, but they need more time to make sure that the metrics that are chosen are the correct ones. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a more sensible way forward for the Government?
Ms Eagle
I do. The Select Committee report outlines the sector’s worry that the reforms are being rushed in keeping with a timetable that does not actually reflect best practice. A lot of vice-chancellors and others in the sector are extremely worried about the implications of that.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady has made an argument about teaching excellence. As someone who taught in university for six years, I can tell her that there was really very little ambiguity in student satisfaction surveys even 15 years ago as to whether someone was doing a decent job of teaching, and there is even less now, given all the other modes of feedback. Even if that was not the case, we would be able to tell what was happening from the aggregate of these surveys, quite irrespective of any particular anecdotes she might be able to tell. There really cannot be much doubt, therefore, that teaching excellence can be evaluated, and it is quite proper that, if it can be, it should properly be included in an evaluation for student fees.
Ms Eagle
I am saying not that it cannot be included, but that the proxies the Government have chosen have given cause for concern, and I have tried to explain why. We have to think about how this works through, and I will be interested in what the Minister has to say about that.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Eagle
Well, let me finish this point first.
If the Minister is not careful, he could end up with a range of results he does not want. There could be paradoxical disincentives for excellence. People who always find it difficult subsequently to get a job in the labour market may become less attractive as students to certain institutions because of the way these measurements are used. That would be a really backward step for the opportunities and life chances of large numbers of people who are already suffering disadvantage in our society. The hon. Gentleman should at least recognise that that is a possibility with some of these measurements.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kindness. As a consequence of her argument, it would be impossible to assess the teaching at, for example, the Royal National College for the Blind in Hereford, because it teaches disabled people who may suffer in their future life chances, yet no one doubts that that institution can properly evaluate, and indeed it does an excellent job.
Ms Eagle
As I understand the White Paper, this also about competition between universities, and there are some paradoxical results there that I would be worried about if I were interested in widening, not narrowing, opportunities. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to accept that.
Nicola Blackwood
I am trying to follow the point that the shadow Minister is making. Obviously it is important that the metrics and the process of the teaching excellence framework is right and appropriate, but just as with the research excellence framework, we will go through a process of getting to that point. That is why the White Paper states very clearly that this will be phased in and piloted, and recognises that there will be an important process of consultation and feedback. It is therefore not entirely clear to me why she is expressing the concern that the TEF is going to be imposed with no consultation.
Ms Eagle
It is partly about speed. I think that the REF took six years to get into place, and this is all due to be done from a standing start in a couple of years. We have to get it right or there will be consequences that nobody on either side of the House would want to see.
Ms Eagle
I do not want to get into a Second Reading debate on the Bill—that is probably not wise. I want to get on and finish my speech. I have tried to take a lot of interventions, and it is only fair to those who want to speak in the rest of the debate that I get to the end of my speech.
Education should not be about shackling a generation with yet more debt but about unleashing their talents to build a brighter future. That is why Labour Members understand that while there is a cost to higher education, we cannot allow market forces to let rip through our world-leading universities. If these changes went ahead, it is likely that by the end of this Parliament fees will have risen to £10,000 a year and poorer students could face bills of up to £55,000 just to study for a normal three-year degree. That is unacceptable. Labour will oppose the lifting of the cap and continue to argue for a fairer settlement for students.
I now turn to the Government’s education for all Bill. We all know that this was not the education Bill the Prime Minister wished to include in the Queen’s Speech. Just weeks ago, he assured us that it would contain measures to force every school to become an academy against their wishes. Since then, we have witnessed a humiliating climb-down as the Government finally woke up to the fact that their plans were entirely unacceptable to parents, teachers, and the wider public. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) has done a fantastic job in her Front-Bench position in pointing that out to the Government. Labour Members welcome this U-turn, and we will continue to challenge the Government on their fixation with the forced academisation of good or outstanding schools.
We support the principle of moving towards a fairer funding formula, although it is essential that measures are put in place to assist the areas that are set to lose out. However, a new funding formula cannot disguise that fact that, over this Parliament, school budgets face the highest real-terms cut since the 1970s. It seems that the Government’s response is not to address the escalating shortage of teachers and school places in their Bill, but to continue down the path of forced academisation. This has nothing to do with improving life chances but shows a Government with a rather dangerous obsession with structures at the expense of standards—a Government who are ideological at the expense of our children’s future.
On the Children and Social Work Bill, we will of course support measures to protect and create opportunity for the most vulnerable children in our society. We will look closely at the detail of this Bill and the proposals the Government are putting forward. We need to ensure that when action is taken, it is high quality, has proper oversight, and has the needs of children at its heart. Labour Members are clear that child protection services should never be run for profit. So far, this Government have failed to provide adequate adoption support. Local authorities are being starved of resources, putting further strain on children’s services and social workers. Every child deserves a fulfilling upbringing that provides a path into adulthood—on that we all agree—and we have a moral duty to tackle abuse and neglect wherever we see it.
This is a Government who have ground to a shuddering halt just one year after they were elected. They are a Government becalmed by a referendum of their own making, too consumed by their own poisonous infighting to present a compelling vision for our country. The Prime Minister is contradicted by his own junior defence and employment Ministers, and the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is taking time off from his “blunder-bus” tour to offer the keys to No. 11 to at least three different people. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Minister for Universities and Science is one of them; we know of three, but there might be more. No doubt he will tell us whether the hon. Gentleman has approached him when he gets up to speak. This is a Government who resort to PR stunts and gimmicks, and we will call out their behaviour for what it is.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, the Secretary of State is not with us today because he is in Mumbai, where we would want him to be, attending the board meeting of Tata and fighting for the interests of the UK steel sector. He would want to be here to champion this Queen’s Speech and to expose some of the shortcomings in the arguments we have just heard. I will not dignify the suggestion that the quality of a Queen’s Speech can be measured by the number of Bills in it. We are an avowedly deregulatory Government, and we legislate only when it is strictly necessary. Even if it were a reasonable benchmark, it is worth noting that 21 Bills is more than the average of 18 Bills per Session that we have seen over the past decade—but we are not going to go there.
This Queen’s Speech puts opportunity and life chances through education at the top of the legislative agenda. It ensures that every child goes to an excellent school and that schools are funded fairly, wherever they are; delivers high-quality, employer-led apprenticeships that provide a clear route to employment for young people. The hon. Member for Wallasey talked about quality, and it is worth noting that all apprenticeships must be paid jobs, with substantial training lasting at least 12 months, that develop transferable skills and lead to full competence in an occupation. A high-quality university place should be put within reach of everyone with the potential to benefit. We have made huge progress since 2010, with 1.4 million more young people attending good or outstanding schools, 2.4 million apprenticeships created, and record application rates to university. This Queen’s Speech is the next step in our long-term plan for our economy.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain, then, why some young people who are going on apprenticeship programmes are not being paid, but are just paid their costs, amounting to about £100 a week? Is that genuine pay, in his view?
Joseph Johnson
As I said, we are committed to a high-quality, employer-led apprenticeship programme in which apprenticeships must be paid jobs with substantial training opportunities that will equip people to take on the full responsibilities in that particular occupation.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
In Macclesfield we were very fortunate, only last year, to see AstraZeneca, a major employer, take on 30 apprenticeships in some of the most important areas of life sciences in our constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that this approach, with colleges taking a keen interest in relevant local businesses, is the way to establish more apprenticeships and take this important initiative further forward?
Joseph Johnson
Indeed, I certainly agree. Employers are at the heart of the Government’s apprenticeship drive and are continuing to drive up quality by designing new apprenticeship standards that provide the skills that young people need. High-quality apprenticeships will be embedded further, with the future establishment of the institute for apprenticeships, and Ofsted will also ensure that providers continue to deliver the high-quality training expected.
Joseph Johnson
I am going to make some progress.
In her White Paper, “Educational excellence everywhere”, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary sets out this Government’s plan to drive up educational standards in England. The Government’s goal is to achieve a school system where every school is an academy by 2022, so that excellent teachers have the freedom to give their pupils the best start in life.
My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we have listened and will not take blanket powers to force good schools in strong local authorities to become academies, but we will include provisions to convert schools in the lowest-performing areas and where local authorities are unable to guarantee their continued success. We will consult carefully on how those local authorities will be identified, and Parliament will have further opportunities to debate our proposals. That is the basis of the important proposed legislation that my right hon. Friend will present to Parliament.
Peter Kyle
As somebody who has been involved in setting up two academies and who remains chair of governors of one academy, I know full well that academy status can be a powerful tool for school improvement, but it is not the only tool. Interim executive boards, investment in teaching and a new curriculum are all other tools. Why is the Minister so obsessed with one tool at the expense of all the others?
Joseph Johnson
I point the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper, which has one chapter on structures, while all the others are on other relevant aspects of what makes for a great school, including teaching, management and governance.
Turning to our universities, in the last Parliament we put in place the essential funding reforms that have set university finances on a stable footing and enabled us to lift student number controls.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
As well as increasing tuition fees, the Government propose to extend them to students of nursing, midwifery and allied health subjects. Given that this is the biggest shake-up in funding for those subjects since 1968, will the Minister give a commitment that those changes will be made in the higher education Bill, so that this House can have a full debate and vote on that specific measure?
Joseph Johnson
We are delighted that we are able to put nurse NHS bursaries on the same footing as measures that have enabled a widening of participation in higher education in recent years. It will enable us to address the shortages that have arisen in the nursing profession as a result of the current system. Our funding reforms have enabled us to lift the number controls that have been affecting the nursing profession. We committed in our manifesto to ensuring the continued success and stability of those reforms. We also committed to ensuring that universities deliver the best possible value for money to students, and we said that we would introduce a new framework of incentives to recognise universities offering the highest quality of teaching. The Higher Education and Research Bill, which was introduced in the Commons last week, will deliver on those and other manifesto commitments.
James Cartlidge
Until this month, Suffolk was one of the only counties in the country without an institution that could technically be described as a university. May I, therefore, offer the Minister my profound thanks, and that of my county, for giving permission for the creation of a brand new University of Suffolk? Will he congratulate all those who have worked for it and join me in wishing them well for the future?
Joseph Johnson
I happily join my hon. Friend in congratulating the new University of Suffolk. It is terrific that one of four counties in this country that did not have a full university now has one. There are three other counties and we hope to encourage new institutions of similar quality to the University of Suffolk to come to the higher education cold spots that we have inherited.
Jesse Norman
In that spirit, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his great leadership on the new university project in Herefordshire, which is now under way? The aim is not only to transform higher education in my county and to create extraordinary economic potential, but to innovate across the country as a whole by tying together academic and vocational education, and by using resources to create greater employability. That is being done with the support of Warwick University and Olin College in America. Does my hon. Friend share my view that, in order to make that vision happen in cold spots, it is really important not just for central Government to give a lead, as he has done in the White Paper, but for local government grants, central Government guarantees and private money to come together as single whole?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order, I think we will have the Minister. Save your speech for later.
Joseph Johnson
We are delighted to support that great new venture—a new model in technology and engineering—in Herefordshire. It addresses several long-standing problems, including skills shortages in engineering. Herefordshire is an HE cold spot. We welcome the venture and its collaboration with world-leading institutions in the United States, such as Olin, and we want to see more such institutions. I applaud my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who has left the Chamber, for their tireless work in championing the new institution.
England’s universities rank among the best in the world. They generate the knowledge, skills and attitudes that fuel our economy and sustain our open society. The world of higher education, however, has changed fundamentally since the last major legislative reforms of 1992 and our system needs to meet new challenges.
A rapid interest in jobs requiring higher-level skills has created a worldwide demand for more graduate employees and for greater diversity of higher education provision. Yet this country is still well below the OECD average for university attendance. We send proportionately fewer people to university to study at undergraduate level than our main competitors: first-time entrants in 2013 were just 48% in the UK versus 55% for the OECD average. We also lag behind when it comes to further study: first-time entry rates to masters courses are only 15% versus 20% for the OECD average.
We are also far from meeting our economy’s needs for graduate-level skills. Between now and 2022, more than half of job vacancies will be in occupations most likely to employ graduates. We have removed the cap on student numbers, but we need to remove barriers to entry for high-quality new entrants who will help to meet the demand for skilled graduates.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Given that the Minister has outlined the desperate need for skilled graduate employees, why are his Government so reticent to reintroduce the post-study work visa in Scotland?
Joseph Johnson
This country has a very successful international education exports sector. We have a global market share of more than 10%, which is holding. Our annual growth in international student numbers is between 3% and 4% a year. We are obviously attentive to the need to remain competitive, but we have a successful international education sector and we want to continue to support it by driving up the quality of the teaching and student experience on offer in all our universities.
Rebecca Pow
On the skills gap, the south-west is below the productivity levels. A university would make a really big difference in my constituency of Taunton Deane and in wider Somerset, because it would help skill-up those young people whom I fear we are losing to other places such as Hereford.
Joseph Johnson
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Universities are a great driver of regional and local economic growth. A recent London School of Economics study demonstrates the strong correlation between opening new universities and significantly increased economic growth. The LSE academics estimate that doubling the number of universities in a region is associated with more than 4% higher future GDP growth per capita.
Stephen Timms
It was our understanding that the Government were going to publish a skills White Paper, but that appears to have been downgraded to a skills plan in the documentation related to the Queen’s Speech. Has that change been made, and if so, why?
Joseph Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman should wait a little bit longer to see the full fruits of the work of the Skills Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and colleagues in the Department for Education led by the expert panel that is chaired by Lord Sainsbury.
To return to the question of why our higher education system needs to meet new challenges, the system needs to be more innovative to meet the diverse needs of learners of all ages and employers of all sizes. As promised in our manifesto, we will promote more flexible learning with the provision of, for example, two-year degrees and degree apprenticeships. We need the system to deliver better outcomes for those who go through it and for the taxpayers who underwrite it. While employers suffer skills shortages, especially in highly skilled STEM areas, at least 20% of graduates wind up in non-professional roles three and a half years after graduating. This graduate labour market mismatch is a waste of their potential and a brake on our economic productivity.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important to use our local enterprise partnerships to invigorate places where those needs exist and work out how we can meet them? My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) has mentioned the new University of Suffolk campus, and West Suffolk College, in my constituency, has just received an £8 million stimulus from our New Anglia local enterprise partnership.
Joseph Johnson
We certainly agree with all that. Universities are at the heart of many of the most successful LEPs, and we want their good work to stimulate economic growth and relevant provision of higher education by universities in their local areas. That is why at the heart of the Bill are powers to make it easier for high-quality new universities and challenger institutions to enter the sector and award degrees, to drive up quality and to give applicants more choice about where and how to study.
Some say, “Close the door to new universities. Put the cap back on student numbers. Restrict the benefits of higher education to a narrow elite.” The same arguments have been made at every period of university expansion. In the 1820s, University College London and King’s were dismissed as “cockney” universities. Today, they are globally renowned. Those arguments were heard when the civic colleges in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Bristol became red-brick universities before the first world war, and when the Conservative Government of John Major took through Parliament the 1992 legislation that created a wave of new universities from the polytechnics.
Joseph Johnson
In a minute. We need more universities again today. Universities are great engines of social mobility and formidable drivers of regional economic growth. That is why I was so pleased to welcome the announcement of the new University of Suffolk, and it is why I am so supportive of the Hereford plans. Those are just two good examples of the challenger institutions that we have in mind to open up the sector to new, high-quality entrants.
We welcome support for our proposals from sensible figures, such as Lord Mandelson—now chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan, which is one of those institutions that gained university status, thanks to a Conservative Government, in 1992—who have recognised the essential contribution that a wide range of institutions can make to our economic success and to social mobility.
Ms Eagle
Thank goodness for that. Just to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, Labour Members do not object to expanding the university sector. We do have questions, and rightly, about the speed with which that will be done, how probationary status will work and what kind of gamble that will represent. We will go on asking those questions, but the hon. Gentleman should not set up a straw man or woman and accuse us of being against expansion. We are not, but it has to be of high quality.
Joseph Johnson
I am delighted that the shadow Secretary of State is supportive of new entrants and new challenger institutions. They are exactly what the sector needs, and I am glad that we have established the important point of principle that the Labour party is supportive of new entrants into the sector and believes in competition. That is a good thing, and I am delighted to hear it.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I caution my hon. Friend the Minister not to be so quick to assume that the Opposition will be as supportive as they say they are. We should take a lesson from the experience of the Labour party when it came to introducing competition with free schools. We faced extensive opposition from Labour councils at local level and from vested interests. Although they spoke sweet words about improving quality, they hated the competition that delivered choice to parents and that will, in this case, deliver choice to students.
Joseph Johnson
I hope that my hon. Friend will be proved wrong, but I suspect that he may be proved right during proceedings on the Bill, as we discover the Labour party’s true colours and the reality of its desire to see competition injected into the sector, which I somewhat doubt.
The former Business Secretary is right. The Higher Education and Research Bill, which we introduced last week, represents an ambitious agenda for social mobility. Some, including Labour Members, said when we reformed student finance in 2011 that participation would fall. In fact, the opposite has happened. We have a progressive student loans system that ensures that finance is no barrier to entry, and it is working. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are going to university at a record rate—up from 13.6% in 2009 to 18.5% in 2015. Labour Members were wrong then and they are wrong now. Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds are 36% more likely to go to university than they were in 2009. If the hon. Member for Wallasey wants to come in on that point, I will happily take an intervention. No? Okay. We are not complacent. The Prime Minister has set us the rightly challenging goal of doubling the participation rate for the most disadvantaged students by 2020.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Has the Minister seen the figures from the Sutton Trust that show that only 3% of disadvantaged young people go to the most selective third of universities, compared with 21% from the richest neighbourhoods? Is he proud of that record?
Joseph Johnson
Yes, indeed. That is why I have just written to the director of fair access, Les Ebdon, giving him all the political cover that he needs to drive further progress in widening participation at the most selective institutions.
We are strengthening the system of access agreements. They will now cover both access and participation, so that students receive the support that they need right the way through their courses, not just at the point of entry. We will give the new director of fair access and participation, who will be part of the new office for students, a greater set of sanctions to help to ensure that universities deliver the agreements they have made with him.
Some students face additional barriers to accessing higher education because their religious beliefs mean they are unable to take on interest-bearing loans. That is why, subject to Parliament, we will be the first Government to introduce an alternative student finance product that will support those students into higher education. That, combined with other measures, will help us to meet our goal of increasing the number of people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds—one third of whom are Muslim—who go to university. We are committed to an increase of 20% in the number of BME students by 2020.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that I have been writing to his Department since 2010 about sharia-compliant loans. The thing that is missing for students, who are absolutely put off by the failure to provide this product, is a timetable for making such loans available. He has committed to legislation, but will he now set out a timetable for when, if the legislation is enacted, students in communities such as mine in Walthamstow will be able to access these products?
Joseph Johnson
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her contribution to the campaign for this important alternative finance product. The coalition Government were the first to consult on the potential demand for such a product. We have a legislative vehicle with which to introduce it, and we are moving at full speed. The sooner Labour Members let this Bill through the Houses of Parliament, the sooner we will be able to crack on and deliver the alternative finance product that they want to see.
In the reforms we are already making to part-time and postgraduate study, we are sending a clear message to people that it is never too late to learn. The Government are transforming the funding landscape for part-time and postgraduate study. We are, for the first time, introducing maintenance loans for part-time undergraduate students, in addition to the tuition fee loans that were made available in the previous Parliament. We continue to reverse Labour’s restriction on studying for a second degree, so that people can get a student loan to take a second part-time degree in a STEM subject. For the first time, we are introducing student finance for postgraduate study, where people from disadvantaged backgrounds are even more under-represented than at undergraduate level. This one nation Conservative Government are giving people the opportunities they need to gain new skills at every stage of their lives.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s support for the idea that it is never too late to learn. For some refugees, coming to this country will be their first chance to learn. Will the Minister outline the Government’s commitment to supporting their integration, not least in terms of English language courses, which are a crucial component of their learning?
Joseph Johnson
We are committed to supporting refugees as they enter the higher education system, and we will look closely at whether there are any gaps in their support with respect to English language provision.
To turn to the Opposition amendment, we have been able to take steps to widen participation in higher education only because of the difficult decisions we have made as a Government to ensure that our universities are sustainably financed. [Interruption.] They are. Total funding for the sector has increased from £22 billion in 2009-10 to £28 billion in 2014-15, and is forecast to reach £31 billion by 2017-18. The OECD has said that our approach means that we are one of the few countries in the world to have found a sustainable approach to financing a modern system of higher education.
Our economy needs a world-class higher education system, and we cannot allow a situation to arise in which our universities are once again underfunded. The £9,000 tuition fee introduced in 2012 has already fallen in value to £8,500 in real terms. If we leave it unchanged, it will be worth £8,000 by the end of this Parliament. We want to ensure that our universities have the funding they need and that every student receives a high-quality experience during their time in higher education.
I am not the first Minister to note the variability of teaching quality, or indeed the imbalance between teaching and research in our higher education system. Labour Ministers in many Governments have made exactly the same point, but a Conservative Government will actually do something about it. We want to shine a spotlight on good practice, to give applicants more information about the type of teaching and graduate outcomes they can expect, and to raise the status of excellent university teaching. That is why we are implementing our manifesto commitment to introduce a teaching excellence framework to drive up the quality of teaching and spread best practice across our system.
In relation to the Opposition amendment, it is worth noting the irony that it was a Labour Government under Tony Blair who, in 2004, sensibly put in place the new legal powers that have allowed Governments to maintain university fees in line with inflation. For the 2017-18 academic year, I can confirm that the rate of inflation applying to maximum fees for institutions demonstrating high-quality teaching is 2.8%. The measure of inflation we are using is RPIX, as set out in regulations which, again, were introduced by Labour in 2006. The Labour party may have changed its views on that entire era and may no longer support the policy it introduced, but the Conservatives will refuse to allow students’ learning to suffer.
As Universities UK and GuildHE have made clear in statements ahead of today’s debate, allowing the value of maximum fees permitted by legislation to be maintained in real terms is essential if universities are to continue to be able to deliver high-quality teaching.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is making a very credible case. Does he agree that if we do not fund better degrees and the growth of higher education through the current system, the only alternative will be to do so through taxation—or borrowing—levied across the whole populace, including those who do not necessarily benefit from higher education?
Joseph Johnson
My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly. It is hard to improve on the way he put it. The alternative to what we are doing would be to place a greater burden on general taxpayers whose lifetime earnings will be lower than those of people who have benefited from a university education. In the case of women, graduates’ lifetime earnings will be £250,000 higher than those of non-graduates, and in the case of men, graduates’ lifetime earnings will be £100,000 higher than those of non-graduates.
Jim McMahon
I was beginning to get a complex, having been trying to grab the Minister’s attention for some time. It is interesting that the Minister accepts that there is a need to keep in line with the increasing costs in the university sector, but does not accept that the same is true for further education or for our school system.
Joseph Johnson
Our FE budget has been protected at the £4,000 level, and we continue to prioritise apprenticeships. That is one of the most important Government policies, and we are fully committed to achieving our 3 million high-quality apprenticeships over the course of this Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joseph Johnson
I will make a bit of progress, if I may.
Universities UK and GuildHE are clear in their support for our intention to link access to the limited inflationary uplift to an assessment of quality, which is a principle we have long accepted for the funding of research in our universities. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the first research assessment exercise in 1986, and there is no doubt that our rigorous system of only funding excellence has driven up the quality of our research over the past three decades. Let us take a look at the statistics. The UK has recently overtaken the US to rank first among comparable nations for our field-weighted citations impact. With just 0.9% of the world’s population and 3.2% of its research and development expenditure, the UK accounts for 16% of the most highly cited articles. Now is the time to extend that principle and link funding to the quality of teaching —as assessed by the teaching excellent framework, not just student numbers—as we have long and successfully done in research.
Ben Howlett
There were two very interesting omissions in the speech of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). There was not one mention of what students want, which is higher quality teaching. The other huge omission was the fact that if teaching quality decreases, the fees of course decrease as well, which gives all universities a massive carrot to improve the quality of their teaching.
Joseph Johnson
My hon. Friend is quite right. We are putting in place the reputational and financial incentives to drive and spread best practice throughout this sector, and the teaching excellence framework will be an important part of our doing so.
The inflationary uplift we are allowing to universities that demonstrate high-quality teaching is a £12 billion investment in the skills base of this country over the next decade. It is now for the Opposition to explain how they would make up for such a significant shortfall in university funding. To do so would either mean cutting resources from our universities, risking the sustainability of our world-class sector and leading to the reintroduction of aspiration-limiting student number controls, or the classic Labour response to any policy challenge—[Interruption]—we are already hearing it articulated: of more spending, more taxes, more borrowing and more debt. Labour Members might well heed the words of Ed Balls, who recently told Times Higher Education that Labour
“clearly didn’t find a sustainable way forward for the financing of higher education”.
He described that failure in the run-up to the last general election as
“a bit of a blot on Labour’s copybook”.
Indeed, it is, and the shame is that they clearly still have not learned the lesson
We are fulfilling our manifesto commitment to ensure the continuing success and stability of our reforms, balancing the interests of taxpayers and students. We have struck the right balance: numbers of disadvantaged students are at record levels; university funding is up; and research funding is protected. This is a one nation Queen’s Speech, from a one nation Government. Through our proposals, we are extending the benefits of a great education to school pupils and students across the country, and we must never let the Labour party put that at risk.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. May I remind the House that, after the SNP spokesperson, there will be eight-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches?
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate on the Government’s legislative programme for the coming year. Given the subject of this debate, I should, before I begin in earnest, declare that my wife is a primary school teacher in Scotland.
I want to put on the record my welcome for the new Scottish Government team, which was announced by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon last week; particularly new members of the cabinet, Derek Mackay and Fergus Ewing. I also wish to congratulate newly promoted Ministers, Jeane Freeman, Kevin Stewart, Mark McDonald and Shirley-Anne Somerville. I look forward to working with all my friends and colleagues in the interests of the people of Scotland.
It would be remiss of me at this stage not also to pay tribute to colleagues leaving the Scottish Government. Richard Lochhead, who was Scotland’s Rural Affairs Secretary for nine years, stood up for Scottish farming and fishing interests and the food and drink sector in an inspiring way. My constituency counterpart in Airdrie and Shotts, Alex Neil, was Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights from 2014, after driving the infrastructure and health portfolios in his typically imaginative and diligent way. I wish Alex and Richard all the best.
I now turn to the subject of today’s debate. So far, the successive days of debate on the Queen’s Speech have had far more substance than the Government’s programme in itself. It was an utterly vacuous Queen’s Speech, with very little cheer, and even less of relevance to the people of Scotland. The Scottish National party, as the widely acknowledged effective Opposition in this place, put forward an alternative Queen’s Speech—an alternative programme for government and an alternative to austerity. We have proposed 15 Bills that we believe the Government should have considered as part of their programme. They are Bills of substance that would have made a real difference to people up and down these isles who have been hammered by Tory austerity—a political and ideological choice, not an economic necessity.
Although the Bills in the Queen’s Speech on education, skills, training and access to employment—the subject of today’s debate—relate mainly to England or to England and Wales only, they serve to highlight the contrasting approach to these important matters between the SNP Scottish Government, who have independent powers over education, and the Conservative UK Government. The great spectre hanging over the higher education and research Bill is of students facing fees of up to, and now more than, £9,000 a year, while Scottish students access their university education without fees. I am sure that Members will be interested to note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in a letter to a constituent in 2003 that when next in government the Conservative party would “scrap tuition fees altogether”. Oh, what a damascene conversion we have seen! He now wants fees to rise even further.
Following the elections in Scotland it is now clear that the Government’s Tory colleagues up the road are following suit, as they are all about backdoor taxes for students as well. Government Members and their colleagues in Scotland who benefited from free tuition now wish to pull the ladder up behind them. The SNP Government have guaranteed free university tuition in Scotland, and that they will maintain the principle that access to university education must be about the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. It is also worth noting that more of the population in Scotland is educated beyond school than in any other European country, with 46.5% educated at tertiary level, and that a higher percentage of young people in Scotland now leave school for a positive destination than at any time on record.
One area where the UK Government sadly retain control over education in Scotland is non-EU graduates’ right to remain and work in the UK after studying here. The abolition of the post-study work visa for students from outside Europe in 2012 was a regressive step that has reduced our ability to retain world-class talents for highly skilled and much-needed positions. It seems foolish to take the position that it is a good idea for those students to benefit from our world-class universities, but then disallow ourselves from benefiting from their skills and talents once they have finished their education here.
The Smith commission report stated that the Scottish and UK Governments should work together to
“explore the possibility of introducing formal schemes to allow international higher education students graduating from Scottish further and higher education institutions to remain in Scotland and contribute to economic activity for a defined period of time.”
At the time of the Smith commission’s discussions, representative organisations, including Universities Scotland and NUS Scotland, sent it a joint letter warning that the removal of the UK-wide post-study work visa in 2012 had resulted in a significant fall in the number of international students coming to Scotland. At a time when it is crucial—as we heard from the Minister for Universities and Science, who has left his place—that we address skills shortages in key areas of industry to improve productivity and economic growth, it is extremely disappointing that this Queen’s Speech makes no mention of the reintroduction of the scheme for Scotland.
In 2015 the Post Study Work working group— set up by the Scottish Government to provide a view from the business and tertiary education sectors on the impact of the removal of the post-study work scheme in Scotland and on how such a scheme should operate if reintroduced—concluded:
“Reintroducing a post study work route in Scotland would benefit both Scottish economic growth and business development, as well as enriching the learning experience for all students, by attracting more international students to Scotland.”
In February this year, the Holyrood devolution committee, made up of MSPs from the five political parties represented there, unanimously recommended that the Home Office change its policy on this issue. It is extremely disappointing that the UK Government seem unwilling to listen to the views of a diverse range of political parties and organisations in Scotland. In our alternative Queen’s Speech we have proposed a migration Bill, which would include the reintroduction of the post-study work visa. As was highlighted at Prime Minister’s questions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), and after Prime Minister questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who is the family’s local MP, the disgraceful treatment of the Brain family shows the desperate need for the reintroduction of the visa.
There is also an urgent need for changes to the Government’s approach on access to employment, employment support, training and skills, which have all been run down by this Government’s actions and their reckless cuts to public spending. We want an emergency summer Budget, to boost investment in public services, stimulate GDP growth, support wage growth, increase tax receipts, support trade and exports, and boost productivity. For all the Tories’ rhetoric about the long-term economic plan, the Queen’s Speech contains no indication of how the Government will improve productivity, employment and growth in the long run.
Many Government Members will, I am sure, feel betrayed that there was no mention of the much-vaunted White Paper on health and work, which was supposed to compensate for the savage cuts to the work-related activity group element of the employment and support allowance and to universal credit work allowance. A number of Tory Back Benchers were promised jam tomorrow by their Ministers if they withdrew their opposition to those cuts, on the basis of the White Paper being published this year. Some were right to say, as I and others on the SNP Benches did, that the White Paper should have been published before the cuts were made, because of exactly the scenario that we now see unfolding.
The cuts to ESA WRAG and universal credit have been made, reaping all that social damage, and now the supposed replacement has been scrapped. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions used an appearance at the Work and Pensions Committee on 11 May to announce that he was scrapping the proposed White Paper and taking more time to consider a Green Paper. He said that he had made it clear in his first statement to this House as Secretary of State that he was looking to “push the reset button”. That statement was on 21 March; I asked him directly that day when the White Paper would be published, given that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), had told me at his last appearance at the Dispatch Box that it would be “well before the summer”, and how much money would be committed to it. The new Secretary of State could not answer my questions, so he made a commitment from the Dispatch Box to write to me on the matter. As a follow-up, I wrote to him on 30 March to remind him of that and request a meeting, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I am still waiting for a reply, despite repeatedly chasing the matter up. Perhaps one will now be forthcoming.
The UK Government have wasted precious time by not publishing the White Paper. I urge the Secretary of State to come to this House with a date for the publication of the Green Paper. Any success in this matter will ultimately be determined by the Government’s willingness to engage with community and voluntary organisations, as well as experts, to help shape any new framework.
The new Secretary of State at the DWP hopes to have changed the tone of the debate, but what we really need is substance. He talks about pushing the reset button; why, then, has he not gone back to the brutal cuts to ESA and universal credit, or to the lack of assistance to women born in the 1950s regarding their repeatedly delayed and mishandled state pension entitlement—an issue that has been commendably spearheaded by the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—or to the immoral bedroom tax? Why has he not gone back to the much-needed reforms to work capability assessments for those with mental health issues and with long-term conditions, who face the stress of constant unnecessary reassessments, and to the waste of money and time, as well as additional stress to the claimant, because of decisions that should never have been made in the first place that are then overturned at tribunal? Why has he not gone back to the two-child rule, or to the rape clause, or to any of the other decisions taken by his predecessor? Of all those disastrous policy areas, why did he choose to review the White Paper?
We are concerned that valuable time to make progress on disability employment is being lost as a result of that delay, and believe that Ministers should bring forward proposals as soon as possible. The announcement of the Green Paper should be welcome, if it is brought forward with urgency, meaningful engagement with the community and voluntary sector, and with experts to shape the new framework. However, we remain sceptical that the Tories will rise to that challenge, and they cannot be allowed to kick this any further into the long grass. The Minister must formally make a statement of his intentions, and lay out the road map for the development of the new programme with a timeframe. With cuts coming down the line for disabled people, the Tories must act now. Tory Back Benchers will be interested—as we are—in why the Minister has abandoned the White Paper, and we hope that they will join us in calling for progress on the Green Paper to be introduced with haste.
Forty-nine DWP inquiry reports into the deaths of social security recipients were finally released after a long two-year freedom of information battle. Forty of those reports followed a suicide, and in 10 of those cases the recipient had been sanctioned. Peer reviews do not make a direct link between DWP policy and those sad deaths, but they do highlight the serious problems that are faced by claimants with complex issues, mental health challenges, or learning support needs. I hope that we can now see an end to the unwillingness of Ministers to accept that their policies, however well intended they may think they are, are having serious consequences and could be costing lives. There must be a full, urgent review that includes the impact of current work capability assessments, the punishing sanctions regime, and further cuts to disability support.
The SNP has proposed a social equality Bill to restore work allowances for low-income workers and single parents, to end maternity discrimination, to consider further shared paternity rights for individuals and employers, and to address barriers to employment for disabled people. That would bring matters in line with the principles on which the Scottish Government will found the new Scottish social security agency, by treating people with dignity and respect.
Although the Queen’s Speech did not have anything useful to say about those matters, at its tail end we were informed that the Government would hold a referendum on membership of the European Union which, despite the lacklustre campaign so far, will not have come as a revelation to many people. That was followed by the vaguest of sentences, notifying us that
“proposals will be brought forward for a British Bill of Rights.”
Given the vast differences that exist in the Cabinet and on the Government Back Benches about membership of the European Union and the European convention on human rights, with many people losing track of who is an in-out, an out-out, or an out-in, it is difficult to imagine how they could find enough common cause to agree on what such a Bill would contain, and the Queen’s Speech gave no further insight into that. For that reason, the Bill of Rights is as likely to be brought before the House this year as it was after being mentioned in last year’s Queen’s Speech.
The briefing notes for the Queen’s Speech on the Bill of Rights added only that:
“These rights would be based on those set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, while also taking into account our common law tradition.”
That suggests that although the Government are sensibly distancing themselves from the Home Secretary’s personal views on the ECHR, they have little of substance to say about the purpose or need for such a Bill.
Professor Mark Elliott from the University of Cambridge stated that in the Queen’s Speech,
“there is no hint of any developed thinking about how the perceived shortcomings of the HRA ought to be addressed, or of how reform in this area would be reconciled with the UK’s remaining a party to the ECHR.”
If the Government are unable to provide detailed answers to those points, they should question whether attempting to appease some of their own Back Benchers is worth more than having sensible legislation. For Scotland, the key concern is that the Government have shown little consideration about how that decision will affect the Scottish Parliament, and the other devolved legislatures of these isles.
Briefing notes for the Queen’s Speech addressed that issue—to pardon the pun—only briefly, and stated that:
“Revising the Human Rights Act can only be done by the UK Parliament, but we will consult fully before bringing forward proposals.”
Although it is true that the Scottish Parliament does not have power to alter the Human Rights Act, the Law Society of Scotland has argued:
“Under Devolution Guidance Note 10 (DGN10), when UK legislation will alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the Executive Competence of the Scottish Ministers the consent of the Scottish Parliament is needed. Repeal and replacement of the Human Rights Act 1998 would in our view, require the amendment of the Scotland Act 1998 in those respects which would affect the competences of both the Parliament and Scottish Ministers. Any change to the Scotland Act concerning the Human Rights Act 1998 which affects the competence of the Parliament or the Scottish Ministers will in terms of DGN10 require the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
Therefore, not simply consultation with, but consent from the Scottish Parliament would be needed, and given that a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament do not support such a change, that consent is unlikely to be forthcoming.
President Theodore Roosevelt famously said that
“the credit belongs to the man who...spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly”.
Unfortunately, in this case, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government have neither succeeded nor dared greatly, but instead have offered a weak and poor programme that will do little to address the needs of the people of these isles.
Although some measures are to be welcomed, such as the likely delivery of a universal service obligation on broadband, this Queen’s Speech is yet another missed opportunity from the Government to address the key issues. Instead of offering clear solutions and innovative ideas, I am afraid that in years to come, this Queen’s Speech will be remembered as an empty, vacuous and largely irrelevant sideshow from a governing party that is more concerned about patching over internal divisions on EU membership, and jockeying for who will be next Tory leader, than about delivering for the people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. A large number of Members have withdrawn from the debate, so I will now raise the time limit to eight minutes. We will see how we get on—better up than down.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Thank you for that splendid news, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can only carry on as I normally do.
I want to talk about the actual Queen’s Speech, which is a one nation Queen’s Speech because it mentions opportunity for everybody and productivity for our economy. Behind those 21 Bills lies the demand for and interest in having more, fairer opportunities and a better economy that delivers more productivity.
I wish to mention two Bills in particular, including the Children and Social Work Bill. The Education Select Committee has done some work in that field, and I invite the Secretary of State to consider what it will say about social work—I will not let any cats out of the bag now because we have not yet published our conclusions, but they will be of interest to those who wish to consider the issue in more detail as the Bill develops. I am pleased that we will have a care leavers covenant, which is one thing that came out of the Committee’s early discussions about children in care who had mental health difficulties, and who felt that they were falling off a cliff edge. The covenant will clearly prevent that from happening.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in the Committee’s work on care leavers, it was not just those with mental health problems who felt that they were falling off a cliff? Many care leavers felt that the support that children might ordinarily receive from their own families was suddenly missing when they got to the age of 18.
Neil Carmichael
I completely agree, and my hon. Friend was a member of the Education Committee when we did that early work. The whole point is to ensure that those children do not fall over that cliff edge. Children who are looked after by the state are particularly vulnerable to that, and we must do all we can to stop it happening. The Committee also covered regulation in its early inquiries. I will not comment in detail on what that framework should look like, but we agreed that we need an improved regulatory offering for social work.
On the education for all Bill, I first note that “for all” means for absolutely all children. However, there are some unregistered children in unregulated schools, and we need to think about them, too. How will the Secretary of State respond to the thought, expressed not least by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, that there are ineffective schools beneath the radar which are not doing a good job? We need to ensure that when we say education for all, we mean all.
The White Paper talks about a school-led system, as it absolutely should. Those of us who support the academies programme welcome its continued growth. Obviously, it is important to be sure that academies feel comfortable once they are out there. The Education Committee will be considering what a good multi-academy trust looks like precisely with that thought in mind. We need to encourage academies to come together to support each other in partnership and co-operation—schools taking the initiative to help other schools. I believe that combination will work to drive up standards, especially in areas—we know there are pockets—where standards are not high enough..
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman therefore in favour of Ofsted inspecting academy chains? At the moment, the Government prevent it from doing so, so we do not know what their overheads are, we do not know how much they are putting into each school, and we do not know what they are spending on the chief executive’s salary. Is he in favour of Ofsted inspecting academy chains?
Neil Carmichael
The Education Committee was quite forceful on this matter in the previous Parliament and I expect it will comment on it again. I am personally in favour of multi-academy trusts being inspected. The Committee will look into it when it conducts an inquiry and comment on it in due course. I will not pre-judge what that inquiry will say.
It is important to recognise that in some areas—for example, in Yorkshire—some local authorities have not delivered adequate education for young people. It would be helpful if the Department set out data and maps, so Members and others can see where the problems are and calibrate the need for more academies. That would be really useful.
We need an improvement on fairer funding. This is, rightly, implicit in the White Paper. Schools in Gloucestershire need to be confident about fairer funding. I say Gloucestershire because I represent Stroud, but the point applies to a whole range of shire counties and to urban areas, too. Fairer funding is essential. I am pleased that the Education Committee will have the opportunity to check the Department’s proposals. That is extremely helpful and we will conduct an inquiry in due course. It is very good of the Secretary of State to enable us to do that, effectively through the timescale she has set out, just as she responded when the White Paper was launched and there was something of a furore over the scale of ambition in relation to academies.
It is in the same vein that I make my next point about co-operation and the opportunity to consider the Bill. It would be really helpful if the education for all Bill is published soon, so that we can have pre-legislative scrutiny. It would be useful to look at the detail behind the definition of a failing local authority, one that is beneath capacity threshold and would be fined or cease to be a provider of schools. That opportunity would help all Members to understand more clearly the direction of travel and perhaps see a way forward. I invite the Secretary of State to consider that proposal. I know the legislative programme is tight and that there are few opportunities for delay, but I think this would be a good contribution to the debate.
I want to end on something I think is very important. I was reading with interest the thoughts of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an independent and authoritative organisation, on whether we should be in the European Union. It noted that if we left the EU our economy would be smaller by about £15 billion within about two years. These figures are bandied about frequently and understood by many, and the IFS is not the only leading authority to point out that our economy is doing well precisely because we are a part of the European Union. I mention this because the legislative programme set out in the Queen’s Speech depends on public expenditure. If we are to deliver an education system that is as ambitious and as successful as the Secretary of State intends it to be then we are going to have to pay for it. It will be harder to pay for it if we kick ourselves in the shins by leaving the European Union and reducing the size of our economy. That would make it harder to meet pledges on public expenditure in future.
Neil Carmichael
I therefore suggest it is really important that we remain in the European Union, so that we can deliver our ambitions.
I have just realised that somebody must be trying to intervene, as an hon. Friend has helpfully informed everybody that I am completely deaf in my left ear. I can find that quite useful, certainly in family situations and often in politics, but not when my hon. Friend wants to intervene.
Jo Churchill
That must also be the reason why my husband sometimes does not respond when called. He is obviously deaf in one ear too.
It is important that we are a part of the European Union not only for the reasons my hon. Friend outlines, but to ensure that our young people have access to broader educational environments, such as the Erasmus programme.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am pleased to follow the Chair of the Education Committee. I agree with much of what he said—on our membership of the EU and on his invitation to the Secretary of State to publish the education for all Bill in time for the Committee to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny. That would be very valuable. It is on the education for all Bill that I want to focus my remarks.
I start by warmly welcoming the abandonment of the pledge of universal academisation by 2022. That is a very welcome U-turn. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) is in his place. He and I had a debate about this on the radio. I made the point that it was clear there was not the support on the Conservative Benches to get the proposed legislation through the House. He is the Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary and he assured the listeners to the programme that it was all absolutely fine, but I am delighted that the Secretary of State recognised that I was right about this and her PPS was not. I pay tribute to her for at least executing the U-turn with commendable speed and not dragging out the agony over a long period, as we have sometimes seen in the past. I do not think it was ever her idea that we should force all schools to become academies by 2022. I am glad she has dropped it.
It is disappointing that the Bill still has the aim, according to the documentation alongside the Queen’s Speech, to move towards a system where all schools are academies. Ministers really should be listening, not least to headteachers on this very important subject. The National Association of Head Teachers said of that declared aim of the Bill that
“it will mean that good and outstanding schools can still be made to convert, regardless of the professional judgement of school leaders, the opposition of parents and the best interests of local communities.”
The Government ought to listen to headteachers, parents and local communities, rather than continuing with their view that every school should become an academy, regardless of whether it is in its interest. Academisation can be a good thing—there are plenty of examples of where it has turned around a school’s fortunes—but forced academisation is not.
Ministers have not been able to provide any evidence that academisation necessarily raises standards, because, in reality, it does not. Areas identified by Ofsted as having problems with low educational standards include areas where most of the schools have already become academies. It would be helpful if there were a panacea, such as academisation or some other reorganisation, to overcome the problem of underperforming schools, but there is not; raising standards is a long, tough haul. Ministers are looking for a shortcut, but there is not one. To quote the NAHT again:
“Targeted support is what’s needed, rather than forced, top-down reorganisation”.
Tristram Hunt
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does not the history of his part of east London, including Tower Hamlets and Newham, show that academisation, in and of itself, is not the answer? What transformed educational prospects in his community was the London Challenge and schools working together and collaborating to raise standards.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right about what happened in east London, where we have seen a remarkable transformation of educational standards over the last 20 years owing to the consistent application of the tools he identifies, including academisation, in some cases, as well as other levers. I am worried that that progress could now be at risk, but I will say a little about that in a moment.
There are costs to academisation, including legal costs. When the Government’s policy was one of forced academisation, we had a debate about how much it would cost, and the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that she would let it have the Department’s robust estimates of the cost of academisation. I checked this morning but I understand that the information has not been provided yet. I would be grateful if she could make sure that her Department delivers on the commitment she made.
As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, the role of multi-academy trusts will be very important. The Sutton Trust has pointed out that, on achievement among disadvantaged pupils, some multi-academy trusts are doing an outstanding job and delivering very high standards but that the majority are not. In fact, its analysis shows that the majority are doing less well than the average across the school system as a whole—they are underperforming—and a big part of the reason is that many have expanded too fast. Everyone in the House will recognise that it is difficult to maintain good standards while managing rapid expansion, and that problem will get a lot worse if, as appears to be the Government’s intention, many hundreds and thousands of schools are forced into multi-academy trusts over the next few years.
It is worrying that we are starting to see some of the practices we used to deprecate in poor local education authorities cropping up in some of the multi-academy trusts. Under the reforms of the last 20 years, local education authorities have been transformed. Maintained schools now enjoy a high degree of autonomy, whereas academies are frequently not allowed very much autonomy from their multi-academy trust. One primary headteacher told me that he did not want to academise specifically because the multi-academy trust his school would likely join would not allow the degree of autonomy for his school that his local education authority does. We are starting to see some bad old practices creeping into education administration through multi-academy trusts, and the Sutton Trust is absolutely right to point out that the speed of their expansion makes the problem worse.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurance to the Select Committee that multi-academy trusts should be allowed to expand only when they have a track record of success and improvement at their existing academies. I hope that that will be reflected in the Bill, when it is published, and that she will tell us that that will be the case. When she came before the Committee, she also recognised the importance of parents being able to secure an academy’s transfer to a different trust, where the existing trust has demonstrably failed to deliver adequate standards and improvement in a particular academy, as is starting to happen in some instances. If, with the appropriate standards, parents were allowed to do that, it would be an important protection. She fully recognised the value of such a provision in her evidence to the Committee. Will that be in the Bill as well?
Finally, the Bill will also deliver the national school funding formula. The House recently discussed the impact of that on schools in London in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed). Ministers seem to have given exclusive access to their deliberations on this topic to a group of largely rural authorities, and I am worried that we might end up with an unfair formula as a result. In particular, no London authorities at all were included in that group. I am particularly anxious that the high rate of pupil mobility in some authorities should be included in the formula.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who as a Minister in the Labour Government was respected by Conservative Members as somebody who listened and engaged.
I support the Gracious Speech. It contains a good programme for the Government and plenty of important, decent Bills that we can support. I will start with the referendum. When I was first elected, I voted for a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty, and was defeated; then I voted for a referendum on the Nice treaty, and was defeated; and then I voted for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and was defeated, even though Messrs Blair and Brown had committed to having one. It is refreshing, therefore, to have a Prime Minister with the confidence to put one in his manifesto, win an election, legislate and give the British people a choice. I am 59. I voted in the referendum in 1975. I suspect there are very few people in the Chamber who voted in 1975, and it is right and proper that the British people consent to the future arrangements. I lean towards the leave side, but nevertheless it is a real “shock horror—politician does what he said” moment, so we ought to give the Prime Minister credit.
The education Bill will be a game changer, particularly because of the fair funding formula, which I know London Members are worried about. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who campaigned throughout the last Parliament to get the Government to look at this. It is not that we do not believe people in some urban areas should have more money; it is that when they sometimes have two, three or four times as much money, children in places such as Dorset and Poole are being undervalued by the nation. We need to move in a new direction while being aware that, as with all these things, there clearly are winners and losers and that it cannot be done quickly. Nevertheless, the Bill is a good start.
I am also pleased with the NHS charging Bill, particularly for visitors to the UK. As the Secretary of State for Health often says, we have a national health service, not an international health service. There are occasions when I think we should be more vociferous in pursuing people who use the service who should not. Part of the problem with recouping money from people is that the service is not really set up to do it. We need to think very carefully about how to recoup the £500 million a year that the Bill expects from those using the service who should not do so. We all know that people sometimes come to this country with the express purpose of taking advantage of the NHS. We all know that there are shortages of resources, and that in these tough times it is right and proper for the British Government to stand up for British interests by ensuring that people pay their fair share.
I believe a range of Bills in the Gracious Speech will make life chances better for people in the UK. As mentioned in the House yesterday, children in care are being given a higher priority. John Hemming, who used to be a Member of Parliament, spent a lot of time campaigning for the rights of children in care. Sometimes they get lost and their life chances can be somewhat less than those of others. It is right and proper for these sometimes forgotten children to be looked after and given the best start in life—at least a better start than could be expected in their circumstances.
I have a slight word of criticism. I visited one of my successful local companies, Sunseeker Yachts, which employs nearly 2,000 Dorset people and currently has 40 apprentices. It worked out that the apprenticeship levy would cost the company a quarter of a million pounds, but they have not yet seen how to claim any money back against that. It appears as a dead-weight loss in its forward plan. It is anxious for the Government to explain very soon the procedures and the criteria that will apply so that it can plan for the future. It exports well over 95% of its turnover, and the company is well regarded internationally. In common with many businesses employing apprentices, it is a little worried that the devil in the detail has not yet become known, and it needs more evidence to be able to plan.
I support a whole range of Bills. The modern transport Bill is innovative, and talking about driverless cars is better than having a leaderless Opposition. We have a good programme for the next four years. We will make people’s life chances substantially better. The Prime Minister has put forward a one nation progressive programme, which we can all rally around. It will lead to a better situation for our citizens and a Government that we can be proud of.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), although I disagree with him not only about the contents of the Queen’s Speech, but about Europe.
While measures to improve the national citizenship scheme, to support donations to charities, to provide the right to broadband and to protect cultural property are welcome and laudable, the measures in the Queen’s Speech fail as a whole to address the huge challenges that the country faces. These include the huge problems of underfunding and marketisation caused by the top-down restructuring of the NHS. There is nothing to deal with the chronic shortage of doctors and nurses—never mind the investment in social care that is needed properly to protect and look after older people with the dignity they desire.
On education, there is nothing to address the chronic teacher shortages, the shortage of school places and the need for capital investment to create the 21st-century schools that our constituents need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said from the Front Bench, this is a Queen’s Speech with emptiness at its core. Some measures that are in it are deeply worrying, and I shall concentrate on two specific issues.
First, I have to say I am really disappointed by the higher education Bill. The measures in it could see fees climb even higher, saddling young people who want to go to university with even more debt. Some students are already coming out of university with £40,000 to £50,000 of debt—where will this end?
On the teaching excellence framework, we support a focus on teaching quality. However, if this is simply a framework with parameters already set to enable the removing of the fees cap, it is not something we should support. I say yes to the focus on quality in teaching, providing the metrics are right and the risks of doing so are properly managed, but why is there the link to higher fees? As I said, we need to be very careful about what we are doing because of its impact on the reputation of higher education. We are therefore concerned about the deregulation of the establishment of new universities and the lack of safeguards, which could undermine the excellence of our HE institutions.
I hope that the Minister recognises that this is not because we are against the expansion of higher education. I am very much in support of it and I would like to see more of our young people going to universities. However, we are simply not sure that the Government are going about expansion in the right way. We are not the only ones to have concerns about that. As million+ has said:
“Competition can undoubtedly promote innovation but lowering standards to help new, inexperienced or small, single-degree providers with no interest in being research active, to gain degree awarding powers and university title is not opening the market but lowering the bar”.
It emphasises the huge risk of the marketisation approach, and points out that UK universities trade globally on the basis of a national quality assurance system, high student satisfaction rates and high quality teaching and research. It states:
“The assumption that institutions with UK university title or degree-awarding powers should be allowed to fail and exit the market is potentially at variance with the Government’s ambitions to promote UK higher education internationally”.
We share that set of concerns, and Universities UK argued along the same lines in its briefing to Members. We will need to hear a lot more from the Minister when we reach this Bill’s Second Reading about what safeguards will be in place.
The Minister said quite a lot today about improving participation in our universities and increasing social mobility. However, a briefing from the Open University has pointed out that the Prime Minister’s target to increase the number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university is likely to fail because the number of part-time disadvantaged students entering part-time HE is falling, not increasing. Part-time HE is often the most common way for people from disadvantaged backgrounds or places to enter universities. The Open University also pointed to the lack of clear opportunities for lifelong learning—another issue that the Minister will need to address. I am astounded that there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to tackle the reduction in the number of part-time students, to promote lifelong learning or to promote upskilling and reskilling opportunities for adult learners. What we know is the budget for that has been massively cut by £335 million. One can only hope that the White Paper we are expecting in June or the autumn will address some of these issues.
Moving on, I want to comment briefly on the NHS measures. We know that the Government are ploughing ahead with the seven-day care objective, but I think they are refusing to accept the reality of what is happening in the NHS. Patients are waiting longer and therefore suffering longer. Waits are increasing and it is getting much harder to see a GP. Instead of providing measures to tackle this and the crisis in social care, we get more cuts to older people’s services. We also know of record visits to A&E, mainly because of the breakdown of services elsewhere, and £22 billion-worth of efficiency savings are not going to help. Over the last five years, my own local authority of Durham has had to make £43 million-worth of cuts to adult care, and is going to have to make a further £25 million over the next couple of years. I really want to hear from the Government what they are going to do to tackle this crisis in social care.
Lastly, I want to say a brief word about the northern powerhouse, which Ministers and, indeed, some sections of the media talk about as if it were a reality. Mine is one of the constituencies that should be benefiting from it, but I see absolutely no reality. The devolution deal brings with it very little money to promote the economy and skills development in the north-east. It would be great to know what the northern powerhouse is actually delivering, but, at present, I see nothing at all.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods).
I went into politics because I was that bored 16-year-old growing up in rural Norfolk, frustrated by the lack of opportunities and keen to do my bit to make things better. I had loving and supportive parents and encouraging teachers, but little access to people and places. Indeed, it could be said that, at that time, I did not even know what I did not know. However, I am a Conservative today because I believe that it is not where we are coming from that counts, but where we are going. That call can only be answered by opportunity: by ensuring that every person has a chance to make of themselves what they want. Conservatives believe fundamentally in people and their freedom, because people are enterprising and can choose their own course best of all, but those people need the opportunity to do so.
As has been argued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, over the past few generations we have seen some incredible and dramatic changes in society. Never before has so much information been at the fingertips of so many, never before have we seen such a decline in social difference, and never before have previously elite preserves such as universities been a realistic option for millions; yet we are not living in a golden age of social mobility. Today, far too many people have their life chances determined before they have even had an opportunity to explore all that life has to offer. So I am proud that it is a Conservative Prime Minister, a guy from a council estate in Pembrokeshire and the capable Ministers who are here today who are proposing action that will span families, the early years, education, treatment and support, opportunity, and an end to discrimination.
We should listen carefully today, so that we hear the hopes and quiet wishes being expressed by mums and dads throughout the country—rich and poor alike—for their children, every minute of every day. We should seek to give all children the chances and the choices that they need to live their lives. That is why I welcome the Bills in the Queen’s Speech that promote life chances through better education.
Let me begin with the Higher Education and Research Bill and its further expansion of higher education. The origin of the university in my fine city of Norwich, the University of East Anglia, lies in the great university expansion of the 1960s, and I welcome the Bill’s emphasis on making it easier for more high-quality universities to enter the sector and boost choice for students.
Higher education is one of our greatest engines for social mobility, and we should celebrate the record application rates that we are seeing among students from disadvantaged backgrounds; but there is a great deal more to do. In January this year, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission identified the life chances of a poor child growing up in the Norwich City Council area as some of the very worst in the country. That is something that I am determined to confront as a constituency MP, for it is not something to be proud of, but I know that it is something that the Government are determined to confront as well. The provisions to ensure transparency of data provide a key tool. If we do not have data, we will be—in the words of the commission—trying to make progress blindfolded. We need evidence-based policies, and we need the data that will enable us to prioritise our efforts.
The Bill also provides for an access and participation plan. I welcome the broadening of the definition from “access agreements” to “access and participation plan”, which means that universities will be expected to welcome students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and take steps to support them throughout their courses. If we can do all those things, we will achieve the goals that the Government have rightly set out to ensure that more people participate in higher education.
I welcome measures in the Children and Social Work Bill, particularly the mentoring measure. The Bill sensibly requires local authorities to publish a local offer giving information about the support that is available to care leavers, and ensuring that they have access to a personal adviser up to the age of 25. I should add, however, that that must be done well. I recently heard about a personal adviser in my constituency who, it appears, was rarely able to meet his charge, and when he did so— unbelievably—the meeting usually took place at the side of the road or in a pub car park for 10 minutes. That is not what should be happening. The state must do better as a parent and a mentor.
I welcome measures in the Bill providing greater support for those at school, and I also welcome measures in the proposed national citizen service Bill to promote volunteering and social action. There is, of course, more that we can all do. We need to work together in the same way as Universities UK and its social mobility advisory group, which was formed following Green and White Papers. They are rightly bringing together people from the education and social sectors to take a proper look at the systemic issues relating to people’s chances and choices. In my constituency, I am doing the same in response to the social mobility index. Educationists and business representatives, local authorities and the voluntary sector are coming together to analyse what we can do locally. Much good work is already taking place, but we want to identify the extra actions that we can take in order to make a difference. We know that the factors involved are complex and deep-rooted, and that we can solve them only if we work together.
The proposed education for all Bill conveys the lesson that we must be willing to look at what works. I support the Government’s education reforms, because schools in my constituency must improve if our children are to have the best possible start in life. There is no room for complacency, given the evidence of the index to which I referred earlier. If children in the Norwich City Council area do indeed have some of the poorest life chances in England, the years spent at school must be absolutely crucial.
There is some improvement to be seen in the performance of schools in Norwich and Norfolk, but we must not rest there. I believe that the academy structure can help, I want the Government to focus on building capacity in good trusts and good leaders, and recruiting, retaining and developing good teachers. I also want local leaders in schools to continue to use pupil premium money in the most imaginative and ambitious ways to help the poorer students break out. I think that there is much good work to be seen in the Sutton Trust’s toolkit.
I welcome the promise in the Queen’s Speech to make school funding fairer. Schools with the same kind of pupils should receive the same kind of funding, and that brings me back to my starting point. Wherever people come from in this country and whatever background they start from, they should expect the same opportunities. Norwich children should have the same chances and choices as children from Newcastle, the New Forest or Nottingham. As I said at the beginning, that is what brought me into politics in rural Norfolk, and it is what inspired many of us into Parliament. It should spur us on afresh today to ensure that the chance of a decent life is universal, available in all communities, in all parts of the country and in every household—regardless of background, but especially for the poorest.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I always think of the first Queen’s Speech that you and I attended, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was the last occasion on which I spent any real time with my good friend Robin Cook. I think that most Members in all parts of the House would agree that he was a fine parliamentarian, and I wonder what he would make of this shambles of a Government today. A former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has described the Business Secretary as disappointing, his own Prime Minister as disingenuous, and his own Chancellor as nothing short of a liar, even calling him Pinocchio. Meanwhile, the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the former Mayor of London and the former Defence Secretary are all saying, “Look out, look out, the Turks are coming!” , although 10 years ago they were saying, “We want Turkey in Europe.”
It is against that background that the most wasteful use of parliamentary time in history went ahead last week. It showed what we are used to in this place: contempt from the leader of this country towards the House of Commons. Worse, however, it showed contempt for our Queen to bring that woman here, in her record-breaking 90th year, to deliver such a piece of rubbish. And even worse than that, it showed contempt for the people who do not just send us here, but pay for the privilege of doing so.
It is that contempt that I want to reflect on now, in relation to something that will have a huge impact on the people in my part of the world. I refer to the ludicrous programme of English devolution. It is a farce, it is a joke, but sadly, it is deadly serious.
The Labour party is and always has been the party of devolution, in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in London, all of which have been given real powers, real democracy and real accountability. Crucially, all those arrangements were agreed through genuine engagement and democratic decision-making involving the people affected. What have we got now? Devolution drawn up on the back of a fag packet; decisions taken behind closed doors by Treasury officials, local government senior officers and leaders of councils; the imposition of elected mayors without asking the local people if they want one, often ignoring the voices of those who have already rejected mayors in their towns and cities; the cobbling together of geographical areas that bear little resemblance to each other; meagre resources being given to areas that have been coerced into signing up—areas where huge sums of money have been taken away from local government as austerity goes on and on; an insistence on getting full agreement on structures even before the legislation has been agreed by this House and the other place; a funding stream that has no basis in fairness or transparency; and locally elected representatives being cajoled into agreeing these poor deals as the only game in town, telling them, “You take this or you get nothing.” All this is being cobbled together under the crass PR tags of the “northern powerhouse”, the “midlands engine”—and God knows who is in the back of the car in the boot.
The people of England deserve better than this, and more and more people are recognising that, as are more and more politicians of all colours. Indeed, I have sat in amazement over the past few weeks as I have heard people I disagree with almost every day on almost every issue saying how concerned they are in their part of the world—in East Anglia, the south-west and the west midlands—about how this is going through the House. People are asking, “Why, oh why, is this happening in this way? Why must we in the north-east be told we can’t have this kind of authority without having a mayor, yet people in Cornwall can?” Why can we not have a proper consultation and a referendum, as has quite rightly happened everywhere else in the UK?
Why have we not got a fair funding system? I will give the House a great example of the need for one in my part of the world. Tees Valley, in the south of the north-east, has agreed to proceed with a mayoral combined authority, as is its right. The north-eastern part of the north-east has not as yet fully agreed to do the same. One of the sticking points is resources. We are asking why the Tees Valley, an area that is much smaller than ours geographically and with about a quarter of the population, is getting £15 million a year dedicated to its so-called powerhouse while we in the northern part are getting only £30 million. It might just be a coincidence that the Tees Valley contains the constituency home of the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse. Surely that could not have anything to do with this decision. That would be almost as absurd as to suggest that the arrangements in the greater Manchester area have anything to do with the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer lives on the fringes of that area. Surely even Pinocchio would not want us to agree to that.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I represent one of the constituencies in the Tees Valley, and I want to make it clear that we deserve that £15 million and will spend it wisely. However, we are also deeply opposed to the imposition of an elected mayor.
Mr Anderson
I have no doubt that the people of the Tees Valley should have that money; they deserve a lot more, given what they have gone through over the past 30 years. They have been through deindustrialisation in the 1980s and they have taken other hits lately, and £15 million is meagre corn for the people of the Tees Valley. I am in no way having a go at them. I am asking how it can be fair for a population of that size to get that amount when another area with a population four times the size does not get proportionally more.
I am a huge fan of devolution. I really believe that we in the north-east know what will work for us better than the old Etonians do. I also believe that we should be allowed the freedom to decide what is best for our part of the world, but to do that we need sufficient resources to match the responsibilities that are given to us. We need the funds to meet our needs. We need structures that are transparent and fully accountable, and this should not be negotiated by people with vested interests. The leaders of the council are decent honourable people, but they should not be the ones sitting around the table saying, “Yes, this is what we want and we will agree to it without any recourse to the people in the local area.”
In Gateshead, the council carried out a consultation of 200,000 people, but only 38 people replied. A poll was carried out in the north-east a couple of weeks ago and, out of a population of almost 2 million, only 511 replied. The majority of those who replied said that they did not really know enough about what was going on to make a valid choice. What on earth does that tell us about the way the Government are pushing through this programme, which has nothing to do with real transparency and real democracy? We need genuine buy-in and commitment from the people. Without that, this is going nowhere. We need a range of powers that recognise the vast differences between the needs of people living in, for example, rural Northumberland or the Durham dales and the people living in Tyneside tower blocks. They are different and they will have different demands.
None of these questions has been fully addressed to our satisfaction and, as I said earlier, people in other parts of England are similarly dissatisfied, including those in a number of places that have already signed up to these dodgy deals. I want to make it very clear in relation to my borough of Gateshead, which has refused to sign up to a deal that other people in our part of the world have agreed to, that we are not walking away from this. We want this to work, but we want it to work properly. There is nothing in this Queen’s Speech to make me believe that it will do anything to improve the situation we have been landed with.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), although I am afraid that I cannot agree with his every statement.
I would like to focus on the welcome emphasis on research and innovation in the Gracious Speech. Properly drawn, the Higher Education and Research Bill, the digital economy Bill, the education for all Bill and the modern transport Bill should work together to upgrade the very foundations of our knowledge economy, unlocking a UK robotics revolution, boosting our space sector, laying the infrastructure for our data-hungry economy and, crucially, underpinning all this with a pipeline of core science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM —skills, and investment in research and development.
I am sure Members will be devastated to hear that I cannot go into detail on all those Bills, but I hope they will be overjoyed to hear that the Science and Technology Committee will shortly be publishing its report on space and satellites, including its conclusions on a spaceport, and that we have just begun our inquiry into artificial intelligence and robotics, which will be looking at driverless cars. We will ensure that we report in time to inform the progress of the modern transport Bill.
Whether we are talking about artificial intelligence and robotics, about the space sector or about our digital economy, the scarlet thread running through the evidence that we are receiving is that we have a STEM skills crisis in the UK, especially in digital skills, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. So while I welcome the ambition of the education for all Bill and the infrastructure investment that will flow from the digital economy Bill, I urge the Government to produce their long-overdue digital strategy and to ensure that they not only take into account the findings of the Shadbolt and Wakeham reviews but meet the scale of the skills challenge that we are facing.
I know that the Minister is aware that the Science and Technology Committee has been taking a keen interest in the higher education and research Bill. I am glad to see that a number of the concerns raised by the community have been taken on board already. In particular, I am glad to see that the timetable for the teaching excellence framework has been amended and that the technical paper has been published alongside it, although, as we have heard, there will be a rigorous debate not only on the timetable but on the quality and metrics measures that will be appropriate to ensure that the TEF delivers what it is intended to deliver.
I also welcome the restatement of the Haldane principle and the Government’s intention to enshrine the dual support system into law, but bringing all funding into UK Research and Innovation—UKRI—will require a separation in practice as well as in principle if we are to preserve the excellence-based allocation on which our world-leading system is founded. The quality of leadership, not just at UKRI level but at research council level, will play a key role in delivering this, but we cannot leave the health of our science and innovation system to the whim of personality. We have to ensure that the structures we set in place safeguard the autonomy and the strong voices of our existing research councils while achieving the stated goal of better interdisciplinary working. With a single accounting officer, I fear that this will be challenging.
There has also been concern about merging Innovate UK into UKRI, some of which was based on the fact that Innovate UK’s budget is not ring-fenced and some on fears about annexation. Many have welcomed the renaming of Research UK as UKRI as it puts innovation right at the heart of the organisation’s agenda and, obviously, innovation funding has been hypothecated. In practice, however, questions still remain. How will Innovate UK retain a clear, separate, business-facing focus and not become research facing? In the new structure, how will we stimulate our innovation sector so that it comes to match our research sector for excellence and efficiency? To achieve that, we need to know where we are going. What is the vision for not only the Higher Education and Research Bill, but this clutch of innovation-driven Bills? How will we ensure that we join them up seamlessly against all the natural impetus of the Whitehall machine?
On higher education, the Government have been clear about their intent that competitiveness and the TEF will raise teaching standards, increase transparency and drive improvements in diversity. Few would argue with those aims. In research and innovation, however, the scale of change does not seem to be matched by the ambition of merging all research councils to improve interdisciplinary working. We can do better than that. Reform on such a scale is disruptive and requires buy-in. To get that buy-in, the Government need to articulate clearly their vision for the future of research and innovation and explain not only why the disruptive changes will be worth it in the end, but how we will safeguard our science and innovation ecosystem—a national treasure—from unintended harm during the process.
I welcome the fact that the proposed office for students will have oversight of the sustainability of HE, but given the effective removal of the structural link between teaching and research—one of our innovation systems’ key strengths—I would like to know who will have responsibility for monitoring the health of the whole system as we progress through the reforms. It is possible that that job is envisaged for the Council for Science and Technology in lieu of the ministerial committee, but I question its capacity to deliver in its current form. Sir Paul Nurse proposed that UKRI form closer links with the Government through a ministerial committee with a Government-wide perspective on research priorities, but the committee was supposed to be about not just horizon-scanning and health-checking, but high-level leadership and accountability for science and innovation across Government. It is not clear how the CST will be able to deliver that function.
The Chancellor has long prioritised science and innovation spending, even in times of austerity, because he recognises that the science and innovation budget is a strategic national investment, not a state subsidy. We now have a major programme of cross-Government reform to match that ambition. I congratulate the Government on recognising that we have no time to lose in backing science and innovation as a key strategic asset and a driver of our national knowledge economy, but we should be under no illusions. The Higher Education and Research Bill alone is the most far-reaching reform since the 1960s, which should not be taken lightly.
In this place, we often mention that the UK punches well above its weight in science and innovation and that we have four of the world’s top six universities, and we should be proud of our research base’s exceptional impact, but we should never forget the responsibility that that brings. As we contemplate new structures and regulations, it is our responsibility in this Chamber not only to guard jealously the health and vibrancy of our science and technology base as a strategic national asset, but to go further and ensure that our decisions do more than maintain the status quo. The decisions that we make with these innovative, forward-thinking Bills must ensure that we take this extraordinary jewel in our crown and supercharge it, matching infrastructure with skills and excellence with efficiency, and delivering in the process a science and innovation ecosystem that not only drives our economy ever more productively and creatively, but fuels the very discoveries that will unlock the great global challenges of our age.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I am grateful for being allowed to speak during this debate on the Queen’s Speech. It was a one nation speech, and I will be speaking mainly about my nation, Scotland, and my hopes to improve legislation here. This is a UK Parliament, I am elected as a Member of a UK Parliament, and—for the benefit of Government Members—I come from Scotland.
There are many things to welcome in the Queen’s Speech, but many more things could be improved on given our experiences in Scotland. It would appear that the Secretary of State for Education’s U-turn is complete and that there should be no forced academisation of schools in England, which is good. However, I have heard it rumoured that cuts to local authority education resource funding might mean that authorities do not have the cash that helps them to improve school services in their areas and that that would lead schools to become academies anyway. No proof has been provided that academisation improves educational attainment—I did not say that; Michael Wilshaw said that. The free schools model came from Sweden, where it has now been decided that such schools are a political failure. I am glad that we have neither academies nor free schools in Scotland.
Turning to the Higher Education and Research Bill, which is mainly for England, it at least has the laudable aim of improving access to higher education, which should be welcomed across the United Kingdom. However, I find it difficult to believe that widening access can actually happen under a Government that have systematically cut funding to poorer students since 2015 and before. Maintenance grants are being abolished. Disabled students’ allowances are being cut. The National Scholarship Programme has been abolished. The educational maintenance allowance, which helps poorer students in both schools and further education, has also been abolished. How can such students possibly move on and access higher education if they are crippled by debt? In England, the number of part-time students has been reduced by 38%, and there are 180,000 fewer mature students in higher education since 2010. As a former further education lecturer, I find that unconscionable. Mature students bring so much to higher and further education, so it is impossible to understand why any Government would want to reduce their chances.
In Scotland, we do not charge fees. We still pay the education maintenance allowance. We actively encourage students to move forward in higher education. We do not simply ask universities to publish information on the types of students from deprived backgrounds who are accessing their services; we have actually legislated that universities must show that they are improving access for our most disadvantaged students. That is an absolute must, and I encourage the Government to look at what Scotland has done. It is important that they not only ask, but tell universities to encourage people from BME backgrounds, disabled people and those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.
One reason why many disadvantaged students do not go to university is the cost. In Scotland, we believe that students should access university based on ability, not the ability to pay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has had that sentiment carved into a rock in Edinburgh at Heriot-Watt University—my alma mater. It is a subject with which the majority of people in Scotland totally agree.
Jenny Chapman
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying, but before she gets too smug, will she promise to go away and read the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’s report on elitism in Scotland?
Marion Fellows
I most certainly will, but I remind the hon. Lady that the First Minister, who has been re-elected on a huge mandate, has put education at the heart of her Government and has asked to be judged on her progress.
Many people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would agree with me that university fees are a huge barrier to higher and further education.
Rebecca Pow
I have great respect for the hon. Lady as she has taught within this system. However, it does not seem like a good one nation system, because if my son were to go to university in Scotland, not only would he have to do a four-year course rather than a three-year one, but he would have to pay whereas his Scottish colleagues would all be going for free.
Marion Fellows
If Scotland was independent, that would not happen, because we would be members of the European Union. So the answer is: give us our independence.
Although I welcome a lot of what is in the Bill, it is important to say that encouraging mature disadvantaged people to go to university only increases the standing of any country within the UK. Everyone from across the Chamber should agree with that. Education does not just benefit the person who gets it. I stand here as someone who went to university in 1967, at a time when women did not go to university and when women of my background did not get a chance; I had very far-sighted parents who actively encouraged me to make the best of what I could. As a result of that, I have been able to contribute back to Scotland greatly. As I have said, I ended up working in further education. I do not want to name names, but for someone in this Chamber to say that education benefits only those who get it is a total piece of nonsense.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
I totally agree with the hon. Lady that having more and more of our fellow citizens in higher education is good for the whole nation, which is why we are here to promote that. Does she therefore welcome the fact that the proportion of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds in higher education has increased from 13.6% in 2010 to 18.5% in 2015-16?
Marion Fellows
I welcome any increase in access for people from poorer backgrounds, but I do not think accessing education should come at the risk of being in debt for the remainder or quite a long part of someone’s adult life.
The National Union of Students in Scotland and in England has said that it is really likely that higher education fees will rise yet again here, and that just underlines my point.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I listened with great interest to what the hon. Lady has been saying. The points she is making are all well and good, but I wish to ask one simple question: where would the money come from if the fees were taken away?
Marion Fellows
Government is about choices. May I suggest that the Government get rid of Trident and plough the money into education? That is a simple choice, and it is the obvious choice for me. It may not be the obvious choice for Conservative Members, but there are other things that can be done. Being in government is about choices and this Government need to look at the choices they are making by increasing the likelihood of higher fees for university students.
Let me discuss another of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech—the Children and Social Work Bill. The Chair of the Education Committee has alluded to the fact that our Committee has a report under commission, although it is not yet ready to be published and so I have to be careful about what I say. A former report examined the situation of looked-after children and their mental health needs, and that was quite an eye-opener for me. Everything I do on the Education Committee tends to be an eye-opener, because a lot of what I do I do not understand until I have gone through the process of writing a report with the Committee, as I am dealing with a totally different situation. In Scotland, we have a system for looked-after children, and all children in fact, called “Getting it right for every child”. Our system is very child-focused and is based on an understanding of the wellbeing of the child. It tackles inequality and—[Interruption.] Sorry, I realise that I have run out of time, but thank you for allowing me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to say, however, that prior to your arrival you missed a parade of relatively churlish speeches from Opposition Members, which I found surprising, as the Queen’s Speech appears to be a smorgasbord of legislative delights. It is a legislative Milk Tray, filled with hard and soft centres, from which one can take one’s pick—perhaps the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) was worried that he would get the coffee cream. In the Speech that he described as “rubbish” I found a huge amount of value, and I wish to take the opportunity today to run through some of the issues that will be important in the months to come.
The Children and Social Work Bill, to which the hon. Lady referred, is possibly the most important Bill in this Session. In his conference speech from October of the year before last—I believe it was then—the Prime Minister electrified the room by painting a fairly bleak picture of the lives of children in care. They are four times more likely to commit suicide, and 70% of all prostitutes in the UK have been through the care system. He told us all then that the care system shamed us all as a nation, and he was quite right. It is therefore a tribute to him and to the Minister for Children and Families that this Bill has appeared. That Minister said at the outset that his mission was to put children in care front and centre of the political debate, and he appears to have achieved that.
The Bill contains many measures that will be vital to those children’s lives in the future, but let me mention two in particular. The first is the focus on getting local authorities to realise that they are corporate parents—that these children are their charges and should not necessarily be competing for attention and resources with other issues, be it potholes, refuse or whatever it might be. We would not put our own children second to other requirements in our house, so why would we put children in care second, third or even last on the list in the priorities for a local authority? Defining more clearly for local authorities what their responsibilities are to those children, what their obligations are and the fact that they have to publish those and consult on them locally with people will be vital in creating transparency on the way these children live in all our communities.
The second measure is the concentration on leaving care. It may well be that we are not looking after these children terribly well or that we are looking after them patchily in the care system, but when they leave care our obligation to them does not cease. Providing each of them with an adviser up to the age of 25, improving leaving care services and, in particular, getting local authorities to publish their plans for leaving care and to consult on them, allowing local people to see what is being done in their name to all of our collective children, will be vital to driving standards up.
I would, however, like to see two areas added to the Bill, so I put the Minister on notice here. First, if it is right that children leaving care should have an adviser up to 25, surely it is also right that we look earlier in their lives at how we might be able to influence their outcomes in their adult life. In particular, I am thinking about what happens where educational attainment is extremely low. It strikes me that a sensible thing to do for those children who are underachieving—this is what any parent would do—is to try to look for assistance outside of school. In London, there is this strange phenomenon whereby parents of underperforming children who are entitled to free school meals are still managing to scrape together the money to pay for a tutor. I do not understand why officials in local authorities do not look at children in care as they would their own children and say, “If they are underachieving, we should be providing them with tutors.”
The Government have done lots around designated teachers, and there is more to come in this Bill, and lots around virtual headteachers, but there is no substitute for one-to-one assistance for children in care as they go through education, particularly the early years. Four, five, six and seven are critical ages for setting the foundation for future life. If those children were to get one-to-one tuition, as the most privileged kids—and often non-privileged kids—do in our society, it would make a big difference.
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Do you think that your suggestions about the care of children would link very well—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am really sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but now that we are in the second Session of this Parliament, I cannot allow Members to use the word “you” when they mean the hon. Gentleman. If one says “you”, one means the Chair. We were quite easy on that during the first part of this Parliament, but from now on, Members must observe these niceties correctly please. The hon. Lady may finish her intervention.
Rebecca Pow
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that you make an exceedingly good point? I am suitably reprimanded. The point that I was trying to make is that these suggestions in relation to the care system link very well with our reforms of the prison system. Too often, people in prison have gone through many care systems themselves.
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come on to some of those points a little later. Incidentally, Madam Deputy Speaker, “youse” is a term of abuse in Liverpool, so you absolutely should not allow that in the Chamber.
Secondly, private schools have charitable status, and I wonder whether there is more we can do to encourage them to take on children in care. By my maths, if each private school were to take about 20 children, which is not a huge amount in a school of 400 to 600, it would mean that every child in care could go to a private school. Given that those schools benefit from charitable status, they should look a little further than their local community and consider allowing some of our more disadvantaged children to take advantage of the facilities that they provide. I look forward to helping that Bill through its passage, as it will be incredibly valuable.
Let me rattle through some other issues. The initiatives that are proposed on prisons, courts reform, and policing and crime, which allow for greater innovation, will be vital. As a famous Labour politician once said:
“I bear the scars on my back”
from trying to do a moderate amount of innovation in the criminal justice system at Feltham. We attempted to look at youth offending from a different point of view. It was an incredibly difficult and bureaucratic process. In the end, the attempt foundered in a morass of something like 19 organisations that were required to agree and a Ministry of Justice that was broadly reluctant. Getting innovation into the criminal justice system and giving people on the ground the ability to create and design their own solutions to the problems that we face, such as education in prisons, will be absolutely key.
The Digital Economy Bill is incredibly exciting for those of us who have rural constituencies, as it recognises that 25% of all small businesses—that is half a million small businesses—are registered in rural area. Allowing people to have the right to demand a universal service obligation of 10 megabits for their internet is absolutely critical. Twelve per cent. of GDP now comes to the internet in the UK, so, if we are to grow as an economy, it is vital that we connect up all the people.
Many of us have neighbourhood plans in our constituencies. I have several going to referendum this year, and one is going through already. If the Government are to get people to take up their planning policy, it is vital that neighbourhood planning is strengthened and protected. I understand that the neighbourhood planning Bill is designed to do that. In particular, it will allow local authorities greater scope to protect their own five-year housing supply figures, so that developers cannot constantly challenge them, or wear them down by a war of attrition in the courts and with the planning inspectors, to get their way on speculative developments. There will be many Members from rural communities and elsewhere who will be watching that Bill with care.
The modern transport Bill is very exciting. If we are to be at the forefront of developments, we need to grab this technology for ourselves, rather than, as the British normally do, allow the Japanese to miniaturise it and the Americans to consumerise it. We should take some of the things that we have invented and try to exploit them. Although modern transport is largely focused around autonomous cars, I urge Ministers to look at the hydrogen economy. There is absolutely no doubt that the fuel cell is coming. In California, Toyota has already launched the Mirai, the next generation Prius. It is a hydrogen fuel cell car. Powered by hydrogen, the car emits only water. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and holds out the option of extremely cheap power for all of us, and so using this Bill to accelerate our adoption of that technology is key.
Finally, the better markets Bill holds out enormous promise for consumers, in particular those who want to shift banks. I have one plea: please may we use the Bill to get rid of the requirement to produce utility bills wherever we go? For those of us who pay by direct debit and are paperless, those things are anachronistic, and the foresters of Britain will rejoice at the trees that will not be required to be felled as a result.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I agreed with much of what he said. It is also good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who made a powerful speech about the current devolution offer from the Government. He is right to raise concerns, but the deal that has been presented must be a stepping stone to the real devolution that the north-east deserves. I hope that Gateshead can find its way back to rejoin the process, as we are much stronger together as a region.
I, along with many Members on both sides of the House, cautiously welcomed the climbdown that appeared to have taken place from the nonsensical idea of forcing all schools down the path of academisation by 2020. It is true that the education for all Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech did not include the wholesale forced academisation of our schools through legislation, but the Government continue to state that the Bill is being brought forward
“to lay foundations for educational excellence in all schools, giving every child the best start in life”—
an aim which every Member in this Chamber shares—but that this will be done by moving
“towards a system where all schools are academies, and all schools are funded fairly.”
Despite there being no evidence that academisation leads to improved performance, we are informed that one of the main “benefits” of the Bill will be to
“convert schools to academies in the worst performing local authorities and those that can no longer viably support their remaining schools, so that a new system led by good and outstanding schools can take their place.”
Given that the education services grant, which funds local authority spending on school improvement services, the management of school buildings and the tackling of non-attendance, was cut by £200 million, or 20%, in 2015-16, and is to be cut by £600 million, or 75%, from 2016-17 to 2019-20, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify which councils the Government expect will still be able to support their local schools viably in such financial circumstances.
As the National Association of Head Teachers has pointed out, the Bill will mean that
“good and outstanding schools can still be made to convert, regardless of the professional judgement of school leaders, the opposition of parents and the best interests of local communities. Schools have had the chance to convert over many years, and many have considered and rejected this as a way forward.”
Of course, we know that many other schools are already “choosing”—I put that non-modal verb in inverted commas—to go down the path of academisation because they would rather jump before they are pushed. Many will have started down that path following the announcement of forced academisation of all schools at the Budget, and will continue down it because they can see that the Government’s professed U-turn and promises of having listened to everyone’s concerns are clearly not all that they are cracked up to be.
The education for all Bill also promises to make school funding fairer, with a national funding formula that will ensure that
“schools with the same kinds of pupils get the same funding.”
Can the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to go ahead with the area cost adjustment multiplier to the formula, which would see schools in my region, the north-east, losing out?
As the Director of Schools NorthEast commented:
“Ironically, the Government risks fuelling the North-South divide in education by proposing to fund schools with similar characteristics differently, based on their location. This means that our region will be losing funds to the south, where most high-cost areas are located. The rationale behind this is flawed.”
These concerns are extremely timely, given the findings of an IPPR North report earlier this week that secondary schools in the north of England—or the northern powerhouse, to give us our correct title—are receiving £1,300 per pupil less than schools in London. The situation needs rectifying, and quickly, if the northern powerhouse is ever to become anything more than an empty announcement.
The Children and Social Work Bill seeks to shorten the time it takes for children to be placed in a secure, stable, loving family, as well as placing additional duties on local authorities to ensure that children and young people leaving the care system are provided with support. Again, there is not a Member in the House who would not support those aims.
We have only to look at the Prison Reform Trust report by Lord Laming, which was published this week, to be reminded that too many of our children in care are being let down. The report found that up to half the children in custody in England and Wales have been in the care system at some point. Indeed, 23% of the adult prison population have been in care, which suggests that something has gone badly wrong in our system.
As Barnardo’s has highlighted, the Bill is the second piece of legislation to address adoption in as many years, so the Government’s rhetoric really must now be translated into action on the ground. However, as Barnardo’s also made clear, this is a complex challenge. Three thousand children in the UK are waiting to be adopted, and they are waiting an average of two years, although some wait as long as three and a half years if they are older. I therefore strongly welcome any measures that will genuinely and sustainably help to speed the process up.
For those leaving the care system—about 10,000 young people in England each year—the Government pledge to ensure there is greater support, as well as the right to a personal adviser up to the age of 25. Everybody would welcome both those moves because current service provision simply does not meet demand, and I would argue that that is because one crucial piece of the jigsaw is missing. The “It’s time” campaign by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has powerfully highlighted that almost two thirds of children and young people entering the care system have experienced abuse and neglect, and they are more likely to have mental health needs. However, we are not properly counting and tracking abused and neglected children, including those in the care system, so we do not know whether they are receiving the correct therapeutic support, at the time they need it, to rebuild their lives.
The findings of the Education Committee’s inquiry into the wellbeing and mental health of looked-after children, which was published last month, were truly stark, and they simply must be addressed if the Government are serious about tackling this issue. The Committee heard incredibly powerful evidence from a 16-year-old woman, who told us she had been waiting for child and adolescent mental health services for more than two and a half years but that she had been unable to access them because she had not been in a stable placement—indeed, she had been moved 13 times during that period. CAMHS are often unwilling to treat a child if they move placement, even if that is within the same local authority area. That is clearly unacceptable and, indeed, counterproductive.
It is no good pledging support to children and young people leaving the care system if they are not provided with the support they need on entering it. That is why the Education Committee rightly recommended that all children should have specialist mental health assessments on entering care and regularly throughout their time in care and that they should receive timely and appropriate advice before they reach crisis point. We need to see that key change if we are to increase the number of successful adoptions and long-term placements and to improve the outcomes for those leaving the care system. That is a fundamental building block in achieving the aims I have set out—it is not an added extra—and I strongly urge the Government to consider including it in their reforms.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Education is the building block of our society; it is the foundation of all opportunities. That is why I am delighted the Government are putting at the heart of these proposals the objective of achieving greater social mobility and of ensuring that we have a fine education standard for all.
Delivering on the Conservative party’s manifesto pledge of a new national funding formula is something I am proud of and something that will ensure that all schools in Chippenham get the money they deserve. A fairer funding system is something I have campaigned for for a long time—from well before the election—and I pay tribute to all the members of the fairer funding campaign f40, as well as to the thousands of pupils, parents and teachers in my constituency, and in constituencies up and down the country, who put pressure on the Government to achieve a fairer system early.
For too long, school funding has been extremely unfair towards pupils, particularly in rural areas and market towns. Successive Governments have done generations of children a disservice and, fundamentally, an injustice. The effects have been exacerbated in rural areas, where services are far more expensive to deliver.
The most important aim of the new education Bill is to close the productivity gap between the UK and other countries. The skills plan represents an ambitious reform of technical education to ensure that young people are equipped with the skills they need to succeed. The simple fact is that an under-skilled workforce limits a company’s growth and prospects, and, in turn, the prospects of the country. If our labour supply does not match our jobs market, companies are forced to locate elsewhere, or to close. This threat is real and pertinent in my constituency, and I hear of it week in, week out.
The UK is the 11th-biggest manufacturer in the world, and I was delighted to hear measures in the Queen’s Speech to support the electric car industry. That is a massive opportunity for us that I hope will help Wiltshire businesses. I hope that we can capitalise on it, as can other areas of the country.
Investment in research and development is certainly welcome, but it will be successful only when it is coupled with a further improvement in our education and when we address the skills gap to ensure that we remain competitive in research and development. We must not forget about our severe shortage of engineers. According to the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the country will need almost 2 million extra engineers over the next seven years. This shortage could severely limit our ability to make the most of the Government’s investment.
There are, yes, more teachers with degrees and more pupils studying maths and sciences, but there are still massive shortages. The number of females and those from socially deprived backgrounds in STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—careers remains drastically low. The proportion of women in engineering is just 6%. Something needs to be done to address this, and I hope that the new education Bill will go some way towards that.
We need to improve our career education system. I am delighted by what the Government have already done to join up the link between business and schools. Sheldon School in my constituency, which I visited last week, has just launched an excellent and innovative scheme that focuses on a membership of local businesses that support career education, advice and opportunities for young people, in turn funding their work experience programme. This is the blueprint of what we should be doing up and down the country. I would like to invite the Minister, or the Secretary of State if she has the time, to the opening on 5 July of this programme, which we could utilise elsewhere. It would place an emphasis on local labour market intelligence and inform young people about the local jobs available. Informed education and career choices will ensure that areas such as Wiltshire retain some of its young so that we can reverse the draining away of youth that is happening in constituencies like mine and safeguard our high-tech and engineering hub to ensure that young people have the skill sets to do the jobs available.
It is quite simple, really: to make our economy productive we need to have an education system that is productive. The Minister will know full well that I have regularly campaigned to get design and technology made part of the EBacc. For too long, design and technology and engineering subjects have been misunderstood, stigmatised and stereotyped. If we are to plug the ever-growing skills gap, we need to address this, and the widely acknowledged productivity crisis, head on. We must listen to business and take urgent action. I am confident that the education Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech will take some good steps towards addressing our productivity crisis.
Jo Churchill
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that we look to all businesses? I have been approached by bakers and clockmakers in my constituency who find that the apprenticeship scheme needs a little more flexibility in order to cope with small business needs as well as those of the large ones she has mentioned.
Michelle Donelan
I am delighted by my hon. Friend’s excellent point. We do indeed need to make sure that we are supporting all businesses. Bakers, plumbers, electricians and so on are the backbone of our economy, and very important to constituencies like ours.
The Government are rightly pushing ahead with ensuring that education is rigorous and that students get the key skills and core skills that they need in the workplace. I fully support this, and I would never, ever suggest that it is anything but a robust and clear plan. However, the push towards the EBacc in its current form threatens to undermine the progress being made and does not address the stigma against design and technology and engineering. I hope that the new education Bill will address this. I would like the vastly improved, highly academic, highly scientific design and technology GCSE that we now have to include the option of a science element. There is huge support for this within the business community, who are crying out for change. Let me be clear: this would not represent a U-turn on policy but would be a minor change to strengthen, improve and safeguard the Ebacc. Given the scientific and academic nature of the new design and technology GCSE, which this Government have invested heavily in and done a great deal of work on, there will be no outcry from other vocational subjects, because this is a totally different matter.
There is also a precedent with computer science, which was introduced to the EBacc because of shortages in the field. Yet that does not make a lot of sense when the shortages in design and technology, manufacturing and engineering are far greater than those in the digital industries.
What I am proposing is that design and technology be included as a science-based option, just like computer science, but that there should be an either/or choice so that students can pick between the two. That would ensure that it does not water down the EBacc or its academic rigour; instead, it would enhance it. It would also enhance the status of the excellent route into research, development, design and manufacturing provided by design and technology, as well as highlight that this Government have yet again listened to the business community and acknowledged the needs of our future economy.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
That is an excellent suggestion, but does the hon. Lady agree that there is an overlap between design and technology and IT, and that that might be affected by her proposal?
Michelle Donelan
Design and technology is the only subject that puts maths and physics to practical use, and there is no comparable IT-based course for a career in the industry. In fact, design and technology is one of the only subjects that produces a clear pipeline to a career in that sector. We all believe in giving students a choice and the best opportunities for their future.
The simple change I am proposing would be about what businesses, the economy and, if we are honest, students need. It would highlight that the Government understand the need to align our education system more with the economy and give the young the best opportunity in life. If we are to remain at the forefront of global product design, we must take action. I believe that bolstering the design and technology GCSE for inclusion in the EBacc would be an important step towards addressing the skills shortage, safeguarding the future of the subject and supporting skills and British businesses.
As I have said to the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions, the skills shortage is a ticking time bomb. In my constituency, it is one of the key challenges that we face, and I am confident that the measures announced in the Queen’s Speech will take some significant steps towards addressing the skills gap and boosting our productivity. I hope that the measures in the proposed Bill will go far enough to tackling this very important issue.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who made passionate speeches about the importance of our young people.
It is difficult to discuss skills and education and the Queen’s Speech, given what is going to happen on 23 June —which is not so much the elephant as the circus in the room—and the effect it will have on the choices we make, but I am going to give it a go. It is remarkable to hear this Government now saying that increasing the life chances of the most disadvantaged is a priority for them. Given the choices they have made over the past five years, that is like a dentist offering someone anaesthetic after he has taken out their wisdom teeth for no reason.
“Life chances” is one of those phrases that we often use but seldom define, but definition and detail matter, as does determination—the determination to do what it takes to ensure that every person from every background has every opportunity to achieve their potential. I want to set out my fears about how, in today’s ever-changing world, we are running out of time to acknowledge that that means doing things completely differently.
Everyone in this House is proud of the young people we represent. We see their ability and the factors that make the difference between them realising it and wasting it. I do this job because I think that somewhere in my community is a kid who could cure cancer, if only they had the right opportunities to unlock their talents. Imagine how we would all benefit if that happened. That is where we come in: our job is to make sure that they have those pathways to be the kinds of people they can be and change all our lives.
That is where this Queen’s Speech misses the mark. We act as if opportunity is the ladder we have all known and that, to improve life chances for all, we simply need to get more of the next generation to repeat the same steps we took—go to school, go to university and settle into a career. If we are honest, we will admit that it was not that simple or open for us. Most of us can point to the points in our lives when we had a helping hand up that ladder, including good parents, good teachers and good networks. They all opened doors closed to others, by which I mean not just schools and universities, but internships and job interviews, too. The world is changing so quickly that if we are really to change the life chances of today’s 15-year-olds, we need to do more than open up the old boys’ or old girls’ network. We need to see opportunity as less a ladder than a maze, with many different doors, directions and routes to take.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Is it not the case that to give young people opportunity we really need more good and outstanding schools, producing fantastic standards, so that they can go on and fulfil their dreams? That is what we need, and that is what the Government are delivering, is it not?
Stella Creasy
If the hon. Gentleman will let me continue, I hope I will convince him to think bigger. When I was involved in the scouts, we always said that the key to understanding youth work was to recognise that although everybody has been a 15-year-old, not everybody has been a 15-year-old in today’s world. If we really want to improve the life chances of today’s young people, they do not just need our help to get them a job. They do not seek an industry or a profession. They live in a world in which, it is predicted, they will hold seven different careers, two of which are yet to be invented.
Each generation has faced change, but this generation will see it not just in their lifetime, but within a decade. The real challenge to their future prospects is not Romanian immigrants, but robots. Just as Friends Reunited was overtaken by Facebook, so technology is replacing not just manual labour but skilled labour—prescriptions filled, legal forms checked, cars driven and retail services replaced. It is a time of peril and potential: adapt or fall behind. There is little certainty to be had and little time to catch our breath. But the fact that the world moves so quickly means that people can keep learning new skills or reapplying those that they have to the new opportunities that arise. There are more second chances than ever before.
Not only are we failing the next generation by not acting to help them to navigate the world that is to come, but I fear that the measures in the Queen’s Speech could reinforce the inequalities that already define life chances for so many. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has demonstrated that graduates from richer family backgrounds earn significantly more than their less wealthy counterparts, even when they take similar degrees from similar universities.
That is not just happening at university. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that even at good and outstanding schools, there are large attainment gaps between rich and poor students. The OECD states that of all the countries it surveyed, the UK has the biggest gap in literacy and problem-solving skills between 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education or employment and young employed people. Our failure to teach skills that can be transferred and that are relevant in the modern world means that too many of our young people are struggling not just in their home territory but against their European, Chinese and south American counterparts. That is not because we are members of the European Union, but because of their very British education.
As many of my colleagues have pointed out, we face the biggest skill shortage for 30 years. We have growing inequality and an outdated idea of what would fix these issues. The choices made in this Queen’s Speech about what to offer our young people give them little to prepare them for the world to come. At best, those choices will work for only a minority of young people unless they are independently wealthy—beneficiaries of the bank of mum and dad.
The education Bill is a case in point, with its obsession with turning every school into an academy, rather than turning every young person into an achiever. It works against partnership, isolating schools rather than linking them with local businesses and local communities. The Higher Education and Research Bill will put more resource into the “ladders” approach just when young people need more access—to apprenticeships, to further education and to paid internships—to open other doors. The Bill comes at the same time as the area-based review of further education seeks to close down those institutions.
Although the Government’s restatement of their commitment to sharia-compliant loans is welcome, if we fail to deal with the inequalities in resource that affect the poorest in our society in the early years, those people will continue to get a worse deal than their more affluent counterparts even if they make it to the same schools and universities.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for tackling some of the inequalities in our education system. She will know of the huge benefits that were derived from the London challenge. Does she recognise that that model ought to be replicated outside London, in places such as Greater Manchester? Indeed, a Greater Manchester challenge was created, but one of the first acts of this Government was to scrap it.
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are good opportunities to create a change in results to the benefit of young people, but the Government seem to have missed them. The student loan book is bust, and university is not the only door in the maze that our young people can open to unlock their potential. We should be asking the difficult question: why, in a time of tight resources, are young people who make it through their A-levels offered a loan to go to university, but we have nothing to offer those who have a great business start-up idea? When 30% of Britain’s young people want to start a business, perhaps wanting to be the Jay-Z or the Jamal Edwards of their time, we ignore their potential—the doors they want to be opened—at our peril. This Government are focusing on the 50% of kids who do the things we see as important, not the 100% of kids who need access to the bank of mum and dad to succeed.
Money and contacts matter, as does flexibility, but none of these pieces of legislation will fundamentally tackle the inequalities that too many in our country face in accessing such skills and real-life work experience. We need to bring together not just the institutions, but the networks that can help our young people to thrive in the world to come. Ministers may tell me that the answer to the first point is their savings plan in the Queen’s Speech and all such proposals. It is certainly true to say, “Save more and you can make more choices about studying”, but lifetime ISAs will mean nothing to families who have no savings at all—those who have no spare money in the week, let alone the month.
In 2010, I stood in the Chamber and fought for the child trust fund to be saved. It was a scheme proven to help those from the poorest income backgrounds the most. In 2020, the first of them will mature, giving all 18-year-olds something—perhaps not much, but something. Instead, with the lifetime ISA, such inequalities in wealth will become even more about the difference between having money to spare and having no money at all.
Recent research shows that the bank of mum and dad bails out grown-up children an average of four times, to the value of £6,000, even after they have left home. Indeed, one in three parents have been left cash-strapped after lending money to their children. One in seven parents have had to borrow money themselves to bail out their grown-up children. This Government are reinforcing inequality, wasting potential and failing one generation while locking another into debt to try to help them. If we want to stop lagging behind our counterparts, if we really want to give our children more life chances, if we want to benefit from their potential, we have to learn to compete in the global economy, not to capsize, and that means taking a completely different approach.
Instead of what this Government are doing, we need to bring different services together. We need to link universities, businesses, schools, further education colleges and communities, not segregate them. We need to break down the old divisions between education and working life, and between conventional academic achievement and lifelong employability. We need to move away from teaching functional skills that are outdated almost as soon as they are learned. Instead, our young people need real-world learning experiences and transferable talents, such as complex problem-solving and team-working skills, much as the hon. Member for Chippenham set out. We need fundamentally to rethink how we spend resources and share them, offering loans and support not just to 50% of young people, but to 100% of them. That will end their need to have the bank of mum and dad on their side if they are going to survive the 21st century.
I therefore urge Ministers not to assume that their own life choices should define the life chances we offer all young people, but I fear that plea will fall on deaf ears. That is why this Queen’s Speech proves that, under this Government, we will always be a nation playing catch-up with our present, not shaping our own future—getting the public further into debt to keep going, not to get going, and making the bank of mum and dad the only hope to the detriment of too many and to the cost of us all.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Addressing issues with the skills base will be key to tackling the productivity gap to ensure we have a long-term successful and sustainable economy. Ensuring our young people are equipped with the skills to succeed in life needs to underpin the entire education system—schools, colleges and universities. Our young people need this, and so do our businesses. We need to ensure that our young people have the skills to contribute to our economy.
It is not our education system alone that can help to improve our young people’s life chances. The National Citizen Service is a fantastic programme that, to date, has enabled 200,000 15 to 17-year-olds to benefit from new and different life experiences. During the past couple of years, I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to see at first hand the benefits gained by young people in Cannock Chase from the NCS programme delivered by Coachright. I have joined them in planning their community projects, and we have packed bags for customers in Sainsbury’s and filled boxes for the Cannock and District food bank.
The outward bound part of the programme is a great start and a real favourite with the participants. One can see how many of them have overcome a lot of fears. I have not attended that part of the programme yet, but I know the Coachright team are quite keen for me to take part to overcome one of my own fears—a fear of heights. Another blonde Member of this House is well known for experiences on a zip-wire; I only hope that if I find myself on one, I do not get stuck.
At graduation ceremonies I have seen how participants have grown in confidence, learned new leadership and team-building skills, and been truly inspired. I welcome plans to extend the scheme so that more young people from a variety of backgrounds can benefit from that life-changing experience. I also welcome the duty on schools, colleges and local authorities to make young people and their parents aware of the scheme.
Jo Churchill
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is huge benefit to our young people from the last part of the programme—the social action part—under which some 6 million hours of volunteering have been invested not only in the young people themselves but in the broader economy? That is of huge benefit in teaching them several valuable life lessons.
Amanda Milling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just about young people—the local communities really gain. As I said, we were packing bags in the local Sainsbury’s to raise money for a local charity. A wide range of community groups and charities benefit from the scheme.
Making sure that young people are aware of the different options and opportunities available, whether qualifications or career paths, is absolutely essential. I am therefore pleased that there is a new requirement on schools to inform students about apprenticeships and other vocational qualifications—after all, university is not the right option for everyone.
We must ensure that those who want to go to university get the best value from their experience, and do not graduate into non-graduate jobs. The lifting of the artificial cap on student numbers means that many more university places are being made available and record numbers of students are going to university. That is excellent news. However, the number of graduates going into non-graduate jobs is concerning. All too often, we hear students, parents and businesses ask a very worrying question: is a degree really worth it? The Higher Education and Research Bill gives us a blueprint for making what is already a great university sector even better. To date, the higher education sector has been too heavily geared towards academic research. The Bill will sharpen the focus in universities on quality teaching and on getting students into good graduate opportunities.
Alongside the Higher Education and Research Bill, the new teaching excellence framework will put in place incentives designed to drive up the standard of teaching in all universities and provide students with more clarity on where teaching is best and on the benefits that they can expect to gain from their course. That will create more competition, ensuring that all universities raise their game. The link between the TEF and tuition fees is crucial, as it provides a mechanism for ensuring that universities can remain financially sustainable, but only if they continue to drive up the quality of their teaching.
The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee looked carefully at the plans for the TEF earlier this year in our inquiry into teaching quality in higher education. Our report recognised the role that the TEF could play in ensuring that universities meet student expectations and improve on their leading international position. However, we urged the Government not to rush the TEF’s introduction, so I am pleased that the White Paper confirmed that 2017-18 will be a trial year. I am sure that the sector will welcome the opportunity to have further input into the TEF technical consultation that the Department has launched.
Our report also called on the sector to work with the Government to help develop the TEF. I hope it does so, because it is important for the sector’s future, its financial sustainability and the employment and career opportunities of our graduates, as well as for our economy. We will scrutinise the details of the Higher Education and Research Bill in the coming weeks, but it is increasingly clear—not least from their amendment—that the Opposition do not have a credible plan for higher education other than to threaten the financial sustainability of our world-class higher education sector.
Addressing the skills of our young people will be key to helping us solve the productivity puzzle. That is why I welcome the many measures set out in the Queen’s Speech that are designed to ensure our young people have the skills to get on in life.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), and I enjoyed picturing her as a blonde on a wire. I am sure she will not get stuck, and I admire the gusto with which she undertakes her role as a constituency MP. However, she did make me reflect on the introduction of the National Citizen Service, alongside the demise of our youth service. I wish the NCS well, but I regret that my local community no longer has a targeted, effective resource to deal with real and immediate problems, not just for young people, but for the wider community.
It is also a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), although I wish we had conferred a little earlier because I found myself scratching out large segments of my speech. She did a great job of explaining why the credibility of the life chances strategy will be questionable when it emerges, given the Government’s record.
I find myself pondering the term “life chances”. It is a much better term than “social mobility”, which is not particularly widely understood. I looked it up, and found that “life chances” was initially coined by Max Weber, the famous sociologist, and it is a positive thing that the Tories are taking reference from his work. My concern, however, is that the term “life chances” will become rubbished because the Government will mess things up, and will not deliver any meaningful improvement in life chances to most people in the country. The term could well go the way of “localism”, “the big society” and—increasingly in my part of the country—“the northern powerhouse”. That term is treated with utter derision and contempt, and I would hate that to happen to “life chances”. I am no one’s class warrior, but I am Labour, and we are about life chances and widening equality of opportunity. That is what we are here for—all Labour Members are in the Labour party because they are interested in life chances. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention if someone wishes to make one.
It is difficult to see how the Government intend to proceed with improving life chances. They are still paying for a social mobility and child poverty commission, which writes excellent, first-class reports and commissions superb research, yet there is precious little sight of that in any Government policies. The commission makes specific recommendations that relate directly to the issues under consideration, but the Government ignore them.
We have heard from many Members who are worried about the quality of apprenticeships—I know I am, and I have seen extremely questionable examples of short, poor-quality apprenticeships that do not lead anywhere. According to the commission, we should have a target of around 30,000 higher level, level 3 apprenticeships. Life chances differ depending on what someone does when they are 16. The decisions they make then determine their life chances for the rest of their life. If they take a non-academic route, their chances of doing well later in life are greatly diminished.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend reminds me of the Aimhigher scheme that operated in my constituency in 2010. It was all about encouraging young people from deprived backgrounds to think that higher education was something for them—basically, it did the things that my mum and dad did to encourage me to go into higher education. Is it not a travesty for those young people that one of this Government’s first actions was to scrap Aimhigher?
Jenny Chapman
It is. Our universities do not do nearly enough to encourage a broader range of people to attend their institutions. There are little schemes—I am sure there are some lovely pockets of good practice around the country; I have seen some gorgeous things with primary school children wearing hats around local universities—but their long-term impact is very weak.
We find that the life chances of non-graduates, the people who do not go on to university, are limited. Some 42% do okay: they find themselves in the top half of occupations, are relatively well paid, and receive further training and progression throughout their careers. However, men in lower-half occupations are low paid, with no progression. They make up 16% of non-graduates. They are mostly younger men and they work in lower-paying occupations. There are then the skilled but stuck. Generally, they are women in part-time work. They, too, make up 16% of non-graduates. They are mostly mothers working in low-paying occupations, such as sales and customer service, because they are unable to retrain, get childcare or part-time work in occupations for which they may well be qualified.
About 26% of non-graduates are young, tend to have children and have low qualifications. Again, they are mainly women. They are at real risk of getting stuck. They may have messed up and not done so well in their GCSEs. Perhaps they did not get any advice on what was best for them and made a poor choice. They may have ended up doing hairdressing, beauty therapy or going into another low-paid profession because their friends were doing it and the alternatives were not explained to them. It is now almost impossible for them to get out of that profession and into something with a real chance of progression. If we are talking about life chances, it is this stage in education—if I could fix one thing—that really needs to be addressed. It is underfunded and ignored. There is no decent advice for young people before they make these decisions.
One recommendation from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission is for a common access point. For young people going to university there is the UCAS system. They make their application and are supported through the process. There are deadlines and they understand the process. There is a whole host of information about the outcomes, routes and destinations available on the internet. There is nothing like that for those trying to get on a further education course and that needs to be addressed.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an extremely interesting and apposite speech. As the father of five children who have gone through the age of 16, your point—sorry, the hon. Lady’s point; forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I deserve to be hanged—about the age of 16 being a crucial time for decision making is so very important. I just want to reinforce that point, having watched five children go through the age of 16. It is so incredibly important. People should recognise that 16 is the golden age.
Jenny Chapman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is great to have support across the House on this point.
On GCSE and A-level results days we send out tweets congratulating young people, schools and parents. In our constituencies and nationally, there is a sense of an event. There is nothing like that attention, celebration or recognition for non-academic, post-16 qualifications. We do not have the same sense of a nation coming together to recognise the achievement of our young people when they receive their NVQ level 3 in whatever it might be.
Such an inequality of status in qualifications at that age is wrong and something we need to address if we are serious about promoting non-graduate routes into the professions. Let us be honest: most of us will be encouraging our children to take a certain route, involving A-levels and university, because we know that that is how a person gets the best chances. Until non-graduate or non-academic qualifications post-16 bring with them the same opportunities, life chances, employment opportunities and pay, life chances will remain desperately unequal and how well someone succeeds will have nothing to do with what they know but will depend on who they know, who advises them and—even worse—who their parents know. We will not have equality of life chances until we address that simple issue.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the considered tone of the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), whose speeches I always greatly enjoy.
Every year since I was elected in 2010, I have been overwhelmed by the pageantry associated with the Queen’s Speech, particularly the horses and the evocative sights and sounds that accompany the occasion. For a variety of reasons, however, I have never been able to speak in the Queen’s Speech debate, so I am pleased to do so today.
I welcome the legislative programme, especially the focus on life chances, which has featured so much in today’s debate. The focus on the life chances of the most disadvantaged is widely welcomed across the House. In some ways, it is becoming a competition to see which party can be the most progressive, which is a terrific way to proceed. I particularly welcome the proposed Bill on prison reform. Clearly, time in prison is designed to punish, but just as important is rehabilitation, as we are acknowledging more today than ever before, so that Bill will be hugely important.
The theme of today’s debate is education, skills and training, but because those policy areas are devolved in my constituency, they are not matters on which I want to contribute directly. It is logical, however, that I speak about the Wales Bill, which will cover education in Wales. The House might have observed the growing tradition of having a Wales Bill in every Queen’s Speech—pretty much every Queen’s Speech has had a Wales Bill since I have been here. We do not know what will be in the Wales Bill, but we have a fair idea, because the last Parliament considered a draft Wales Bill in great detail. We can hazard a pretty good guess, therefore, about what will be in this one.
We expect to see the Bill fairly soon—the rumour is that it will be finished before the summer—and that its aim will be to deliver a stronger, more stable and financially accountable devolved settlement in Wales. The journey towards the institution of government in Wales began many decades ago, but the first major step was the 1997 referendum on whether to establish it. I did not support the idea of a Welsh Assembly in 1997—I campaigned against it—mainly because I thought we were being sold a pup: an unstable and illogical institution that, as it stood, was doomed to failure. But Wales voted yes by the narrowest of margins.
I was driving home from the count in the early hours of the morning on 19 September 1997 and I did what Conservatives tend to do; I came to terms with the new situation—something that some of us might find ourselves doing on 24 June. It was decided that there would be a Welsh Assembly elected by the additional member proportional representation system, which virtually guaranteed a Labour or Labour-led Administration. I committed to the Assembly and became a Member. I was a Member for eight years and probably would still be, had it not been for how the PR system works. I sometimes look on serving as an MP as compensation for losing my position in the Welsh Assembly.
I look forward to participating in the debate on the Wales Bill, and I know there will be many differing opinions, including within my own party. Fundamentally, my position on what change is necessary is that we need devolution of responsibility for income tax. That is the main reason why I want to speak in today’s debate. I believe it to be crucial to a stable Welsh Government.
When I first began raising this viewpoint, perhaps two or three years ago, I recall gaining very little support for it and I felt quite isolated, but that is not the case today. My view is informed by my experience as a Conservative spokesman for finance in the National Assembly for Wales. Every year we went through what we referred to as a “budget process”. It was not really that, however; it was a spending plan. A budget needs consideration on both sides of the ledger—how to raise money and how to spend it. That is where I want the devolutionary process to move so that we can reach that position.
One proposal in the Wales Bill will be to rename the National Assembly as a Parliament—“the Welsh Parliament”. I agree with that and I am supportive of it, but it cannot be called a genuine Parliament if it does not have responsibility for raising part of the money it pays in spending. We have just had a Welsh general election, in which parties other than the Conservative party were basing their campaigns on attacking the Conservative Government at Westminster for not providing enough money for what they wanted to do. That is fine, but it is not what a Welsh general election should be based on. Both sides of the ledger need to be available.
My personal view—quite a strong opinion that I have expressed before—is that unless the Wales Bill includes granting the Assembly the responsibility for levying income tax, and a significant amount of it proportionally, the Bill will deserve to fail. Without financial accountability for the Welsh Government, not one iota more of power should be transferred to the Welsh Parliament. That is absolutely my view.
There will be other red lines when the Wales Bill comes before us. I hope that all parties will come together—this will be necessary—to consider positively how to take the Bill forward. We know that significant changes will be made to the draft Bill, and that the number of powers reserved to Westminster will be far fewer than we were expecting on the basis of the draft Bill. The necessity tests that were in the draft Bill and caused a great deal of concern, particularly on the part of the Welsh Government, are now gone. There are two changes, but there will be other disputed areas where we will need good will to come up with an answer.
The establishment of a Welsh jurisdiction is one area. Over the last three or four years, a body of Welsh law has been developed. Do we need a separate Welsh jurisdiction to deal with it? I think not, but all parties will have to come together to decide how to take that forward in the Bill. What of policing? Should it, along with other emergency services, be devolved? There will be a big dispute about that, so we will have to come together to think about how to deal with it. The same applies to broadcasting. Many people think broadcasting should be devolved, but equally, many people do not.
Delivering a new Wales Bill will not be easy. It is going to be a big challenge for a new Secretary of State for Wales. It is going to need Members of all parties to look positively about how to reach a new agreed position. This will mean working positively here in Westminster and indeed in Cardiff Bay if we are to deliver the stable government in Wales that we all want.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I apologise for missing the Minister’s opening peroration. I am sure it was very impressive and persuasive.
Politicians are, generally speaking, good talkers but poor listeners. However, I and many others listen carefully to the Queen’s Speech. I also try to listen to the Minister for Schools, the Secretary of State for Education and the Department. Indeed, I listened carefully to their avowed policy aims: excellence, opportunity, development and employability—and I applaud them. It is the explanation of their methods, their solutions and their prescriptions that I have a problem with: the restructuring, the tinkering and the arbitrary diktats. Frankly, that is what most people have a problem with when it comes to this Government’s particular policies, but I still try to listen carefully to the arguments even for this. I have picked out three features of their standard arguments that trouble me—what I would call three persistent fallacies, or three repeated mantras—which I shall briefly sketch. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond, because I mean this to be a helpful critique.
First, I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the great Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, but he drew a distinction between good and bad theories. Good theories are testable and, in principle, falsifiable, while bad theories can never be tested, and are never falsifiable. Mindful of that, I have listened when the Minister has cited learned or professional opinion in support of Government policy, and I have heard good evidence and good support; but I have also listened when the Minister has declared that the total absence of any learned or professional backing for some policies is sure evidence that the Government are doing something challenging, difficult, important and, of course, right. Either way, the Government are correct, and the policy is simply unfalsifiable.
The second fallacy follows on from that. When Government policy prompts howls of protest from professionals and teachers—as it often does—that tends to suggest to the Government that the provider interest is being challenged in the interest of the pupils. Recently, they have talked darkly of “vested interests”. That assumes, erroneously, that it is, or could be, in the interests of teachers not to deliver lessons that are relevant, appropriate and interesting to pupils, and aligned with pupils’ development and capabilities. Well, just try doing that—not delivering good lessons—if you are a teacher. Teachers who try not to do it, in any educational context, generally crash and burn. The conflict of interests is simply an illusion.
The third fallacy to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention is the tendency to announce a policy with a laudable objective, which is designed to solve a problem but which is of doubtful efficacy, and then to suggest that rather than its being subjected to proper assessment, it is necessary to press on with it immediately and imperatively. That was the language that surrounded the “coasting schools” debate. No day could be lost, it was said, or the pupil would suffer irrecoverably and would never catch up. Unevidenced policy must be applied forthwith. We can imagine how much harm would be done if the same policy were applied in medical circles.
I have invented none of that. Those are the standard arguments that I have heard put by a beleaguered Department from the Government Front Bench—and I do, genuinely, try to listen.
Let us forget the dogma and the prejudice behind the policy for a moment, and look only at the logic. The logic of the Government’s position is quite troubling. Dark talk about specific vested interests—I do not know whether that refers to the unions, the teachers, the parents or the academics—or talk of what used to be known as “The Blob” smacks of paranoia rather than rationality and critical thinking, of which the Government are supposedly in favour. Always seeing critics as enemies is the mark of a zealot, not a feature of sane, leisured policy making. Let me impress on the Government that I am in favour of sane, leisured policy making, and of buying in from as many stakeholders as possible.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), although I cannot say that I agreed with all his analytical comments about logic.
Unlike many Opposition Members, I find much to recommend in the Queen’s Speech, given the cornucopia of Bills that it contains and all the opportunities that they will engender. I am delighted to see that education is at the heart of the Speech. As many Members have said, we owe it to our children to give them the very best education that we possibly can, and the Government are transforming education by extending the principles of freedom and accountability, particularly in the Higher Education and Research Bill. One of the key roles of higher education is, of course, to equip our young people with the tools that they need to enter the working world, thus benefiting businesses and enabling those young people to earn a good living—and, even better, a fulfilling living.
In Taunton Deane we have a number of excellent higher education institutions, including Richard Huish College, which is among the top 10 sixth-form colleges in the country, and Somerset College. Despite their excellent contributions, however, it is clear from my many discussions with businesses and with students themselves that there is something of a skills gap in Taunton Deane. The same point has been raised by many other Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan). Too often, we are losing the brightest and best of our students. They are going elsewhere, despite Taunton Deane being a lovely place to live. This is affecting the productivity of the area, which is slightly below the average for the country, and we need to address that. How are we going to do this? The idea is to get a university, to retain our young people and even to draw others in from elsewhere.
So I welcome the provisions in the higher education and research Bill to aid the establishment of new universities, to provide opportunities for people of all backgrounds. A university education is one of the best ways of improving the life chances of young people. I was delighted to raise this with the Prime Minister last week on the opening day of debates on the Queen’s Speech, and to get a resoundingly positive response from him. Hon. Members will have guessed that I have just the place for a university. It is of course the county town of Taunton. I am not just making this up; many discussions have already taken place with the various stakeholders.
The essential thing will be to ensure that a university provides the courses that will give the students the skills that are required. I suggest that it could focus on such subjects as health training and community health, given that we have the excellent Musgrove Park Hospital just down the road. The local college is already running some courses of that kind. Similarly, there could be an emphasis on nuclear or low-carbon energy, as we have Hinkley Point just over the way. A university could also build on our aeronautical strengths, given that we have a number of such businesses in the area. It is early days, but I am optimistic that we might be able to move this forward under this exciting new Bill.
While I am on the subject of universities, I must add that I support the Bill’s endeavours to make universities and, particularly, lecturers more accountable for what they deliver. I declare an interest: I have two daughters who have been through the university system, and the amount of input they got from their lecturers was often a subject for discussion around our dinner table. I shall not name any names, but they told me that they were sometimes getting as few as one or two lectures a week, even though they were paying hard-earned money for their courses—or they will be later, when they start paying it back. I therefore absolutely support that measure. We must ensure that our universities are delivering what our students need and that that is aligned to what business requires.
I shall turn now to the proposals on the education of younger children in the education for all Bill. Last week, I had a lovely visit to North Town Primary School, a beating heart in the centre of Taunton. It is surrounded by houses, but it was a lovely visit not least because the school has an excellent garden. I shall digress slightly here but I want to say that children can learn a great deal by being taught about gardening. It is good for their mental health and for health education, and they can learn about pollinators and about where their food comes from. I urge the Minister to tweak the arrangements so that we can get this into schools’ curriculums if we can.
Praise must go to the hard-working headteacher of the school, who is leading by example, and he has a team of very enthusiastic teachers. Fairer funding for schools was at the top of his agenda when he spoke to me. Many other Members have mentioned that today, and I am delighted that this Government are going to move the fairer funding issue forward. Our students in Taunton receive £2,000 less per pupil than those in the best-funded schools, which is clearly ridiculous. Our schools are doing a grand job, but just think how much better they could do if we sorted the system out. I applaud the fact that the Government are going to do that.
I want briefly to mention academisation. Madam Deputy Speaker, did you know that that word is not in the dictionary? It is not a real word, yet we are talking about education. Perhaps it will get into the dictionary now that we have mentioned it so often. Academisation really is the way forward. North Town is a primary academy and it is working really well. The staff are very pleased with their ability to take charge of their own budget and to drive their own ideas forward. Almost all the schools in Taunton Deane are now academies, and they are good models. I would just like to bend the Minister’s ear and say that an injection of capital would not go amiss for many schools, because some would love to update their facilities or indeed just have a lick of paint.
To return to my starting point, a sound and well-planned framework for education will ensure a positive, productive and fulfilling future for students, whatever their background, with the consequent benefits to the economy. With the education for all Bill and the Higher Education and Research Bill, I am confident that we will move forward and sort out the skills gap and productivity issues in Taunton Deane.
I have a few more seconds, so I will just mention the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill. So many people have come to me because they want more say in local planning, so I applaud what is coming through. I am told that the Bill will enable us to sort out the legal framework that will enable us to set the precept on our council bills to fund the Somerset Rivers Authority. We are waiting for that and very much look forward to it being brought forward. I do not know whether we can get a view on that, but my people in Somerset will be delighted if we can move it forward. I commend the Bill and all its excellent opportunities.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate, which provides an opportunity to make observations and comments on the entire Gracious Speech. I was pleased to see that the Government intend to bring in legislation to deal with reform of the prison system and bring forward provisions regarding adoption and children in care. Previous Labour Governments spent billions and billions of pounds on the education and health sectors, and put money into rehabilitation programmes and detoxification centres, so I am pleased about these provisions, which should help to tackle some of the issues and challenges in our prison system.
I am disappointed, however, that several things are not included in the Gracious Speech, and I will touch first on a couple of international issues. All Governments, irrespective of their political complexion, have systematically failed to deal with two of the oldest historical disputes that followed the collapse of the British empire after the second world war. On Palestine and Israel, the Prime Minister has accepted that the state of Israel has undertaken half a million illegal settlements and the collective punishment of the people of Gaza. It is one of the biggest festering wounds in the middle east, and it needs to be resolved properly. On Kashmir, a UN resolution from 1948 states that Jammu and Azad Kashmir should be restored democratically through a free, impartial plebiscite, encouraging both the nuclear states to come together to deal with the issue. As a state that was involved with the two countries, we should be able to bring the two parties together and help to find a resolution.
I was concerned, and perhaps dismayed, when I heard about the counter-terrorism proposal and how the Prevent strategy will become even harsher. The way in which the strategy has been rolled out over the past few years has shown it to be ineffective and counter-productive. It has traumatised many young people who have been subject to it, and 90% of referrals have had no follow-up action. Even when such action has happened, it did nothing much apart from traumatise young children. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is present, must have heard about the numerous examples of young people being taken into the system. For example, one young person called a terraced house a “terrorist house” and another was carted off for talking about Palestine. Young children of six, seven or eight are completely traumatised by the experience of having to sit with intelligence officers and police officers. Even if they were not thinking about anything, they will certainly start thinking something after that.
I am not saying that radicalisation, of any sort, should not be dealt with or that it should be ignored, but it can be dealt with under the rubric of internet safety and teaching about online dangers, such as sexting, online bullying and child predators. One component of such training could be on violent extremism. It is a safe, sensible way of dealing with the situation, rather than trying to criminalise people. Even Sir Peter Fahy, the former chief constable of Manchester and head of Prevent, has said that Prevent is a waste of time, and the National Union of Teachers has also passed a motion to that effect. I therefore urge Ministers to re-examine the whole of Prevent, how it is being rolled out and how it is being dealt with in schools and universities. We all want to be safe. I was out of the country when the July bombings happened in London, but I used to take that bus route frequently when going to my chambers and I travelled at about that time of day. If I had not been out of the country, I could have been directly affected by that bombing. Obviously, the safety of people in this country is paramount to me and to everybody else, but the things we put in place to deal with these issues have to be effective.
I was also disappointed that the Queen’s Speech contained no mention of house building; the abolition of the current system for personal independence payment assessments; whether steps are going to be taken to get more GPs and nurses into our NHS system; and reversing the rules on pension rights for women in their 50s. There was also nothing to address the situation of pensioners who live abroad. There seem to be two sets of pensioners, with one getting inflation-linked pensions and the other not getting them, despite having paid in about the same amount. In addition, no constructive proposals have been made as to how to get children out of poverty.
I welcome the U-turn on forced academisation, but this approach of having everything academised by a certain date should also be dropped. As has been alluded to by other Members, it should be left to individual schools, along with the parents and the community, to decide whether they go for academisation. The Labour Government introduced academies, but that was for schools that were struggling; it was not brought in for schools that were already successful. Essa Academy, in my constituency, was one of the first to become an academy under the Labour Government. Its students speak 46 different languages and it has new international arrivals, yet it has been a pioneering school in the United Kingdom in the use of mobile technology in its education system. Schools from across the UK have come to see its practices, and countries in Scandinavia, such as Sweden and Denmark, are following its systems. This school is producing interactive textbooks, and that allows for the accelerated cognition of complex processes. These books will become free to the whole world. I have an invitation from the acting chief executive and the principal, Dr Chohan, for the Secretary of State to visit the school, because he feels that if it was in London, all the Ministers, shadow Ministers and so on would be visiting it. This invitation is for our shadow Secretary of State as well.
Finally, I ask the Government to consider some targeted funding for schools in socially deprived areas. What do I mean by that? I am talking about extra provision for young children who are struggling in maths and English, and who will need extra help outside the classroom. I am talking about extra money for teaching English as a foreign or second language for mothers and parents of some of these children who struggle with English. That would be a constructive step towards helping those people whom we say should be helping their children. I am talking about more provision to help schools identify issues of bullying, drug addiction and gangs bullying young people into committing crimes. A lady came to my surgery recently crying and saying that she did not know what to do about her young son, who was being pushed by gangs into criminal activity. That is not an isolated incident, and we need more targeted resources. When a child gets into trouble schools do try to deal with it, so we are reactive, but we need more proactive policies in place so that we can identify and look at the concerns, challenges and dangers.
Finally, I wish to mention something that has nothing to do with education. I want to make a plea to the Chancellor: can I have a pot of money for my constituency so that I can get the roads repaired, as they have loads of potholes in them? I am happy to send a full costing of that to him.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is certainly a pleasure to take part in this debate on Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech. There is much that I welcome in the programme of government, and many of its measures will benefit the residents of Romsey and Southampton North.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). I am sure that she and I agree on several measures to do with the care system and prison reform. I also wish to congratulate her because she managed to keep off the subject of the European referendum, as I shall do.
I wish to focus on education, training and skills, by which I mean all types of education and training. Sometimes I worry that we concentrate too narrowly on higher education and on those young people who are following a path to university. We must be conscious that education can happen at any age and, pretty much, in any place.
We should celebrate the fact that a teenager today might have as many as seven different careers in their lifetime and each one of those will require learning, change and an ability to adapt. Those essential life skills are introduced at school, but carry on throughout our lives. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science say that it is never too late to learn, and in this place I am sure that every single one of us can say that every day.
One of my constituents, Paul Brinklow, whom I met at one of my surgeries, is a powerful advocate for post-16 education, by which he means not just FE colleges and universities, but the learning that goes on throughout life. People have to update to use new technology, to change careers, to do apprenticeships, to take part in remote learning, and to attend language schools. The list goes on and on. Very little attention is given to that aspect of learning, and there is too little understanding of it. It does not matter whether it is a jobseeker undertaking retraining, an elderly person learning to use the internet, or a prisoner learning new skills on the path to rehabilitation, it is all part of the learning journey.
My constituent Jim Davidson does amazing work with his charity Care after Combat, specifically working with former service personnel within the prison system to enable them to be rehabilitated. He helps to find them useful and productive work, somewhere to live, and someone to mentor them, and he helps to put them back on the path to being part of society. He has worked with several prison governors. Specifically, in my local prison in Winchester, the governor, David Rogers, was one of the early pilot champions of Care after Combat’s work. When combined with education, this sort of initiative can and does have a real life-transforming impact. The success rate of the charity is quite phenomenal, and I commend the Justice Secretary for the support that he has given it. The charity is involved in a new scheme, the Road to Logistics, which helps ex-offenders who have been service personnel gain new skills and HGV licences with the haulage industry. That is all part of training and education to help them become a productive part of the workforce.
The Justice Secretary has plans to transform the prison estate, to increase the work opportunities for those in prison, and to make sure that an effective rehabilitation programme combined with educational opportunities will help to equip former prisoners for employment opportunities when they are released. Forty-six per cent. of people entering prison have literacy skills no higher than those broadly expected of an 11-year-old child. We have to use their time in prison to improve their skills and life chances—just like the 25% of prisoners who have been through the care system.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is in her place today and has heeded the concerns that some of us expressed to her about forced academisation, especially in places such as Hampshire where the local authority provides a great service to our local schools, which is recognised and appreciated by teachers, parents and governors alike. She will know that one of Romsey’s headteachers described the education White Paper as the best he had ever read. She will also know that I support academies and that the two highest performing schools in my constituency are both academies. They do a brilliant job of supporting bright young people to fulfil their potential. They collaborate with local businesses, foster talent, and encourage students to learn music and languages, to travel and to play competitive sport. That does not mean that the schools in my constituency that are not academies do not do the same. I welcome the fact that they are to be given more time to make choices about whether to academise.
I welcome the freedoms regarding the school day, and the plans to make it longer. Many private schools provide a much longer school day than those in the state sector, and they use those additional hours for sport, music, art, the combined cadet force and the Duke of Edinburgh award. They are the sort of enrichment activities that give their pupils an advantage on their UCAS applications and an advantage in life. Heather McIlroy, headteacher of The Mountbatten School, is always challenging herself and her school to provide every advantage for her pupils that they would find in the private sector. The longer day will provide more chances and is part of that picture.
Finally, I want to talk about the other end of the age spectrum. If we are talking about education for all, it is important that we look at the life chances of our pre-schoolers. A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of visiting Chilbolton Pre-School, a typical small village pre-school with a professional staff, but in effect run by a team of incredible and dedicated volunteers. We all know that the first 1,000 days after conception are the most important in a child’s life, so we must look at early years provision and how we can make that most effective.
The set-up at Chilbolton is similar to many pre-schools up and down the country. Run out of the local cricket pavilion, it operates five days a week, but with set-up and take-down required at the beginning and end of every week. In many ways it is better off than the pre-schools that operate out of village halls, which have that burden every day. The school’s challenge comes in finding staff, especially when many of the villages are not easily accessible by public transport; finding volunteer chairmen and women and treasurers; and being able to offer the hours and flexibility needed to cater for the needs of children and parents, and also to meet the quite proper rigours of Ofsted.
I welcome the extension of free childcare to 30 hours. I know it is a good thing for parents seeking to return to work, and that it is good for children to be in a stimulating environment. Things like the forest school and the outdoor learning at Chilbolton are great for the local children, so I have a very simple comment to make. At 15 hours a week the pre-school is coping; at 30 hours, under the current funding arrangements, it will struggle. We do not want to lose such provision. Village pre-schools have been the lifeblood of communities for generations. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make sure that the 30 hours is sustainable not just in large-scale nurseries, but in small rural locations, and with her commitment to educational excellence everywhere, to make sure that rural provision, which is where we are nurturing the life chances of the next generation in some of the most incredible environments, is looked after.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the Queen’s Speech and to follow the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I agree with her about the importance of early-years education. She made an important point.
There was a major omission from this Queen’s Speech. Following the Government’s U-turn on forced academisation, we will have a Bill
“to lay foundations for educational excellence in all schools,”
whatever that may mean. We had the promise of legislation to support the establishment of new universities and
“to promote choice and competition across the higher education sector.”
Yes, following the Government’s failed £9,000 a year tuition fee experiment, which was never intended to have the result that all universities would charge the maximum £9,000, this Government are now going to give universities the freedom to charge even more, making a university education even more inaccessible to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not recognise that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have a much greater opportunity to go to universities in England and Wales than in Scotland, where the fee system means that it is a subsidy for the middle classes and not for poorer students?
Liz McInnes
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is certainly not what is going on in my constituency, which I will elaborate on. The number of part-time students and mature students applying to go to university has plummeted since the introduction of tuition fees.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I cannot let the comment about Scotland pass. It is true that if we look at direct routes into university, Scotland has slightly lower numbers going from disadvantaged backgrounds, but if we look at more interesting routes into university through further education, Scotland is doing extremely well with children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Liz McInnes
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will go on to talk about further education, which is a key part of my speech.
The Minister for Universities and Science is no longer here, but I would like to point out that Labour is not opposed to new universities, despite the Minister’s assumption. For his information, it was the Tory press that dubbed University College London “cockney college”, not anybody from the Labour Benches.
What was missing from the Queen’s Speech was the vital link between schools and universities—further education. Not a mention of it, yet it provides a vital service to our young people, giving them opportunities, skills, training and the possibility of using FE as a stepping stone to higher education. Hopwood Hall College in my constituency, which serves Heywood and Middleton and the wider borough of Rochdale, has its own particular issues, none of which were addressed in the Queen’s Speech. The lack of literacy and numeracy skills is a massive issue in the borough, and some students require an extra year at Hopwood Hall to improve on English and maths, but funding reduces once the learner hits 18, with no allowance made for that catch-up year.
The borough of Rochdale was one of the most affected by the cut to education maintenance allowance and by reduced payments to disabled learners. At this stage, I should declare an interest: my partner used to teach at Hopwood Hall College. When the coalition Government scrapped EMA, my partner had students coming to see him to say that, although they were enjoying the course and the opportunities it gave them, they simply could not afford to keep attending—without EMA, they could not afford the bus fare to college. What a lamentable state of affairs to leave our students in—denied an education because of the cost of a bus fare. With the area review of post-16 education, the problem is likely to be exacerbated, as courses are forced to combine. Some students could find themselves having to travel 30 to 40 miles to access their college courses.
The Greater Manchester area review is causing great concern in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education because of ongoing delays. The chair of the steering group—the chief executive of Tory Trafford Council—warned that the process would lead to
“a fragmentation of the colleges in Greater Manchester”.
The borough of Rochdale also has one of the lowest rates of people going to university. Replacing maintenance grants with loans, and the thought of a £50,000-plus debt, have served as a massive deterrent. Students in England leave university with more debt than students anywhere else in the English-speaking world. They now owe an average of £44,000 on finishing, while Americans run up half that debt, and Canadians a third of it. When maintenance grants are abolished, the poorest students will end up owing more than £50,000, or over half the average price of a terraced house in my constituency.
How many working-class parents will talk their children out of ending up with such a huge debt? Well-off parents, who can afford to pay private school fees, will simply see the cost of a university education as a continuation of those fees, and their children will continue climbing the ladder, untroubled.
While we are talking about student debt, I would like to mention the proposal in the BBC White Paper to close the so-called iPlayer loophole. Doing that will force students living away from home who do not have a television but who access online BBC content to spend yet more money purchasing a yearly TV licence—as if our students were not in enough debt. A Change.org petition against the proposal, which was started by a student at Loughborough University, has now reached a staggering 16,847 signatures. I have asked the Culture Secretary to consider the particular situation students are in; so far, he has evaded my questions, but the petition shows the strength of feeling among students and their families, and I hope he will agree to be bound by it.
Hopwood Hall College provides many innovative courses to help students who aspire to go to university. However, while students continue to face ever-mounting debts, there will be no answer to the social mobility problems in my constituency. The formation of new universities is not the solution, and the Government’s own assessment shows that the number of FE college students applying for higher education will be lower than it is at present.
Further education is sandwiched in the middle of schools and higher education, with key stages 4 and 5 massively underfunded. Yet Hopwood Hall College and many FE colleges like it continue to succeed, seemingly against all the odds. We have 4,000 people in the borough doing vocational courses or A-levels who would previously have travelled outside the borough. We also have a lower level of NEETs—people not in education, employment or training—than neighbouring boroughs. Demand for courses in science and technology, and in health and social care, is increasing, and the college is responding to this, but there is a real challenge across the FE sector in attracting good teachers, especially in maths.
It really is time that this Government recognised the essential role of the FE sector and took some genuine action to address gaps in funding and the problems of recruiting and retaining good-quality teachers in order to achieve their stated aim of educational excellence for all—and that includes for my constituents in Heywood and Middleton.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who are both great champions of their constituents. It is a great honour to speak in this debate on the Gracious Speech.
Many hon. Members have spoken passionately about education, skills and training. It is absolutely vital that, as a nation, we get these elements right if we want to build up a cohort of our fellow citizens who are ready to face the world of work at 18 or 22, but also later in their lives as lifelong learners, because our workforce is changing, and our economy is changing, in a profound a long-lasting way.
I pay tribute to the Federation of Small Businesses for its excellent report, “Going it alone, moving on up: Supporting self-employment in the UK”, which provided many of the statistics that I will use in the next few minutes. Today 15% of the workforce is self-employed, compared with 8% in 1980. To support this strong and growing economy, we, as legislators, need to be as nimble as those entrepreneurs—that 15% of our constituents. There is always a balance between laissez-faire and red tape, and in our legislative programme we need to adapt to the changing economy.
I have great hopes of some of the Bills in the Gracious Speech, but I also have some questions for Ministers, and some suggestions on three Bills in particular. I would like to begin by speaking briefly on the better markets Bill. Competition law is always one step behind the market; I speak as somebody who spent part of my training in a competition law department. I very much welcome this Bill to keep pace with the changing markets. I welcome the “faster switching” principle for energy suppliers. I have done that myself, as have many other right hon. and hon. Members, I am sure. I particularly welcome the clarification of the roles of economic regulators. We are dealing with very adept businesses—people who are highly lawyered—and if, as legislators, we want to protect consumers, we need strong measures in place.
I want to speak briefly about the regulation of one market that is quite unsexy but utterly vital—the water market. Last summer, my constituents in South Ribble, along with another 300,000 households in Lancashire, had no drinkable water for one month. The contamination of cryptosporidium in our drinking water had a massive effect on consumers and, particularly, on small businesses in the catering industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) has spoken about this because, of course, he has many cafés and restaurants in his constituency. That incident highlighted very clearly the monopolistic nature of the water market.
I am therefore happy that from April next year a new non-household retail water and waste water market will be opening up. However, I am concerned about the implications of this new regime for small businesses and sole traders, because after the cryptosporidium outbreak many small businesses found it hard to access the compensation—the process was not quite as simple as for domestic consumers. Ofwat has clearly stated that part of its remit in this new water market is to ensure that the market operates effectively. It has made representations to DEFRA Ministers that the guaranteed service standards should cover all non-household customers in the market. Unfortunately, there are no Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers present, but I am sure we will be told whether anyone from that Department has discussed the issue with DEFRA and whether the guaranteed service standards will be rolled into the better markets Bill.
From one unsexy subject—water and sewerage—to another, namely savings and pensions. Our national statistics on savings are woeful compared with those of our EU neighbours. The French save about twice as much as we do.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, if we are to address that issue, it is extremely important that financial education on both savings and financial management is taught at school?
Seema Kennedy
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. Some 21 million people in this country do not even have £500 of savings. As she has said, part of the reason for that is lack of financial education. I welcome the lifetime savings Bill, which will provide a flexible product that enables young people to save for a home and for their retirement, and the increase in the individual savings account limit.
The statistics on savings for the self-employed are even worse than those for the nation as a whole. Only 31% of respondents to the FSB survey said that they are saving into a pension, compared with 59% of people who are employed. The remaining respondents intend to rely on their business and existing savings, and about 15% of them have absolutely no savings or pension plan. The lifetime ISA is welcome, but are there any plans to adapt it to suit the new and growing cohort of the self-employed? The age restriction limits it to the under-40s and there is growing evidence that more of the self-employed are aged 45 or over. I hope that the Government will consider finding ways of encouraging and normalising savings for the self-employed, because they do not get the same nudges that auto-enrolment gives people who are employed.
On the pensions Bill, I will not repeat the statistics of self-employed people who have no pension or savings plan, but I urge the Government to consider carefully the needs of the self-employed. The Work and Pensions Committee has made submissions about the issue, particularly in relation to the National Employment Savings Trust auto-enrolment scheme, to which MPs have signed up our own employees. It is very good, but it also needs to include a solution for the self-employed.
In an ideal world, the self-employed will go on to become micro-employers, or perhaps even large employers, and set up their own pension fund. There needs to be adequate communication with micro-businesses about their obligations under auto-enrolment, which can be burdensome. Once small businesses do set up pensions, robust regulation needs to be in place to ensure that such funds give good returns and are adequately protected.
The Bills on which I have touched briefly are welcome in adapting to our changing workforce. I look forward to seeing the detail as they progress through this place.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister told the House that, at its heart, the Queen’s Speech has bold reforms to remove all barriers to opportunity for our young people. Let us see whether his rhetoric matches the reality.
Nearly 4 million children are growing up in poverty, and 500,000 of them live in London. In my constituency, 42% of children live in poverty—the highest rate in the country. Social mobility is in reverse, with young people suffering from what the Equality and Human Rights Commission says are
“the worst economic prospects for several generations”.
More than 850,000 young people remain not in education, employment or training. The reality is shocking, given that the UK is the fifth richest country in the world. Fighting inequality is not just about social justice; it is also in our economic interests.
If we look at the Government’s record over the last six years, we see that they have cut work experience entitlement and independent careers guidance and advice, and they have cut further education budgets by 24% since 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) highlighted earlier, that has devastated the lives of many people. Some 4 million people study in further education, and a high concentration of those are from working-class backgrounds. The cuts have hit ethnic minority students from London extremely hard, because of the disproportionate concentration of those groups in further education. In view of the work that the Minister for Universities and Science is doing on monitoring, transparency and tackling inequality, I ask him to look at the impact of those cuts on the FE sector. Many further education colleges, including Tower Hamlets College, have had to shrink student numbers and courses that many of my constituents attend.
The Government have tripled university fees and scrapped the education maintenance allowance. The Secretary of State and Ministers heard earlier about the devastating impact of those measures over the years and across the country on some of the poorest students, including those in my constituency. Student nurses’ bursaries have been slashed, as have maintenance grants for poorer university students.
The focus in the Queen’s Speech on life chances will prove to be meaningless without a parallel attempt to eradicate child poverty. Tired, hungry children cannot learn effectively, and it is shocking that millions of children come from families who rely on food banks. Poverty is not inevitable, and the Government have the tools to fix the problem if there is the will to do so. The last Labour Government cut child poverty by almost 1 million to the lowest level since the 1980s, but increases over the past six years under this Government have undone much of that progress. I call on the Schools Minister and the Secretary of State to continue to pay attention to this important issue, because it will affect educational attainment and the achievements of young people.
Let us look at the education for all Bill. As my hon. and right hon. Friends have mentioned, real-term cuts will be about 8% of funding per pupil by 2020, despite the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment that funding would not be cut for schools and children. That is a betrayal of that manifesto commitment. Last year, more teachers quit than entered the profession. Almost 50,000 teachers quit—the highest figure since records began. Applications to teach are falling in every region, and they are down in key subjects such as English, maths and IT.
London’s schools face unique challenges. London has some of the highest levels of inequality and child poverty in the country, and school budgets and classrooms are at breaking point, with one in five London secondary schools full or overcrowded. Yet London shows that it is possible to create outstanding urban schools in demanding circumstances. Thanks to the work of the last Labour Government, nine out of 10 schools in London are now good or outstanding. That is a huge achievement, which took a generation. The changes to the funding formula put that achievement at risk, so I ask the Schools Minister to look carefully at the funding formula to make sure that we do not go back on those achievements. London schools will lose nearly £240 million a year under the proposals. Schools in the midlands and the north of England will also be hit hard by the changes. We need to look at the needs of children in those schools and ensure that fairness genuinely means fairness.
On academies, the Government’s obsession with structures rather than attainment is wrong-headed. The climbdown is welcome, but it is clear from what the Universities and Science Minister said earlier that the attempt to academise all schools still exists, although it will be done via a different route. That is likely to cost £1.3 billion—money that could be focused on tackling underachievement rather than obsessing with structure. Where there is a problem and a need for innovation, of course that innovation should happen, but it should not be a wasteful process.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady greet with the same happiness as I do the fact that 1 million more children have gone to good or outstanding schools since 2010?
Rushanara Ali
Any improvement in attainment is welcome, but I am making a point about London, where huge amounts of work has been done to improve schools. When I was at school in the east end of London in the 1980s and 1990s, most schools achieved a rate of less than 20% for GCSEs. It took over a decade to transform schools, and that was not just in Tower Hamlets. In Tower Hamlets, we have only four academies, which shows that there are different models of improvement.
I call on the Secretary of State to look at how such improvements have been achieved through different approaches, including collaboration, investment in teacher quality and standards, and training and leadership. She knows very well that the model used in Tower Hamlets and across London is recognised around the world, and I hope that the new funding formula will not put that at risk.
Jo Churchill
I just want to point out that London schools have had a 26% uplift, whereas rural schools have had only a 9% uplift, so it is only fair, right and proper to address the basis of the funding.
Rushanara Ali
My point is not that schools in need of support in rural areas—there is poverty in rural areas as well—should not get support, but that we should not set schools and areas against each other or create divisions. The Government should look at where we need to target resources to improve schools, but should not turn regions or schools against each other. That is one of the major risks, as has already been reflected in this debate. We need to consider how to improve standards across the country without damaging the achievements of schools in London. We still need to raise the attainment of 40% of school kids.
I want to move on to the universities Bill. The Sutton Trust recently unearthed the fact that our young people leave university with the highest levels of debt in the English-speaking world. The Chancellor wrote to one of his constituents in 2003 that fees are “a tax on learning” and “very unfair”. Yet he has since tripled university fees to £9,000 and scrapped the student maintenance allowance. He now wants to lift the fees cap even higher, which will reverse some of the achievements of the past and saddle poorer students with huge amounts of debt. We all know that people from asset-rich families are more likely to take risks and more likely to be secure when they enter the labour market, and that the outcomes for graduates in the labour market differ according to social class and ethnic background. Saddling poorer students with debt therefore has real consequences for what they will go on to do.
Will the Minister for Universities and Science therefore look carefully at such outcomes? The data he is collecting will be useful only if he matches them with action to tackle the fact that inequalities are built in by students being left in debt. The Government have ignored the evidence published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in 2014 showing that a £1,000 increase in maintenance grants led to a 4% increase in participation. The Minister says that participation is increasing, and when that happens, it is welcome, but I ask him to look at this area to see how to increase participation further.
I welcome the aim of increasing the number of apprenticeships to the target of 3 million, but there is a question, which has been raised by several of my hon. Friends, about the quality of those apprenticeships. I appeal to the Minister to look carefully at how we can make sure the system works well by focusing on quality. A sizeable number of young people are still on courses at level 2 and level 3, for which they have parallel qualifications. We need to make sure that they genuinely progress and that apprenticeships are a genuine alternative.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).
I welcome wholeheartedly the programme on life chances —not only the measures on education, skills and training that we are debating, but the interconnectivity between the other Bills. In proposing the Humble Address, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) reminded us that bringing up children is an inexact science, with a definite beginning but certainly no definite end date. There is also no guarantee of success, however that might be measured, and there most certainly is not a handbook. My children have attended their state schools and are now at university, acquiring debt. I hope that we, as parents, have instilled in them an aspiration for a better life. That is why I believe that life chances are so very important.
We have an excellent education system in this country, which helps parents and carers through the minefield that we hope will level the playing field for all our children to ensure that every child reaches their full potential. The 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds—with the caveats outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)—the 1.4 million more children now taught in good and outstanding schools, and the measures to drive aspirations and skills, coupled with 3 million apprenticeships, mean that this is a coherent lifetime learning package, and much more than is being put to us by the Opposition, who as yet still have space to come forward with their bright ideas. The Sutton Trust and others have noted that one of the most important parts of education is good quality feedback. That might be something for them to take on board.
I welcome the announcement of a Bill to lay the foundations for educational excellence in all schools. Early years education is vital to ensure readiness for school. A couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate to open the excellent Guildhall Feoffment Pre-school and Nursery in my constituency, and I have spoken with other providers of excellent early years education in towns and in rural locations such as Bacton. Sadly, despite the best efforts of skilled early years teachers it is estimated that in some areas up to 25% of children starting in reception are still in nappies and lack many communication and manual dexterity skills. I am glad that we are trying to seek solutions to those problems, but I urge us to make bold plans, using speech therapists and other professionals to support parents as their children grow.
Like many hon. Members, I welcome the news that a fairer funding formula will be addressed. Unfairness is inherent in the current formula. I apologise to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow if she felt that my intervention was creating an adversarial tone on this issue. I very much do not feel that way, but my children received £260 less funding than the national average, which is considerably less than children in London have received for many years. It is important that that anomaly is addressed.
Although the new policies on schools are most welcome, they must allow for the fact that schools in largely rural constituencies such as mine will struggle on several levels. Rurality and sparsity are just two. The issues are not insurmountable, but they need to be acknowledged, and I thank the Secretary of State for being in listening mode recently on academisation. I hope that we can move forward to provide the right solution for all children.
Children in rural areas suffer from the vagaries of rural transport systems, meaning that they are isolated from choices given to their urban-dwelling peers. Although after-school clubs are to be truly welcomed, there is less opportunity for them to run if there is a solitary bus service that leaves five minutes after school ends. We have to consider carefully how rural school transport will fit into the overall plan alongside academies, which are masters of all aspects of their own planning. I ask Ministers to do a rural test when asking questions about education, to ensure that, whether rural or urban, schools can offer the same to their students so that they are all well served.
As our children proceed through their education, we must ensure that we value and nurture the different skills and abilities they display. While supporting the rise in standards, we must keep the ability to problem solve in our education system. At a visit this week to Vapourtec, a high-tech company in my constituency, we spoke about the need for people to use intuition and other such elements of their learning, which is not necessarily always about ticking boxes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) spoke about a joined-up strategy on science for the Bills presented, which is of huge importance. My four daughters constantly remind me that academic excellence is to be applauded, but we must also cherish practical skills in our children, as well as a softer skill set. I have been fortunate to visit two schools in the past couple of weeks. At Stowmarket High I saw excellent “resistant material” skills, and the fantastic boats and beds that were produced for their exams.
West Suffolk further education college does not display some of the problems that I have heard about this afternoon. It is innovative and works closely with local organisations, the local enterprise partnership, and local businesses in being an achiever, rather than something that presents me with problems. With the newly opened campus of the University of Suffolk on its premises, it is one of only two FE colleges that are paired with leading arts institutions in London. Only last Friday I spoke to young people who are off to the Central School of Art and Design and the London College of Fashion. Education is about building aspirations that are not limited by background, gender, age, accessibility or disability. I alluded earlier to the fact that we must recognise that attainment is not purely from an academic standpoint.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
The hon. Lady spoke about the difference between rural and urban, and I fully support aspects of her outlook on the rural negativity that sometimes exists. She mentioned the joined-up approach, and we should consider the proposed legislation on adoption for looked-after children. Would it be a positive move if the Government were to introduce that adoption Bill in conjunction with educational projects?
Jo Churchill
I totally concur. The ability to look cross-departmentally at all the different issues that challenge people from the beginning to the end of their life would enhance us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) mentioned excluded children, and those who struggle with formal educational attainment. Before I came to this place, I worked on a “Solutions 4” programme with excluded children, and we must remember all our children when introducing these Bills. With a background in the construction industry and a love of life sciences, I believe that apprenticeships are important in helping all children to lift their abilities and attainment rates. For some apprenticeships, however, we must recognise that more functional levels of core subjects should be acceptable, and we run the risk of losing able youngsters who cannot cross the C-grade barrier in maths and English. I am delighted that a Government taskforce has been set up, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), to consider apprenticeships for those with learning difficulties.
I recently met a lovely young woman who had been part of a very innovative scheme. When I asked what it had given her she said, “It’s given me confidence and a job”, and then she whispered, “a boyfriend as well, but please don’t tell my Dad”—that is probably too late. It struck me that a basic entitlement for all young people leaving education is, perhaps not the boyfriend, but the right to feel valued and equipped for the workplace. I applaud the work that we are doing to ensure that employment and apprenticeships are accessible to all, but we should also consider young people’s mental health as we drive these Bills forward, since such issues put a huge strain on our schools. West Suffolk College reckons that 70% of pastoral care time is spent considering the resilience and mental health of its young people. That is an enormous burden for schools and colleges to take forward, and we must do more work in that area.
Finally—and quickly—my daughters have been participants and mentors in the National Citizen Service, which provides young people with challenges through which they grow in confidence and team build. It attracts children from every walk of life, including those who might have had the odd brush with the law or started down the road to addiction, looked after children, and those from all types of educational background. Over four weeks they complete outward bound training, visit higher education establishments—
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and the many other hon. Members who have spoken about their concerns and problems relating to education. The same problems exist in Northern Ireland and I can learn a great deal by listening. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken.
It is a pleasure to be able to respond to the Gracious Speech. Earlier, one Member, when trying to choose what to speak about, described it as a cornucopia. Another, rather closer to my heart, described it as a box of chocolates—that might explain why I have to wear a double-breasted jacket. There are so many things I want to talk about and welcome, but I will start by saying that if we are looking to increase fees for universities, it is vital that we ensure—this was raised earlier—that students receive a quality education. I have four children. One is through university, two are at university and one is about to go. The same issue comes up again and again: how do we ensure value for money while keeping the costings right so that everyone has the chance to go to university?
In Northern Ireland, we have had a major battle on STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths. We want to get these subjects into the education system, so that science is a part of pupils’ lives right from the early days. It is not working well in Northern Ireland at the moment. This leads me to another point. Hon. Members know that I passionately believe in holding the Union together, and in working together and learning from each other. There is very good education on STEM here for teachers; indeed, we send one or two from Northern Ireland to that college. We need more. We need to all start working together.
When we look at the difference in cost of different universities, what worries me is that in Northern Ireland something like 46% of students do not want to leave Northern Ireland. That is lovely from the point of view of not having a brain drain, but it means that no one moves away from home. I want the Union to work so that we all share and all thrive and people can move to different parts, whether to England, Wales or Scotland. It is essential that people get used to moving and having independence while at the same time being at home.
The same sort of thing happens with the exam system. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland all have different exam systems, so people are judged in different ways. Can we put something in place to make our education systems all talk to each other and all learn from each other? Fantastic things are happening in education in Scotland. I know that because I went there with the Northern Ireland Committee for Education. There is so much we can share. Let us put something in place that means we do all learn from each other.
I watched the plans on academies to see how they work and many of the things going through here. That is what we should all be doing: we should be learning from each other. Academies seem like terrific ideas, but we have to be careful how we put them together to make sure they allow everyone to achieve.
Hon. Members discussed a fairer funding formula. We have exactly this problem in Northern Ireland and we have debated it twice in the past five years. I want to share with the House a huge problem we have at the moment, so Members realise that in Northern Ireland, although we have a great education system, things are not working particularly well. In my patch, 19 of the top principals came to see me the other day. All were complaining that they have to deal with an 8% cut or increase in costs. They are being told they must come up with new budget plans for one year and for three years. They cannot do it. They are refusing. They are looking at stopping special needs teaching, removing classroom assistants, moving office staff and having bigger classes—all the things that are just wrong. We need something to change. What I found most frightening is that the principals are not taking their pay rises so that the school can afford other things. Even worse, funds raised by parent-teacher associations are being used to pay for the normal things in schools. I go back to my main point: let us start sharing and learning from everyone. There is a change today in Northern Ireland: there is no longer a Sinn Féin Education Minister. As from today, the Education Minister is a Unionist. I hope things will change.
I turn now to a passion of my heart. Last year, I led a debate on how Stormont was not working. I was proud of my party leader for then moving into opposition at a time when opposition did not really exist. Opposition now does exist, as part of the Stormont House agreement, and I am proud to say that the Ulster Unionists, under my party leader, have moved into opposition, as has the SDLP, which I am pleased to have with us. Our devolved system of government does not work well, and I need support from the UK Government and everyone in the House to get the opposition system working and resourced. To give one simple example, in this place, on which we model our Assembly, the Chamber is laid out so that we oppose each other, but Sinn Féin and the DUP, although working together, refuse to sit on the same side, for obvious reasons. We have to learn and improve. I hope we can get somewhere but we need the House’s help.
I was always annoyed to hear the Secretary of State say that all parties agreed to the Stormont House agreement. That was not the case. They talked to us at the beginning but only the two major parties were really involved. We must all start working together and helping each other. We can push and coax to make things work, but I need the UK Government to listen, not to bury their head in the sand. We still have problems—we have the troubles—but we want a level playing field. Certain things came through in the Belfast agreement, and we thought we were moving forward with consensus, but I am concerned that the legacy issues are sitting there ready to bubble up.
We hear that the DUP and Sinn Féin might already have done a deal on the legacy issues. We must talk to servicemen and ex-servicemen and make sure that whatever we put in place works and is fair and justified. I do not ask that people who have done something wrong in the military not be prosecuted; I ask that we choose the right cases and not hound every serviceman. We must find a just way forward that is about reconciliation, understanding and putting the past to bed. For that, I need the House’s help.
In the remaining 30 seconds, I want to touch briefly on Europe. Please, let us get as many of the facts as we can on the table and avoid the hype, so that people can sit down and learn. The message I got on the doorstep was: “We want to learn, we want the facts, but please don’t overhype it, or we’ll all switch off.” People just want the yes and no campaigns to lead quietly, put the facts on the table and let people decide for themselves.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister back to his place and suggest that he reads Hansard later, because he missed a very good Front-Bench speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray).
This alleged legislative programme lacks imagination, is lacklustre and ultimately fails to address the challenges facing the country. The Queen’s speech was 937 words long, lasted less than nine minutes and has been rightly condemned for being uninspiring and offering no vision. Is this the sign of a Government who have run out of ideas in facing up to the challenges the country and our constituents face, or is the Prime Minister just too busy fighting his party’s internal EU civil war? The country cannot wait for the Government Benches to kiss and make up. We need a Government focused on building a fairer and more prosperous country, not one at odds over the EU referendum or distracted by its election expenses.
Ultimately, the Queen’s Speech does nothing to help realise the potential of our young people, our students or our education sector. Last week, amid all the doom and gloom of the UK Government’s Queen’s Speech, the SNP, as any Opposition party worthy of Government should, put forward an alternative Queen’s Speech that offered real positive change. At the heart of it was a progressive set of values that would help to realise the potential of our young people. In it, the SNP again called for the post-study work visa to be reinstated. This came on the back of an international students survey conducted by Hobsons that underlined the importance of such a visa as an incentive for international students when deciding whether to come to Scotland to study.
The SNP has long called for the visa to be reinstated. Indeed, I held my first Westminster Hall debate on the very issue. We are supported by Scotland’s universities, colleges, businesses and all parties, including the Conservatives, in the Scottish Parliament. The visa gave those international students the opportunity to live and work in Scotland after they had graduated from one of our excellent universities. The closure of the post-study route to remain has effectively removed that opportunity.
This is what has led to the disgraceful planned deportation of the Brain family from Dingwall. The Chancellor’s wholly ignorant and cold indifference to the plight of a seven-year-old Gaelic-speaking boy who has known no other home than the Scottish highlands was one of the worst answers I have heard in this place since I was elected. The Government must do the right thing and U-turn on their current position. They have certainly had plenty of practice of late.
This decision and the removal of the visa itself not only damages our international reputation, but is an economically illiterate policy, because the vast majority of these students are not able to contribute to the country that has provided them with an excellent higher education. For example, research undertaken by the Scottish Government’s post-study working group suggested that a number of new entrants to Scottish universities from India fell by 63% between 2010-11 and 2013-14. It could be argued that colleges have been hit harder following the demise of the visa, as the number of international students studying in Scotland’s colleges has fallen from 2,039 in 2010-11 to 561—a shocking decline of 72%. The removal of the visa sends a clear message to our important international market that the UK FE and HE sectors are closed for business. The visa has supporters in this place beyond these Benches. The all-party group on migration produced a report, whose Conservative chairman noted:
“Higher education is one of our country’s leading export success stories, but the government’s current approach to post-study work is jeopardising Britain’s position in the global race for talent”.
With the negative tone pursued by the UK Government over the EU referendum, combined with the removal of the post-study work visa, it has become increasingly clear that this Government are out of step with what is best for our universities. The Higher Education and Research Bill, one of the few announced in the Queen’s Speech last week, contains some worrying reforms that the Government plan to bring forward. It would appear that the Government are once again working against the wishes of students when it comes to designing an education system for the 21st century.
The NUS has expressed deep concern about the unhealthy fixation of this Government with university marketisation, which, combined with the threat of lifting the £9,000 cap on tuition fees, has led the NUS to announce its intention to oppose the most damaging aspects of the Bill. In addition, it completely opposes any link between perceived teaching quality and fees.
Another issue that is not going to go away is the Chancellor’s crazy policy of abolishing bursaries for those studying to become the next generation of nurses, midwives and allied health workers. The arguments to see the reinstatement of the bursary support are well trodden and despite this issue being devolved, I have made them at length in this House. Thanks to the report published today by London Economics, we now have a better understanding of what the impact of the change will be. The students and HE institutions themselves will be significantly worse off and the cost savings to the Exchequer are, in the end, likely to be very minimal.
Students and graduates will be hit with a punitive 71% increase in the cost of going to university and will see their debt on graduation rising from just under £7,000 to just under £49,000. This will undoubtedly hit the numbers applying to study these courses, with London Economics forecasting a 6% to 7% fall in student numbers or more than 2,000 in the first year. Along with other factors, this will result in these institutions losing between £57 million and £77 million a year. Not only will the Government fail to address the shortfall in nurses coming into the NHS; they will actually make the problem more acute, and we will have to rely on migrant nurses coming from other countries whose nursing resources are already stretched as a result of emigration to the UK.
This Queen’s Speech represents a missed opportunity truly to transform the education sector. Teachers, pupils and university and college staff are working incredibly hard. It is disappointing that the Government have chosen not to match that level of hard work by introducing a programme of government to meet the challenges of a 21st-century education sector.
The SNP Scottish Government are going in the opposite direction. Instead of working against students and universities, we are working with them. Whereas the Tories promote front-door tuition fees down here and back-door tuition fees in Holyrood, the SNP Scottish Government have guaranteed free university education in Scotland. Our fundamental principle is that university access should be on the basis of the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.
It appears that the EU referendum and quashing noisy Tory Brexit voices are the priority for the Prime Minister and his Government colleagues. This is at the expense of growing our economy, creating jobs and delivering a modern and inclusive education sector of excellence. The UK Government cannot and should not be defined by a single issue. If they have run out of steam and ideas, I would strongly suggest that they take a good look at the SNP’s alternative Queen’s Speech.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Many Members on both sides of the House will agree that good education provision is a sure way to reduce inequality and create economic prosperity. Indeed, my very presence here as a Member of Parliament was spurred on by the good vocational opportunities that I had in the further education sector in Greater Manchester. Let me begin by thanking the Minister for Schools, who is present, for engaging in a constructive meeting with me, along with other Oldham Members, to discuss Oldham education. I look forward to him visiting Oldham in the near future.
In the House, we often talk about the most vulnerable, and about enabling all children to have the best start in life. Just over a year ago, when I made my maiden speech, I talked about being a young mum at 16, and about the disadvantages, the opportunities and the aspirations of people from my constituency and my background. I believe that many people outside the House, if not inside it, will relate to some of what I will say today. I hope to do justice to the many constituents—especially young people—who may make journeys similar to mine, and to inspire them to reach for the stars, because they truly can do their best and fulfil their dreams.
I was the child so many Members have spoken about today, and I feel an obligation to talk about that. I grew up on a council estate, and my parents and I were recipients of welfare throughout my childhood. I was on free school meals, I was a NEET—not in education, employment or training—and I had no GCSEs at grade A to C; and, as I said, I had a baby at 16. School, for me, was not a place where you went to be educated, but a place where you got away from your parents for a couple of hours while they got some respite from you, and where you were able to see your mates. Rather tragically, it was also the place where I got a hot dinner. I often did not have a hot meal when I went home, and I often went to school without having had breakfast, so getting to lunchtime was quite tricky for me.
My mum could not read or write, so it was difficult for her to give me the ability to be school-ready. I did not see books, and did not see the value of books, until I went into education, so I know how crucial it is to provide early years intervention and to give people opportunities and aspirations. The interventions from which I benefited provided role models. The Sure Start centres, for instance, helped me to be a better mum when I was 16. That broke a cycle, and the fact that it is possible to break the cycle is clearly demonstrated by the fact of my being in this place today.
The youth service gave me chocolate biscuits in the evenings, and somewhere safe to go. It gave me respite. The welfare support enabled me not to be like other lost families, and be without my son. My son is with me today, and I am so proud of him: he is a great young person. There was housing, further education and the local education authority, and there were the teachers who inspired me to dream and to do my best. I fear, though, that the Government’s austerity programme is pulling that ladder up. I think about all the things that I hold dear, and I look back to how they helped me to progress. It worries and upsets me that the young people in my constituency will not be given that opportunity.
I saved lives, and had an impact on lives, every day in my previous role as a home help, because I had been given the opportunity to go back into further education and obtain a vocational qualification in care. That was tremendously important to me. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), the further education sector was barely mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. That will be really detrimental to the ability of people like me to contribute to the economy and to progress with their education.
Colleges in my constituency are having to deal with the loss of nearly 40% of their income as a result of Government cuts. As I heard from the principals of both Tameside College and Ashton Sixth Form College just last week, those cuts are leaving many young people behind, unable to obtain level 2 qualifications, and struggling to serve the employers whose businesses so desperately need to grow. During my visit to Tameside College last week, I saw some of the excellent work that it was doing with the local construction industry to attract young apprentices from across Tameside, despite the Government’s assault on further education. The local construction training boards, working with Tameside College and the council, will get Tameside building again.
These colleges offer a lifeline to some of the most disadvantaged people in our community. For some, like me, that truly is a second or third chance. Surely the Minister is aware that without an adequate further education service, the talents of many young, and not so young, people will be shamefully wasted. This Government’s failure to protect further education funding has meant that the post-16 sector now has a debt of £1.5 billion, and 80 colleges are in discussions about mergers in order to survive—a full 40% of the total.
Both management and unions in our local colleges have warned me that student and staff morale is at an all-time low in my community, in this age of cuts and uncertainty. This has to change. The Government have to listen. Today, the Greater Manchester area-based review will make its final recommendations. That report is nearly six months behind schedule, and the process has turned college against college. I appeal to Ministers to do more. Further education is crucial in bridging a gap for young people, particularly those like me who come from a disadvantaged background. Ministers have to do more to give those young people a second chance, so that many more Angela Rayners can come into this House in the future.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the moving and powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I am really grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I was pleased to hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government intend to deliver opportunity for all at every stage of life. This is a worthy aim, and the Government are quite right to focus on the pursuit of educational excellence. It is to the education for all Bill that I would like to address my remarks.
The pursuit of educational excellence is undoubtedly the best way to enhance the life chances of individuals, and a well educated, skilled workforce is essential for a successful economy. So far, so good. Sadly, however, these words do not seem to translate into the right actions. Let us consider the whole academies fiasco. It is widely accepted by educationists the length and breadth of the country that children learn best when they have access to high-quality teaching provided by qualified teachers, irrespective of the structure. It matters not whether this teaching takes place in an academy, a university technical college or a local authority school. What matters for the sustainability of the provision is that there is an overarching educational strategy that plans for the education of each and every child.
I have no objection in principle to the introduction of academies, but they should operate as an integrated part of a planned provision, because children are not customers and education is a right, not a market commodity. Nowhere is this better evidenced than in my own constituency of Burnley. In 2009, the Labour Government built five new secondary schools there. They replaced buildings that were no longer fit for purpose; many had become severely dilapidated. In my son’s school on a rainy day—there are quite a few of those in Burnley—it was a common sight to see a row of buckets down the corridor because of a leaking roof. It was clear that none of those schools was fit for purpose in 21st-century Britain.
I was lucky enough, around that time, to gain experience of schools in Japan and Germany, and I was struck by the stark contrast between the facilities on offer to our children and the high standards available to German and Japanese children. I was quite angry at the time, because I have always believed that British children deserve the best. Of course, as a teacher, I know that there is more to education than mere school buildings. In Burnley, there is a willingness in all sectors to raise educational standards. The teachers, the key stakeholders and, most of all, the pupils are really working hard on this. It was a real pleasure last week to visit Hameldon Community College in my constituency and to hear of the students’ ambition and their dedication to doing well in life. That was indeed a privilege.
Yes, there is more to education than mere buildings, but there is no doubt that providing a stimulating learning environment that is warm and dry is immensely beneficial. Ahead of the £150 million building programme, the local authority expended a lot of time, thought and effort to ensure that the schools were built in the right places, to ensure an appropriate geographical distribution. It was decided that six schools would be replaced by just five to reflect a falling school population.
In 2013 and against that background, the coalition Government opened a university technical college in Burnley. The £10 million college, housed in a regenerated mill, was and is an impressive facility, aimed at providing 14 to 19-year-olds with a specialist engineering and construction curriculum. There is no doubt that the children who have attended the college have benefited immensely and that both students and parents are absolutely devastated at the recent news that the Department for Education intends to close the college due to inadequate numbers. Everyone in Burnley wanted the UTC to succeed, but there were never enough 14-year-olds to go around and the college was seriously undersubscribed from the outset. Instead of being part of a comprehensive plan, the college was forced to compete for students. The headteachers at neighbouring local authority schools were asked effectively to promote the UTC and to encourage their 14-year-olds to move schools. In the marketplace scenario created by the coalition Government and continued by the present Government, it was a bit like suggesting to Asda that it asks customers to go to Tesco.
Of course, none of that is the fault of the students or their parents. They took up offers of places at the UTC in good faith, never dreaming that the Government would pull the plug. Shockingly, only a few weeks’ notice of closure has been given. I urge the Government to work with me in the short term to secure the education of students who have been pursuing a specialist curriculum for three years. They need and deserve our support. The Government have at the very least a moral duty to honour the contract that they entered into with those students and their parents. I know that on the rare occasion that a local authority school closes, there is a phased closure to ensure that current students are protected. The Government owe these students that much.
If that is not enough, knowing full well that there is a surplus of school places, it beggars belief that the Government have allowed a new free school to open in Burnley. The school opened in September 2014 in temporary accommodation and will soon move into its new premises, being built as I speak, at a cost of £24 million. To be absolutely clear, the school population is falling and the Department for Education plans to close a college and is building another school at the same time. Is that part of the plan for excellence in education? Is that part of the plan to further the life chances of children in Burnley? It does not really look like a plan, but more like an expensive and damaging free-for-all.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I want to focus my contribution on higher education and lifelong learning, which has the tortured acronym of HELL. There is plenty to go on not only in the Gracious Speech but in last week’s White Paper, which is titled “Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice”. I contend that it is the bit after the colon that is simply not matched by this Government’s actions.
Teaching excellence is ostensibly dealt with in the teaching excellence framework, which has already caused widespread concern, uniting Universities UK, the National Union of Students and my alma mater, the University of Cambridge. There are serious worries that linking teaching excellence to fee levels with a performance element will undermine teaching. It will force universities into further competition and represents a homogenisation of teaching standards. This Government said that they were into devolution, after all. Linking fees to inflation could see fees being hiked up to 10 k—who knows?—and there is a worry that the TEF could be a Trojan horse for a further lifting of the fee cap to who knows where. The University of Cambridge has argued that linking the TEF and the fee cap will deter students from lower-income backgrounds. In short, therefore, only the wealthiest will be able to afford the top universities. The NUS is also opposed to the change.
Other eye-catching features include the plan to introduce new universities and so-called challenger institutions, seemingly though a relaxation of the criteria to usher in what is, at best, deregulation and, at worst, privatisation through the back door. The threshold of 1,000 students to qualify as a university is to be lifted. New providers can get degree-awarding powers in three years and full university status after another three years. Due to the probationary period during which institutions can grant degrees, there is the prospect of students getting a degree from an institution that then fails its probation. What would happen to those students?
There are question marks all over the place here. The removal of safeguards means that these untried, untested challenger institutions could expand very rapidly and then contract rapidly if they all start failing their three-year probation. As well as the standards issue, there seems to be a huge oversight on the whole issue of further education, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) so powerfully described. Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College in my constituency has recently given its 500th MBA. These institutions already have degree-awarding powers, so what will be the place for them? It is all very unclear.
Caution is being sounded across the sector. The Russell Group, which comprises our oldest institutions—the Oxbridges are all in there—has worries about this move undermining the international reputation of UK universities. Million+, at the other end, which represents the post-1992 sector and, thus, 50% of all full-time students in the UK, including those at the University of West London in my constituency, talks about the risk this approach poses to students. Universities UK says that these new institutions potentially devalue the label. It is important to remember that universities do not just operate to award degrees, but have a much wider civic role in the community, spreading public good and so on.
The White Paper also has a strapline on “improving social mobility”. Everyone has referred to the much talked of letter from the young, promising Member for Tatton in 2003, who promised that he would abolish fees if the Conservatives were elected. It has rightly become an internet sensation, because of some of the things he was incredulous about at the time. He talked about fees, which at the time were £1,000 only—they rose subsequently and there was then a trebling to £9,000 under this Government’s watch. He also talked about how people were leaving with an average debt of £18,000 at the time, but it seems that the sky is the limit on both of those things under the proposals in this White Paper and this Queen’s Speech.
There are worries about these so-called reforms, in relation to the funding cuts, the tuition fee increase and the potential to destabilise the whole sector, which has knock-on effects for students. The Sutton Trust, which I mentioned earlier, has warned that, even if participation levels are going up, there is a yawning gap between those from the richest and the poorest wards, particularly in Russell Group institutions. Again, there are lots of question marks in respect of the Office for Fair Access, overarching powers and how they have the potential to erode institutional autonomy. The idea of covering action and participation in the mission statement for this new office for students is laudable, but let us not forget that if we are talking about lifelong learning, this Government have slashed education maintenance allowance, ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—adult skills and social mobility funding, and have abolished maintenance grants and the child trust fund, which was mentioned earlier. I am therefore not filled with confidence as to what this White Paper and Queen’s Speech will lead to next.
I could go on and on, as I was employed in the university sector before I got to this place. In one way or another I was in universities for 25 years before May 2015. People from my old union, the University and College Union, are on picket lines today because of the plummeting staff morale, the rocketing number of staff on zero-hours contracts, the creeping casualisation and a real-terms decline in pay. All these things have knock-on effects on students, and we all want the best student experience for all. I could talk about the Higher Education and Research Bill, a dog’s breakfast on which there has not been proper consultation with the unions or providers. As everyone is preoccupied with the EU referendum, let me also say that if we were to live in a post-Brexit world, the science budget for this country—even student mobility programmes such as Erasmus—would be seriously imperilled. I know that that is not strictly what we are talking about today, but I caution against voting leave for that reason.
Teaching excellence is not assured in these plans, social mobility is poised to go backwards and student choice is completely illusory in what we are being offered. Lifelong learning should also look at other pathways. The number of part-time students is down 38% and the number of mature students has decreased by 180,000 since 2010. Lifelong learning should not just be about offering a cut-price “Brideshead Revisited”, via pile ’em high, flog ’em off so-called challenger institutions. As I have run out time, I will end there.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Queen’s Speech set out the Government’s intention to publish a life chances strategy, which I understand will be separate from, but run alongside, their new indicators for child poverty, which are being introduced as part of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. What could be more fundamental to improving life chances than improving access to education, skills and training?
On Friday, I hosted an all-party group event on adult education and its future at the Carr Bridge community centre in Woodchurch in my constituency. The event was part of a piece of research being carried out by the Workers Educational Association and the University of Warwick, and it brought together experts in the field from right across Merseyside, including Wirral Metropolitan College, Wirral Council, Unite the union and staff from Ganneys Meadow nursery school who voluntarily provide GCSE maths classes for parents, because they know the value of the trusted community setting.
The conversation that afternoon was rich and valuable, and I wish to focus on two areas that were discussed with real passion. The first was the provision of literacy and numeracy classes to people with no qualifications or with low levels of qualification, and the second was the provision of a broad curriculum for all adults with a desire to learn and the need for us to rediscover a vision for lifelong learning in our country.
We know that there is a real problem with basic literacy and numeracy skills among adults in this country. The latest survey published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in 2011 found that nearly 15% of 16 to 65-year-olds—around 5 million people—are functionally illiterate. That is a really damning indictment of one of the richest countries on earth. A total of 23.7% of participants in the survey—around 8 million people—lacked basic numeracy skills.
In 2013, an OECD study of 24 developed countries ranked England 11th in literacy and 17th in numeracy for people aged 16 to 65. Those aged between 16 and 24 fared even worse, being ranked 22nd and 21st respectively.
Last week, when I was walking down a road I saw a couple of children out playing. They were probably aged between three and four years old. All of a sudden, their mother appeared, tearing down the street and swearing at them to get back indoors. As I looked at them, it was clear to me that there was no future for those children. Their mother needs help.
I know from my own experience as a former adult basic skills tutor the powerful impact that the provision of free, friendly and accessible classes in the community setting can have on the lives of people who struggle to find the confidence to read and to write. I know, too, the powerful self-esteem that can flow when an adult is given the opportunity to learn—after all, we have all experienced that ourselves.
Seeing the mother and her children reminded me of the scene in “A Christmas Carol” where the Ghost of Christmas Present shows Scrooge two children emerging from under his robe. He describes them as
“wretched, abject, frightful, hideous and miserable.”
Scrooge asks Spirit, “Are they yours?” The Spirit replies:
“They are man’s…This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware of them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy…beware ignorance the most.”
That message is as true today as it was in Dickens’s time. We all know the adage, “Teach the mother and father and you will teach the child.” If we are to break cycles of deprivation, we must provide opportunities to learn in accessible community settings free of charge. To pass through this world unable to read and write with confidence is to experience a deprivation that few of us in this House can truly imagine. As one of the richest countries on earth, it is unacceptable that we allow this need to go unmet, yet the figures are telling. The total cut in the adult skills budget between 2010 and 2011 and 2015 and 2016 is around 37% in real terms, which has decimated local services, hence the need for voluntary provision, which I find unacceptable.
Then there is the matter of how we value those who teach basic literacy and numeracy. I know myself that tutors are very often on insecure and temporary contracts, and yet the work that they do is often as important as that of psychologists, nurses and language therapists. We need to provide a clear career structure and training for these basic skills tutors that properly rewards them and the work that they do.
Let me now turn to the matter of wider adult education provision, including those classes for which there is no requirement to take an exam or acquire a qualification. Back in the 1970s, we could walk past any number of schools in the evening and see the lights ablaze with classes full of people studying art, maths, Spanish, history, woodwork and yoga—the list was endless. We all recognise the value of having access to a swimming pool to maintain our physical health. Why do we not pay similar attention to public provision to foster creativity and maintain mental health? Why do we not value education for education’s sake and understand that some people want to learn without working to an exam? This is particularly important in an ageing society in which social isolation is a growing and significant public health issue. Education has an important role to play in tackling that. I believe we should foster a positive culture of lifelong learning so that we can all continue to learn, grow and share with others in our communities. To ignore our creativity and our ability to learn is to deny our society its full potential and deny all of us our humanity.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). I agree with her sentiments and her quotes, which accurately reflect everything I think about the subject.
About five hours ago some questions were raised about taxes and how we use them. I remind Government Members who are not in their seats at present that “taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society”, and that includes education. Education is probably the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world, and we should be mindful of that at all times. That is probably the reason why I and others are here today.
I am thankful to have this platform from which to address these important issues, about which I feel extremely passionately. The opportunity to access education on the journey from childhood to adulthood is crucial in empowering and enabling people. Access to the very best education is of paramount importance, and the best education must be for all. I am therefore deeply saddened by what is tantamount to a betrayal of young people by this Conservative Government as they continually and callously focus their concentration on constructing an education system for those who can pay, not for those who are less financially advantaged but who, as many Members have said this afternoon, have all the potential to achieve great things, given the opportunity to do so.
I am thankful that education is a devolved and independent matter and that my constituents will benefit from having a Government with progressive attitudes and policies towards education, skills and training. A good education is an investment, not just in a child, but for our economy and for society as a whole. How could it not be? The Scottish Government strive to provide everyone, regardless of their background, with the very best chance of success in life. We do this by investing in high-quality childcare and highly trained staff. We support children during their vital early years and help them to reach their full potential. The Scottish National party and the Scottish Government are determined to raise attainment through the education system and to end decades of educational inequality by tackling the attainment gap in higher education.
The Scottish Government have committed to an ambitious new target that will ensure that by 2030 students from the 20% most deprived areas will make up 20% of higher education entrants. Crucially, as long as the Scottish National party is in government, we will keep university tuition free, ensuring that education is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.
Helping young people make the transition to adulthood and the world of work is vital, whether a young person chooses university, college, vocational training or employment. It is important that they get the very best opportunity. The Scottish Government are committed to increasing the number of modern apprenticeships each year to 30,000 by 2020.
The appointment of the Deputy First Minister as Education Secretary demonstrates the Scottish Government’s commitment to education as a major priority. This exemplifies the dedication that we have in Scotland to build on the achievements already made, keeping education to the fore. However, the Scottish Government’s efforts in this regard are undermined by this Conservative Government. The apprenticeship levy introduced by the Conservatives is causing many organisations great concern. I was recently in contact with Forth Valley College in Falkirk, which expects to be liable to pay about £85,000, with no additional support from the Government. The principal has also expressed uncertainty about how the levy will be distributed to organisations in Scotland. This is an ill-thought-out measure, and as the chair of the all-party group on the hair industry, I am concerned about the impact on training and on college access across the UK.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
My hon. Friend will be aware that Colleges Scotland—the organisation that looks after all the colleges in Scotland—recently calculated that £1.9 million will be taken out of the Scottish Government’s allocation for further education through the apprenticeship levy. Surely that £1.9 million would be better being retained to make sure that we train apprentices appropriately.
John Mc Nally
I could not agree more. We could use that money for a far better purpose.
With that in mind, I turn to the relevant part of the Queen’s Speech. I start by reiterating a point that has previously been made: this Queen’s Speech is a missed opportunity for progressive action. Perhaps this Tory Government do not want to admit that they have no idea how to improve the people’s lives, or perhaps they simply do not care enough.
Over the last six years we have seen time and time again that the Tories are ideologically wedded to the divisive programme of austerity, and this Queen’s Speech delivers more of the same. This Tory Government are forcing a heavy financial burden on working families and students in England, as they continue to allow tuition fees of £9,000; indeed, as we have heard today, it sounds like fees are guaranteed to increase. That policy disheartens those who are not from wealthy backgrounds and discourages them from applying to university.
I respectfully suggest that the Secretary of State for Education should learn more from what we do well in Scotland, where more of the population is educated beyond school years. As has been mentioned, more of our population is tertiary-educated than in any other country, and a higher percentage of young people now leave school for positive destinations than at any other time on record.
Perhaps it is foolish of me to believe that the Government understand that a high-quality education available to all is the most important economic driver for a developed society in the 21st century. They fail to realise that, by restricting access to further education to those who can pay for it or who are willing to take on excessive debt, they are damaging the country for generations to come. There will be fewer graduates and fewer qualified professionals, leading to a loss in innovation and skills.
The Government are at the top of a slippery slope. The failure to invest in the education of all our communities is a failure for the future of the country. I make an appeal to the Secretary of State for Education that goes beyond and above party politics: she needs to reconsider her policy and to base education on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.
It has been observed:
“‘Tis Education forms the common mind, Just as the Twig is bent, the Tree’s inclined.”
It has also been observed:
“No one should be ashamed to admit they are wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that they are wiser today than they were yesterday.”
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and to conclude on behalf of the SNP.
There is a phrase in the Queen’s Speech that I doubt anyone in this place would disagree with:
“educational excellence in all schools, giving every child the best start in life.”
I have taught in several excellent schools. One in particular that comes to mind is an inner-city comprehensive in Glasgow, where quality shone through. The quality was obvious in the way the school interacted with the wider community, the way former pupils came back to let their teachers know how they were getting on and the way the staff worked as a team to make sure they got the best possible outcomes for their students. It was also a happy place. However, would that school be deemed excellent by Government Members? I doubt it.
There are three main groups of people who make the difference to children’s educational chances: the children themselves, their parents and the teachers. At no point did I mention politicians, however, because we now have a situation where the level of political interference is reaching dangerous levels.
Many Members will have visited schools in their constituencies. Like the Queen, they will have been treated to the pristine and polished view. A more enlightening experience, perhaps, would be to go undercover and shadow a teacher for a couple of days. Even though a proficient teacher will make the job look easy, one would still develop a far more informed view of the realities of 21st-century education. I would suggest that Members try their hand at teaching a class of 30 teenagers, but unfortunately most hon. Members in this place would not make it past the morning interval. As legislators, we need to understand why there is both a recruitment and a retention crisis in teaching. We need to listen to the teachers to ensure that we retain these experts in education.
The dangers of the academisation programme may not be immediately obvious. Indeed, to the lay person the programme can seem attractive. No parent wants their child to get a second-class education at a so-called failing school, so transforming these schools magically into beacons of educational brilliance does indeed seem attractive. But we need to call it what it is: this “deregulation” is in fact privatisation by another name. Academies can be judged to be failing or coasting in the same way that local authority schools can be outstanding, so this relentless drive to convert schools to academies is clearly being done for a different reason, and I suggest that it is an ideological attack on state education.
There is plenty of talk about our great teachers—in fact, I have heard it mentioned several times today—but to the teaching profession these words appear hollow. Removing teachers’ nationally agreed terms and conditions and abandoning pay scales is ultimately about reducing education spending. These terms and conditions set out the number of hours teachers should work each week and how that time should be split between class contact, preparation time, and continuous professional development activities. Simple things like the requirement to give a teacher a lunch break are included in the conditions, but they also include agreed standards for, for example, sick pay or maternity leave. Firefighters and police officers are not expected to negotiate their pay with the local station, and neither should our teachers. For a beleaguered profession, this is the equivalent of kicking them when they are down.
The deregulation of pay scales has been reported as allowing schools to pay their staff more in order to recruit quality teachers. I am afraid I am sceptical. There is a real danger that by removing standardised pay scales, the opposite will in fact happen, and staff will be paid less. This will further demotivate teachers and lead to the increased use of unqualified teachers. As the largest part of any school budget is for staffing, when this is rolled out nationally the Government’s education budget can be eroded right across the country, meaning that education spending would reduce and funding problems currently experienced in schools would be ingrained.
The use of unqualified teachers causes me grave concern. We are talking about people who hold a child’s future in their hands. It would be unacceptable to go to the doctor and find that the person sitting in front of you had never been to medical school, so why is this acceptable in teaching? I accept that there are shortages of teachers generally, and specifically in a number of key subject areas. The Government should therefore ask themselves, and ask the teachers, why teaching has become so unattractive, rather than compound the situation with further ham-fisted, ideologically driven interference.
On a number of occasions in this Chamber I have raised concerns about the £35,000 income threshold for non-EU workers. The Government need to look immediately at this ill-thought-out scheme and the impact it is having on the recruitment and retention of overseas teachers in key subject areas, particularly in STEM subjects. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to tackle shortages in those subjects or to lift the £35,000 threshold.
Excellence is not about groups of pupils leaving school with a narrow clutch of GCSEs in traditional subjects. In Scotland we have a new curriculum for excellence, which allows pupils to work through subject areas with much less constraint than in the past. The drive is not for boffin-like students to rhyme off equations and dates that can be Googled instantly; instead, it is for our young people to be empowered with skills such as analysis, communication and problem solving—in other words, the employability skills for which business is crying out.
I am happy to say that Scotland is a country of bairns not bombs. We are protecting pay scales, terms and conditions, and standards and qualifications for teachers. Unqualified teachers cannot work in our schools.
When the education system in England has been flushed down the toilet of deregulation, those who can afford it will go private, and unequal Britain will be embedded. The UK Government have to ask themselves what value they place—
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This is the climbdown Queen’s Speech or the “as much as we can muster together” Queen’s Speech. It is a Queen’s Speech so fearful of its own destiny—or should I say demise?—that it seeks hardly any powers at all. Nowhere is that more stark than in its flimsy offerings on education and skills.
The Prime Minister said only a few weeks ago that
“academies for all…will be in the Queen’s Speech.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1422.]
Yet the word “academy” did not even appear in Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech.
The Government had one big idea for education: to force all schools, against their wishes, to become academies. That has been dropped as quickly as it was unveiled to shore up the Chancellor’s lacklustre Budget. There remains a schools Bill, but it is hardly worth the paper it is written on and raises more questions than it answers. If that is the sum total of the new thinking of the first Conservative majority Government in more than 20 years, their education policy is in a very dire state indeed. In the process, their flip-flopping has wasted the valuable time and energy not just of the Department, which is failing to get the basics right, but of school leaders, parents and teachers around the country, who are in open revolt at the Government’s approach.
What a crying shame that after so many years of real progress in education by successive Governments, particularly the last Labour one, this Government are now presiding over a school system in crisis. It is mired by chaos and confusion created by incessant ministerial meddling, and the basics of sufficiency in quality teachers, school places and budgets are woefully lacking. For the first time in a long time, education is right back up there as an issue of public concern.
As we have heard in the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and by many Conservative Members, there is relief at the Government’s decision to U-turn on forced academisation. However, the Government seem to have missed the point of the wide alliance that their plans have forged. It is not simply about the politically inept idea of compelling already good and outstanding schools to become academies against their wishes; it is about wider concerns about the desire for a fully academised system—without the underpinning evidence, capacity or robust oversight and accountability—leading to many more Perry Beeches or E-ACTs. Many of those concerns remain, but the Government have failed to address any of them or to produce any clear evidence. Vague assertions and loose statistics that have no correlation to cause and effect simply will not do.
The evidence remains patchy. Analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that only three of the biggest academy chains got a positive value-added rating and that just one of the 26 biggest primary sponsors achieved results above the national average. In areas where there is still underachievement at GCSE, most or all secondary schools are already academies. The highest-performing part of our school system is in primary, where more than 80% of schools are maintained and rated good or outstanding, and where most of the Education Secretary’s 1.4 million good new places have been created. There is simply no evidence that academisation in itself leads to school improvement. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made many of those points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) made some excellent points about the fragmented and poor planning that the school system creates. That is why we now have a shell of a schools Bill and a Government with absolutely nothing else to say. I ask the Secretary of State again to get the independent analysis, take stock, ensure that best practice—not worst practice—is being spread and develop high-quality chains to take on more schools before seeking more powers to accelerate academisation.
I support the Secretary of State’s plans to require maths to be taught until the age of 18. Indeed, I think that that should be extended to English, too. But her ambition will fail completely if she does not take urgent action to tackle the chronic shortage of teachers, particularly in maths.
Margaret Greenwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s failure to get to grips with the retention of schoolteachers is hurtling us towards crisis?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent point. The shortage of teachers is the biggest issue facing education today, and the Government have only recently begun to acknowledge that there is a problem.
Cuts to further education will make the Government’s agenda more difficult. As the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee pointed out, STEM subjects are critical if we are to compete in the digital, automated new economy. Yet the Government are taking us backwards, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said in her excellent speech. They must heed warnings from the OECD that the Secretary of State’s new maths curriculum is
“a mile wide and an inch deep”
and that it will fail to equip young people with the critical and conceptual thinking required to succeed in the new economy. My former schoolmate in Manchester, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), gave an inspiring speech on the future skills needed for the new economy.
One thread of the new legislative programme that the Government just about managed to muster was that of their so-called life chances agenda. Although I and everyone in the House share these aims, the record and reality of this Government fly in the face of that agenda. It is almost laughable. Yes, let us support social workers by lifting the quality and the status of the profession, and let us enable quicker adoption for those who want to give vulnerable children a great start in life. We also welcome the care leavers covenant. But let us not kid ourselves that the context has not got much, much harder. Huge cuts to children’s services, the decimation of Sure Start centres and family support services, reduced tax credits, increased housing and childcare costs and a growth in insecure work have put many more families in crisis or on the brink, as has the Government’s failure to tackle child poverty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) pointed out. It is no wonder that the attainment gap between the disadvantaged and their peers has widened under this Government. That is the measure of the Government’s life chances record.
As we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), and others, scrapping maintenance grants and increasing tuition fees will not help the life chances of the disadvantaged either. The failure to prioritise adult skills and 16-to-19 education will not help people to better themselves, as we heard in a very personal speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). Ministers need a reality check if they think that tired rhetoric will turn into results. That point was brilliantly made by my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman).
The biggest tragedy lies in the measures that the Government could have proposed for this Session. They could have had widespread support for raising life chances. They could have had real powers for local authorities on school place planning, incentives for teacher recruitment and retention, and a childcare strategy focused on quality or real measures to raise standards in our schools. The Secretary of State would have had strong support if, in her discussions with the Chancellor, she had focused on ensuring that schools were properly resourced rather than on forced academisation.
The Secretary of State talks of fair funding, which we support, but she does so in the context of real and significant school budget cuts. If we talk to any headteacher, they will tell us what they are cutting: extracurricular activities, one-to-one tuition, teaching assistants, life-expanding school trips and visits and so on—all the things that should be at the heart of a life chances agenda. I recently visited a school in my constituency, a primary school in Moss Side, that had put on a Shakespeare play at the local theatre, but the headteacher will not be able to arrange that next year because of the budget cuts she faces.
Lucy Powell
The right hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is the reality on the ground. I could give her a number of examples of that happening in every part of the country.
The Government could have ensured a robust and consistent testing and assessment framework. Instead, we have seen chaos and confusion—calamity after calamity on SATs with baseline testing being abandoned, and new and radically different GCSEs still not ready just weeks before they are due to begin. Today’s kids are guinea pigs for the Government’s chaotic experiments. In every other public sphere, Ministers are championing devolution, yet in education they are going in the opposite direction.
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. Does she agree with a point put to me on Friday by a senior police officer on Merseyside that the Government are failing to provide an education that develops our children, particularly those who are not going to gain high academic qualifications, and that that is spilling over in the creation of lots of problems for our police and social services?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the narrowing of the curriculum that we have seen under this Government.
This week’s IPPR North report warns of the growing regional divide. As my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) highlighted, Ministers cannot build a northern powerhouse or a midlands engine of growth if they take away the levers that communities are using to tackle the deep-rooted causes of low attainment. However, the real headline of the report is just how well London has done. Why is that? It is—to name but a few reasons—because of the London challenge, significant resources and the development of a pool of world-class teachers. The Government seem to be ignoring all those lessons. Indeed, they are putting such achievements at risk by taking away further resources.
This is a programme from a Government who are unable to persuade even their own Members of the merits of their proposals, who are out of ideas for schools and education and who talk of improved life chances but whose actions make life much harder for those with the least. The Government’s education record has been one of structural change at the expense of standards, chronic teacher shortages, a schools places crisis, falling budgets and assessment in complete and utter meltdown. Their own record is now coming home to roost, and on it they will be judged.
The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)
This has been an excellent debate. I estimate that 31 Members from all parts of the House have spoken, raising a variety of different subjects. One thing on which we can all agree is that everybody has an interest—a passionate interest—in education. It is an honour for me to close this debate, and I thank Members who have spoken for their insightful contributions.
It is clear from the speech by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) that when it comes to education, the differences between us and the Labour party are stark. While we take the side of parents, pupils and students, the Labour party backs stagnation and decline. The hon. Lady cannot even get her basic facts right: the attainment gap has narrowed at both key stage 2 and key stage 4 since 2011, meaning better prospects and a more prosperous life as an adult for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Since 2010, this Government have been relentless in our pursuit of educational excellence at all ages. I note that the hon. Lady did not even mention the Higher Education and Research Bill in her concluding remarks. We have worked to secure the economy, guarantee prosperity and deliver social justice. The Gracious Speech is a continuation of that approach. As many speakers have picked out, we are particularly focusing on opportunity for all.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
On Friday, I visited Oliver’s Battery Primary School in my constituency, which was the last school in my constituency to be neither good nor outstanding. Today, Hampshire County Council has told me that every single school in my constituency is now good or outstanding. That has been achieved through the hard work of the teachers, the parents, the governors and the young people, and that is what education reform is doing in my constituency.
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted and pleased—perhaps he will pass on my congratulations to the school he mentioned on its recent Ofsted report. We want the opportunities that schoolchildren in his constituency have to be available to all children, right the way across the country. That is why the White Paper talks about “achieving excellence” areas.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State have any words for the school my children go to, where class sizes are currently increasing from 30 to 32? The notification I have had this week is that my children are now going to have more children in their classes, and their teachers will be stretched. Would she like to say anything to their school?
Nicky Morgan
We have created 600,000 new school places since 2010. The hon. Lady will know—everyone does—that the most important thing is to have the best quality teachers in the classroom in front of pupils, inspiring that next generation.
I will turn to the remarks made by Members on all sides of the House. The Chairman of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), welcomed the care leavers covenant. He discussed illegal and unregistered schools. Sadly, that situation has been going on for far too long. We now have a new Ofsted team leading investigations and preparing cases for prosecution, but more needs to be done, which is why we have talked about regulating out-of-school settings. We will come back to Members with proposals on that after the consultation. I will return to his comments about the consultation on the education for all Bill later in my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) set out his track record on referendum votes. That has not been too successful, but we can all agree that, whatever we think about the current referendum debate, this Government have delivered on giving the British people an in/out vote on our EU membership on 23 June. He was the first person to talk about support for the new national funding formula. I am grateful to him and other hon. Members who mentioned that.
In a very personal speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) spoke about her experiences, saying that what matters is not where you come from but where you are going to. That is absolutely right, and a view we would all subscribe to. She supports the national funding formula. The Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), talked about the Chancellor’s recognising the importance of funding science even in a time of austerity.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—I cannot see whether he is in his place—called the Queen’s Speech a Milk Tray of hard and soft centres, and a smorgasbord of delights. He certainly has a way with words. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who talked about her support for the national funding formula, kindly invited me to make a visit on 5 July. I will have to look at my diary, but I very much enjoyed my last visit to Chippenham schools with her last year. She also talked about the links between schools and businesses, and we are of course backing the Careers and Enterprise Company, which offers exactly those sorts of opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) talked about her support for the National Citizen Service. I am sure that, like many others, she will welcome the Bill in the Queen’s Speech to put the NCS on a statutory footing. We are also going to make sure that it can be promoted in schools, to make sure young people get the opportunities she talked about. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) talked about the Wales Bill. I have to say that I have not been involved in its drafting or the debates about it, but I am sure that his remarks will have been heeded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) talked about the Higher Education and Research Bill, welcoming the establishment of new universities, which she hopes will particularly benefit her part of the country. She offered her support for the national funding formula. She also admitted that we have invented some new words in the past few weeks. For the benefit of the Minister for Schools, we have invented the verb “to academise”, along with the noun “academisation”. I look forward to those words being added to the next edition of the dictionary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) talked about early years provision. I encourage her and interested people in her constituency to take part in the early years national funding formula consultation when it is published shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) talked about the better markets Bill and the problems in her own constituency. She may be interested to know that the Government today published a call for evidence seeking to establish whether there are any problems with the provision of advice, advocacy and dispute resolution in the regulated sectors, including water, to help us develop that better markets Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) also welcomed the national funding formula. She mentioned, as did other hon. Members, her concerns about young people’s mental health. She is absolutely right to identify that issue. The Department has done a lot of work on that. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), who has responsibility for childcare, has worked on peer support schemes, on counselling in schools and on school pilot projects on child and adolescent mental health services, but we know we can go further.
Nicky Morgan
I will get to the hon. Gentleman’s speech in a moment [Interruption.] I am glad that he wants to listen to my remarks.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) rightly said that we should learn from each other, and perhaps through him I can welcome the new Unionist Minister, Peter Weir, to his place in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) asked where the evidence was, and I encourage him to read the discussions of the Education Committee about international evidence. Several SNP Members spoke about the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills in the Scottish Government. I spoke to John Swinney on Monday, and hope that we can work together, particularly on the 2017 international teaching summit that Scotland is hosting. I hope that all Administrations will take part in that.
Neil Gray
I assume that the Minister will be keen to retain as many skilled graduates as possible. Will she commit to working with the SNP, and the new Cabinet Secretary and Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, and approach the Home Secretary about the reintroduction of the post-study work visa?
Nicky Morgan
I heard the hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks to the Minister. We have one of the most successful university sectors in the world, of which people from overseas rightly take advantage, and it is incumbent on us to ensure a robust visa and border policy. The number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds who go to universities in Scotland is almost half—[Interruption.] Deprived young people in Scotland are almost half as likely to attend university as their peers in England.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about multi-academy trusts, and we debated that. He will have noticed the item in the White Paper on multi-academy trust accountability, which says that we will launch new accounting measures for MATs, and publish MAT performance tables in addition to the continued publication of performance at individual school level.
Stephen Timms
The Secretary of State spoke in the Education Committee about allowing parents to initiate the process of changing from one trust to another if things go wrong with the original trust. Will that provision be in the Bill?
Nicky Morgan
We are considering that, and we want to take soundings and consult on exactly how it would work. We would not want to destabilise trusts, but the views of parents are critical on that issue.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) spoke about part-time students, and will no doubt have welcomed the announcement last year that for the first time ever we will provide financial support to part-time students that is equivalent to the support we give full-time students. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) spoke about English devolution, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) spoke about north-south funding. I am sure she will welcome the national funding formula, and take part in the next stage of the consultation.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke about the changing world and robots. I wondered if she was suggesting that that might be the next leader of her party, but she was actually talking about new enterprise. The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) spoke about the pothole fund, and I point her to the £250 million that has been announced. A number of hon. Members rightly mentioned the importance of the further education sector, but they overlooked the continuing investment in the pupil premium fund.
Nicky Morgan
No, I want to make this point. We are committed to the further education sector, and the education for all Bill will include measures to reform technical education and improve qualifications so that that is employer-led, and prepares students in further education for skilled and valued employment. The hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) mentioned the university technical college, and she will meet the Minister tomorrow. She said that that was not proved financially viable due to poor pupil recruitment. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) also spoke about their commitment to education.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science opened the debate by outlining measures to secure the future success of our world-leading higher education system. The Higher Education and Research Bill will inject dynamism and innovation into the system, making it easier for new, high-quality providers to enter the market, giving students more choice and unprecedented transparency on data and information, so that they can make informed decisions about where and what to study. The Bill will raise teaching standards through the teaching excellence framework. In the face of doom-mongering by Labour Members, I remind the House about their record on predictions about higher education: they were wrong about the impact of fees on participation rates and wrong about the impact on disadvantaged pupils.
Let me turn to the children and social work Bill. We must expect the same for children in care as we do for our own children: the same aspirations, the same opportunities and the same hope. The Bill will continue the Government’s determination to transform the life chances of the most vulnerable children, giving them the stability to succeed. It includes measures to strengthen adoption and to ensure that those charged with making decisions in the interests of children always take into account a child’s need for stability. It will introduce new ways to drive innovation in local authorities, enable us to continue our drive to raise the status and standards of social workers, and include a set of corporate parenting principles and a requirement for local authorities to publish a local offer for care leavers, setting out what support they can expect and giving them the right to a personal adviser until the age of 25.
The education for all Bill continues our drive for excellence to exist everywhere in our education system, moving further towards a school-led system, with heads, teachers and parents in the driving seat. Schools are embracing the opportunities already available, with record numbers applying to convert to academy status in March and hundreds of underperforming schools set to be turned around by strong sponsors. The Bill shifts responsibility for school improvement away from local authorities towards great school leaders who will be able to spread their reach, ensuring more pupils benefit from their proven records of success.
Following careful consultation, which I hope will include the Education Committee, we will have robust criteria for identifying local authorities that are chronically underperforming or which no longer have the resources to maintain their remaining schools. The education for all Bill will allow us to convert all their remaining schools, including those that are good or outstanding.
The Bill will make sure excellence exists, too, for excluded pupils. Exclusion will no longer be a mechanism by which schools can deem them out of sight and out of mind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said, schools will be responsible for the continued education of excluded pupils; charged with finding them the right providers; able to give them the education they deserve; and incentivised to do their best for them by being accountable for their educational achievement.
It cannot be fair that a child in one part of the country can attract, in some cases, thousands of pounds more in funding to their school than a child with the same characteristics and costs who happens to live elsewhere. The education for all Bill will consign the antiquated school funding system to the history books, replacing it with a national funding formula that will give schools their fair share of funding to give every child the education they deserve.
The Minister for Skills will shortly launch the Government’s skills plan, our strategy to revolutionise the skills system that has hitherto been a minefield of training and qualifications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase said, we will introduce legislation to strengthen careers advice, requiring schools to give education and training providers the opportunity to reach young people on school premises.
It is telling that the Labour party would rather leave schools in the hands of underperforming and unviable local authorities based on opposition to school freedom. It is no wonder the leader of the NUT’s first act after stepping down was to join the Labour party. I cannot understand why the Labour party continues to draw a false distinction between structures and standards. Of course standards are paramount. The quality of teaching is the most important thing we can do to make sure education is life-transforming. But the Government believe that if we want high standards, teachers have to lead the structures. If we want educational excellence everywhere, we have to identify those parts of the country where the educational underperformance is entrenched and focus on it. We will look at all those things. As the Minister for Universities and Science said, the White Paper has one chapter on structures and seven chapters on teaching, leadership, funding, standards and qualifications.
Unlike the Labour party, the Government believe in opportunity and aspiration. More importantly, we will take the steps and seek the measures to support excellence in our schools, to support and enhance our world class universities, and to make sure we procure the best life chances for children in the care system. For Conservative Members, children, students and parents—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 4 together.
Ordered,
That the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2016 (S.I., 2016, No. 332), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.
That the School Governance (Constitution and Federations) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 (S.I., 2016, No. 204), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.
That the Feed-in Tariffs (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 2045), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Development on the former Two Trees High School site, Denton
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I rise to present the petition that has been collected by my constituent, Margaret Smethurst, following my Adjournment debate on 26 February concerning planning issues relating to the Haughton Green area of my constituency. The petition has 167 signatures. It is accompanied by an online Change.org petition that has 1,338 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Haughton Green and Denton,
Declares that the fields of the former Two Trees High School in Denton should be protected from unwanted development; and further that the site should be preserved for the benefit of the environment and future generations.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretaries of State for Education and Communities and Local Government to protect Haughton Green and Denton’s open spaces, and prohibit unwanted development on the former site of Two Trees High School.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001697]
Battle of Jutland Centenary
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to invite the House to pay its respects to those who fought at the battle of Jutland on 31 May and 1 June 100 years ago. At 10.30 pm on 30 May 1916, Admiral Jellicoe led 16 Dreadnought battle ships out of Scapa Flow after the Admiralty had intercepted a message suggesting that the German fleet was mobilising. He was to meet a squadron of eight Dreadnoughts coming from Cromarty to form the grand fleet. Admiral Beatty’s battle cruiser fleet comprising 52 ships left Rosyth a little later. In total, 151 ships of the Royal Navy were to rendezvous 90 miles west of Jutland.
At 1 am on 31 May, Admiral Hipper’s battle cruisers left Wilhelmshaven. The German main battle fleet of 16 Dreadnought class ships led by Admiral Scheer left Jade at 2.30 am and were joined by six pre-Dreadnought ships from the Elbe river at 4 am, giving a total of 99 ships in the German high seas fleet. Neither side knew that the other’s entire force was at sea. On 31 May at 3.48 pm, five of Admiral Hipper’s ships opened fire on the battlecruisers of Admiral Beatty. Within 36 minutes, the British fleet had lost two battlecruisers, HMS Indefatigable and HMS Queen Mary, with the loss of 2,264 men and boys, and just 21 survivors.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that my grandfather served on HMS Valiant as a gunnery officer during the battle of Jutland? I shall be reading out his letters during a presentation in Devonport in Plymouth on Monday. The adrenalin that went through his body at the time meant that he did not need to eat anything for 36 hours after playing his part in the battle. He enjoyed only a glass of sloe gin and a ham sandwich during the course of it.
Mrs Drummond
The normal ration is rum, of course. I ask my hon. Friend to send those letters to the Royal Naval Museum in Portsmouth; I am sure that it would be very grateful to him. HMS Valiant, on which his grandfather served, also had a distinguished career in world war two, when it served in the Mediterranean and the far east.
Within 12 hours, the Royal Navy had lost 14 ships and more than 6,000 men while the German navy lost 11 ships and 2,500 men. The total was 10% of the number of ships at battle. The conditions in which the battle was fought were foggy and damp with a freezing North sea that claimed the lives of many of those who managed to abandon their shattered ships. Those lives are remembered at the manning ports of Portsmouth, Plymouth and Chatham, where the memorials designed by Sir Robert Lorimer bear plaques carrying all their names.
The biggest ships fired shells weighing nearly a tonne over a distance of 12 miles. Conditions aboard ships on both sides would have been uncomfortable and cramped at the best of times.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the matter to the House for consideration. HMS Caroline, which has been undergoing restoration while docked in Belfast harbour, saw action at the battle of Jutland. The strong links and bonds between our great nations are exemplified by our shared history and experiences. Given the number of approaching centenaries, does she agree that now is an opportune moment to ensure that we link all our common experiences and see Britishness come roaring back?
Mrs Drummond
Absolutely. HMS Caroline has just received a large sum of Heritage Lottery Fund money for its restoration and the site is opening next week.
In battle, the confusion and strain must have been immense as ships manoeuvred at high speed as they shot shattering broadsides and received hammering hits from enemy guns. Below deck, the men would have been working in extreme heat in the boiler rooms or in the gun turrets with a sense of helplessness at influencing all that was going on around them. A single hit to a ship’s magazine could blow both ship and crew to pieces. One such tragedy sunk HMS Invincible in 90 seconds with the loss of more than 1,000 lives.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this debate to the House. Given the significance of the battle of the Somme in 1916, I often think that Jutland’s strategic significance gets overlooked.
When going through my late grandfather’s records, I realised that he was in the Royal Navy from 1908 to 1922 and served on HMS Orion, the first of the super-Dreadnoughts. I was going to say that he played a minor role, but it was actually quite significant. HMS Orion managed four hits on the German battlecruiser Lützow, which had earlier nearly sunk Admiral Beatty’s flagship.
Mrs Drummond
The hon. Gentleman may like to know that HMS Orion was made in Portsmouth, so that is another link.
The loss of life on the ships was largely due to keeping cordite close to the turrets so that it could be brought up quickly to enable faster firing. There was also confusion among the highest ranking officers of both the German and Royal Navy fleets. Admiral Scheer, in command of the German fleet, did not know that Jellicoe was at sea until his ships appeared on the horizon. Although wireless technology was widely available, it was used sparingly as it gave the transmitter’s position away to the enemy, so flags and search lights were the main means by which ship-to-ship communications were conducted. In the smoke, the spray and poor visibility, signals were not received, so small cruisers were placed between the larger battleships to pass on the messages.
It is testament to the trying circumstances that four Victoria Crosses were given to sailors and Royal Marines for the action, and perhaps more should have been awarded. The first was given to Jack Cornwell, or Boy Cornwell as he was known, who stuck to his task as a sight-setter of a 5.5-inch gun on HMS Chester. All his colleagues had been killed or mortally wounded. He was just 16 and a child like many others in the grand fleet. Boy Cornwell’s example was reproduced on posters hung in classrooms as an example to others, although his devotion and bravery was far from unique in the fleet at Jutland. Sir Edward Carson, First Lord of the Admiralty, wrote:
“I feel that Jack Cornwell, the boy who met his death at the post of duty, sends this message through me…to the Empire: ‘Obey your orders. Cling to your post. Don’t grumble. Stick it out.’”
The second VC was awarded to Major Francis Harvey, a former pupil of Portsmouth Grammar School and a Royal Marine serving on HMS Lion. He ordered the flooding of the magazine of Q turret to prevent an explosion, thereby saving the ship.
Rear Admiral Barry Bingham was awarded the third VC as captain of HMS Nestor. The destroyer had to close right up to enemy battleships to fire its torpedoes, a task which it completed despite being hit numerous times and eventually sinking.
The fourth VC was awarded to Commander Loftus Jones, from Petersfield near Portsmouth. He was captain of HMS Shark and literally fought to the end, manning the last gun on his ship capable of firing. The lifejacket that he wore in the freezing North sea is now on display in the superb exhibition about the battle of Jutland at the National Museum of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth. His body was washed up on the shores of Sweden, where he received a Viking burial.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the support that I know she gives to the naval historic dockyard in Portsmouth. I know she has seen this already, but I commend her on the wonderful exhibition “36 Hours: Jutland 1916, The Battle That Won The War”, which all right hon. and hon. Members should see. It is open for three years.
Mrs Drummond
I am incredibly lucky to have it in my constituency, and I urge all Members to visit it.
Mrs Drummond
I will take one last intervention, from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
The hon. Lady is being remarkably generous in giving way, in a remarkably well attended Adjournment debate. She will know that next week Orkney will be at the heart of the events to commemorate this remarkable episode in our nation’s history, just as we were at the heart of events 100 years ago, when Jellicoe led the fleet from Scapa Flow. I am struck by the range of interventions we have had from Members from right across the country, and it strikes me that what we will be commemorating is not just a memorable naval battle, but an enterprise involving communities right across the length and breadth of this country. That is the spirit in which it should be remembered.
Mrs Drummond
Absolutely. I do not think there is a single place that has not contributed to the Royal Navy at some time.
Jutland has always been a difficult battle for lay people to understand, because of the chaos of a naval action in poor visibility and darkness. Despite a massive toll of injury and death, the true impact of the battle was not understood at home, even immediately afterwards. There were some early interpretations of the outcome as a German victory, followed by an understanding that it was in fact a strategic defeat of Germany. Exactly a month later, the horrors of the Somme brought a fresh wave of shock to the population. Although we are here now to commemorate the centenary of the battle, it has spent most of the past 100 years lurking in the shadows of our national consciousness, yet the impact on my city of Portsmouth was profound. Portsmouth provided a major part of the crews of the biggest ships in the fleet. In Portsmouth’s manned ships we lost 3,000 lives in the battle of Jutland, more than we lost at the Somme. The impact of Jutland on families and communities in the city was huge.
The battle of Jutland jerked the Royal Navy out of Victorian complacency about its leadership. It had led the way with the building of Dreadnought and its successors at the insistence of Admiral Jacky Fisher, but over that period, and for long before it, the leadership of the Navy had fossilised ideas and played down the importance of initiative; it was constricted by the Victorian class structure.
Mrs Drummond
I am unable to, as I do not have much time. At Jutland, there were various examples of squadron commanders failing to act on their own initiative and a conservatism in the standing orders of the fleet, which were based on the outmoded premises of the Victorian era. There was an automatic assumption by almost everyone that the commander on the flagship must already be aware of what they saw. There was a reluctance to break wireless silence at night when important developments occurred. Generally, there was a disinclination to act and an eagerness to defer to authority—all those things are seen as the inevitable outcome of the structured rationalist certainties of the late Victorian fleet. By the prescriptive, centralising premises on which his elaborate battle orders were based, Jellicoe had acted correctly—but they were the premises of the Victorian era. Arthur Marder, writing in 1966, described the Royal Navy of the turn of the 20th century as follows:
“though numerically a very imposing force, it was in certain respects a drowsy, inefficient, moth-eaten organism”.
On the other side, the Germans had a technical and tactical understanding among their commanding officers that surpassed ours. The German navy arguably came into being as a distinct separate organisation only in 1888—indeed, most of its ships were named after Prussian soldiers. Alfred von Tirpitz became chief of staff to the German navy’s high command at the age of 48, after being a specialist in torpedoes and mines. He recognised that the torpedo could be as vital as the gun, and ensured that tactical exercises replaced formal manoeuvres. The Germans practised a manoeuvre called “battle turnaround”, which was a simultaneous turnaround for all ships in the convoy, rather than the turn in succession. It made it easier to escape bombardment, and this was so successful at Jutland. Every encouragement was given to German subordinate officers to act on their own initiative whenever they could better further their commanding officer’s intentions, rather than have rigid compliance with orders. Admiral von Tirpitz was instrumental in the appointment of Admiral Scheer as head of the German high seas fleet who, likewise, was a torpedo specialist. Although it is not quite as true of the Royal Navy as it was of the Army in world war one that they were “lions led by donkeys”, there were clear deficiencies, and it is to the credit of the Royal Navy that they rapidly learned the lessons.
If we are to be critical of naval leadership, we should, at the same time, remember the burdens that fell on Admiral Jellicoe. He had, at all costs, to avoid a major defeat. In fact, he showed the Germans that the Royal Navy, even at the huge cost of life at Jutland, had the strength to fight battles on that scale repeatedly while they did not.
The lead that we built up in the Dreadnought race before the war was simply too great. The consequences of Jutland were that our naval supremacy on the surface remained unchallengeable. Germany largely kept its surface fleet in port and resorted to the unrestricted submarine warfare that eventually brought the United States into the war and doomed Germany. Jellicoe and Beatty led a Navy that stuck to its tasks and bravely undertook its duties despite horrendous hardships.
We find ourselves now in a new era of development, with two new aircraft carriers shortly to enter service; the introduction of the excellent Astute-class submarines, and a clear plan for renewing the nuclear deterrent. There is no doubt that, technically, our Navy is at the forefront of technology and doctrine.
However, it is not enough for us in this House to allow the Royal Navy to acquire the most up-to-date equipment if it is to rest idle in the docks in Portsmouth, Plymouth or Faslane. We must provide the resources to enable the Navy to recruit and retain a highly motivated team. We must provide them with the resources to work out the best way to utilise the equipment to enable them to develop tactics.
Today it is tempting to believe that, with the internet, satellite communications, and video-stream links, we can have centralised systems and that, just like Jellicoe, we can control those people in the field. However, just like at Jutland, there could be a misplaced assumption by those in the field that those in the centre already know what is going on.
In the battle of Jutland, there was one flag signal every 67 seconds. In the Falklands, HMS Hermes handled 170,000 signals in 10 weeks, or one every 39 seconds. Too much signalling can lead to information overload. It can also centralise decision making and stultify initiative.
In times of peace, the value of experience fades and is replaced by rational theory as a result of new technology discrediting previous experience. We might do well to remind ourselves of the quote from Sun Tzu, the Chinese general who wrote some 2,500 years ago:
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”.
That encapsulates the object of our strategy of deterrence, and so we must demonstrate to all our potential enemies that not only do we have the most up-to-date equipment, but we also know how to use it.
The people who have served in our forces in the past, now, and who will serve in the future must always be at the centre of our thoughts. At this time of year, our forces have fought crucial battles in other wars besides world war one. On this day in May 1941, the fleet led by Admiral Cunningham, supported by my father-in-law, on HMS Hereward, began the evacuation of Crete, one of the Navy’s grimmest tasks but one it carried out with devotion and sacrifice.
Thirty four years ago, all three services were fighting 8,000 miles away to liberate the Falklands. Today, 25 May, is the anniversary of the sinking of HMS Coventry. A total of 19 of her crew were lost and a further 39 were injured. Our hearts go out to the friends and relations of those who were killed in that battle.
Most of us in this House were alive during the Falklands war, and it is through our memory of that conflict, including that of the fate of HMS Coventry, that we have a greater understanding of the shock suffered by the nation after the battle of Jutland. Likewise, it is through the people we know who fought in that battle that we have some understanding of what it must have been like at Jutland as bombs and missiles hit magazines in those ships too.
While we have enjoyed decades of peace in Europe, around the world our service personnel have been in action in difficult circumstances, and suffered injury and death. We must listen to their experiences and keep on learning the lessons that they can teach us. I am proud of the thinking behind the armed forces covenant, but there is still more that we can do to ingrain it in how public services support veterans and those still serving.
There are always lessons to learn in victory or defeat, or in between. Jutland was a victory, although it did not resemble the second Trafalgar that public opinion had become conditioned to look for. Beatty said during the battle:
“There is something wrong with our bloody ships and something wrong with the system”.
Within a year, the standing orders of the fleet were updated to encourage initiative and the taking of responsibility by junior commanders.
Among the crews at Jutland in junior positions there were no fewer than eight future First Sea Lords, and there is no question that the Navy went into the second world war better led as a result of the lessons learned in 1916. Admiral Sandy Woodward wrote in 1996:
“The Navy had to rediscover from bitter experience of 1914-16 much about warfare which it should never have forgotten”.
The differences of opinion about Jellicoe and Beatty were settled before they both died. The country honoured both men with burials in St Paul’s cathedral and busts in Trafalgar Square near Lord Nelson, thus recognising their huge contribution to the security of this country.
It has always been the nature of the Royal Navy that it recruits from all over the country, inland as well as from the historic ports, and every village and town will have made its contribution to the work of the Navy at some time. But it is an honour as the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth South to commemorate the lives of all those who fought at Jutland, and let us be thankful that a repeat of such conflict between the nations of Europe today seems so unthinkable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) on securing this important debate about the centenary of the battle of Jutland, which we commemorate next week. I commend her for her interesting and informative speech about the battle, the people and the lessons and consequences for the Royal Navy.
I am grateful for the interventions that we have had, and to the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) for being on the Bench to support this important debate.
The commemoration of the battle of Jutland is just one of the national events in the four-year first world war centenary programme announced by the Prime Minister in 2012. We have already held national events to mark the centenary of Britain’s entry into the war in August 2014, the Gallipoli campaign in April 2015, and later this year in July, we will mark the start of the battle of the Somme.
Mr Evennett
In a moment. I shall make a little progress first.
Tonight and next week our focus moves from the battlefields to the sea. Jutland was one of the largest naval actions in history and the most decisive sea battle of the first world war. It was fought by the British Royal Navy’s grand fleet under Admiral Sir John Jellicoe and the imperial German navy’s high seas fleet under Vice-Admiral Reinhard Scheer. It took place from 31 May to 1 June 1916 in the North sea. More than 8,500 lives were lost, with many bodies never being recovered in what was the only major naval confrontation of the first world war.
The commemorations of this naval clash, which brought together 250 warships and over 100,000 men, provides an opportunity to remember the contributions of all those involved in the conflict and the battle’s important role in the allied victory in the first world war. We will also reflect on the reconciliation with Germany and the peaceful relationship we have today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Evennett
I will give way in a moment, but time is very short.
As well as Jutland itself, we will be commemorating the wider war at sea and the huge role of the Royal Navy, the Merchant Navy, the fishing fleets, the shipbuilders and the contribution of all those who served or contributed. Their work and service we remember with pride and gratitude.
Next week on 31 May, my Department, together with partners including the Royal Navy, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, will deliver national commemorative events in Orkney. The British grand fleet was based in the sheltered anchorage of Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands during the first world war and the local community played an important role in supporting the war efforts. It is only right, therefore, that 100 years later, we hold commemorations in a place that has profound resonance with the Navy and other maritime organisations. I would like to acknowledge the help and support that the Orkney Islands Council, local organisations and the community have given over the past year during the planning of these events. Their work has been much appreciated and we thank them.
Neil Gray
I thank the Minister for giving way and I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), my colleague on the women and work all-party parliamentary group, on bringing this important debate to the House, and I thank the Minister and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for acknowledging the central role that my native Orkney had in the battle of Jutland. Is the Minister aware of the fantastic display of poppies formerly at the Tower of London, now at the iconic St Magnus cathedral in Kirkwall—the weeping window—and what a fitting tribute that is to the battle of Jutland 100 years ago?
Mr Evennett
I certainly endorse that point, and I was coming to it in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman has beaten me to it.
The national events will take place at St Magnus cathedral in Kirkwall—the UK’s most northerly cathedral, which was founded in the 12th century—and at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s royal naval cemetery at Lyness, on the isle of Hoy, which was founded in 1915, when Scapa Flow was the base of the grand fleet. The cemetery contains 445 Commonwealth burials of the first world war, 109 of which are unidentified. In the spirit of reconciliation, there will also be a wreath-laying event at sea at Jutland Bank, with the Royal Navy and the federal German navy taking part.
For those in Kirkwall not attending the cathedral service, there will be an opportunity for the general public to gather on the streets to watch the events live on a big screen. The event will be broadcast live on the BBC.
Mr Evennett
Unfortunately, I really do not have much time.
I am really pleased that around 800 guests will attend the events in Orkney. I look forward to being present myself next Tuesday, as one of the 300 descendants attending. My grandfather, Clyde Turner, served on HMS Malaya during the battle, and I have a strong personal association with the commemoration. He often spoke about his experiences as a stoker and subsequently as a chief petty officer. He was a career naval man and a real influence on me in my early years. I shall, of course, be thinking of him and remembering the time spent with him. In his memory, my son Tom and my grandson George were given the name Clyde as one of their Christian names. I am pleased, therefore, to be the Minister responsible for the first world war centenary at this time, and I look forward to meeting other descendants at the commemoration next week.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
As the granddaughter of a chief petty officer who served at the same time, I commend the Minister’s words. Will he join me in commending Glasgow University professor of naval architecture, Sir John Harvard Biles, on his contribution to the design of the Dreadnought class of warship, which was so vital in the battle of Jutland?
Mr Evennett
I would be delighted to endorse that comment, which is so important.
Memories are important, and it is also important that schoolchildren and students learn about the battle of Jutland and about those who served their country. Commemorative events will take place across the UK, including on 28 May at Queensferry cemetery in West Lothian. There will also be events led by the Royal Navy on 31 May at Chatham, Plymouth and the Portsmouth naval memorial, which I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South will attend. Events will also be held at Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites at Esbjerg new cemetery in Denmark, Fredrikstad military cemetery in Norway and Kviberg cemetery in Sweden.
Our key themes across the first world war centenary programme are remembrance, youth and education, and I am delighted that there are a number of resources for children, young people and adults alike so that they can learn about the battle on websites such as those of the Imperial War Museum and the BBC.
A number of key Jutland exhibitions are also taking place. Last week, the National Museum of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth opened the exhibition my hon. Friend told us about—“36 Hours: Jutland 1916, The Battle That Won The War”. In London, the National Maritime Museum opened its new gallery, “Jutland 1916: WWI’s Greatest Sea Battle”. I would encourage as many people as possible and particularly families—perhaps during half-term next week—to visit those exhibitions to learn more about the battle.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way—he has been very generous. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) on her marvellous contribution. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the people of my constituency, and particularly of the town of Helensburgh, near Faslane, who turned out in such fantastic numbers just last week, along with members of our armed forces, our cadets and our veterans associations, to remember the battle of Jutland in such a fitting manner?
Mr Evennett
I would certainly be delighted to endorse that comment, and I congratulate those involved.
Communities across the UK that also wish to mark the battle should be aware that the Royal British Legion has made available resources to help communities run local events, including factsheets and other useful information.
In Belfast, the last floating ship that survived the battle of Jutland—HMS Caroline—will be open to the public for the first time. It is managed by the National Museum of the Royal Navy. Thanks to £12.2 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund, HMS Caroline will become a significant visitor attraction, where people will discover the role she played in the war and the role of the Irish sailor.
Suella Fernandes
On my hon. Friend’s point about the Royal British Legion, will he join me in congratulating one of my constituents, 70-year-old veteran John Hardman, who is running his third triathlon and swimming 1,916 km at Fareham leisure centre to commemorate the battle of Jutland?
Mr Evennett
We wish him good luck and congratulate him on taking on that test.
I would like to conclude by paying tribute to the 6,094 British and 2,551 German sailors who lost their lives at the battle of Jutland. The battle and the first world war provided key learning that influences the Royal Navy and the armed forces of today. On 31 May, we remember as one nation the battle of Jutland and honour those on all sides who lost their lives during the battle or were affected by the war at sea. We must ensure that they will never be forgotten. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South for helping to raise awareness about the impact that the battle of Jutland had and to recognise, most definitely, the important role of the Royal Navy in the first world war.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Community pharmacies
Wellington Railway Station
Written Statements
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN: 25 May 2016
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 25 May 2016. EU Finance Ministers are due to discuss the following items:
Anti-tax avoidance package
The presidency will seek a Council general approach on a compromise text relating to the anti-tax avoidance directive.
Current legislative proposals
The presidency will update the Council on the state of play of financial services dossiers.
State of play of the banking union
The Commission will give an update on several dossiers linked to the banking union: the single resolution fund, the bank recovery and resolution directive and the deposit guarantee scheme directive.
VAT action plan
The Council will exchange views and aim to agree draft Council conclusions relating to the Commission’s VAT action plan, published 7 April, and a European Court of Auditors special report.
European semester
Following preparation by the Economic and Financial Committee, the Council will adopt conclusions on the 2016 in-depth reviews of macroeconomic imbalances and the implementation of the 2015 country specific recommendations.
[HCWS8]
Telecommunications Council
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The Telecommunications Council will take place in Brussels on 26 May 2016.
The UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Shan Morgan, will represent the UK. Below are the agenda items and the positions we intend to adopt.
The first item is for agreement for a general approach on the proposal for a decision on the use of the 470-790 MHz frequency band in the Union (First reading—EM 5814/16 + ADD 1&2). The UK will support this general approach. We do not expect any interventions on this item and UK does not intend to intervene.
This item will be followed by a debate on the EU electronic communications regulatory framework. The debate will be informed by three questions from the presidency. The UK intervention will include the need to consider regulatory tools in addition to the assessment of significant market power in order to improve connectivity in challenging geographical areas. We will also speak about the importance of protecting national competence with respect to spectrum management and of taking a proportionate approach to the regulation of “over the top” services.
This will be followed by five items under AOB, The first two items are a progress report from the presidency on proposal for a directive of the European Union on the accessibility to public sector bodies’ websites (First reading—EM 16006/11) and a progress report from the presidency on measures to ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union (NIS—First reading—EM 6342/13). We do not expect a debate on either of these items. There then follows two further AOB items, both information from the Commission on developments on internet governance and the role of digital platforms in the digital economy respectively. We do not currently expect a debate on either of these items.
Finally, under AOB, the Slovakian delegation will inform the Council of their priorities for their forthcoming presidency before Council adjourns until the next meeting in quarter four 2016.
[HCWS9]
House of Lords
Economy: Overseas Trade Deficit
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the United Kingdom’s deficit on the balance of payments in overseas trade.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)
My Lords, changes in investment income are driving the UK’s current account deficit. This has greatly reflected Britain’s attractiveness as a destination for investors. In 2014-15, UKTI provided support for 1,610 of the 1,988 FDI projects in the UK. Government efforts are continuing to help reach the Government’s £1.5 trillion target by 2020. However, the Government’s commitment to eliminating the budget deficit should help to narrow the current account deficit, as forecast by the OBR.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, which of course is entirely consistent with government policy over the last five years—funding the deficit by inward investment—but the problem is that it is not working. The current account deficit has become larger in each of the last five years and now stands at a record level of 7% of GDP. Are the Government going to continue with this failed policy or are they going to change it before the deficit becomes unsustainable?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I emphasise, as I tried to do in my opening comments, that the current account deterioration is not being driven by a deterioration in the trade deficit. In fact, our trade deficit has been relatively stable at around 2% of GDP for the last seven years.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is right to say that the deficit is caused by the imbalance in FDI. Does he agree that the way to address this is to encourage industry to divert investments away from low-yield FDI into high-yield areas, such as China, which currently represents less than 1% of our overseas investments abroad?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
I am very grateful for the accurate suggestion by my noble friend Lord Leigh as to what is really going on below the data. I emphasise—as, rather generously, Ernst & Young did yesterday in a very important report—that the recent deterioration is due to the growing attractiveness of the United Kingdom, especially areas outside London, in the minds of investors all over the world. Narrowing this deficit requires us to invest more in other places in the world that give a higher return.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister has seen today’s FT interview with the director-general of the WTO, in which he explains that, if we were to leave the EU, the UK would be required to put tariffs on imports from all 58 countries with which the EU has trade arrangements, and they in turn would be required to put a surcharge on UK exports. This is not an area where we will have a choice. We cannot say, “We’re not charging duties here”. That would be impossible and illegal. Hence, would the Minister recommend that Brexiters take note of the damage they could cause?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I thought that I had read the Financial Times thoroughly this morning but I missed that particular piece. If we want to reduce our current account deficit by reducing our attractiveness to foreign investment, we need to be very careful on 23 June.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but the House does seem to be calling for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Do the Government accept that, according to their own Pink Book, we have had a growing trade deficit with the EU for the last five years totalling some £358 billion but a growing surplus with the rest of the world of £61 billion? Does not this also mean that the EU has many more jobs dependent on its free trade with us than we do on our free trade with it, which will therefore be in its interest to continue if we come to leave the European Union itself?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, the numbers that the noble Lord referred to in the Pink Book are broadly accurate but I do not share his interpretation of them. As shown in the timely piece from EY yesterday, the number of jobs being created by foreign direct investment in the UK is substantial.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is extraordinarily complacent. Does he not recognise that the deficit on goods and services is the largest since the post-war recession of 2008, which affected the country so adversely? He is indicating that the Government have got matters in hand, but in fact we are approaching catastrophe as far as these figures are concerned.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I hate to be a statistical nerd about these things, but I am staring at the data. Last year, our overall trade balance as a share of GDP was minus 0.20%. In 2010, it was minus 2.8%. As I said a few minutes ago, the trade deficit today is smaller than it has been for 10 years.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, in the context of inward investment, to which my noble friend rightly referred and which is in fact the driver of this, did he have time in his busy life to read the story in Le Monde a few days ago? It was reported that the important French internet company Valtech is waiting for the outcome of the referendum and, in the event of Brexit, proposes to move its headquarters from Luxembourg to London.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I like to think that my talents are spreading as the years go by but I am not yet capable of reading a French newspaper and so have not read that particular story.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear that the only way in which to mend the balance of payments is to increase substantially our exports of manufactured goods. For our goods to become saleable abroad, the value of the pound must be reduced. If nothing is done to overcome the balance of payments problem, it is inevitable that the pound will eventually plummet. Can the Minister envisage a more orderly way of reducing the value of the pound?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, it is time for repetition again: our trade balance is smaller than it has been at any time in the past 10 years. It has been stable at around 2% of GDP. The deterioration of the current account, which has been significant in the past two years, is due to a growing imbalance in the so-called investment account.
NHS: Bursaries
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to halt plans to withdraw National Health Service bursaries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not intend to halt plans to withdraw National Health Service bursaries for nursing, midwifery and allied health students undertaking pre-registration training at university. The Government are currently running a public consultation on how to most successfully implement those reforms. The changes will affect only new students commencing courses on or after 1 August 2017.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
But, my Lords, has the Minister seen the PAC analysis which says that, because of the loss of the bursary and the introduction of loans, there is a real risk that many people, particularly older people with children, will be dissuaded from applying to train as nurses and in allied health professions? Given that, and given the desperate shortage of nurses and other professionals, should not the Government take a little time to examine whether their original decision was justified rather than simply consulting on the way that it is going to be implemented?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, all the evidence is—not just from nursing but from other university courses—that loans have not reduced the numbers of people wishing to go to university: indeed, quite the contrary. The number of people going to university has gone up since student loans were introduced. The demand from young men and women who wish to go into nursing is very strong. The noble Lord will know that 57,000 people apply every year to become nurses and there are only 20,000 places, so we are confident that this will result in more, not fewer nurses.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister say how much the Treasury will save by shifting this debt from the Government to low-paid nurses? Given the demographic of nurses, who are overwhelmingly female and, as I said, relatively low-paid, surely quite a lot of that student debt will never be repaid. Is this really such a good deal for the Government?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I think that it is a good deal for the Government—as the noble Baroness puts it like that—on a number of fronts. It is good for patients because there will be more nurses. It is good for the Government because there will be less need to recruit overseas nurses and agency nurses. Of course, the noble Baroness is right that for mature students coming in, the time to repay the student loan debt will be shorter than for younger people, but the Government will still make a return on that.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that nursing students spend about 50% of their time on clinical placements? Given that there is no provision in the consultation document for extra financial facilities to be made available to hospitals providing those placements, how will they cope with the overstretch that is already in the hospital mentoring system?
Lord Prior of Brampton
That is a good question. Nurses spend 2,300 hours of their three-year course in clinical placements in hospitals. They are supernumerary. They are clearly supervised and mentored in that setting, but they also provide a fair amount of care in those hospitals as well. I am pretty confident that hospitals will work out an arrangement with universities to ensure that they create enough clinical placements for those nurses.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that nurses used to have free accommodation and were also paid, but now they have these debts hanging over them? What is the view of the Royal College of Nursing?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I think that the Royal College of Nursing, Unison and other unions have concerns about moving from bursaries to student loans; it would be idle to pretend otherwise. But we are convinced that the demand for young people to go into nursing is very strong and that the availability of more money through the loan system to nurses at university will therefore encourage more people to go into nursing.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that there is a simple answer to my question that everybody else knows. My noble friend said that there were 20,000 nursing places available for training and more than 50,000 people wishing to fill them. But we also read that there is a shortage of nurses such that there are very heavy demands made for agency nursing. What explains that discrepancy?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the reason for the discrepancy is that at the moment the bursary system effectively caps the number of student places for nursing. One of the purposes of moving to the loan system is to remove that cap and our estimate is that by so doing an additional 10,000 places will be created between 2017 and 2020.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, if you go to any nursing graduation ceremony you will see lots of 30 and 40 year-old women who have been carers and who now wish to retrain as nurses. This is a very valuable asset for the health service, and yet they are just the people who may be disenfranchised by this policy. Is it not crazy to do this?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the loan will be available to mature students as well as to students taking their first degree. The loan structure is such that if someone will not be working for as long as a younger nurse they will not in all likelihood repay the whole of the loan, which will be written off at the end of the period. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord says; we depend heavily on mature students coming into nursing. Our view is that this will not put off those people.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, was permission given by the Department of Health for the disgraceful use of the NHS logo on the side of Boris’s blunder bus? I would ask the Minister to look at the precedents. At one stage we asked to use the NHS logo and were told that we could not because it was political. I ask the Minister to look into this.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I do not think that this has much to do with the Question on the Order Paper. Clearly, the NHS logo is a powerful and very strong brand and we should be very careful where we use it.
Immigration: Detention of Pregnant Women
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make it their policy routinely to publish statistical information on the detention of pregnant women under the Immigration Act 2014.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
The detention of pregnant women under Immigration Act powers occurs in only very limited circumstances, either where there is a clear prospect of early removal or in very exceptional circumstances. Very few pregnant women are detained. With the implementation of the Immigration Act 2016, the Government are considering options for the collection of data on detained women who have disclosed their pregnancy to the Home Office.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for that reply, and it is welcome news. Is there any timetable on this? Can we be sure that it is going to happen within the next few months? It seems incredible to me that it is beyond the wit of the Home Office to count the number of pregnant women who are held in detention.
Lord Keen of Elie
At present there are management data from diverse sources, including medical data, border data and detention data. The Government are considering how best to collate the information and whether it will be necessary to actually publish it. I ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind that our intention is to minimise the number of pregnant women in detention, and that will dictate how we proceed.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister would detail the criteria and give examples of the exceptional circumstances that justify the detention of pregnant women under the Act.
Lord Keen of Elie
We have made it perfectly clear that detention in all cases is the exception and not the rule. In the cases of vulnerable adults, including pregnant women, it will be wholly exceptional for them to be detained. In general it is anticipated that detention will be required only in circumstances where someone arrives at the border without any right to be in the United Kingdom and can be more or less immediately returned to their country of origin.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister prepared to say that, as a matter of principle, pregnant women should not be held in detention? That should be the starting point. It is what this House wants to hear and what this House voted for.
Lord Keen of Elie
There is a clear and unambiguous presumption against the detention of pregnant women.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Can the Minister assure us that these pregnant women will have adequate access to full medical care at any time that it is needed?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is intended that even before a pregnant woman is detained, her welfare will be taken into consideration. Consideration of her welfare will include the question of whether adequate facilities are available to that woman if she is detained. In the event of detention in an immigration centre such as Yarl’s Wood, there are adequate facilities to deal with pregnant women.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
On 26 April, the noble and learned Lord told the House that on that day there was one pregnant woman in the immigration detention system. He also said that further guidance on the question of vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, would be produced in May and laid before Parliament in order,
“that that position can be maintained”.—[Official Report, 26/4/16; col. 1095.]
Can the Minister tell us, first, how many pregnant women are in immigration detention today, and, secondly, what the highest number of pregnant women who have been in immigration detention has been on any one day since 26 April, when he said there was just one? Thirdly, what is the position with the further guidance being produced this month?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the present position, as of today no women with confirmed pregnancies are being detained under Immigration Act powers in an immigration detention centre or residential short-term holding facility. As for the statistics for the period since 26 April, I am not in a position to give a number, but I undertake to write to the noble Lord providing such figure as is available from the present data, which generally speaking are management data. On the matter of pregnant women and regulations, in accordance with the regulations made this week, the Act’s provisions on pregnant women and adults at risk will come into force on 12 July. The publication of guidance on the matter is in the course of final preparation and will be made available as soon as possible.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
Given the history and events pertaining to pregnant women and other vulnerable people in Yarl’s Wood, as set out in the Shaw report, will the Minister ensure that priority is given to openness and transparency when we look at how pregnant women are detained, particularly when, as the Minister said, that would only be in exceptional circumstances? We need some transparency, because there has been a failure to declare this.
Lord Keen of Elie
Clearly we liaise very regularly with those contracted to provide facilities at Yarl’s Wood. Over and above that, Stephen Shaw will be commissioned to do a short review in 2017 on the implementation of these proposals.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that I have taken some interest in this matter, which included writing to the legal advisers who deal with these sorts of cases? So far as I could discover, there has never been more than a very small number—single figures—of pregnant women who have been detained who are not free, should they so wish, to return to other jurisdictions. It is merely that some of them are not allowed to enter this jurisdiction. They are perfectly free to leave if they wish to do so.
Lord Keen of Elie
I would observe that detention and removal are essential parts of any effective immigration control.
EU: Turkish Membership
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Green of Deddington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current policy regarding Turkey joining the European Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the Government see the EU accession process as the most effective means of encouraging reform, stability and democracy in Turkey. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the question of Turkey actually joining the EU is not remotely on the cards; indeed, he does not believe that it will happen for decades. Of course, every member state has a veto at every stage of the process.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Is she aware of the many similarities between the economic conditions in Turkey today and those that existed in eastern Europe in 2004—countries from which we have since received more than 1 million migrants? The Minister mentioned the right to veto Turkish membership. Would the Government use their veto if faced with the prospect of massive flows of migration from Turkey?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, regarding use of the veto, the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that he would be prepared to block any future accession until reforms of transitional controls on freedom of movement have been achieved. The success of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his negotiation earlier this year means that our controls on free movement cannot be lifted until the economies of an accession country have converged much more closely with existing member states’. If we were to allow those controls to be lifted, we could seek to re-impose them if there were either a serious disturbance in our labour market, or adverse social or public policy impacts in the UK as a result of migration from this new member state. These are new powers that we did not have on the previous accession from the Balkans.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister pass a copy of her reply to her hapless government colleague Ms Mordaunt? Does she recall that Chancellor Merkel used to talk of the proud nation of Turkey having a “privileged position” with the European Union? Is that now not a far more realistic position than continuing with the fiction that Turkey will one day be a member of the European Union, given, for example, that there is a need for referenda in Austria and France, and that there is no prospect, for as far ahead as we can plan, of Turkey having full membership?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I happened to speak to my honourable friend Penny Mordaunt about an hour ago, and I reassured her of my admiration for her in all the work she does as Minister for the Armed Forces. Indeed, I am just about to issue a joint op-ed with her regarding the ceremony at the Cenotaph earlier today. I was disappointed that she was perhaps misinformed by one of the campaign groups about the powers of the United Kingdom. It is clear that, when Turkey is on the path to EU accession, it will face the fact that the UK, as all other member states, possesses a veto against its accession if it cannot achieve the standards needed to be a member of the EU.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I point out that successive Governments of all political colours have supported Turkey’s application. Part of the accession negotiations could obviously cover a derogation on free movement that could put it off for a number of years. I will be in Ankara next week, at the Turkish Parliament. Can I assure them that Her Majesty’s Government’s position remains the same?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The position remains exactly as I outlined in my Answer: we see the EU accession process as the most effective way to encourage reform, stability and democracy in Turkey. Turkey has to meet the EU norms—the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and competition rules—to be effective.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, is it not the truth that the Brexiteers making an issue of the very distant prospect of Turkish accession is an example of their having lost the plot? They have lost the argument on the economy, are unable to portray a credible alternative to the EU—sorry, I forgot Mr Gove’s Albanian model—are fighting among themselves like rats in a sack, and are scapegoating and insulting all and sundry with abandon, including Turks. Should they not concentrate on trying to find some integrity for their campaign?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the Government’s view is that we should put to the people of this country the positive and correct information about the benefits but also responsibilities of being a member of the EU. We believe that we are stronger, safer and better off in the EU. We have issued information about that. It is up to others how they interpret it—or, indeed, misinterpret it.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, for a country to be a valid candidate for entry into the European Union, is it not incumbent on it to show that it is an adherent to the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950? Do Her Majesty’s Government take the view that Turkey today genuinely and honestly conforms to such a rule?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, our view is indeed that Turkey must adhere to the common norms on human rights. The Copenhagen criteria underwrite that requirement, as the noble Lord will be more aware than most. It is a fact that Turkey has a long way to go before it meets the necessary standards of human rights and can achieve accession. The opportunity to work towards EU accession is, I hope, the lever that will persuade the country to reform its views on human rights.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Turkey is of course also a member of NATO. Building security in Europe is at the front line of issues of security. Clearly, as the Minister indicated, the accession process can address the issues of democracy and accountability and, not least, the problems we have with Cyprus. Can the noble Baroness assure us that she will continue that process and not give in to the scare tactics that have been used disgracefully by other members of her Government?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I wholeheartedly agree that that process should continue. I give that undertaking.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, while there are many substantial reasons against the accession of Turkey to the European Union, perhaps the most important is that there is a real danger that it would greatly increase right-wing extremism within the Union? That would be profoundly destabilising for us all.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I already outlined, in our view, for Turkey to achieve entitlement to accession to the European Union, it has a very long path to tread to meet the norms of human rights, and in economic terms. As each of the 35 chapters may be opened and closed, every member state has the opportunity for a veto. Any concerns that my noble friend has should be allayed by the fact that the process is clear and careful. We have the opportunity to explain to Turkey that it must achieve high standards of human rights, including avoiding political extremism, before it achieves accession.
House of Lords Bill [HL]
Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL]
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill [HL]
Arbitration and Mediation Service (Equality) Bill [HL]
Property Boundaries (Resolution of Disputes) Bill [HL]
Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, the House will be delighted to hear that I shall spare your Lordships my usual intervention to protest at the continuing largely Europhile composition of our proposed EU Committee. However, perhaps I may ask the Chairman of Committees whether he agrees that your Lordships’ House should limit the number of sub-committees under this committee. There have been as many as six in the past. As Brussels pays so little attention to their deliberations—and that is putting it politely—should we not start to limit their number? Before we accept this Motion, I suggest that, at the very least, we limit the European Committee to two sub-committees. Would that not free up valuable resource to set up more ad hoc committees, at which your Lordships excel with all your gathered wisdom, and which are so appreciated by the British people?
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees replies, perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He will perhaps have anticipated that I was half-anticipating a contribution from him; it is, indeed, a seasonal necessity. It will perhaps be helpful to Members of the House, under whose remit we have the honour to serve, if I briefly comment on the state of play within the general framework. The noble Lord’s restraint today in terms of the personalities involved on the substantive committee was admirable but he has questioned the number of sub-committees. Frankly, I am not ashamed of the work that is done by my sub-committees through my main committee. There will be an opportunity for that to be debated in public in due course, and I hope that the noble Lord will join us in doing so. But in terms of the overall remit, I would suggest, if nothing else, that this is not the moment to change our substantive arrangements, although we may well wish to reappraise them in the future. We are well aware of the risks and opportunities presented by the upcoming referendum. At the very end of the last Session, we considered a paper prepared by our clerks indicating work that our committee could do when the result was known.
The structure of our committee and our scrutiny model have served us well since they were adopted in the 1970s. Indeed, I have the first report within yards of my desk, and the structure is substantially unchanged. Despite the noble Lord’s feelings, I hope that we have built up a reputation for diligent scrutiny and for evidence-based, balanced and thoughtful inquiries. We get a steady stream of visitors from across Europe asking what we do, why we do it and the conclusions we have reached. The committee is clear already that we should use the opportunity presented by the referendum to undertake a fundamental and challenging review of our scrutiny model. If people vote to leave the EU, it is self-evident that fundamental change will be inevitable. We would need to ensure proper parliamentary oversight of the withdrawal negotiations and the terms of any new relationship with the European Union. As long as we remain in the European Union, possibly for several years, we will need to maintain a continuing scrutiny function. If, on the other hand, the electorate vote to remain, we are minded to use the opportunity to launch a thorough review of our scrutiny model.
The European Union has changed almost out of recognition since we joined in the 1970s. It is a Union of 28, rather than nine, member states, with a directly elected European Parliament which acts as a co-legislator in the majority of cases. The United Kingdom has also changed with the creation of devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and their associated parliamentary Assemblies or Parliaments. We need to ask whether a system of document-based scrutiny devised in a pre-internet age is still appropriate. Clearly, the European Union continues, and will continue, to exercise a profound influence on the UK, and it is right that the House should devote proper resource to its scrutiny. I hope that our work is helpful to the House as a whole. But as a committee we are determined to move with the times and ensure that our resource is not wasted but is used as effectively as possible, whatever happens in the referendum.
It happens that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has not participated in debates on our reports in recent times, to my memory. He has confined himself to criticising the committee in the media, alongside his traditional and, I am sure, welcome contributions on occasions such as this. I regret that he has not done more. However 23 June turns out, we will need collectively to pull together, as a society and indeed as a House, to heal wounds and to move forward. I sincerely hope that once the referendum is out of the way, he will work with us in reflecting collectively on how, in a changed world, this House can most effectively perform its vital and, I think, continuing task. I hope that is helpful. We are conscious of his sensitivity and we hope to be helpful to the House as a whole.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Laming)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. Perhaps I can try to offer a little crumb of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. These committees have been scrutinising thousands of documents a year. If we did not have these committees to do this job, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, might have even greater concern. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, perhaps I might reply briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, implied criticism of my not participating in debates on these reports. I have to say that that is because I see that they have so little effect in Brussels, as I mentioned. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, or indeed the Chairman of Committees, can give your Lordships more than one or two examples of all the thousands of documents they look at where we have actually changed policy in Brussels.
Queen’s Speech
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord King of Bridgwater
, as amended on Monday 23 May
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament, but regret that the gracious Speech did not include a bill to protect the National Health Service from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership”.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate following Her Majesty’s gracious Speech last week. I thank in advance my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who will be wrapping up the debate later today.
It has been a year since I had the honour of joining Her Majesty’s Government. In fact, it was the occasion of Her Majesty’s Speech that allowed me to deliver my maiden speech before noble Lords last year. That day, I spoke of my determination to put an end to the underperformance and wasted talents of our towns and cities beyond the capital, especially in the north. I said that I wanted to help the UK make the most of our relationships with the most important emerging economies across the globe. I also said that I would be continuing the work I started before I joined the Government to establish how the world ought to respond to the stark threat posed by antimicrobial resistance.
The rise of superbugs resistant to our current drugs is a huge problem, and one that is getting worse. If we do nothing, the human and economic costs will be dreadful indeed. In fact, as we have shown in our review, by 2050 superbugs could kill 10 million people a year—the equivalent of someone dying every three seconds. I am delighted to inform noble Lords that we published the recommendations of this review last week, setting out not only the areas where we need to take action but how we can pay for it. So on all these fronts, without doubt it has been a busy year for me.
The views of your Lordships—including at times robust ones—have been of considerable assistance to me throughout, because the issues that we have debated and discussed in this House are ones of genuine complexity. As noble Lords will be aware, there are no silver-bullet responses to such critical questions as how best we can strengthen our economy and plan ahead for the future. So I look forward to the discussions we will have over the course of today, and indeed this year.
I now turn to the measures set out by Her Majesty the Queen last week to reflect the determination of this Government to follow an economic plan that will lay the groundwork for the long-term good of the country. For me, there are three main parts to that plan. First, we need to strengthen our economy to guard against future shocks. To do this we must not only bring public finances under control but address some of the more persistent and enduring challenges we have faced in the UK, such as low productivity growth and our current account deficit, which I touched on earlier.
Secondly, we need to make the right investment choices now to keep our economy growing over the coming years and decades. Thirdly, we must continue to do more to give everyone in this country the opportunity to do well at all stages of their lives and in all parts of the UK.
Today we have the chance to take a broad look at the Government’s plans to achieve these three aims, particularly during the next legislative session, as we look at some of the measures being taken forward by the Treasury, the Department for Transport, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Communities and Local Government.
I will start with the very foundation of our strategy for the future: the Government’s work to fix the public finances. There has been clear progress to date. The deficit as a share of GDP was at its post-war peak in 2009-10. The independent OBR currently forecasts that the deficit will be eliminated by 2019-20, so the UK can go into the 2020s with a surplus. However, despite the considerable deficit reduction achieved, our debt to GDP ratio still stands at a very high level—indeed, its highest level since the late 1960s—at 83.7% of GDP. Reducing this figure is important, and therefore aiming for a surplus remains the most sensible fiscal policy to prepare for the inevitable future economic shocks that will come our way.
This Government have repeatedly stated their commitment to making sure that we live within our means. That is why spending has been reduced to 40% of our GDP in 2015-16, compared to 45% in 2010-11. Welfare savings of £12 billion are being delivered, and a further £3.5 billion of efficiency savings will be made by 2019-2020 to make sure that the public get the highest possible value from every pound that is spent.
But while it is important to keep spending under control, that is only one part of a sensible economic plan for any country, ours included. On its own it is no guarantee of long-term security and prosperity. It is equally critical that we invest where investment is needed, and put the policies in place now that will unlock growth in the future. Indeed, we are accelerating capital expenditure of £1.5 billion to make sure that the public start to see the benefits of our investment somewhat earlier. We are also legislating to put the independent National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory basis. This will play a crucial role in setting out a clear vision of the future infrastructure needed to ensure that our economy is fit for 2050.
Beyond that, it is also worth summarising the main ways in which the Government are investing in the future. First, we are rebalancing the economy. Your Lordships will know by now, I hope, how strongly I believe in the importance of rebalancing our economy, so it will come as no surprise when I turn first to our plans to develop the northern powerhouse and the Midlands engine for growth, because I am clear that accelerating regional growth is one of the best policies to deliver game-changing benefits to the entire UK. That is why we are so focused on the north and Midlands.
We are making record levels of investment in the transport networks of these regions: over £18 billion in this Parliament. Let me add—I touched on this earlier in Oral Questions—that there are increasing signs of overseas private investment in infrastructure in those regions of the UK. We are also setting aside well over £0.5 billion to help small and medium-sized businesses. We are creating more enterprise zones, which have already attracted thousands of jobs and more than £1 billion in private sector investment. We are funding new flood defence schemes and improvements in educational attainment.
Secondly, I will touch on devolution, which is closely associated with this.
Baroness Jowell (Lab)
On the Minister’s point about educational attainment, does he accept that readiness for school in young children is one of the key indicators of subsequent achievement? Does he share my concern that, last September, 40% of children starting primary school for the first time were deemed to be unready for school? That is the most likely predictor of subsequent educational failure. Will he share with your Lordships’ House how he intends to address that as part of the wider commitment to maximising educational attainment?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a very interesting point which should perhaps be discussed later or looked at in a separate debate in this House. I would say that there are considerable data about many challenges here. Specifically as it relates to the northern powerhouse, for example, an interesting oddity in contradiction to that piece of evidence is that primary school attainment in places such as the north is not so dissimilar to that in London and the south-east. It is at the secondary level of education where the relative gap emerges. That is a topic worthy of considerable discussion in this and the other place.
Let me return to the issue of devolution. It is important not just in terms of what we spend or how we spend it but what we do to give local leaders more influence, along with greater accountability. Your Lordships will have followed the historic devolution deals and will know of my great personal involvement in them. We are very proud of that over the past 12 months in cities across the UK. At its highest level, that means that we are introducing elected mayors, including in my own home city area of Greater Manchester. Elected mayors are important because they provide the accountability needed if the fullest level of devolution is to be granted. This remains the Government’s direction of travel. The local growth and jobs Bill will allow the local government sector to retain 100% of its business rates to boost growth in local areas, with the Greater London Authority, Liverpool and Manchester piloting the way forward.
Transport is another essential way to prepare for future growth: making sure that we have the transport infrastructure in place that will support and enable it. In this Session, we will see the passage of the HS2 Bill through this House, following its receipt of a resounding majority in the other place.
Passenger demand for rail has more than doubled since privatisation in the 1990s, and it has risen even faster on certain popular intercity routes. So by linking London with the major cities of the north and Midlands, and freeing up considerable capacity on the existing rail network, HS2 will give us the space that we need to meet growing travel demand, which could not be possible through upgrades to existing lines alone. We have also given the green light to dramatically improving train journeys between Leeds and Manchester.
We will improve our buses through the Bus Services Bill. This will tie into our devolution agenda by giving more powers to local authorities to set the standards of service in their areas, as well as better informing passengers. Lastly, the modern transport Bill could change the face of transport both for the individual person and for our businesses. Whether that is the development of commercial spaceports, getting driverless cars on the road, or enabling deliveries by drones, this is a Bill which will support the emergence of exciting, cutting-edge technologies.
As I also mentioned, it will all be about helping people to get on in their lives. That is the final aim that I would like to touch on. From childhood, through their working lives and on to retirement, our aim is ultimately to help British people to get on in their lives. That means building our economy based on lower taxes, helping people to take home more of what they earn. That is why, of course, the personal allowance has been increased to £11,500 and the higher rate threshold will rise to £45,000 in 2017. Over the course of this Parliament, those measures will take over 1 million taxpayers out of income tax, and will see over 500,000 fewer people paying the higher rate.
This year also saw the national living wage come into effect, which will benefit over 1 million workers, with a full-time national minimum wage worker earning £900 more a year. We also want to provide better choice and flexibility over saving, as well as more incentives to do so. The lifetime savings Bill will introduce the lifetime ISA to help young people in this country to save for their future. It will also bring in another important government-backed savings scheme, help to save, designed to help people on low income save for a rainy day.
Her Majesty’s Speech also outlined our commitment to investing more in the health of our young people. Sugar consumption is a major factor in childhood obesity, and our soft drinks industry levy will mean more funding to support things that will help, not harm, young people, whether that means more money for physical education in schools, or getting children to have a nutritious start to the day at a breakfast club.
Lack of housing remains an important issue for people in this country, and we are investing billions in housing over the next few years, including in what will be the most ambitious affordable housing programme since the 1970s. The neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill will also be a crucial reform to building new homes, not only speeding up the planning process but giving local areas more of a say about planning decisions that will affect their neighbourhoods.
We also want people to have more rights as customers. That is why the better markets Bill will introduce legislation that will not only open up our markets and boost competition, but also give people more power and choice to switch between, for example, energy providers, as well as more protection when things go wrong.
Finally, as noble Lords will be aware, grass-roots charities often perform a vital role in extending the support and help people need to get on in life. To support them in raising the most money they can to do this, we will be reforming the gift aid small donations scheme through our small charitable donations Bill, making it easier for new charities, as well as smaller charities, to get the funding that they deserve.
In conclusion, we will continue to take action to ensure security, sustainability and strength in our economy for the long term. That rests, without doubt, on our work to control public spending, but it is equally dependent on the success of our work to rebalance the economy, put in place the infrastructure we will need in the future and help people get on in life. The legislative programme for the next parliamentary Session, as Her Majesty’s gracious Speech set out, represents important steps forward in achieving these aims. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ comments and views on them throughout today’s debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the Minister’s contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech. As we would have expected, he has put the best spin on some rather thin pickings in the Government’s legislative programme, and although I would not expect him to admit it, I guess that he is a tad embarrassed at the lack of vision and depth in the Bills that we are considering today.
Our country is facing huge challenges economically and environmentally. Economically, we are clearly not immune from global market turbulence, but we can take steps to mitigate its impact. Sadly, the Chancellor seems incapable of the strategic interventions that are necessary to do so. As a result, all the key indices—growth, wages, investment and productivity—are being revised downwards. We are failing to capitalise on the weak pound, which should make exports more attractive, and at the same time manufacturing and construction outputs are down. Worryingly, we are becoming too reliant on the rise of debt-fuelled consumption to prop up domestic demand, with all the inherent risks that we know too well. Even the Chancellor’s own measure of success—he pledged to balance the books by 2015—rarely gets a mention these days, since it has proved to be an elusive failure. It is no wonder that the latest polls show that the electorate no longer trusts the Chancellor to manage the economy effectively.
This Queen’s Speech represents a missed opportunity to tackle some of the underlying causes of our economic woes. Rather than relying on long-term austerity, we need a proper investment strategy that delivers the infrastructure, skills and technology to create our high-wage, high-tech future. At the same time, we need to address our overreliance on financial services and their long-overdue need for reform. The truth is that despite the lessons of the financial crash, the banking sector is continuing very much with business as usual: risky loan packages are creeping back on the market, bankers’ bonuses are hitting eye-watering volumes again, and the race is on for quick profits at the expense of long-term investment. My noble friend Lord McFall made a profound speech on this subject in your Lordships’ House recently in which he catalogued how the banks have been impervious to the fines and the redress handed out for their wrongdoing and have carried on paying out their megabonuses regardless. Do the Government accept that this Queen’s Speech represents a missed opportunity to tackle that abuse?
At the same time, we have seen the owners of BHS asset-strip the heart out of it, leaving the government-run Pension Protection Fund to bail out the pensions of the staff. The fund was never intended to be used in that way, but this is not the first time that a company has torn up its pensions obligations in the race for quick profits, so what are the Government now doing to tackle this abuse?
We were all appalled at the levels of tax avoidance revealed in the Panama papers. They exposed the fact that for many wealthy individuals and businesses paying tax has become a choice not a necessity, and that all too many are simply choosing not to pay. Clearly there is an urgent need for action on this. The latest figures from HMRC put the gap between what is owed and what is collected at some £34 billion, yet the staff have neither the resources nor the enforcement powers to intervene. While we welcome the measures to hold corporations to account on tax evasion, it is clear that we have a long way to go to tackle it effectively. Sadly, on this issue, as with so many others, the Queen’s Speech represents a missed opportunity. Although we welcome the lifetime savings and the soft drinks levy included in the programme, it is rather more a case of what might have been.
A similar theme applies to the environmental aspects of the speech, or should I say the lack of them? Last December saw a historic agreement in Paris to limit global warming to two degrees, with an aspiration of 1.5%, by cutting carbon emissions. By all accounts, our Secretary of State, Amber Rudd, played an important role in delivering that deal. Each country is to have its own plan to deliver the commitments made, but, sadly, since that time the Secretary of State has been strangely quiet. In fact, the measures introduced both before and after Paris have reversed our previous progress and stifled emerging renewable technologies. So it would appear that either she has been lent on or she has had a failure of courage in these areas. Either way, it seems an incredible shame that we are failing to grasp the opportunity to tackle the causes of climate change head-on as well as showing leadership to the rest of the world on this issue.
Climate change is only one of the big global environmental challenges that we are ducking. Globally, we are running out of resources: our natural capital is being depleted; supplies of water, forests, fish and biodiversity are in decline; and global food supplies are coming under pressure from global populations, migration to cities and the impact of climate change. At the same time, one-third of all food produced globally is being wasted, with food waste adding 8% to global carbon emissions as well. These are not just global figures; they matter to us here in the UK. Food security has become more important, but our self-sufficiency has dropped from 80% to 62% and continues to fall.
UK agriculture contributes £9 billion to the UK economy, but farm incomes are dropping and, as we know, many dairy farmers are going out of business. Sadly, a small number of powerful retailers and food producers are squeezing the life out of the farming sector. Of course, we know that our membership of the EU is crucial for protecting the environment, providing support to farmers and designing out waste, but there is much more that the UK Government could be doing, such as investing in agricultural research and technology, curtailing the stranglehold of business over farm prices and encouraging resource efficiency. There is also a need to tackle poor diets, raise awareness of the public health benefits of changing eating habits and improve food labelling to encourage consumers to buy British products. Sadly, apart from the specific sugar tax, none of those challenges are addressed in the legislative programme today.
Meanwhile, the Government also seem intent on ducking a rather urgent environmental and health crisis that is killing thousands of people each year. Last year, the charity ClientEarth successfully took a case to the Supreme Court on air quality. The court ruled that the UK Government had breached the Clean Air Act and instructed them to fulfil their responsibility. Defra’s subsequent lack of a coherent response will shortly see them back in court. In contrast, London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, has made this issue a priority, doubling the size of the clean air charging zone and bringing it in earlier than planned.
The ability to show what Labour can do to improve the economy and the environment locally is one reason why we support moves towards further devolution. That is why we welcome the concept of the local growth and jobs Bill, but although we support the local retention of business rates, the Government have failed to explain how that will be done fairly. We also welcome the new powers to enable councils to regulate bus services and stop their long-term decline. However, the truth is that this Government’s cuts to local government have hit the most deprived areas hardest. Piling on more responsibility without the necessary funds will simply cause further suffering and hold communities back. We also expect to see more than just rhetoric when it comes to supporting the northern powerhouse. The reality is that the infrastructure projects continue to be concentrated in the south rather than the north.
Finally, the gracious Speech has some rather thin offerings on one of our biggest challenges: the lack of affordable homes in this country. The Government know that they are nowhere near meeting their ambition of building a million new homes, and the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill offers no real solutions to the housing crisis. Under this Government, the number of families accepted as homeless has risen by a third and rough sleeping has doubled. There are over 200,000 fewer home-owning households and the supply of social housing is being squeezed. The proposed privatisation of the Land Registry is wrong on so many different levels that it is difficult to know where to start. We will of course have the opportunity to set out our objections in more detail during the passage of the Bill.
We look forward to the coming months and to scrutinising all the Bills in detail. As ever, we will be constructive and collaborative where we can, and we look forward to working with noble Lords from around the Chamber.
Finally, I, too, look forward to the contributions today, and I have particular pleasure in welcoming the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle to the debate. I look forward to her maiden speech and to the very particular perspective and wisdom that she will bring to the work of the House in years to come.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to be taking part in today’s debate on the gracious Speech, and I, too, look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle.
Like many other noble Lords who have spoken during this four-day debate, I felt that the Speech was sadly lacking in the Government’s aspirations for the country in the next 12 months. It is unfortunate that the in/out campaign appears to dominate all aspects of our daily lives, not least where the Government are concerned. Nevertheless, this is a momentous decision which will affect us all in years to come one way or another. I fully support the campaign to remain in Europe but surely it should not freeze us into immobility. We should all have ambitions for our country, regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU.
We have only just dispatched the Housing and Planning Act, which included an element of neighbourhood planning, but here we are, about to debate this subject again. I now realise why the Government were reluctant to give neighbourhood plan communities the right of appeal, even on a very limited basis. However, what better way is there to strengthen these communities than by giving them the right of appeal?
I understand the housing crisis. How could I not? It is all around us. With 1.6 million people on local authority waiting lists, one can hardly claim that there is no housing crisis. It is important that we encourage developers and builders of every size and at every level to begin to tackle this problem. Housebuilding and infrastructure are inextricably linked. This infrastructure must include consistently reliable flood-prevention measures. The cost of installing such measures at the point of construction is minuscule compared to the cost of clear-up after a major flood. It is not helpful to focus only on the costs to the developer of flood prevention. These costs must be weighed against the emotional turmoil to those affected by flooding and the astronomical costs of clear-up to local authorities, the Environment Agency and insurance companies and the resulting bad press received by the Government for failing to act adequately in the first place.
Planning conditions are the perceived bugbear of the developer and builder but the safeguard for those affected by large-scale developments. Infrastructure, access, materials, design and layout are all an integral part of ensuring that the much-needed housing development does not have an unnecessarily negative impact on its surroundings and its neighbours. This will be particularly true for garden cities and towns. All will need to live together in harmony once the development is completed.
While it is undoubtedly true that in some cases pre-commencement conditions can slow down the planning process, it is not true in all cases. The most useful way forward for any applicant is to have pre-application discussions, which provide an invaluable insight into what is expected on the part of the applicant and find favour with the legitimately elected councillors who will consider the application in due course. The cannier in the development business will understand this and carry out pre-application public consultations. However, the more bullish will choose to ignore this, put in their application and then express anger and hostility when their application is refused. Conversation is undoubtedly the best way forward.
Pre-commencement conditions are, in my opinion and experience, imposed not to deliberately thwart a developer but to try to safeguard those working on site, ensure the smooth flow of traffic while development takes place and ensure that, once finalised, those occupying the dwellings have the necessary facilities available to them from the moment they move in, not some years into the distance. There is a balance to be struck. It is no use pushing ahead with a development where the implications have been poorly thought through simply to get the houses built in the shortest possible time, only to find that there are major obstacles that could have been foreseen and catered for. Retrospective consideration invariably leads to additional costs.
Finally, I turn to the section on homebuilding. The list of facts and figures is impressive. I note that the largest private housebuilders will be doubling their output by 2019. I hope that in the process they do not throw design and space standards out of the window. We have all heard stories of rooms being reduced in size to such an extent that bedrooms no longer accommodate a double bed, or of sitting rooms being too small to allow for even a two-seater settee. Quality must be balanced against quantity.
I am concerned at the lack of any mention of affordable social rented housing. The Government prefer instead to concentrate on the private rented sector. For those not able to buy their home or afford rents in the private sector, social housing is the only option. I welcome the Renters’ Rights Bill, sponsored by my noble friend Lady Grender. This will be a lifeline to many thousands of tenants up and down the country.
Time prevents me speaking further but, as in all things, the Government should expect robust scrutiny of their proposals for local government from me and my colleagues on these Benches.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, the theological understanding of grace is of the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not because of anything we have done to deserve it. In these early days in your Lordships’ House, it is grace that I have experienced—wonderful kindness and a warmth of welcome from your Lordships, the staff and all who work in this place. It has been entirely undeserved but a truly heart-warming experience. It will be no surprise to your Lordships that one of the loveliest and warmest welcomes came from the late Lord Walton—a fine and godly man, and a distinguished son of the north-east.
I grew up in the 1950s on a large London overspill council estate. In those large sprawling estates there were precious few community facilities and the school I attended had two classes of 45 children in each year group. The life chances of many growing up on that estate were very limited. Out of the 90 children in my year group, only 10 went to grammar school.
Two things were key in supporting me through those childhood years. The first was to be fortunate enough to be born into a loving family and the second was to be blessed by some truly inspirational, vocational teachers, who gave so generously of their free time to expand our horizons above and beyond the ordinary. One of those teachers was Mrs. Boyd, who started a debating society at our school. She had a passion for the art of debating and wanted us to catch that passion. Her sister, the late Lady Birk, had just been introduced to the Lords as one of those pioneering early women life Peers. Through Lady Birk’s good offices, Mrs Boyd brought our little debating team to this place to inspire us by witnessing debating at its best. How could I have imagined, as a 16 year-old girl up in that Gallery, that one day I would find myself making a maiden speech in your Lordships’ House?
I have the privilege of being the 12th Bishop of Newcastle. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Bishop Martin—a fine Bishop and one of the longest-serving Bishops in your Lordships’ House. I will do my best to be a worthy successor, with the important exception that I will probably spend slightly less time in the smoking shed.
My diocese stretches from the River Tyne in the south to the River Tweed in the north and encompasses the city of Newcastle, North Tyneside and the county of Northumberland, together with a very small area of eastern Cumbria and four parishes in northern County Durham. Newcastle diocese is wonderful, with extraordinary contrasts: from the vibrant regional capital of Newcastle upon Tyne, with two world-class universities and 50,000 students, to the remote hill farms, some still without mains electricity and water; from the Northumberland Church of England Academy with 2,500 students in Ashington, to our smallest Church of England school on Holy Island with just four children. We have the stunning Dark Skies at Kielder and the bright lights of the big city, alongside places of pilgrimage such as Holy Island—or St James’ Park. The beauty of my diocese takes my breath away.
The gracious Speech emphasised the importance of increasing life chances for the most disadvantaged, supporting economic recovery, creating jobs and apprenticeships, and creating the kind of infrastructure that businesses need to grow. All these issues are absolutely key to economic and human flourishing in the north-east. The issues around the development of the northern powerhouse are also of great significance. I therefore warmly welcome the commitment from the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, earlier in this debate to regional growth in the north and the Midlands.
The people of the north-east are warm, hospitable, proud and resilient. Our workforce is famed for its loyalty, with a very low staff turnover. The north-east is not a problem to be solved by the rest of the country but an asset to be valued. We are one of the very few parts of the UK with a surplus of both water and energy. Rather than transporting these vital resources to other parts of the country, we should be looking to relocate water-intensive and energy-intensive businesses to the north-east. We are the only region in the UK with a consistent positive balance of trade and we export nearly a third of everything we make and do.
As I have journeyed around the diocese in my first five months, I have seen more signs of hope than I have time to talk about. Let me give just one example— Port of Blyth. Blyth, on the coast in the south-east corner of Northumberland, is one of the most deprived areas in the whole of England. With the closure of the Alcan Lynemouth aluminium smelter in 2012, the future of the port looked bleak. But with great leadership, a determination to find new trade and a policy of recruiting local young people who stay, Port of Blyth is now facing an increasingly optimistic future. It has just announced record results for 2015, with a doubling of pre-tax profits to £1.2 million.
Human flourishing in all its forms, including economic flourishing, depends above all on our most precious resource: our people. If these signs of flourishing are to be sustained and grow, we need the commitments in the gracious Speech to be made real in everyday lives. The most important of these commitments is to our children. There are many areas of poverty in the north-east, Blyth among them, where children’s life chances will continue to be curtailed without the determination and ambition to give such children the start in life that they deserve.
As I experienced so powerfully in my own early life, education can be absolutely transformative. Northumberland is the most sparsely populated county in England, so it is not surprising that our schools are inevitably among the smallest in the country. I therefore warmly welcome the commitment in the education White Paper to provide sparsity funding for every single small rural school, but I hope that this will not be at the expense of schools in urban areas. We need to support schools in all disadvantaged areas if the commitment to life chances is to be realised. That is made very clear in the report on northern schools issued this week by the IPPR North and Teach First, where the gap in secondary education for disadvantaged children is particularly highlighted.
The northern powerhouse will be anything but unless there is a 100% commitment to adequate funding—funding for education, apprenticeships and the infrastructure that the north-east needs. It would be this kind of vision and commitment that would make a real difference.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted and honoured to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. My only qualification in doing so is that I live just 10 miles out of her wild and wonderful diocese just across the border from her most northern outpost in Berwick-upon-Tweed. Her diocese could not be more different from her last post in Lewisham. As she said, her predecessor was a much-loved, respected and active Member of this House and I feel certain that she will follow in his illustrious footsteps.
The right reverend Prelate has long been influential in Church of England legislation and, coincidentally, I discovered an hour ago that she was ordained in the same year as my female first cousin. We share the same year of birth and I greatly admire the way that she has completed successfully the London Marathon no fewer than three times. Now that she lives in the north, she will have further opportunities to take part in the Great North Run. It was a real pleasure to listen to her pearls of wisdom, and on behalf of the whole House I congratulate her most sincerely on a first-rate contribution this afternoon.
Lord Palmer
If I were to declare all my interests, it would take up all of my advisory time. I therefore refer noble Lords to the register of interests. I was distressed that there was no mention of agriculture in the topics to be debated in the gracious Speech. I have been involved in the food industry all my walking life—Hansard, please take note. I try to farm in the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Borders. I took on a staff of 17 and I am now farming a bigger acreage with just three men, all of whom were born and brought up on the farm. We live in a crazy agricultural environment, with bottled water being more expensive than milk. This is surely utter madness.
From 1986 to 1991, I was appointed to represent Scotland on the European Landowners’ Organisation. I was never quite sure why, but I did live and work in Belgium for three years and I have seen how the European Union works. I am often asked how I will vote in this dreaded referendum and I have replied so far that I change my mind every five minutes. I fear that I am not alone. I believe strongly that the Union worked well when its membership was smaller, but now, with 28 members, it is far too unruly—and how on earth can it evolve a policy or policies that apply to the Greek islands and the Outer Hebrides, both with such different climates, let alone cultures? I believe strongly that there is a strong case to get rid of the Union altogether—but that is another story.
The commissioners are unelected and accountable to no one. When they retire, they get huge pensions, and if they are British, they are more than likely to end up with a seat in your Lordships’ House. That is not an indictment of the individual but of the actual system. It is also an utter scandal that the Commission decamps from Brussels once a month to Strasbourg.
The distribution of the single farm payment to farmers in England and Wales, and indeed Scotland, is another unacceptable scandal. It is causing real hardship for those of us who are affected. My children reminded me that 25 years ago the telephone rang constantly during lunch at harvest time and I was once offered all those years ago £165 a tonne for low-nitrogen malting barley. Oh, to be offered that for this harvest. Wages have gone up by 193%, while inputs across the board have more than doubled in those 25 years. While I accept that yields per acre have gone up slightly since then, the right weather at the right time can make up to a tonne per acre difference. That is not good management; it is pure luck.
I have a friend who telephones me on Christmas Day to ask if we have started the harvest. The difference between conditions north and south are huge, and in my part of the world, grain drying costs greatly exceed those for farmers in the fertile Thames Valley, where I was born and brought up. It is too early to tell what effect the new living wage is going to have on commodity prices and I know that this is a great worry for many of those involved in the agriculture and horticulture industries, especially—this is a very important point—those who signed contracts with retailers before the new living wage was introduced. I fear that it could well prove to be disastrous for many.
Food today is incredibly cheap. Fifty years ago, 40% of the national wage went on food, while today it is just 11.1%—a huge difference. We now have strong scientific evidence from the president of the UK science body, the Royal Society, that GM crops do not endanger every living human and plant, and I urge Her Majesty’s Government to pursue the future of GM crops with the same vigour as China and the United States have done for the last 20 years.
I turn finally to energy, and here I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Energy Costs. When I was last in the United States of America, I had the chance to have a teach-in from one of the largest Texan frackers. If fracking is undertaken under a very strict code of conduct, as indeed it is in Texas, I am utterly convinced that it will be a safe and reliable source of energy for future generations. It is pleasing that the green light has been given to fracking in North Yorkshire.
In many ways, energy and the environment are facing challenging times and I hope that the Government will seize these opportunities before it is too late.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it may be helpful for the House to be reminded of the advisory speaking time of six minutes for today’s debate. If noble Lords adhere to the time, the House may be expected to rise at or around 10 pm.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in paying tribute to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. It was a positive and moving speech which underlined the importance of committed parents and teachers if one is to improve the life chances of a child. We look forward to her future interventions in our debates.
I welcome the broad thrust of the Queen’s Speech which, with measures on probation and adoption, seeks to build a reputation for this Government for social reform to match that of the previous Conservative Government of the 1980s on economic reform, but that reputation will be further enhanced if more progress is made on one of the key responsibilities of local government: housing, which has already been touched on. I very much welcome the measures that have already been taken to increase supply, but there was hope that there would be a commitment to legislation on homelessness in the Queen’s Speech following the interest shown in this recently by DCLG Ministers and following the welcome ring-fenced funding provided in the Autumn Statement.
Homelessness is sadly on the increase and the law as it stands creates a two-tier system involving people in “priority need”, who are owed the full homelessness duty, and those who are judged not to be and can be turned away with little or no help. This binary distinction is increasingly difficult to justify. The devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales are actually ahead of us here in England, having introduced reform to abolish that distinction.
In Scotland, priority need has been abolished which means that all homeless people are entitled to accommodation. The UK Government could learn from the progress that has been made and reform the law in England, as proposed by the housing charity, Crisis, and supported by the National Housing Federation. These proposals have been costed and the new duties to prevent and relieve homelessness would require an additional £43.9 million, to be offset by a £46.8 million reduction in spending. I hope that when he replies, my noble friend will be able to confirm that the prevention of homelessness remains a key priority and that legislation has not been ruled out.
A second housing issue is equally pressing: the challenge that faces supported housing. Last year, as part of the proposals to save money on welfare, the Government said that social rent should fall by 1% each year, with consequent reductions in housing benefit. This was very welcome for the Treasury and for tenants, but it had an impact on the financing of housing associations. I commend their response to the challenges that confronted them, because they reorganised their plans and managed to maintain investment in the mainstream programme. However, restrictions on housing benefit have a disproportionate impact on supported housing, which helps older people who want to remain independent, and victims of domestic violence, and probation hostels and homes for those with drug and alcohol problems, for which the running costs are much higher than for mainstream housing.
The imminent reduction of local housing allowances has also caused a critical problem. In response to representations on both sides of your Lordships’ House, the Government deferred the impact of these reforms while they announced a review. In the meantime, this has had a chilling effect on investment in the sector, with local authorities reporting that substantial investment has been suspended and the viability of a number of organisations is in doubt.
In a debate in the other place in January, the Minister said:
“The future of supported housing matters, which is why my Department and the Department for Work and Pensions have jointly commissioned a fact-finding review of the sector. This will report by the end of March”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/16; col. 288.]
That review is still awaited and I hope that the Minister can confirm that a stable financial framework will be announced for this key sector of the housing market by the Summer Recess.
As I still have two minutes left, I shall make a slightly less serious point, which relates to the Government’s vision for pollution-free transport. I declare an interest in that recently, I was incentivised by the Government to invest in an electric car for journeys that are too long for me to do on a bicycle. My problem with these cars is not range anxiety—Members of your Lordships’ House are familiar with range anxiety, as we wonder how many more of life’s milestones we will pass before our bodies run out of energy. The problem with electric cars is the infrastructure for charging the batteries.
If I refuel a conventional car at a petrol pump, it does not matter who owns the pump. I pay with cash or by credit card. But if I refuel an electric vehicle at a charging unit, I need a fistful of individual company cards because there are seven national schemes that own charging units and 12 regional ones, each with their own business model and membership card. This is nonsense. Owners should be able to pull up at any charging unit, pay by credit card and refuel. The Government have considerable leverage as they are funding the rollout of these charging units. So, will my noble friend who is replying to the debate make it his personal mission to rationalise the system, so that one card will keep me on the road instead of 19?
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, as a presumptuous new MP, I commented in the Queens’s Speech debate in 1959 on the need for a bypass to serve the area of Port Talbot steel and the south Wales economy generally. I return in tonight’s debate to a greater issue: the whole future of the steel industry in Port Talbot, which is a vital part of the economy in south Wales. I am glad that the Business Secretary has found time to be present in Mumbai today, when fateful decisions may be taken, with whatever support Her Majesty’s Government are able to give. That is in contrast with the role of union leaders and my successor but one as MP, Stephen Kinnock, who were aware of the importance of the last board meeting in Mumbai. They are to be congratulated. They observed the first rule of Welsh politics: be there. The Minister’s advisers seemed not to be aware of the speed of the developments revealed, or the Minister, regrettably, put his own diary and convenience first. I welcome very much the change in his priorities, and the presence of Carwyn Jones, the First Minister.
As a junior Minister, I supervised the writing of the White Paper to bring steel into public ownership. The main reason for public ownership was the cyclical nature of the market for steel, with years of plenty followed by years of famine, as in the Bible itself. Stability was essential for British steel production.
The first question for the Government to answer is: do they believe in the need for a British steel industry? Many years ago, believe it or not, this was challenged in the Economist magazine. If we do believe in that need, what should be the basis of decisions to ensure that British steel production continues in its various forms, and who should take them?
Secondly, how have we come to a position where the whole future of steel-making in Port Talbot is under threat? Is it because of Chinese dumping, the extra costs that British steel has to bear for energy, business rating, or some other reason? Has the Commission in Brussels acted too leisurely to meet the challenge of Chinese dumping which has developed over the years, or has there been lack of direction and rigour on the part of the British Government in making representations? How does the action taken in Brussels and here compare with that of the United States, which, we are told, has increased tariffs by more than 500% and doubled those on cold rolled steel from China? How significant is the EU’s 16% provisional tariff? The Business Secretary is reported as saying that it would not be right for the EU to scrap the lesser duty rule. There it is. How do we compare with the States?
I wish the proceedings in Mumbai today well. I hope that we get something significant from them. But the problem of dumping will remain. What Port Talbot needs is a level playing field. Is it true that the Government have offered to pump in hundreds of millions by way of a loan and a 25% stake in the industry to avoid Port Talbot closing before referendum day? I marvel at how the approach of the referendum and the Government’s need not to make enemies now is having such wide repercussions, including, mercifully, the emasculation of the Trade Union Bill.
One question of general significance remains: how do major companies—this is not the only one—amass huge unfunded pension liabilities without inhibition? This particular pension deficit seems to be a stumbling block for buyers. I welcome the reported comments of Community Union that there needs to be swifter and more robust action by the EU. I tried in this House, by way of a Question, to find out when the Government first took action. The replies were unimpressive. I was told:
“The government makes regular representations to the … Commission”.
The pleas of high energy users such as the steel and paper industries were not listened to in the past. How far is a balanced view being taken of a fair energy policy for high energy users, coupled with our obligations to prevent climate change? Surely the danger of destroying whole industries should not be ignored.
Lastly, how far has a business rate for Port Talbot steel militated against its economic survival? I thought the rating for the new harbour, the basis of Port Talbot’s survival, had been fixed years ago. What happened in the intervening years? I hope the Minister will expand on his answers by letter to me, and will place that in the Library.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for her maiden speech. What a pleasure to be in this Chamber to listen to her. I could not agree more that when all else fails you in life, it is education that can transform your life chances.
Right now, countries are meeting in Bonn for two weeks of talks aimed at turning the historic Paris pact into a fully functioning reality. The recent Paris agreement set an ambitious new global target of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and the United Kingdom must play our part in making that commitment a reality. That means strengthening our law by setting a new legally binding target to bring net carbon emissions to zero by 2050—a 100% reduction, rather than the current 80% reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions.
We need the Government to take this really seriously and to maintain the momentum towards a low-carbon, green economy that protects our environment and creates jobs at the same time. We also need the Government to ensure our energy security. Yet on both these counts, the Government are found wanting. The complete absence of even a mention in the gracious Speech of measures to tackle climate change speaks volumes. There is no recognition of the seriousness of the threat from climate change or the level of change that Britain must undertake for the Paris agreement to become a reality. If we are serious, Britain needs to be net zero carbon by 2050 without fail—not the 80% target agreed prior to the Paris agreement, which was more ambitious than many could ever have imagined. Quite frankly, 80% is no longer enough, given our ability to reduce emission levels compared to other countries.
Liberal Democrats would have put a zero-carbon Britain Bill into the gracious Speech to set a new legally binding target to bring net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, but from this Government there was not a word. Despite lip service about wanting to be the “greenest Government ever”, and Amber Rudd wanting to unleash a “solar revolution” and claiming glory for the Paris agreement, the reality has been a litany of anti-green actions: ending support for onshore wind power; sharply reducing support for other renewable technologies, including solar PV and anaerobic digestion; ending renewable energy’s exemption from the climate change levy; reducing the incentives to purchase low-emission cars; privatising the Green Investment Bank; scrapping the Green Deal with no replacement; weakening the zero-carbon homes standard; adding community energy to the list of sectors excluded from receiving tax relief; ditching the £1 billion budget for pioneering carbon capture and storage; ending the renewables obligation early—and on and on, most recently doing without a climate change envoy. That is not the sort of list you would expect from a Government genuinely committed to tackling climate change.
A key driver of tackling climate change must be the development of the renewable sector, not just for environmental benefits but for energy security, particularly in the light of the doubts about Hinkley, as well as jobs and economic prosperity. Yet instead of realising the business potential of renewables and becoming a world leader, the Government slashed subsidies at a stroke and undermined investor confidence, confidence that is crucial to our financial future. That will put progress back decades. They failed to commit to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, which is a crucial pilot for a new technology that could have a significant impact on our future energy needs. We need a Liberal vision for the future that puts sustainability at the very heart of every area of government policy: zero-carbon homes, which the Government failed to accept in the recent Housing and Planning Bill; electric cars, buses and trains; and the encouragement of industry to reduce its carbon footprint by rewarding innovation.
My last point, which is crucial to tackling climate change, concerns Britain remaining in the European Union. This has been given little attention. There is no mention whatever of climate change in the booklet that was sent by the Government to all members of the public, yet the EU is the one part of the world that is actively trying to address this threat. The UK has been a leader in this effort, encouraging other countries to go further in their actions than they otherwise would have done. At least, that is what happened under the previous Secretary of State, Ed Davey. It will not be possible to fulfil our international commitments, ensure energy security, boost our economy and create jobs unless and until this Government remember their commitment to future generations and start delivering on their promises.
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and thank her for her excellent speech. I very much look forward to her future contributions, especially on education.
I very much support those measures in the gracious Speech which are aimed at improving the experience of children and young people in the care system. I wish to raise some issues regarding local authorities and their responsibilities to care leavers. While I recognise that much of what I say will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the Access to Care Records Campaign Group is keen to make further headway with local authorities in their role as “corporate parent” and in recognising the key issues for care leavers when accessing their records. When the Access to Care Records Campaign Group uses the term “care leaver”, we are referring to people of any age in young, middle or senior adulthood. All share the experience of living away from their family in a state care arrangement provided by either a local authority, a voluntary agency or other forms of state care. As one person put it, “You never stop being a care leaver”.
In 2013, with the backing of the campaign group, I tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill which, although not included in the subsequent Act, led to a debate about the barriers that care leavers experienced when seeking their care files. In response, the DfE amended statutory guidance to local authorities in 2014, stating that they should support care leavers up to the age of 25 to access their care records. This includes providing clear, coherent information about how to access records and the support available, and having suitably trained and supervised staff. The revised guidance also states that these same fundamental principles should apply to older care leavers. We are grateful to the respective Ministers—Edward Timpson and the noble Lord, Lord Nash—and DfE officials for helping us make significant progress in this area of work. They committed to help the campaign group hold regional round tables to raise awareness of the new requirements placed on local authorities.
As a result of the sheer hard work put in by members of the campaign group, logistical support from the DfE and sponsorship from a range of partners, between June and September last year the campaign group held six round table workshops across England to explore the issues and dilemmas arising from providing care leavers with their records. The workshops were attended by data protection and information governance managers, social care and care leaving teams, legal advisers and care leaver support agencies. The aims were, first, to promote the statutory guidance on access to records and, secondly, to act as a forum for practitioners working on records access and their managers to share good practice. Key stakeholders, including the Care Leavers’ Association, Ofsted, the ICO, the DfE, local authorities and various legal firms participated in these workshops, and a video made by care leavers about their experiences was shown at each one. Delegates were then invited to discuss different aspects of the issue and to generate solutions.
The round-table discussions considered a number of key areas and identified several key issues that needed attention. These were: legal parameters—differing interpretations of the law around access to records, particularly in relation to data protection, and the consequences of litigation; how to work more effectively together across departments; identification of the specific needs of care leavers; training and awareness; and redaction.
This last issue caused much comment and discussion because it seems that while the Data Protection Act was intended to be a liberating Act, it does not really have the flexibility and enabling capacity that is needed when it comes to care leavers seeking their records. We want to make sure that there is improved best practice for making redactions to those records. Generally it was agreed that the current data protection framework was not the best structure and was actually unsuitable for meeting the rights and needs of care leavers.
Other key issues raised were: an apparent lack of joint protocols between data governance officers and social care workers to develop professional practice; and decisions made about the redaction of information in care leavers’ records appearing to be influenced by anxiety about breaching data protection legislation and the consequences of that, and possible future legal action against the local authority or care agency.
We made a range of recommendations, many of which I hope to pursue when we look at the children Bill later in the parliamentary year. I will briefly summarise some of them. We would like to involve Ofsted inspections more in the whole issue of accessing records and making sure that there is effective training for practitioners who have that responsibility. We want much more effective cross-departmental working in local authorities, aimed at sharing knowledge and expertise. Where redactions are necessary, a clear record of decisions made should be kept and an explanation given to the care leaver of why information has been withheld. It is not acceptable for care leavers of any age to come across a whole bundle of notes, most of which have been blacked out so they cannot read what is actually in there, with no explanation of why that has happened. There are several other detailed recommendations which I do not have time to go into today.
Several people have already talked about life chances. It has been a big theme over the past couple of days. In my mind, a strong and positive sense of self-identity is critical to contributing to one’s life chances. That is what care leavers need to be able to get from their records, no matter what age they are. When they make that decision to access their records, it has become a leap in the dark as to what kind of support they will get. Decisions about redactions in care leavers’ records should therefore be audited for consistency and empathy with the needs of care leavers, which should be at the heart of this.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate on her warm and human maiden speech.
I welcome in the Queen’s Speech the digital technology and pensions Bills and I hope that they will underpin what is needed in the two key areas that I will say a little about. First, the Government need to focus more on the need for and advantages of supporting UK digital ID for financial services, especially for areas such as pensions and in order to save people a huge amount of wasted effort in having to repeat AML requirements. Digital ID would benefit consumers by making it easier to manage their savings and investments; it would improve competitiveness by removing physical barriers to switching; and it has the potential to provide the whole foundation for the digitalisation of UK financial services.
The initial focus of ID digitalisation is to establish a secure store of basic client information to satisfy “know your client” and AMLC requirements. This is being led by the savings industry body TISA, and I declare an interest as a long-standing adviser to it. I ask the Government to take a greater interest and get a little more involved. There has been liaison with BIS, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office so far.
This leads to me to the second territory: savings and pensions. First, I repeat my hobby-horse point: what has been particularly wrong with the UK economy for 30 years, if not longer, is too low a rate of savings, which has led to investment and productivity being low. We now have a savings rate hovering around 3%, whereas I suggest that for an economy such as ours that it should average closer to 10%. We are, like it or not, in Macmillan’s famous phrase, “selling the family silver”. Half the buildings in the City of London are now foreign owned; most of the central West End is foreign owned. We will soon run out of things to sell. This is because overconsumption, along with inadequate saving, has produced a cumulative current account deficit of some £700 billion over the last 15 years, which has effectively been financed by selling assets.
Further to a Question earlier today, I am sure the Minister will agree that the size of the external current account deficit will depend on the government spending surplus or deficit and the savings rate. In a practical way, inadequate savings now mean that people are inadequately financed for their old age. I regard it as a disgrace that this country, which 25 or 30 years ago was the leader in pension provision in the whole of the western world—much better than anywhere else—has somehow, under Governments of both parties, become one of the worst. That has been a function of a whole lot of mistakes, but it is definitely correct to identify overcomplication as one—Andrew Haldane’s comments were extremely appropriate. The very complexity of pension funds is one reason why ISAs have prospered reasonably well.
I support the auto-enrolment measures and NEST, although the contributions are insufficient to provide an adequate income in old age. I would like to see much greater simplification, for example by restricting the tax credit to 20% for everybody but also by lifting the constraints on how much you can contribute and what your pension pot can be. At present, many of the better-off are simply ceasing to save because they have reached the tax limits on their pots. The other point I would make is that there is a growing unfairness between those who are fortunate enough to be in receipt of public sector pensions, which are still final salary in the main, and those in the private sector who have seen their pensions reduced to wholly inadequate levels.
Finally, there is the wider economy. I congratulate the Chancellor on having got this economy going, even though all those brilliant IMF economists who are now saying we must not leave the EU said then that he was completely messing up his economic policies. In fact, he got it right. But it is apparent that his plans to phase out the deficit are being hit fairly badly by a lower rate of economic growth than was projected. Rather sadly, we are still borrowing £72 billion this year; there has to be a more aggressive focus on putting the public finances on to a better basis.
I regard it as pretty horrific that this year, welfare will be about £270 billion—including some of the payments that go under other channels—health £145 billion and education £102 billion. That is 70% of total public spending, forgetting defence and other key areas. We are now spending £39 billion a year on debt interest. I do not believe that the sort of unlimited growth that has been occurring over the last 15 years in this area is going to be practical in the future. Some form of constraint will be unavoidable, to my mind, partly because the scope to raise taxes without damaging the economy is also pretty limited. So we need to get rid of constraints on areas that cannot be looked at for savings, and we will have to take a tougher attitude to reducing the budget deficit.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, let me join the queue to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her terrific maiden speech and, I gather, on her athletic prowess. She is a very welcome addition to your Lordships’ House.
A huge intellectual and policy-making revolution is beginning today across the world as the limitations of the efficient market hypothesis become evident. We have reached the limits of endless privatisation. The structural strains that we see everywhere, the rise of populist parties, the sharp relative decline of the BRICs, about which the Minister knows a lot, and the accumulation of huge levels of debt in the advanced economies will demand profound revisions in our thinking and policy-making both globally and locally. I see very little sign that the Government have recognised the depth of this imminent intellectual and policy-making shift.
I shall speak of only one area where a great deal of innovative thinking is happening, which is the debate about reindustrialisation in the West. Rebalancing the economy, the march of the makers and the fabled northern powerhouse, which have been mentioned, are the Government’s way of talking about this debate, yet very little flesh has been put on those bare bones. There is a reason for that, which is that the Government find it hard to come to terms with the need for active industrial policy.
The wiping out of large swathes of British manufacturing industry has been a disaster for many communities in the north and in parts of Scotland and Wales. The contrast with Germany is very telling. Only two days ago—sorry, two decades ago—manufacturing in Britain accounted for 22% of GDP—[Interruption.] Mr Mandelson calling.
Lord Giddens
Only two decades ago, manufacturing in Britain accounted for 22% of GDP compared to 23% in Germany. Today, in this country it has fallen to 9%, whereas in Germany the percentage is almost unchanged. It is a huge contrast. As we know, Germany has a substantial trade surplus, whatever you make of the UK trade deficit.
Reindustrialisation should be understood as an avant-garde process, not a reversion to protectionism. As I see it, three components are involved, although each interrelates with the other in a dynamic way—or ideally should do so. I shall put what I have to say as three questions to the Minister.
The first picks up on the speech of my noble friend Lord Morris. What lessons will the Government seek to learn from the travails of the British steel industry, specifically those involving Tata Steel, an episode whose outcome is still far from clear? Will the Government look simply to sell on whatever assets can be disposed of or consider developing a more rounded policy in which social costs are balanced against the economic ones and where longer-term strategies are involved?
Secondly, I think that I was one of the first people in your Lordships’ House to talk about the reshoring debate in the United States several years ago: the idea of bringing back offshored industries to the US. That movement has had considerable success. Firms have been attracted back to their country of origin by a mixture of positive inducements and the fact that rising labour costs, especially in China, have reduced the benefits of offshoring. Has Reshore UK, set up by the Government, achieved anything of note? I have found it hard to find it, if so, and it seems pretty radically underfunded compared to its American counterparts.
Thirdly, and most importantly, some of the most significant advances across the world are happening in what has come to be called advanced manufacturing, driven in large part by the digitalising of production and distribution. Robotics, 3D printing and supercomputing power are the main forces involved. The promotion of advanced manufacturing has become a prime concern of the federal Government in the United States. A recent report of the National Science and Technology Council argued that the knock-on effects are absolutely huge. For each such manufacturing job created, 16 other jobs are established.
The authors of a new book on these issues, The Smartest Places on Earth, spent two years travelling through the United States and across Europe studying areas of industrial renaissance. They came up with remarkable results and speak of “turning globalisation on its head” through the emergence of new hotspots of innovation and job generation, many of them in rustbelt areas ravaged by outsourcing. Costs are being reduced not by cheap labour but by what they call smart production. Manufacture is being reinvented in quite a different guise from the past. The “rustbelt”, as they put it, has become a “brainbelt”.
No one knows at this point how transformative advanced manufacturing will turn out to be in terms of the overall economy. However, a key feature is that the traditional divisions embodied in orthodox economic statistics, between manufacturing and service industries, are being broken down. The puzzle about why productivity has not improved even as the pace of innovation grows might be elucidated here, since perhaps the established measures are becoming obsolete.
The UK does not brook large in the book to which I have referred, although other parts of Europe do, interestingly. The authors question the idea that EU countries are becoming industrial museums; they see them as the centres of an enormous amount of information. What strategies are the Government deploying to ensure that the UK is not once again left behind?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, it seems that you wait years for a transport Bill and then three come along together. I congratulate the Minister on his powers of persuasion, as I know how difficult it is to insert Bills into the Queen’s Speech. After the disappointment of last year, when we waited all year for a Bill on buses which never turned up, it is heartening to see that we will be off promptly after the recess with the Second Reading of the Bus Services Bill. As we will therefore have our chance to set out our views on that issue soon, I will say very little about it now, beyond saying that I welcome the Bill. It is a long overdue opportunity to deal with the problems created across the country, outside London, by the deregulation of bus services. That reform was the first major issue I dealt with as a member of the transport committee of Cardiff council, my very first role as an elected member, at a time when I was a young mother. It has taken far too long to address those issues, and I believe that there is fairly broad agreement with the general direction of the Bill. However, I urge the Government to take the opportunity to set the pace on this. We are now well into the 21st century and need to create a comprehensive modern transport network.
To be successful, the new regime needs to go further than planned to attract new passengers, and therefore needs to encourage young people to use buses and ensure all buses are accessible for people with disabilities. It needs to achieve the lowest possible emission levels. The air quality emergency that we face in our urban areas is so severe that we are well past the time when decisions on this can be voluntary. There is a major role for government in ensuring that our buses reach the highest air quality standards. We remain to be convinced that this Bill will address the bus crisis that is hitting so many rural areas.
I was delighted to hear Her Majesty say that there will be a modern transport Bill. The Government are right to seek to keep us at the forefront of technological developments and there are thorny issues to be grappled with, such as the way we insure driverless cars and data protection and security. For example, who will own and control the information on where I have travelled to in my autonomous vehicle? These vehicles promise a brave new world where we no longer need to own our own car, but the Government need to tackle the way in which we use such vehicles from the start, by encouraging carpooling via legislation for instance. We do not have the luxury of time. The revolution is happening right now on the streets of Bristol, Greenwich, Milton Keynes and Coventry.
I have raised before in this House my frustration that the Government have been so slow in dealing with the challenges raised by drone technology. The news last week about the use of drones to smuggle drugs and weapons into prisons highlights the fact that better regulation is overdue, so I welcome the inclusion of drones in this Bill. There are big issues about safety and security as well as privacy.
My disappointment comes with the Government’s limited understanding of the phrase “modern transport”. It should be about so much more than drones and spaceports, exciting as they are. As Lib Dems, we would like to see such a Bill encompassing all the strategic objectives of a modern sustainable transport system. Any traveller in Britain today knows that we patently do not have transport infrastructure fit for the 21st century. It is the fault of successive Governments. The future prosperity of our nation is at stake on this, so we need a modern transport Bill that sets out a comprehensive strategy. If you are standing on the 7.15 am into Euston with hardly room to breathe, you are not thinking about the site for a spaceport—you have heavier things on your mind. The Government need to address the daily grind of commuting because that is what will really sharpen the edge of our economy. The environment must be at the heart of our modern infrastructure.
I urge the Government to widen the modern transport Bill to use it to build the infrastructure required for the widespread use of electric vehicles. Three experts have so far told me that we do not have sufficient electricity capacity for all the electric vehicles that will be on our roads in the near future. It is a lengthy process to expand the electricity supply. Of course, there are alternatives to electricity for vehicles, but they are zero-emission in the place where we need it: on the streets of our towns.
We also need a modern, sustainable approach to air travel and airports. It is ironic that we will have a Bill that deals with spaceports when the Government cannot decide whether it should be Heathrow or Gatwick. In the meantime, the Government need to be preparing our important aviation industry for the future, and I urge them to broaden the modern transport Bill to include measures to encourage the production and use of biofuels for aviation. We are way behind our competitors on this vital issue.
It is important that I finish by celebrating our strong aviation industry; its leaders have made it clear how important it is for them and their employees that we remain in the EU. I urge the Government to look very much more broadly in the way in which they consider the idea of modern transport.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I add my welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. As someone who at best can do a half-marathon, I can only admire her. I share with her my recollections of the late Baroness Birk, whose views on faith I shared.
I shall focus my remarks today on economic affairs. Surrounded as we are by a maelstrom of political polls, referenda and intrigue, it is perhaps worth reappraising where we are in the primary mission for which the Government were elected, which is of course economic security. Whatever relationship with the EU we may end up with, Britain must continue to show global leadership in growth, job creation, fiscal responsibility and free trade. After all, it is exactly because of that leadership that the OECD has predicted that the UK economy will be the fastest-growing developed economy this year, with a record 2 million jobs created since 2010 and unemployment down 142,000 this year. It is because of this leadership that the deficit is down to two-thirds from its peak, although, as my noble friend Lord Flight has said, there is some way to go.
Whether we are outside the EU plotting our own path or inside urging our fellow members to follow our lead, we must stand up for free trade. I urge the Minister to continue promoting the TTIP treaty, which will of course help in that. We need to continue to explain more clearly that the NHS will remain excluded from it. If we are to rebuild any kind of popular consensus for this type of free and fair capitalism, businesses and Governments must come together to show that they are serious about tackling the pervasive unfairness in one aspect of our economic life. I am referring here to tax avoidance. Globalisation has brought many benefits, and I am in no doubt that it will continue to spread prosperity to even the hardest-to-reach communities. However, as the economy is globalised, our tax systems are still local. Multinational businesses are taking advantage, playing off one nation state against another. We must rebuild trust in our system, and fast.
If we do not continue to strive to make capitalism fit for purpose, the siren voices against capitalism will become even more alluring. We can easily guess what the shadow Chancellor meant when he said that he wanted to break the narrative when it comes to saving money to balance the books. More populist easy answers were peddled at a recent economic policy conference, where Labour promised to break with economic orthodoxy. This should concentrate the minds of those of us who still take a responsible approach to economic management. We need to show that the system that we have can deliver for the whole of the UK.
I am therefore delighted to see included in Her Majesty’s gracious Address the criminal finances Bill to tackle tax evasion, and indeed many measures in the recent Finance Bill help to take us in that direction. The UK has made great progress on tax evasion and tax avoidance. Through his leadership of the G20, the Prime Minister put tax avoidance at the top of the international political agenda. Progress has been made on many of the action points included in so-called BEPS—base erosion and profit shifting—which was in fact the subject of my maiden speech. On transfer pricing in particular, where corporates move money around different locations to minimise the tax bill, it was somewhat galling to read today that the French seem to be slightly more fleet of foot than we are. On the matter of reducing the tax deductibility of debt interest, where it is used to artificially avoid tax, measures in the Finance Bill that cap this at 30% are to be welcomed.
Similarly, the March Budget also brought a long-overdue clampdown on carried interest, a private equity tax advantage that had little economic benefit except to practitioners themselves. That robust approach has brought the tax gap down to a record low. This is in contrast to the party opposite. Indeed, I agree with the comments of the former right honourable Member for Blackburn, who said on Labour’s record, “There was action that we could and should have taken straight away, but we didn’t”. To be fair, I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on covenant-lite. She is quite right to draw attention to the growth of covenant-lite; it is a real threat.
I hope the Minister will agree with me in welcoming the Government’s pledge to look at VAT evasion, particularly for international e-commerce businesses. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of business interests, which includes a directorship of a company with 150 shops in the UK. I say that with some temerity, as sitting next to me is one of the country’s greatest retailers. None the less, we have 150 shops. I urge HMRC to move very quickly on this evasion, as UK taxpaying businesses are being disadvantaged. The current e-commerce directive makes clear that any business selling goods online in the UK has to make public its VAT status. However, international businesses from certain jurisdictions are selling goods from UK warehouses on well-known e-commerce platforms without accounting for any VAT at all. Platforms such as Google and eBay have stated many times that it is not their responsibility to act. Measures in the Budget suggest that this will not remain the case and that they could be made liable.
Currently, the e-commerce directive sits with DCMS, but I suggest that the Government investigate this matter to allow HMRC to issue what I believe are called “stop now orders”, which are directed at individual businesses and would give HMRC the powers it needs to tackle VAT evasion. These important measures will help the Government collect the revenue they are owed from big businesses.
What about the smaller entrepreneurs? I welcome new investment in HMRC to help those filing digitally, and cutting capital gains tax for nearly all businesses will encourage greater business investment, as will continued reforms to entrepreneurs’ relief.
In conclusion, we are making progress in showing that our system can be reformed. We need to put beyond doubt that free markets are the best way to spread prosperity and opportunities for all. Clamping down on tax evasion by the abusers on the one hand and making our tax system simple to use for small businesses, entrepreneurs and ordinary taxpayers on the other hand means that this Government, in tax as in all things, are and should be for the many, not the few.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the gracious Speech heralds yet another pensions Bill, and recent Budgets have been characterised by intense speculation prior to yet more changes to the savings regime. There has been so much change but so little clarity on the long-term objectives of government savings policy. People are not sure where the Chancellor is going, and they certainly do not know what will happen next. The behavioural response of employers, consumers and the market to these changes is not fully considered. Freedoms and choice exercised in a market where the consumer side remains weak and conflicts of interest prevail results in ever more regulation and complexity, yet there has been a limited attempt to build a consensus.
Pension policy has a 30-year incubation period. It is a responsibility to be shared by Chancellors across the generations. No one can claim to have delivered the answer, as they can never be around to see it to fruition. There has been much comment about the lifetime ISA and whether it will compete with savings under auto-enrolment. My concern is less with that risk and more with what that decision trails for future policy. What is a sustainable and fair level of tax relief for long-term saving is an important issue and a legitimate question. However, I fear that the Chancellor may proceed to snatch defeat from the jaws of the auto-enrolment victory. There needs to be a more open consensus about the impact of any change, not only on today’s fiscal deficit but on the impact over the longer term.
Auto-enrolment gets people saving through harnessing inertia, but employers and their contributions are key to its success and the overall level of savings. Yet the Government’s consultation document on tax relief made no reference to the employer role until the penultimate paragraph. The emphasis was all on the individual voluntary incentive to save—a very significant shift in policy thinking but with little evidence of the analysis of the behavioural implications.
Auto-enrolment has seen millions start to save, but their savings need to be held in institutions that are fit for purpose. Workers in master trusts represent the biggest group of new pension savers: some 6 million. However, these trusts require no licence to operate, there are few quality standards for market entry, and unsustainable players are putting savings at risk. Some 59 master trusts are used for automatic enrolment. They cannot all achieve the necessary scale to survive. Yet there is no infrastructure or legislation in place to support the wind-up of such a trust and protect workers’ savings. The proposed tougher regulation announced in the gracious Speech is long overdue.
Individuals are required to take increasing responsibility for their own financial planning, so the Government’s intention to introduce a pensions guidance body and a money guidance body providing access to guidance on debt and on money is welcome. However, pensions guidance needs to be impartial and provided by guiders who have a depth of knowledge and expertise. Without that expertise, guidance becomes merely an information service. It does not add value; it simply replicates what providers routinely offer and does not fill the market gap. People have low levels of knowledge, and the presenting question is often not the issue. The diagnostic of the customer’s issues is key to adding value from the guidance, and, without those elements, it will not deliver what people need.
The Bank of England chief economist, Andy Haldane, speaking recently at the think tank New City Agenda, suggested that even advisers do not understand pensions, admitting that he too cannot make sense of the increasingly complex pensions market. He also referred to providers having made financial products difficult for the public to understand and more complex than necessary, with consumers charged a premium for buying them. He suggested that such complexity is a desperately poor basis for sound financial planning and that the problem is becoming more acute because more of the risk associated with financial decisions is being shouldered not by the state or companies but by individuals.
However, guidance and financial education can achieve only so much. We keep coming back to the profound need to change the behaviour of the providers in the market. For example, achieving transparency of disclosure of transaction costs on savers’ assets is still unfinished business, but I assure noble Lords that resistance is alive and well. Which provider will be the first to break rank and release their costs if they think it is to their detriment? There are so many costs outside those that the saver is told about. Many of the implicit costs are hidden in the change in the market value of assets. However, as the Transparency Task Force observed recently, it is actually even worse—some costs or revenues do not show up anywhere. Without further action by government on compelling disclosure, the desired transparency will not be achieved and the markets will remain unfair.
Finally, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her maiden speech. Her passion for the people of the north-east shone through and she certainly did them proud.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, in responding to the gracious Speech, I am delighted to welcome, first, the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and to congratulate her. To be in the House and on this Bench today is a pleasure. We are colleagues again here, as we were in St Albans diocese some years ago. We have a shared conviction that the work of the Church and of government is to support the welfare of all people, reminding ourselves that welfare is properly understood not in the restricted sense in which we so often use it in our debates about benefits and eligibility but as the well-being of all people in the whole of their lives. Bishop Christine has powerfully reminded us of the perspective from her diocese and the north-east.
In my diocese of Portsmouth and in many other places, there has been a welcome for the Government’s intention, announced in the gracious Speech, to improve life chances for the most disadvantaged. Those who are forgotten, ignored, marginalised, hidden or excluded are indeed our collective responsibility. The Speech is helpful in its range of Bills to address some of those who are disadvantaged, particularly children and young people in care or outside caring or stable families. In his speech at the Conservative Party conference last autumn, the Prime Minister spoke of his commitment to end disadvantage and fight for real equality in our country today.
There is less—I suggest too little—emphasis in the gracious Speech on people and families facing economic challenge and disadvantage. The spectre of austerity and its impacts and implications are still real to many. Economic disadvantage is real for those experiencing job insecurity as well as unemployment, and for those suffering financial uncertainty and anxiety—unknown to me and perhaps to most of us here. The point is not just that there are inequalities—of course there will always be—but that there are injustices. These demand more concerted attention than is immediately apparent in the gracious Speech.
Improving lives across the country is entirely the right ambition. It is good to hear continuing commitment to the northern powerhouse and, as a proud Black Country boy, the Midlands engine. But many on this Bench, and more widely in this House I think, will surely remind the Minister that places and counties on the edge—the Isle of Wight, for instance—should have specific and focused support, too.
The legislative programme promises local growth and jobs, the delivery of fast and reliable broadband, and improved competitiveness. This sounds admirable and good, if as yet often rather vague. It is aspirational rather than convincing, but there is not much to give immediate confidence and hope to those whose economic circumstances are as fragile as the social situations of those specifically to be supported in the life chances suite of measures. Commercial spaceports and driverless cars may catch the headlines, but they can seem fanciful diversions, and the United States, South Korea and China are already well ahead in these areas. Such announcements do not offer hope to our fellow citizens who are looking for bold policies for their economic welfare.
The national economic security that the Government trumpet—not, I add, without some justification—must not disguise the economic insecurity felt by some in our nation. The Government seek to entrench strong national economic performance. It would be wrong if entrenching that were achieved at the price of embedding some people in economic insecurity.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I would like to pay a very big tribute to Her Majesty. For many of us, she is the only monarch we have ever known and, in her 90th year, she yet again came to this Chamber to make her gracious Speech. What a lucky country we are to have such a person in that role.
I turn to the economy first. We have had three days of speeches—and today is no exception—from people wanting to spend more money on some very good and worthy areas: defence, education, welfare and the National Health Service. But not one of those speakers, to my knowledge, has told the House what projects they are going to cut in order to spend that extra money or where the money is going to come from. Such is the luxury of not being in government.
Ministers have to be accountable, and that is right and proper. I pay tribute to our Ministers. We are hugely fortunate in this country. Of course, we complain a lot. We whinge well, as Brits. But I would rather be in this country than any other country in Europe. We have better employment, less unemployment, more job security and we have created more jobs. The doomsayers said that that was impossible, so I say a big thank you to our Ministers for putting us in this position. It does not mean that everything is right and that there are not problems ahead. There are. There are huge economic problems ahead of us whether we are in or outside the EU. But I would rather be in the position we are in this country than in any other country in the EU.
Whether we are in or outside the EU, there is economic regulation. I have taken part in the EU Sub-Committee looking at financial matters. We interviewed a Treasury Minister about banking union. He was very proud that the British banks were not allowed to take part in parts of the banking union into which they wanted to opt. That will cause extra regulation and extra cost for British bankers, and most likely cost British jobs. I have since heard that our penchant for overregulating is known as “la source anglaise”. For the Brexiteers who reckon that all will be wonderful if and when we leave, it will not. We will have the problem of overregulation.
Turning to transport, I am not yet convinced on HS2. My noble friend Lord Ahmad has tried, but he has not yet convinced me that there is an adequate case for it. I would have been much more excited if the gracious Speech had talked about Crossrail 2 or, perhaps even more important to me, the trans-Pennine crossing. That is where a huge economic hub could open up. My noble friend talked about the northern powerhouse. Well, that would really get it going. We looked at this issue when I was in the Transport department. That was a few blue moons ago, and it is terribly sad that it has not progressed further.
The Government are also bringing forward reform of compulsory purchase orders. There is a nice little hotspot for us to get into. They say that the process should be fairer and quicker, but fairer to whom? There is great concern among we surveyors that the landowners will not get full value for their money and will get a reduced sum. Therefore, the developers will receive the extra profit from the increase in land values. We will need to study that with great care.
Turning to the question of a wildlife Bill, we are due a Law Commission report but the commission cannot recommend the species protection level. It has asked Defra and the Welsh Government to look at this issue so that the law can be made more uniform. What progress has been made on this issue, which is hugely important to farmers? In the north of Scotland—and it will come to Northumbria, about which the right reverend Prelate made such a good speech—we have had success, in that the number of ravens has increased hugely. But ravens are killers of healthy young lambs. There is nothing more heart-breaking for a farmer than to produce good lambs and find that your week-old lambs are being attacked by ravens. They are doing it for fun. It has been watched very carefully. It involves only a small number of ravens, and if farmers could be licensed to exterminate those, the problem would solve itself. But it is not just ravens. We have read recently about ducks on a watercress farm in Hampshire. People have to realise that in the countryside, farming is your business. If we as politicians do not allow farmers to do their job properly and try to maximise their livelihoods—which has been extremely difficult to do in past years—we will need to look at the whole of farming in a different light and say, “We want you there in the country and we will pay you to farm not very well because we want green hedges and we do not want you to do what you are doing”.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned GM crops. I hope that that is one area the Government will push the EU on.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I am obliged to welcome much that is in the Queen’s Speech, but it is with sincere regret that I note that for the second year running, the word “environment” does not feature in it at all. There are no measures to protect or enhance our natural environment and no measures to deliver the Conservative manifesto commitment to protect our public forests and woodlands for the good of the country. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just said, there is no wildlife Bill, and yet we have had the recommendations from the Law Commission since last December. We need to ensure that the competing demands of farmers, environmentalists and those who enjoy the countryside are provided for through a legal framework that makes provision for wildlife. We urgently need a new Bill.
There is also no new Bill on the crucial issue of water abstraction. Our water abstraction laws are now 40 years out of date. Levels of sustainable abstraction are way beyond what they should be, and we are running out of time. By 2019 the new provisions set out in the Water Act 2014 will come into force so that more trading in water will be allowed, and significant volumes of water for which licences are already held but are not presently being traded will be allowed to be traded. We therefore need a water abstraction regime soon.
As I say, for the second year running we have no mention of the environment, so we on these Benches will do what we can to bring forward in other Bills environmental measures, in much the way we did in the Housing and Planning Bill in the last Session. I am sure that the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill will offer us similar opportunities. However, we need to look to other jurisdictions if we want to protect our environment, and in that regard I point out that the gracious Speech does refer to the forthcoming referendum on European Union membership.
Since 1970 the European Union has been the core framework in most areas of environmental policy. It has undoubtedly the most developed and significant body of environmental law and policy on the global stage, and for a very good reason. It is at that level that, as members, we can have the most leverage and influence on environmental matters of global significance, the most important of which is climate change, as was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Featherstone. It was under the coalition Government that significant progress was made to ensure that in the run-up to Paris, through our membership of the European Union, we would be able to encourage other countries such as the United States and China to bring forward provisions that would allow us to secure the Paris agreement. We still hope that this Government will now deliver on that agreement in their forthcoming programme.
It is not only environmental issues like climate change that need global solutions; there are also the issues with cross-border implications.
Travelling around looking at our beaches today brings me great joy because, thanks to EU legislation that has been in place since 1970, they are now in good condition, and otters can be found in rivers in every single county. Similarly, we have the birds directive to thank for the fact that migratory bird species are protected. I have a question for the Minister to which he can respond in his summing up, or perhaps in a letter at a later date. The birds directive is fundamental legislation that protects our birds, particularly endangered species. During the policy formulation process some two years ago, more than 100,000 people in the UK wrote to the Commission supporting the fitness review of the birds directive and the need to keep it in place. We had the outline draft findings last November, and a commitment was given that we would have the findings by early June. What pressure are the Government applying to ensure that this fundamental legislation and the expected review are delivered?
Of course, European legislation is not perfect. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, the common fisheries policy was no friend to either fishermen or the fish. But I am delighted that, under the coalition Government, the common fisheries policy revisions resulted in the end to discard, the introduction of maximum sustainable yields, and fishing policy being decided at regional level. Those things are already bearing fruit, and it is my contention that we need to be in Europe, working with our partners to protect the environment. That is the way forward for us.
In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the work of all those on these Benches—indeed, on all Benches—and those outside the House, who, through groups such as Environment for Europe, are supporting the case for staying in Europe and showing that, by being in Europe, we can best protect our environment.
Lord Rana (CB)
My Lords, I will address the criminal finances Bill and the soft drinks levy, included in the gracious Speech.
After the revelations of the Panama papers, it is all too clear that we must do more to tackle corruption not just in the UK but globally. Some of the UK’s overseas territories facilitate individuals and companies in avoiding tax and allow corrupt leaders and politicians to hide their ill-begotten wealth. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, mentioned in his speech yesterday that London is considered by some as the money laundering capital of the world. That must change and we must act against corrupt individuals from abroad who hide their stolen wealth by buying property in London and who settle here mostly with immunity.
I am glad that the UK is now leading in its attempt to tackle corruption on a global scale, and I welcome the criminal finances Bill. It was only a few weeks ago when we hosted the global anti-corruption summit. I hope that the Government’s proposals to reform crime legislation on illicit money and strengthen the UK’s anti-money laundering regime will be translated into unexplained wealth orders. Such measures would reverse the burden of proof on to the suspect and would be a vital step for tackling corruption. Equally, I am heartened to see the Government’s efforts to introduce a corporate offence for tax evasion. This would mean firms would be required to bolster measures against money laundering and corruption.
Strong legislation must have capable enforcement. HMRC is currently making cuts of £100 million, including the closure of 137 offices, and the Office for Budget Responsibility report on this year’s Budget noted that it was not able to follow up on disclosure in tax havens due to underfunding. Similarly, opacity in our overseas territories will continue to hinder progress on corruption unless it becomes more transparent. The Government must resist vested interests that would seek to water down these proposals. Corruption has stymied the development of many Asian and African nations and, of course, those in many other parts of the world. Economic development of these countries would be a great benefit to us all.
I also welcome the Government’s soft drinks levy. Such legislation is an important step in tackling obesity and the unhealthy diets that contribute to it. It has been found that one in three children between the ages of two and 15 is obese, and that 20% of the NHS budget is spent on dealing with health problems that are a direct result of unhealthy lifestyles. However, if the logic of the sugar tax is to help tackle the growing health problems in the UK, it is sad to see that other measures are not included. Why are there no other proposals on high-sugar products, such as chocolate and confectionary? The soft drinks levy should be the beginning rather than the end of financial legislation and seek to promote a healthy lifestyle. But fiscal measures alone cannot solve our health problems. Legislation must be complemented by education on a holistic approach to healthy living. India has long practised this through Ayurveda and yoga. Such practices would save lives and money in the long run. Last year, 21 June was declared International Yoga Day by the UN.
Finally, there has been a lot of debate about the implication of the referendum on the UK’s economy. I believe that the world is more interconnected than ever before and that to pull out of the European Union would be an unbelievable risk. However, whatever the result of the referendum, we need to make more consistent efforts in developing our trade relations with the Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth is undervalued and underutilised. Despite the economic recession in many developed countries, many Commonwealth countries such as India are growing at around 7% per annum. This offers a unique opportunity for the UK to partner with the development process and it would be a win-win situation for all—promoting growth that looks forward to the future and builds on our shared past.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, I speak to you today as a northerner, a businessman, the adopted child of parents from the humblest of backgrounds and a keen proponent of helping disadvantaged young people make the most—the very best—of their life chances, particularly through two organisations with which I am fortunate to be associated: the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and the Outward Bound Trust. From all these perspectives, I found much to welcome in the Queen’s Speech. I am heartfelt when I say that a move to tip the balance in favour of permanent adoption in the interests of a child’s security is a measure of huge social value.
But what of the many thousands of children growing up in families, or with single parents, or in care, who lack the vision, confidence and ambition to get on in life? Having lived near Doncaster all my life—not far from where the classic film “Kes” was made—I do not want to exaggerate this problem or pretend that it is peculiar to any one part of the country. I do not entirely recognise the Monty Python vision of the north-west propounded last week by one would-be mayor of Manchester. He asserted that it was hard for youngsters there to have ambition, as aspiration was mocked by their peers—in his words, “Because you say to someone: ‘Oh, I’d like to be a doctor.’ Or be a lawyer or a member of parliament. And you worry you’ll have the mickey taken out of you”. However, it does not seem to have put him off his stride so far. I think the impossibility of having aspirations if you are a northerner will certainly have come as surprise news to most head teachers in Yorkshire—but then maybe the problem is more prevalent on the less-favoured side of the Pennines.
That underlines to me the importance of improving transport links across the north of England. Certainly that would facilitate the civilising and more optimistic culture of Yorkshire being spread much more widely. It is completely ridiculous and madness that the fastest rail journey from Doncaster to London, which is 75 miles further than Doncaster to Liverpool, is a full hour quicker than that journey. So I strongly commend the commitment to spend £15 billion in this Parliament to improve the transport infrastructure of the northern powerhouse, to press ahead with the building of HS3 and, just as importantly, to accelerate the improvement of the M62. As I think my noble friend the Minister said at the outset, that is a game-changing investment.
I also welcome the proposed devolution of more powers to local authorities, including the freedom to retain business rates to help them stimulate economic growth in their own areas, as long, of course, as it is acknowledged that the level of business property taxes reflects the huge changes taking place in the way we all conduct our business, recognising that we are buying more and more from online retailers, rather than beleaguered and highly-rated high street shops.
I submit that what really matters above all else in Britain today is not what happens in this House, in the other place, in the councils of the European Commission, or in the parlours of elected mayors. It is in the millions of individual homes, not just in the north, but in the south and in the devolved nations, too—everywhere where children are growing up without an adequate appreciation of just what they could achieve in life. They simply do not grasp the potential that each one of them individually possesses. Of course, if they cannot see it, how are they ever going to realise it? How are we going to build a northern powerhouse and an even more successful national economy if so many of the next generation believe that the odds are stacked against them and that they cannot succeed, so they do not bother even trying?
Through the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and Outward Bound I have met thousands of young people, including many from disadvantaged backgrounds, who think just like that and whose lives those charities have quite simply turned around. Those organisations have achieved remarkable growth, engaging record numbers of young people in their activities—all against a background of steady erosion in the local authority funding that was once their mainstay. Now they are building direct links with schools, companies and other institutions, and developing some amazing philanthropic support.
Last week I was privileged to attend a major gathering at Buckingham Palace where almost 1,100 youngsters from across the UK, and, indeed, the wider world, received their hard-earned gold awards, many from the Duke of Edinburgh himself, who first set up this amazing programme 60 years ago. So when we talk about empowering local government to do more, I say, “Yes, of course, by all means, but why stop there?”. To truly increase the life chances for the most disadvantaged, we should empower voluntary organisations and charities to do more too. Empower families, and above all, empower children, because they are the future for all of us. Set them free, raise their sights and help them on the right path, not just through good teaching, but with ready access to experiences like the D of E and Outward Bound that will help them to learn teamwork, communication, self-discipline, initiative, adaptability and leadership, all of which helps to create resilience, confidence and a can-do attitude that will take a young person far—maybe even to membership of the Cabinet or of your Lordships’ House.
I try my best to lead by example, and whenever a young person says to me that they cannot do something, I always point out that if I can do it, anyone can. That is something I always make clear. Frankly, they seem to find that remarkably persuasive—perhaps more than I really like.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, strengthening the economy, supporting economic recovery and moving to a higher wage economy where work is rewarded: those phrases resonated in the first three paragraphs of the Queen’s Speech. I tell the Government that those cannot be achieved without a well-functioning banking system. Presently, that is a distant prospect, as shown by the evidence that we in the NCA—the New City Agenda—have received from participants: Martin Wolf, Sir John Vickers, John Kay, Philip Augar, Anthony Hilton of the Evening Standard, the former chief executive of Barclays Bank Antony Jenkins, the right honourable and most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, who addressed us last week.
The key message from these individuals is that banks are not functioning for the benefit of either the economy or society. Antony Jenkins, in his speech to us, said that banks are presently not properly fulfilling their role to society and generally they are unhappy places to work. He had a mission to change the banking culture of Barclays. He told his superiors that it was a five to 10-year project. He ran out of patience and left after three years. He was quite clear when he told us that there are still large parts of the industry thinking that this will pass. All informed commentators find it hard to see any bank following the culture transformation through.
Why is this so important? I mentioned Andy Haldane, who addressed our annual dinner last week. The title of his speech, which is on the Bank of England website, is “The Great Divide”. It looked at the difference between the financial insiders and outsiders. The Bank carried out polling at the end of 2015 on the perceptions of the financial sector. The word most used by the general public, the customers rather than producers, was “corrupt”. Not far behind were the words, “manipulating”, “self-serving”, “destructive” and “greedy”. That underscores how far the financial services must still travel to regain their social licence.
We have seen the foot taken off the pedal by politicians, regulators and corporations. With the politicians, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards made a recommendation to reverse the burden of proof, which was altered by the Government. The regulators dropped their review of banking culture at the end of last year. The corporations, as I mentioned in my last speech here, witnessed bonuses paid out of pre-tax not post-tax profits which means executives do not pay for their misconduct. Also, we witnessed creative accounting through issues such as adjusted profits. Indeed, the chair of the International Accounting Standards Board, Hans Hoogervorst, stated that adjusted earnings paint a misleading picture of the financial position of companies. We see real bonuses still being paid out of fake profits. We thought that had gone in 2008.
If the incoming chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, Andrew Bailey, is serious about re-establishing the authority and writ of a demoralised and cowered organisation, he must review the decision to downgrade culture to what it calls normal bank supervision. This cannot be allowed to be behind closed doors, with no assessment of progress and no publication of good or bad practice. Such a secretive approach damages the accountability of banks and regulator. The Government should tell Andrew Bailey that he cannot franchise this to outside bodies which are presently unwilling to identify individual banks regarding cultural progress or otherwise. This reminds me of when I was chairman of the Treasury Select Committee and we had the issue of basic bank accounts. At the time, that was monitored by the Banking Code Standards Board, which referred to banks as “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”, and did not identify them. The result was that I ensured that this was achieved— the floodgates opened and we had meaningful assessment of and progress in what was happening.
We need to ensure that there is public accountability and transparency of assessments of progress. Only the Financial Conduct Authority has the ability to ensure this outcome. We also need to ensure that bank chief executives are held individually accountable for poor culture and demonstrate a greater appetite to take enforcement action against executives. We have seen the so-called shareholder spring recently. Again, Andy Haldane said in his speech:
“Ultimately … these investor votes are binding on neither management nor boards. They are a ‘Say on Pay’, but not a ‘Stay on Pay’”.
Little or no effect has been had on executive compensation packages as a result of investor action. In fact, cases of investors actively voting against pay packages are as rare as hens’ teeth. The system of executive pay is broken. There are still high rewards for those at the top. In the banking sector, this allows senior management to harvest the fruits of large and open-ended subsidies from the taxpayer.
The incoming chief executive, Andrew Bailey, said recently in his speech, “Culture in Financial Services,” that culture had laid the ground for bad outcomes. It has, absolutely. He said:
“A change of culture is possible and as the England Cricket team has demonstrated to our great enjoyment, a lot can be achieved in a short space of time where there is commitment”.
I have two comments. First, this is not a short space of time but a five to 10-year programme and the FCA must put its foot on the pedal. Secondly, a comparison with the English cricket team is, I suggest, rather vacuous and trivialising. The global financial crisis devastated both financial and social capital. For example, the market cap of the world’s 20 largest banks in 2016 remains about half its value in 2007. The market value lies well below the book value of their assets. Put simply, that means that many banks are a value-destruction machine for investors.
Yet those losses pale into insignificance given the loss felt by the wider economy. Nine years on from 2007, GDP is still 15% below pre-crisis level. That is a cumulative income loss of £1.8 trillion—or one year’s GDP. That is mind-boggling, and the clock is still ticking. Yet perhaps the biggest loss is social capital, which is intrinsically linked to trust. My message to the Government and regulators—the FCA and the Bank of England—is that the recovery of financial and social capital is essential if we are to ensure that finance plays its proper role in society. We have witnessed finance as a growth killer not a growth booster. We saw the social cost of that on livelihoods, with businesses destroyed, unemployment increased and young people’s opportunities lost. New City Agenda is coming out in the next month with a report on the culture of regulators. I tell the Government this because we are on their tail as well as others here. We will not give up until this cultural problem is tackled effectively.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and to be reminded of the importance of banking supervision and regulation. I join in the congratulations of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her maiden speech. As a fellow Novocastrian, I share her pride in the north-east, its successes and potential. I hope the Minister noted her concern about the need for adequate funding and that the Government should make the commitments in the gracious Speech real in everyday life.
The gracious Speech has been described as lacking ambition. I am not sure that is true, because some of the legislation proposed is very important, particularly the Bus Services Bill and the local growth and jobs Bill. With caveats, both are to be welcomed, because they could make a huge impact. Where the gracious Speech lacks ambition is in its failure to address issues of inequality: income inequalities, housing inequalities, social exclusion, and child poverty. That is a matter of regret, because in all these areas the gap is widening between those who have and those who do not.
Of course, there is ambition in the modern transport Bill. We have heard a lot in the media about flights into space, but would the Minister agree that before the Government propel tourists into space they should complete the dualling of the A1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh, as well as attending to all the other road improvements urgently needed across the north of England? I draw his attention to east-west roads, notably the A66 and A69, which cry out for capacity increases, dualling and improved road safety.
This is the second year of this Parliament, which continues the trend towards greater decentralisation in England. We are now at a critical stage in that process, because it is one thing to pass the legislation but another actually to make it work on the ground. The National Audit Office said in April that the Government’s plans are risky. I agree with that analysis. The plans are piecemeal, but that is what you get with an approach that encourages local authorities to choose what responsibilities they want to take on and what investment-sharing, risk-sharing and business rate sharing they are prepared to pool with others. To be clear, this was the right thing to do to get devolution actually happening, but we now need a clearer, menu-based approach that everybody understands.
For example, the Government need to explain better why elected mayors are essential in some places and not others. As an example, the Bus Services Bill will devolve powers to directly elected mayors in England over local bus services. Such powers may yet go to places without a directly elected mayor, but there is no certainty of this since it will be for the Secretary of State to decide. Things need to be clearer, because the buses Bill has the potential to be a good one in that it will set standards and fares.
There is then the local growth and jobs Bill, which also needs clearer explanations. It will allow local authorities to retain business rates and to reduce the tax rate. Yet the Bill gives combined authority mayors the power to levy a supplement on business rate bills to fund new infrastructure projects, provided they have the support of their local enterprise partnership. I suggest that the Government should go further to enable similar powers to lie with non-mayoral authorities.
However, 100% business rate retention will not finance devolution. The mechanics of 100% retention need to be debated and agreed. Prior to 1990, when business rates were localised, and prior to the nationalisation of business rates, there was an element of equalisation in the grant. I know that the Government are well aware of the potential problem, but simply allowing well-off councils to become even better off while poorer councils cannot get better off will simply widen inequalities. As the Joseph Rowntree Trust showed a few weeks ago, many towns in the north do not have the capacity for high levels of growth. Ten of the 12 most struggling cities are in the north.
It is said that the Government want a smaller state. That would be wrong. We cannot have a smaller state if we are to rebalance the economy. If the northern powerhouse is to have a chance of succeeding, the state must play a leading role. Recently, an ONS and KPMG report gave us some very worrying figures about the brain drain to London. I think Ministers are well aware of that. I read in the newspapers of some possible schemes that might help to address this outflow from the north. It is important that Ministers continue to confirm that the northern powerhouse is not simply about the M62. That needs to be restated continuously, and it needs to be demonstrated through real activities and real investment right across the north of England.
The gracious Speech refers to the northern powerhouse, stating:
“To spread economic prosperity, my Government will continue to support the development of a Northern Powerhouse”.
The first paragraph of the briefing document supporting the gracious Speech states:
“The Northern Powerhouse is the government’s vision for the North of England. It is built on the solid economic theory that while the individual cities and towns of the North are strong, if they are enabled to pool their strengths, they could be stronger than the sum of their parts”.
I agree entirely with that sentiment. However, does the Minister share my regret that Gateshead decided recently to opt out of membership of the north-east combined authority? I do not think this helps either Gateshead or the north-east. I hope that the Government will do all they can to persuade Gateshead to look again at its decision. It would be to everyone’s advantage if it did.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I add my welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. As the Magpies’ trashing of Tottenham on the last day of the football season demonstrated, nobody from the Toon Army should be taken lightly. In that the right reverend Prelate also has my noble friend Lord Ridley in her flock, she will always have a fair amount of work on her hands as a rational optimist.
The gracious Speech had two golden threads running right through it: economic competence and life chances. The latter is significantly stifled if you do not have the former. It is largely a digital economy that we need to consider today. So I was pleased to see the digital economy Bill in the gracious Speech. We can no longer consider digital as a separate world from the real economy. Digital runs through everything that we are considering. The first Industrial Revolution took over a century. We are already into the first blows of the fourth industrial revolution and its pace is absolutely extraordinary.
I welcome the Bill’s provisions on superfast broadband. With the commitment to fibre optic, it is pleasing to see that the business department has very much moved on from cable. FinTech will be key to this. It already contributes £6.6 billion to the UK economy. What more can be done to enable FinTech to unleash economic power for the unbanked and underbanked and to provide credit lines? This can be such a boon for SMEs, business and the British economy. So what more can the Treasury do to encourage FinTech, not least in further pushing mandatory referrals?
On transport, the Minister referred in his opening speech to the success of the railways in increasing passenger numbers since privatisation. We need to see that same increase for buses. Having grown up in the West Midlands, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, I was surprised to note that in the relevant Bill the word “bus” is spelled with an “s” rather than a “z”. Technology runs through that Bill as well in the potential use of data and the ability for people to have electronic access to timetables and the opportunity to understand and connect with public transport in a way that was previously unheard of. That is an example of how data can drive innovation and change. Buses are an excellent example of this. The Bus Services Bill provides a real opportunity to look at the whole question of access, not least for disabled people in the area of audiovisual announcements. That is certainly something on which I will speak more when we come to Second Reading in a couple of weeks.
As regards energy, if we are truly to get the best out of the economy, not least the digital economy and automated vehicles, we need power. I contend that we do not need Hinkley Point. Its economics do not add up, the technology does not add up, the numbers do not work and neither does the EP reactor. Will the Government take the opportunity to end Hinkley Point as currently constructed, or will we wait for the French to promenade away from the project? Perhaps we will have a third option: Hinkley Point will become the world’s largest renewable power plant as all that will be left to fuel it will be thin air.
I was phenomenally fortunate to attend with my noble friend Lord Kirkham a Duke of Edinburgh awards ceremony for gold award winners at Buckingham Palace last Monday. We heard stunning stories of the life chances of individuals across the country having been enhanced. We need economic competence, life chances, a high-skill, high-knowledge economy if we are to innovate and tech our way into the 2020s and beyond.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the Queen’s Speech asserts the Government’s objective of increasing the life chances of the most disadvantaged. That is a worthy ambition but lacking in credibility when it is considered that much of the last six years has seen the poorest in our society bear the brunt of benefit and tax changes driven by austerity.
An IFS study published just last September looked at the broad range of policy measures introduced under the coalition Government to estimate how the changes have affected both household incomes and work incentives over the period. It concluded that while there has been some strengthening of work incentives, it is low-income working-age households and the very rich who lost the most in absolute terms from the tax and benefit changes. But measured as a percentage of income, the bottom two deciles have lost the most—that is, proportionately, the poorest have taken the biggest hit.
Sheffield Hallam's Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research has undertaken a different analysis looking at the welfare changes introduced by this Government and the projected financial losses to places and people. This analysis showed that post 2015, welfare reforms impact unevenly across the country, with older industrial areas, less prosperous seaside towns and some London boroughs being hit the hardest, but with much of southern England escaping lightly. As a general rule, it concludes that the more deprived the local authority area, the greater the financial loss of its residents from the post-2015 welfare reforms—so much for rebalancing the economy. The Government will claim that these losses can be compensated for in whole or in part by increases in personal tax allowances, the national living wage, and perhaps the extension of free childcare, but we know that these do not impact fully, if at all, on those so damaged by the cuts.
We have seen a similar pattern with local government finance settlements, not only in the colossal scale of the cuts—a 56% cumulative, real-terms cut in government grant funding for local government—but in the distribution of support, which has shown the most disadvantaged areas doing worse in terms of changes in spending power, and some of the more affluent areas doing the best. My point is that it is difficult to conclude from all this that fairness is truly at the heart of this Government’s approach and that an expressed care for the most disadvantaged will translate into positive policies that will help improve their lives and communities.
That is why in particular we need to ensure that the proposal to move to 100% business rate retention by local authorities includes an effective system of equalisation between local authorities, transparency on additional responsibilities taken on, and arrangements for the funding of safety nets. An improved system of appeals for business rates is also essential if the full consequences of appeals are to fall on local authorities. We have seen before—council tax support being just one example—government passing responsibility to local government without transferring adequate resources or the means to raise them.
The ink is only just dry on the Housing and Planning Act 2016—a piece of framework legislation hugely lacking in detail, as we debated extensively—but here we are again, looking to change neighbourhood planning, streamline compulsory purchase powers and amend pre-commencement condition arrangements, predicated on the notion that it is the planning system that is holding up delivery of a proper homes programme. Of course we should welcome a commitment for the building of more new homes for so long as there is substance and not just spin in the commitment, but, as our recent debates have made clear, and fairness demands, these must be homes that meet the needs of all our communities—affordable, for rent as well as for purchase, and as supported housing.
Turning to the privatisation of the Land Registry, just yesterday the Competition and Markets Authority expressed concerns about the sell-off, identifying that it could give the new owner a monopoly on commercially sensitive data with no incentive to improve access to the data. Of course, the privatisation of the Land Registry is not a new idea. It was floated under the coalition Government, with the proposed creation of an office of the Chief Land Registrar and the bulk of the registry’s work going to a service delivery company. It is clear that the first and foremost reason for this sale being revisited is to generate a capital receipt for the Chancellor.
Noble Lords may recall that at the time of the earlier proposals the former Chief Land Registrar wrote:
“The Land Registry is a successful and highly regarded department of government with a 150 year history … It conducts its business impartially and free from any conflicts of interest. It grants and guarantees title on all transactions so providing the security of tenure and conveyancing machinery on which a stable society depends and without which the property transfer and mortgage markets could not function”.
We would do well to listen to that view.
Of course, the fattening-up process has already begun, with the Infrastructure Act 2015 providing the means for the local land charges system to be removed from local authorities and operated by the Land Registry. However, this arrangement will fragment the provision currently undertaken by local authorities, with what is termed the CON 29 component of the hitherto joint service remaining with local authorities. The transfer of local land charges to the Land Registry was due to take place from this July. Perhaps we can have an update from the Minister on how that is all progressing, and in particular how the local authority databases are to be valued for these purposes. We do not necessarily argue for the status quo—we can see a wider role for further digitalisation of the service and a wider remit for the Land Registry, particularly in this era of greater transparency of land transactions—but we should oppose the folly of this privatisation.
Baroness Ford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, although one could always wish for more, it would be churlish not to acknowledge the important steps forward contained in the gracious Speech on vital infrastructure for our country. I will focus on this today, and on transport, including the regime to enable spaceports to be developed in the United Kingdom. Before I do, I declare my interests on the register relating to housing and commercial property, and as chairman of Scottish Television, with a natural interest in developing satellite technology.
The statutory footing proposed for the National Infrastructure Commission is a very welcome step in the right direction. Together with the recently updated national infrastructure plan, it provides a clear signal to investors of the Government’s commitment and priorities. However, we will wait with interest to understand the statutory remit of the commission and the scope of its powers. These will determine whether it has real teeth and can meaningfully move forward the whole programme of infrastructure delivery that is so badly needed to enable our country to improve competitiveness and, crucially, productivity, which currently lags so badly behind all our major competitors.
However, I greatly regret the Government’s abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, the creation of which was one of the first acts of the coalition Government in 2010. Had this body been allowed to develop as planned, we would now have at our disposal all the tools to accelerate infrastructure development in the UK. I ask the Minister: are there any plans to resurrect the idea of a national planning body for major pieces of crucial infrastructure? This would sit well alongside the new National Infrastructure Commission and the national plan.
As we return to considering HS2 in this House in the forthcoming Session, I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, at Second Reading. This is a huge undertaking and yet quite literally it does not go far enough. To realise the full economic benefits to the UK as a whole, the project needs to continue in due course to Scotland. The west and east coast main lines have become increasingly busy over the past 20 years. If we are serious about economic competitiveness, about running more passenger services between Scotland and England, and about cutting emissions levels, more capacity is required. HS2 could certainly help address this. Creating an additional electrified route to Scotland would also improve network resilience—something that the flood damage to Lamington Viaduct brought to everyone’s attention earlier this year. Can the Minister say what progress has been made on the question of an extension to the project since the joint announcement between the UK and Scottish Governments on 16 March this year?
I turn to the modern transport Bill, in particular the very welcome announcement that a licensing regime is to be created, rather than a competition among locations, for the development of spaceports. The space industry is growing at just over 8% per annum but its development is constrained by a lack of low-cost and reliable access to space. Launches are very expensive, have to be booked years in advance and are repeatedly delayed or rescheduled. UK and European businesses looking to undertake space launches currently have to look to Kazakhstan, the US or French Guiana. A UK spaceport, or spaceports, with reliable launch vehicles operating from them would reduce the cost of launch substantially and increase the certainty of launch dates. This would both result in increased demand for satellites for a range of applications and allow launches into non-equatorial orbit from the UK. This opens up tremendous economic development possibilities for all downstream activities that are reliant on satellite technology.
The proposed new regime is exceptionally good news for locations such as Prestwick international airport, to which I have a strong local attachment and where I have seen tremendous work being done in the past few years in preparation for its next phase of development as a spaceport. It is quite simply the perfect location for such a facility—geographically, technically and commercially. With almost a hundred years of experience in the aerospace sector, the airport offers a ready-made cluster on site. There are already thousands of highly skilled people working on testing, modifying, repairing and maintaining aircraft. These are the highly skilled jobs that will readily adapt to the demands of the spaceplanes. It is a very exciting and natural next chapter in the airport’s development, and will be a fabulous platform for growing the regional economy in Ayrshire.
The proposed licensing regime will enable the investment community, already excited by what is on offer at Prestwick and other locations, to select the best location for development, rather than being directed to a predetermined site chosen by government. We can look forward to the Bill coming forward to enable this hugely important industry to flourish and to flourish safely. There are currently no commercial spaceports in the UK, and this legislation will pave the way for Prestwick and any other suitable locations to develop a very important 21st-century industry.
The Earl of Arran (Con)
My Lords, all of us here today are passionate about our own regions, and I make no apology for returning to the subject of infrastructure investment, this time in the south-west. We have long described ourselves as the forgotten and unloved peninsula—the Cinderella region of England—in terms of the quality of our road and rail network. We are essentially dependent on one main artery, the M5 motorway, linking the whole of the peninsula with Bristol. This road is already overloaded at peak times, and pressure around Bristol can mean hours of delay for essential goods and service deliveries and for our vital tourist industries. A major accident on the road can paralyse movement for hours, costing many millions of pounds in lost business. The only investment in recent years has been a short new link road to Torbay, built after nearly 40 years of talks and delays. Work is also finally under way on the missing section of dualling on the A30 in Cornwall. These improvements will help, but are minor in comparison with the potential which would be unlocked if the south-west had 21st-century connectivity. To further illustrate this lack of investment, the latest data revealed in response to a Parliamentary Question show that just £35 per head of population in the south-west was spent on road and rail, compared to £113 across England as a whole—that says it all.
During the run-up to the election, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor promised billions of pounds to reverse these decades of underinvestment. Only last month, the Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin claimed he was delivering the investment to help the region grow. The stark reality, however, is that, apart from around £35 million that was spent reconnecting the main rail link at Dawlish when it was fractured by a collapse of the sea wall, all that is being really offered is money to carry out studies and to develop options to improve resilience. Currently, these studies include further reports on the upgrading of the A30/A303 to provide a second artery into the region, further consideration of essential works to adequately protect the main rail line from flooding and cliff collapse, and options for reopening Plymouth Airport. In addition, there is £1 million to explore improvements to the north Devon link road, which currently is largely only a two-way speed controlled corridor serving the whole of north Devon. Many of these studies have been conducted on countless occasions and serve only to delay the reality of spades on the ground.
The south-west cannot continue to operate with fragile and crumbling Victorian infrastructure: it needs a 20 to 30 year investment plan just to catch up with the rest of the country. I urge the Government to put real cash on the table rather than creating another rainforest of soon-to-be-dusty reports. I have to say to the Government that unless they start to walk the walk and stop sheltering behind talking the talk, that stark blue colour which currently pervades the western peninsula will all too soon become tarnished and rusty.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, I will refer to the 16 words in point 7 of the gracious Speech:
“To spread economic prosperity, my government will continue to support the development of a Northern Powerhouse”.
It was interesting to hear the Minister embrace this issue in his introduction earlier this afternoon. The supplement to the Queen’s Speech is an 85-page document with a preface by the Prime Minister but no mention of the northern powerhouse. The gracious Speech is then repeated, with 22 Bills in it to be introduced. But there is no Bill for the northern powerhouse. Reference is made to a Bill governing bus services, to the accountability of the police and to a national citizens’ service being put on a statutory footing, while the Minister referred to an infrastructure commission. However, we turn to page 73 in this enhanced document and we have a non-legislative brief and a couple of pages on the northern powerhouse, which go back to the words of the Queen’s Speech:
“my government will continue to support the development of a Northern Powerhouse”.
It lists several items of northern investment that are to be pursued, often concerning transport. But this is very much what Government believe is right for the north, rather than what they will do with the north and the people of the north. Not only that, but there is still a lack of definition. Where is the northern powerhouse? Who makes its decisions? Who is the chairman and who is on the board? Who is the auditor? Who holds the northern powerhouse to account? It does not look like devolution.
I think I know the answer to most of those questions: the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the panjandrum of all. Is that a safe position for the northern powerhouse? Before the general election, many people did not think the money that was going to be allocated for international development would be safe, and we made certain it would be by having an Act enshrining the 0.7% figure. Should this Queen’s Speech not have announced a northern powerhouse Bill? Is the northern powerhouse safe given that, among the Government’s own people responsible for the northern powerhouse agenda, 97.5% of the DCLG civil servants are London-based? It is amazing that as part of joined-up government, the devolved bit of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—its office in Sheffield—is to be closed.
How can the north really be regenerated when so many cards are stacked against it? Look at smaller UK regions. Scotland has its own decision-making, with the splendid benefit of the Barnett formula; so it is with Wales and Northern Ireland. London has its own Assembly, but the northern powerhouse, as I have said before, is an aspiration, akin to the American dream. I put it to the Minister that the north cannot just be under the patronage of the present incumbent of No. 11 Downing Street. Missing from the gracious Speech was a northern powerhouse Bill to enshrine the work in the north. What happens if the current Chancellor moves off to pastures new, perhaps in foreign affairs? Where is the northern powerhouse then?
It seems to me that there should be a northern powerhouse Bill to define the north and set out the boundaries. I am quite happy, by the way, with the three northern regions: the North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the North West. If the Government want to be rather more radical and set up a parliament for the north so that there can be real involvement in decision-making—a north powered by its people—that would make a lot more sense and would be real devolution.
I end by commending the speech of and welcoming the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I welcome her call for real resources for the northern powerhouse.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech contained the following paragraph:
“My Ministers will continue to bring the public finances under control so that Britain lives within its means, and to move to a higher wage and lower welfare economy where work is rewarded”.
I will examine this in more detail.
The latest GDP figures for the first quarter of 2016, as expected, showed a slight slowdown in the UK economy, with the figure coming out at an annual rate of 2.1%. This had been anticipated by the OBR economic and fiscal outlook in March. Capital Economics’ UK analyst Ruth Miller believes the expected slowdown to be temporary. She said:
“Many of the factors likely to be to blame for the first quarter's weakness should prove short-lived. We would not be surprised if growth were to subsequently accelerate in the second half of”—
2016—
“putting the economy back on track”.
Recently, we have seen the Bank of England and outside forecasters slightly reducing their GDP forecasts for 2016 and 2017. According to the Treasury in its May Forecasts for the UK Economy, the average of the latest predictions monitored gives a 1.9% growth rate for 2016 and 2.1% for 2017, a bit below the Bank of England’s estimates of 2.2% and 2.3%. The OECD has, however, forecast that the UK will still be the fastest-growing major advanced economy in 2016.
The figures on the public finances are less negative when they are viewed in an historical context. In 2015-16, the interest burden was 3.9% of GDP, the lowest ratio we have seen since 2007-08. According to Andrew Sentance, a former member of the MPC, the Government’s interest burden is now within the range of 2% to 4% of GDP, which was the norm in the mid-1980s, mid-1990s and mid-2000s. We are now at a much calmer level of government borrowing on an international comparison, but it is still far too high. It will take much longer to repair the damage to public finances created by the financial crisis. Care, however, should be taken not to make short-term reactions to any OBR change of forecasts by spending proposed windfalls that may not materialise.
However, we seem to be in a low-inflation climate for the time being, which has meant that interest rates have been able to stay low for a long time. The latest inflation figures have continued the benign trend. This has certainly surprised me, as I thought that quantitative easing would lead to it rising sharply. While pensioners and savers have suffered, it has generally been good for the economic climate. However, as the Minister said in the March debate, there are still economic issues that need to be addressed. He rightly focused on the delay in getting the deficit down in the next five years. This is due to lower forecast tax receipts caused by weaker productivity and a weaker outturn for nominal GDP. This reflects a common recent phenomenon of low-productivity growth across western economies. Also, economic turbulence, such as in China, has led to weaker growth forecasts for the global economy and global trade.
The Minister’s views are backed up by first-quarter UK economic statistics. Overall industrial production dropped for the second successive quarter. Manufacturing production, which has been hard hit by the crisis in the steel sector, saw output in March almost 2% lower than it was a year earlier. It remains to be seen how long the weakness in the manufacturing sector continues, although it is not specific to the UK. We have seen a softening in industrial growth across many economies, linked to the already mentioned slowdown in China.
On the employment front, over the past three years the UK has seen its unemployment rate fall from around 8% to just over 5%. The good news is that the employment rate has reached its highest percentage level since comparable records began in 1971. Average weekly earnings growth, according to the latest figures, stands at 2% year-on-year which, while not especially strong, is not inflationary. The number of unfilled vacancies for businesses employing more than 250 workers is still at record levels. It is the smaller firms with fewer than 250 employees that are reporting fewer vacancies, and they have been doing so for a few months now.
Is this a temporary problem or an unforeseen consequence of the national living wage? Could that be having an impact on smaller firms with fewer financial resources and lower pay rates, making them more cautious about taking on new workers, at least in the short term?
Turning to retail sales, there is further good news. Figures for these in March and April were affected by the timing of Easter, so month by month needed to be treated with caution. After disappointing March figures, sale volumes were 1.3% during April and 4.3% higher than a year earlier. Vicky Redwood, chief economist at Capital Economics, said:
“Indeed, consumer spending should prevent the economy from slowing too much this quarter, even if referendum uncertainty has a bigger impact on business confidence and investment”.
Productivity has been a recurring problem. At the start of April, figures were published by the ONS indicating that productivity among UK workers during the last quarter of 2015 fell at the fastest rate since 2008. The figure for the manufacturing sector was particularly poor—a fall of 2%. There was a slight improvement in preliminary estimates for the first quarter of 2016. The recent overall decline in productivity has attracted the following comments. Howard Archer, an economist at IHS Insight said:
“How productivity develops going forward is critical to the economy’s growth potential … The crucial question for the UK economy is, does the fourth quarter of 2015 mark a temporary relapse in productivity. Or is it evidence that the UK has an ongoing serious productivity problem”.
Finally, I shall just say a few words on the important independent IFS survey on the economic effects of Brexit. Paul Johnson said:
“Leaving the EU would give us an immediate £8 billion boost to the public finances, but the overwhelming consensus is that the economy would be smaller than otherwise following Brexit”.
The IFS judges that Brexit could leave the economy between 2% and 3.5% smaller than under a remain scenario.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to contribute to my first Queen’s Speech debate. I start by saying how much I appreciated and was content with the contribution made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle in her maiden speech. I know just how difficult I found my speech to make back in January. Her speech was outstanding and shows what a contribution she will be able to make to the House in future on behalf of both the Church and her diocese, for which she spoke so eloquently.
I start by making what has become almost the statutory declaration on where I stand on the EU referendum. I definitely want to remain. As someone who spent 20 years working in the construction industry, which will be an essential component of delivering most of the things that we are discussing in today’s debate, I am pleased to report to your Lordships that a poll of construction industry professionals published last week shows that 63% of them share that view, with 21% saying that they would wish to leave. It is interesting to see what their principal concerns were, should the UK leave the European Union. Labour shortages in the industry were a concern for 55%, the higher cost of materials were a concern for 53%, and less foreign direct investment in the construction industry in the UK was a concern for 60%. Those are points that I hope very much the House takes into account as we approach 23 June.
I want to use the balance of my time on one of the given topics for today, the environment, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friends Lady Featherstone and Lady Parminter, have spoken. They noted that the word “environment” does not appear in the gracious Speech at all. I am not sure that they have drawn the appropriate conclusions from that, because the Queen’s Speech has a wonderful quote:
“My Government will continue to play a leading role in world affairs, using their global presence to tackle climate change”.
I wholeheartedly commend and endorse that commitment, and the House will understand that I turned to the briefing pack provided by Her Majesty’s Government to follow up and see exactly what that would consist of. It took me a while, but eventually I reached page 80, where the briefing pack says:
“Following the Paris climate agreement we are committed, both at home and overseas, to reducing emissions and increasing investment in clean energy technologies”.
That sounds very positive and encouraging, especially to those of us who have the view that climate change is in reality the greatest challenge facing humankind. The Government will have every assistance from these Benches to deliver on that very bold aspiration.
Unfortunately, there is no hint in the gracious Speech about how that is going to be achieved. As my noble friend Lady Parminter pointed out, there are no Bills, there is no policy announcement or time scale, and there are no stepping stones. The 85-page brief is full of information on everything else but remains silent on how the Government intend to use the second year of their five years in office to begin the process of meeting the new commitments that they entered into in Paris, let alone their existing statutory obligations under the Climate Change Act. The sum total that they come up with are the two lines that I have already quoted.
So is that it? Is there to be no forward movement at all in policy and delivery? Is there simply a reliance on steady-as-she-goes, with existing measures? I very much hope that that is not the case. Since May last year, those existing measures have been deliberately and systematically toned down, delayed, cancelled and abandoned. The gracious Speech sets out a bold aspiration, but in real life the policy direction since last May has been backwards. For example—and this is close to my own heart—the back-tracking on zero-carbon homes is a substantial blow to meeting the Paris targets. So, too, is the dismantling of any effective retrofit programme of energy saving in homes, and the drastic cuts to the feed-in tariff.
As all the pre-existing coalition programmes set up by Liberal Democrats and Conservative Ministers in the previous Parliament are being undone, and at the same time tough new targets and commitments are being adopted via the Paris agreement while boastful claims of world leadership are being made in the Queen’s Speech, why is the gracious Speech completely silent on what is going to be done instead to fill the gap? If the Minister does not know or cannot say now what the answer is, can he at least tell us when he will tell us? When will your Lordships be permitted to know how the Government intend to make a reality of those bold words in the Queen’s Speech, when Her Majesty said:
“My Government will continue to play a leading role in world affairs, using their global presence to tackle climate change”?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, last week Her Majesty reiterated in her most gracious Speech the Government’s continued support for local communities and their commitment to addressing housing concerns. I welcome the most ambitious housing programme since the 1970s. I note that it was the first time as a new Member of your Lordships’ House that I was able to attend the State Opening of Parliament and have the privilege of hearing Her Majesty’s Speech at first hand. I will take the opportunity also to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on her maiden speech this afternoon.
I wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to address housing concerns. Earlier this year, I was pleased to hear the announcement in the Budget that the Government planned to introduce legislation that will make it easier for local authorities to work together to create new garden cities. At the same time as the Budget earlier this year, the Government also published a prospectus to invite expressions of interest from local authorities that want to create new communities based on these principles. As noble Lords will be aware, a garden city is a planned new settlement which enhances the natural environment and offers high-quality, affordable housing as well as locally accessible work in beautiful, healthy and sociable communities. Our local proposal, named Lincolnshire Lakes, will provide six new villages, 6,000-plus homes against a lakeside setting and a mixed-use commercial space. The project is one of the largest and most transformational and challenging housing projects currently being delivered anywhere in the country.
There are projected to be a number of employment opportunities in office, research and development, distribution, construction, and retail. A number of community facilities will be gained through the proposals, which include green spaces, international standard outdoor sports facilities, schools, health facilities, community space and ancillary retail to support local neighbourhoods. There are likely to be a number of economic impacts other than those directly related to jobs and demographic changes associated with sustainable urban extension. Many of these will be qualitative in nature rather than quantitative, but they are still important. They include improved economic resistance, health and well-being, tourism and leisure, and the scheme will be an important driver to help regenerate the area. It has been said that green cities, towns and villages are healthier, more prosperous and safer. Studies have also found that UK householders living in greener urban environments are likely to have lower levels of mental distress and higher levels of well-being. I wish to formally declare that I am leader of North Lincolnshire Council and to say that we will be submitting a bid for garden city status.
We must ensure that when it comes to master planning, local people’s knowledge and, importantly, concerns and aspirations are taken into account. In the larger context, being part of the Lincolnshire devolution deal does not only bring together all leaders. Together, we can influence and have accountability by making those decisions locally as well as collectively—all culminating in driving local aspirations, making our vision and ambitions bigger and bolder, and having the opportunity to influence and have a say, whether it be on the northern or the Midlands powerhouse agenda, while giving confidence to be bigger and bolder and putting the “great” back into Greater Lincolnshire. We will get a grip on driving wealth and business and give those opportunities to everybody, making sure that everybody knows that Lincolnshire will be open for business.
The partnership between central and local government should recognise the need for long-term certainty to secure the financial support and expertise of developers. Indeed, if new communities are to be successful, they need strong political support and community leadership, with a clear vision and a strong commitment. Creating and maintaining momentum around a new community is integral to its success. I conclude by saying that we all know that local councils and communities are at the heart of delivering new places to live. That is what people are demanding—to own a home of their very own.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, in the few minutes I have I want to talk about one of Defra’s areas of responsibility—animal welfare—of which, I regret there is no mention in the Queen’s Speech. However, I know the Government are committed to improving animal welfare and, among other things, there was an undertaking in the 2015 election manifesto to introduce a Bill concerning wild animals in circuses, which I will come back to in a moment.
Animal welfare is a subject of major concern to the people of the UK. Members of another place will tell one that animal welfare is one of the major issues in the mail they receive from their constituents. In a survey in 2015, 76% of the UK population surveyed felt that the welfare of farmed animals should be better protected than it is now. The public good of improving animal welfare is reflected in the huge support given to various animal charities. In the UK, we have high welfare standards compared to much of the rest of the world, but there is still much to do in the way we rear and slaughter animals for food, in the way we care for companion animals and in the way we protect wild animals. I recognise that the Government are aware of many of these, so it is regrettable that no new measures are specifically proposed in this Session. I sincerely hope that the words:
“Other measures will be laid before you”,
will indeed include addressing some outstanding animal welfare issues.
I shall begin by discussing wild animals in circuses, for which a draft Bill has been published. While I support the intentions behind the Bill, there are difficulties with it, not least of which is accurately defining “wild” and “circus”. For example, would a display of birds of prey at an agricultural show fall into this category? Notwithstanding that, this issue attracts public attention but, to be frank, in terms of the number of animals involved, there are considerably more important welfare issues; I understand that currently just 18 animals are licensed for use in British circuses.
Without agreed national priorities, may I suggest some of the matters that deserve our attention? Probably the biggest single cause of animal suffering in terms of the number of animals involved and the nature and duration of their discomfort is disease. Ironically, while we all know how debilitating and painful it can be for ourselves, we rarely think of disease in the context of animal welfare, but disease is an animal welfare issue. When we consider the costs of animal disease research and surveillance, it is important that we are mindful of the benefits to animal welfare as well as those to improvements in productivity.
It is incumbent on those of us who eat meat—I count myself among them—to ensure that animals are not only reared humanely but killed humanely. I do not intend to dwell on the issue of non-stun slaughter—so-called religious slaughter. All I say is that there is good evidence that stunning removes unnecessary pain and, in so far as I understand the religious issues, modern stunning methods are compatible with historical religious requirements if the will is there among religious leaders. It is regrettable that the introduction of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations—the WATOK regulations—in November last year failed to include critical parameters to ensure adequate water-bath stunning of poultry prior to religious slaughter. It is also a matter of great regret that the number of sheep killed without stunning has risen between 2011 and 2013—just two years—by more than half a million animals, based on Food Standards Agency surveys. Irrespective of whether killing involves stunning or not, in order to ensure existing laws are observed at slaughter, compulsory CCTV should be introduced in all abattoirs and the stored record should be available for independent scrutiny. This is something that the Farm Animal Welfare Committee has recommended and that the British Veterinary Association has called for. How many more undercover exposés, the latest reported in the Times as recently as 12 May, are needed to persuade us that this is essential? While offences may occur in only a minority of abattoirs, let us not be guilty of turning a Nelsonian blind eye to what we know is happening.
Turning to companion animals, the current consultation on animal establishments is to be welcomed. For example, there is widespread abuse in the area of breeding and selling puppies for commercial gain which needs to be addressed, and I look forward to the Government bringing forward legislation on this in the near future. Staying with dogs, it may come as a surprise to your Lordships to know that dog fighting still goes on in the UK. A recent report by the League Against Cruel Sports suggests that one dog fight occurs every day somewhere in the UK. The league is to be congratulated on its new campaign against this cruel practice which, given its close association with other aspects of criminality and abuse, needs to be taken more seriously.
Time prevents me discussing a number of other important and substantial issues. We, as the top species of animal on our planet, have a duty and responsibility to ensure that other animal species, be they domestic or wild, are treated humanely. I urge the Government in the coming Session and for the rest of this Parliament to ensure that legislative changes help us discharge that duty of care.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak about HS2. I make no apologies for returning to the attack on this ridiculous project. The Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill was sadly without a vote, so no one was able formally to register their opposition. Since then, I have spoken to many people about HS2. The almost universal response I get is that it is a complete waste of time and money, but it will happen. The common, constant refrain is, “It will happen. It’s going to happen”. It will happen, at least in its present form, only if we let it. That is why we are here: to justify the need for it and, if we cannot or will not stop it, to make sensible revisions.
Perhaps we would have had a clearer idea of Members’ views in this House if we had voted at Second Reading. In that debate, I was the only speaker who was against the project going ahead—or, at least, who was prepared to say so. Every other speaker opened their remarks by saying that they were in favour of the scheme, and proceeded to explain to your Lordships in great detail their deep concern about the serious problems that would be created by its construction and operation: from disruption to the headquarters of the Magic Circle to chaos at Euston station, and from the size of the rolling stock to the devastation in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There was deep concern that no consideration had been given to alternative routes or proposals.
I still believe that spending £55 billion to get to Birmingham a little quicker is madness. Because it is not essential, because it is so contentious and because it is being driven straight through beautiful countryside, including an area of outstanding natural beauty, if it goes ahead, a minimum requirement is that every care must be taken to protect the countryside and the people who live on the route. The most important issue here is the need for a fully bored long tunnel under the Chilterns, for which there is a huge amount of soundly based and convincing evidence. It is quite feasible. High Speed 2 (HS2) Ltd has accepted that a longer tunnel through the Chilterns is feasible in terms of construction and railway operation, can be built within the necessary timescales, would provide significant environmental, social and business benefits and is environmentally preferable to its scheme. The tunnel extension granted by the House of Commons still leaves more than 40% of HS2 on the surface in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
All these issues, particularly the tunnel question, are to be considered—and, I trust, considered very carefully—by a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House. The advice of the clerks is that,
“it will be a matter for the Select Committee to decide whether or not to hear argument on matters that could give rise to an amendment amounting to an Additional Provision. If such an instruction were agreed by the House and the Bill were subsequently amended to include an Additional Provision, it would have to return to the House of Commons for Commons Consideration of that amendment. It would be a matter for the House of Commons to decide the procedure that should apply to that new Additional Provision”.
That is a little complicated but not impossible, and surely the most important thing in a project like this is to get it right.
There is a feeling abroad—nothing more than a rumour at present—that the Select Committee will simply go through the motions and will not have the power, the authority or the temerity to disturb what the House of Commons has already set out. I sincerely hope that this is not true, and I would be grateful if the Minister put the record straight when he replies to the debate. If there were any truth in it, it would be disastrous on two counts. First, it would prevent the most careful protection of our countryside taking place, and as trains rattle along the line in future¸ if they ever do, it will be a permanent and regular reminder to future generations of the careless attitude of Parliament to things that they hold dear. Secondly, it would portray your Lordships’ House as toothless and raise again in the minds of those affected questions about our purpose and our worth.
I still cling to the hope that this project will not go ahead. Just think what could be done with £55 billion: so much good so much more quickly, with much less harm. If it does proceed, everyone with concern for our countryside—in this case the Chilterns but it could be the Lake District, the Yorkshire dales, the Peak District, the Cotswolds or the national parks—must fight to the bitter end to get the protection it so obviously deserves.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the directly elected mayor of Watford and a deputy chair of the LGA.
Local authorities are seeing an unprecedented rise in homelessness—according to Shelter, a rise of 33% since 2010 in people accepted as homeless by councils, the main cause being eviction from a private sector tenancy. In my own authority, the number of households in temporary accommodation has quadrupled in five years. So it is not surprising that there are concerned responses to the teasing trailers in the gracious Speech and from the Department for Communities and Local Government saying that there will be upcoming measures to work with local authorities, homelessness organisations and across government departments to consider options, including legislation, to prevent more households becoming homeless. It is also rumoured that the current legal duty will be extended to include more people and that council intervention will be earlier in the process, as has been legislated for in Wales, and that this will form part of the life chances strategy. Amen to that. Who would not agree that prevention is better than cure? It could even in the longer term be cheaper, and certainly more effective, in reducing the emotional damage and the social costs to families of the current system. I get the rhetoric and I applaud its intention. I agree with the principle to abolish the invidious division between priority and so-called non-priority needs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young. The rhetoric is admirable but, without a full working knowledge of what the reality means and will actually cost in practice, good intentions will turn into empty gestures.
At the moment, councils in England provide what you might call a gatekeeper model for dealing with applicants for homeless housing. Many councils see only the very needy and the most desperate getting help, support and advice and being housed. Most councils see people at the point of no return, when they turn up in the customer service centre with their bags. They are the tip of the housing crisis iceberg. Then, the battle really begins. It can often feel as if the main objective from the council officer’s perspective is to get rid of them if at all possible. That may sound cruel and inhumane, but it is because they know there is often literally nowhere to put them.
I used to get the weekly figures of families we had deemed to be homeless—that is, they had got through our first gate. In our medium-sized town, if the figure got beyond 50 I started to worry, as it meant we were going to have to put families in bed and breakfast accommodation, which for obvious reasons we used to pride ourselves on never using. Call me a total softie, but I wept when faced with the reality that B&B was now going to be used all the time for the foreseeable future, and for a longer time per family, as we contracted with hotels and landlords for even more temporary accommodation in the face of ever rising numbers. Now, a hotel room in Watford is a less bad option than accommodation miles away. With over 250 people regularly in temporary accommodation, it is now our top priority. The average stay has increased from a few months to between one and two years, depending on the size of property needed. The demonstrable reduction in social and affordable units over the last few years has made the wait even longer. The developers’ newly given power to challenge local authorities over the provision of social housing has impacted significantly on our number of homes.
The challenge of actually finding somewhere the local authority can afford to house families has driven us and others to look beyond our boundaries. Yes, I know that that has serious consequences; I have met and spoken with the families. However, with London boroughs housing their homeless in Watford and offering incentives to landlords that we cannot possibly match, a pernicious, vicious circle is created in which desperate families and cash-strapped local authorities are both trapped.
The next battle is the question of whether the families are intentionally homeless—in other words, does the council have a legal duty to house them? This is a nasty, intrusive process, with private lives and bank balances being picked over in order to avoid accepting that responsibility as officers are tasked with sharing out an increasingly scarce resource, making extremely painful decisions that impact on people in possibly the most troubled circumstances of their lives.
We are firefighting a crisis that is fuelled by one major factor: there are just not enough social and affordable homes in many parts of the country. In Wales, where the culture appears to have changed due to this type of legislation, there are certainly lessons to be learned, but evidentially, there is not the same shortage of homes as there is in England, particularly in the south-east. I fear that this new legislation alone will not produce the homes that are vitally needed, and I regret that the measures in the recent Housing and Planning Bill will do little to change the situation at that end of the market. To extend councils’ obligations and duties to support, advise and house an even wider pool of people simply through legislation, however desirable, will not on its own, under current circumstances, find them either a bed for the night or a home for life. I wish it were otherwise.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I begin my short contribution to this debate by reiterating the declarations of interest that I have put in the register. While I have been a consistent, long-standing and, I hope, considered supporter of membership by this country of the EU, I have equally been a consistent and long-standing critic of a number of aspects of it. Of all these, perhaps the one that I have been the most vociferous about is the common agricultural policy. A number of the mechanisms that it has introduced have been more or less completely dotty. However, as I get older I increasingly come to recognise the value of the underlying ethos of the idea of interdependence between town and country. There is a danger of losing it in the UK, which is the same kind of issue as the division between London and the south-east of England and the rest, which my noble friend the Minister alluded to in his opening remarks.
It seems that politics here at Westminster is increasingly conducted in a bubble. Certainly for my own part I felt that the Select Committee on National Policy for the Built Environment, on which I served, and the subsequent debates in the Chamber of this House during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act, focused excessively on the problems faced by the south-east of England and London, and did not sufficiently recognise different but equally important difficulties that are experienced elsewhere in this country.
It is a commonplace that the character of the economy in the 21st century is changing. The importance of things such as intellectual property, natural capital and ecosystem services becomes ever greater. It seems that these in turn cannot necessarily be paid for and hence exploited to the best advantage by traditional market mechanisms. This in itself is nothing novel—after all, we are used to having seen it in the context of the Armed Forces, health and education.
In my own home county of Cumbria, tourism, based on landscape, is the biggest employer. The area is of huge value to the rest of the United Kingdom, our national inbound tourist industry and to this country’s soft power. Yet in reality much of this is a by-product of livestock farming, an activity that is completely “down in the economic dumps”. The environment requires investment and creates wealth—which I am very conscious of, as I am the chairman of the Cumbria Local Nature Partnership. And yet there seems to be no way to bring all these things together.
It is self-evident that government cannot do much about world commodity prices, but there is little doubt that the nation is getting rural Britain on the cheap, and the rest of the country is freeloading on the back of it. Its contribution, both actual and potential and taken in the round, is enormous as regards the way wealth will be created in the 21st century.
In the case of my own county of Cumbria, we are recovering from the floods. I put on record my appreciation as a vice-president of the Cumbria Foundation for the match-funding of £5 million the Government have given to that foundation. However, there is still a lot of long-term unquantified damage, particularly to both land and buildings, both of which are wasting assets and require long-term maintenance.
After having thought about it for quite a long time and having had doubts at one time, I see the economic sense of the minimum wage. However, let us remember that its impact on employers is greatest on those who can least afford it. Low-wage areas will find it hardest to achieve what is demanded by statute, and what is simple in SW1 may be very difficult in CA10.
Others have pointed out before me—again, it is another commonplace—that broadband provision is lamentable in many places in this country, not only in rural but in urban Britain as well. I regret to say that I live in one of them. The problem was identified by the Communications Committee when I chaired its report into broadband more than five years ago. While the Government’s recent words on the subject have been fine, they will not butter any parsnips. What is needed is action, which hitherto has been conspicuously absent. It is simply a matter of results, results, results, and delivery, delivery, delivery.
However, probably the biggest problem facing the agricultural sector in this country is the Rural Payments Agency. It is not appropriate and nor is there time available to relate its treatment of my personal affairs, but my experiences are typical. It is a failed organisation, with which no self-respecting person should wish to be associated. However, it is more than that—it is Brexit’s best recruiting sergeant in rural England, which is particularly ironic since it is the UK’s own delivery arm of EU policy under the doctrine of subsidiarity. Its shortcomings are exclusively the responsibility of Defra and it causes untold damage.
In conclusion, I suggest to the Minister that all Defra Ministers are where the buck stops—at this point I apologise to my good personal friend and MP Rory Stewart, for whom I have the highest political and personal regard—and that each of them should have their ministerial pay frozen from the opening of the payments window until the last farmer receives his payment. At this stage I do not suggest that they lose it all for making a minor and unintended mistake in the course of their duties, as is the case for the farmers, but in this way they will be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with the victims of this travesty of public administration. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this and the reasons for what he tells me.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on her excellent maiden speech. I will speak on energy in Your Lordships’ House today, given both its importance to Her Majesty’s Government’s programme and because of recent developments which imperil its stated aims.
It is fair to say that the Government’s energy strategy is not going quite to plan. The proposed nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point is in doubt; as we have seen, fracking for shale gas is meeting local popular resistance in areas such as Yorkshire; North Sea hydrocarbon companies are under pressure from the collapse in the price of oil, bringing with it redundancies and curtailed investment; and the renewable sector is in uproar following the axing of subsidies for solar and onshore wind power.
Our climate change commitments, briefly alluded to in the gracious Speech, together with EU directives, mean a loss of generating capacity with an increasing danger that the lights may go out in the UK if the Government fail to get their act together. Energy security—an essential prerequisite for any Government—may evaporate in the process.
A couple of weeks ago, for the first time since the 19th century, on several occasions the UK stopped producing electricity from coal altogether. More power now comes from wind farms than from coal, and solar produces more energy than fossil fuels. I am well aware of the need for energy security in the UK. In 2006, at the time the UK committed to a new generation of nuclear power, I was Energy Minister while Russia and the Ukraine had their first “gas spat”. Low carbon nuclear, with renewables, would keep our lights on while cutting our carbon emissions, and I strongly supported the promotion of both.
Ten years on, UK energy policy does not seem to have developed very much. True, renewables have expanded their share of the energy mix, but our nuclear programme has stalled and our hopes for the future seem to lie with French-owned EDF, the Chinese, and shale gas. None of these inspires wholehearted confidence, including on the board of EDF or within the French Government themselves. The willingness of Beijing to step in to guarantee our energy security seems like a contradiction in terms, and one which makes some security experts nervous.
Her Majesty’s Government believe that they have found a silver bullet with shale gas. Development in the UK, it is argued, would enhance energy security by reducing our dependence on imported gas from countries like Qatar and Norway. Shale gas, we are told, would boost the UK economy, generate jobs and benefit local communities. However, the evidence from elsewhere is mixed.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence, from the US and Canada, that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, damages the environment and provides only a short-term boost to local economies, which can then collapse in a downturn, as is shown in today’s Financial Times. This has already happened in the States, where an increasing number of oil and gas companies are going to the wall. Just this April, 11 US energy companies applied for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and altogether 130 American companies have gone bust, costing 130,000 jobs. The majors have largely pulled out of US shale altogether, and at the same time President Obama has announced a new crackdown on methane leaks from US shale oil and gas producers. Meanwhile, shale development in Poland has been mainly abandoned.
The global oil glut caused by the North American shale revolution, combined with declining Chinese demand and sustained Saudi, OPEC and Russian production, has caused a dramatic collapse in the price of oil, which has rubbed off on gas. The international oil companies have put on hold some $400 billion of future investment in new hydrocarbon fields.
The UK continental shelf is suffering, and at less than $50 a barrel is no longer in economic play. With Saudi determination to snuff out relatively high-cost shale in the US and maintain its market share, shale is destroying jobs overall rather than creating them. At current market prices, shale in the UK is simply not economic.
On the environmental side, the Government seem determined to ignore the evidence. When confronted with the evidence of thousands of earthquakes in Oklahoma, for example—584 in one year alone—the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, told me that we should not worry because the “geology was different”. When informed of another authoritative report from Calgary University researchers and the Alberta Geological Survey linking earthquakes with fracking, the Energy Minister dismissed it out of hand.
The fact is that no one quite understands the science behind fracking. More worryingly, the Government do not seem to want to know because it debunks a key strand of their energy strategy, such as it is. By its very nature, fracking requires the constant drilling of new wells, as each well has a limited life expectancy, with production tailing off after about 18 months. Drilling hundreds of wells may work on the wide open prairies, but will that be the case in our national parks or outside Blackpool?
The technology of fracking cannot be uninvented. Unconventional and tight oil and gas will continue to be exploited by new technologies such as fracking and horizontal drilling in other parts of the world, yet in the dash for shale we should be aware that the energy world is changing. The G7 has demanded an end to all fossil fuel use by the end of the century. The world’s global energy mix will change radically by 2040, from a system comprising two-thirds fossil fuels to one where 56% of energy comes from zero carbon-emission sources. Saudi Arabia, seeing the writing on the wall, is seeking to end its dependence on oil and gas in 15 years. Electric cars, carbon emission restrictions and new technology will eventually make fossil fuels redundant.
In ensuring our energy security, we should take care not to unquestioningly embrace sources of energy which may do more harm than good to the environment, local communities and the country.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
First, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on her speech and on her passionate espousal of her own area of the north-east of England. Of course, in Scotland the north-east is the area around Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, but both areas are equally feisty and equally beautiful, and we all enjoyed her speech very much.
I would have spoken in the debate on Monday, had I been here, because of my interest in international development and foreign affairs, but I was taking part in the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul. I came back just this morning, so if I fall asleep in the middle of my speech, noble Lords will know why. I refer noble Lords to my interests in the register. The summit highlighted a perceived shortfall of $15 billion in the funds needed to deal with the crises that are anticipated in the coming year. Clearly, we have to find not just more money but better ways of spending it, and there has to be more co-operation. That kind of co-operation and innovation was highlighted at the summit. I think that the role of the insurance industry in helping to fund humanitarian aid can be developed significantly, releasing a great deal more funding. There is also room for greater participation by the private sector.
Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I want to address specifically the North Sea oil and gas industry, and I hope to look for slightly more optimism than he did. This is my area and it is very close to my heart. I have had a close engagement with the sector since 1971. I have seen several cycles of boom and bust but it is fair to say that the present downturn is the most acute. However, I remember the pain of 1987, when people went into banks and building societies and threw the keys over the counter because they could not keep up the payments on their mortgages. Real pain is being experienced.
Although the price of Brent crude has crept up to just under $50 a barrel, it is a long way short of the $100-plus average of the last few years. The market is volatile and there is very little confidence. Thousands of people have been made redundant and the job market in Aberdeen is very difficult, with scores of people chasing every vacancy.
The industry is going to have to rethink its engagement in the UK continental shelf. This is a mature province where costs are high and the challenges severe. The industry has to deal with water depth, the weather, currency, engineering challenges, tax changes and all kinds of uncertainties. There are still substantial reserves under our waters but the question is: can we get the costs and the regime into a position where the reserves can be released? I suggest that, as long as we need fossil fuels, it is much better that we use UK fossil fuels than increase our dependency on imports.
Costs are being cut dramatically. We also have to remember that the North Sea has accounted for something like 20% of all fixed industrial development every year for the last 40 years. In the year before the downturn, there were £10 billion-worth of high technology exports worldwide from our expertise, especially in sub-sea technology. This is not something that we should just throw away; we should invest in it. What will the Government do to address the recovery?
I commend my colleague the former Energy Secretary Ed Davey for his initiative in commissioning the Wood review, which identified some of the challenges. It proposed not only the tax changes to reverse the disaster of the 2016 Budget but the setting up of the Oil and Gas Authority. That authority is up and running but we need to see it taking action. What is needed now is co-operation among those in the sector to invest in new infrastructure and to use existing infrastructure much more cost-effectively as one of the best ways to get costs down and make the industry competitive again.
The other thing that I would like to say to the Government is that exploration has come to a virtual standstill. There is very little appraisal and absolutely no exploration. If we do not identify the reserves in the North Sea, which we know to exist, there will be no future because there will be nothing to produce. Are the Government prepared to work with the industry to see what can be done to stimulate exploration and appraisal to bring the industry back to at least being a major component of the British economy? Indeed, the downturn in the oil industry contributed to the beginning of the recession in the UK. That is how important it is to the overall UK economy. Indeed, it is probably our biggest and most dynamic industrial sector.
Having spoken about oil and gas, I will make it clear that I fully support our ambition for a zero-carbon economy and low-carbon transition. I think we all recognise that while we get there we need to use fossil fuels efficiently. I should like to see carbon capture and storage, and, if we are not prepared to invest in it, I hope that other nations will give us the technology that we can use. Of course, fossil fuels will still be required as a feedstock, even when they stop being actual fuels.
I think that the Government and the industry are working together better, but more needs to be done to ensure that, as oil prices recover, as the industry gets its costs down and as the tax regime becomes more favourable, we get back on track and make sure that we maximise the potential for the industry in terms of our own fuel resources and our high-tech industry, which depends on having an active home market.
I will make a final comment on the referendum from a Scottish perspective. It is being stated that if Britain were to vote for Brexit, which I hope it does not, this would trigger the case for another referendum on Scottish independence. I suggest to the House that, on reflection, the assertion is preposterous. In reality, to my mind it is not credible that the other 27 members of the EU would be the slightest bit interested in discussing Scotland’s future relationship with the Union before they had resolved Britain’s exit. The terms of that exit would be absolutely crucial to Scotland’s future. I find it very bizarre that the SNP is so enthusiastic about membership of the EU but regards membership of the UK as the biggest obstacle to Scotland’s progress to success. It is an absurd proposition. The reality is that we would be faced with probably three different currencies running together to enable Scotland to opt out of its biggest single market—the UK—in order to try to be competitive in the remaining single market that it sought to join. I do not think that any sensible Scot would vote for another independence referendum in that context.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome most of the Bus Services Bill. Buses are vital for the economy, the environment and, most importantly, for people. In the year to the end of March last year, some 4.65 billion passenger journeys were taken by bus in England—that is far more than any other form of public transport. In many cases, they provide the only way to get to work, shops, healthcare facilities and so much more. For buses to serve their passengers, prospective passengers and passengers in the future, they must be reliable, affordable, accessible and environmentally friendly.
Time and again, the annual bus passenger survey carried out by Transport Focus highlights that punctuality is the top priority for passengers. Delivering high-quality bus services with a friendly and fully motivated bus driver, that go where passengers want to go, at times when people want to travel and at a fair price is a shared responsibility. When operators work together with local authorities, real benefits for the passenger are achieved. The most recent Transport Focus surveys have put overall bus passenger satisfaction rates at around 90%. Bus operators must be doing something right. I can think of many sectors that would love to have such a high rating from their customers.
So why is the Bus Services Bill necessary? Partnership working between bus operators and local authorities appears to work pretty well and passengers are happy. The seeds of the Bus Services Bill were sown some 18 months ago when the Chancellor announced a devolution deal for Greater Manchester which would give the combined authority, under the leadership of an elected mayor, powers to take control of its bus services and run them under a franchise arrangement. Can the Minister confirm that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport was closely involved in the negotiations in the run-up to the announcement? I suspect that the Minister would prefer to write to me on that point.
Bus services are local services, delivered locally to meet the needs of local people by a bus operator with local knowledge. In many cases, these local bus operators have many years of experience—often a life’s work—in doing just that: meeting the needs of their passengers. If a local authority chooses to use the franchising powers afforded to it under the Bus Services Bill, bus operators could find themselves out of business. Your Lordships should be aware that there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that these operators would be compensated. I have some worries about this and the commercial value of data relating to route activity, and I cannot help but worry about the effect on investment.
As I have said, partnership working has served the passenger very well over the years. Where passengers stand to get an even better deal under the new partnership arrangements set out in the Bill, that will be great. However, it will be important that these arrangements allow operators to grow patronage and retain their commercial freedom.
The Bill is very much an enabling Bill; there is no compulsion on local authorities to franchise their bus services. If the existing working arrangements between operators and local authorities are achieving results for all concerned, again, there is no need for any change, so far as I can see.
The measures in the Bill about ensuring that passengers have access to information on routes, timetables and fares are welcome. Making available real-time data on bus arrival time is extremely important and will facilitate exciting new IT capabilities. I look forward to hearing more about that when we get to Second Reading and Committee on the Bill.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, in his interesting speech, talked about what we need to do to improve the manufacturing sector in the UK. I would like to add something: we do not hold our engineers, both at professional and technician level, in high regard socially. In fact, I think we are a bit snobbish about this at all levels. It is vital that we improve the social standing of our professional engineers, much in the way that it is in Germany, where it is Herr Doktor Engineer—do not try to talk to a German engineer about problems with your washing machine because you will get short shrift. We must improve the social standing of our engineers if we want to be in a similar position to Germany.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I also welcome the Queen’s Speech with its interesting number of transport-related Bills. The Minister spoke about the need for investment in infrastructure and about the northern powerhouse, which several other noble Lords have mentioned. He is absolutely right. However, as my noble friend Lady Jones said, there is still a terrible mismatch between spend per unit of population in the south-east and that in the northern powerhouse—I think it is about 10:1.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, challenged the Opposition to say where the money would come from. I can offer two suggestions that may interest Ministers. The first is to cut the specification of HS2, without stopping it or building longer tunnels, or anything else that the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, might have wanted. I think that £10 billion could be saved with no additional provisions, just by reducing the specification. You do not need to go 400 kilometres per hour to save 20 minutes in getting to Birmingham, to then have to walk for 20 minutes from the new Birmingham station to the old one. A lot of money could be saved there.
Another interesting suggestion is to save money by cancelling the Thames tideway tunnel. I am sure Ministers will say that that is impossible. However, the capital cost is about £4.2 billion and the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 quotes Professor Colin Green, professor of water economics at Middlesex University, as saying that if you implemented the integrated water resource management as an alternative you could save £36 billion—and yes, I have got the figure right. That sounds rather a lot, but of course it is over 30 years. Quite a lot of savings could be made there, and maybe that will help redress the balance and bring a little common sense to these big projects.
I turn now from large to smaller projects and the buses Bill. I am not going to go into it in detail now because we will have plenty of opportunity for that. There are some very interesting and welcome governance arrangements in the Bill, particularly for franchising, which are very similar to passenger rail. A local agency, a council or a not-for-profit organisation specifies the timetable, fares and other customer needs and puts it out to tender, awards contracts and monitors performance. They can run alongside open access or commercial services, just like on the railways. Of course, they are all designed to provide an environmentally friendly, economically available and affordable service. I think we could say that that is a sort of powerhouse for all, particularly in the north.
However, I live in Cornwall, which is—I am very grateful—included in the franchise option. Change is needed—the bus services are pretty bad and integration with the trains is sometimes bad—but it does not always happen. There is one place, even further away, that is completely left out: the Isles of Scilly. My partner lives in the Isles of Scilly, so I go there quite often. It does not appear that anything is happening there to move the economy forward. There is of course great tourism, but the transport is pretty awful. The income values are as low as in Cornwall, which receives money from the EU structural fund, as we know, and things will get worse if we follow the line of all the Tory MPs in Cornwall who, with one voice, want to leave the EU. Most of the money for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles comes from the EU. However, that is an aside. In Scilly, there are no council-specified transport projects and no specification on price, timetable, quality or frequency—it does not exist. There is no ferry in the winter. Air services are often disrupted by fog and sometime the islands are cut off for days, with over 2,000 people living there. The charges are also shooting up. Last week, a single journey on the ferry cost £55 and was £82 by air. If you want to take your partner and a couple of kids—the family—there and back it does not half cost a lot of money. Freight costs are 40% higher and the dear old “Scillonian” is 40 years old. It is probably the oldest passenger ferry in Europe unless there are a few limping around the Greek islands that are a little older, but we do not want that. The real challenge for me is that there is one monopoly supplier that, sadly, ignores complaints large and small and fails to engage.
I welcomed what was in the Bill for buses and thought that maybe there could be an amendment to include ferries. I am not sure that the Minister would like that and it would probably not be appropriate. But could one have a kind of franchise for a community-led service specifying quality, fares, frequency, services and affordability rather like what has been done in the Scottish islands, because tourists are honestly put off by the charges. That is the solution. The current monopoly supplier will not consider any outside interference in services, new craft or support or even an interest in a winter service. There is no evidence of a replacement for the “Scillonian”, and it is unlikely unless the fares go up even more. Unfortunately, as happens in so many small islands, there is an unwillingness to speak out so it is something that needs to be considered.
I do not expect the Minister to respond tonight. Perhaps he would like to write to me—I expect he has a few letters to write. Something along the lines of the bus franchising Bill would be a real shot in the arm for the Isles of Scilly. We have gone beyond the stage when Ministers can say that there is a viable service operating at the moment. It may be viable for the shareholders, but not for the people of the Scillies and their visitors.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her compelling maiden speech. We are debating the economic elements of the gracious Speech at a time when millions of people in western democracies are concluding that the current economic settlement no longer works for them, and that mainstream politics offers no answers to the unsettling economic changes they are grappling with. This gracious Speech will only confirm their lack of faith. It fails to acknowledge, much less to tackle, the profound challenges to our economy. Corporate executives continue to gain super-rewards for inadequate performance, while real average wages are stagnating and traditional modes of employment are disintegrating. Productivity remains stubbornly resistant to improvement. Our public services are suffering under the strain of six years of austerity. Our banking system remains unfit for purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord McFall, so eloquently set out. If that were not enough, the Conservative Party has decided that this is the moment to gamble Britain’s economic future in an EU referendum.
Rarely have a Prime Minister and Chancellor so nakedly placed their political interests ahead of the interests of their country and the jobs and living standards of millions of their fellow citizens. For whatever the result of this referendum, Britain is already paying the price in slowing economic growth and deteriorating public finances as a result of investments frozen and spending put on hold. That matters because it means jobs not created, pay rises deferred and real lives made harder. God willing, we will not compound this folly with the profound economic shock that would follow exit from the European Union. Whatever the outcome, we will still have to face two major challenges—how we provide an economic framework that can serve the needs of the British people in an era of exponential technological change, and how we can ensure that the benefits of this new economy are spread fairly and do not continue to accumulate in super-rewards for the few and super-economic insecurity for the many.
Between 2008 and 2015, real wages fell in Britain by more than 10%. That is the longest decline since the middle of the 19th century, and wages for the majority have barely risen since. On top of stagnant wages, workers have seen other benefits such as pension entitlements curtailed or withdrawn. An Uber economy is increasingly developing, where workers are expected to employ themselves, with no entitlement to sick pay or holidays, while corporates enrich themselves at the expense of a workforce for which they refuse to accept any responsibility. While employment insecurity grows and average wages have declined, the gap between average wages and the remuneration of top executives has widened every year.
No believer in a market economy should object to people being paid well for doing demanding jobs. But let us be clear. If someone employed by a public company is taking home annual rewards of £10 million, £20 million or more, as some British bosses are doing, that is not fair reward for a tough job—it is publicly acknowledged, politically accepted and legalised embezzlement. It would be one thing if these top executives were delivering extraordinary results for their companies, but most are not. Research conducted by academics at the University of Cambridge and the University of Utah indicates that CEO pay is in fact negatively related to future share price performance. It found that firms that pay their CEOs in the top 10% of excess pay see abnormal negative returns over the next three years, of approximately minus 8%. Overconfidence arising from being overpaid, the research finds, makes for bad decisions and poor outcomes for shareholders. Why have we tolerated this situation where a small minority of people reward themselves so absurdly? What motivates such absurd levels of greed and what callousness allows top executives to accept such inflated rewards, while holding down the wages of their fellow employees, to the extent that research from the high pay unit shows that chief executive pay is now 183 times greater than that that of average employees?
The public rightly feel profoundly let down by the response of mainstream political parties. Between us we have acquiesced in economic outcomes that have profoundly distorted the market economy; we have allowed risk to be shifted from super-rewarded risk-takers on to the shoulders of ordinary taxpayers; we have allowed public companies to be pilfered by their top executives and corporate taxation to become an optional extra for the wealthiest corporations in the world; and we have not even begun to recognise, let alone prepare for, the profound changes that are coming in the economy. The Government should address themselves to these issues in the gracious Speech. They should craft a new economic settlement which celebrates and rewards effort and innovation but spreads the rewards fairly. They should propose a policy framework to provide security in the new employment environment in which people increasingly operate. They should tackle the threat to our economy from a still unfit banking system. They should reform the curriculum to ensure that every child, no matter their background, has the skills to benefit from an increasingly digital economy. But they have done none of that. They are too busy repeating the tired-out mantra of the “long-term economic plan” to have noticed that they have no coherent economic plan at all.
There are very direct political consequences to this failure of mainstream politicians to tackle the real economic challenges that people face. Those consequences can be seen in the rise of the bombastic politics and beggar-my-neighbour economics of Donald Trump and the sinister success of nationalist parties right across Europe. If we are to avoid such outcomes in the UK, we have to address ourselves with much greater urgency to crafting a new economic settlement that will serve the interests of the many, not the avarice of the few. If we do not, before long we will have to face a new and unwelcome political settlement instead.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I offer my apologies, because I shall be a little wide of the subjects listed for today’s debate on the gracious Speech, as I will speak on the continuing need for protection online for children aged under 18 and then turn to the role of parents in their children’s education.
I begin by saying how delighted I was to read in the background document published with the gracious Speech that one of the purposes of the digital economy Bill is the:
“Protection of children from online pornography by requiring age verification for access to all sites containing pornographic material”.
This, of course, represents the honouring of the commitment made in the 2015 Conservative manifesto. In their consultation earlier this year on age verification for pornographic websites, the Government reported the outcome of their research through comScore about children accessing adult sites in May 2015. This revealed that 1.4 million visitors aged under 18 accessed adult sites from their desktops and that the data represented 20% of those aged under 18 accessing the internet and 13% of children aged six to 14. In the context where we have the technology to allow the introduction of proper age verification, failing to do so is indefensible.
As noble Lords will know, I have long campaigned for this change through my Online Safety Bill, and I particularly want to thank all those who have supported me in raising the issue in this House. That it is a matter of real public concern was underlined yet again in a letter I received yesterday from the Cornwall Community Standards Association expressing the hope that the law will be implemented as soon as possible. I warmly congratulate the Government on taking this important step, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Shields, the Minister responsible, who has worked so hard on this issue.
The audio-visual regulations already provide some protection for children from accessing R18-rated material that is streamed from pornographic websites based in the United Kingdom. I am pleased that the Government propose in their consultation document that there should be an extension of the material to include pornographic content that the British Board of Film Classification would consider rating as 18. This is something for which I, too, have been urging for a while. However, at the heart of the age verification challenge is the need to recognise what ATVOD reported on this issue in 2014, that 23 of the top 25 adult sites accessed in the UK were located abroad, and I have no reason to believe that the situation has changed. It is the material from outside the UK that is especially problematical and has in effect been unregulated. The key goal for the Government must therefore be to develop an enforceable means of requiring foreign pornographic sites projecting material into the UK to introduce robust age verification, whether the material being supplied is free or not.
Last year in my Online Safety Bill I proposed a licensing scheme based on the Gambling Act 2005 for those who want to supply pornography into the UK market from abroad. In Committee on the Bill, the Minister kindly described my proposal as an,
“innovative approach … to solving this challenge”.—[Official Report, 11/12/15; col. 1811.]
The essence of my proposal makes it very clear whether a foreign website whose content includes either 18 or R18-rated pornography is in compliance with UK law by having a licence or not. It is a simple yes/no, and a criminal offence will have been committed for not having a licence and a statutory system of financial transaction blocking.
I have retabled an updated version of my own Online Safety Bill principally to highlight the robust statutory age verification enforcement mechanism set out in Clauses 8 to 12, so I look forward very much to the publication of the digital economy Bill, and I hope that the Government will study carefully the relevant clauses of my Bill, particularly when addressing the matter of enforcement.
Having sung the Government’s praises, I must now turn to the education for all Bill and strike a rather different note. I am concerned about the Government’s White Paper entitled Educational Excellence Everywhere, which presumably will inform the direction of the education for all Bill announced in the gracious Speech. There is much that could be said, but I shall focus specifically on the Government’s proposals for school governors, and in so doing I must declare an interest as president of the National Governors Association. Paragraph 3.30 of the White Paper states:
“We will expect all governing boards to focus on seeking people with the right skills for governance, and so we will no longer require academy trusts to reserve places for elected parents on governing boards”.
It goes on to say that,
“fully skills-based governance will become the norm across the education system … Parents often have these skills and many parents already play a valuable role in governance”.
But the point is clear: parents can contribute towards being governors, but the key fact that they are a parent is not fully relevant. What is important is that they have the right skills for school governance, to which it would seem that being a parent is only incidental. Some might think that this is a good message to send, but I do not. I fear that the Government are being tempted by what I have to describe as a rather technocratic view of schools in which governors may have special expertise unrelated to being a parent while parents principally seem to be treated as consumers who must be given lots of information to help them hold their school to account and, if necessary, complain.
I believe that schools should be regarded as a rooted outworking of their communities. One of the ways in which that is realised is by giving parents who live in the community and carry the ultimate responsibility for their children a clear stake in school governance via seats on school governing bodies. Parents are the ones with their feet on the ground, knowing what is happening at the school, what other parents are feeling and whether their children are thriving. Of course one can particularly encourage parents with additional qualifications to engage, but being a parent must in itself be recognised as one of the most important aspects of the appropriate qualification. In the end, schools act in loco parentis. Parents will not take kindly to the idea that they are being displaced from the governance of their children’s schools by experts. I wish that the Government would think again.
I end by warmly congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her brilliant, moving and historic maiden speech. I hope that it will not be too long before she has other women Bishops joining her on those Benches.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest in the register as leader of a unitary authority. It is a great privilege to be speaking for the first time in a debate on the humble Address, especially in this year of Her Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday. The gracious Speech included many issues that will be delivered or influenced by local government. The adoption Bill is welcome to ensure that any delays in the adoption process are minimised. Too many children have been denied timely, secure and permanent homes for too long because the system has failed them, often having long-term effects on their lives. But we need to look at and challenge the whole system, not just local government. Many times it is from the legal system that these delays occur.
I also welcome the aspiration of the Government that looked-after children deserve support for a longer period of time. If you are a parent, you will know that your own children often require a significant amount of help in their late teens as well as more advice and guidance as they begin to fly the nest—and so it should be for our looked-after children.
Local government plays a key role in working closely with developers and house builders to deliver the much-needed housing that we promised in the Conservative manifesto, and to play its role in ensuring the best possible life chances for young people by working in partnership with schools and colleges, and by enabling the supply of good-quality jobs in local areas.
Much of what a local authority does is work in partnership with the other public, private and voluntary sectors in their area to deliver services locally—none more so than health. They work with our local health providers to ensure, particularly for the elderly, that they have the ability to be treated in the right place at the right time. Often secondary care is not necessarily the right solution and care in the community is more appropriate. Local authorities, with their public health responsibilities and their health and well-being boards, are in a unique position to assist their local NHS colleagues to minimise inappropriate admissions to the acute sector and to help to ensure timely discharge into the community.
Legislation to allow councils to retain business rates is welcome and something for which local government has pressed for many years. But the message from the Government needs to be clear—100% retained by local councils may be the fact but it is confusing for local people when their council retains maybe only 50% because of redistribution.
I will finish on an issue that is dear to my heart: devolution, and, particularly, the reorganisation of local government. Devolution is to be welcomed and I am pleased to see that the northern powerhouse is again mentioned in the gracious Speech. I look forward to seeing our other great cities getting similar freedoms and flexibilities in future. But surely we need also to be looking at the future of local government in the rest of England. Allowing a thousand flowers to bloom in different forms of devolution is confusing for our residents, partners and businesses. They want—and I have asked the question of them many times over the years—simple, strategic authorities with strong leaders delivering efficient and effective services, with no layers and certainly no new layers.
We also surely have a duty to use public money in the most effective way. The latest piece of work by county treasurers show savings of at least £5 billion over the life of a Parliament if England were reorganised into county unitaries—money that could be spent on children’s services, adult care services, libraries, buses, or even to fill more potholes.
I therefore ask the Government to take a serious look at how our great cities and our great counties could work with government in a way that simplifies local government and is able to be more efficient and more effective, and to seriously devolve powers to local communities and to local people who feel close to their historic connections in their local governance.
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the gracious Speech. Despite the many conferences, forums, summits, measures and targets over the past 12 months, there has been only a passing reference to climate change. I am therefore pleased that today’s agenda gives us the opportunity to raise wider issues of concern relating to the environment.
I am among the many who believe that for the sake of the next generation we have a responsibility to step back from our excesses and help to address the problems which endanger the environment. One way we can make a difference is by a very minor change in our lifestyle and behaviour. We can do that by recycling. I am fortunate to be part of a household which has recycled for many years without any particular encouragement from government. I recall one family member who collected newspaper for recycling many years ago to raise money for the Scout movement—until the bottom dropped out of the market and no one wanted recycled newspaper.
The need for us all to recycle is urgent. The UK’s recycling rate for household waste reached 44.9% in 2014—not much up on the previous year. The EU target, as I understand it for the UK, is 50% by 2020, and I gather that the general view is that we might just not reach that target. I know that I am not alone in often finding it difficult to work out how we should recycle our waste. Neither am I alone in wondering how many of the things we carefully sort for recycling finish up in what is called a landfill site.
There appears to be a great deal of cynicism about recycling, which needs to be challenged—but not by red carding or fining householders for putting an item in the wrong place. My own experience explains why a rethink is necessary. First, on the subject of collections, we cannot all be at home on a certain day at a certain time to put out our bins. That is not possible. Personally, our household can deal with this by taking our recycling to the nearest centre. But that still presents a problem for us. Our nearest centre was six miles away until it was closed three years go. Now the journey is a 15-mile journey in one direction. We are fortunate because we have a choice of different local authorities and we use whichever is closest to our business on the day. As recyclers by habit and nature, we have learned to live with that. But it is a terrible waste of time and it is not good for the environment.
Our biggest challenge is that each of those local authorities has a different recycling policy and different equipment and, indeed, different contractors. Even within the same local authority areas there are different rules. One does not take plastic bottles or cartons. One does not take shredded paper—and so it goes on. Much of the packaging for food items indicates whether the package can be recycled but not where it can be recycled, and since different local authorities have different facilities you are expected to check before you go.
Information on websites is confusing at best and inadequate at worst. When you call the local authority or ask for advice, generally speaking, the response is, “We don’t know, just put it in the rubbish bin”. We recognise that different products might require different packaging, but do we really need so many different varieties? Why can there not be better co-operation between the packaging companies, retailers and local councils to share a common approach to recycling, to make it a friendly and rewarding experience for the environment?
If supermarkets sell items in packaging that cannot be recycled, perhaps—just perhaps—they should be given some responsibility for dealing with the package rather than the shopper. It is not only food which causes a problem. Packaging from internet shopping could sink us all, and much of it will not fit into the bins provided by local authorities. At home, two online purchases from the same store recently arrived in boxes big enough to hold a large dinner service. One contained one mug; the other contained two packs of floor-cleaning bags, both with metres and metres of bubble wrap. The boxes were recyclable, but what a waste for such a small item. The bubble wrap cannot be recycled so we have two problems for the price of one.
While many households recycle items such as books and clothing, I often wonder whether any action can be taken in co-operation with manufacturers, particularly of electrical goods. In recent times it seems that nothing is made to last or to be repairable. It is all about consumption in the end, which is damaging to the environment. We need a more effective partnership between manufacturers, supermarkets and retailers, including online traders. We need to reduce packaging and make it more environmentally friendly, while local authorities provide common facilities wherever we live.
Making recycling easier, friendlier and more purposeful will be a better start to get us toward that magic 50%. In doing so we must remember that the world we inherited was built by others, but the world we leave behind will be built by us.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on the economy generally—so important for us all. Briefly, like many have already, I refer to the in/out referendum. I will not elaborate, other than to say that when it comes to the economy it is vital to build on our existing contacts, which are clear and important. Those advocating we come out have not said much specifically and tangibly about the economic future. We will be set adrift without ready replacement for the work we now enjoy through the EU.
Time and again when it comes to the economy, productivity, or lack of it, has been raised, as indeed it was by the Minister in his opening remarks and by my noble friend Lord Oates. I recently met with the organisation ADS, the national trade association for the UK’s aerospace, defence, security and space sectors. It points to the fact that there has been a 30% increase in productivity growth in its sector in the last five years, compared with 2% generally across the UK economy. Why? It has a lot to do with the way it invests in skills and good management, and has a commitment to apprenticeships. The aerospace sector places a lot of emphasis on apprenticeships, thereby having a skilled workforce—so key to productivity. I have learned how key apprenticeships are to the high level of skills that such companies have—so vital for this sector and how supportive they are in this respect.
But, most importantly, I have learned from management in the space sector the emphasis that it places on working collaboratively with the workforce. It is vital that management respects and works with its employees, which has not always happened elsewhere. It is, as I and this sector believe, essential that there is leadership from management, but also, most importantly, that it listens to and inspires those who work for it. I am not suggesting a “them and us” management approach, which is too common, but one that is collaborative and clear—that is, we do not want the heavy-handed approach of the past, which is so destructive when it comes to getting the best out of people and thereby to achieving high productivity.
I relate to this personally. Early in my career after leaving school I worked for a small plastic manufacturing company run on “them and us” principles. I left after a couple of years because of this attitude. I remained in business and ran my own business for many years, latterly in the manufacturing sector, but before that in trading and supplying to shops. I was approached by the original business I had worked for for just two years, asking whether I would come back to run the business, which I did. Within just two months or so after I changed it from a “them and us” company to a collaboratively management-run company, it lifted off the ground and produced the results that are very necessary for any company to achieve. To get productivity we need good management, as I saw in my career. A key aspect of the 30% increase in productivity achieved by the aerospace industry has been through good management and respecting the employees.
I say to the Government that we must train management. It is vital that they achieve a high standard and ensure that managers are properly qualified before they are allowed to run companies. I support what my colleagues and others have said: too many people are paid fantastically large sums of money when they are just incompetent. To have a healthy and productive economy we need investment.
Again, I urge the Government to take strong action, helping with investment to ensure that they and large firms pay SMEs promptly—an issue I have raised in the House many times. Indeed, I ask the Minister to confirm what I saw in a newspaper—that the new business tsar will challenge late payers in person. Is that happening? If not, it should be. Small firms in this country suffer greatly from late payment. I leave that in the hands of the Minister and hope he can consider the issues of management and productivity.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the gracious Speech and the two Bills that provide the focus for me tonight, the modern transport Bill and the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill, as well as the links between them and the environmental issues that they both raise. It is good to see the forward-looking policies in the modern transport Bill, with everything from Cornish space stations to driverless cars. The latter are sure to spawn a huge new raft of debate about where responsibilities lie, in particular for accidents. I am sure my learned friends are up to the job of helping us on that as this interesting new line of business comes along for them. The legal minefield we are entering is obvious. Who will be held responsible—the operator or the driver long range, the owner or the designer? It is clear that machines are unlikely to be summoned in courts, although I think that eventually there will be fewer machine than human errors on our roads.
So good luck to the Department for Transport with its futurology, which I support strongly. However, I trust it will not mind if I raise also the fact that the very phrase “modern transport Bill” may ring hollow to some users of, for example, mainline trains into stations such as Waterloo from 100 miles or more around who, in the 2010s, travel still some part of the time on single-line tracks, as is the case for much of the journey from Exeter up through Yeovil as far as Salisbury on the way to London. For people who travel that way, this is a thoroughly unmodern experience, with all the delays and pauses at passing loops as though in some developing country as people go to and fro what is rapidly becoming a self-generated south-western technological and growing powerhouse—all of its own endeavours, with little direct help. I applaud what is happening in the south-west.
I know how much store the Government rightly set by infrastructure and I applaud their plans to put the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing in the related neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill. In the meantime, always looking for fresh information, I innocently asked how many stretches of such single-line track into mainline stations there are within 120 miles of London. I was told in a Written Answer on 11 May that this information was not available. Indeed, it was a matter not for HMG but for Network Rail. That struck me as a bit peculiar. Is not mainline rail part of the critical national infrastructure? Is it not vital for national resilience and thus of great concern to HMG? Does the Department for Transport not have this stuff in its records? If not, the new National Infrastructure Commission will have to start from scratch and work anew on some Domesday Book of essential infrastructure information. For how long will the Government tolerate such thoroughly unmodern parts of infrastructure as single-line railway tracks in our present century?
Secondly, I also support the need to build new housing as part of our critical modern social and economic infrastructure, supporting as I do the drive to build more, even though it saddens us all to see even grade 4 agricultural land taken out of use and built on. I recognise that sometimes that simply must happen. The Government—local government in particular—must also recognise that once land is built on, that is an irrevocable change. Once the first turf is cut or the first tree or hedgerow cut down to expedite, say, an edge of town or village development, large or small, that is an irrevocable landscape step with no turning back. It is critical that the Government take a lead in encouraging and persuading councils to do all that they can to make such new housebuilding more acceptable to locals, as much in the interests of the incoming new occupiers as the maybe disappointed nimbys who do not much want to see the development in the first place.
Too often, it seems that local councils are satisfied that they have done their bit by their local responsibilities in extracting from housing developers chunks of money for road improvement, a new school or a better health centre. They say, “Look what we delivered”, without giving anything like adequate attention to planning for and enforcement of the low-cost environmental enhancements that make new housing developments all the more acceptable. There is the planting of deep shelterbelts with trees and hedging that make an impact in years, not decades, to soften the often raw edges of new housing developments, as well as helping to reduce flood risk through diminishing run-off, as tree-planting does. There is the use of the best possible road sound- deadening materials or, just like noise-proofing, night sky protection by getting the best possible low-reflective lighting installed. These are low-cost ways of ensuring the growing acceptability of new development and they are vital for getting such new development to happen.
This a matter of encouragement and of setting the framework. I welcome the gracious Speech in particular because it does not make that traditional government or politician’s mistake in the past of saying, in verbiage, that they can create things and make things happen. All Governments can do is create frameworks in which individuals and people can economically and socially flourish. That is why I disagree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in her opening speech. She clearly wanted a gracious Speech rammed full of telling people what to do. That is not something that this Government ever wish to do.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord says that the Government do not want to tell people what to do. I am afraid that I will discuss matters not covered in the gracious Speech where people should be told what to do.
The topic raised more than any other by members of GEM Motoring Assist is the lack of traffic law enforcement on our roads. Many of them think that the move towards automatic enforcement of speed and so on is not matched by enforcement regarding other aspects of bad driving. The recent Transport Select Committee report on roads policing stated that the number of specialised roads policing officers has fallen from 7,104 to 4,356 in the decade starting in 2005. That is a reduction of 38.6% and leads me to state that the number of cars exceeding 100 miles an hour on motorways is quite extraordinary. However, they drive at these speeds in the knowledge that the chances of being stopped are quite remote.
One of my two amendments to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act that were accepted concerned the evidential roadside breath testing kit. It must be about 10 years since this was accepted, but the Home Office has yet to complete type approval of this equipment. This is in contrast to the extremely quick approval of the quite expensive saliva-testing equipment that screens for certain drugs and illegal substances. I just wonder whether the Department for Transport has plans to develop screening equipment for other drugs. Efforts have been made to reduce the legal drink-drive limit to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres. It is calculated that, if this were done, 25 lives and 95 serious injuries would be saved annually. Can the Government explain why a reduction in the drink-drive limit would be at odds with the current efforts to reduce drink-driving?
There is clear evidence that drivers using mobile phones while driving, both hands-free or hands-held, do so at serious risk to themselves and other road users because of distraction. The person phoning a driver has no idea about the traffic conditions that could cause distraction. I would be delighted if the Government discouraged the use of all phones in cars. Thinking of mobile phones, a large amount of legislation could be changed to allow digitalisation in certain circumstances in order to assist police officers in their duties that currently can be unnecessarily time-consuming.
At the moment, there is a lack of protection for police officers engaged in the pursuit of other vehicles. Tim Rogers of the Police Federation of England and Wales said:
“How concerning is it that, even when driving with advanced training, given and licensed by the College of Policing, our officers are still vulnerable to criminal liability, just for trying to keep communities safe?”.
Protection for officers doing their jobs requires a change in legislation to ensure that they have the confidence to do their job without the fear of being prosecuted in certain circumstances.
There have been numerous changes in how the police operate, and all forces have had to make adjustments due to the funding formula. I wonder whether that now meets the needs of communities across the country. I have my doubts.
Finally, from today, drivers and others are invited to go online and pledge their support for EDWARD—European Day Without A Road Death—which is due on 21 September. This is the day when police forces throughout Europe support the initiatives being promoted by this project. I hope that they are successful in their endeavours.
Lord Smith of Clifton (LD)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and my noble friend Lord Oates in concentrating on some developments in contemporary capitalism in the UK. It may be recalled that in 1932 the two eminent American economists, Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, argued that there had been a paradigm shift in modern capitalism. The emerging separation between ownership and control meant that the profit-maximising greed of the robber barons was disappearing. They were being replaced by a new breed of managers who were inclined to be more profit-optimising and took other, more social, criteria into consideration in running their enterprises.
After some of the disappointments of the nationalisations of the post-war Attlee Government, revisionists, most notably Anthony Crosland, argued—as he did in 1956 in his book The Future of Socialism, along the lines of Berle and Means—that the public was better served by the likes of private sector enterprises such as Marks & Spencer, Boots and Sainsbury’s, thus making the idea of industrial public ownership obsolete. However, while that was being absorbed, a new trend was being exposed in the USA. In his valedictory presidential Address in 1961, General Dwight D Eisenhower warned of the deleterious effects of what he termed the growing military-industrial complex for the future of democracy. It was remarkable, given its source, as well as being a very prescient observation, but he did not anticipate the half of it. Corporate intrusion into public policy-making now extends far beyond defence and dictates much of the public agenda in the USA, the UK and most western countries. The result is that both economy and polity have now morphed into each other.
The wide-scale scheme under the Thatcher and Major Administrations, whereby nationalised undertakings were sold off and so-called privatised, was meant, ostensibly at least, to help rectify some of the problems by restoring the discipline of market forces. It patently did not. Privatisation merely created what Karl Marx called “monopoly capitalism”, and that in turn spawned an industry of regulatory agencies to control these cartels. These are by and large unsatisfactory because they create the revolving-door syndrome whereby the regulators are drawn from the regulated.
A major reason for looking seriously at the nature of capitalism is globalisation. No jurisdiction wants to disadvantage itself by taking steps to introduce laws and other regulations that would discourage conglomerates away from its country. Hence there is no real action against tax havens, international tax avoidance and other such practices. Modern capitalism exists on the myth of shareholder control. In electronic exchange purchases some of these shareholders lose huge amounts of money in nanoseconds. Where there is shareholder control, it is largely by pension funds and insurance companies controlled by executives who have a vested interest in the levels of remuneration, and cost-cutting and short-changing.
I say to the Minister that we are in desperate need of a new and more extensive Berle and Means-type analysis of the shady world of contemporary capitalism. First, I suggest that the ESRC should devote itself to this task with immediate effect. Secondly, the Law Commission should be told to undertake a review of company law so as to make proposals for effective and accountable corporate governance. If that does not happen, we will have the rise in populism that my noble friend Lord Oates warned about. Does the Minister agree? I am not anticipating a reply, but I think that the state of modern capitalism, and its regulation, is a very serious problem.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her heart-warming and inspiring maiden speech.
The gracious Speech covers a number of areas which will have a direct impact on local government. The Local Government Association—I declare that I am not a vice-president of the LGA—has identified 19 separate pieces of legislation which will, if taken together, bring significant changes to local government. Of course, reform is needed from time to time and each Bill will be scrutinised and treated on its merits.
My contribution will be about standards, which should not be lowered, and accountability and transparency. There must be a connection between policies and practical outcomes. These points have already been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Shutt of Greetland. These are areas of great concern to me as the Government’s approach to local government is to focus on structures and responsibilities, without a whiff of where the money is coming from or how much, and without any real accountability.
The retention of business rates may well be the answer for some areas but will lead to further deprivation in others unless there is some system of moderation or virement, essential in any relationship between central and local government. We need a touch of humility when it comes to reorganisation of local government. What is announced as radical may be a recycled bureaucracy—remember the county of Avon?
The Government say they will not force elected mayors on to a reluctant community, but the whole thrust of their policies does exactly that, with central investment virtually conditional on agreeing to metro mayors. How will the Government tackle the democratic deficit, the duplication of functions and the enormous financial black hole they have created? We have police and crime commissioners, which were hugely controversial during debates in this House. I am aware that my own party has now accepted these roles as the reality of politics, but is anyone able to say what they will become in the future? We could add fire authorities, make them deputy mayors or, even better, swallow up other police and crime commissioners. Better still, they could be mayors as well. Maybe the next step will be regional prime ministers. You might as well add the regional schools commissioners in there as well and make one central apparatchik for the region.
I will use a couple of examples from trading standards, but the disconnect between policies and delivery applies across the board—in social work, environmental health and planning. The Government carried out a review of trading standards, which is a chronically underfunded service doing important work. Possibly because the review has revealed that chronic underfunding, the Government have announced a delay in its publication. In the meantime, a review of local authority regulation will now take place under the cutting red tape programme. At the same time the Business Minister, Anna Soubry, calls for urgent action on laser pens.
Take the Whirlpool scandal, where UK fire brigades received 926 reports of dryer fires between 2011 and 2013. The Government’s response has been dilatory in the extreme. The editor of the trading standards journal, Chris Fay, has said that he was baffled by the Government’s lacklustre response to the recommendations in the extremely timely product recall review. The director of policy at the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Melissa Dring, summed up one of the roles of trading standards very well, saying that enforcement against rogue traders and fraudsters not only protects the public but creates,
“a level playing field for legitimate business”,
allowing businesses to compete fairly and promoting productivity and economic growth. We need a properly funded trading standards service to help the good, law-abiding businesses.
My final point on transparency and accountability is around the role of local government and maintained schools. Although the Government have backed down from the enforced academisation of maintained schools, all the ingredients are still in place to make schools an offer they cannot refuse. As the Local Government Association has pointed out, councils are among the country’s most effective education leaders, with 81% of council-maintained schools rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding, compared to 73% of academies and 79% of free schools. The education for all Bill will pass the statutory role in school improvement from local authorities to the Secretary of State—a giant centralising move. In debate on the Bill, I hope the Government will clarify the role of parents in school governing bodies, in what circumstances councils will be considered underperforming or unviable, and how the regional schools commissioners will carry out their work—or will this all come out in regulation? Secondary legislation is an extremely powerful weapon in the hands of an overweening Executive. It will be interesting to see how often in this Session of Parliament local government is the fall guy for this power.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, the gracious Speech included commitments to tackle corruption, money laundering and tax evasion—pernicious issues that undermine trust in business and finance. Greater transparency, as well as sanctions, is needed in these areas and beyond. As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, pointed out, transparency can usefully extend to regulators and, I would say, to HMRC.
Next year brings mandatory public disclosure of tax strategy for large businesses, but more could be done, especially around country-by-country reporting, such as publishing reasons for tax paid being less than headline rates and disclosure of tax risk. EY’s 2013 report on tax transparency noted that 53 FTSE 100 companies had an effective tax rate lower than the UK headline rate and also suggested potential benefit to organisations and board governance from understanding and reporting effective tax rates country by country.
More transparency is also still needed in the fee structure that has undermined pension funds. There is no incentive to save when those managing the money get more out of it than you do. Added to that are concerns about lukewarm stewardship by UK fund managers, and the FRC is now reviewing the stewardship code commitments. I would add to its list looking at pooled nominee accounts, both to enfranchise ordinary shareholders and to avoid risk from broker insolvency.
There is no room for fainthearted governance. It breeds the absence of culture identified in the Kay review, which showed how companies and wider society have drifted apart. There is too much “duty of directors to maximise shareholder value” and, to that end, complex executive remuneration incentives occupy acres of annual report while average employee pay is never the metric. The duty of directors to promote successful companies has been watered down and concern for markets and the public good reduced to mere price competition. An interim report from the Big Innovation Centre suggests that this narrow-minded approach has led to British companies losing growth of more than £130 billion a year, and accounts for lower productivity, lack of training and high worker turnover. Better corporate governance is the intangible infrastructure that business needs to grow.
I turn to the referendum. There have been suggestions that the third-country equivalence provisions in EU financial markets legislation could mitigate the loss of passporting rights. My back bears the scars of negotiating more open third-country provisions and, without the UK around the table, this is one of many examples where regulation will shift away from where we have taken it and where we wish it to be.
Equivalence findings are not swift, simple or comprehensive. The Commission is under no obligation to undertake them, member states collectively have to approve them and how prescriptive the requirements and conditions are depends entirely on the EU. It is political. There are significant administrative hurdles, too: firms registering with ESMA and notifying national regulators, supervisory co-operation agreements with ESMA, including disclosure of information about individual firms, agreement to litigation being in an EU member state—so not in the UK any more—and retail services will remain as 27 separate regimes with branch requirements.
A report, The UK Referendum—Challenges for Europe’s Capital Markets, commissioned by the Association for Financial Markets in Europe from Clifford Chance cautions that,
“there are risks that political constraints may obstruct the use of third country mechanisms to mitigate the exit of the UK from the EU”,
and that,
“changes to law or regulation over time in the UK and the”,
continuing EU,
“could adversely affect the harmonised legal framework existing at the outset and put at risk the continued availability of equivalence determinations”.
So at best, under Brexit we would be second-class citizens, taking instead of making financial services law and at significant risk of being cut off, given that our loss is their gain.
Brexit being bad for the City has also been compared to concerns about the UK being left out if we did not join the euro, which in fact did not materialise. Brexit is different, notably because we were saved before by the single market, which protected the City from the European Central Bank’s policy for euro securities to be cleared in the eurozone. The strength of the single market was underestimated. We are protected now by that strength—strip it away, and significant business will have no choice but to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I join in the warm welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I suspect that her ears must have been burning, even when she took a break from the Floor. It is rare to see a new Member so warmly welcomed and so appreciated, and she earned it with her outstanding speech, which not only gave us a feel for her but was, I suspect, a small warning to the Government that they had better live up to their commitments to the north-east, because she will be looking over their shoulder from the Benches just behind them.
The Queen’s Speech started with the claim:
“My Government will use the opportunity of a strengthening economy to deliver security for working people”.
But the economy is not strengthening; it is getting weaker. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, outlined some of the reasons, but I shall add a few more. George Osborne has borrowed £4 billion more this year than was estimated in the March Budget, and we are only in May. Economic growth slowed in the first quarter of a year, growing by only 0.4%. Construction output fell for a second quarter by 0.4%.
Numerous kinds of measures tell the same story, but I want to pick up the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, when he talked about signs of a drop in confidence among small and medium-sized enterprises. We know from recent reports that lending to small businesses via overdrafts was down by 13% at the end of March from September 2014. As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, says, that may be something about bad bank behaviour, but it also reflects a drop in confidence by small businesses on an extraordinarily steep scale. That is an issue that the Government must take to heart, and take to heart immediately.
The weakening in the economy is a problem of the Government’s own making. This year they passed a Budget with a £7.5 billion black hole. Their fiscal plans required continued austerity to cut all public borrowing, which because of their definitions means a huge constraint on infrastructure spending for the future. As I have said before, spending on infrastructure is investment and should not be included as day-to-day spending when considering eliminating the deficit, especially at a time when we can borrow at virtually zero interest rates. If the Government doubt the need to accelerate getting infrastructure projects into the ground, I hope that they listened to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, my noble friends Lord Shutt and Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Patten, and, on broadband issues, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—and, indeed, others, who all gave examples of essential projects, all designed and all very close to being ready to go, which cannot be funded under the current regime.
The Government have been tearing themselves apart over the EU referendum and causing instability in the process. In this debate there was a dog that did not bark. I have so often been in debates on Brexit and found that those advocating exit have absolutely no plan for what the economy would look like, and frankly I have been shocked. I would have thought that by this stage we would have had some detailed scenarios and economic forecasts with analysis behind them, as well as pinpointing of industries that would be impacted and regions where jobs would be affected, but nothing, and again, today, nothing. That seems to me to make the argument all of itself.
Quite a number of Bills in the Queen’s Speech are covered by the theme of today’s debate. We want to see the detail and scrutinise and improve them, but I hope that we can support many of them. I shall reference just one or two.
My noble friend Lady Bowles referred to the criminal finance Bill. Many of us were very concerned because most of the content was announced in 2015 by Danny Alexander. We have been looking for this Bill for months, and if it took the Panama papers to draw it on, so be it. As my noble friend said, it will be crucial to make sure that it contains adequate transparency. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I am enthusiastic about the HS2 Bill now coming to the Lords. I am grateful that I do not have to be on the hybrid Bill committee and, boy, do I admire those who are putting their names forward to take on that very big task.
On the modern transport Bill, the work on driverless cars should be meshed with the work on electric vehicles. They go together. One of the risks is that we have siloed that because there is potential for the UK to be a real leader in this area. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and my noble friend Lady Randerson warned us that the Bus Services Bill has great potential for providing local control for bus networks, but it must be accompanied by the necessary resources to make it work and a check must be kept on unintended consequences on areas outside those that are covered by the new local ability to regulate.
My noble friend Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and quite a few other noble Lords warned us that the local growth and jobs Bill, which devolves business rates to local authorities, is a fundamentally good idea, but we must be careful with our most deprived communities, many of which will never be able to take advantage of a business base. They must not be left out and lost as a consequence of this change in structure. As several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, and my noble friend Lady Thornhill, have said, the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill does not deal with the broken housing market—it just assumes that the only problem is planning—or with the lack of affordable social rental, which are critical housing problems.
In the last moments of my speech, I want to refer to the discussion initiated by so many on this side of the House, with no co-ordination whatever, questioning many of the fundamentals of the economy. Intergenerational unfairness is a major issue in our country, with more than 50% of young people, or people generally, assuming that young people will never have the lifestyle that their parents have had. They have been hit by the cuts in public spending, the lack of affordable rental cuts right to the heart of their life opportunities and they need to be engaged. Along with these issues, we have growing inequality, which was starkly described in this House.
I am one of those who really welcome the huge disruption that is coming with new technology—much of it was described by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens—but it means enormous job losses. Antony Jenkins, a former CEO of Barclays, has warned of 30% job losses in the banking industry within the next five years, and the British Retail Consortium has talked of more than 900,000 jobs going by 2025 as a result of automation. There is huge potential, but only if we prepare and make sure that new opportunities are provided to our young people.
We need to look at the whole structure of the way in which our economy functions. Public benefit companies in the US are an exciting new approach to understanding that for the future structures that allow growing inequality are not sustainable in the long term. We have to answer the needs of our broad population. We never want to be in the situation of having a Donald Trump sweeping away votes in this country in the way he currently is in the United States. That means keeping cohesion, coherence and a genuinely fair society underpinned by fairness in our economy.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, my first task is to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her inspiring contribution. I have a very close friend who is a Geordie. I fear he spends rather more time at St James’s than at St Augustine’s, although he is a fairly regular churchgoer. I will certainly be able to give his spirits a little lift—and, by heavens, those who went to watch Newcastle United over the past season need more than a little lift at this stage—from the very good impression the right reverend Prelate made in the House today.
I have some sympathy with the Minister for having to reply to a debate as wide-ranging as this, particularly since, as he would expect, I am going to direct most of my remarks to the issue of the economy, when he is rather more a specialist on transport matters. On transport matters, I had anticipated that he would probably have a fairly easy ride; after all, HS2 was conceived under a Labour Government, was carried forward by a coalition Administration, is now making progress under a Conservative Administration and in due course, I am sure, will continue towards completion under a Labour one. However, I had not anticipated the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, being so forceful about his opposition to HS2, and it may be that the Minister does not have such a cosy ride as he might have anticipated on that very important Bill.
There is no doubt that a Bus Services Bill is long overdue, although of course we will want to examine the details with some care. London has set the pattern for a way in which one can integrate transport in which buses play a crucial part. Everyone knows the joy of catching a bus in London: you are actually told when it is going to arrive, and it does, and generally you are able to find reasonable room on it because of their frequency. I do not have the slightest doubt, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said in his strong argument in favour of the Bill, that authorities such as Greater Manchester can match London in terms of achievement in implementing the Bill once it becomes law and they have the ability to do so.
The problem is, of course, that the Government talk rather ambitiously about local authorities and the regions but then act more than a little meanly. You cannot have a northern powerhouse without effective resources allocated to it, otherwise it is just an expression and a form of words. At this stage I am not sure, apart from the general structure of what is meant to obtain, that the Government have the ability to put the resources into making the northern powerhouse a reality. It is noticeable that almost as soon as they announced the concept they were busy deciding to reduce certain rail projects that would have enhanced the situation. So the jury is out on that, and the Government will be watched very carefully on the question of the allocation of funds, particularly against a backdrop where the Chancellor continually claims that his big commitment is to reduce government expenditure and government debt. Not that he has been so hot at doing the latter; after all, he got only half way there by 2015, when he was meant to have completed the task. Four to five years’ grace has now been granted to achieve this absolutely prime objective. I do not think many people will cut him much slack if he fails on this scale again over the next few years.
The other aspect of transport that concerns us is the extraordinary delay in the most important transport decision of all—the question of aviation and the runway in the south-east. I had the same impression as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: here were the Government talking about space travel from Newquay, which was likely to happen somewhat earlier than a third runway in the south-east. I may be overpessimistic on this front, but it certainly does not do the Government’s reputation any good at all when such a critical decision has been stalled on, year after year. In addition, of course, every year they have a very good, persuasive argument—certainly a pretty self-interested one—for why the decision cannot be taken at that point. I do not think the country is prepared to countenance much more delay.
My noble friend Lady Jones raised crucial questions on a whole range of matters under debate today, which I therefore will not repeat. But I hope the Minister will respond—again, operating somewhat outside his normal brief—on the crucial issue of climate change. We all recognise that some progress was made on this issue before Christmas, but it is by far the most important issue that confronts not just us or Europe but the whole world. We are beginning to see illustrations of the failure to control that aspect at present in the measures that have been taken thus far, and it is essential that this is a major priority for government.
I make no apology for concentrating on the economy. The Government pride themselves on their various projects but they do not create the means to turn them into reality. First of all, it would help if the Government took effective steps to get their tax revenues in. From the very beginning I have never understood this Administration; why did making a smaller state mean that the first group of people they attacked were Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—the very group of people who could produce the resources, if effectively used, to improve the economic position of the country and the financial position of the Government? But, of course, cuts were made to HMRC and now we are left with the appalling piece of information, which we heard about the other day, that the French have been 10 times more successful than the British in dealing with Google’s taxation obligations. Can noble Lords think of a greater condemnation of the inefficiency of a Government than their failure to raise the resources to which they are entitled because they have not produced the effective machinery to do so?
We should also appreciate that at present there are a whole range of difficulties with the economy. We had a brief discussion at Question Time today about the balance of payments. Many noble Lords in this House will recall a time when the balance of payments—and even quite marginal movements in them—used to dictate election outcomes. Now this Government can carry an absolutely appalling deficit in this respect and have an appalling record in comparison with other advanced countries, yet they appear to brush it off as of no concern. But of course it is of concern, because it reflects just what my noble friend Lord Giddens emphasised earlier and what my noble and learned friend Lord Morris introduced with regard to a specific area; namely, that if we do not safeguard industries such as steel, and invest in and support manufacturing, we will lose the wherewithal to run an efficient and effective economy. The Government have been pretty slack in their response to these issues; we live in hope with regard to the Tata Steel dimension, although even there the Government looked slow off the mark in responding to that well-heralded crisis. Nevertheless, let us hope that lessons have been learned and that they intend to ensure that that crucial dimension of our productive effectiveness is protected.
The Government have also been unfair in their dealings with taxation and benefits, as my noble friend Lord McKenzie indicated. Those in the lowest deciles of income have been hit far more harshly than the top 10% in the country. It is ridiculous that tax breaks are given to the extremely well-off while the disabled have their benefits challenged and indeed cut. Is the House aware that 85% of the welfare cuts have fallen on women? So much for any semblance of equality under this Administration.
Of course, there is also the intergenerational dimension. Our young people face higher university fees and, if they go to college, they find courses being closed because further education colleges have been denied resources under the savage cuts in that area. If they have an apprenticeship, it bears hardly any comparison to the concept of a real apprenticeship, which saw an individual learn a skill under close supervision and with support over a period of time. Now, in many cases an apprenticeship is not much more than a makeshift, limited investment in the training and skills of our people, yet the outstanding issue that faces our economy is our lack of skills. The Government say that they intend—I repeat “intend”; there is not much sense of achievement yet—to build houses, but the construction industry says, “No go. We haven’t got the skilled people to meet the kinds of demands that you’ve been making of us”. That is some condemnation of the Government.
Against that background of continued anxiety, the Government are a little prone to quoting the fact that the international economic situation is difficult to handle. China is no longer growing at the rate that it was; nor is Brazil. The European Community is not the strong market for our goods that it was in the past. How wonderful that that party now looks to the international situation to excuse its economic failures, yet blames the deepest British economic recession since the war on overspending by a single Government—the Labour Government—in Britain. Those false excuses will not do. When the Government fail, they produce a whole range of holes down which our fellow citizens fall.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege and a pleasure to have the job of closing this debate, which ends the debates in your Lordships’ House on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. We are on day four of those debates, and today we are just shy of another six hours of debate, with 50 speakers. Looking around the Chamber, I can detect a palpable sense of relief that we are nearing a conclusion. I am reminded of what Churchill once said:
“The head cannot take in more than the seat can endure”.
Perhaps many of us feel that. Although it has been quite a long haul, it has been an absorbing debate, covering five departments. It has been an extensive, thought-provoking and well-informed debate across the Chamber.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord O’Neill, who opened the debate so eloquently. I also thank my noble friend Lady Williams for her support from the Front Bench.
It would be remiss of me not to immediately align myself with the many comments that have been made in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle on her excellent maiden speech. As we all know, delivering a first speech in this House is quite an achievement, but doing so in such a high-profile debate is doubly impressive. We have learned a great deal about the right reverend Prelate, including the fact that she is a marathon runner. I welcome her to her first marathon in your Lordships’ House, although, as she will appreciate, this is one that you have to do sitting down. She has already made a significant contribution to the diversity of the House. As we all know, she is the second woman Church of England Bishop to take a seat in your Lordships’ House. I know I speak for everyone across the Chamber and beyond when I extend the warmest of welcomes to her. I look forward to working with her on a range of issues in the coming months and years.
I also wish to thank all noble Lords who have contributed today, and over the past few days, to the debate on the gracious Speech. We are blessed with the experience and wise words of your Lordships’ House.
I begin by touching on the EU referendum. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell, Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, and others talked about the EU referendum—in or out. As I have said from the Dispatch Box, the Government’s position is absolutely clear that the United Kingdom’s place in a stronger, safer and more prosperous Europe is within the European Union. It is just shy of a month until the referendum and I hope that the debate that takes place in the next few weeks, irrespective of which side one is on, is based on the facts and not on fear or fiction.
Her Majesty’s gracious Speech was about building a stronger, more resilient, more secure and more modern Britain. I cannot agree with some noble Lords who suggested that this is not happening. We believe that hard work should be rewarded and opportunity enjoyed at every stage of life by all, in a country fit for the future, no matter what challenges we face. If we have learned anything from the past decade, it is that we need to be more responsible during times of plenty, living within our means—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Flight—bearing down on our debts and planning for a surplus so that we can cope during difficult times. Certainly we will take no lessons from the last Labour Government who left what was a pretty big mess before the coalition Government took up the reins.
In the last Parliament, we had to make some tough economic decisions, but they were the right economic decisions. They helped make us one of the fastest-growing major advanced economies in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, perhaps painted a rather bleak picture. However, new figures published last week show that more people are in work than ever before: 31.5 million people in the United Kingdom have jobs. That means that the employment rate has risen to 74.2%, the highest since records began in 1971. The deficit is down by almost two thirds as a share of GDP and the OBR forecast is that it will be eliminated by 2019-20. However, I accept, as several noble Lords have pointed out, that there is more to do and our work is not yet complete. That is why, with the global economy slowing, it is even more vital that we stick to the long-term strategy behind our economic plan. Let me assure noble Lords that this Government will continue to focus on that as our main objective.
If I may, I will take each area in turn. I say at the outset that if there are questions that remain unanswered by the time I have finished my contribution, I will of course write to noble Lords.
Among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Rana and Lord Smith, as well as my noble friends Lord Flight and Lord Leigh, raised the issue of tax avoidance, et cetera. The Government established the Pensions Regulator as an independent body to provide effective and proportionate regulatory oversight of work-based pension schemes. We have already announced that during this Parliament we will legislate for over 25 further measures on avoidance, evasion and aggressive tax planning that are forecast to raise £16 billion by 2021. We have also given HMRC an extra £800 million to fund additional work to tackle tax evasion and non-compliance by 2020-21. The UK’s percentage tax gap is also one of the lowest in the world. In 2009-10, the tax gap was 7.3%; in the first four years of the last Parliament, it fell to 6.4%.
The City of London came under some scrutiny during various contributions. However, we should be proud of the City of London. It is world-beating, and we need to ensure its competitiveness on the world stage.
We are committed to supporting savers at all stages of their lives. We have already made ISAs more generous and flexible, resulting in more than £20 billion more saved in ISAs in 2014-15 compared with the previous year. But the noble Baroness made some important points about the importance of financial literacy in education. That is certainly something that the Government continue to work on.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, raised the issue of steel. It should suffice for me to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, as many know, was in India today. He has been involved in important discussions in this respect. I am sure that the House will be updated in due course.
The noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Oates, talked about the banking sector and particularly issues of transparency and accountability. Earlier this month, Parliament passed the Bank of England and Financial Services Act, which will fundamentally reform the financial sector. Notably, as many noble Lords will know, it will strengthen the governance, transparency and accountability of the Bank of England. It will also ensure that senior managers across the financial services industry can be held accountable for failings on their watch through the extension of the senior managers and certification regime.
My noble friend Lord Leigh asked a question about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement which is currently being negotiated by the EU and the US. The recent amendment tabled on TTIP in the other place to the Motion supporting the Queen’s Speech was prompted by concerns that TTIP is a threat to the National Health Service, but the Government are quite clear that it is not a threat. I assure noble Lords that when it comes to issues around the economy, it remains a key priority for this Government and we aim to continue to build an even stronger, more resilient and prosperous Britain fit for all and fit for the future.
I turn to several cross-departmental themes. We have heard today about the work across five different departments and how this is helping to prepare Britain for the challenges ahead. What this debate has shown is that as we embark on the second year of this Parliament, strong themes connect each department and apply right across government. We will be looking at overhauling planning, giving cities and regions power over their destinies and rebalancing our economic geography, so we can share growth and opportunity across the United Kingdom. I accept the point that has been made that for far too long, the focus has been concentrated in the south-east.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, in her maiden speech, along with other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Shutt, also raised the issue of the northern powerhouse. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, specifically, that much is happening on the northern powerhouse. The Government are investing £20 million a year in the northern powerhouse skills strategy, for example, committing £161 million to accelerate the transformation of the M62, and £75 million to improve other road links across the north. From May 2017, 54% of the population of the north will be covered by elected mayors, backed with over £4 million of new funding. That will give local areas control over key powers including skills, transport and housing. That is perhaps why the shadow Home Secretary wants to put himself forward as the mayor of Manchester. Perhaps he needs to reflect on his own Front Bench responsibilities vis-a-vis the opportunities that are being offered to all from our decision to devolve powers.
There was a question about this Government but let me assure noble Lords that I only need to look to my left and right to see strong powerful advocates for the north. I assure noble Lords that the Government are also well represented across the board in ensuring that we build a stronger economy across the whole of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made a point about Gateshead. Of course we will be speaking to Gateshead because it is important that we see collaboration in our regions. The noble Lords, Lord Shutt, Lord Kirkham and Lord Giddens, also raised issues about the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act that made its way through Parliament and will pave the way for places to take greater control and responsibility over policies such as transport, housing, skills, and key public services such as health and social care.
I can also assure noble Lords that in this year’s Budget the Chancellor gave a green light to HS3 between Leeds and Manchester, along with £60 million to develop detailed plans to reduce journey times as well as plans for the rest of the northern powerhouse rail network. Moreover, the Government have committed £150 million to implementing smart and integrated ticketing and £50 million to Transport for the North over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Perhaps I may turn to the DCLG. There are two new Bills which we have talked about today. We have already seen a revolution in neighbourhood planning, with 193 plans approved involving nearly 2,000 groups and covering around 10 million people. The new neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill will further empower communities, and let me assure my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook that it will give them a stronger voice while getting houses and infrastructure delivered as quickly and efficiently as possible. The Bill will also support our ambition to build 1 million new homes while protecting what we value the most—the green belt.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Thornhill, raised issues about housing and new homes. Reforms have already resulted in the granting of planning permissions for 253,000 homes in the past year. However, this debate has again illustrated how much further we want to go so that everyone who works hard in this country can have a home of their own. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also asked about affordable social housing. I assure her that we have protected the visibility of homelessness prevention by funding local authorities to receive support totalling £315 million by 2019-20.
I turn to other housing and planning matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about moneys which are being handed back through provisions we are making in business rates revenue which currently stand at around £26 billion. These reforms will mean that all income from local taxes will go on funding local services. The Government remain focused on delivering 1 million new homes of all different types and tenures, making neighbourhood planning an even simpler and more streamlined process. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about housing, planning and flood defences. We have delivered more than 277,000 affordable homes since April 2010 and we have committed to spending £8 billion to deliver 400,000 affordable homes by 2020-21. With regard to flooding raised in the context of pre-commencement planning conditions, the measures would not restrict the ability of local planning authorities to propose conditions that are necessary.
The second new Bill is the local growth and jobs Bill. We have seen a radical effect on local government in this country. It would allow us to fulfil our commitment to devolve spending to the regions so that local government as a sector can retain 100% of local taxes to spend on services by the end of this Parliament. Various other questions were raised by my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Caithness around issues related to homelessness and CPOs. Perhaps I may write to noble Lords in those respects. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also raised an issue about adult social care funding. The Government are committed to providing support of up to £3.5 billion to ensure that councils are able to support their oldest and most vulnerable residents.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about housing inequalities in the proposed Bills and why there can be devolved mayors in some areas but not others. If business rates are not sufficient to fund the local authority in an area, it will be necessary for the Government to adjust for those areas. On his other related questions, I shall of course write to him.
My noble friend Lord Kirkham talked about online companies and business rates, as well as the privatisation of the Land Registry mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Again, in the interests of time I shall write to both noble Lords and copy in others.
I turn briefly to energy and climate change. We will introduce measures to deliver our manifesto commitment to increase competition and consumer choice in the energy market. The Government want to give consumers more power and choice through faster switching and more protection when things go wrong. Between 2010 and 2015 we reduced the UK’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 17%, the biggest reduction in a single Parliament. Moreover in Paris last year, as several noble Lords noted, we secured the first truly global legally binding agreement to tackle climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, also talked about climate change. It is right to say that Paris was a great success and I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, in this respect. The UK will provide £5.8 billion in climate finance over the next five years—50% more than the previous spending review—and has a clear plan of carbon budgets to reduce emissions.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, also raised a question about action on climate change. It is not true to say that we are not ambitious on climate change. We are phasing out coal, investing in renewable heat technologies, insulating 1 million homes and offering smart meters to every home by 2020. My noble friend Lord Holmes asked about Hinkley Point. It is not often I say this to my noble friend but I disagree with him. Hinkley Point is a vital part of our energy strategy. It will provide reliable energy at affordable costs, powering nearly 6 million homes for 60 years, and creating 25,000 jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised issues about supporting the oil and gas industry. The Government remain committed to supporting that industry, which plays a vital role towards our energy supplies.
Turning briefly to Defra, we are setting out ambitious plans to protect Britain’s environment to boost our farming and food industry. Defra’s 25-year vision is to make this country one of the healthiest and most beautiful places in which to live and raise a family. Our specific commitments include planting 11 million trees, completing a blue-belt network on marine protected areas by 2020, establishing clean air zones for five English cities and an ultra-low emission zone for London. We have seen growth across our economy over the past six years. While rural districts already generate billions of pounds for the UK, we are determined to do more to support jobs and opportunities in the countryside.
The food and the farming industry is an £109 billion industry that provides employment for 3.9 million people. Defra, as I have said, is currently finalising a 25-year plan for Britain’s food and farming industry. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and other noble Lords, also raised issues about GM crops, and I will write in that respect and with regard to questions raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Featherstone, on the dairy industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also raised the issue of abstraction reform in the Queen’s Speech. In January 2016, the Government set out their proposed approach to reforming the abstraction system. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government remain committed to implementing reform in the early 2020s. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about the review of the EU birds directive. The UK Government want to ensure that the fitness check of the habitats and wild birds directive is both robust and maintains a momentum, and leads to positive changes for both business and wildlife. There are various other issues relating to Defra which my noble friend Lord Inglewood also raised, and I shall, of course, write in that respect, too.
Turning finally to transport—they say you should leave your own until last—for decades, we have seen Britain slipping down the global infrastructure league table. We have watched as our roads grow more congested, trains become more overcrowded, and our towns choked with traffic. Now we are climbing the infrastructure league table. We are ahead of France, Japan and Germany. Overall transport spending will rise 50% this Parliament. That means we can invest more than £15 billion to maintain and improve our roads, and we are spending more than £38 billion—the greatest expenditure on our railways since the Victorian era.
HS2—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others for their support—remains at the centre of our transport revolution. It is the biggest infrastructure scheme since the motorways. It will provide extra capacity and the connectivity we need to meet growing demand.
Mention was also made of the infrastructure commission. This is a start for infrastructure that will make Britain one of the world’s leading transport investors. Her Majesty’s gracious Speech also supports legislation to establish the independent National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory basis. Indeed, the commission’s influence is already being felt. I assure noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, following its recommendations, we have already invested £300 million to improve northern transport connectivity. I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, and my noble friend Lord Caithness that we have given the green light to HS3 between Leeds and Manchester, and allocated £80 million to help fund the development of Crossrail 2. A point was made about promises not being delivered. Construction of Crossrail 1—or the Elizabeth line, as it will now be called—is more than 70% complete. It is on time and on budget.
Another Bill that will be introduced under transport is, of course, the modern transport Bill, which featured in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. It is focused on the future—a Bill to pave the way for the technologies and transport of tomorrow. Some specific points were made, which I of course acknowledge—I welcome the constructive comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, in that respect—while others perhaps questioned the merits of a spaceport before other infrastructure projects have taken place. It is important to emphasise that many of these things can run in parallel and that we should not take away from a sector that will be important to the UK’s positioning in the years ahead.
Many comments were made about the Bus Services Bill. I will not dwell too long on that. Suffice to say that I welcome the interaction we have had thus far with noble Lords. Yesterday we held a very constructive meeting. I underline again the Government’s intent to engage fully on ensuring that the Bus Services Bill truly does provide the new powers to local authorities to improve bus services and increase passenger numbers. It is our belief that stronger partnerships will allow authorities to agree a new set of standards for bus services. I look forward to working with all noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, among others, to ensure a positive passage for this Bill through this House. It will receive its Second Reading I believe—I look towards the Chief Whip—on 8 June when we come back from the Recess.
I will give an assurance to noble Lords. Other questions have been raised on transport and other areas that we have covered today, but I feel that my popularity—if, indeed, I have much remaining—may be much lower if I carry on for much longer, not least with my two noble friends who sit behind me. Let me assure all noble Lords that the Government welcome, through the debate that we had today and over the last few days, the contribution of all noble Lords. We accept that it is for the Government to make their case for their Bills in this Chamber and in the other place, but we look forward to a constructive dialogue with all noble Lords across the Chamber to ensure that we move forward on our legislation.
To conclude, let me assure noble Lords that this is a Government who put the national interest before anything else, and nothing is more important to our national interest than a strong, stable and growing economy—one which provides the opportunities that people need to get on and achieve their ambitions. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth reminded us in his very thoughtful contribution, mention has been made of other places. Indeed, the Trump factor has been talked about. Do you know what? I am proud of Britain. Notwithstanding the challenges that we have, we provide opportunity for all. It does not matter who you are, where you come from or what background, culture, community or faith you have: you have an opportunity to progress. Those are the kinds of values that this Government wish to protect. I know that that is a sentiment shared across the Chamber.
A strong, stable and growing economy provides the jobs that families need to feel secure and the services that communities and businesses rely on. But what this debate over the past week has shown me clearly is that we are looking forward beyond the economic recovery, making the reforms that will deliver the long-term prosperity that our nation needs. As I said, I look forward to engagement across the House in this respect, and not just in the area of transport—I speak for all my colleagues in government. We look forward to our exchanges in this Chamber and beyond to ensure that, together, we make Britain a stronger, safer, more competitive nation, with the infrastructure to ensure that it remains a leader among the nations of the world.